If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Who may not have owed any back rent and may not have depended on the kindness of strangers quite as much as Kelly did. If I read Mrs Cox's statement correctly, she either owed money or was frightened of owing money and it preyed on her mind to the point where she couldn't sleep. We don't ever seem to hear of Kelly wringing her hands and worrying. Nothing was said about Prater owing back rent either. However Cox and Prater made their living, they were obviously surviving and supporting themselves by it. Prater was still living at Millers Court when Kit Whatsername came to call 3 years later. But Kelly doesn't support herself at all. Barnett gives her money when he can. So do one or two other former lovers. She wasn't living in luxury, but she was living. And a damn' sight more comfortably than Annie Chapman for a lot less work. We know that Chapman hawked keychains and so on as well as whoring when she needed the money. Nichols had done some charing. Eddowes had picked hops. Stride had also done some cleaning. All we know about Kelly is that (maybe) she was a hooker.
We don't ever seem to hear of Kelly wringing her hands and worrying.
We don't ever seem to hear of anything about Kelly. Honestly, with such a paucity of evidence, isn't it enough to know that her death certificate labelled her unequivocally as a "Prostitute"?
We don't ever seem to hear of anything about Kelly. Honestly, with such a paucity of evidence, isn't it enough to know that her death certificate labelled her unequivocally as a "Prostitute"?
But she was, Gareth. According to Barnett she had spent time in a brothel and she had no other profession that we know about. She had a roof over her head, so she couldn't go down as 'indigent' so what could they call her?
It's just that I'm not convinced that she actually went out on the stroll while she was living in Millers Court. I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm just saying that, when you look at the small amount of stuff we do know, it's not quite as obvious as I once thought.
Yes, Prater and Kelly and Cox all had a roof....and as was said, may all be in some arrears with the rent.
Then curious the only one of the three that is not actively seeking some clients in the streets is the one I questioned the work ethic of.
Don, I dont think theres any question Mary was a "street" whore, her live-in lover said as much at the Inquest about her. I do think theres a great deal of difference between the activities of a" street whore", and what the evidence shows us on Marys last night, singing drunk with some company that walked her home. Before midnight.
Cox and Prater may have worked when darkness first fell, Mary was home even before the "witching" hour.
I think Chava and Claire offer some ideas that fit well into this particluar question solving too.
I think there is evidence that suggests that Joe Barnett would never have allowed her to bring men to that room while living there, and that she was selling herself in the streets at time, his lack of acceptance of her work may be simple jealousy for all we know and he implies she is doing some of that work while he was there, when he says "I didnt want her going out on the streets selling herself", or something to that effect.
I think its relevant that we know of two men in her life that want to be with her, one even expressed a desire to marry her at one time,... translating to a ticket out of whoring and being taken care of by a normal working man. I think what we see is a young woman who liked laughing, getting drunk, getting dressed up...as she used to do, using her wiles on men, and being on her own terms, happy and worry free.
I believe what we see with the other Ripper victims are women past their "prime" in terms of marketability, women with no safety parachute like having a working man supporting her so she didnt have to whore, or a bed that they could sleep in that didnt have to be paid for in advance each night.
We could hope for a woman like Mary, that she might find a way to a decent man and decent life, maybe even have a family someday.......there is no realistic hope like that for Mary Ann, Annie, Liz or Kate. They are where they will be from this point on....so they perhaps reluctantly work the streets knowing its all they can do to survive, they have to take care of themselves...in Kates case, she has to take care of both of them.
Mary I believe, is not in that mindset, nor should she have been. She is around 26, known to be pretty, she is obviously more "comfortable" than they were... with men in her life giving her money, and when Barnett lived with her, he likely did as best he could to bring money to her so she wouldnt sell herself. Cause he wanted her to himself, and to be living decently. She has a man just like the type that she is hoping to find in Joe Barnett...its why she stays cause he is so "nice" to her. But he does not have the dough to "keep" her.
And I think that last lines subtext translates to....if she had no financial concerns because a man was taking care of all her needs, she might not whore again.
I believe the reason Jack McCarthy allowed rent arrears was because of the nature of the district he was renting property in.
There were a number of empty rooms in Millers Court so it doesn`t seem a case of the room would have been taken overnight by someone else if he had evicted Kelly.
Kelly had only recently split from Barnett, so until that point she had a means of paying something of her rent, and perhaps the arrears.
Basically, McCarthy understood that anyone renting a room of his would have problems paying rent due to the availablilty of work, and the tenant may have to move frequently due the problem of finding work.
Also, due to the profits he was making from his other tennants, as he owned a number of other properties, he could afford or made allowances for arrears.
As to your point about her seeking out the nearest brothel, rather than walking the streets - it's little-known, but there were actually very few brothels in the area, and most East End prostitutes and "unfortunates" (I make the distinction) had little option but to work out of doors.
Hello Sam
Some of the Lodging Houses in Dorsert St and the Flower and Dean St rookery allowed a double bed to mixed couples. These were regarded as brothels, and beds were bought up during the day as well as overnight.
Some of the Lodging Houses in Dorsert St and the Flower and Dean St rookery allowed a double bed to mixed couples. These were regarded as brothels.
...indeed, Jon, and thanks for the info. However we're hardly talking about genuine brothels in the style of the Chicken Ranch, or even Victorian "gay houses" run by certain French women in Knightsbridge, where Kelly might once have been on the books.
