Did Mary know her attacker?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

Sam I think you'll find that at least one of those women who 'would sooner char than sell her body' didn't feel the way you think she felt.

They were living from hand to mouth by whatever means they could, so I'm in agreement with you there. My point is, however, that the fortysomethings of Spitalfields weren't "career prostitutes" in the main, and many of their customers weren't "career punters" - just pissed, filthy old buggers like themselves with a few pennies to spare, who fancied a grope with anybody, whenever gin or rum dissolved their better judgment and they had a few pennies to spare.

The experience of Martha Tabram and Pearly Poll, on their pub-crawl with a couple of soldiers, is interesting. Anything for a drink, and - after the pubs shut - anything to get a bed for the night. This is in stark contrast to the "career" prostitute, who'd aim to make a "profit", rather than the price of a bed, from as many customers as possible. The model operated by the desperate women of Spitalfields was not the same as the modern-day "LaShayna" and company, with their attempts at cheap glamour, their handbags primed with supplies of condoms or their phone numbers on pre-printed cards.

There are similarities - of course there are - but there are sufficient cultural differences that lead me to be wary of applying the Shawcross/Sutcliffe comparison to the events of 1888.

[Varqm]

Blackkat,
All that you said was possible.All the 5 canonical victims came from Flower and Dean and Dorset St's.It might not have been a coincidence. He may have lived in or frequented these streets enough that he knew those victims from afar or interacted with them a liitle bit and possibly knew where they ply their trade.
On Eddowes first night/early morning out in the streets drinking
she was killed.After a few nights Mary Kelly did not have a friend sleeping in her room she was killed. This might be an indication that he hang around those streets.
Its also possible he was at the right place at the right time.There has never been any material found that helped sway one's opinion one way or another
in a somewhat convincing fashion.
And beware of those people who will try to convince you their reasoning are better than yours.

[Blackkat]

Okay - hopefully I don't sound too naive here. I haven't read quite as many books as some of you. Help me out a bit with why what I'm about to say could be right and wrong.

I think that maybe since the streets had up'ed the PC's after his first few kills, that may be why he decided to kill indoors. For all I know he could have been the one to steal the key. Did Mary know him? Could be, but I've always thought that she may have been passed out from drink, and he came in.

I don't know why the door would be locked once he left - he did like other's to "find" his leftovers. Maybe it locked itself when he shut the door. (kind of lock it was) I do think that he may have seen Mary before his kill and not exactly "pre planned" all of it, but I think he needed somewhere that he could do his work, without the chance of being caught. Again their were more PC's around after his other kills. He may very well have stole the key, or he may have just opened her door. If she was drunk she may have thought she locked it and didn't. Did he stalk her? Not so much, but did enough homework to know when ane where. Please give me your thoughts, and be gentle

Sam - ..... be gentle now mah' man. Hehehehehhehe

[Chava]

Sam I think you'll find that at least one of those women who 'would sooner char than sell her body' didn't feel the way you think she felt. Nicholls had a job charring after she left the Lambeth Workhouse. And she left it. I believe it was also Nicholls who said she'd had her lodging money three times on the night she died, and she'd drunk it. If she was hooking for a roof over her head, well she would have survived the night, wouldn't she. It's true that Chapman and Eddowes did other casual jobs occasionally as well as hooking. However every one of them was out on the game the night she died and I don't think they were after lodging money. They were after their next drink. Go round the back of one of the pubs in the Bigg Market in Newcastle. Or maybe take a trip to the Moss Side Estate in Manchester. You'll find similar women doing similar stuff. But we've evolved. So it's crank, not gin that is the fix du choix.

[Sox]

In answer to the OP......no idea to be honest. However, I think that the killer may have known Eddowes & Kelly, but not necessarily the other way around.

[The Good Michael]

And you would imagine correctly, but why would Jack leave his safe zone?

