The Night She Died

[BillieHoliday]

Cox clearly indicates that she went back to her room to warm up and did so a couple of times that night. But, although she admits to being an 'unfortunate', never says she was accompanied. I read this as her working the streets and nipping back home for some privacy, warmth and a pee, poor woman. Prater stands outside Millers Court for 20 minutes from 1.00 am. At first I thought this was her stroll area, but it doesn't sound that way. She says she was waiting for her young man. Who clearly didn't turn up. Prater appears to have been out all night in that she is never asked what she saw when she went in and out of the court in the way Cox did. So if she was hooking, she wasn't taking her punters back there.

Cox sees her with Blotchy Face, but as I've said before, he really doesn't sound like a client.

To theorize, I would not be amazed if a prostitute didn't take punters back to her own place. It would seem an unlikely and risky thing to do. The Bad Trick isn't a brand-new concept. And you wouldn't want a guy like that knowing where he could find you. A full-time prostitute like Cox would know most of the pitfalls of the trade and would take pains to avoid them.

Cox may have been accompanied but displayed that curious Victorian modesty of not going into details about her business. Or she simply may not have been successful in her soliciting that night and standing outside trying unsuccessfully to pick up a punter surely would have sent her home for some warmth and a pee as you say.

As for blotchy face, I don't see how you conclude he was not a punter - why did he go back to millers court if there wasn't something sexual in it for him? He carried a quart pot of beer - a take out from a nearby pub no doubt - so he was obviously going back there for a longer period than a knee trembler.

I think he was a punter who met Mary in a pub earlier, they were both drunk and inhibitions had disappeared and she negotiated her services. They got a take out quart of beer from the pub, went to MC, where Mary then began to sing and he probably finished the beer and found he couldn't rise to the occasion and went off on his way.

I'd love to know what your theory is on why Blotchy Face went back to MC?

As for the girls not taking men back because of the risk, I see what you're saying. But these girls lived in the roughest street in london - they were tough women and making a living meant all kinds of risks, whether taking them back to their rooms or going off with a stranger into an alley.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

I"m editing this to add a question. We hear of Kelly and the others hooking outside the 10 Bells etc, but were any tarts working the street in Dorset St?

Dorset Street was a side-street, a tributary of the better-lit (and better patronised) Commercial Street. It would have made more economic sense for a street-walker to have paraded back and forth along the latter, than to hide in the shadows of Dorset Street, Thrawl Street, White's Row (etc), waiting for custom to come to them. This is common practice among prostitutes today... or so I'm told

[Fisherman]

Once again:

"Elizabeth Prater, the occupant of the first floor front room, was one of those who saw the body through the window. She affirms that she spoke to the deceased on Thursday. She knew that Kelly had been living with a man, and that they had quarrelled about ten days since. It was a common thing for the women living in these tenements to bring men home with them. They could do so as they pleased."

Daily Telegraph, November 10.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Chava]

Cox clearly indicates that she went back to her room to warm up and did so a couple of times that night. But, although she admits to being an 'unfortunate', never says she was accompanied. I read this as her working the streets and nipping back home for some privacy, warmth and a pee, poor woman. Prater stands outside Millers Court for 20 minutes from 1.00 am. At first I thought this was her stroll area, but it doesn't sound that way. She says she was waiting for her young man. Who clearly didn't turn up. Prater appears to have been out all night in that she is never asked what she saw when she went in and out of the court in the way Cox did. So if she was hooking, she wasn't taking her punters back there.

Leman St isn't far in absolute terms, but is quite a way to take a punter. If she was doing that, I would expect her to be working much closer to home. She also worked the 10 Bells area, which, of course, is close to her room. However I'm not picking up on anyone in the press or elsewhere that suggested she had a lot of strange men back to her room. Cox sees her with Blotchy Face, but as I've said before, he really doesn't sound like a client.

To theorize, I would not be amazed if a prostitute didn't take punters back to her own place. It would seem an unlikely and risky thing to do. The Bad Trick isn't a brand-new concept. And you wouldn't want a guy like that knowing where he could find you. A full-time prostitute like Cox would know most of the pitfalls of the trade and would take pains to avoid them.

