A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘Selective editing,’ where have we seen that before? Oh yeah….in The Five.

[Ally]

Because it is not a proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that they were prositutes.


"if it were proven that they were prostitutes"


Is a big if Ally.




The Baron

You selectively edited out the substantial part of my question to answer the part that was morally comfortable. So I'll be more direct. What difference does it make? Why is it a "big if"? Would you be making a fuss if they were labeled as Flower-sellers and not prostitutes?

Four of the five were definitely prostitutes. It's not a big if. You want to dance around the givens because you make a moral distinction between them being labeled as prostitutes, and flower sellers. So what's the moral distinction? Do you find prostitutes morally objectionable? Bad people? Do you think... less of them?

[Herlock Sholmes]

For a feminist, it appears she has a rather low opinion of other women (in the world of ripperology anyway).

Or perhaps I'm just saying that because a man made me.

[PaulB]

Because it is not a proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that they were prositutes.


"if it were proven that they were prostitutes"


Is a big if Ally.




The Baron

Since when does history deal in 'proven facts'?

[Ms Diddles]

And isn’t it rich that a woman supposedly railing against ripperology’s alleged poor opinion of women can accuse a panel of intelligent and totally independent women of being somehow the willing dupes of male ripperologists. You couldn’t make it up.

For a feminist, it appears she has a rather low opinion of other women (in the world of ripperology anyway).

Or perhaps I'm just saying that because a man made me.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Agreed, Herlock!

Personally I find this bizarre whitewashing and sanitisation of their lives rather more insulting than just telling it like it is (was!).

And isn’t it rich that a woman supposedly railing against ripperology’s alleged poor opinion of women can accuse a panel of intelligent and totally independent women of being somehow the willing dupes of male ripperologists. You couldn’t make it up.

[Ms Diddles]

Exactly Ms D. As if we are insulting their memory by stating that they were forced by necessity to resort to prostitution when the reality was that for them it was often that or starve. Why would we, in 2021, seek to insult them? This is what HR appears to be saying. Which is pretty bizarre.

Agreed, Herlock!

Personally I find this bizarre whitewashing and sanitisation of their lives rather more insulting than just telling it like it is (was!).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly Ms D. As if we are insulting their memory by stating that they were forced by necessity to resort to prostitution when the reality was that for them it was often that or starve. Why would we, in 2021, seek to insult them? This is what HR appears to be saying. Which is pretty bizarre.

[Ms Diddles]

I do not know,Herlock,that Bucks Row was an intended destination.Do you?I know not how Nichols or Chapman expected to come by the money needed.Perhaps after a while it became clear to them the money was not to be had,and like other homeless persons,they would have to stay outdoors.So it's not a case of only one thing remaining,is it?A night on the 'Cobbles' was a regular resort of many at that time it has been reported.
I do not know they were engaged in prostitution.Not enough real evidence to say they were.Did they themselves acknowledge it?
What appears strange to me is the insistance,for 'Historical' reasons,that I and others should accept they were prostitutes.Does it matter?

Hi Harry!

I don't think it really does matter (to me, or most other posters).

Personally, I think the evidence that these women engaged in prostitution is pretty overwhelming (Kate being a possible exception).

I think the point for the purposes of this thread is that it sure seems to matter to HR, as a fundamental part of her argument is that the women have been maligned all these years and incorrectly labelled as prostitutes.

To me that says far more about where she's coming from (and perhaps what she feels about prostitutes) than it does about anything else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it’s proven beyond any reasonable doubt the these women indulged in prostitution whether occasionally or not. This has been stated explicitly (by Police, family and friends) and also implied (with the implication being beyond all other interpretation.) It’s even been strongly implied by people who were obviously very reluctant to tarnish the name of their dead friend. This couldn’t be clearer. Why would anyone on here want to support Rubenhold’s agenda? I find it strange.

What other ‘proof’ are we expecting? A Prostitutes Union card found in their possession? An ‘I Am A Prostitute’ badge? Their name on the registered Guild Of Prostitutes? Droves of clients all coming forward to say ‘I did it with her for cash?’ Let’s be real.

These women engaged in prostitution. If it wasn’t for Rubenhold’s nonsense we wouldn’t be discussing this issue.

[caz]

There was no money found on the victims, so we can reasonably infer that they had spent what little they had, or their killer robbed them of their last penny before leaving the scene.

I suspect he promised to pay well once they had arrived somewhere quiet, away from the main thoroughfare. He may even have shown them more money than they could have earned in a week by other means. That would have been quite an incentive for an unfortunate woman with no means, if she had ever previously had to sell sex to survive. The victims did not need to be actively soliciting when they met their killer, but the evidence suggests that if they weren't, he made them an offer they couldn't afford to refuse and went off with him anyway. Stride may well have been an exception, and possibly died because she wasn't willing for a shilling.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Baron]

Why precisely do you think we shouldn't be calling them prostitutes

Because it is not a proven fact beyond any reasonable doubt that they were prositutes.


"if it were proven that they were prostitutes"


Is a big if Ally.




