A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[harry]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe the plans of Nichols and Chapman were to return to the places from which they had been refused permission to sleep.Doesn't appear to me they had plans for anything else.Of course money would allowed them to indulge in other needs,but if we are to be led by evidence,their primary and stated need was for accomodation.

But it’s not a case of what money would have allowed her to indulge in Harry. Accommodation didn’t come free. In the early hours of the morning when everything was closed and most people were in bed how was Nichols expecting to come by the money to pay for that accommodation (as Paul and Varqm have both said?) We surely can’t believe that she trecked over to Buck’s Row just to have a kip in a gateway? It’s not a case of labelling her or maligning her. We know that she engaged in prostitution. We know that she had no money. We know that she needed money for a bed. We know that there were no ways of ‘earning’ that cash at that time. We know that she wasn’t intending to borrow money or else she would simply have taken up Emily Holland’s offer. There’s only one thing remaining whether we like it or not I’m afraid. And sadly it led to her death.

[The Baron]

I believe the plans of Nichols and Chapman were to return to the places from which they had been refused permission to sleep.Doesn't appear to me they had plans for anything else.Of course money would allowed them to indulge in other needs,but if we are to be led by evidence,their primary and stated need was for accomodation.

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

[PaulB]

I believe the plans of Nichols and Chapman were to return to the places from which they had been refused permission to sleep.Doesn't appear to me they had plans for anything else.Of course money would allowed them to indulge in other needs,but if we are to be led by evidence,their primary and stated need was for accomodation.

I agree with you that both Nichols and Chapman planned to return to their lodging houses, that's what Varqm said in his above post, namely that Nichols told Emily Holland and Chapman told the deputy that they'd be back. But if that's what Nichols intended, why didn't she accept Holland's offer and return with her to the lodgings? Instead, she went off into the night. Why? What for?

And thus you've brought us full circle to where this discussion started. How did Nichols and Chapman think they were going to make the money for a bed in the early hours of the morning?

[harry]

I believe the plans of Nichols and Chapman were to return to the places from which they had been refused permission to sleep.Doesn't appear to me they had plans for anything else.Of course money would allowed them to indulge in other needs,but if we are to be led by evidence,their primary and stated need was for accomodation.

[PaulB]

The reason Polly refused Emily Holland's offer to go with her and she said she will back soon, 2x ,to somebody in the lodging house and Emily, was she was going to earn money. She had no plans to be homeless. She already earned 3x her doss money and was confident enough she was going to earn again.
Same thing with Chapman, she told the deputy, 2x,she will be back soon do not let up the bed. She had no plans to be homeless. she was going to earn money.

At 2-3 am what job was there that could earn them fast enough they will be back soon?

Nichols ended in Bucks row where it was deserted .Chapman ended in the backyard where John Richardson had come across men\women who were there for immoral purposes. Anyways this is futile..

Yes; of course I could have expressed myself just as succinctly, without the school-teachery verbosity to which I am sometimes susceptible, but I don't. I'm a pillock. What you say is perfectly true. Nichols, like Chapman, did anticipate returning soon with the necessary cash.

[PaulB]

Just to recap,I did actually give a reason why the 'five",with the possible exception of Chapman,did not need to prostitute themselve,on the night/morning of their death. Nichols was offered accomodation by her friend Holland.Why she declined would be known only to herself,but the need for money for accomodatin,at that time and afterwards that night ceased.No one,except perhaps her killer,knows what happened from then on.I could say,with some justification,she wandered the streets without purpose or thought untill tiredness overcame her,and she stopped to rest where she was found dead,in Bucks Row.It would be just as much a possibility as the idea she was in Bucks Row soliciting.
That is not philosophy,but an understanding of a woman who on the night of her death was thinking of a bed to lie on,but was short of money.

Harry,
Your last message, no.207, began, ’Without some questioning of the term prostitute…’. That was raising the philosophical question about what was and is meant by ‘prostitute’.

