Book about the Ripper Arguing Victims Were Not Prostitutes

[kjab3112]

Is it possible to steer this back on topic? I'm looking to see if anyone knows the title or author of this book - I didn't mean to turn this into a were they, weren't they thread. Personally, I think there are plenty of other reasons poor women would find themselves on the streets late at night, other than prostitution...like homelessness?

I've tried various google and amazon searches without luck in tracking this theory, sorry

[miss marple]

Prostitution was a massive social evil in the 19th century ranging from upmarket brothels catering to the aristocracy,all the way down to casual street prostitutes . The vast numbers of women and children drawn into prostitution either voluntarily or forcibly was due to rapid industralisation in the big cities, extreme poverty, lack of opportunity for women, plus any woman seduced or abandoned by a man would have no other choice unless she was lucky.There is no point in trying to whitewash the reality of their lives
There were many thousands of prostitutes in London, the figures vary. Prostitution as not illegal,but after the contagious diseases acts of the 1860s women could be picked up if suspected of being a prostitute, examined for VD and arrested.So arrest would label you a prostitute, Brothels were not illegal until after Stead in 1885.

The Ripper victims were Unfortunates' that is the extreme level of poverty, women of ,mainly no fixed abode, no sustainable work,often with alcohol or health problems, women who once may have decent lives but fallen into poverty due to circunstances. In this condition you do anything to survive including casual prostitution like our victims, that does not make them any less victims.They were not beggers, professional beggers or mendicants had to offer a service or get arrested, like selling matches, or shoelaces playing an instrument or road sweeping or having a disability. A woman on the streets would also be offering a service, anything from a blow job to full sex or she could go to the casual ward for the night.
Unpleasant as it was casual prostition had great advantages he you have nothing. A few drinks, a warm pub, company, money for a bed and a chance to blot out the misery of your life. A degree of freedom, chosing your own hours, no hard labour in a factory or The Workhouse.When their relationships with men broke down it was a temporary measure to survive. All the victims except for Mary Kelly had worked,in other jobs. Mary was the only one who seemed to have always worked as a prostitute or been supported by men and Liz had been a registered prostitute in Sweden but in London had run a coffee shop with Stride and worked as a cleaner.
I dont understand why casual prostitution is such an issue, their lives were bloody awful and they were strong women trying to keep body and soul together in a harsh world.

Miss Marple























.

[kjab3112]

A study of forty years of admittedly solved serial murders in the US seems to suggest an increasing proportion of female victims are prostitutes. How this can be extrapolated to 1880s Whitechapel is of course arguable

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kenna_Quinet/publication/239772180_Prostitutes_as_Victims_of_Serial_Homicide_Trends_and_Case_Characteristics_1970-2009/links/5556128808ae6fd2d8235da1.pdf?origin=publication_detail

[DJA]

Hi Deb, your assertion that you doubt that "any of the five were prostituting themselves at the time of their deaths" seems to fly in the face of the facts.

Didn't Polly Nichols say that she was going to make her bed money for the night?

Didn't Catherine Eddowes take the man into a corner of Mitre Square -- why would she do that if she were merely begging?

Firstly,your detective skills cannot differentiate between Debra and myself.

Yep,Polly was after doss money.

There is no evidence that Eddowes took Jack into Mitre Square.
Damn stupid place to be soliciting.
That area was crawling with cops.In fact many from Jewry Street,etc lived very close by.
In fact testimony given says that Catherine did not prostitute herself at all.

This somehow qualifies these two as prostitutes!

[DJA]

Actually, Polly Nichols just said she had moved to a lodging house which wasn't a single sex one - that could mean anything -

She actually moved next door to Eddowes.
Immediately Eddowes left to go hopping,Polly was murdered.Not that far along Hanbury Street to where Chapman met her demise.
Eddowes may have also known the Ripper and seems to have returned seeking financial reward.
This case may not be about a psychotic killer stalking female prostitutes.

Meh. Getting off topic again

[The Grave Maurice]

To get back to your question, Madam, I've read most of the books about JTR but I can't recall one that claims all of the victims weren't prostitutes.

[Debra A]

Prostitution was a massive social evil in the 19th century ranging from upmarket brothels catering to the aristocracy,all the way down to casual street prostitutes . The vast numbers of women and children drawn into prostitution either voluntarily or forcibly was due to rapid industralisation in the big cities, extreme poverty, lack of opportunity for women, plus any woman seduced or abandoned by a man would have no other choice unless she was lucky.There is no point in trying to whitewash the reality of their lives
There were many thousands of prostitutes in London, the figures vary. Prostitution as not illegal,but after the contagious diseases acts of the 1860s women could be picked up if suspected of being a prostitute, examined for VD and arrested.So arrest would label you a prostitute, Brothels were not illegal until after Stead in 1885.

