A Petticoat Parley: Women in Ripperology

[harry]

And you and the others Paul who has constantly attributed to me things I didnt say.
What about it Herlock,or are you going to let Paul be your mouthpiece.You be the investigator,or researcher whatever name you choose ,collect all the evidence and proofs that are claimed to exist,and present a summary here.The investigation of course is to show that the five victims were ,in the period leading up to,and on the night of their deaths,prostituting themslves,or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution.Lets leave the question of who decides till later. Get whoever you need to help you,but already I see that excuses are being made,so good luck.

[Trevor Marriott]

I will start again.The general priciple, and legal principle of the common law is that a person is considered innocent unless proven guilty.Five women,murdered in 1888,have been accused of being prostitutes.The word considered means it can be argued whether or not they were,but it also means that we start from a position of innocence.I do not have to prove their innocence.The onus lies with those that claim they were prostitutes.So what is the first piece of evidence they were?

I dont think the legal principle you quote is relevant when it come to discussing a persons occupation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Herlock,you show the posters where I have said the term unfortuunate didn't mean prostitute but someone down on their luck.Unfortunately it is lies and misinformation such as Herlock posts,and is taken up by others,that shatters their case.
How does the the murder of Eliza Grimwood prove or disprove that Polly Nichols was prostituting herself in Bucks Row.
I'm waiting Herlock.

This is rich coming from someone who has consistantly attributed to me things I didn't say.

[PaulB]

Something I should have added above.Let Herlock put the case for guilty.

By the way, Herlock doesn't have to put the case for guilty. That's already been done several times. You don't accept it.

[PaulB]

I will start again.The general priciple, and legal principle of the common law is that a person is considered innocent unless proven guilty.Five women,murdered in 1888,have been accused of being prostitutes.The word considered means it can be argued whether or not they were,but it also means that we start from a position of innocence.I do not have to prove their innocence.The onus lies with those that claim they were prostitutes.So what is the first piece of evidence they were?

That's true, Harry, but who is going to decide if the person making the claim has proved it?

In this case, the claim that the five were prostitutes was made by the police in 1888, but they are all dead and almost all their paperwork has been destroyed. However, they were there, they were professionals, they investigated, they spoke to people who knew the victims. Is there any reason why we should disbelieve them? Is there any evidence that corroborates what they said? Well, yes, there is corroborative evidence, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence that they were lying. So, why don't you believe them, Harry? By the general principle of innocent until proven guilty, the onus is on you to prove that the conclusion reached by the police in 1888 is wrong.

So, what is your first piece of evidence?

[harry]

Something I should have added above.Let Herlock put the case for guilty.

[harry]

I will start again.The general priciple, and legal principle of the common law is that a person is considered innocent unless proven guilty.Five women,murdered in 1888,have been accused of being prostitutes.The word considered means it can be argued whether or not they were,but it also means that we start from a position of innocence.I do not have to prove their innocence.The onus lies with those that claim they were prostitutes.So what is the first piece of evidence they were?

[harry]

Herlock,you show the posters where I have said the term unfortuunate didn't mean prostitute but someone down on their luck.Unfortunately it is lies and misinformation such as Herlock posts,and is taken up by others,that shatters their case.
How does the the murder of Eliza Grimwood prove or disprove that Polly Nichols was prostituting herself in Bucks Row.
I'm waiting Herlock.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's right, Herlock. Has anyone come across the use of the noun 'an unfortunate' in the cases of children or males of the pauper class? We see women listed on census returns as 'unfortunate' in the space where occupation is usually listed, we see women having to swear on oath in court, even when appearing as just a witness, that they are 'an unfortunate,' at the point people usually give their occupation. We see women described as 'married, but an unfortunate.'

Thanks Debra. When I first read Harry’s point it set me back a little. I thought “hold on, I’ve always thought that ‘Unfortunate’ specifically meant prostitute?” It was a real coincidence that I was reading Jan Bondeson’s book which confirmed what I’d originally assumed. And if you tell me that you’ve seen it on census forms that confirms it. They were hardly going to be commenting on that particular persons lack of luck.

[Varqm]

People pretend that they knew Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, what they would do and not do, especially when they were broke, we'll they don't. It is up to them to disprove the contemporary reports that at least, especially the first 2, they were part-time unfortunates.
And that they were where found.

[Debra A]

That's right, Herlock. Has anyone come across the use of the noun 'an unfortunate' in the cases of children or males of the pauper class? We see women listed on census returns as 'unfortunate' in the space where occupation is usually listed, we see women having to swear on oath in court, even when appearing as just a witness, that they are 'an unfortunate,' at the point people usually give their occupation. We see women described as 'married, but an unfortunate.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

No matter what explanations we supply Baron,Alley and others appear fixated with discrediting Rubenhold,and they cannot do it.It is blinding their judgement.You and I have answered Allys quesions,and the one inescapable fact is she will refuse to believe that the victims had other options than prostitution.Sure there is a suspicion that prostitution might have been a factor,I have said that,but the fact is there were thousands of women who were unfortunates and homeless(for those who wish to use statistics) who abstained from prostituting themselves.All or some of the five could have been among them.This obsession unfortuntes had to be prostitutes is akin to those who insisst a person who finds a body is automatically a suspect.Utterly futile reasoning.


.'

Harry, you are saying that the term ‘Unfortunate’ didn’t mean ‘Prostitute’ but instead just refers to someone down on their luck? I’ve always taken ‘Unfortunate’ to have been a euphemism for Prostitute.

This is from Jan Bondeson’s excellent (imo) The Ripper Of Waterloo Road.