Yes, you did point out that Nichols had turned down an offer of accommodation, and we have to wonder why she did that. She could hardly have preferred the prospect of walking the cold streets and sleeping in a shop doorway, so did she have an alternative place to go, not want to be beholden to her friend, thought she’d have no difficulty getting 4d and paying her own way? Those questions are rhetorical, of course, the point being that Holland’s offer did not take away the need for money, be it for a bed, a bit of food, a hot drink, or a tot of something stronger. So, do you think she would have turned down the chance to make 4d if the opportunity had arisen?

Your point doesn’t really hold water, I'm afraid. Holland’s offer did not remove Nichols’ need for accommodation, it merely leaves us wondering why Nichols declined it. Nichols still needed somewhere to sleep, she still didn't have any money, and she still ended up dead in a back street. Maybe tiredness overcame her, or maybe she collapsed in a drunken stupor like Rubenhold suggests, but such a suggestion means that she walked half a mile, passed several alleys, numerous shop doorways and other places affording a degree of shelter, and found her way into a back street behind a railway station, where she decided to sleep in the middle of an open pavement. Or she went there for some other purpose. We know what the police concluded. What's the probability that they were wrong?

[Varqm]

The one thing I do know is that Rubenhold’s explanation is about as plausible as a Nichols being dropped there by the U.S.S. Enterprise’s transporter beam.

It's just that at the moment, she's hiding behind the door while her mum insists she's not coming out to play.

That's funny.

[Varqm]

The reason Polly refused Emily Holland's offer to go with her and she said she will back soon, 2x ,to somebody in the lodging house and Emily, was she was going to earn money. She had no plans to be homeless. She already earned 3x her doss money and was confident enough she was going to earn again.
Same thing with Chapman, she told the deputy, 2x,she will be back soon do not let up the bed. She had no plans to be homeless. she was going to earn money.

At 2-3 am what job was there that could earn them fast enough they will be back soon?

Nichols ended in Bucks row where it was deserted .Chapman ended in the backyard where John Richardson had come across men\women who were there for immoral purposes. Anyways this is futile..

[harry]

Just to recap,I did actually give a reason why the 'five",with the possible exception of Chapman,did not need to prostitute themselve,on the night/morning of their death. Nichols was offered accomodation by her friend Holland.Why she declined would be known only to herself,but the need for money for accomodatin,at that time and afterwards that night ceased.No one,except perhaps her killer,knows what happened from then on.I could say,with some justification,she wandered the streets without purpose or thought untill tiredness overcame her,and she stopped to rest where she was found dead,in Bucks Row.It would be just as much a possibility as the idea she was in Bucks Row soliciting.
That is not philosophy,but an understanding of a woman who on the night of her death was thinking of a bed to lie on,but was short of money.

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

I hope you don't mind my saying this, but it's kinda awful to hear you sounding so defeated and despondent about this.

Not a criticism, merely an observation.

I know that's easy for me to say as a mere amateur who pops up occasionally and pontificates about whatever takes my fancy, and who has categorically not invested three decades of blood, sweat and tears in the subject as you have!!!

Right now, HR is controlling the narrative, and since the release of the book the pendulum has been swinging very much in her favour.

Maybe I'm being blindly optimistic here, but I honestly don't believe that will always be the case.

Things like this brilliant podcast are at least a small step in the right direction.

I suspect that most (admittedly not all) of the plaudits are coming from people who have probably never read another book on the subject, or organisations who are blinded by the fact that a book on such a niche historical subject has made a massive splash in mainstream bookselling.

I do believe that the dust will settle and once all the excitement has died down and the book is considered in more depth, it will be looked at more critically.

There are people who read a book simply because it's on the Waterstones bestsellers list, but there are plenty of other people who respect historical accuracy over gimmicks.

