A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[PaulB]

The Leeson quote is indeed interesting.

I totally accept that it's nigh on impossible for us 133 years later (and living in such a different society) to fully appreciate the impact that the murders must have had.

Personally, I suspect a little bit of hyperbole in that quote insomuch as I struggle to believe that a thirty year old man living in York (as a random example) would be "terrified" to read of another murder.

I imagine that a significant proportion of the newspaper's readership would have been male (ie not on the killers hit list) and situated well away from London and his perceived stalking ground, so I could conceive of such people experiencing a kind of vicarious macabre thrill from their safe remove, as events unfolded, and the fact that the victims were prostitutes may have added to that slightly.

Mere theorising on my part though!

Having said all that, I do recall reading that at the time papers were also reporting ripper style killings all over the place (Nicaragua springs to mind as an extreme example!) and the Johnny Gill / Bradford thing, just off the top of my head.

Perhaps it is more with hindsight that we perceive JtR as specifically a killer of women in Whitechapel during the Autumn of 1888 (I know there are possible outliers. Am just simplifying here!)

It could be that at the time it was felt that JtR could potentially strike anywhere, and anyone could be a victim resulting in widespread terror as per Leeson.

Oh, how I sometimes wish it were possible to speak directly to someone who was alive at the time!

Sure, we have testimony and newspaper reports but they are frequently ambiguous and open to different interpretations (as evidenced by some of the huge threads on here!!)

I suppose even with a contemporary witness, we would still only get one individual's perception of events, but it would be fascinating to hear nonetheless.

I was alive when the Yorkshire Ripper murders took place. I was living in Devon, but I remember only too well how people were frightened even there, and when I moved to Leeds I was told about how businesses organised transport to take their female staff home, especially if they worked late in pubs or whatever. Husbands left work early to collect their wives from work, fathers and mothers did the same and made sure their children were collected from school and night classes. Men weren't the targets, but their mothers, wives and daughters could have been, and they were frightened for them. And this was the 1970s when people were learning about this sort of crime, and the term serial killer was coined. Imagine what it was like in 1888, when people didn't know about 'motiveless murder', when the idea that there was someone out there who you'd never harmed, never spoken to, and never even met, who wanted to kill you for no reason at all.

It's very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of people living back then. I don't think people living in York or wherever were frightened by murders committed over two hundred miles away, but I feel sure they would have been frightened by idea of a 'motiveless murder', of someone killing women at random. In fact, I think 'fear' is a much-overlooked player in the Jack the Ripper story.

You are right that we only get perceptions sometimes.

[Ms Diddles]

I don’t remember the exact episode, but I’ll try to find it.
But when the newspaper headline screamed “Another Murdered Prostitute” it attracted the attention of, as Paul said, all of England including, apparently, Mary Kelly, who would have had a more immediate reason to be interested in the news article than say a middle class couple living in York.

JM

Thanks, Jon!

Please don't go to any trouble, but if you happen to stumble across that episode, I'd give it a listen.

[jmenges]

I believe there are reports of the East End streets becoming deserted, women congregating in groups and even arming themselves. Don’t tell Rubenhold, but it’s possible that the way the press reported the murders saved lives.

JM

[jmenges]

I don’t remember the exact episode, but I’ll try to find it.
But when the newspaper headline screamed “Another Murdered Prostitute” it attracted the attention of, as Paul said, all of England including, apparently, Mary Kelly, who would have had a more immediate reason to be interested in the news article than say a middle class couple living in York.

JM

[Ms Diddles]

On a past episode of Rippercast we talked about the media's penchant for labeling unknown serial killers based on a trait that was most common amongst their victims. These 'nicknames' didn't always match the facts about all of the victims (like Kemper 'The Coed Killer,' who also killed a high school student, his mother and his mother's friend), but, on top of being sensational, it did serve another purpose by warning the public as to what the authorities believed were the 'type' of victim the murderer seemed to be targeting.
Of course Kemper's coed victims weren't "just coeds" (they were children, sisters etc) just as the Ripper's victims weren't "just prostitutes".

JM

Interesting point, Jon!

One I'd not considered.

Do you know which episode of Rippercast this was?

If so, I'll check it out.

[jmenges]

On a past episode of Rippercast we talked about the media's penchant for labeling unknown serial killers based on a trait that was most common amongst their victims. These 'nicknames' didn't always match the facts about all of the victims (like Kemper 'The Coed Killer,' who also killed a high school student, his mother and his mother's friend), but, on top of being sensational, it did serve another purpose by warning the public as to what the authorities believed were the 'type' of victim the murderer seemed to be targeting.
Of course Kemper's coed victims weren't "just coeds" (they were children, sisters etc) just as the Ripper's victims weren't "just prostitutes".

