Soliciting or night attack.

[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]

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.

[The Good Michael]

I think Kelly stalked him.

Mike

[DVV]

Indeed, Mike.
She was very fond of him.

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

She went to pieces over him.

Best Wishes,
Hunter

[DVV]

She went to pieces over him.
Hunter

[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.

[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

[Septic Blue]

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]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

And maybe, someday, SB, you will provide the evidence that serves to undermine Ben's statement rather than launchng into hysterical and unprovoked personal insults.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sox]

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

You mean.....exactly like they do in 2010? Now who is being naive'?

I am sorry Ben, but you buying into the premise that every prostitute in Whitechapel was incapable of nothing more than a fourpenny knee trembler is more than a little surprising. And nobody mentioned 'lofty sums' or 'toffs', which by the way, are stereotypes every bit as dated as your fourpenny whore. People did indeed go slumming in Whitechapel Ben, thats a documented fact.

What these women charged, and what they did for the money, and how often they sold their bodies, depended very much upon circumstance, exactly as it does today.

[Septic Blue]

Yaaawwwnnn!

Like I said, ...

... 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'.

---------

And maybe, someday, SB, you will provide the evidence that serves to undermine Ben's statement ...

How 'bout today?

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

"120 years after the fact"

... rather than launchng into hysterical and unprovoked personal insults.

As for "hysterical", …

... you're a fraud.

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

...

Now go and make an embarrassing nuisance of your shabby self elsewhere, ...

As for "unprovoked personal insults", …

Ben makes my skin crawl! And when I choose to insult him, is my business!

[Ben]

I am sorry Ben, but you buying into the premise that every prostitute in Whitechapel was incapable of nothing more than a fourpenny knee trembler is more than a little surprising.

I agree, Sox, but the salient point is that Mary Kelly was unlikely to have been especially selective about her clientele. A private room has advantages if the prostitute was inclined to use it for work, but we're still talking about a grotty hovel in a locality known for its reputation as a mecca for the "vicious and semi-criminal". She could not, therefore, have harboured any high expectations about the type of client she was likely to procure purely on the basis of having a room.

You mean.....exactly like they do in 2010? Now who is being naive'?

Quite possibly you, if you think people in 2010 regularly fork out the largest sums for the prostitues who were in the weakest positions to command them.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Another worthless contribution from the purveyor of hysteria, pretty colours and pointless fonts. No surprises whatsoever that he couldn't respond to Garry's challenge to provide refutation of my observation rather than just wasting space with unprovoked insults.

Ben makes my skin crawl!

Well, that's my self-esteem in tatters and ruins.

Go and play with your crayons.