I'd say we are standing up to the bully on her own doorstep. It's just that at the moment, she's hiding behind the door while her mum insists she's not coming out to play.

Don't give up!

It's a marathon, not a sprint etc etc...

Pep talk over!

Thank you for that. Sometimes we all need a pep talk. I'm not really that defeated and despondent, but in this day and age you'd think people would be especially careful to verify the facts, and with The Five that hasn't been the case. In fact, some of HR's followers have visited this site and then Tweeted that they thought we were all cretins (or words to that effect). Mind you, that person only stayed about 15-seconds, which, of course, is not enough time for anyone to form an accurate opinion, but not giving us a fair hearing perhaps shows the level of contempt in which we are held. It's easy to dismiss such nonsense, but I don't know if it's sensible to do so. I'm sure you are correct and people will start to question Rubenhold's arguments, but if we wait for a sea change and one doesn't come along, it might be too late to do anything about it. We all know how ingrained fake history can be.

I agree that this podcast was great and hopefully has done a lot of good. I think, too, that various posts on Twitter are alerting some people with a questioning mind to take a closer look at the facts.

Thanks for the pep talk.

Paul

[Ms Diddles]

Roger, I don't know whether historians will recognise that Rubenhold's theory is rubbish, but I am not seeing any significant signs of it. On the contrary, I see her book garnering a lot of praise from readers and history awards, and even a supportive Tweet from the Wolfson Award. I've also see an otherwise good biography of Sir Charles Warren taking note of her theories. I have also witnessed the way some theorising, such as Anderson being so anti-Semitic that it rendered valueless any comment he made about Jews, so we know how easy it is for this sort or thing to get into books, repetition making it true.

As for your other point, I'm not sure that we're in disagreement, but the argument isn't so much with whether the women were prostitutes or not, but Rubenhold's confident assertion that they were not and her complete omission of the evidence that they were.

And as a side issue, I have probably been bashing my head against a brick wall for thirty-odd years, but I have tried to give Ripper studies some small degree of credibility. But what Rubenhold has shown is that we have none. Those supporters of hers don't listen to us, they don't take us in the least bit seriously, whether it's pointing out DNA errors of nomenclature or calling Rubenhold's theories into question. I find that depressing. We're just talking among ourselves, not exactly preaching to the converted, but pretty close. We're standing up to the bully in the privacy of our own home, which isn't really standing up to it at all.

Paul

Hi Paul,

I hope you don't mind my saying this, but it's kinda awful to hear you sounding so defeated and despondent about this.

Not a criticism, merely an observation.

I know that's easy for me to say as a mere amateur who pops up occasionally and pontificates about whatever takes my fancy, and who has categorically not invested three decades of blood, sweat and tears in the subject as you have!!!

Right now, HR is controlling the narrative, and since the release of the book the pendulum has been swinging very much in her favour.

Maybe I'm being blindly optimistic here, but I honestly don't believe that will always be the case.

Things like this brilliant podcast are at least a small step in the right direction.

I suspect that most (admittedly not all) of the plaudits are coming from people who have probably never read another book on the subject, or organisations who are blinded by the fact that a book on such a niche historical subject has made a massive splash in mainstream bookselling.

I do believe that the dust will settle and once all the excitement has died down and the book is considered in more depth, it will be looked at more critically.

There are people who read a book simply because it's on the Waterstones bestsellers list, but there are plenty of other people who respect historical accuracy over gimmicks.

I'd say we are standing up to the bully on her own doorstep. It's just that at the moment, she's hiding behind the door while her mum insists she's not coming out to play.

Don't give up!

It's a marathon, not a sprint etc etc...

Pep talk over!

[PaulB]

+
Without some questioning of the term prostitute,history will judge the victims of the Ripper,by the manner in which the media of that time described them.I have posted just one of the many instances,in which newspapers,the main source from which information,then and now, was taken,and has been used.
They are just claims,those newspaper reports,in most cases with llittle or no evidence to support,and as there was no form of rebuttal,,the persons that read those papers,were given little chance to judge the information given.So historically,does one have to accept the Ripper victims as prostitutes?

