Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      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).

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        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
        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


        Comment


        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

          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.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post

            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.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PaulB View Post

                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?

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • 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.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by harry View Post
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          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?

                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                          “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                            ... 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.

                            Click image for larger version  Name:	chapman windsor.png Views:	0 Size:	25.5 KB ID:	774784
                            Last edited by Mark J D; 11-27-2021, 11:25 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              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

                              Comment


                              • Says it all as far as I’m concerned Jon
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X