Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the victims werent prostitutes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
    Why is everyone getting their knickers in a bunch about the proposition that the C5 were not prostitutes? Not one of them had a rap sheet for solicitation.

    William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, estimated that during the 1880s prostitutes in London numbered between 60,000 and 80,000, yet seventeen days after the murder of Annie Chapman, 'Dear Boss' wrote, "I am down on whores and I shant quit ripping them till I do get buckled . . . I love my work and want to start again."

    What had been stopping him?
    Hi Simon. I hope all is well. It's not whether or not they were prostitutes - and a 'rap sheet' is probably no indicator - but the claim that Ripperologists have neglected the victims and, implied in the claim that three weren't prostitutes, that they were too dumb to question the statements that they were (as Rubenhold has stated, the police and researchers are sexist). Neither allegation is true, and the evidence against four of the five seems strong. It's to be hoped Rubenhold has new evidence in her book, which is still several months from publication.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
      Hi Herlock,

      Annie Chapman's body was discovered in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street.

      That's all we can say with confidence.

      That she took a client there for the purposes of prostitution is mere supposition.

      Regards,

      Simon
      She had no reason to be in the backyard and, presumably, neither did her murderer. One could assume that two people who didn't have a justifiable reason to be in the backyard accidently met there. Or maybe the one nipped in for a nap (unlikely if it was Chapman seen by Mrs Long) and was followed in by the other. But don't you think such possibilities are a bit of a stretch? It's not an unreasonable supposition that both victim and killer went there together, whether for sex or to discuss philosophy being unknown, but the former the more likely, especially if it was known to be used for that purpose.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
        She had no reason to be in the backyard and, presumably, neither did her murderer. One could assume that two people who didn't have a justifiable reason to be in the backyard accidently met there. Or maybe the one nipped in for a nap (unlikely if it was Chapman seen by Mrs Long) and was followed in by the other. But don't you think such possibilities are a bit of a stretch? It's not an unreasonable supposition that both victim and killer went there together, whether for sex or to discuss philosophy being unknown, but the former the more likely, especially if it was known to be used for that purpose.
        When Cadosch said that he heard the word ‘no’ perhaps Annie had just been asked “do we have free will?”
        Regards

        Herlock






        "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

        Comment


        • Hi Herlock,

          Mrs Long saw Chapman ten minutes after Cadosch heard someone say "No."

          Regarding Chapman's presence in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, the Evening News, 8th September, reported blood stains in the passage from the street door to the yard, suggesting that she had been carried into the yard.

          Regards,

          Simon
          Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            When Cadosch said that he heard the word ‘no’ perhaps Annie had just been asked “do we have free will?”
            now that's funny
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
              Hi Herlock,

              Mrs Long saw Chapman ten minutes after Cadosch heard someone say "No."

              Regarding Chapman's presence in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, the Evening News, 8th September, reported blood stains in the passage from the street door to the yard, suggesting that she had been carried into the yard.

              Regards,

              Simon
              Hello Simon,

              Did any other sources back up the story of the blood stains? If they existed weren’t they more likely to have come from the killer Ashe left?
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • Hi Herlock,

                [Coroner] In your opinion did she enter the yard alive?

                [Dr. Phillips] I am positive of it. I made a thorough search of the passage, and I saw no trace of blood, which must have been visible had she been taken into the yard.

                The People, 9th September 1888—"By those who know the place well it is believed that the woman was murdered in the street and afterwards carried into the passage. This view is, to a certain extent, borne out by traces of blood, which reach to the street. There is, moreover, nothing in the appearance of the ground to indicate a struggle."

                Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, followed up on the story of the bloodstains in the Evening News

                “The theory primarily formed was that the unfortunate victim had been first murdered and afterwards dragged through the entry into the back yard, but from an inspection made later in the day it appears that the murder was actually committed in the corner of the yard, which the back door when open places in obscurity [this last detail wasn't true].”

                “There were some marks of blood observable in the passage, but it is now known that these were caused during the work of removal of some packing cases, the edges of which accidentally came in contact with the blood upon the spot from which the unhappy victim was removed.”

                Make of all this what you will.

                Regards,

                Simon
                Last edited by Simon Wood; 09-28-2018, 12:36 PM. Reason: extra info
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • What is strange to me,Herlock,is that Nichols, who wanted accomodation that night,and had been offered a place to doss,turned down that offer.For what reason?Once that offer had been made,it negated the need to seek other means of obtaining shelter.So why the need to prostitute herself?

                  The police did not have to be benevolent with Eddowes.She was already in custody,all that was needed was an extended stay of a few hours,which would have been within their power to grant.That she would leave shelter,and instead prostitute herself to finance other shelter,seems a ridiculous,to me,proposition.


                  Now,suppose the killer was a person who could offer no payment.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post

                    Manchester Guardian, 10th September 1888, followed up on the story of the bloodstains in the Evening News

                    “The theory primarily formed was that the unfortunate victim had been first murdered and afterwards dragged through the entry into the back yard, but from an inspection made later in the day it appears that the murder was actually committed in the corner of the yard, which the back door when open places in obscurity [this last detail wasn't true].”
                    "Back door" should read "gate", being the gate at the right side of the entrance which when opened would not lay flat against the wall, but may obscure the body close to the house wall.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • I think you've hit on something, Michael : the victims were killed because they gave the wrong answer to philosophical questions. Chapman made a blunder with free will; Nichols refused to believe in Plato's theory of Forms; Stride mocked Kant's Categorical Imperative; Eddowes said "cogito ergo the sum is fourpence"; and Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                        Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'
                        She had a point there.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                          I think you've hit on something, Michael : the victims were killed because they gave the wrong answer to philosophical questions. Chapman made a blunder with free will; Nichols refused to believe in Plato's theory of Forms; Stride mocked Kant's Categorical Imperative; Eddowes said "cogito ergo the sum is fourpence"; and Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'
                          Isn't there a possibility, perhaps remote but nevertheless to be given serious consideration, that this is just slightly unlikely?

                          Comment


                          • I fear you're right, Paul. I shall have to do Dr Munson's roses after all.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                              I think you've hit on something, Michael : the victims were killed because they gave the wrong answer to philosophical questions. Chapman made a blunder with free will; Nichols refused to believe in Plato's theory of Forms; Stride mocked Kant's Categorical Imperative; Eddowes said "cogito ergo the sum is fourpence"; and Kelly said St Anselm's ontological argument was 'a load of bollocks.'
                              Thanks for lightening the moment Robert, but when addressing the thread question the existing evidence suggests that at least 3 women within this Canonical Group that has been created were likely not out soliciting when they met their killer(s). Which is a dramatic change from a killer who accesses women without money and a bed who are desperate enough to take strangers to dark corners.

                              I would put that piece of the MO, which is created by using Polly and Annies murders, as a primary part of the puzzle.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Hi Jon,

                                John Davies, tenant of 29 Hanbury Street who discovered the body at 6.00 am, testified—

                                “Directly I opened the door I saw a woman lying down in the left hand recess, between the stone steps and the fence.”

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X