Harry, this isn't a philosophical discussion about what was and is meant by 'prostitute'. Such niceties didn't matter the policeman in 1888 who were investigating the discovery of dead bodies in a lonely, dark back street or in the dark yard of a house. They had to decide what the woman had been doing there and pursue inquiries accordingly, and the list of probable things she’d been doing wouldn’t have been very long, and quite close to the top would have been selling sex for money. So the police made inquiries to see if anyone knew the victim, whether she lived locally or not, or had been seen in the area before. The police questioned the people in nearby lodging houses, pubs… you know, all the things policemen do when investigating a murder, and they will have narrowed down the number of possibilities. On top of that, we know in the case of Nichols that her husband said he'd stopped providing financial support when he learned his wife had become a prostitute, and we know that women who knew Nichols told the police that she earned her livelihood on the streets. The latter was reported in several newspapers, but the report conforms to known police procedure and doesn’t exaggerate, and we know the back story, so as we can tell there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the report. The body of circumstantial evidence is such that the conclusion that Nichols was engaging in prostitution when murdered is almost certain. And I say ‘almost’ because I am very cautious and acknowledge that I don’t and can’t possibly know with absolute certainty what she was doing when I wasn’t there to witness it. But I can’t really think of too many plausible reasons why Nichols was in Bucks Row, can you? If you can, I’d love to hear them. The one thing I do know is that Rubenhold’s explanation is about as plausible as a Nichols being dropped there by the U.S.S. Enterprise’s transporter beam.

So, I'd say that historically, yes, we have to accept that the Ripper's victims were prostitutes. There is testimony that that is what they were, that is the most probable explanation for them being where they were when they were found, and it's an explanation that fits other evidence such as their need for money and stated intention of getting some. If you have an alternative interpretation of the evidence, fine, but if not...

[harry]

+
Without some questioning of the term prostitute,history will judge the victims of the Ripper,by the manner in which the media of that time described them.I have posted just one of the many instances,in which newspapers,the main source from which information,then and now, was taken,and has been used.
They are just claims,those newspaper reports,in most cases with llittle or no evidence to support,and as there was no form of rebuttal,,the persons that read those papers,were given little chance to judge the information given.So historically,does one have to accept the Ripper victims as prostitutes?

[PaulB]

Hi Paul. I don't think I'm missing the point; I just have a different point of view.

One deeply divisive issue is that Rubenhold or members of her clique insinuated (or outright stated, in some cases) that students of the Whitechapel Murders are perverted voyeurs who have been dead-set on portraying the victims as whores. And that the lives of the victims have been ignored.

This is deeply insulting, as well as psychologically inaccurate, and I can understand the ire.

With a few exceptions, this is clearly not true, but we should at least acknowledge that there is inherently something 'exploitive' about those who are peddling 'Jack the Ripper' candy bars and figurines, and that it is not uncommon to see a cloaked figure with a dripping knife on the cover of a 'Ripper' book, with an attractive female standing in the shadows.

The irony is that the dustcover of Rubenhold's own book toys with this same image in a way that is not readily recognizable as irony. And, further, that her own book could be open to the accusation of exploitation, in the same way that (at least a few) of the surviving family members thought of Five Daughters as exploitive, though it should be said that most didn't, and cooperated with the project.


It is not harmful to society to point out that victims are human beings, but there is something inherently harmful in portraying 'Jack the Ripper' as a criminal genius, which some have done. (And I hasten to add that you have never done this).

Ultimately, Rubenhold's clique have painted their fellow historians or would-be historians with a broader brush than was ever used on the victims. One simply has to look at Sugden's book, or at your 'Facts,' or Neil Sheldon's book, or at a number of websites, such as Howard Brown's, to see that the lives of the victims are explored in a sensitive and exhaustive manner, and I can fully understand why you would want to call her out on this, and why something like the above podcast was made. Kudos.

