A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[PaulB]

We even have been accused of sexism just because we refused to accept the victims were proven prostitutes!!!


It is a case of throwing anything that comes to your hand against your opponent!



The Baron

As explained often enough for even you to have grasped, Baron, the argument is not that the victims have been "proven" to have been prostitutes, only that there is evidence that they were. Some people are satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that they were prostitutes. Proof may be lacking, but the evidence isn't, and, very simply, reaching conclusions based on the best assessment of the evidence is essentially what history is - "History means interpretation".

But please yourself, as I know you will.

[PaulB]

Have I put the blame on anyone for anything?Certainly not.Nor have I relied on anyone to support my claims.There is only one way to obtain the truth,and that is to prove the elements,whether it be to show historical truth.or for any other reason.Those claiming the Ripper victims were prostitutes admit the proof is not there.If the proof is not there ,then the truth that the victims were prostitutes,or were prostituting themselves the nights they were killed,cannot be had.A child would understand that.
All that the evidence shows,is that there is a basis for suspicion.Nothing more,and I have conceded that.What more do they want? Too late to prove those suspicions.It will remain a case of the victims could have been prostitututes,but have not been shown as such.
Paul.Ally,and a few others have locked themselves into a position,where it has become a contest between them and Rubenhold,and they must win.Childish.
The above two posts show their desperation.

Harry,
Briefly, you stated that you had clearly stated your position and normally wouldn't continue to post to this thread but would do so because other people keep quoting you and using your name. In other words, you are continuing to post because others keep referring to you, which is what Ally means by "blaming", otherwise you are placing the onus on the people who are responding to you. As Ally says, they're not forcing you to reply, the decision to do is yours. not anybody else's.

One might also infer from your own words that normally you would have clearly said your piece and said no more, like a man of strong opinions brooking no argument. Having an uncluttered, straight-ahead, clear view of things is what some people call "blinkered", and you certainly don't appear to allow your thinking to be changed by anything anyone has said to you. Your argument is the same now as it was when you first expressed it. You keep going on about "proof" despite being told that the "proof' you want doesn't exist. But you are correct that your argument would be clear to a child, but a child doesn't understand that arguments aren't quite so simple when one is trying to understand what happened a hundred, a thousand, or two thousand years ago.

Anyway, it is clear that nothing anyone says is going to deflect your understanding of things from the straightforward, clear-cut, thinking, but there is one thing you really must understand and that is the difference between evidence and proof. I am not trying to be rude, but Hallie Rubenhold has claimed that there is no evidence that the victims were prostitutes, whereas Allie and I and others argue that there is evidence. But it isn't a matter of whether or not the victims were prostitutes, but claims that the police and press branded all homeless and destitute women prostitutes. That has a bearing on police history, the policing of areas like the East End as a whole, and whether or not the police at the time gave a damn about what was going on. As you said, a child could understand your arguments, but maybe our slightly more complex arguments is why you don't understand them and think they're childish.

[harry]

Quite true Baron.Wonder what will be next.

[The Baron]

Have I put the blame on anyone for anything?Certainly not.Nor have I relied on anyone to support my claims.There is only one way to obtain the truth,and that is to prove the elements,whether it be to show historical truth.or for any other reason.Those claiming the Ripper victims were prostitutes admit the proof is not there.If the proof is not there ,then the truth that the victims were prostitutes,or were prostituting themselves the nights they were killed,cannot be had.A child would understand that.
All that the evidence shows,is that there is a basis for suspicion.Nothing more,and I have conceded that.What more do they want? Too late to prove those suspicions.It will remain a case of the victims could have been prostitututes,but have not been shown as such.
Paul.Ally,and a few others have locked themselves into a position,where it has become a contest between them and Rubenhold,and they must win.Childish.
The above two posts show their desperation.

We even have been accused of sexism just because we refused to accept the victims were proven prostitutes!!!


It is a case of throwing anything that comes to your hand against your opponent!