...indeed, Jon, and thanks for the info. However we're hardly talking about genuine brothels in the style of the Chicken Ranch, or even Victorian "gay houses" run by certain French women in Knightsbridge, where Kelly might once have been on the books.
Hi Sam
The Victorian gay houses or brothels catered for men with money to engage cleaner and better attired girls. I won`t say younger as I am sure there were plenty of young Whitechapel girls entertaining market porters down Angel Alley.
The Spitalfields Lodging House offered relatively the same for men with less money. Kelly herself spent time in a common lodging house before meeting up with Barnett.
As a matter of record, there had been some 200 brothels closed down from 1887 to the fall of 88 in London, due to some crusading by men like Frederick Charrington, a local brewers son, who launched a morality blitz during that time. How many were East End ones I dont know, but this was the district for this kind of entertainment.
Sam, the bingo balls and strobes aside for the moment, I told you I liked it, although I didnt agree it applies here...there needs to be one story at least, like your shed contention, that suggests Mary Kelly was whoring on the streets that night, or even out of her room....we have no trustworthy evidence to that effect.
Does a tree falling in the forest with no-one around make a sound? Yes
Does an absence of any evidence suggesting Mary Kelly whored anywhere that night, street or room, or for that matter at any time she was a lone resident there, or that she was even seen outdoors after midnight mean that it is a likely possibility anyway? No,... not to me. And certainly not when matched with the historical precedent evidence available regarding Mary, her "clients" and her room.
Im having some issues with you and Ben Gareth lately, Ben wants me to assume the killer was a lodging house regular blending in with the regulars, when the evidence suggests that the killer may not even have been in the East End for 20 out of each 30-31 day period and there is no evidence that the killer was desperately poor at all ...and you want me to keep the possibilty open that she did leave and did work unseen or unheard,.... something for which there is no evidence in existence to substantiate, and no evidence in existence to use to even suggest it.
Only your contention that by ping pong balls and strobe lights, anyone in the court may have missed seeing it.
Within the realm of possibilty? ..of course. A reasonable suggestion founded on some form of historical precedent or data related specifically to Mary Kelly and Room 13, or some shortcomings on the part of the eye and ear witnesses?...Well,..no.
In the absence of witnessed activity, by people very close in proximity to the woman in question, we can only asssume what they saw, a quiet, dark room by 1:30am meant that Mary had retired...with or without Blotchy. If Blotchy doesnt leave until Mary Ann Cox is in for the night, you have the same issue...unseen or heard departure....but thats ok in his case, because we know that he did leave, and we dont know if he left before everyone was indoors already and wouldnt see him, so we dont need to assume he left when he might be seen by anyone.
If Mary left her room before 1:30am, we have to believe that Mary Ann Cox never crossed her path on her few trips in and out, Prater never saw or heard Mary leave or return, Sarah doesnt see Mary at all,...but that Hutchinson was probably the only one then that did see her outside. The one story out of the 4 I just mentioned that the cops through out as being unbelievable.
Id rather not skew the data of that evening by accepting only the least trustworthy source.
The Victorian gay houses or brothels catered for men with money to engage cleaner and better attired girls. The Spitalfields Lodging House offered relatively the same for men with less money.
Jon,
I daresay, however there are hotels and guest-houses today that hire out rooms by the hour for the use of prostitutes, but that does not make them brothels. It makes them "houses of convenience" or whatever, where often non-resident women could "nip in for a quick one", or even do the occasional "all-nighter". Whilst Kelly was at Miller's Court, especially after Joe left, such temporary accommodation would have been unnecessary. Ditto for Prater and Cox.
Anyhow, I'm loth to elaborate further, as we're straying more into a general discussion on Victorian prostitutes rather than Kelly's rent arrears.
n the absence of witnessed activity, by people very close in proximity to the woman in question, we can only asssume what they saw, a quiet, dark room by 1:30am meant that Mary had retired...with or without Blotchy. If Blotchy doesnt leave until Mary Ann Cox is in for the night, you have the same issue...unseen or heard departure....but thats ok in his case, because we know that he did leave, and we dont know if he left before everyone was indoors already and wouldnt see him, so we dont need to assume he left when he might be seen by anyone.
If Mary left her room before 1:30am, we have to believe that Mary Ann Cox never crossed her path on her few trips in and out, Prater never saw or heard Mary leave or return, Sarah doesnt see Mary at all,...but that Hutchinson was probably the only one then that did see her outside. The one story out of the 4 I just mentioned that the cops through out as being unbelievable.
Id rather not skew the data of that evening by accepting only the least trustworthy source.
Bingo-balls and strobe-lights - that's the plain truth of the matter, and we're stuck with it, Mike. I resent the implication that I'm skewing the data, when it's you who keeps brushing that simple fact aside.
I don't mean to sound curt, but there's no need to turn this thread into yet another outing for the "She stayed in after one" theory.
He did not like prostitutes, the reason he moved out. I’m sure he tried to keep Mary from working the streets, but losing his job and loosing control of Mary.
Seeing men coming and going, must have been very hard on him. Not a stable person at that point.
As for McCarthy, if Mary was that far in arrears what the hell was he waiting for? Evict her, it is better to have a couple of whores in the little room for a few coins than have one not paying rent at all, or was he getting what he wanted.
Some Doss houses would tie them to a long chair until it was time to wake them and get them out.
Those with money for Doss houses would have loved to stay in a small room with a fire place. And be paying customers for McCarthy and he would have regular income every night.
BW
"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”
Albert Einstein
Comment