Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the victims werent prostitutes

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    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.
    On what basis can you say "were likely not out soliciting". I don't think we have the least idea what they were doing, what their killer thought they were doing, or what they might have been persuaded to do before they were killed. If they had prostituted themselves in the past, and there are grounds for believing that they had, then that perhaps suggests a predisposition to do so again if the need or incentives were right.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
      On what basis can you say "were likely not out soliciting". I don't think we have the least idea what they were doing, what their killer thought they were doing, or what they might have been persuaded to do before they were killed. If they had prostituted themselves in the past, and there are grounds for believing that they had, then that perhaps suggests a predisposition to do so again if the need or incentives were right.
      I have to say that I have never understood this line of thinking. Are we to assume that they all swore some sort of sacred oath that they would not exchange sex for money on a particular night before venturing out on the street? They were poor, destitute women with a fondness for drink. How can we say with any certainty what they would do if approached by a potential customer?

      c.d.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by harry View Post
        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?

        Maybe she was very independant Harry and wanted to pay for her own bed with money that she’d earned herself? Maybe she wasn’t all that keen on spending the night with Emily Holland?

        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.

        Maybe she just didn’t want to spend the night in custody? Maybe she had somewhere she intended to go?

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

        The killer would only have had to have told his victim that he could pay.
        Even if any of these women weren’t actively soliciting it doesn’t preclude the idea of them taking the opportunity to earn a few pennies when it arose.
        Regards

        Herlock






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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
          I have to say that I have never understood this line of thinking. Are we to assume that they all swore some sort of sacred oath that they would not exchange sex for money on a particular night before venturing out on the street? They were poor, destitute women with a fondness for drink. How can we say with any certainty what they would do if approached by a potential customer?

          c.d.
          Exactly c.d.
          Regards

          Herlock






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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
            Isn't there a possibility, perhaps remote but nevertheless to be given serious consideration, that this is just slightly unlikely?
            You’re just not open to new ideas Mr B.
            Regards

            Herlock






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

            Comment


            • Perhaps it might help if I say that I was giving the right victim explanations, but not necessarily in the right order.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Robert View Post
                Perhaps it might help if I say that I was giving the right victim explanations, but not necessarily in the right order.
                Thank you Eric
                Regards

                Herlock






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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  I have to say that I have never understood this line of thinking. Are we to assume that they all swore some sort of sacred oath that they would not exchange sex for money on a particular night before venturing out on the street? They were poor, destitute women with a fondness for drink. How can we say with any certainty what they would do if approached by a potential customer?

                  c.d.
                  I think that is what I said. I therefore agree with you.

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;457643]You’re just not open to new ideas Mr B.[/QUOTE
                    So I have been told.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                      I think that is what I said. I therefore agree with you.
                      Hello Paul,

                      Yes, I believe that is what you said. I just added the sacred oath part which I thought was pretty pithy. And the bit about their drinking problems.

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • Hello Paul,

                        On a serious note, I hope you don't feel as though I stepped on your toes or was trying to steal your thunder. It was certainly not my intention to do so. My apologies if that is the case.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • I've just had a rummage through the inquest transcripts on Casebook, Ripperology's vade mecum.

                          Emily Holland "did not know in what way she [Polly Nichols] obtained a living. She always seemed to her to be a quiet woman, and kept very much to herself." Wynne Baxter called her unfortunate, but in the context of her being a murder victim.

                          Nobody at Annie Chapman's inquest mentioned 'unfortunate' or prostitution. Asked what she did for a living, Amelia Palmer said, "She used to do crochet work, make antimaccassars, and sell flowers. She was out late at night at times."

                          John Kelly said he . . . "never knew she [Eddowes] went out for any immoral purpose," although "We had been unfortunate at the hop-picking."

                          The word 'prostitute' wasn't uttered at Elizabeth Stride's inquest. Wynne Baxter mentioned that Stride sometimes being worse for drink was 'unfortunately' a failing with her, and asked what she was doing for a livelihood, Mary Malcolm replied, "I had my doubts."

                          Asked why Barnett left Kelly, he said, "Because she had a woman of bad character there, whom she took in out of compassion, and I objected to it. That was the only reason." Caroline Maxwell said, "I believe she was an unfortunate," without explaining the basis for her belief.

                          Ubi autem probationem?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                            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

                            Sorry Simon, I thought you were talking about Stride.
                            Thats twice I've done that now.....
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Hi Jon,

                              No problem.

                              Regards,

                              Simon

                              Comment


                              • 29 Hanbury Street was a place known for allowing people without lodgings to sleep on the stairs and in the passageway- for days at a time- and none of the regular occupants would take any notice of them or ask them to leave.

                                JM

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X