The Baron

[harry]

Have I put the blame on anyone for anything?Certainly not.Nor have I relied on anyone to support my claims.There is only one way to obtain the truth,and that is to prove the elements,whether it be to show historical truth.or for any other reason.Those claiming the Ripper victims were prostitutes admit the proof is not there.If the proof is not there ,then the truth that the victims were prostitutes,or were prostituting themselves the nights they were killed,cannot be had.A child would understand that.
All that the evidence shows,is that there is a basis for suspicion.Nothing more,and I have conceded that.What more do they want? Too late to prove those suspicions.It will remain a case of the victims could have been prostitututes,but have not been shown as such.
Paul.Ally,and a few others have locked themselves into a position,where it has become a contest between them and Rubenhold,and they must win.Childish.
The above two posts show their desperation.

[Ally]

Now I wouldn't normally keep posting on this thread,I have stated my position clear enough,but as other posters keep quoting my name,and what I have written,i'll reply.

You don't have to blame other people for your desire to continue the debate. You can actually just bow out, whether other people quote you or not, when you feel you've said all you have to say, no one is held hostage to a voluntary debate. Don't blame others for your voluntary actions.

I do not have to prove anything. I am not the one claiming the victims were prostitutes.I have not once stated they could not be.I have no objection to those who feel the information leads to a position of suspicion,but mere suspicion is not enough.Ask any policeman.

And if this were a court of law, this would be valid. It's not. It's a court of public debate. In a court of public debate, when one puts forth ones views, yes, one is required to "prove" them or at least support them. You can't make an assertion that people should not do A or should do B or that it is wrong to do A or B and then waffle out of it by saying "I don't have to prove anything, the burden of proof is on other people.". That's not how debate works, dear.

You make statements like there is no "proof" what they were doing in the early hours, while disregarding witness testimony that claims they were out earning their doss money, so do tell, how do YOU Think they were earning their doss money in the early hours of the morning? Selling crochet work? Flowers? Pawning hats? To whom?

Both Nichols and Chapman made statements that they intended to go out and earn their doss. So how precisely, in your esteemed opinion did they plan to do that in the small hours of the morning? And if your answer is "I don't know" it's convenient, and quite telling. Because anyone looking at this through the lens of logic, and not bias, would find the answer fairly clear.

[PaulB]

Now I wouldn't normally keep posting on this thread,I have stated my position clear enough,but as other posters keep quoting my name,and what I have written,i'll reply.
Posters are still giving the Helson interview with William Nichols as proof Polly was a prostitute .It doesn't.What that interview establishes is that some unknown source advised William that Polly was engaged in prostitution.As there is no knowledge of what exactly this unknown source did know,and William doesn't elaborate,one cannot come to a conclusion.It remains purely a claim only.It is not conclusive of anything.It does not prove Polly prostituted herself.
That is the case with all the other claims the victims were prostitutes.How did the claimants Know? It is not,as posters are claiming,that I am setting the standards too high.I am following basic law enforcement procedures.A claim is only useful if the elements of that claim can be proven.and those argueing against me agree there is no proof.
I do not have to prove anything.I am not the one claiming the victims were prostitutes.I have not once stated they could not be.I have no objection to those who feel the information leads to a position of suspicion,but mere suspicion is not enough.Ask any policeman.
I have noticed in the last few posts a tendancy by some, to quote the testimony of named persons as somehow being more aceptable than others.A sort of elite group,whose experience and standing in Ripper matters,are superior to others.A pretty quaint method of proof one might feel.
Your last sentence is not quite correct Paul.There would still be evidence that at least five women were killed,or would you rather have me write that at least five prostitutes were murdered?

Harry,
Unfortunately, I don't see much point in pursuing this matter. You can follow "basic law enforcement procedure", but this is history, not a live criminal investigation, and a historian doesn't use the same techniques or have the same requirements as a policeman, which perhaps explains why policemen don't teach the Wars of the Roses and a historian isn't invited to take charge of a criminal investigation. A historian tries to reconstruct what happened in the past, in this case of what possibly happened over a century ago, and there is very limited information on which to do it. Anyone who knows anything about history knows that history is built on conjecture, not on proofs.