JM

[Ms Diddles]

As for sex selling; it does, of course, but I wonder just how much people found the news stories prurient, salacious or exciting. One comment of Benjamin Leeson's sticks in my mind: '“Another ‘ Jack the Ripper ’ murder! ” Only those who were living at the time and who were old enough to appreciate it can imagine what that meant. When that dread news was flashed round, not merely all London, but all England, was terrified.'

Prostitutes appear to have been commonplace, not just in the East End, but over all London. They'd been a hot topic for years, what with Josephine Butler's campaigns and Stead's 'Maiden Tribute to Modern Babylon', fears of white slavery, the Cass case, and so on. Prostitution was a huge problem in the latter decades of the 19th century, never far from the news. Maybe it's me, but I find it difficult to imagine that people would find themselves getting too worked up by the newspaper references to such an everyday occurrence as a prostitute when the murders themselves were causing the terror Leeson and others have described.

Focusing on the victims being prostitutes and suggesting that the police were convinced they were looking for a prostitute killer, even to the point that it didn't occur to them that the victims were sleeping rough, as Rubenhold has done, completely misses the point that the evidence pointed to the victims being prostitutes, witness testimony confirmed that the victims (Eddowes possibly excepted) were prostitutes, and the police weren't obsessed with the idea that they were looking for a prostitute killer (as far as I know the police, like most and perhaps all commentators since, accepted that the murderer killed prostitutes because they were the most accessible women on the streets. That they were or were or prostitutes hardly matters to anyone except HR.

The Leeson quote is indeed interesting.

I totally accept that it's nigh on impossible for us 133 years later (and living in such a different society) to fully appreciate the impact that the murders must have had.

Personally, I suspect a little bit of hyperbole in that quote insomuch as I struggle to believe that a thirty year old man living in York (as a random example) would be "terrified" to read of another murder.

I imagine that a significant proportion of the newspaper's readership would have been male (ie not on the killers hit list) and situated well away from London and his perceived stalking ground, so I could conceive of such people experiencing a kind of vicarious macabre thrill from their safe remove, as events unfolded, and the fact that the victims were prostitutes may have added to that slightly.

Mere theorising on my part though!

Having said all that, I do recall reading that at the time papers were also reporting ripper style killings all over the place (Nicaragua springs to mind as an extreme example!) and the Johnny Gill / Bradford thing, just off the top of my head.

Perhaps it is more with hindsight that we perceive JtR as specifically a killer of women in Whitechapel during the Autumn of 1888 (I know there are possible outliers. Am just simplifying here!)

It could be that at the time it was felt that JtR could potentially strike anywhere, and anyone could be a victim resulting in widespread terror as per Leeson.

Oh, how I sometimes wish it were possible to speak directly to someone who was alive at the time!

Sure, we have testimony and newspaper reports but they are frequently ambiguous and open to different interpretations (as evidenced by some of the huge threads on here!!)

I suppose even with a contemporary witness, we would still only get one individual's perception of events, but it would be fascinating to hear nonetheless.

[PaulB]

Yeah PaulB, the theory that the victims were sleeping was just plain nonsense.

Common sense dictates that humans (and animals too) seek shelter and as much privacy as possible when bedding down for the night.

One requires no great knowledge of London in the LVP to know this, merely a bit of common sense and a basic understanding of human nature.

When reading the book, I wondered whether this aspect of HR's narrative would stretch the credulity of her acolytes a bit too far.

Apparently not!

As to whether the journalists were actually trying to denigrate the victims by labelling them "Prostitutes", I'd say nah!, not really!

Sex sells!

Selecting that one shared aspect of the women's lives would, I suspect, have added to the prurient interest in the case and introduced an extra frisson of excitement and salaciousness.

My guess is it would have enhanced the already stratospheric newspaper sales even further.

As for sex selling; it does, of course, but I wonder just how much people found the news stories prurient, salacious or exciting. One comment of Benjamin Leeson's sticks in my mind: '“Another ‘ Jack the Ripper ’ murder! ” Only those who were living at the time and who were old enough to appreciate it can imagine what that meant. When that dread news was flashed round, not merely all London, but all England, was terrified.'

