Prostitutes: Money or love first?

[K-453]

Would they only go with a client after receiving and pocketing the money, or would it be enough if he showed it to them and gave it to them afterwards?

This is important, because, as we all know, none of the victims had money on her person when found, although Jack very probably approached them pretending to be a client. So either he took the money back afterwards, or never gave it to them at all.

Somehow I find it hard to believe clients paid first - this could end with the lady running away with the money, and in every other trade it is first goods, then paying, isn't it?

I have not found information regarding this yet, and I admit, I do not know where to start my search.

[Adam Went]

Hi K-453,

I think it depended largely on who the prostitute was. If you read material like that of the secret Victorian diarist Walter, he had given money to prostitutes beforehand for sexual favours, and they had then taken off with the money without any exchange being made. On the other hand, there were cases where a sexual exchange could be made but then the male would take off without paying, or without paying sufficiently. Then you had the prostitutes who tried to fool some men, particularly those who were drunk, by guiding them between their legs rather than completing actual intercourse. Some darker characters were even known to carry fake money.

So there was any number of devices used on both sides, i'm not sure there was any set general rule.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Addy]

Hi all,

I agree, I think it depends on the woman. The victims however were the poorest type, so I think they took their chances and took a client with them if he showed her money or promised it.

Greetings,

Addy

[kensei]

I wonder if in a specific area like Whitechapel/Spitalfields, either a prostitute who regularly ran off with money without providing services or a customer who regularly ran off without paying would have run the risk of becoming known for it. I know, although a fairly small area it was still massively populated, but I'd think it still would have been a concern.

I'd say it's hardly a surprise, though, that Jack the Ripper never left his victims with any money.

[mariab]

Adam describes it accurately.
This reminds me of Woody Allen's movie Mighty Aphrodite, when he asks Mira Sorvino “Aren't you scared that some perv will kill you some day?“ and she answers “I'm always payed beforehand“.
It'd be a piece of cake for the killer to take back his money post mortem, and the evidence around Chapman's and Eddowes' body points precisely to that.

[caz]

If the killer had regular work, he may have gone on the prowl just after being paid, which would have allowed him to offer a prospective victim more than the going rate, while having no intention of leaving her with a penny piece.

Eddowes and MJK were so broke on the nights they died that they could hardly have refused if he showed them the hard cash first, even though going off with any stranger was a risk at the time. I don't think he could have looked or acted like a pauper or they might have thought twice.

Love,

Caz
X

[K-453]

I think it depended largely on who the prostitute was. [...] i'm not sure there was any set general rule.

That was my guess, too - but I was not sure.

Thanks everybody for answering!

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

I think everyone has pretty well hit the nail on the head. We don't often consider Jack as being the kill-to-steal type killer, and certainly that wasn't his main objective, but the one victim that puzzles me is Liz Stride. We know she had left her lodging house earlier in the evening with sixpence that she had earnt for cleaning some of the rooms there. She did not get drunk that night, and yet when found, she had no money on her - so where did the sixpence go?

A while back I stated that it might have been partly spent on the cachous and the flower she was wearing, but that surely wouldn't take sixpence. The only other options, then, are that the money was lost or stolen.

Cheers,
Adam.

[PC Roadnight]

In my experience, and I hasten to add that is in dealing with and/or arresting 'toms', it was invariably following an altercation with a customer who refused to pay. I would say the majority of 'working girls' would establish what was required and get the money first.

It is though an interesting thought that no money was found on or near victims. Perhaps in their desperate situations they were prepared to risk not getting paid, after all they were prepared to keep on working despite JTR.

Peter

[mariab]

the one victim that puzzles me is Liz Stride. We know she had left her lodging house earlier in the evening with sixpence that she had earnt for cleaning some of the rooms there. She did not get drunk that night, and yet when found, she had no money on her - so where did the sixpence go? A while back I stated that it might have been partly spent on the cachous and the flower she was wearing, but that surely wouldn't take sixpence. The only other options, then, are that the money was lost or stolen.

Absolutely. In my opinion, the Ripper might have established a routine of first going through their pockets for valuables post mortem, THEN proceeding with the disembowelment, so as to be the least exposed to getting blood on his clothes. For the same reason I suspect that possibly he cut their throats while turning away from them, which possibly explains the position in which Stride was found in, and that the killer was interrupted before he turned her on her back to disembowel her, but possibly he had the time to go through her pockets, thus no sixpence on her.
Naturally a robbery at knife point pre murder is another possibility, but I don't know. The feeling I got for this perp is that he went through risks pertaining to the locations, but chose the most easiest victims to control – shooting fish in a barrel. Unless the scenario of robbing them at knife point appealed to his phantasy, stealing their money post mortem would have appeared as more efficient and fuss free to do.

[mariab]

If the killer had regular work, he may have gone on the prowl just after being paid, which would have allowed him to offer a prospective victim more than the going rate, while having no intention of leaving her with a penny piece.

Agree with this, though it depends on suspectology. With an unknown local or Kozminsky, this is a MO that fits. With Tumblety or Le Grand, less.

Eddowes and MJK were so broke on the nights they died that they could hardly have refused if he showed them the hard cash first, even though going off with any stranger was a risk at the time. I don't think he could have looked or acted like a pauper or they might have thought twice.

Agree, and the same with Chapman.

[K-453]

She [Liz] did not get drunk that night

No?
She spent the early evening with some woman from her lodging house at a pub - and was seen entering a pub at 11 o'clock with a man.
I've read somewhere, 'three pence was the price of a large glass of gin', so sixpence could have easily been spent until 1 o'clock, and Liz was quite drunk.

The idea of Jack digging out coins from his victims' pockets puzzles me a bit, even if he was very poor. How could he think of money in such a moment, that puzzles me.

[Bridewell]

I agree with Roadnight. Having the same background, I would suggest that prostitutes, then as now, even the low-class ones, would get the money up front before doing any business.
I've come across cases of punters robbing prostitutes to get their money back and, conversely, of prostitutes mugging punters. I think Jack would have been quite happy to pay up front, as he was able to recover whatever he paid out anyway.

[mariab]

She spent the early evening with some woman from her lodging house at a pub - and was seen entering a pub at 11 o'clock with a man. I've read somewhere, 'three pence was the price of a large glass of gin', so sixpence could have easily been spent until 1 o'clock, and Liz was quite drunk.

Yes, but she was seen by witnesses (if it was her all the time) with several different johns and we should expect that she might have gained money instead of losing it. Though of course such a tidy way of investing her time is probably too much to expect from an alcoholic who's out of control. Polly Nichols told Emily Holland that she had gained her doss money three times that day and had drunk it away. Nichols' last words to Holland was that she would return to Flower and Dean Street where she could share a bed with a man after one more attempt to find trade, which turned out fatal for her.

I haven't yet read up on this in a systematic way or taken notes, but I think that the doctors found no gin on Stride. I don't know about beer. I'm not sure how alcohol testing was conducted in the Victorian era, but I assume simply through the doctor sniffing?

The idea of Jack digging out coins from his victims' pockets puzzles me a bit, even if he was very poor. How could he think of money in such a moment, that puzzles me.

It's not unusual at all for a perp to take the victim's wallet postmortem, even if the perp's not particularly poor. It's like the saying goes: “They won't need it anymore“.

[K-453]

“They won't need it anymore“.

Or: "They don't deserve it anyway!" ...


A detail that came to my mind: There were buttons littered on the floor around Catherine Eddowes. Maybe Jack took them out of her pocket, thinking they were coins, and dropped them discovering they were not?

I still wonder. It would be murderous frenzy and cold-blooded sober thinking at the same time.