Soliciting or night attack.

[Ben]

You thinking – 120 years after the fact – that you are in any semblance of a position to know, or better yet, … say such a thing!

Oh, by all means, embrace the entertaining fallacy that clients were willing to pay lofty sums for the sheer luxury of spending a night with a prostitute in what was alluded to extensively as one of the worst streets in London, despite the fact that sex with a prostitute could be procured in any number of doss houses of ill-repute, while the rest of us stifle a giggle at the prospect of wealthy gentleman from London making a whippet-like beeline to that veritable pot of gold at the end of the prostitution rainbow - Miller's Court.

You're a lobbyist!

And you're a fraud.

An hysterical, sanctimonious, cowardly, bumptious, uppity fraud.

Maybe someday, someone will fall for your bullshit, and come to believe that George Hutchinson was 'Jack the Ripper'.

Five books implicating Hutchinson were written before I had even heard of him, but I'm flattered that you should bestow me with full, if undeserved credit, for the creation of the theory.

Now go and make an embarrassing nuisance of your shabby self elsewhere, and take your colourful fonts and exclamation marks (!!!!!!!!) with you.

It would, however, have been deeply naïve for a prostitute in a Dorset Street hovel to consider herself in a position to charge lofty sums for the privilege of conducting the dirty deed indoors. It was not as though very many residents of that district were in a position to fork out a great deal for prostitution, and those who could were unlikely to have been thrill-seeking in that little hellhole.

"It would, however, have been deeply naïve for a prostitute in a Dorset Street ..."

That is the epitome of naivety!

You thinking – 120 years after the fact – that you are in any semblance of a position to know, or better yet, … say such a thing!

But then, you don't care if any of your assertions are reasonable or factually accurate, either way. You're a lobbyist!

Keep on lobbying!

Maybe someday, someone will fall for your bullshit, and come to believe that George Hutchinson was 'Jack the Ripper'.

[Ben]

Hi Sox,

“Why? I mean you all keep saying that you do not think Cox and Kelly did not bring clients back to their rooms, but you never actually say WHY.”

I’m not suggesting that none of the female prostitute occupants of Miller’s Court ever invited clients back to their rooms, but there is certainly no evidence that Mary Cox did any such thing on the night in question. Kelly may have done, but even this premise is dependent on the role played by Blotchy - whether he was a client as opposed to a friend or drinking companion. Since Mary Cox was honest enough to admit that she had been actively plying her trade that night as an “unfortunate”, it’s simple not logical to assume that she’d suppress any reference to bringing clients home if that was what happened. If she was so concerned about such a revelation coming to the fore, she could easily have lied about her profession as many other women clearly did. As such, it would be irresponsible to start positing the existence of clients joining Mrs Cox in room #5 that night with no evidence whatsoever,

“I mean, where is the logic in being a prostitute, having a perfectly good empty room, and then servicing your clients in the street????”

The obvious reason would be a pecuniary one. A prostitute was more likely to get through a greater number of clients at a faster rate, and thus earn more money, than she would have done by constantly to-ing and fro-ing from her property. It would also have reasonable, for a woman in Kelly’s position, to have desired to separate home and work. Besides the monetary advantage in soliciting on the streets, she may not have wanted her sheets sullied by unpleasantaries depositing their skank in her only sanctuary.

Neither reason would constitute stupidity. It would, however, have been deeply naïve for a prostitute in a Dorset Street hovel to consider herself in a position to charge lofty sums for the privilege of conducting the dirty deed indoors. It was not as though very many residents of that district were in a position to fork out a great deal for prostitution, and those who could were unlikely to have been thrill-seeking in that little hellhole. Besides which there were always dodgy unisex lodging houses that could have facilliatetd indoor nooky.

“Perhaps the reason that Cox did not take anyone back to her room that night was the simple one, she did not find a customer willing to pay the extra.”

…So she decided that no money whatsoever was better than earning her money on the streets?

That doesn’t sound too plausible to me, and it doesn't accord with her admission to earning her living “on the streets”.

If the killer was choosing/stalking his victims then surely more than Mary Kelly would have died indoors

Not if the relatively few prostitutes who did have private accomodation preferred to service their clients on the streets instead of taking them in indoors.

