Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

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

  • Dr. John Watson
    started a topic Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

    Ripper victims were caught sleeping?

    While it has always been assumed the five confirmed victims of the mysterious serial killer were soliciting when they were killed, Dr Hallie Rubenhold has said that they were all sleeping, and most of them were rough sleeping.

    Apparently this Ripper "expert" has come out with a book claiming it's unfair to suggest Jack's victims were streetwalkers and that they must have been sleeping while attacked. I haven't seen mention of this on Casebook, but I don't monitor the forum that regularly. Just wondering if this book is a joke or for real.

    Dr. John

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    I suspect that they struggled to hear her, if this quote from the ELO is anything to go by;

    "Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner, which necessitated the coroner frequently urging her to speak up, was then called"
    Yes, indeed. I seem to recall that Holland was played in exactly that way in the Barlow and Watt mini-series, and very affecting it was too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick S
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    In discussing the bonnet, the book goes on to say: "Emily Holland, whose name the journalists could not even bother to confirm or record correctly", implying (and I don't think I'm reading too much into this) that the misogynistic press couldn't be arsed to get a mere woman's name right. I can only presume that the journalists had a low opinion of the likes "Robert Baul", "Inspector Spratley", "Albert Bechart" and "Constable Neale", too.
    Don't forget "George Cross".

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    In discussing the bonnet, the book goes on to say: "Emily Holland, whose name the journalists could not even bother to confirm or record correctly", implying (and I don't think I'm reading too much into this) that the misogynistic press couldn't be arsed to get a mere woman's name right. I can only presume that the journalists had a low opinion of the likes "Robert Baul", "Inspector Spratley", "Albert Bechart" and "Constable Neale", too.
    I suspect that they struggled to hear her, if this quote from the ELO is anything to go by;

    "Emily Holland, an elderly woman in a brown dress, with a dolman and bonnet, whose naturally pale face was flushed with excitement, and who gave her address in a frightened manner, which necessitated the coroner frequently urging her to speak up, was then called"

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by PaulB View Post

    Rubenhold misrepresents that quote too! And edits it to give it a different meaning.
    In discussing the bonnet, the book goes on to say: "Emily Holland, whose name the journalists could not even bother to confirm or record correctly", implying (and I don't think I'm reading too much into this) that the misogynistic press couldn't be arsed to get a mere woman's name right. I can only presume that the journalists had a low opinion of the likes "Robert Baul", "Inspector Spratley", "Albert Bechart" and "Constable Neale", too.

    Leave a comment:


  • PaulB
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Was the "jolly bonnet" anecdote attributed to anyone in particular? The press reports of 1st Sept seem to imply it was told by the women who lodged in the same room with her at 18 Thrawl St, but this is belied by Holland's evidence who said Polly hadn't been there for a week or more.

    From the Star 1 Sept;

    "at length it was found that a woman answering the description of the murdered woman had lodged in a common lodging-house, 18, Thrawl-street, Spitalfields. Women from that place were fetched, and they identified the deceased as "POLLY," who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses - nightly payment of 4d. each, each woman having a separate bed. It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an "unfortunate" while lodging in the house, which was only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them but that when she presented herself for her lodging on Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy because she had not the money. She was then , and turned away laughing, saying, "I'll soon get my 'doss' money; see WHAT A JOLLY BONNET I'VE GOT NOW."
    She was wearing a bonnet which she had not been seen with before, and left the lodging-house door. A woman of the neighborhood saw her later she told the police - even as late as half-past two on Friday morning - in Whitechapel-road, opposite the church and at the corner of Osborne-street"

    Incidentally, didn't Debs find that the bonnet was most likely part of a recent handout from a workhouse to unfortunates?
    Rubenhold misrepresents that quote too! And edits it to give it a different meaning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by AuroraSarintacos View Post
    One review I read about the book that I thought was new information:

    "Of all of the women killed by Jack the Ripper, his last victim’s backstory is the most enigmatic. Rubenhold explains that “a woman calling herself Mary Jane Kelly” began attending private balls in central London somewhere between 1883 and 1884, although it remains unclear where exactly she came from: she may have been Irish or Welsh. These balls were a surreptitious way of connecting wealthy gentlemen with well-dressed prostitutes, and Kelly later worked in a brothel in west London.