Well, killing Kelly may have amounted to a SAFER zone. This was an easier kill for him, and one that provided time and light without the possible interruption of a patrolling PC. It was late at night and everyone was in bed, some, undoubtedly passed out from drinking. What more could a guy want in a 'safe zone'? I think this is inarguable from a stance of common sense. Lucky man, that Ripper. He got just what he wanted in a victim, and more.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Chaps,

I have no doubt that there are some parallels between the prostitutes whom "modern" serial killers stalk but, seriously, the "casual whores" who fell victim to the Ripper were precisely that - desperate women, who'd sooner "char" for transient employers, sell flowers, or glue match-boxes together than sell their bodies. We're not talking about regular or "career" prostitutes here, we're talking about women who'd pick up with any sozzled client as long as it made them the price of a bed for the night. We cannot compare them with the "career" prostitutes of recent years. We cannot even compare them with the women of Victorian "gay-houses" in the West End. Likewise their clients were no Shawcrosses or Sutcliffes. They were their male equivalents - raddled, knackered men of the London Docks and markets, as debauched and impoverished as the women on whom, for mere pennies, they spilled their sour spunk at the end of a drunken night.

[Chava]

Sam I think you'll find that any number of Sutcliffe's victims were in similar situations to the Ripper's women. Admittedly, most of them had a roof over their head, but at least two of them were living in hostels and had lived rough. Some of the women he killed had pretensions to glamour and probably cost a fair amount to hire. But others, notably his first victim whose name escapes me, and the woman known as 'Scottish Jean' were on the lowest level of street prostitution. I know that there are escort agencies out there and clubs where men might meet attractive hookers--the equivalents of Kelly's West End House. But there are also plenty of older women working in degrading circumstances for pennies in order to feed drug habits etc. Anyone following the Robert Pickton trial in BC recently would have had their fill of listening to the lives that some of the Pickton victims lived. They were squalid, desperate women living on the very outer fringes of society. Much like Nicholls, Chapman etc. The only difference is that those women tended to do it because they were addicted to drink whereas these women do it because they're addicted to drugs. I doubt there is much qualitative difference between living in a doss-house in Whitechapel in the 1880s and a flop house on Vancouver's Downtown East right now. It saddens me to say this, because I'd love to think we'd progressed enough as a society to make this kind of living obsolete. But we haven't and it isn't. And these are the women who the Ripper and his descendants prey on.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth

However, there's no escaping the fact that the type of casual prostitute we're talking about were dirty, alcoholic, middle-aged wrecks. Not to put too fine a point on it - apart from Mary Kelly (perhaps), can you seriously believe that many men came back for more?

If the regular clientele were pretty dirty and alcoholic themselves, then yes! Seriously though, I don't see any problem with the notion that most of the prostitutes (both regular and semi-regular) may have been mildly acqauinted with a few of their regular punters. Obviously, if you're younger and attractive and patrol Sunset Boulevard, you're likely to receive a better class of "puntership". In the same vein, if you're a dirty prostitute in Slumsville, most of your takers are also likely to be dirty and from Slumsville.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, we've had words about this before, but I don't think you can conclude from what was said that the poster was taking Sunset Blvd or whatever as a model for what went on in Whitechapel. You chided me in similar language earlier and suggested I shouldn't relate my cosy 21st century experience to what went on then. You have no basis to say such a thing

My intention is not to chide, Chava - I try to make reasonable, and reasoned, points wherever possible. I also try not to shoot from the hip without giving a topic some thought beforehand.

In this instance we're talking about debauched, world-weary Annies and Pollys offering offering themselves in drunkenness and desperation to men probably as drunk and desperate as themselves, and lucky to nab a couple of punters per night to pay for a roof over their heads or their next glass of gin.

There may have been places in the West of London where more "modern" models of prostitution had been adopted, where regular punters may have turned up to find their favourite girl. However, we can't easily equate such clientele with the transient, low-class "tricks", who grunted and sweated between the thighs of the gin-soaked guttersnipes of Spitalfields for a few pennies a throw.