I"m editing this to add a question. We hear of Kelly and the others hooking outside the 10 Bells etc, but were any tarts working the street in Dorset St? I don't hear of anyone working outside the Ringers, for example. I'm not saying they weren't, but I just wonder if there was a kind of tacit 'keep the filth away from here' thing going on. After all, Dorset St was known as the second-worst street in London--and second only to the Ratcliffe Highway. I'm assuming that nickname comes from the kind of people who lived there rather than actual crimes committed there. All the more reason not to give the police an excuse to turn over someone's crib and maybe find stolen goods etc. If the cops wanted to make a point about decency in the streets, they could use the hookers as an excuse to 'find pimps' in various criminals' places. So I think it's possible that prostitution was actually kept away from the street itself and took place in other areas.

[Sam Flynn]

There is no evidence to suggest any of the prostitutes living at Millers Court took their clients home. Cox and Prater clearly didn't.

On which evidence do you base that latter assertion, Chava?

And Mary Jane Kelly apparently walked a stroll in Leman St, which is a long way from Dorset St.

Leman Street was less than 5 minutes away from Dorset Street.

Besides, (a) Kelly is reported to have had other "beats", (b) Barnett first met her on Commercial Street, (c) if Kelly met a customer en route from Dorset to Leman Street, she is hardly likely to have turned him away on the basis that she hadn't reached her "workplace" yet.

[Sam Flynn]

However, Gareth, it is necessary to factor in the accumulation of grime and dirt on Kelly's windows, which would doubtless interrupt the passage of some of the light.

Correct, Robert. If only we knew how much grime - if any - there was, then we could subtract from that the area of potentially uninterrupted light let through by the broken pane. Why is everything about the Kelly murder so bloody complicated?

[Robert]

Well, Kelly was killed early hours Friday so if she was getting anyone's generosity who'd just been paid, they'd have been paid Thursday. Actually, though, I'm sure I've read that Friday morning was McCarthy's rent day, which would make sense if most workers were paid Thursday!

[Chava]

I don't know when workers got paid - I suppose it was either Friday or Saturday - but if Jack was a casual worker then he could of course have been paid any day he managed to get some work (dockers included many casuals).

Thanks for that. I always assumed it was Friday or Saturday. I wasn't thinking about when Jack got paid, but more about the likelihood of punters being more flush on the day they got paid. The 9th was a Friday, so there would have been quite a lot of available punters all night long. Kelly might have benefitted by a bunch of free drinks from these gentlemen, but it doesn't sound to me like she was working.

[Robert]

I don't know when workers got paid - I suppose it was either Friday or Saturday - but if Jack was a casual worker then he could of course have been paid any day he managed to get some work (dockers included many casuals).

[BillieHoliday]

There is no evidence to suggest any of the prostitutes living at Millers Court took their clients home. Cox and Prater clearly didn't. And Mary Jane Kelly apparently walked a stroll in Leman St, which is a long way from Dorset St. Also, she wasn't working earlier in the evening--she was seen at the pub getting drunk--and the man she was seen taking into her room at midnight didn't seem to be a punter. She started serenading him awful quick, and didn't shut up. So unless his particular desire was to be sung to while being serviced, he wasn't a trick. More than likely the man seen drinking with her 3/4 of an hour earlier at the Ringers. Cox reports her as being very drunk, and I doubt she would do that if she was seriously working that night.

I agree with you that Kelly probably could charge 6d, but the only witness we have for her picking up a trick and bringing him home is Hutchinson. If you believe him, that's exactly what she did, so keeping the fire going would be worthwhile. However she had kept the fire going nicely, I assume, while she was out on the booze throughout the whole of the first part of the evening. And she clearly wasn't working then.

By the way, what day did East End working men get paid? Anyone know? Was there one universal day, or did the dockers get paid on a different day to the market porters...

I tend to think she did take some clients home. She also had a 'pitch' outside the 10 Bells that was convenient for Dorset Street, the chances are she had 'regulars' who were given this courtesy.