‘The murder of Eliza Grimwood excited a most painful interest in the public mind. She was singularly beautiful, of the class termed ‘unfortunate,’ but loathing her way of life…”

This was written in 1881 about a murder that occurred in 1838. Eliza Grimwood was a part-time prostitute with savings, at the time of her death, of around £200 (a very significant sum in those days). She had a decent room with some nice clothes and expensive jewellery and was a regular at the theatre. She was very obviously in far better position than any of the ripper’s victims. Quite comfortable in fact. So she wasn’t unfortunate in terms of her situation being desperately poor or even just poor. So very clearly ‘unfortunate’ was a term that very specifically referred to a prostitute. Eliza Grimwood was a long way from being ‘down on her luck.’ She was very comfortably off by the standards of the time. An Unfortunate was obviously a Prostitute and not just someone down on their luck.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No Trevor,I have not fallen for anything.I no more accept Rubenhold's claim,than I do of posters on this thread.All she has to do is sit back and claim there has been no proof submitted.The only way to counter that is to produce proof,of an official nature.Some documentary evidence that can be uploaded to this thread and her boards.Not much chance of that I'm afraid.You are wasting your time trying to convince me,and I suspect Barron,but we are only two persons.There is still Rubenhold and her many followers.
I have conceded that evidence leads to a suspicion,not a conclusion Paul.False interpretation will get you nowhere,and as I have conceeded more than once,my education was only elementry,so your school master versus pupil approach is doomed.There are too many fair minded people reading this thread to fall for that.

Harry, you state that there are too many fair minded posters on here to ‘fall’ for the point that Paul and others are making about evidence vs proof. I have to point out the very obvious fact that, apart from The Baron, all of these posters appear to agree with Paul and disagree with you. This really should tell you something.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are some strange points being made here. To sum up we appear to be faced with a) that we shouldn’t say that the victims were either full or part-time prostitutes because we don’t have absolute written proof of this, and b) that we also shouldn’t say that the victims engaged in prostitution without written proof because being a prostitute is ‘bad’ and that we are somehow insulting their memory by doing so? This implies a moral judgment to me so which of us wants to put ourselves forward as the arbiter of morality? Certainly not me.

On point a) I’d make the point that every day of the week men and women are sent to prison without absolute proof having been provided of their guilt. Why then, on the far less important issue of whether someone engaged in prostitution or not, is a far higher level of evidence being demanded by two posters? As Paul has pointed out, history doesn’t always work on absolutes. If it was suddenly the case that only absolutes proven facts were accepted then we’d see a fair few historians stacking shelves in Morrison’s. We work with what we have and draw our inferences from that information. We have Nichols friends, family and the Police all stating clearly that she engaged in prostitution. On the night of her death she intended to earn her doss money. Harry suggests that she lay down in Bucks Row for a ‘temporary rest.’Was Bucks Row known to have particularly comfy pavements? She was drunk and penniless in a back street. She needed money with pawn shops closed and 99% of the population asleep in bed. So unless we are suggesting burglary then prostitution is the most reasonable inference (especially considering that her friends, family and the police all said that she resorted to it when she needed cash)

Point b) is beyond bizarre of course. To back up the suggestion that prostitution is ‘bad’ we are given the opinion of some psychologists and that because of their opinions on the potential effects of prostitution it’s stated that we shouldn’t suggest that someone engaged in it unless we have absolute written proof. Really? What about boxing as an example? Every single doctor will tell us that boxing is extremely dangerous and therefore, by The Baron’s apparent definition, ‘bad.’ So if we have an East Enders brother saying that x boxed for money, we have x’s wife saying that he boxed for money and also the police saying that he boxed for money but we have no documentary proof should we refrain from suggesting that he engaged in boxing simply because boxing is ‘bad’ and that we would be maligning his memory? Would anyone accept this nonsense unless they were making some kind of strange moral judgment? So we return to the question “who is the arbiter of morality?”

The evidence suggests very strongly (I’d say, beyond reasonable doubt) that these women engaged in prostitution when desperate. This isn’t a moral judgment so we certainly aren’t disrespecting their memories. It’s a judgment based on the available evidence. No one has classed it as ‘proof’ but it’s evidence which comes close and it’s certainly enough state, with a high level of confidence, that the victims of the ripper engaged in prostitution.

I recall the late Martin Fido once saying (or it might have been written in his book) after speaking to East End families, something like… ‘it was known that when times were tough Granny went out onto the streets to earn money and no one thought any the worse of her.’ There should be no stigma attached to saying that these women were forced by their horrendous circumstances, and the society that put them in that position, into prostitution at times. And to demand absolute written proof is, as all but two appear to understand, completely pointless.

[PaulB]

Clearly you have fallen along with Baron and Rubenhold in not accepting that there is sufficient factual and documentary evidence to show that the victims did engage in prostitution. Stride and Kelly are dead certs there can be no arguments with them from you Baron or Rubenhold. with the others there is enough evidence to caregorize them also as prostitutes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
I think the problem here is that Harry agrees that there is evidence on which it can be concluded that the five were prostitutes (which alone puts the lie to Rubenhold's claims that there is no evidence), but is saying that there is no proof. What he refuses to address is that the sort of proof he would find acceptable doesn't exist (or, if it does, it hasn't been found yet), and he refuses to understand that we must therefore draw the best conclusion we can from the evidence we possess - that conclusion being that they were prostitutes. The conclusion will change if contrary evidence comes along, just as the verdict of a jury can be overturned by fresh evidence. Nothing is immutable.