It is perfectly understood that what William Nichols told the police isn't proof, and the deficiencies you point out are all too obvious, but there is also the corroborative evidence of Mary Nichols' fellow lodgers, who also said she was a prostitute. Their evidence is subject to the same caveats as William Nichols, but nevertheless, it is an independent source saying the same thing.

And there is the collected circumstantial evidence which has been very patiently pointed out to you, which adds to the probability.

You say that you don't have to prove anything because you're not claiming that the victims were prostitutes, but you are rejecting the claims of those who make that claim and you can be - and are being - called upon to defend that. Sadly, that's when you start demanding the sort of proofs that it is impossible to supply and when following police procedures don't apply.

Anyway, setting all that aside, the point is that nobody is - or at least nobody should be - saying that William Nichols' statement to the police is proof of anything. What they are saying - or should be saying - is that it constitutes evidence that she was a prostitute. And that is what this is all about: it is Hallie Rubenhold who says that there is no evidence that the victims were prostitutes. Well, Inspector Helson's report of what William Nichols said is evidence. Rubenhold may reject it, as you have rejected it, but she should have discussed it with her readers, but she didn't. In fact, she said no evidence existed.

[harry]

Now I wouldn't normally keep posting on this thread,I have stated my position clear enough,but as other posters keep quoting my name,and what I have written,i'll reply.
Posters are still giving the Helson interview with William Nichols as proof Polly was a prostitute .It doesn't.What that interview establishes is that some unknown source advised William that Polly was engaged in prostitution.As there is no knowledge of what exactly this unknown source did know,and William doesn't elaborate,one cannot come to a conclusion.It remains purely a claim only.It is not conclusive of anything.It does not prove Polly prostituted herself.
That is the case with all the other claims the victims were prostitutes.How did the claimants Know? It is not,as posters are claiming,that I am setting the standards too high.I am following basic law enforcement procedures.A claim is only useful if the elements of that claim can be proven.and those argueing against me agree there is no proof.
I do not have to prove anything.I am not the one claiming the victims were prostitutes.I have not once stated they could not be.I have no objection to those who feel the information leads to a position of suspicion,but mere suspicion is not enough.Ask any policeman.
I have noticed in the last few posts a tendancy by some, to quote the testimony of named persons as somehow being more aceptable than others.A sort of elite group,whose experience and standing in Ripper matters,are superior to others.A pretty quaint method of proof one might feel.
Your last sentence is not quite correct Paul.There would still be evidence that at least five women were killed,or would you rather have me write that at least five prostitutes were murdered?

[PaulB]

William Nichols provided Helson the following information: ‘They separated about 9 years since in consequence of her drunken habits. For some time he allowed her 5/- per week, but in 1882, it having come to his knowledge that she was living the life of a prostitute he discontinued the allowance. In consequence of this she became chargeable to the Guardians of the Parish of Lambeth by whom the husband was Summoned to show cause why he should not be ordered to contribute towards her support, and on these facts being proved, the summons was dismissed.’ (MEPO 3/140, ff. 235–8).

Lewis Diemshietz testified at the inquest on Stride: 'I then drove into the yard, both of the gates being wide open. It was rather dark there. All at once my pony shied at some object on the right. I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what. It was a dark object. I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could only get sufficient light to see that there was some figure there. I could tell from the dress that it was the figure of a woman.
You did not disturb it? - No, I went into the club and asked where my wife was. I found her in the front room on the ground floor.'

Joseph Lawende stated at the inquest: 'On the night of Sept. 29, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke-street, together with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left. I observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church-passage, Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square.'

Nichols' fellow lodgers at 18 Thrawl Street stated "they identified the deceased as Polly who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses. Likely paying four pence each. Each woman having a separate bed. It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an unfortunate while lodging in the house, which is only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them but that when she presented herself for lodging there Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy.”

No one saw Lewis Diemshietz discover the body of Elizabeth Stride, there is not anything to corroborate or evaluate his statement, but we assume he was telling the truth and accept his statement without much question.

No one witnessed Lawende, Levy and Harris leaving the Imperial Club and walking past Church passage where they saw Eddowes standing with a man, but we believe them without anything existing that we can use to evaluate the truthfulness of their statement.

