Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

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

  • #31
    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?

    Comment


    • #32
      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?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by harry View Post
        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.

        Comment


        • #34
          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.

          Comment


          • #35
            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.

            Comment


            • #36
              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.

              Comment


              • #37
                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.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Yabs View Post
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post

                    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?






                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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'.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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










                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X