Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

[Sam Flynn]

Quite obvious that I was replying to your off topic post.

Which was a brief and balanced response to richardh's question, itself prompted by a claim he'd read in the publicity around Rubenhold's book, which at least has some relevance to the subject of this thread. What you did in response to my post - i.e. dropping multiple hints about what you perceive to be indicative of the specific topic of the victims' knowing each other - is almost inviting people to derail this thread.

[DJA]

As was mine.

[Curious Cat]

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.

[Elamarna]

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?

Yes Joshua, the Echo suggests such, however it is only one account, there appear to be no others known of the beats in J division in August 1888.

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Excellent point, Curious Cat.

[Wickerman]

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....

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).

[Curious Cat]

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).

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. If she was happy to put forward her mind to solicit men then she would have no qualms saying she was a prostitute, either regularly or casually. Being a prostitute wasn't illegal, but soliciting was. At no point did she suggest she was a prostitute on either level, so why would she calmly put herself in an incriminating position that could be followed up? Unless there was nothing to follow up because she wasn't soliciting the man that approached her and her friend. She would have had nothing to fear in giving details of the man she saw both nights.

[The Baron]

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

I don't think any woman would be afraid incriminating herself as Jack the Ripper.


The Baron

[Wickerman]

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.

I don't think it's a case of choosing a version, there were two women involved and we have two accounts to use. Lewis's account is toned down for the inquest, Kennedy was only talking to the press. Lewis rightly admits to meeting the weird stranger but resists clarifying just how they came together. It may not have been expedient for Lewis to be so open about her nightly escapades in view of the fact her husband would likely read her account in the press. The argument between them may have been over what she did at night with her 'friend'.

[Damaso Marte]

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.

[Simon Wood]

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.

[Monty]

There’s strong circumstantial evidence at the SOC’s.

Monty

[Wickerman]

I don't follow the view that Stride made an effort to smarten her appearance up that Saturday night, to then lay down in a muddy alley and go to sleep?
Eddowes had the option to sleep at Bishopsgate, yet some want her to head out of the jail at 1:00 am and lay down on a wet pavement in some dark corner. Is anyone really putting any thought into these arguments?

As for Kelly, we know from other testimony that women (but likely everybody) went to bed fully clothed, yet some seem to ignore what they read in favor of some misguided belief that all women undress to go to bed as if on a summer night in the wealthy part of town.
Being in bed wearing only a chemise indicates Kelly was entertaining someone - she was not alone!

[Robert]

Or that she HAD been entertaining someone, Jon.

[Curious Cat]

I don't think it's a case of choosing a version, there were two women involved and we have two accounts to use. Lewis's account is toned down for the inquest, Kennedy was only talking to the press. Lewis rightly admits to meeting the weird stranger but resists clarifying just how they came together. It may not have been expedient for Lewis to be so open about her nightly escapades in view of the fact her husband would likely read her account in the press. The argument between them may have been over what she did at night with her 'friend'.

Then its equally extraordinary for her to openly implicate both herself and Lewis in the act of soliciting for the press when it's not necessary. Especially if, as you say, Lewis had taken care to tone down her account in front of the press at the inquest.