But when it comes to the interview with the police with a victim's husband that the victim was "living the life of a prostitute[...] and those facts being proved - this testimony is questionable due to a lack of additional information we can evaluate.

When women who knew and lodged with a victim stated the victim "had lived the life of an unfortunate", we are to question this as unreliable because there's no additional evidence (having already dismissed William Nichols' evidence) that she in fact did live the life of an unfortunate.

It seems to me that a higher standard is being used when it comes to the prostitute question as opposed to any other aspect of the case where all we have are the words of the witnesses with nothing in existence to corroborate them.

JM

The sort of evidence Harry wants just doesn't exist, and if he wanted it for all those statements ten we'd have no history of the Whitechapel murders.

[PaulB]

No,I have not suggested Helson lied,or that William Nichols lied.Helson was given information by Nichols that he,(William) had been advised that Polly had resorted to prostitution.So the information came from a source not known to us.
As we do not know the source, and we have no evidence that the source was searched for and found ,nor what was said by that source,then we are unable to make an evaluation of the claim that Polly had resorted to prostitution.That is the position today,like it or not.There are no maybees on my part.She was either a prostitute or she was not.I see no amount of accumulated evidence that any of the victims were prostituting themselves the days they died,or that prostitution was an important element in police thinking.
Your feelings I will always ask for proof are quite sound Paul.I will,and I have the feeling you will not be providing that proof.I would not lecture anyone on anything,except perhaps that in murder enquiries,the police will sometimes acknowledge that the best is not always enough.
There is circumstancial evidence a large number of women were in need of money,and real evidence they did not prostitute themselves to get some.That's my proof.Well not proof realy,lets say suspicion,but I would argue Polly and the other victims more fit my suspicions than any other.

Harry,
We don't have the proof positive you want and probably - and this is the important bit - we'll never have it. We are looking back on a relatively poorly documented event that happened 130 years ago, and from the evidence we have, we are trying to understand what happened. We have fragments of information such a Halson's report, and we are trying to put them together with other fragments of information to make a picture of what happened. Inspector Helson's report is a piece of evidence, but on its own it is useless. It is like a jig-saw piece that's just blue and could be sea, sky, or just a pair of jeans. It's only when that piece is connected to another piece that it starts to form a picture.

We wouldn't be doing this if we had the sort of absolute proof that you want. We'd know that William Nichols was telling the truth and that his wife was a prostitute. But we have William Nichols' statement and we have independent corroboration in a different source by some women who knew Mary Nichols and lodged with her. And whilst we have no absolute proof that what they said was true, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report. So, we have two sources saying the same thing. On top of that, we have Nichols leaving her lodgings in need of 4d for a bed. She has nothing to sell, no work to go to, and it's late at night, yet she is confident that she will soon have the money and be back at her lodgings. She is later found dead in a dark and lonely back street, the sort of secluded place a prostitute would go with a client. You have the evidence from two sources that Nichols was a prostitute, you know she needed money, you know that she had limited options of getting it, you know that she was confident of getting it in a short time, and you know she was found dead in a dark back street of the sort that prostitutes used. I don't think you are going to conclude that she was there playing tiddlywinks, so what conclusion do you reach? What plausible alternative construction can you place on the evidence?

There is no reason to doubt that they were turfed out of their lodgings because they lacked the money for their bed. That is rather more than circumstantial evidence. And it is absolutely untrue to say that you have "real evidence" that they weren't prostituting themselves to get some. What evidence do you have that Nichols and Chapman weren't engaged in prostitution? You may feel you have no evidence that they were, but that doesn't mean there's any evidence that they weren't. The one thing you haven't done, Harry, is present an alternative construction on the facts to explain how Nichols got to Bucks Row and what she was doing there.

But if you don't mind, I am going to conclude this discussion here. Everything has been explained over and over and it seems self-evident that none of it is acceptable to you. There doesn't seem much point in pursuing what is a time-consuming exercise that achieves nothing. Anyway, whether or not the victims were prostitutes doesn't really matter to anyone, except Hallie Rubenhold, who wants them not to have been. You have a point that these women should not have been called prostitutes without good evidence that that is what they were. But the police in 1888 concluded that they were and whilst we don't know the evidence on which that conclusion was based, there is good reason to believe that it was based on evidence, which leaves us with little choice but to accept that there were probably right.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Says it all as far as I’m concerned Jon

[jmenges]

No,I have not suggested Helson lied,or that William Nichols lied.Helson was given information by Nichols that he,(William) had been advised that Polly had resorted to prostitution.So the information came from a source not known to us.
As we do not know the source, and we have no evidence that the source was searched for and found ,nor what was said by that source,then we are unable to make an evaluation of the claim that Polly had resorted to prostitution.

William Nichols provided Helson the following information: ‘They separated about 9 years since in consequence of her drunken habits. For some time he allowed her 5/- per week, but in 1882, it having come to his knowledge that she was living the life of a prostitute he discontinued the allowance. In consequence of this she became chargeable to the Guardians of the Parish of Lambeth by whom the husband was Summoned to show cause why he should not be ordered to contribute towards her support, and on these facts being proved, the summons was dismissed.’ (MEPO 3/140, ff. 235–8).

Lewis Diemshietz testified at the inquest on Stride: 'I then drove into the yard, both of the gates being wide open. It was rather dark there. All at once my pony shied at some object on the right. I looked to see what the object was, and observed that there was something unusual, but could not tell what. It was a dark object. I put my whip handle to it, and tried to lift it up, but as I did not succeed I jumped down from my barrow and struck a match. It was rather windy, and I could only get sufficient light to see that there was some figure there. I could tell from the dress that it was the figure of a woman.
You did not disturb it? - No, I went into the club and asked where my wife was. I found her in the front room on the ground floor.'

Joseph Lawende stated at the inquest: 'On the night of Sept. 29, I was at the Imperial Club, Duke-street, together with Mr. Joseph Levy and Mr. Harry Harris. It was raining, and we sat in the club till half-past one o'clock, when we left. I observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church-passage, Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square.'

Nichols' fellow lodgers at 18 Thrawl Street stated "they identified the deceased as Polly who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses. Likely paying four pence each. Each woman having a separate bed. It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an unfortunate while lodging in the house, which is only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them but that when she presented herself for lodging there Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy.”

No one saw Lewis Diemshietz discover the body of Elizabeth Stride, there is not anything to corroborate or evaluate his statement, but we assume he was telling the truth and accept his statement without much question.

No one witnessed Lawende, Levy and Harris leaving the Imperial Club and walking past Church passage where they saw Eddowes standing with a man, but we believe them without anything existing that we can use to evaluate the truthfulness of their statement.

But when it comes to the interview with the police with a victim's husband that the victim was "living the life of a prostitute[...] and those facts being proved - this testimony is questionable due to a lack of additional information we can evaluate.

When women who knew and lodged with a victim stated the victim "had lived the life of an unfortunate", we are to question this as unreliable because there's no additional evidence (having already dismissed William Nichols' evidence) that she in fact did live the life of an unfortunate.

It seems to me that a higher standard is being used when it comes to the prostitute question as opposed to any other aspect of the case where all we have are the words of the witnesses with nothing in existence to corroborate them.

JM

[Mark J D]

... I just wonder whether she actually sold her book to the publisher prior to doing the research and did so on the basis that it had a popular appeal to a feminist audience and overturned what male Ripperologists had repeated for 130 years.

I've had the same thought -- though, in my case, I employed the term 'pampered misandrist liberal' rather than 'feminist' (which I believe is a much over-used word). The liberal's privilege, self-regard, opportunism, bullying cowardice and lack of empathy have all been very much in evidence throughout 'the HR phenomenon'. Feminism it isn't.

Something I would like to suggest, though, is that modern popular culture (i.e. corporate owned mass entertainment product) has taken people whose heads were already messed up about 'prostitution', and messed them up even more -- and not least where the Whitechapel murders are concerned. The following photograph is, believe it or not, 'Annie Chapman': a sick and dying 47-year-old offering her raddled body for pennies so she can get somewhere to sleep is being played by a Barbara Windsor not out of her twenties and dressed to the nines. When a Ripper victim soliciting on screen is a sight to make Kenneth Connor go 'Phwoarr!' -- and it has to be, otherwise where's the audience 'involvement' in the ensuing murder? -- how can the 'normal' person possibly have a sane attitude to any of this -- let alone to 'occasional subsistence prostitution, c.1888'...?

M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Slam dunk,Herlock.How come?.Who were the sources that informed William Nicholls his wife was prostituting herself? Do you know?How many times have i read how those who are now relying on newspaper reports,tell us that little reliance can be placed on those reports.The same posters,with you Herlock prominent,stressing that for historical purposes,proof is essential.How many times Herlock,have you demanded proof.Now when I ask for proof you appear outraged.
What was claimed by William and proven,was Polly's persistent drinking and absconding five or six times.Next time ask Jon to give the full details,and at the same time,ask your pal Paul where he got the information Polly's friend Holland ,states Polly would do anything.
Obviously Herlock,I know nothing of the information given by you.I do know it was possible for a female to live without prostituting herself.Thousands did,even the poor and desperate.So it is easy for me to accept that the Ripper victims could.
Jack London ,the author, stated that in 1902 when he (London) was in London he met and spoke with a person who had been awarded two Victoria crosses.Now that person had died in New Zealand some years previous.Just be carefull Herlock when taking things for granted,no matter who the author is.

Harry, over on the Schwartz threads I’ve been critical of people constantly quoting different newspaper reports and jumping on slight differences in wording to make points. I’m only guessing but I probably post fewer newspaper quotes than most.

There’s a difference of course between having evidence for something (or indeed strong or very strong evidence) and having absolute proof. You appear to be demanding absolute proof which in many occasions is an impossible ask. If we had a poll, for example, on whether Annie Chapman was a ripper victim Im guessing that the vast majority would say that she was. A few might disagree (those for example who believe that there was more than one killer) Do we have absolute proof that she was a ripper victim? No we don’t. So are we wrong to keep calling her a victim? Are those that call her a victim mistaken? Should we call all of the victims ‘possible victims?’ Or does it serve no purpose?

You say that you know nothing about the information that I used. Isn’t it better to assess the evidence before giving an opinion Harry?

My pal Paul? There’s a possibility that I was in the same room as Paul once over 20 years ago Harry so I don’t think that’s enough for me to claim that we are mates. I know Paul as everyone who knows about the subject knows Paul. He’s acknowledged as an expert on the subject Harry so I’d say that his opinion is worth listening to. Should that be an issue?

Yes of course some women managed to live without having to resort to prostitution Harry but most men probably didn’t beat their wives it doesn’t mean that wife beating didn’t go on.

As I said Harry it would be almost impossible to prove that any women engaged in prostitution but we can’t assume that no one did so what we have to do is to assess what we do know. And when we do that it is beyond all reasonable doubt that these women were forced b circumstances into prostitution. To say otherwise we have to start accusing people of lying or initiating slanderous campaigns. The evidence exists Harry. If we can send someone to prison on the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ basis then surely it’s no crime to suggest that a woman engaged in prostitution by using the same criteria?

[harry]

No,I have not suggested Helson lied,or that William Nichols lied.Helson was given information by Nichols that he,(William) had been advised that Polly had resorted to prostitution.So the information came from a source not known to us.
As we do not know the source, and we have no evidence that the source was searched for and found ,nor what was said by that source,then we are unable to make an evaluation of the claim that Polly had resorted to prostitution.That is the position today,like it or not.There are no maybees on my part.She was either a prostitute or she was not.I see no amount of accumulated evidence that any of the victims were prostituting themselves the days they died,or that prostitution was an important element in police thinking.
Your feelings I will always ask for proof are quite sound Paul.I will,and I have the feeling you will not be providing that proof.I would not lecture anyone on anything,except perhaps that in murder enquiries,the police will sometimes acknowledge that the best is not always enough.
There is circumstancial evidence a large number of women were in need of money,and real evidence they did not prostitute themselves to get some.That's my proof.Well not proof realy,lets say suspicion,but I would argue Polly and the other victims more fit my suspicions than any other.