Prostitutes appear to have been commonplace, not just in the East End, but over all London. They'd been a hot topic for years, what with Josephine Butler's campaigns and Stead's 'Maiden Tribute to Modern Babylon', fears of white slavery, the Cass case, and so on. Prostitution was a huge problem in the latter decades of the 19th century, never far from the news. Maybe it's me, but I find it difficult to imagine that people would find themselves getting too worked up by the newspaper references to such an everyday occurrence as a prostitute when the murders themselves were causing the terror Leeson and others have described.

Focusing on the victims being prostitutes and suggesting that the police were convinced they were looking for a prostitute killer, even to the point that it didn't occur to them that the victims were sleeping rough, as Rubenhold has done, completely misses the point that the evidence pointed to the victims being prostitutes, witness testimony confirmed that the victims (Eddowes possibly excepted) were prostitutes, and the police weren't obsessed with the idea that they were looking for a prostitute killer (as far as I know the police, like most and perhaps all commentators since, accepted that the murderer killed prostitutes because they were the most accessible women on the streets. That they were or were or prostitutes hardly matters to anyone except HR.

[Ms Diddles]

Yeah PaulB, the theory that the victims were sleeping was just plain nonsense.

Common sense dictates that humans (and animals too) seek shelter and as much privacy as possible when bedding down for the night.

One requires no great knowledge of London in the LVP to know this, merely a bit of common sense and a basic understanding of human nature.

When reading the book, I wondered whether this aspect of HR's narrative would stretch the credulity of her acolytes a bit too far.

Apparently not!

As to whether the journalists were actually trying to denigrate the victims by labelling them "Prostitutes", I'd say nah!, not really!

Sex sells!

Selecting that one shared aspect of the women's lives would, I suspect, have added to the prurient interest in the case and introduced an extra frisson of excitement and salaciousness.

My guess is it would have enhanced the already stratospheric newspaper sales even further.

[PaulB]

Agreed "prostitute" is a completely acceptable term for a woman of that profession then and now (although I believe "sex worker" is currently de rigeur).

I have no issue with that word and unlike HR, I'm confident that these women did indeed engage in prostitution.

Denying this, and playing fast and loose with the facts to fit your own (rather lucrative?!) agenda is, to me doing them a disservice.

I simply find slogans like "Another Prostitute Murdered" somewhat jarring in this case.

Not wrong per se, just a bit reductive.

With the probable exception of Mary, I wouldn't personally describe prostitution as being their "occupation" (in the way that a bank manager is a bank manager or a docker is a docker).

It was just something that they, along with many others, did when necessity dictated.

I see it as being a relatively inconsequential facet of their lives rather than a defining feature I suppose.

I too am unsure of whether "prostitute" would have been regarded as demeaning among the inhabitants of the worst parts of Whitechapel at that time, but I'm confident in stating that the "working poor", middle class and upper class, who would also have been reading the papers, would have regarded it as such (and probably not a little bit distasteful and shocking too).

Perhaps I am just trying to apply my 21st Century sensibilities to things which occurred in another age though!

I agree that 'prostitute' doesn't define the victims and maybe my examples were poor, but my point was that 'prostitute' was just a feature they shared. If they'd all been redheads then the headline would have been 'Another Redhead Murdered'. I'm questioning whether the journalists were intentionally trying to demean and denigrate the victims, as HR seems to think, or whether they called them prostitutes because they believed that's what the victims were.

I have never intended to convey any moral judgement on the victims when I have described them as prostitutes. I described them as prostitutes because I believed and believe that's what they were doing in the places where their bodies were found. HR never managed to find a plausible explanation for where the bodies were found, except the idea that they were sleeping, which is so ridiculous that nobody with a modicum of understanding of the time and place could accept it.

[Pcdunn]

Thanks. I should point out the quote is not by HR, it's by Katherine Crooks.

My mistake. Thank you for the correction.

[Ms Diddles]

Would it matter so much if the headline had read 'Another Bank Manager Murdered' or 'Another Docker Murdered'? 'Prostitute' was and is an acceptable name for a 'streetwalker' or 'unfortunate'. It's only now that the word is seen as demeaning. The victims were believed to have been prostitutes and the victims were referred to by a common feature, their occupation. I don't even know for sure whether the victims and those among whom they lived would have thought 'prostitute' demeaning. It was just something one did to survive, and I'm sure in the East End it was accepted as that.

Agreed "prostitute" is a completely acceptable term for a woman of that profession then and now (although I believe "sex worker" is currently de rigeur).

I have no issue with that word and unlike HR, I'm confident that these women did indeed engage in prostitution.

Denying this, and playing fast and loose with the facts to fit your own (rather lucrative?!) agenda is, to me doing them a disservice.

