Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

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

  • Originally posted by Semper_Eadem View Post
    I buy that they might of been blitzed but not that they were caught sleeping... These Ladies, when they had to sleep rough were probably better at hiding themselves so they would not be picked up as vagrants by the Police who had a dim view of folks who slept rough.
    Did the police really pick up vagrants? Can anybody confirm that?

    c.d.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      It happens all the time (as, in truth, I'm sure you are well aware).
      Street gambling was illegal in the 19th century yet Morris Lewis openly admits to the press he was playing Pitch & Toss in Millers Court.



      Be my guest, lets hear a few examples of how a male stranger could refuse to buy a female a drink unless he had been propositioned to do so.



      True, and this point has been raised several times in the past. Lewis was just one of many women who could be found on the streets at all hours of the night; shift workers, nurses coming & going from the London Hospital, charwomen, midwives, but also prostitutes. "Laundress" was a common profession claimed by unfortunates of the period. And, in accounts of the time we find it not uncommon for younger prostitutes to go about in pairs.
      Given that Millers Court had a reputation for being a haven for prostitutes, the fact those two women were headed for this court is hardly a point in their favor.

      You can't prove a negative (as, in truth, I'm sure you are well aware).

      I'm saying there is nothing in either statement that confirms soliciting/prostitution. Only interpretation reaches that conclusion. I still believe it would be an extraordinary move to openly place yourself in the position of soliciting when there was no need. It's actually quite amazing in itself that Sarah Lewis should encounter the same man on consecutive nights but in different locations and in different contexts.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

        Did the police really pick up vagrants? Can anybody confirm that?

        c.d.
        The police would be reluctant to pick anyone up for sleeping rough unless they were causing an additional nuisance by begging/soliciting/harassing. Simply because the sheer numbers would clog both the custodial and judicial process.

        Instead they would advertise homeless hostels (such as the one below) on police station noticeboards, or hand our chit passes permitting access of a vulnerable into more secure establishments.

        Monty
        Attached Files
        Monty

        https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

        Comment


        • Just a thought, wasn’t the nearby itchy park a place where the homeless slept?
          wouldnt the victims have been better off making the short journey there instead having a kip on public walkways

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Yabs View Post
            Just a thought, wasn’t the nearby itchy park a place where the homeless slept?
            wouldnt the victims have been better off making the short journey there instead having a kip on public walkways
            I'm not sure that the Christ Church graveyard, later known as "Itchy Park", was used by rough sleepers to the same degree in 1888 as it was in subsequent years, as it was only cleared of its monuments and turned into a public garden in the 1890s. I'm happy to stand corrected on this, however.

            That aside, there were plenty of porches, passageways and other covered places available, all of which would have been far more conducive to sleep than the exposed locations where the victims were found.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Monty View Post

              The police would be reluctant to pick anyone up for sleeping rough unless they were causing an additional nuisance by begging/soliciting/harassing. Simply because the sheer numbers would clog both the custodial and judicial process.

              Monty
              PC Andrews may have approached Alice McKenzie with the intention of turning her out of Castle Alley for sleeping too close to the carts. He states that they often had to rouse rough sleepers in that location and move them along, not arrest them.

              JM



              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                I'm not sure that the Christ Church graveyard, later known as "Itchy Park", was used by rough sleepers to the same degree in 1888 as it was in subsequent years, as it was only cleared of its monuments and turned into a public garden in the 1890s. I'm happy to stand corrected on this, however.
                I think it was discontinued as a burial ground well before 1888, Sam, and maintained as a public open space (although a school was built on the Brick Lane end in the 1870's).
                Didn't London note that the homeless congregated there during the day to sleep, as it was closed at night and protected by iron railings, like other parks.
                I think Liz Jackson was said to hide in Battersea Park before the gates were closed and sleep rough there, but it's huge and so much easier to evade detection in than the relatively tiny churchyard.

                Comment


                • "The church yard, known locally as 'Itchy Park' was made a public garden in 1891" (spitalfieldsforum.org.uk), although I was wrong about the monuments, which weren't all cleared away until 1950. According to londonremembers.com, "by 1903 the gardens were widely known as Itchy Park; a notorious rendezvous for homeless men seeking casual work in the fruit market".
                  Last edited by Sam Flynn; 03-08-2019, 01:06 PM.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • As an aside and back to Rubenhold’s book for a moment- When she seeks to define what John Kelly meant by Eddowes “walking the streets at night” she chooses to use the definition provided by William Booth in his study “Darkest England”. The dozen examples Booth gives of people “walking the streets” are all unemployed male laborers waiting for the markets to open in the morning so that they can find work. Not a single destitute woman was used in Booth’s illustration of “walking the streets”.

                    JM

                    Comment



                    • According to this site, it was in 1859

                      https://www.british-history.ac.uk/su...ol27/pp148-169

                      I think the later date stems from the last part of the quote.

                      "In 1859 the Commissioners of Works agreed to grant a lease to the Whitechapel District Board of Works of a piece of ground on the east side of Commercial Street, to be added to the churchyard, which was thereby extended to front the new street. In June of the same year the churchyard was closed for burials, which had been prohibited in the vaults under the church from April of the previous year. By a faculty from the Bishop of London of 18 June 1859 the churchyard was authorized to be used as a ’Lawn or Ornamental Ground … to secure an open space in the midst of a crowded and dense population’. It was to be enclosed from the road by ’a lofty and substantial iron railing’.

                      In 1861 ’Mr. Churchwarden Buxton’ of the Brick Lane brewery, by whom the patronage of the living was then possessed, offered ’to lay out and improve the churchyard’: he was told that the Vestry was unable legally to do more than keep the churchyard in decent order.