    But a terrifying experience with sex traffickers made it impossible for her to stay in the West End, and she relocated to the other side of the city, moving between brothels and boarding houses in Wapping, Whitechapel and Bethnal Green. Her mutilated corpse was found lying on her bed on the morning of 9 November 1888. She was just 25 years old."

    Does any of this seem a bit much like romanticism? What is the authors basis for this theory? Very interesting none the less. But is that true? Plausible, yes, but also a fabrication of a fabrication.
    The book doesn't exactly say that "Kelly began attending private balls", but the implication is there, and evidently that implication was taken on board by the reviewer. Rubenhold describes the private balls and immediately goes on to say: "It was into scenes like this that a woman calling herself Mary Jane Kelly arrived at some point in 1883 and 1884". The truth is, we don't know that Kelly ever participated in "scenes like this", or even that she arrived in London in 1883/4 for that matter.

    Regarding the sex-traffickers, the book says: "Although Mary Jane had not intended it, by fleeing her captors [i.e. the traffickers] she had made some fearsome enemies. Although she managed to outrun them in Paris, she would never again find life easy in London".

    Now this is a reasonable scenario, and we know that this sort of thing went on. Furthermore, I wouldn't be at all surprised if something like this actually happened to Mary Kelly; the trouble is that we don't know that it happened, and the casual reader might be forgiven for believing that it had.

    Leave a comment:


  • AuroraSarintacos
    replied
    One review I read about the book that I thought was new information:

    "Of all of the women killed by Jack the Ripper, his last victim’s backstory is the most enigmatic. Rubenhold explains that “a woman calling herself Mary Jane Kelly” began attending private balls in central London somewhere between 1883 and 1884, although it remains unclear where exactly she came from: she may have been Irish or Welsh. These balls were a surreptitious way of connecting wealthy gentlemen with well-dressed prostitutes, and Kelly later worked in a brothel in west London.

    But a terrifying experience with sex traffickers made it impossible for her to stay in the West End, and she relocated to the other side of the city, moving between brothels and boarding houses in Wapping, Whitechapel and Bethnal Green. Her mutilated corpse was found lying on her bed on the morning of 9 November 1888. She was just 25 years old."

    Does any of this seem a bit much like romanticism? What is the authors basis for this theory? Very interesting none the less. But is that true? Plausible, yes, but also a fabrication of a fabrication.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Was the "jolly bonnet" anecdote attributed to anyone in particular? The press reports of 1st Sept seem to imply it was told by the women who lodged in the same room with her at 18 Thrawl St, but this is belied by Holland's evidence who said Polly hadn't been there for a week or more.

    From the Star 1 Sept;

    "at length it was found that a woman answering the description of the murdered woman had lodged in a common lodging-house, 18, Thrawl-street, Spitalfields. Women from that place were fetched, and they identified the deceased as "POLLY," who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses - nightly payment of 4d. each, each woman having a separate bed. It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an "unfortunate" while lodging in the house, which was only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them but that when she presented herself for her lodging on Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy because she had not the money. She was then , and turned away laughing, saying, "I'll soon get my 'doss' money; see WHAT A JOLLY BONNET I'VE GOT NOW."
    She was wearing a bonnet which she had not been seen with before, and left the lodging-house door. A woman of the neighborhood saw her later she told the police - even as late as half-past two on Friday morning - in Whitechapel-road, opposite the church and at the corner of Osborne-street"

    Incidentally, didn't Debs find that the bonnet was most likely part of a recent handout from a workhouse to unfortunates?
    This tells us that she returned to Wilmotts on the night of her death but was turned away because she didn’t have the money for her doss. She hadn’t stayed there for a week, but was possibly intending to do so that night.

