Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Ada?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Wouldn't it be counter intuitive to use MJK as an example when Inquest testimony suggests she did bring a client home?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #47
      Ada DID bring the man home, if Rose is to be believed - and I see no reason to disbelieve her.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        Wouldn't it be counter intuitive to use MJK as an example when Inquest testimony suggests she did bring a client home?
        Jon,

        I'm not disputing MJK took a client home (although we don't in fact know it was a client) but from what I've read prostitutes would work their trade outside. MJK apparently besides her girl friends, didn't bring customers there. When did she start to? Is it normal to? Etc

        Dave,

        I realize Rose said she brought the guy home and that Ada had many visitors but why does that mean we should insinuate she is a prostitute? Would prostitutes take people to their home? Wouldn't it have been difficult if Ada was married? If Rose didn't see Ada's husband, how does she know who it was that ran out of the house or who the many visitors were?

        Cheers
        DRoy

        Comment


        • #49
          Hi DRoy.

          You might recall that Mrs Prater informs us that the women in these tenements did bring men home with them.

          "... 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."

          And, although this is surely a case of mistaken identity we do read of a sighting, or understanding, that bringing men home was not unusual:

          "The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house."

          Immorality is carried on in these houses, openly and with impunity.

          Purely from an impartial point of view, a woman with a room to herself can make more money from a private liaison in a warm bed, than a quickie in some cold & less than private back alley.

          Why wouldn't they bring men home?
          Last edited by Wickerman; 12-30-2013, 02:40 PM.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Hi DRoy.

            You might recall that Mrs Prater informs us that the women in these tenements did bring men home with them.

            "... 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."

            And, although this is surely a case of mistaken identity we do read of a sighting, or understanding, that bringing men home was not unusual:

            "The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings, which are on the second floor, the little boy being sent to a neighbour's house."

            Immorality is carried on in these houses, openly and with impunity.

            Purely from an impartial point of view, a woman with a room to herself can make more money from a private liaison in a warm bed, than a quickie in some cold & less than private back alley.

            Why wouldn't they bring men home?
            Jon,

            Thank you for the quotes! However, none of that relates specifically to MJK. Since she was sharing her bed with her unfortunate friends I'm not sure how often she would be bringing clients home. Regardless...

            I was under the impression that they didn't take them home. I'm obviously losing my mind because I thought I read it many times that it was common practice for them to stay outside.

            I'd imagine they would do so to avoid having to make the trek back to where they may pick up their clients, they'd be getting free drinks/food from clients if at a public house, avoid beatings if behind closed doors, etc, etc. I agree we can assume they'd be paid better money for a warm room and a bed but I've yet to read anything confirming as such. Obviously I am mistaken though.

            Thanks again Jon.

            Cheers
            DRoy

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by DRoy View Post
              I was under the impression that they didn't take them home. I'm obviously losing my mind because I thought I read it many times that it was common practice for them to stay outside.
              Largely because they didn't have an "inside" to call their own - living, as many of them did, in common lodging houses. Kelly's one-up, one-down flat was a relatively uncommon luxury, and I'm sure she'd have made good use of it.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • #52
                Prostitution And The Law

                The safest way for a prostitute to operate, as far as the law is concerned, is as a sole operator, working from home and attracting customers by recommendation. The criminal offences which relate to prostitution are:

                Loitering in a public place for 'immoral purposes' (i.e. prostitution).

                Soliciting in a public place for that purpose.

                Living on immoral earnings (except the prostitute herself).

                Brothel Keeping (hence the need to work as a sole trader).

                It is a popular misconception that prostitution is illegal under UK law. The act of prostitution is not illegal; it is only the advertisement or drumming up trade which contravenes the criminal law. A prostitute, working alone on private premises and without taking active steps to advertise the fact, commits no offence.
                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                Comment


                • #53
                  Hi Colin

                  It is a popular misconception that prostitution is illegal under UK law. The act of prostitution is not illegal; it is only the advertisement or drumming up trade which contravenes the criminal law. A prostitute, working alone on private premises and without taking active steps to advertise the fact, commits no offence
                  Indeed...but interestingly, if I recall correctly, a landlord knowingly profiting as such (and this is where interpretation comes in) may well be liable...