The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do not know,Herlock,that Bucks Row was an intended destination.Do you?I know not how Nichols or Chapman expected to come by the money needed.Perhaps after a while it became clear to them the money was not to be had,and like other homeless persons,they would have to stay outdoors.So it's not a case of only one thing remaining,is it?A night on the 'Cobbles' was a regular resort of many at that time it has been reported.
I do not know they were engaged in prostitution.Not enough real evidence to say they were.Did they themselves acknowledge it?
What appears strange to me is the insistance,for 'Historical' reasons,that I and others should accept they were prostitutes.Does it matter?

I’ll just refer you to Jon’s post Harry as I can’t put it any better than that.

It’s not a case of Ripperologists ‘needing’ to portray those women as prostitutes it’s a case of asking why Rubenhold is so he’ll bent on trying to show that they weren’t (contrary to the evidence?) We’ve known for years that these women would try and earn money in other ways when they could but circumstances were against them. Times were tough enough for men of that class but they were far tougher for women. No one judges them for being forced into the position that they were in. From the off, Rubenhold’s agenda was obvious. Demonise ripperologists and portray herself as the virtuous, honest seeker after truth. Unfortunately she was willing to make things up to get there. The facts have found her out. So far she’s been shielded by the fact that 99% of her readers have done no research themselves and so they simply believe St Halle. Hopefully now, with the help of this Podcast the truth might reach a wider audience and bypass her attempts at censorship. What did she call the women on the Podcast? “An army of trolls’ or something like it. She might live to dislike those ‘trolls’ even more. I certainly hope so.

[Ally]

Harry, I agree with you wholeheartedly, calling women prostitutes based on cheap newspapers articles or any thing less than a court conviction without any reasonable doubt is a shame, we should be avoiding this.



The Baron

Really? It's a shame to rely on newspapers to give us facts about someone? Would you feel the same about it if the newspapers called them flower-sellers? No? So, then tell us, what moral judgment do you think these women deserve for being prostitutes? You clearly feel it's a slur on their character, so how exactly would your view of them change if it were proven that they were prostitutes? You'd think less of them? Why precisely do you think we shouldn't be calling them prostitutes, when the preponderance of the facts and testimony shows that they were? What judgment do you place on them for being so that we should out and out avoid labeling them thusly? What moral judgment do you place on that label?

[jmenges]

As you all may know, Rippercast had her book 3 months before it was released and our little group went through this book together and discussed it with one another in depth.
Here are 3 examples from that discussion not taken from cheap newspapers and these 3 examples are not included in her book at all. Our question was (and is, since she’s still not addressed it 3 years on): Why didn’t she engage with this evidence? Why did she instead ignore it completely? As Richard Evans said “Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly.”

On 7 September 1888 a police report written by Inspector Helson of J Division summarized the investigation to date and referred to the evidence of William Nichols and he said, I quote “they separated about nine years since in consequence of her drunken habits. 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.” Here we have Inspector Helson saying that William Nichols had stated that he had stopped paying his wife’s support because he had found that she was a prostitute.

In a report by Inspector Chandler on September 8, 1888, he says “the woman has been identified by Timothy Donovan, deputy of Crossinghams lodging house 35 Dorset St., Spitalfields. He states he has known her for about 16 months as a prostitute and for the past four months she has lodged at the above house.”

We see it again at the inquest for Annie Chapman. Her friend Amelia Palmer was specifically asked whether Annie Chapman earned money from prostitution and she said “I cannot say. I’m afraid she was not particular. She was out late at night at times, she told me so.” This quote shows Palmer being a little bit evasive, trying to avoid a direct answer, not giving any ‘yes or no’ answer… but “I’m afraid she is not particular” is probably about as close to an admission that she was a prostitute as somebody was prepared to give at that time.

Another thing Rubenhold does is manipulate the evidence she does engage with.
There’s one example where she says “following inquiries made amongst the women of the same class… at public houses in the locality the police could find not a single witness to confirm that she had been among the ranks of those who sold sex”, she being Chapman, of course. And then there’s a footnote. If you go there, there’s a source for a Home Office file and this consists of an index and a fairly long report by Inspector Swanson dated 19 October 1888, which enumerates the investigation to that date. And what the report actually says is “inquiries were also made amongst women of the same class as the deceased, and the public houses in the locality”. The report does not make any mention of the police having been unable to find anyone who could confirm that Chapman was a prostitute. In fact, no mention is made of the police having even looked for anyone who could confirm that Chapman was a prostitute. It simply says that inquiries were also made amongst the women of the same class as the deceased and at pubs. What Hallie Rubenhold has done is take from Swanson’s report a statement that inquiries had been made among women and at the pubs and then added her statement that they hadn’t found anybody to confirm that Chapman was a prostitute, giving the impression that the search amongst the women and the pubs had been in an effort to find that information out. To find out whether there was anybody to confirm that Chapman was a prostitute. And that isn’t, in fact, what this report says. She puts the footnote number at the end of her bit that said ‘they could not find a single witness’, which gives the impression that the Home Office file actually said that. This is manipulating the source to try to make it look like it’s saying something that it isn’t.

She habitually manipulates sources - newspapers (like with the women from 18 Thrawl Street) and MEPO reports- to make them appear to say something they aren't.

We (Rippercast's panelists) don't give a horse's ass if they were prostitutes or not. This is not a new argument that Hallie Rubenhold suddenly came up with. But the evidence that indicates they were engaged in subsistence prostitution needs to be plausibly discredited if you're attempting to present a sensible alternative. Instead she just completely ignores it. That's not good enough. Not even close.

JM