Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How are we so certain the victims were all prostitutes?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Quick question...

    I read somewhere that prostitutes in the period of Jack proactively approached their potential customers and placed a hand on their chest. Is this right?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Madam Detective View Post
      This has occurred to me on several occasions. Aside from Mary Jane Kelly, it seems to me that the other victims may have just been rough sleepers who weren't able to find their doss money for the night and bedded down in a door way or a quiet corner. How are we so certain they were prostitutes? There is no suggestion that they had sexual intercourse with the ripper, there was no money found on the bodies. On the police reports the word 'prostitute' was written into the section marked 'occupation' - but might this have just been a guess by the police that a woman walking the streets at night was a prostitute? In fact, it seems to me that most of the victims had been beggars.
      Based on existing known evidence, 2 of the Five Canonicals stated to friends that they were out to earn money for their bed that night. In the middle of the night. Safe to conclude it was soliciting. Unfortunate and Prostitute are both used to describe the women, though I would think that Mary is the only one of the Five who had been doing this exclusively for a living for some years. We know of no other way she made money......other than "from the kindness of strangers". We have evidence that Liz cleaned rooms and was regularly employed doing that up until her murder, Polly and Kate knitted and sewed. Kate also went hops picking in the summer, and had John to assist her with money.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • #33
        If they were prostitutes, were they killed because they were prostitutes?

        For that there is no evidence whatsoever that I can think of other than the "Dear Boss" letter - which almost everybody thinks was a journalistic hoax - and therefore not evidence of any kind about the killer's motives.
        "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
          If they were prostitutes, were they killed because they were prostitutes?

          For that there is no evidence whatsoever that I can think of other than the "Dear Boss" letter - which almost everybody thinks was a journalistic hoax - and therefore not evidence of any kind about the killer's motives.
          Now that's a different question.

          I think they may have been killed because they were prostitutes in that prostitutes were an easy target, ie the most likely females to go with a stranger to a private place in the middle of the night. As opposed to the killer had a set on prostitutes.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by GUT View Post
            Now that's a different question.

            I think they may have been killed because they were prostitutes in that prostitutes were an easy target, ie the most likely females to go with a stranger to a private place in the middle of the night. As opposed to the killer had a set on prostitutes.
            Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
            His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #36
              Possibly, they may have been out at night. After all, I've just seen the new documentary series on Queen Victoria and it shows that on occasion midwives, maids and nurses were out and about at all hours of the night.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
                His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.
                Sums up my opinion pretty well.
                G U T

                There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
                  His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.


                  Is there anything to tip the balance towards this argument as opposed to
                  the killer hating prostitutes? Or both?
                  Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                  M. Pacana

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                    Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Right, he didn't kill them because they were prostitutes (ie; he didn't hate prostitutes).
                    His victims were prostitutes because they were plentyful, available, and willing to go somewhere secluded. Which, presumably other women out late at night like; a midwife, a maid, a nurse or housewife would not.


                    Is there anything to tip the balance towards this argument as opposed to
                    the killer hating prostitutes? Or both?
                    I don't know of evidence to PROVE it either way.
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Hi Dark Passenger

                      I've never heard of the hand on chest thing - except obviously with Eddowes.

                      Of course, if Hutchinson is to be believed, it was Mr A who approached MJK by tapping her on the shoulder. If Mary was looking for a client, Mr A must have been pretty quick with his shoulder tap before Mary got her chest touch in.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by GUT View Post
                        I don't know of evidence to PROVE it either way.
                        Not looking for proof,just a reason.It's an old case.I know how it works.

                        Ripper case: No evidence/ very tenuous interpretation of facts = guilty
                        OJ Simpson case: Loads of evidence = not guity
                        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                        M. Pacana

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X