                  Have I got that right?

                  Cheers!

                  Dave

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by DRoy View Post

                    I was under the impression that they didn't take them home. I'm obviously losing my mind because I thought I read it many times that it was common practice for them to stay outside.
                    Hi DRoy.
                    I dare say you have read this, so have I, but only here in posts by Casebook members, not in independent sources.

                    As you can see direct quotes to the contrary do exist, but the argument that they did not take clients home is mostly promoted by those who appear to believe that Mary Kelly was murdered while she slept by a burglar, not by a client.
                    In order to uphold this view they need to make sure the reader believes that these women did not take clients home.


                    I'd imagine they would do so to avoid having to make the trek back to where they may pick up their clients, they'd be getting free drinks/food from clients if at a public house, avoid beatings if behind closed doors, etc, etc. I agree we can assume they'd be paid better money for a warm room and a bed but I've yet to read anything confirming as such. Obviously I am mistaken though.
                    An unfortunate is not going to pass up free drink & a meal, I dare say that those who had a room waiting would ply as much drink & food as she can out of her client before taking him back for a night of 'bliss'?

                    With reference to Kelly, we do know that this night was cool and it rained on and off, so the streets were likely not full of prospective clients (ref. Cox's story). Once Kelly hooked up with one she would play him for all she can get. So long as she is fed & watered for the night she is happy, then she takes him back to have his wicked way.
                    Nothing at all out of the ordinary about that.

                    We have no need to try justify the logic for doing this, common sense speaks for its self. Neither do we have to speculate that 'they must have', we have direct quotes from people at the time that they did.

                    With that in mind, why would we want to believe otherwise?
                    Last edited by Wickerman; 12-30-2013, 05:10 PM.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      .

                      I'm sure Mary probably did a bit outside and inside, depending on how much money a client has.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Jon,

                        Thanks again for the explanation! What you've said makes sense. I don't recall reading anything about this though in contemporary literature.

                        Even with this info I don't think we should assume Ada was prostituting herself when attacked.

                        Cheers
                        DRoy

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                          Hi Colin



                          Indeed...but interestingly, if I recall correctly, a landlord knowingly profiting as such (and this is where interpretation comes in) may well be liable...

                          Have I got that right?

                          Cheers!

                          Dave
                          I think so. Landlord could be seen as living (in whole or in part) on immoral earnings.
                          "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by DRoy View Post
                            Jon,

                            Thanks again for the explanation! What you've said makes sense. I don't recall reading anything about this though in contemporary literature.

                            Even with this info I don't think we should assume Ada was prostituting herself when attacked.

                            Cheers
                            DRoy
                            Hi DRoy.

                            I agree, the story given by Rose does not in itself imply Ada was prostituting herself at home. What reads suspicious is the reason given by Ada, that a stranger came to her door and demanded money, and this was after midnight.

                            What Rose saw does not appear consistent with Ada's account. So we might ask, who is not being truthful, and who has cause to lie?
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              What Rose saw does not appear consistent with Ada's account. So we might ask, who is not being truthful, and who has cause to lie?
                              Jon,

                              If Ada's attacker was her husband then she'd have reason to lie to protect him. Rose apparently didn't know who Ada's husband was so she couldn't identify the man running out the door.

                              Rose to me i'm sure is telling the truth as she best knows it to be but she doesn't seem to know much. I'm concerned we'd be reading too much in what Rose is 'suggesting' and label Ada a prostitute and therefore a possible JTR victim.

                              Cheers
                              DRoy

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by DRoy View Post
                                Jon,

                                If Ada's attacker was her husband then she'd have reason to lie to protect him.
                                DRoy.
                                Are you aware of Mark Ripper's article in Ripperologist #125, apparently he made a case for this attacker being her husband.
                                Can you access this? (see post 2.):
                                http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=14748
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X