Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

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

  • jmenges
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Hi Steve. Do you have a specific citation in mind? I don't recall Helson, Spratling, nor Abberline specifically stating that Bucks Row was a known hot spot for prostitution, but perhaps I missed it.
    One could be Emma Green, who when asked if there were "bad women" in the neighbourhood said that "Often women come by, but I don't believe there is a disorderly house in Buck's row."

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Hi Gareth. Yes, Walkowitz is excellent. Jane Caputi's book The Age of Sex Crime is more militant; it's an older book and not about the Ripper per se, but explores the apparent rise in crimes of this sort and discussed the 'sexualization' of women. She found some strange and interesting sources for her arguments.

    Returning to Buck's Row, it is true that it would be mighty strange to sleep in front of the gates, but it's not exactly an ideal spot to fornicate, either. I've always assumed that Polly was trying to gain entry into the stables, but whether to 'hit the hay' or to 'roll in the hay' I cannot say, though I have my suspicions.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    I liked the "feminist approach" of Walkowitz and Caputi in discussing the murders, and found their books valuable.
    Likewise, Roger. I haven't read Caputi, but I certainly enjoyed Walkowitz's City of Dreadful Delight and Prostitution & Victorian Society a great deal. Both books succeed in being rigorously researched, informative and extremely well-written, without being in the least bit preachy.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post


    The feminist approach would surely be to pity all those women in Victorian times [as well as today], and highlight the fact if they were unwillingly dependent - fully or partially - on men's sexual needs for their own financial ones.
    X
    I liked the "feminist approach" of Walkowitz and Caputi in discussing the murders, and found their books valuable. But what I think is misguided in the feminist approach is when the author starts yammering about the 'patriarchal society,' when, in reality, the Queen was a woman (as far as I know). Some also utterly ignore the fact that the men of the East End had it as bad, or in some cases, worse than the women. They had no safety net either. Just the other day I was reading of an account of a once fairly well-known actor from the Pavilion Theatre who literally starved to death in Hanbury Street for the want of employment or a few pence. Few would bother to tell his story.

    I forget his name off-hand, but sometime back one British criminologist did a study of Victorian convictions, and was able to demonstrate that men very frequently received much harsher sentences than women, even when committing the exact same offense. They received less sympathy. And while I don't have any empirical data, commonsense would dictate that men probably had a harder time than women when it came to begging, nor could they have readily resorted to prostitution, since the demand was less and it was illegal. As I say, l liked the work of some feminist historians, but let's remember that no one had any easy path in Queen Victoria's East London.
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 02-22-2019, 02:46 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    Indeed the police actually say it is an area known to be used by prostitutes and their clients...
    Of course that does not fit the narrative, and while it may be in an official police report, let's just ignore it, rather than try and contest it's accuracy.

    Steve
    Hi Steve. Do you have a specific citation in mind? I don't recall Helson, Spratling, nor Abberline specifically stating that Bucks Row was a known hot spot for prostitution, but perhaps I missed it. Most Ripper historians merely refer to its 'seclusion' or its proximity to Whitechapel Road. That she was soliciting is not based on any empirical evidence that Buck's Row was Nichols' usual patch, but is based on her activities and statements from earlier in the evening, 'what a jolly bonnet, etc.' Cheers.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    She clearly has not, or does not want to consider that the reason why none of the victims were heard to scream was that the killer could have been someone skilled in the art of killing by cutting throats without enabling victims to scream i.e a military man or ex military man. But then again they could have emitted muffled screams which no one heard.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hi Trev,

    An alternative possibility is that if the killer was unable to silence a victim physically before she could cry out, he could have shown her the knife and said: "If you make a sound, you're dead". She might then have hoped he just wanted a freebie.

    The idea that they would have screamed if they'd been soliciting is not one the author's better thought out ways of thrusting better morals on the poor dears!

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
    We have to understand the rational behind the sleeping theory.
    It is required as part of the over arching theory that they were not involved in casual prostition..

    Their location must be explained away, and if the author is to maintain this illusion that they were not prostitutes, then she MUST exclude them from going to the murder sites with the killer.
    Of course she does not mention the head and neck injuries to Polly or Annie, such would expose the sleeping claim for the work of fiction it is.
    Therefore, do not even mention it, exclude it, pretend it never happened.

    It amounts to intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy, all this to cash in on current trends, and make a mint while doing it.

    The approach of saying they were not prostitutes and therefore were INNOCENT is truly disrespectful of both the victims and prostitutes in general.
    It is hardly a real feminist approach at all, just a closed ideological one.
    Hi Steve,

    In fact, it's like we have travelled back in time to the 70s, when the media made a big thing about some of Peter Sutcliffe's victims not being prostitutes and therefore INNOCENT in comparison. At least they got their facts right about which victims were clearly NOT soliciting!

    The feminist approach would surely be to pity all those women in Victorian times [as well as today], and highlight the fact if they were unwillingly dependent - fully or partially - on men's sexual needs for their own financial ones. This author seems to be taking the opposite approach in trying to argue that the ripper's victims were not the victims of men in this way. Well lucky them if that was really the case, but it seems rather doubtful when I look at all the evidence.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    She clearly has not, or does not want to consider that the reason why none of the victims were heard to scream was that the killer could have been someone skilled in the art of killing by cutting throats without enabling victims to scream i.e a military man or ex military man. But then again they could have emitted muffled screams which no one heard.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I'm afraid, Trevor, that there is an awful lot that she doesn't want to consider!