I believe the likes of Mary Kelly were always 'working' to a certain degree. Much of their work would come via inside the pub, having a laugh and chatting the guys up while sussing them out. Especially in the winter, who wants to be standing on the street?

I think those two men were both punters - both of them pretty drunk themselves and probably not getting much for their sixpence.

Otherwise, why would a grown man leave the warmth and conviviality of a pub to go and listen to a drunk Mary sing endlessly about violets in her dreary room?

[Ben]

I disagree. Kelly was younger, pretter and had her own place. Even today in the profession of prostitution - those attributes allow a woman to charge more.

Except we know that other women who also had private rooms and who were also young ventured out onto the streets ostensibly to solicit clients where she found them. Mary Ann Cox was aware that she owed money, but the fact that she had private accomodation didn't attract the customers in drove. Besides, very few men in the district would have been able to afford much more than what the average prostitute charged, so charging several pence extra would have hindered her chances of procuring clients, not increased them.

Which is why she asked Hutchinson for 6D - I doubt if she was asking for a loan, I think she was trying to solicit him but he'd spent all his money down Romford.

That's only if you take his statement at face value, which I'd avoid doing considering that it was discarded as having little to no value shortly after it's first appearance.

[Chava]

There is no evidence to suggest any of the prostitutes living at Millers Court took their clients home. Cox and Prater clearly didn't. And Mary Jane Kelly apparently walked a stroll in Leman St, which is a long way from Dorset St. Also, she wasn't working earlier in the evening--she was seen at the pub getting drunk--and the man she was seen taking into her room at midnight didn't seem to be a punter. She started serenading him awful quick, and didn't shut up. So unless his particular desire was to be sung to while being serviced, he wasn't a trick. More than likely the man seen drinking with her 3/4 of an hour earlier at the Ringers. Cox reports her as being very drunk, and I doubt she would do that if she was seriously working that night.

I agree with you that Kelly probably could charge 6d, but the only witness we have for her picking up a trick and bringing him home is Hutchinson. If you believe him, that's exactly what she did, so keeping the fire going would be worthwhile. However she had kept the fire going nicely, I assume, while she was out on the booze throughout the whole of the first part of the evening. And she clearly wasn't working then.

By the way, what day did East End working men get paid? Anyone know? Was there one universal day, or did the dockers get paid on a different day to the market porters...

[BillieHoliday]

It's difficult to gauge the economics. If Mary was looking for punters in the middle of the night, then the punters might have realised she was desperate and used that to drive down the price. On the other hand, if a punter was desperate enough to be looking for a woman in the middle of the night, the tables might have been turned.

True. But every prostitute has a 'working' figure that she charges and you're right, it can all be negotiated.

I don't know how desperate she was that night - I'm sure the night time was when here services were in higher demand, what with pubs staying open later than today and the weekend approaching.

[Robert]

It's difficult to gauge the economics. If Mary was looking for punters in the middle of the night, then the punters might have realised she was desperate and used that to drive down the price. On the other hand, if a punter was desperate enough to be looking for a woman in the middle of the night, the tables might have been turned.

[BillieHoliday]

Hi Billie,

I doubt Kelly charged much more for her services. The vast majority of her client-base would have been local man from the immediate locality, and very few of them were able to fork out for an expensive service. Mary Cox had a similar domestic set-up, but it seems likely from the evidence that she was servicing her clients where she found them on the streets. Suffice to say, I'd urge strong caution when contemplating anything Hutchinson claimed to have heard.

Best regards,
Ben

I disagree. Kelly was younger, pretter and had her own place. Even today in the profession of prostitution - those attributes allow a woman to charge more. Sure, the clients would not have been rich men, but when you consider 4D was the price of a loaf of bread, Mary Kelly's services were not what you'd call expensive.

The others charged 4D. I suspect Mary charged 6D. Which is why she asked Hutchinson for 6D - I doubt if she was asking for a loan, I think she was trying to solicit him but he'd spent all his money down Romford.