    It has been suggested that the bonnet was one she had stolen from the Cowdrys, but then those at Wilmott’s would probably been familiar with it.



    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    The bonnet was presumably new to those at Wilmotts, so Polly must have acquired it in the previous week or so.

    At the time, the lack of a bonnet was equated with a lack of respectability, so the wearing of one might well have improved Polly’s chances as a beggar.
    Was the "jolly bonnet" anecdote attributed to anyone in particular? The press reports of 1st Sept seem to imply it was told by the women who lodged in the same room with her at 18 Thrawl St, but this is belied by Holland's evidence who said Polly hadn't been there for a week or more.

    From the Star 1 Sept;

    "at length it was found that a woman answering the description of the murdered woman had lodged in a common lodging-house, 18, Thrawl-street, Spitalfields. Women from that place were fetched, and they identified the deceased as "POLLY," who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses - nightly payment of 4d. each, each woman having a separate bed. It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an "unfortunate" while lodging in the house, which was only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them but that when she presented herself for her lodging on Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy because she had not the money. She was then , and turned away laughing, saying, "I'll soon get my 'doss' money; see WHAT A JOLLY BONNET I'VE GOT NOW."
    She was wearing a bonnet which she had not been seen with before, and left the lodging-house door. A woman of the neighborhood saw her later she told the police - even as late as half-past two on Friday morning - in Whitechapel-road, opposite the church and at the corner of Osborne-street"

    Incidentally, didn't Debs find that the bonnet was most likely part of a recent handout from a workhouse to unfortunates?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    The bonnet was presumably new to those at Wilmotts, so Polly must have acquired it in the previous week or so.

    At the time, the lack of a bonnet was equated with a lack of respectability, so the wearing of one might well have improved Polly’s chances as a beggar.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    the above seems to indicate that at the very least the bonnet was "new" to Polly.
    Possibly, although it might just as well indicate that she hadn't been wearing her bonnet earlier, but had since put it on. Not that it bothers me either way; my concern is that the traditional (and mythical) "see what a jolly NEW bonnet" might lead one to believe that it was brand new. Indeed, some have asserted as much in the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, however; the bonnet was described as "battered" in some reports (e.g. East London Observer), and as "black and rusty" in others (e.g. The Star).

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    I don't believe it is, Gary. The "jolly NEW bonnet" appears to be a modern elaboration. The original reports simply say "see what a jolly bonnet I've got now".
    I do get what youre saying about a "within the realms of possibility" idea that Polly may have had other money options, but the above seems to indicate that at the very least the bonnet was "new" to Polly. I think Abbys comment that she was probably pleased because it would spruce her up a bit for potential customers is spot on.

    Its clear that the majority of the posters here don't believe that the C5 were caught sleeping, but I do believe that Mary was attacked while on her side aligned to the right side of the bed, facing the wall. She may well have been asleep at the time. That indicates some degree of intimacy shared with her killer, she willingly turned her back on someone in a dark room. And it would seem, made some room on the bed as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Is the bonnet described as "new" in a contemporary report?
    I don't believe it is, Gary. The "jolly NEW bonnet" appears to be a modern elaboration. The original reports simply say "see what a jolly bonnet I've got now".

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Wasn't that the address given on her death certificate? But according to Mrs Holland in The ELO;
    ​​​​​
    "...she told me she had altered the place where she was living.
    The Coroner: Did she tell you where that was?
    Witness: No; but I think it was in the next street. Flower and Dean-street, I understood.
    ...she said there were too many men and women at the place she was staying at, and she didn't like to go there.
    The Coroner: Where was that?
    Witness: I thought from what she told me that it was "The White House.""
    Yes, Holland seemed uncertain as to even which street it was in, but the death cert is unambiguous. Clearly from her comments, Polly was suggesting she would prefer to return to Wilmotts to share a room with Holland, but she still had to go out and earn more money.





    Leave a comment:

Working...
X