Prostitutes: Money or love first?

[mariab]

Adam,
Though I have my doubts about Schwartz' testimony, at this point (where research is still ongoing) I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that no BS ever existed. :-) By the by, I'm currently ordering specific AF issues from N.Y. which I'm hoping that they could perhaps contain ads about the anarchist orator Schwartz' appearances (at the Russian Library on Church Lane and at the Liberty Hall, and I know the exact weeks in which he spoke), and JUST the ordering of the issues might take up until mid next week. This process is sloooow.

She was not described as being intoxicated by any of the many witnesses who saw her that night, and the fact that she was seen at a pub later that night would perhaps indicate only that she was soliciting. Furthermore no alcohol was found in her system at the post-mortem.

I haven't educated myself yet about Victorian methods for detecting alcohol, but I suspect that it was done by simple sniffing. By the by, I've been told that alcohol is also olfactorily detected in the blood of a dead body, if blood has flown.
I agree that Stride was solliciting, but even if she did not appear intoxicated, as an alcoholic she might have drunk quite a bit without showing it. Clearly though she wasn't as hammered as Nichols and MJK, otherwise the witnesses would have reported this.

[Adam Went]

Maria:

A lot might depend on circumstances as well, such as if the killer had time to search through the belongings of his victims. I'm not sure this is the case with Liz Stride though as everything in her scenario seems to be quite rushed, so it could even be a worthwhile consideration that BS Man, presuming he was not her killer and Pipeman was, robbed her of the sixpence and/or any other money she had with her when he attacked her on the street as Schwartz described. But you may disagree with that as I know you have some alternative views forming on Schwartz.

I think we are all in agreement though that robbery was not a prime objective in the killings, and rightly so. If the killer was of a slightly better off/'shabby genteel' station of life anyway, as we are regularly led to believe, he would have no need to steal the few pennies that a poor woman might have been lucky enough to be carrying on her. The organs were the souvenirs, not the coins.

K-453:

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 woman from her lodging house who she was at the pub with was actually her landlady, the one and the same who had given her sixpence for cleaning the rooms in the first place. This was much, much earlier on, like at around 6 pm, so a full 7 hours before she was actually murdered. And she still had the sixpence after this anyway because she was seen with it by fellow lodgers when she returned from the pub before going out again.

She was not described as being intoxicated by any of the many witnesses who saw her that night, and the fact that she was seen at a pub later that night would perhaps indicate only that she was soliciting. Furthermore no alcohol was found in her system at the post-mortem.

So the sixpence can't have just vanished.

Cheers,
Adam.

[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.

[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“.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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!

[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

[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.

[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.

[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