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by phantom View Post
    It's not the Mary Ann Nichols who was murdered. The woman on the right is William Nichols's second wife. The woman on the left is a relative. Standing behind the women is William Nichols on the right. The picture was on the front cover of The Whitechapel Journal a while back and accompanied an article by Andy Parlour, a descendant of the Nichols. I would have thought the copyright was his, it presumably being a family photo.

    Thanks for the info Paul much appreciated!

    Love your work by the way.
    Any new books coming out soon?

    Cheers
    Jason
    Hi Jason, thank you. There is a new edition of the A to Z coming out next year from Mango with co-authors Debs Arif and Sean Crundall.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Well, the only victims who apparently weren't overheard as they were being murdered were Nichols and Eddowes. However, Eddowes was killed in a remote corner of a largely deserted square, and although Bucks Row was residential, Nichols was slain at the remote end of it, somewhat removed from the houses. In both cases, there is a reasonable probability that any cries simply went unnoticed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    All alternative possibilities have to be considered, Harry, and I'm sure compassionate coppers let sleeping people lie, but it's the idea that all four women were sleeping in the places they were found that almost everyone who's commented on this theory find it hard to accept. And that the Ripper just stumbled across four sleeping women in out of the way places. And that he stranged sleeping women before cutting their throats. And that Rubenhold claims all the women were lying down when killed. And, of course, that witnesses like Mrs Long, John Chapman, and Albert Cadosch,are not mentioned in Rubenhold's book at all. On balance, the 'nap' theory doesn't seem to be a likely possibility. And whilst it doesn't argue against the victims having been sleeping, Nichols and Chapman were looking for money, which given their options for getting it at that hour of the morning, being found dead in places known to be used by prostitutes is very suggestive.
    She clearly has not, or does not want to consider that the reason why none of the victims were heard to scream was that the killer could have been someone skilled in the art of killing by cutting throats without enabling victims to scream i.e a military man or ex military man. But then again they could have emitted muffled screams which no one heard.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • phantom
    replied
    It's not the Mary Ann Nichols who was murdered. The woman on the right is William Nichols's second wife. The woman on the left is a relative. Standing behind the women is William Nichols on the right. The picture was on the front cover of The Whitechapel Journal a while back and accompanied an article by Andy Parlour, a descendant of the Nichols. I would have thought the copyright was his, it presumably being a family photo.

    Thanks for the info Paul much appreciated!

    Love your work by the way.
    Any new books coming out soon?

    Cheers
    Jason

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    I have no knowledge of why the three victims were at the places where they were found dead,but resting or sleeping is a possible explanation.Nichols was certainly killed where she was found,and if Bucks Row was an unlikely place for a prostitute to seek a customer,at that time in the morning,then an alternative reason has to be considered.
    Moving on,by the police,a sometimes neccessary requirement, was a rule that might well be overlooked by a compassionate police officer in the early hours of the morning.I know that from experience,so that arguement is of little value.
    Sleeping rough is as common an occurance today as it was in 1888.Had it been winter instead of late summer in 1888,when the murders of the three victims i allude to took place,I might be persuaded that resting or sleeping in those places extraordinary,but again,from experience,a tired and homeless person sometimes have little choice in choosing their resting place,and in most cases care even less.
    All alternative possibilities have to be considered, Harry, and I'm sure compassionate coppers let sleeping people lie, but it's the idea that all four women were sleeping in the places they were found that almost everyone who's commented on this theory find it hard to accept. And that the Ripper just stumbled across four sleeping women in out of the way places. And that he stranged sleeping women before cutting their throats. And that Rubenhold claims all the women were lying down when killed. And, of course, that witnesses like Mrs Long, John Chapman, and Albert Cadosch,are not mentioned in Rubenhold's book at all. On balance, the 'nap' theory doesn't seem to be a likely possibility. And whilst it doesn't argue against the victims having been sleeping, Nichols and Chapman were looking for money, which given their options for getting it at that hour of the morning, being found dead in places known to be used by prostitutes is very suggestive.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by phantom View Post
    Hi all


    I found this article with a photo I’ve never seen before of an apparent relative of Mary Ann Nichols…named Mary Ann Nichols?


    https://www.stylist.co.uk/books/the-five-untold-lives-women-killed-jack-the-ripper-hallie-rubenhold-book-tv-series/252545


    The photo caption states:


    Lead image shows Rosetta and Mary Ann Nichols, female relatives of Mary Ann ‘Polly’ Nichols, photographed in 1894. Image courtesy of Hallie Rubenhold. Other images: Getty Images









    It's not the Mary Ann Nichols who was murdered. The woman on the right is William Nichols's second wife. The woman on the left is a relative. Standing behind the women is William Nichols on the right. The picture was on the front cover of The Whitechapel Journal a while back and accompanied an article by Andy Parlour, a descendant of the Nichols. I would have thought the copyright was his, it presumably being a family photo.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    I have no knowledge of why the three victims were at the places where they were found dead,but resting or sleeping is a possible explanation.Nichols was certainly killed where she was found,and if Bucks Row was an unlikely place for a prostitute to seek a customer,at that time in the morning,then an alternative reason has to be considered.
    Moving on,by the police,a sometimes neccessary requirement, was a rule that might well be overlooked by a compassionate police officer in the early hours of the morning.I know that from experience,so that arguement is of little value.
    Sleeping rough is as common an occurance today as it was in 1888.Had it been winter instead of late summer in 1888,when the murders of the three victims i allude to took place,I might be persuaded that resting or sleeping in those places extraordinary,but again,from experience,a tired and homeless person sometimes have little choice in choosing their resting place,and in most cases care even less.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X