“I firmly place Kelly as a victim of the Whitechapel Killer. For me this means that he approached her on the premise of being a customer, and struck at the opportune moment.”

Again, if we’re prepared to make allowances for change in terms of the nature of the ripper’s crime scene locations, we should be prepared to make similar allowances for change in terms of his pre-crime approach. That’s only reasonable. If we argue ourselves into a position that the killer might change X but he’d never change Y, I’m afraid we give the “Kelly wasn’t a ripper victim” brigade a big stick to beat us with.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The fact is if the whitechapel killer was obsessed with Mutilation, then it would make perfect sense to switch locations to the most influent part of London where he would have been more likely to have attracted a woman with private rooms.
The reason this did not occur, gives a insight to the killers status, giving the impression that his dress, and financial means would not have got him very far in the west of London.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

She went to pieces over him.
Hunter

[Hunter]

She went to pieces over him.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[DVV]

Indeed, Mike.
She was very fond of him.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

I think Kelly stalked him.

Mike

[DVV]

Sox, I'm afraid I'd be off thread if I reply to your post. I see your logic, no problem with that, but the way I see the Dorset Street murder is...too long a story...

Amitiés,
David

ps: I don't know if you're interested with other posters'views...If you are, I would pm you with pleasure about Miller's Court.

[Sox]

Well, you may be right, but that's simply not my take.
Is that a problem ?

If the killer was choosing/stalking his victims then surely more than Mary Kelly would have died indoors. It seems obvious to me that murder was not this mans passion, mutilating was. So if we assume that he his stalking/choosing his victims with care, then why is he picking homeless women, as opposed to ones that he could kill indoors, where he could indulge his passion more freely as he did with Kelly?

[DVV]

.

And I think they were ALL random victims.

Well, you may be right, but that's simply not my take.
Is that a problem ?

Amitiés,
David

[Sox]

Ask yourself a question David:

Did the Whitechapel Killer murder every woman he approached?

If the answer to that question is no, then one victim out of five had her own private room so yes, I bet he could not believe his luck. How many prostitutes in the whole of the East End had private rooms does not really matter, it is how many, out of the women the killer targeted, had them.

And I think they were ALL random victims.

[DVV]

I agree with all that post (and it hurts me, my friend Sox), except for the last two sentences.
Because Mary wasn't a random victim.
"Could hardly believe his luck" ?
Indeed. He hadn't killed for more than 5 weeks. Was Mary the only prostitute with private lodgings ?

Amitiés,
David

edit: Hunter?! you're here ? I was referring to Sox' post. Well, that's your time... Sun is rising in Provence, but my bottle is still half....empty.

[Hunter]

knee trembler

Be careful about the quick knee trembler against the wall, Sox. Someone may presume your giving out unattainable information.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[Sox]

Why? I mean you all keep saying that you do not think Cox and Kelly did not bring clients back to their rooms, but you never actually say WHY.

Lets be honest for a minute here. I assume McCarthy wasn't a blithering idiot, so he's hardly likely to hold his hands up and admit these women were using his property for prostitution less he lay himself open to charges of keeping a brothel. Cox is hardly likely to say so for basically the same reason.

And do we assume that Cox & Kelly were stupid too? I mean, where is the logic in being a prostitute, having a perfectly good empty room, and then servicing your clients in the street???? Now obviously, if the customer they pick up is not going to make it worth their while, then fair enough, but we all too often assume that all the men that these women picked up just wanted a quick knee trembler against a wall.

What if the likes of Cox and Kelly were able to offer something more? Like thirty minutes in a nice warm room for a few bob more? They would be able to make more money, & by taking on less clients, than their sisters on the street. Perhaps the reason that Cox did not take anyone back to her room that night was the simple one, she did not find a customer willing to pay the extra. Nichols,Chapman, Stride & Eddowes did not have that option, so they died in the street.

I firmly place Kelly as a victim of the Whitechapel Killer. For me this means that he approached her on the premise of being a customer, and struck at the opportune moment. That moment was once he had her alone in No13, I bet he could hardly believe his luck.