overkill

[Shelley]

Hi Lozle & halomanuk,

I think that pimps would generate a better source of income from much younger prostitutes, rather than old duckies like Tabram, Tabram wouldn't be that much of a bet for supplying pimps with much money, so if a pimp wanted to let off some steam with nasty violence he's likely to target an older woman rather than a younger one. It's likely that Tabram was only a part time prostitute, but a source for some income never the less, she did have a drink problem after all.

[halomanuk]

Hello Lauren,
If,however,Tabram was NOT one of his but was operating on his turf all the time in the George yard Buildings and he had warned her many times to stop,then he may have had to do it to save face in his own area.
Or he might have wanted to do it - hence the frenzy involved.

Just a theory,

Hope you are well Lauren.

[Lozle]

Hello,

On the point of "pimping" and the individual doing the "pimping" murdering or playing a part in a frenzied attack on Martha Tabram is a more than reasonable statement, however, I doubt the individual doing the "pimping" would intentionally try to kill Martha Tabram as it would ultimately cut their own income down.

I agree, the individual doing the "pimping" quite possibly could attack one of the women at some point to set an example to other women to put them in a constant state of panic. However, the attack on Martha Tabram seems to indicate an act with the intention of killing her, what with the 38stabs to the throat / breasts / stomach and another stab wound in the area of her heart. Whether the individual attacking Martha Tabram was in such an emotional state they just couldn't control themselves - which is my personal belief - is quite plausible, which could therefore be committed by anyone Martha Tabram may have upset.

I would think that if a pimp were to "have it out" with her to scare her so she would give them money, there would be a verbal altercation, threats made or the "pimp" could quite possibly beat her up, but I doubt they would have the intention to kill one of his sources of income.

Many thanks and all the best.

[halomanuk]

It is certainly something a pimp in 1888 (or 2009 in fact) could quite easily do,if she had been warned off his 'patch' a few times and still brought clients back there.
Definately possibly Shelley,in most places at that time.

[Shelley]

I did have a look at one time concerning George Yard Buildings, i thought i came accross some tenants that appeared to use some ' occupations ' that were a cover for those involved with prostitution, so it could be that who ever attacked Tabram, and possibility for a second man at the scene of Tabram's killing may have been a guy that was ' pimping ' these unfortunate women. Just leaving a thought here about it.

Good observation, Mike.

Sometimes I get lucky Sam.

All the best mon frere

[Sam Flynn]

Good observation, Mike.

I don't know about "frequently more filthy", Garry. Model Dwellings usually had strict rules and rotas for keeping the communal passageways in good order.

Which is supported by the fact that not one drop of blood was found on the steps to the Model Homes off Goulston....the search itself implying that it would have been visible if there. That to me means the steps and landings were reasonably free of dirt and refuse.

All the best.

[Sam Flynn]

The problem, though, Sam, is that the landings of those tenement buildings were frequently more filthy and urine-soaked than the open streets or dank alleyways you mentioned.

I don't know about "frequently more filthy", Garry. Model Dwellings usually had strict rules and rotas for keeping the communal passageways in good order.

[Fisherman]

Jeff writes:

"Just thought I would add that we do have some indication that appearance was important at least to some of the victims.
We have Poly Nichols saying “ see what a jolly bonnet I have, I will son get the doss money” (may not be exact wording off top of head) and of course there are tails of Mary Jane Kelly parading the neighborhood with her clean Apron."

Exactly, Jeff - good points well presented!

(there Jane - see what I mean?)

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"You Approve!

I must be doing something right!"

Actually, Jane, it HAS been known to happen....!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Guys

Thanks for some interesting posts. Just thought I would add that we do have some indication that appearance was important at least to some of the victims.

We have Poly Nichols saying “ see what a jolly bonnet I have, I will son get the doss money” (may not be exact wording off top of head) and of course there are tails of Mary Jane Kelly parading the neighborhood with her clean Apron. I’ve always wondered if the tin bathtub beneath the bed was a small laundry/washing business?

And as someone pointed out care and pride in clothes was to some extent more important then. Kate had a sewing kit on her, and I always remember my old Nanna carrying one saying “a stitch in time saves nine” and doing repairs as they happened.

I agree that we cannot compare modern thinking with those of the time. One of my main mantras, but we should be careful of making any assumption that appearance and keeping clean would not have been important. The standards would have been different, yes, imagine the smell. But I think the victims would have been in a market where it did matter how they looked. Look it Liz the night she was murdered, if she was doing business (which I believe) she had gone to some trouble to look good and of respectable appearance.

All the best

Pirate

[Jane Welland]

Fisherman!

...and this time I have no objections at all. A thoroughly good post there, Jane!

The best,
Fisherman

You Approve!

I must be doing something right!

Have a good day - and thanks!

Jane x

[Fisherman]

...and this time I have no objections at all. A thoroughly good post there, Jane!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman, Dorian..

Interesting posts - I think we must be a bit careful not to impose our own 21st Century perceptions of cleanliness - and the desire for it - on to a late 19th Century situation.

I doubt that some of the women - who couldn't even find the money for accommodation - had more than one set of clothes. Probably, they wore them until they fell off. But yes, they would have wanted and needed to preserve them imo - because if they didn't, where was the next set going to come from?

Clothing for them was about protection first and foremost - from the weather, mostly. They may have dreamed of having a nice dress - who knows? But I don't think fashion was really an option for them. It's a stark contrast with the affluent societies most of us in the West inhabit today - where clothing is embued with a set of choices which display and confirm our social identity in a conscious way.

But, less of the sociology, and back to the topic under discussion! No, I don't think women such as Martha would have laid themselves down on the floor for sex - and in fact this must be self-evident from the term 'knee-trembler' - the exact origins of which are not certain, but which is thought currently to date from the mid-19th Century at least.

I think there was probably more than one reason for this being the preferred mode of conducting business if one was engaged in prostitution - cleaner, yes, but also less vulnerable.

Jane x