Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Ada?

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

  • DRoy
    replied
    With all do respect to Mark's article, I don't think there is any reason to suggest this incident didn't happen exactly the way Ada and Rose say it did. We'll have to continue to speculate on who stabbed her but I'd say it is more likely to have been someone other than her husband.

    If her stabber was the young man that Rose saw then she was either letting him in or out. Regardless, he didn't run away immediately because Rose saw him. Instead of leaving through the door after stabbing her, he would have to have gone back down the hall for some reason then turn back around and rush through the door. That doesn't sound right to me. I believe Ada told the truth and her stabber was someone else.

    After being stabbed Ada screams, and those screams alarm Rose who then rushes to the stairs and begins going down them. Ada notices Rose since she yells out "Stop that man for cutting my throat". Using the word 'stop' suggests that the man is moving away from where Ada was. So she couldn't possibly have meant the young man that Rose saw.

    The papers say that a neighbour chased after the man who stabbed Ada so perhaps the young man Rose saw rush out the door past Ada was a neighbour? I don't think Ada or Rose stated who chased after the man who stabbed her so who was it that told the papers? It might have been the young man who gave that info. Perhaps he really was a neighbour or said as much instead of saying he was Ada's customer?

    When you consider the timing between Ada screaming and Rose rushing down the stairs, it seems illogical that within those seconds she'd make up a story to protect either the other man that Rose saw leave or her husband. I find it difficult to believe that seconds after her "terrible screams" she'd compose herself to protect someone she knew and then faint immediately afterwards.

    Cheers
    DRoy

    Leave a comment:


  • DRoy
    replied
    Ben,

    Thank you for sharing your opinion. I'm not convinced either way at this point. I'm sure some people took their clients home and I'm sure some didn't.

    I didn't want to get in to MJK too much as I know there is an argument as to whether her killer was a client or not. As I mentioned, MJK had her friend prostitues staying with her before and after Barnett moved so what is the likelihood of her bringing clients home during that time? We'd be speculating but I would assume not too likely or at least not too often.

    Which brings us to Ada. Would she bring clients home even if she was a prostitute? Possible but I'm not sure whether probable or not. There still is no proof she was a prostitue to begin with.

    Thanks again Ben.

    Cheers
    DRoy

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Thanks again for the explanation! What you've said makes sense.
    I wouldn't be so easily swayed, DRoy. I thought you had it bang on the first time.

    There are perfectly good reasons for concluding that prostitutes who lived alone may not always have taken clients home, and you offer some very convincing reasons for this yourself. If we want a reliable indication of what someone in Kelly's position would do if she were truly concerned about impending rent-collection, we can do no better than Mary Cox, who, despite having her own room, serviced her clients on the streets. Why? Well, two very obvious reasons have already been expounded. 1) It was her only "sanctuary" away from work and didn't want it sullied. 2) It was more lucrative as it meant more clients could be "got through" quicker.

    Taking clients home also carried the risk of not being able to get rid of some smelly intoxicated lump after the deed was done, in contrast to an outdoor transaction, from which the prostitutes can simply walk away afterwards.

    In the Kelly murder, specifically, the case can obviously be made that Blotchy was a client, but this needn't hold true necessarily. She did seem to be singing for a some considerable time with him in the room, which appears to argue against a wham-bam type of transaction. It also argues very heavily against the oft-touted premise that Kelly was overly concerned about getting rent money.

    A final point on the Kelly murder before returning swiftly to Ada, but despite the erroneous claims above, there is good reason to conclude that Kelly was murdered by an intruder who pushed open the unlocked door and attacked her as she slept, as opposed to a client.

    I'm astonished that Jon thinks there was "nothing unusual" about men plying an alcoholic east end prostitute with booze and food in order to get their "wicked way". These weren't high class courtesans, Jon, and having a grotty hovel would not have prompted prostitutes with that "luxury" to pretend they were. The desperate circumstances of these women were such that they needed the clients far more than the clients needed them. The idea that some prostitutes would only hold out for clients who were willing to wine and dine them falls significantly short of reality.
    Last edited by Ben; 01-02-2014, 09:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    "The husband who never was". That's the title.

    Leave a comment:


  • DRoy
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    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
    Jon,

    Thanks for that, hadn't seen that before. I don't have the Ripperoligist article but will be looking for it.

    I hope his article will help me cross Ada off the list of possible Ripper victims.

    Cheers
    DRoy

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DRoy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DRoy
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Brenda
    replied
    .

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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cogidubnus
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X