I simply find slogans like "Another Prostitute Murdered" somewhat jarring in this case.

Not wrong per se, just a bit reductive.

With the probable exception of Mary, I wouldn't personally describe prostitution as being their "occupation" (in the way that a bank manager is a bank manager or a docker is a docker).

It was just something that they, along with many others, did when necessity dictated.

I see it as being a relatively inconsequential facet of their lives rather than a defining feature I suppose.

I too am unsure of whether "prostitute" would have been regarded as demeaning among the inhabitants of the worst parts of Whitechapel at that time, but I'm confident in stating that the "working poor", middle class and upper class, who would also have been reading the papers, would have regarded it as such (and probably not a little bit distasteful and shocking too).

Perhaps I am just trying to apply my 21st Century sensibilities to things which occurred in another age though!

[PaulB]

Good points, Harry!

I have often wondered why Polly refused Ellen Holland's offer of a bed.

It's a possibility that the offer was a little embellishment made up by Ellen after the fact to paint herself in a positive light (and perhaps assuage her guilt) at how things turned out for Polly that night.

No evidence for that at all. It was merely a passing fancy on my part.

In the same circumstances, I think most of us would opt for a bunk up with a pal over selling ourselves on the streets.

I'm not sure that there would have been thousands (of women) living in (this extreme of) poverty and not resorting to prostitution though.

From what I have read it seems to have been common practice among extremely destitute women.

We know that these women tried other means of earning money where possible (Polly as a servant, Annie making trinkets, Kate picking hops seasonally and Liz cleaning) but I'm sure that in such extremes of deprivation (and where other means were not forthcoming) survival for women depended on them selling themselves.

I too dislike slogans like "Another Prostitute Murdered" .

It's extremely reductive.

Do I believe these women were prostitutes by necessity though?

Yeah, absolutely.

No judgement. No less horror at their fates.

Just sympathy and a grateful acknowledgement of how lucky I am not to live in such times and circumstances.

Would it matter so much if the headline had read 'Another Bank Manager Murdered' or 'Another Docker Murdered'? 'Prostitute' was and is an acceptable name for a 'streetwalker' or 'unfortunate'. It's only now that the word is seen as demeaning. The victims were believed to have been prostitutes and the victims were referred to by a common feature, their occupation. I don't even know for sure whether the victims and those among whom they lived would have thought 'prostitute' demeaning. It was just something one did to survive, and I'm sure in the East End it was accepted as that.

[Ms Diddles]

Nichols was offered accomodation by her friend about 2.30 am,so the neccessity to prostitute for money for shelter ceased at that time.Eddowes could have remained at the police station till a later hour.Stride had accomodation and friends to go to.Kelly had accomodation.Only Chapman really needed accomodation,and by the early hours,that need had diminished.Now I understand there were other needs.There were also other means of obtaining money.I do not know enough about their day to day existence,but I do presume there were thousands living in poverty who did not resort to prostitution to get by.While we cannot overlook the information given by friends and aquaintances,each of the victims also had their good side spoken of,so when I read,'Another prostitute murdered' I wonder whether the writers are giving a balanced view,or using the word to simply degrade the victims.

Good points, Harry!

I have often wondered why Polly refused Ellen Holland's offer of a bed.

It's a possibility that the offer was a little embellishment made up by Ellen after the fact to paint herself in a positive light (and perhaps assuage her guilt) at how things turned out for Polly that night.

No evidence for that at all. It was merely a passing fancy on my part.

In the same circumstances, I think most of us would opt for a bunk up with a pal over selling ourselves on the streets.

I'm not sure that there would have been thousands (of women) living in (this extreme of) poverty and not resorting to prostitution though.

From what I have read it seems to have been common practice among extremely destitute women.

We know that these women tried other means of earning money where possible (Polly as a servant, Annie making trinkets, Kate picking hops seasonally and Liz cleaning) but I'm sure that in such extremes of deprivation (and where other means were not forthcoming) survival for women depended on them selling themselves.

I too dislike slogans like "Another Prostitute Murdered" .

It's extremely reductive.

Do I believe these women were prostitutes by necessity though?

Yeah, absolutely.

No judgement. No less horror at their fates.

Just sympathy and a grateful acknowledgement of how lucky I am not to live in such times and circumstances.

[Kattrup]

That explains the seeming contradiction in terms, Kattrup. Good observation. Sloppy work, again, on HR's part.

Thanks. I should point out the quote is not by HR, it's by Katherine Crooks.