There’s strong circumstantial evidence at the SOC’s.
Monty
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ripper victims were caught sleeping?
Collapse
X
-
That the C5 were prostitutes is the simplest explanation for why the victims were out on the streets in the early hours of the morning. But aside from anecdotal evidence, there is nothing to support this contention.
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
Are there not respected members of this forum who argue that, at the very least, Stride, Eddowes, and Kelly may not have been soliciting at the time of their deaths? Yet none of them then make the leap that they must have been sleeping.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
If you go by that version then it was an extraordinary move by Sarah Lewis to place herself in the position of soliciting a man during the inquest into Mary Kelly's murder. When asked if she was aware of any strange men in the area she could easily have said no, so as not to incriminate herself, but she chooses to give an account of a man she encountered the previous night.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
If you go by that version then it was an extraordinary move by Sarah Lewis to place herself in the position of soliciting a man during the inquest into Mary Kelly's murder. When asked if she was aware of any strange men in the area she could easily have said no, so as not to incriminate herself
The Baron
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
I'm not so sure that is correct.
We have two stories of the encounter that Wednesday night, and in Mrs Kennedy's version we read, "...The stranger refused to stand Mrs. Kennedy and her sister a drink,..." which begs the question who accosted whom?
It also raises the question of why would the stranger refuse to buy them both a drink unless they propositioned him in the first place. If they did, then that would be quite consistent with them both being prostitutes even if of the 'casual' class (meaning, part-time).
Last edited by Curious Cat; 03-02-2019, 07:53 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post
Sarah Lewis - witness at the Mary Jane Kelly inquest - was walking through Spitalfields at gone 2am and had been walking round Bethnal Green with a friend the night before. On neither occasion was she soliciting and she wasn't a prostitute....
We have two stories of the encounter that Wednesday night, and in Mrs Kennedy's version we read, "...The stranger refused to stand Mrs. Kennedy and her sister a drink,..." which begs the question who accosted whom?
It also raises the question of why would the stranger refuse to buy them both a drink unless they propositioned him in the first place. If they did, then that would be quite consistent with them both being prostitutes even if of the 'casual' class (meaning, part-time).
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Curious Cat View PostHere, Rubenhold appears to have had an idea of each woman, researched them and then taken it up towards the murders without actually considering them as an actual event. The reason her theory of them all sleeping falls down is because she has concentrated on the circumstances of these women's lives but not the circumstances of their murders.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Doesn't the Echo suggest that the PCs around Buck's Row were having to cover two beats each at the time of the murder?
It does however pose a few questions about those beats, I attempt to answer those in "Inside Bucks Row"( late, sorry).
While i am fairly satisfied with the result at present addition info could change that view.
Steve
Leave a comment:
-
While I will go along with her wanting to disprove all the victims were prostitutes and/or soliciting at the time they were murdered, I don't get her leap to suggest they were all sleeping. Rubenhold's theoretical push seems to come from wanting to explain why these five women were in the locations where they were found, however she's reached a conclusion by closing off all the other possibilities that may lead to the one she doesn't like. She could so easily, and quite rightly, present a narrative of the women simply going about their lives when they encountered their killer(s?) and I don't think anyone would then have an issue with a book that focuses on them as individuals rather than "Jack". Instead it comes across that she is determined to say, 'They weren't those kind of women,' and, 'They were only in those locations for this reason and this reason only.' The motivation, apparently, driven by a prejudiced view of why any women would be out about in London at that time of night. This view assumes a woman out at night in 1888 east London was either a prostitute or sleeping rough. This does a disservice to all women. While they are possibilities - and may apply to some of the five - there could and would be an infinite number of reasons why any woman was walking around in the early hours of late 19th Century London.
Sarah Lewis - witness at the Mary Jane Kelly inquest - was walking through Spitalfields at gone 2am and had been walking round Bethnal Green with a friend the night before. On neither occasion was she soliciting and she wasn't a prostitute. She had other reasons to be out and about on both nights. Why Rubenhold feels the need to give all five the same reason for their location and time of death baffles me. Why write a book that is about these five women as individuals and giving them back their identities as people rather than just victims only to ignore the circumstances at the points they each met their deaths?
May just be me, but it's best to start at the event, then work backwards to find the origins of its circumstance and then build the narrative from there. Here, Rubenhold appears to have had an idea of each woman, researched them and then taken it up towards the murders without actually considering them as an actual event. The reason her theory of them all sleeping falls down is because she has concentrated on the circumstances of these women's lives but not the circumstances of their murders.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by DJA View Post
Quite obvious that I was replying to your off topic post.
Leave a comment:
-
Not getting dragged into that, Dave The thread's title is "Ripper victims were caught sleeping?", not "Did they know each other?".
Leave a comment:
-
Wonder why Nichols moved next door to Eddowes so soon after moving into the rookery,after living near her sister.
Wonder why Eddowes returned to claim a reward for the killer.
Perhaps they knew each other from December 1867 having been Jack's inpatients together.
Off course not.Eddowes should have been two miles away at another hospital rather than the London Hospital where Jack was the lead researcher into Rheumatic fever.
Why did Eddowes use Mary Kelly's real name,Mary Ann Kelly.
AARRGH!
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: