A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[PaulB]

What seems strange to me Paul is how an historian could have been ignorant of these things in the first place? Had her historical education completely ignored the Victorian era? It’s difficult to see how anyone could think that she’d made any revelations?

Historians aren't usually bothered with topics like Jack the Ripper, so I doubt that many have more than a very superficial knowledge of the case. I don't think it would have been unusual for HR to be largely ignorant of the case. What I do find surprising is that she persisted in her theory even after she'd done her research. I mean, it's a hell of a thing for a historian to overturn 130-years of accepted history. To me, that suggests an arrogance to think everyone else got it wrong, to have such a low opinion of researchers like Sugden, Stewart and even me, as to suppose that we'd never wondered what the evidence was and why we continued to believe the victims were prostitutes. And she was exceptionally defensive from the outset, showing no inclination to discuss her arguments with other authorities. But beyond that there is her absolute unwillingness to engage with her critics and to twist their words and diminish and belittle them whenever she can. 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.

[PaulB]

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, William Nichols was summoned to explain why he had stopped supporting his wife, he explained it was because he had learned she had become a prostitute, and his claim was investigated by the authorities and he was shown to be correct. If you disagree with this, find out the facts for yourself and then argue your piece from an informed position instead of ignorance. Who knows, your original research might prove you correct and also add to our knowledge.

On 7 September 1888, Inspector Helson, J Division, summarised the investigation to date and referred to the evidence of William Nichols: "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).

Are you suggesting that Inspector Helson lied? If so, what evidence do you have for thinking that? If not, do you accept that it is what William Nichols said? Or do you think William lied to the police? If so, upon what evidence do you base your concerns. Or are you just arguing that people lie, William is a person, therefore William is lying?

Perhaps those who are satisfied that William was telling the truth are silly and naive, or too lazy to do further research, or are simply happy to lump William Nichols' statement with other evidence that Nichols was a prostitute and draw their conclusions. That accumulated evidence has been explained to you in some detail. Maybe the evidence is all untrustworthy, maybe the construction people have put on it is wrong, but "maybe" isn't enough, Harry. You need more than maybees to support you.

You see, I have this feeling that you'll always ask for proof. If I actually produced a conviction for prostitution, you'd ask for proof that the witnesses saw happening what they said they saw, and you'd lecture me about the unreliability of witness testimony, and you'll argue that Nichols' behaviour could have been misconstrued. I think you'll do that because you won't accept your wrong or because you like to be perverse. And I think that's great. I think we need people like you to question us and keep us on our toes. But right now you are asking from proof that probably doesn't exist anymore. Helson's report of what Nichols said is enough for most people, and what Nichols said is independently supported by what the women from Mary Nichols' lodgings said, and, although what they said is only found in a newspaper report, an examination of that report suggests that it is reliable. So, people are happy to accept two sources telling us the same thing. And we have other circumstantial evidence, such as Nichols being without money, stating her intention to get some, and the options she had to do that, and the fact that somehow she found herself in a dark back street where she was killed. It's understandable that people accept Nichols was a prostitute. That's your proof, Harry. It's probably the best you are ever going to get.

[harry]

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is believed that after the success of Harlots, which Hallie Rubenhold apparently claimed drew upon her book, she was looking for another 'prostitutes' project and plumped for Jack the Ripper, a subject about which she knew little or nothing. She was shocked to discover that they didn't work out of a brothel and didn't rely on prostitution for their income. She further discovered that they'd led "respectable" lives, been married, had children, and were basically reduced to a subsistence level by the male-driven society in which they lived. When she decided to argue that the women weren't prostitutes, but were branded as such because that's how the police and the press described all destitute and homeless women, isn't precisely clear.

What seems strange to me Paul is how an historian could have been ignorant of these things in the first place? Had her historical education completely ignored the Victorian era? It’s difficult to see how anyone could think that she’d made any revelations?

[PaulB]

Exactly Caz,

An agenda as a selling point.

It is believed that after the success of Harlots, which Hallie Rubenhold apparently claimed drew upon her book, she was looking for another 'prostitutes' project and plumped for Jack the Ripper, a subject about which she knew little or nothing. She was shocked to discover that they didn't work out of a brothel and didn't rely on prostitution for their income. She further discovered that they'd led "respectable" lives, been married, had children, and were basically reduced to a subsistence level by the male-driven society in which they lived. When she decided to argue that the women weren't prostitutes, but were branded as such because that's how the police and the press described all destitute and homeless women, isn't precisely clear.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It was 'questioned' by Hallie R, but if she had to distort the evidence in order to do so, and knew what she was doing, it immediately raises the next question: what was motivating her?

Love,

Caz
X

Exactly Caz,

An agenda as a selling point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Also, Thomas Bates, who lived in Stride's lodging house and knew her, told a reporter for the Star that Elizabeth Stride "was a clean and hardworking woman. Her usual occupation was that of a charwoman, and it was only when driven to extremities that she walked the streets.’ (The Star, 1 October 1888).

Couldn’t really be clearer Paul. From a man who clearly wasn’t trying to label or insult her.

[caz]

I can’t see why either Caz. It’s in no way insulting to a woman to say that the horrific position that the society of the time placed them in left them with no choice. It’s a reflection on the society that they lived in and not in them. Some men at the time certainly saw prostitutes as doing what they did because they had poor morals or because they were to some extent nymphomaniacs but thankfully we’re past that now (hopefully at least) So we’re not insulting anyone. We’re simply stating a reality. I can’t understand why this is being questioned can you?

Hi Herlock,

It was 'questioned' by Hallie R, but if she had to distort the evidence in order to do so, and knew what she was doing, it immediately raises the next question: what was motivating her?

Love,

Caz
X

[PaulB]

And of course we know that Stride, living in poverty in Sweden, resorted to prostitution. Whitechapel was hardly the land of milk and honey.

Also, Thomas Bates, who lived in Stride's lodging house and knew her, told a reporter for the Star that Elizabeth Stride "was a clean and hardworking woman. Her usual occupation was that of a charwoman, and it was only when driven to extremities that she walked the streets.’ (The Star, 1 October 1888).

[PaulB]

I’m sorry but the only thing that can be called ludicrous is the denial of what information that has come down to us and the unreasonable request for impossible levels of evidence.

Halleluiah! The voice of reason cannot speak loudly or often enough. I know it's terribly rude to say this, and I apologise for that, but anyone familiar with history knows that irrefutable proofs simply don't exist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And of course we know that Stride, living in poverty in Sweden, resorted to prostitution. Whitechapel was hardly the land of milk and honey.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I know of no police statement,that collectively or singly, states the police were familier or knew the victims prior to their death.So how then could the police state with conviction the victims were or had been prostitutes.All the police had was information given by friends,relations,or aquaintances.

An early report in the Irish Times, in regard to the Berner street victim, says:

The murdered woman has not been identified, and, indeed, up to the present, none but the doctors have been allowed to enter Cable street Mortuary, where the body lies. It may be stated, however, that the police authorities at Leman street do not share the belief which prevails in the neighbourhood that the woman is a stranger to the Whitechapel district, and was decoyed there from some other part of London. On the contrary, they believe her to have been both a resident in the neighbourhood, and a member of the same unfortunate [c]lass to which the former victims belonged. However this may be, both her clothing and general appearance, according to those who w[e]re present when the ghastly discovery was made - for the police have apparently strict orders to close all channels of information to members of the Press - seem to indicate that she had not sunk so low as Chapman, the last of the unfortunate women murdered.

Leman street's opinion must have had something to do with information provided by beat constables, and Smith did say that when he first saw the deceased, he recognized her at once. On the other hand, Stride was found with no money on her. It would be easy to suppose that that was because she had spent it, but she was not known to have entered a pub after 11pm.

So in Stride's case, we are dealing with subjective probabilities. The morally correct, in contrast, obviously deal with subjective certainties. You can't win with those types. You can only join them, or ignore them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But Herlock,it is ludicrous and achieves nothing by calling them prostitutes.It isn't a case that I am denying that prostitution didn't exist,I am questioning whether there is evidence the Ripper's victims were proven to be, or had been prostitutes.
Let us take the claim that the police expressed that view.I know of no police statement,that collectively or singly, states the police were familier or knew the victims prior to their death.So how then could the police state with conviction the victims were or had been prostitutes.All the police had was information given by friends,relations,or aquaintances.That the police knew,is as far as I can recant,taken from an interview between a police officer and Nichols husband.It was the husband who made the allegations,not the police,but that fact has been twisted to give the impression it was evidence the police accepted as factual.No one knows how the police treated those claims.
Now Holland,a friend is claimed as saying Nichols would do anything to get by,or words to that effect,,but Holland didn't use the word prostitution,so it cannot be reasonably argued,that the probability is overwhelming that prostitution was part of that anything.
Now to William Nichols,the husband,wrongly claimed as stating he knew she prostituted herself.What William Nichols claimed,was that he had heard ,from other people,she was living by prostitution.As he also claimed his last contact with Polly had been in 1885,three years previous to her death,it's doubtful his evidence proves anything.Just one other thing,it appears William Nichols left his wife for another woman,that is when the marriage started to flounder,but Polly,left with 5 children,is remembered as the wrongdoer.
So in conclusion,a lot of hearsay,but no firm proof of prostitution by the victims.

I’m sorry but the only thing that can be called ludicrous is the denial of what information that has come down to us and the unreasonable request for impossible levels of evidence.

As Jon posted earlier. Helson:

”For some time he allowed her five shillings per week, but in 1882, at 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 as to why he should not be ordered to contribute towards her support, and these facts being proved, the summons was dismissed.”

The police didn’t just take Nichols word for it. They had to look into his claim before a decision could be arrived at. They did and the facts were proved. This one alone is a slam dunk Harry.

Crossingham was unequivocally stated that he’d known her for 16 months as a prostitute.

This wasn’t Mayfair or Belgravia where the accusation of prostitution would have been a shock/horror issue. Prostitution was rife in Whitechapel as you know Harry and so claiming that someone indulged in Prostitution was no more shocking than being called a pickpocket. Crossingham wouldn’t therefore have been using it to blacken her name. In deed it might be asked why he would want to raise the suggestion that he allowed prostitution on the premises.

The attempted ‘defence’ of how she’d intended to earn her doss money at 2.30am if not from prostitution is pretty desperate I’m afraid.

Mary Nichols engaged in prostitution. This is as near to a proven fact as we can get. Anyone judging this evidence reasonably would say that it’s been proven easily beyond all reasonable doubt.

Then when you have people like friends of these women who clearly wanted to respect their memories mentioning or blatantly implying prostitution it simply has to be a case of fingers in the ears and a hand over the eyes to deny it. There really can be no doubt about this Harry. It’s proven beyond any reasonable level of doubt. I even think that this is being too cautious. They engaged in prostitution…end of story.

The call for more evidence is pointless Harry. A hypothetical for you:

We read of a Whitechapel man that Inspector Smith said “he was a violent bugger; always spoiling for a fight.” Then we had his ex-wife saying “every time he came back from the pub he used to knock me about.” Then his best friend said “he was a good bloke who’d do anyone a good turn. Ok, he had a bit of a temper and could get a bit tasty after a few pints.”

We have no official documents about the above. No police or court statements. Do we say that we shouldn’t label this bloke as a violent man or do we say that the events points to him certainly being inclined to violence?

I think that we all know the answer to that one Harry.

[bolo]

Hey Herlock,

This issue should be black and white. Why is it being pursued?

there is no issue as far as I am concerned, the world just never was black and white and never will be. I for myself am not going to ignore the details of the victims' biographies just because of some current line of thinking about what constitutes sexism and what does not. I'm at a loss as to why THAT is being pursued.

Grüße,

Boris

[harry]

But Herlock,it is ludicrous and achieves nothing by calling them prostitutes.It isn't a case that I am denying that prostitution didn't exist,I am questioning whether there is evidence the Ripper's victims were proven to be, or had been prostitutes.
Let us take the claim that the police expressed that view.I know of no police statement,that collectively or singly, states the police were familier or knew the victims prior to their death.So how then could the police state with conviction the victims were or had been prostitutes.All the police had was information given by friends,relations,or aquaintances.That the police knew,is as far as I can recant,taken from an interview between a police officer and Nichols husband.It was the husband who made the allegations,not the police,but that fact has been twisted to give the impression it was evidence the police accepted as factual.No one knows how the police treated those claims.
Now Holland,a friend is claimed as saying Nichols would do anything to get by,or words to that effect,,but Holland didn't use the word prostitution,so it cannot be reasonably argued,that the probability is overwhelming that prostitution was part of that anything.
Now to William Nichols,the husband,wrongly claimed as stating he knew she prostituted herself.What William Nichols claimed,was that he had heard ,from other people,she was living by prostitution.As he also claimed his last contact with Polly had been in 1885,three years previous to her death,it's doubtful his evidence proves anything.Just one other thing,it appears William Nichols left his wife for another woman,that is when the marriage started to flounder,but Polly,left with 5 children,is remembered as the wrongdoer.
So in conclusion,a lot of hearsay,but no firm proof of prostitution by the victims.