The Ripper victims were Unfortunates' that is the extreme level of poverty, women of ,mainly no fixed abode, no sustainable work,often with alcohol or health problems, women who once may have decent lives but fallen into poverty due to circunstances. In this condition you do anything to survive including casual prostitution like our victims, that does not make them any less victims.They were not beggers, professional beggers or mendicants had to offer a service or get arrested, like selling matches, or shoelaces playing an instrument or road sweeping or having a disability. A woman on the streets would also be offering a service, anything from a blow job to full sex or she could go to the casual ward for the night.
Unpleasant as it was casual prostition had great advantages he you have nothing. A few drinks, a warm pub, company, money for a bed and a chance to blot out the misery of your life. A degree of freedom, chosing your own hours, no hard labour in a factory or The Workhouse.When their relationships with men broke down it was a temporary measure to survive. All the victims except for Mary Kelly had worked,in other jobs. Mary was the only one who seemed to have always worked as a prostitute or been supported by men and Liz had been a registered prostitute in Sweden but in London had run a coffee shop with Stride and worked as a cleaner.
I dont understand why casual prostitution is such an issue, their lives were bloody awful and they were strong women trying to keep body and soul together in a harsh world.

Miss Marple

An excellent post Miss Marple
Debs

[Debra A]

Firstly,your detective skills cannot differentiate between Debra and myself.

Thanks, Dave. THis is all getting a bit silly now!Where are people getting this idea you are me from?! It's weird because we seem to have different views on a few things and I'd have imagined that anyone who knows me well enough to know my email address (which starts DJA and must be the source of the confusion) would have gotten some idea of my views by now, I've been around long enough.

[Debra A]

What I puzzle over is the MJK's death certificate lists her occupation as .prostitute, not sure who would put that on a loved one's death certificate

Barnett certainly wouldn't have, but as informant, I don't think coroner Macdonald would had such qualms, GUT. Macdonald would have taken the occupation of prostitute from the police paperwork.
Debs

[MsWeatherwax]

The Ripper victims were Unfortunates' that is the extreme level of poverty, women of ,mainly no fixed abode, no sustainable work,often with alcohol or health problems, women who once may have decent lives but fallen into poverty due to circunstances. In this condition you do anything to survive including casual prostitution like our victims, that does not make them any less victims.They were not beggers, professional beggers or mendicants had to offer a service or get arrested, like selling matches, or shoelaces playing an instrument or road sweeping or having a disability. A woman on the streets would also be offering a service, anything from a blow job to full sex or she could go to the casual ward for the night.
Unpleasant as it was casual prostition had great advantages he you have nothing. A few drinks, a warm pub, company, money for a bed and a chance to blot out the misery of your life. A degree of freedom, chosing your own hours, no hard labour in a factory or The Workhouse.When their relationships with men broke down it was a temporary measure to survive. All the victims except for Mary Kelly had worked,in other jobs. Mary was the only one who seemed to have always worked as a prostitute or been supported by men and Liz had been a registered prostitute in Sweden but in London had run a coffee shop with Stride and worked as a cleaner.
I dont understand why casual prostitution is such an issue, their lives were bloody awful and they were strong women trying to keep body and soul together in a harsh world.

Miss Marple

.

Love, love, love this post.

[Abby Normal]

An excellent post Miss Marple
Debs

agree DJA

and not only that, I don't even think stride or Kelly was actively (or casually) prostituting the night of their deaths.



-JK about the DJA Debs, I know its you!; )

[Andrea_P]

I would like to know the name of the book as well as it sounds interesting, would really like to read more about the victims

[Pcdunn]

I seem to recall someone wrote a book at some point in the 20th century where the author argued that the victims weren't prostitutes. Does anyone know the name of this book or it's author?

I can't locate it, but I'm sure I read a newspaper article interview with a woman author who objected to the labeling of JTR's victims as prostitutes.

I did, however, find this dissertation on the subject of the Ripper victims and prostitution in the East end in 1888-1900. Certainly seems to be close to your topic, and may explain some things.

dalspace.library.dal.ca:8080/bitstream/handle/10222/57214/Crooks-Katherine-MA-HIST-June-2015.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y

[GUT]

Barnett certainly wouldn't have, but as informant, I don't think coroner Macdonald would had such qualms, GUT. Macdonald would have taken the occupation of prostitute from the police paperwork.
Debs

It's always bothered me.

[Ozzy]

I dont understand why casual prostitution is such an issue

Great post.

Being a male I'm not in the best position to comment on this I think.
However...
In 2016 we can read about the bad living conditions but we don't know what it was like to actually live through it. What I do know that is true in 2016 as it was in 1888, for men and women, is that a person weighs up pros and cons and makes a decision.
Do you go into a workhouse for the night or go with a customer. The workhouse is dreadful but safe (for want of a better word). Anything could happen with a customer. From the ripper to, well anything. Maybe a remote chance of hitting it off with the customer and maybe getting married to him. That sort of thing was probably only what the youngest might of thought. But I'm just trying to say what these women, weighing up pros and cons, would/could of been thinking.
Because of the type of person I was, not so much these days where I tend to play it safe, I can well imagine that if I was an 1888 "unfortunate" I'd turn to prostitution, at least sometimes.

--Madam Detective - Your starting post about a book where the author argued that the victims weren't prostitutes? Was it the major selling point, so to speak, of the book? Or something the author, for example, mentioned in a paragraph or two?