                      By an agreement of October 1891 the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association undertook to maintain the churchyard as a public garden for not more than five years"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                        As an aside and back to Rubenhold’s book for a moment- When she seeks to define what John Kelly meant by Eddowes “walking the streets at night” she chooses to use the definition provided by William Booth in his study “Darkest England”. The dozen examples Booth gives of people “walking the streets” are all unemployed male laborers waiting for the markets to open in the morning so that they can find work. Not a single destitute woman was used in Booth’s illustration of “walking the streets”.

                        JM
                        Thanks JM. "Walking the streets" was exactly what penniless, unemployed labourer George Hutchinson claimed to be doing, I don't know why people find this so suspicious.

                        I'm not sure that Kelly was suggesting Kate was hoping to pick up a bit of labouring work at the market, mind. And the press certainly picked up on the phrase. But that was probably just the patriarchal sexism of the time.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jmenges View Post
                          As an aside and back to Rubenhold’s book for a moment- When she seeks to define what John Kelly meant by Eddowes “walking the streets at night” she chooses to use the definition provided by William Booth in his study “Darkest England”. The dozen examples Booth gives of people “walking the streets” are all unemployed male laborers waiting for the markets to open in the morning so that they can find work. Not a single destitute woman was used in Booth’s illustration of “walking the streets”.
                          I think John Kelly himself clarified to the inquest that, by "walking the streets", he meant "tramping about all night" anyway, so there was arguably no need for HR to refer to Booth. Interestingly, in the next paragraph, she says:

                          "Regrettably, the clarification of this term [walking the streets] did little to dissuade many journalists from persisting in their identification of Kate as a prostitute. [...] The [Daily Telegraph] reported that Kate regularly bedded down on the street, or in a shed alongside what they called houseless waifs, penniless prostitutes, like herself...".

                          The problem here is that the Telegraph article appeared before the inquest; it was published on 3rd October, and the inquest opened on the 4th. John Kelly's statement at the inquest that he didn't want Kate "walking the streets at night", and his subsequent clarification to the Coroner, could thus have had no bearing on the Telegraph's lumping Kate in with the other "penniless prostitutes" in the shed.

                          That said, the Telegraph seems to have concluded that Kate was a prostitute before the inquest had even started, so it's a little surprising that Rubenhold didn't point this out as a (genuine) example of press stereotyping.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mangowe View Post
                            ... both Stride and Eddowes lived on Flower and Dean St and said they worked "for the jews" likely at the Rothchild's buildings which had a large jewish community with women charring for them)
                            Daily News 4th Oct, of Eddowes;

                            "Kelly, Wilkinson, and Mrs. Gold all declare that she worked hard as a charwoman, labouring principally among the Jews in "the Lane" during four or five months in the winter, and throughout the greater part of the summer tramping the country-always with Kelly-hopping, fruit picking, or hay making"

                            Anyone know if "the lane" was Petticoat Lane, Brick Lane, or another?

                            Comment


                            • Thanks Gareth.
                              To further divert the thread here are my notes/thoughts on the topic that we never got around to discussing on the podcast. Note that in one version he equates “walking the streets” with having an “immoral purpose”.

                              ***
                              This question is, as I see it, very much open to interpretation. John Kelly at the inquest first denies that she’s at times forced to go out onto the streets but then later in his testimony he contradicts himself:
                              "When asked whether deceased had been in the habit of frequenting the streets, he answered sturdily, "No, sir, I never suffered her to do so."
                              [...]on Saturday he had parted with her on the understanding that she was going over to Bermondsey to try and find her sister to see if she could get a trifle "to prevent her going out on the street"
                              And later...
                              "I never knew her to go out for any immoral purpose - I never suffered her to do so. She was only slightly in the habit of drinking to excess. When I left her she had no money about her. She went over to see her daughter to get a trifle from her, in order that I might not see her walking the streets at night."- Daily News 5 October 1888

                              To me this can be read several ways.
                              One- that CE did have the habit of resorting to prostitution when she was very desperate for money, Kelly knew this but minimized it at the inquest, and so going to Bermondsey was a last ditch attempt to prevent her from having to solicit.
                              Two- Both CE and Kelly knew that they were living so close to the edge that she might have to resort to prostitution as the only way to survive, and they knew this from seeing other women in the same circumstances having to do it. But CE had never reached that point yet.
                              Three- Kelly knew that in her past CE had to sell sex to survive but as long as she was with him she hadn't done so, as far as he was aware, and Bermondsey was again, a last gasp plan to obtain some money so that walking the streets was avoided for one more night.

                              We know that its likely CE didn't go to Bermondsey to see her daughter at all. If she did, she wouldn't have located her and received any money since Annie had moved several times in the two years since she had last seen CE and purposefully didn't let CE know where she was living. We know that by 8:30 PM she was back in the East End and hopelessly drunk.

                              So, if their only option to keep CE from walking the streets that night was getting money in Bermondsey, and she either didn't go or in any event failed at this quest, where did that leave her option?
                              ***

                              JM
                              Last edited by jmenges; 03-08-2019, 02:29 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                Daily News 4th Oct, of Eddowes;

                                "Kelly, Wilkinson, and Mrs. Gold all declare that she worked hard as a charwoman, labouring principally among the Jews in "the Lane" during four or five months in the winter"

                                Anyone know if "the lane" was Petticoat Lane, Brick Lane, or another?
                                Petticoat Lane, I'd guess, owing to its fame as "the" lane with a market, its dense Jewish population and large number of Jewish tradesmen. Not that there weren't Jews in Brick Lane, mind you.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X