This contrasts markedly with the Shawcross/Sutcliffe sort of scenario, where the LaShaynas and Desirees of this world are driven to Lovers' Lanes by men with plenty of cash to burn. Sure, some have their drug habits and families to feed, but few if any are forced to rely on a cheap tumble simply to secure a bed for the night.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I've no doubt that a few, if not all of them, had a semi-regular clientele.

Well there was the likes of Ted Stanley, I suppose, but he seems to have been more of a "boyfriend" than a punter - and some "boyfriend" he was! However, there's no escaping the fact that the type of casual prostitute we're talking about were dirty, alcoholic, middle-aged wrecks. Not to put too fine a point on it - apart from Mary Kelly (perhaps), can you seriously believe that many men came back for more?

[Chava]

True, Ben. However we must be careful of adopting such models in this context. In the case of the Whitechapel murders, we're dealing with often irregular prostitutes (and punters with irregular wages!) in a milieu significantly different to Sunset Boulevard and other more "modern" red-light districts.
__________________

Sam, we've had words about this before, but I don't think you can conclude from what was said that the poster was taking Sunset Blvd or whatever as a model for what went on in Whitechapel. You chided me in similar language earlier and suggested I shouldn't relate my cosy 21st century experience to what went on then. You have no basis to say such a thing, and what Ben suggested is a common-enough event in the history of serial killers of prostitutes. Sutcliffe was hiring prostitutes the whole time he was killing, and using them as a normal trick uses a hooker. Of course Sutcliffe was prowling the notoriously sexy and high-end stroll around the back streets of Bradford. Where the tarts all look like models and you can count the 500 series Mercedes in the dozens.

Not.

Green River hired and used prostitutes normally during the series. Robert Pickton did. A lot of them did. So there's nothing wrong with suggesting that the Ripper did. And if he did, he may have hired Kelly. At least one of Sutcliffe's victims knew him as a trick beforehand I think. I'd back that up if I could find the box with the relevant books in!

Whitechapel was a slum. But so what? Until a few years ago, Notting Hill and North Kensington were slums. I grew uo in Newcastle about a mile and a half from some of the worst slums in Britain and I remember them very well. Yes, we're talking about the 19th Century, and people lived in a very degraded way, but that degradation or a very close approximation to it exists today in many First World cities. So let's not have the 'don't compare...' argument shall we? Let's assume that some posters, in fact most posters, are a bit more sophisticated than you might think.

And by the way, let's not think of Kelly as an 'irregular' or part-time prostitute. By her own admission she'd been on the game since she was 16 years old.

[NOV9]

Presumably to kill her, I would imagine.

Just like he did with his other victims.

And you would imagine correctly, but why would Jack leave his safe zone?

The argument is that a Killers such as Jack was a very cautious person, that is why he never got caught.

Walking with Mary to her place and sitting up all night while she sang her song, does not make sense, he was not out for a night of entertainment, other than a quick kill and an organ removal then he was on his way.

Organized killers such as Jack would not risk unnecessary chances.

I understand that killers do advance, and change methods, or weapons, but only if they cause problems with their fantasy.

just to kill Mary you say, but not at the risk of getting caught. All interviewed killers agree getting caught was not part of their agenda.

[Ben]

Fair point, Gareth, although I can well envisage the "irregularity" aspect being somewhat exaggerated by relatives wishing to convey a favourable impression of their spouse, sister, mother etc. I've no doubt that a few, if not all of them, had a semi-regular clientele.

[anna]

Hi all, also seems to me,that the women Sam mentions would know what direction to listen in to suss when Kelly was in or out,maybe to borrow something have a drink or a chat.So how come they arn't sure if noses come from the area of Kelly's room.Prater is directly above Kelly,and very close if you take into considertion the height of Kellys room.Maybe they all knew more than they admit to,and either knew who it was but were too afraid to say,or didn't want to get involved.