Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

[phantom]

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

[Elamarna]

I am certainly not aware of any such reference in regards to Bucks Row.
Indeed the police actually say it is an area known to be used by prostitutes and their clients, and say the same about 29 Hanbury Street.
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

[PaulB]

People did sleep in the hall and on the stairs of 29 Hanbury Street, according to John Richardson. But I have no idea what the evidence is that any of the other places were known as 'rough sleeping spots'.

[MrBarnett]

Of course in Bucks Row it would undoubtedly be within 30 minutes.
For Mitre Square the square is patrolling at less than 15 minute intervals.

Steve

And yet, at least according to one of the reviews, the author claims the bodies were found in known rough sleeping spots.

Outside Brown's stable yard gates?
Just inside Dutfields Yard, while the activities inside the Club were in full swing?

Really?

[Elamarna]

Also, in the case of Nichols & Eddowes, it would be pointless choosing a place to doss down where a regular patrolling constable would undoubtedly move you on within an hour.

Of course in Bucks Row it would undoubtedly be within 30 minutes.
For Mitre Square the square is patrolling at less than 15 minute intervals.

Steve

[Yabs]

Also, in the case of Nichols & Eddowes, it would be pointless choosing a place to doss down where a regular patrolling constable would undoubtedly move you on within an hour.

[Chava]

The book does great work on the victims before they were victims.
But her theories about rough sleeping are bs.
We know Annie Chapman wasn't sleeping in the yard at 29 Hanbury Street because George Richardson did not see her there. If we believe he was lying about that then he must be The Ripper. But if he was The Ripper I doubt he'd tell the police he was in that back yard then. With his little 'butter knife'. Another detail he'd have kept quiet about I think.
Both Chapman and Nichols said they were off to find their doss money. How in hell were they going to find it without prostituting themselves? Maybe pick up a little light small-hours cleaning job?
The author has bent over backwards to show these poor women were not prostitutes. As if she wants to keep them away from such a shocking suggestion. She would have been better off acknowledging the truth: that they had no other recourse at that moment in their lives. Prostitution was a viable solution to the situation they found themselves in. And that's not their fault. It's the fault of the society in which they lived.

[Busy Beaver]

Admin: Could you please put up a thread called Bonfire, to which we can add books that claim to know all about Jack the Ripper and his victims, but turn out to be completely fictitious.

[Elamarna]

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.

[PaulB]

I can at least believe that three victims,from what we know of their activities in the hours before they died,would have been in a state where a good sleep would have been welcome.While not perhaps asleep when encountered,each of those three could have been found resting,and who is to say they were found at,and not followed to,the place they were killed.Wasn't Nichols and Chapman actually looking for a doss,before venturing out on the street for the last time?

It's a bit nit-picky, Harry, but Nichols and Chapman were not looking for a doss, they went out to get the money to pay for a doss they already had. And they clearly anticipated being back at their doss in a short while. The number of ways to make money in the early hours of the morning were few, so their optimism speaks of how they were probably planning to make it. Which doesn't mean they found anyone on the streets from whom the could beg, borrow, steal, or have sex with for 4d.

[harry]

I can at least believe that three victims,from what we know of their activities in the hours before they died,would have been in a state where a good sleep would have been welcome.While not perhaps asleep when encountered,each of those three could have been found resting,and who is to say they were found at,and not followed to,the place they were killed.Wasn't Nichols and Chapman actually looking for a doss,before venturing out on the street for the last time?

[Busy Beaver]

When are these authors who have their own theories and believe them true, are going to finally realise that Joe Public can be fooled, but not the Ripperologist?

[jmenges]

If you don't have Neal Shelden's book and don't follow some of the more recent victim threads here and on JtRForums, and would like all of the victim's background information - with a lot of artificial flavoring- then I'd say it's worth owning. You'd just have to also accept that the book was written with an agenda to push along with a theory that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

JM

[Yabs]

Yes, the likelihood of wanting to have 40 winks in front or behind a set of double gates, as is the case with three of the victims seems very unlikely.

I would have given the book a go for a laugh on kindle if it was a couple of quid but having seen the price I’m definitely not paying a tenner for a non hard copy.

[Ginger]

Eddowes had a cell for the night, which some argue she was eager to leave.

The rationale I've heard for that is that prisoners who were kept overnight would have to appear in police court the next day, which would probably result in a fine, not at all a trivial matter for someone in her walk of life. She obviously didn't want that, and given that she hadn't hurt anyone or behaved maliciously, the constable probably thought it best to send her on her way now that the pubs were closed.