Tweet
Originally posted by Tom_Wescott
View Post
Pirate
-
It's unlikely Chapman would have been sleeping in the yard if she could have gotten in the building.
Pirate -
That's the thing, she couldn't have slept in the building. It wasn't a tenement like George Yard, it was just a house where people rented individual rooms. Anyone trying to sleep in the hall would have been promptly booted, but perhaps undisturbed in the backyard. Keep in mind I'm not saying I THINK these women were killed while sleeping, but their circumstances as described in the time before their death, and the locations they were found at keep it open as a possibility.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
-
Yeah but the back yard doesn't seem like a logical place to kip, there must have been better shelter. Also at the Nichol's murder, if you wanted to sleep rough why not shelter in the Mission/school door way, you often see homeless today doing that.Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
PirateComment
-
Tom writes:
" Everyone here seems to be overlooking the FACT that George Yard residents reported people SLEEPING in the very spot Tabram was killed."
Depends on who you mean by everybody, Tom - itīs in the material, readily available to those who are interested.
What is NOT in the material, though, are any reports on prostitutes serving their customers lying down on the landing, and that is what we are discussing.
We know that Tabram stayed at doss houses, just like we know that the canonicals did, Kelly apart. Of course, it can be argued that they had to sleep rough if they had no money, but the fact of the matter is that we have no reports telling us that any of them did. They would, though desperately poor, have been a pin-hole over the most destitute people. And they would have avoided sleeping rough, though they could have saved money by doing it.
They mended and took care of what clothes they had, as shown by Eddowesīsewing kit. In all probability, they tried to stay as decent as they could.
Those who had already let go of that decency, vagrants, drunkards (and I know our girls drank, but there ar levels...) and such, would be the ones who primarily slept rough. I think itīs a fair assumption that "our girls" at least tried to stay away from it, salvaging as much they could of their health, their self-respect - and their clothes.
Sure enough people slept on them landings - but I donīt think that Tabram came there to do so. I think she came there to earn the money that could keep her away from it.
The best,
FishermanLast edited by Fisherman; 03-05-2009, 09:21 PM.Comment
-
I don't have any problem with the idea of Chapman sleeping rough in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St. But if she did, I've no idea how the Ripper knew she was in there.
In any case, the issue here is Tabram. She could have been attacked while sleeping. It's not impossible, and it would explain why she was found lying the say she was lying. However, if she was attacked in that way, why was she attacked? If she hadn't done anything to anyone, where is the frenzy I keep hearing about. (And don't believe in...)Comment
-
Chava writes:
"I don't have any problem with the idea of Chapman sleeping rough in the backyard of 29 Hanbury St."
It had been a cloudy day, Chava, with some little rain I believe, and so I donīt think a backyard under the open sky would have provided any much skelter. Surely those who needed to sleep rough would have found themselves a roof at the very least.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Pirate,
You must remember that Chapman was a very sickly and poorly nutritioned middle-age woman who had been on her feet for many hours. She clearly did not have money for a bed, so she would have had to have bedded down somewhere.
How would Jack have found her? That is an awesome question, and one to which I don't have an answer. Personally, I don't think she was sleeping. I think Long saw her with her killer.
Fisherman,
What's the difference between a prostitute sleeping there or punting there? If she's willing to lay down for one, she'd be willing to do so for the other. Tabram was a short woman and may not have been able to fascilate men of taller stature while standing up.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
-
Yes, I still think these girls all met jack and took him somewhere quiet. Its simple but it makes the most sense.Originally posted by Tom_Wescott View Post
PirateComment
-
tom asks:
"What's the difference between a prostitute sleeping there or punting there?"
Ask Ron Jeremy, Tom. A hint: you can do the one thing standing up, but not the other.
And like I said, what we have are reports of people sleeping rough on the landing, wheras we have no reports at all of women serving punters on their backs on it. There is a difference, you know!
Besides, since this point is being debated because a few people want to believe that Tabram raised her skirts herself, we may need to add that her clothes were torn open at the front - perhaps she was accomodating enough to supply that favour too...?
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Tom writes (about Chapman):
"She clearly did not have money for a bed, so she would have had to have bedded down somewhere"
She did not have any money when found, no - but Jack could have taken it, of course. You use to make that point yourself, I believe.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely don't believe Chapman spent a wet night out in the cold of the backyard of 29 Hanbury St. What I meant was that it was not impossible that she might do so. I think the same way you guys do. She picked him up and led him back there for a bit of privacy.Comment
-
Chapman only went out that night to get money for a bed. Presumably, had she done so, she would have been in bed at the time of her murder. It is of course possible that she had made SOME money, but not enough for a bed.
And what I said was that she had been robbed. That doesn't mean she had money. She probably told the Ripper she had no money, at which point he had her empty her pockets. He knocked the useless items from her hands and took her ring. As I pointed out in one of my Ripper Notes essays, her bottles of lotion and medicine were not found on her. I doubt she had completed use of both, or would have discarded the bottles if she had, so these were likely stolen as well.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
-
Tom W writes:
"Chapman only went out that night to get money for a bed. Presumably, had she done so, she would have been in bed at the time of her murder. It is of course possible that she had made SOME money, but not enough for a bed."
Thatīs the logical interpretation of it all - though very hard to prove, of course.
But I would have preferred an answer to the other point I made - the one of Tabrams clothing being torn open at the front. It is a more interesting subject, plus it actually belongs to the thread.
The best,
FishermanComment
-
Annie Chapman told a friend early evening that she had no luck but had to stay out to earn her bed money, despite feeling ill. I doubt very much that under the circumstances, and respectfully based somewhat on her looks, that she had made money she then chose not to use for a bed....as we know Polly did.....and in Liz's case she left her lodgings with enough to pay for her bed and have 2d left over...yet she didnt pay for it...and suggested she didnt know when she might return...to a place she was known to frequent.
Of those three...whose stuck outside that night with no money for a bed...and who chooses to be outside, by purposefully not paying for her bed while the money was in her hands?
Best regardsComment
-
Fishstix,
What about her torn clothes? I already addressed that. His attempts at mutilating Polly Nichols were frustrated by her clothing and stays, as borne out by the haphazard cuts to her belly. Learning his lesson, he cut through Chapman's clothes to fascilitate the mutilations.
Yours truly,
Tom WescottComment
Comment