I also think that Gary Barnett hit the nail on the head when he speculated that Rubenhold herself once thought of the victims of Jack the Ripper as 'prostitutes' of the Moulin Rouge variety, and was shocked to learn that they were more akin to bag ladies. And when she made this realization, she thought she had discovered a Brave New World, and went out to share her discovery, even though it has been a recognized fact since 1888.

But Rubenhold's theories are ultimately self-defeating and I don't share your fear that her ideas will catch on, for the simple reason that hers is an extreme view in that she offers a black & white answer to a complex issue, and that any serious historian who looks at the case will see that there are no black & white answers. The truth is and always will be a shade of gray, and historians will always debate the nature of prostitution under the rule of Queen Victoria and her ministers, and social scientists will always debate the nature and meaning of 'prostitution.'

The point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly, is why would I wish to explore complex and sensitive issue under the umbrella of what has become a very bitter debate? I would dearly like to discuss some aspects of genetics and how they relate to evolution by natural selection or the theories of Lamarck, but I'm not going to do it during a debate between Richard Dawkins and a Christian fundamentalist, because everything becomes too black & white and too bitter. When discussing something with someone with an extreme view, we have a tendency to state things that we would not normally state, and to pretend that we have a monopoly on the truth, when, in fact, no one has a monopoly on the truth; we can only own a percentage of it.

Let me give you an example of something I think would be worth discussing. Dr. Phillips wrote that there was 'strong evidence' of prostitution in the case of the Pinchin Street victim.

Do you agree with this? What strong evidence? (And one only has to look at 'Lechmere' discussions to see people claiming outright that the unknown victim shared the 'victimology' of a prostitute).

This is daft. It's idiotic. Phillips did know the woman's identity, nor where she came from. She had no wedding band, had been murdered, and was sexually active.
That makes her a prostitute?

Had Phillips never heard of Henry Wainwright? The victim couldn't have been a servant from the suburbs, who was raped by her employer? The Foundling Hospital records are filled with such cases, at least as far as rapes.

So, there are cases of the Victorians police -- or a police surgeon, in Phillip's case-- painting with a broad brush, and one that could have been directly detrimental to a competent homicide investigation. There was no 'strong evidence' of prostitution, unless one is exceedingly naïve. Unmarried Victorian women had sex, sometimes unwillingly.

But why am I foolish enough to bring this up on a 'Rubenhold' thread, where I will be accused of supporting her extreme views? As I say, these issues are worth discussing--just not in the middle of a fist-fight.

If you've read this far, cheers,

RP

Roger, I don't know whether historians will recognise that Rubenhold's theory is rubbish, but I am not seeing any significant signs of it. On the contrary, I see her book garnering a lot of praise from readers and history awards, and even a supportive Tweet from the Wolfson Award. I've also see an otherwise good biography of Sir Charles Warren taking note of her theories. I have also witnessed the way some theorising, such as Anderson being so anti-Semitic that it rendered valueless any comment he made about Jews, so we know how easy it is for this sort or thing to get into books, repetition making it true.

As for your other point, I'm not sure that we're in disagreement, but the argument isn't so much with whether the women were prostitutes or not, but Rubenhold's confident assertion that they were not and her complete omission of the evidence that they were.

And as a side issue, I have probably been bashing my head against a brick wall for thirty-odd years, but I have tried to give Ripper studies some small degree of credibility. But what Rubenhold has shown is that we have none. Those supporters of hers don't listen to us, they don't take us in the least bit seriously, whether it's pointing out DNA errors of nomenclature or calling Rubenhold's theories into question. I find that depressing. We're just talking among ourselves, not exactly preaching to the converted, but pretty close. We're standing up to the bully in the privacy of our own home, which isn't really standing up to it at all.

Paul