the victims werent prostitutes

[Simon Wood]

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?”

[PaulB]

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.

[PaulB]

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.

[Ginger]

Do we really think that the police were so benevolent that they would allow women a bed for the night? Drunks would have been a regular sight and so they would have wanted the cells free. There’s nothing strange about Catherine’s behaviour if explained in terms of prostitution. She’s skint. She thinks that she’s going to get a ‘damn fine hiding.’ What better way to mollify Kelly than by handing over some cash? If she wasn’t engaging in prostitution then her behaviour is even stranger. Wanting to get back she stops for a chat with an apparent stranger in the wee small hours. Of course not. Even if she did have a place to doss these women were desperate. They didn’t know where the next meal, drink or doss money was coming from so they were unlikely to turn down the offer of a quick earner.

I think (and surely someone will correct me if I'm wrong) the reason the constable released Eddowes in the middle of the night, and the reason that she didn't ask to sleep over in the gaol, is that if she had been held until morning, when the police magistrate arrived to start his day, the odds are good that she'd have been fined or sentenced for being drunk and disorderly. Her life was close enough to the edge without having that happen to her, as I'm sure the constable well understood. Also, she hadn't hurt anyone, or behaved in a malicious fashion. The poor man tried to do a good turn to a harmless unfortunate, and she ended up murdered as a result. I'm sure that echoed through his conscience for the rest of his days.

[Ginger]

It’s surely a reasonable assumption to make though. It’s far harder work to come up with an alternative explanation for why [Chapman] was there at that time.

I've always thought it possible that Chapman initially went to #29 intending to use the outhouse, or maybe even intending to get a drink of water from the backyard tap, then met the murderer either outside on the street, or perhaps even in the hallway or backyard. By numerous accounts, the locals seem to have regarded the hallway of the house as a public space, entering at will, and even sleeping there. I've never seen anyone speak for or against the idea, but it seems more than likely to me that the backyard, with its outhouse, enjoyed a similar status.

Given that she was found in that little alcove by the stairs with her head toward the house, I think it most probable that she was bracing herself against the house, waiting to be mounted from behind when the Ripper attacked her. I know of nothing though that would rule out her being strangled in another part of the yard, even the privy itself, and then being dragged unconscious to the little recess by the stairs to be mutilated. On the balance of evidence, I think that she was quite probably killed while trying to earn a bit of money through prostitution, but I don't regard it as proven.

And, although a bit off-topic, one thing that has always struck me as odd about the Chapman case is the intense interest displayed at the inquest regarding whether she had had any strong spirits that night. Not just her drinking habits in general, and not beer, but liquor in particular that night. I'm left believing that there was something, now lost to us, that the police knew or suspected that led to this interest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even accepting each victim did conform with the legal term,it does not follow prostitution was a reason each was a victim.Take Nichols for example.Are we to accept that on being offered accomodation,she turned it down in favour of finding a customer and performing a sexual act to get enough money to doss .Strange behaviour indeed if that were so.She already had a place to doss.Same with Eddowes.I doubt the police would have been so heartless as to refuse her the use of a cell had she requested.But no,she has to conform.She has to go and commit an act of prostitution,get money, to obtain the means of what she already had,accomodation.Strange women.Strange behaviour,never been explained.

Anyone care to explain payment in relation to the legal requirements for a case of prostitution? It doesn't mean money,because that term is specified.

The problem is Harry that even if Polly intended to ‘earn’ money by some other means we would still have to call it strange behaviour. What other way could she have earned her doss money three times in the early hours? As she appeared confident of earning that money again what other way was there? She didn’t have any saleable items on her and would she have sold them anyway at 2.30 am. No, it’s quite clear that she intended prostitution.

Do we really think that the police were so benevolent that they would allow women a bed for the night? Drunks would have been a regular sight and so they would have wanted the cells free. There’s nothing strange about Catherine’s behaviour if explained in terms of prostitution. She’s skint. She thinks that she’s going to get a ‘damn fine hiding.’ What better way to mollify Kelly than by handing over some cash? If she wasn’t engaging in prostitution then her behaviour is even stranger. Wanting to get back she stops for a chat with an apparent stranger in the wee small hours. Of course not. Even if she did have a place to doss these women were desperate. They didn’t know where the next meal, drink or doss money was coming from so they were unlikely to turn down the offer of a quick earner.

I think we are in danger of trying to argue that black is white here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hello Simon,

It’s surely a reasonable assumption to make though. It’s far harder work to come up with an alternative explanation for why she was there at that time.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

"God for Harry, England, and Saint George!"

I think you've cracked it.

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

Even accepting each victim did conform with the legal term,it does not follow prostitution was a reason each was a victim.Take Nichols for example.Are we to accept that on being offered accomodation,she turned it down in favour of finding a customer and performing a sexual act to get enough money to doss .Strange behaviour indeed if that were so.She already had a place to doss.Same with Eddowes.I doubt the police would have been so heartless as to refuse her the use of a cell had she requested.But no,she has to conform.She has to go and commit an act of prostitution,get money, to obtain the means of what she already had,accomodation.Strange women.Strange behaviour,never been explained.

Anyone care to explain payment in relation to the legal requirements for a case of prostitution? It doesn't mean money,because that term is specified.

[Scott Nelson]

She could have gone in to sleep on the stairs. She could have been waiting for sunrise so she could offer her sewing skills to residents, etc., etc.

[Simon Wood]

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

[GUT]

If they weren’t orostitutes (or considered to be) winder how MJK got that listed as her occupation on her death certificate?

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are many [not including me] who would argue that the Dear Boss letter is the real deal.

Care to share why the C5 were 'obviously' prostitutes.

Not really Simon but I also wouldn’t want to share why Abberline was ‘obviously’ a Police Officer. They were obviously prostitutes. Either part or full-time. How else could Nichols have expected to earn her doss money at 2.30 am? After earning it and spending it three times. Why was Annie in a back yard which was a known location for prostitutes and clients in the early hours? Liz Stride was a prostitute in Sweden now living in the worst part of London. Barnett left Mary Kelly because of her ‘lifestyle.’

There’s obviously more than this but I have no books available and my memory is poor. I don’t understand the objection to saying what these women obviously had to do to survive?

[Simon Wood]

There are many [not including me] who would argue that the Dear Boss letter is the real deal.

Care to share why the C5 were 'obviously' prostitutes.