the victims werent prostitutes

[Ally]

I don't think the general public does know. There is the caricature and the truth. If it helps bring the truth to a wider audience, then right on.

The type of general public who believes the women were sexed-up goodtime girls aren't the type who are going to be reading social history tomes either.

This book isn't going to do much to enlighten the general public. It's a niche book, for a niche audience.

I'm in a book club, we read a wide variety of books, non-fiction and fiction and none of the women I know would consider this for one of their "Book of the Month" selections.

[Le Grand]

I don't think the general public does know. There is the caricature and the truth. If it helps bring the truth to a wider audience, then right on.

But you're right in that if Rubenhold's intent has been twisted -- and I can only take her word -- she should do more now to set the record straight. And it's also wrong to portray focus on the victims as new. Your turning to them long ago changed my entire view of the case, Paul. Thank you.

[PaulB]

I've enjoyed Hallie Rubenhold's other work and found it useful in my own. Her books are academic but accessible: clear, rigorous, scrupulous, and informed.

But the publicity didn't sit right with me. So I spoke to her on Twitter earlier this week, using the example of Catharine Eddowes, who survived by any means necessary, including casual prostitution. The circumstances of her murder bear this out.

Rubenhold replied that the press significantly twisted her intent and asked me to reserve judgment. She didn't elaborate, but I think she's earned that much.

I doubt that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes, who all fell from relative heights, would have called themselves prostitutes. (Kelly, of course, was more up front about it.) They were desperate women, clinging to their pride, who lived hand-to-mouth without social recourse. *We* know this, but most people don't.

The press/Hollywood/morality machine long ago turned the victims into sexed-up good time girls on the make, who lived dangerously and got their comeuppance. If Rubenhold's book is along this line -- how and why these women were backed into corners -- then more power to her elbow.

Um, we kind of know how these women got into the position they were in, don't we? And I don't know what relevance there is in what four or them would have called themselves. The description of them as prostitutes is how others perceived them or what they knew them to be, isn't it?

As already said, of course everyone should reserve judgement, but will they? Or will loads of people just read what Dr Rubenhold has flatly stated and believe it? Six months is an awfully long time for people to wait until they can check it out, don't you think?

[Le Grand]

Rubenhold's response

I've enjoyed Hallie Rubenhold's other work and found it useful in my own. Her books are academic but accessible: clear, rigorous, scrupulous, and informed.

But the publicity didn't sit right with me. So I spoke to her on Twitter earlier this week, using the example of Catharine Eddowes, who survived by any means necessary, including casual prostitution. The circumstances of her murder bear this out.

Rubenhold replied that the press significantly twisted her intent and asked me to reserve judgment. She didn't elaborate, but I think she's earned that much.

I doubt that Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes, who all fell from relative heights, would have called themselves prostitutes. (Kelly, of course, was more up front about it.) They were desperate women, clinging to their pride, who lived hand-to-mouth without social recourse. *We* know this, but most people don't.

The press/Hollywood/morality machine long ago turned the victims into sexed-up good time girls on the make, who lived dangerously and got their comeuppance. If Rubenhold's book is along this line -- how and why these women were backed into corners -- then more power to her elbow.

[Robert]

Hi Gary

It was probably just me being lazy. I know how to spell it but typing it with one finger is always a bit tricky.

[Bridewell]

Yes I was referring to his stepmother.

Thanks for clarifying.

[MrBarnett]

A few of the more northern newspapers used the word, and the Daily Telegraph 10th Sept did too.

You mean the 'p' word, Robert? Some of them certainly used that.
And, as I said over at How's, the word 'unfortunate' was not solely reserved for erstwhile 'respectable' women who had suffered misfortune and subsequently drifted into prostitution.

In the early 19th century the term 'unfortunate prostitute' was often used. The two terms were interchangeable.

[Robert]

A few of the more northern newspapers used the word, and the Daily Telegraph 10th Sept did too.

[Ginger]

They were not described as prostitutes in the press.

I don't think that any of them (with the possible exception of Kelly, and even with her I doubt it) practiced prostitution because they thought it an agreeable way to earn a living. Their status as prostitutes, or not, seems to me a rather important point, though. It's in the nature of that line of work to accompany men whom one has just met into secluded locations. That's why to this day so many of them end up murdered - they're an easy target for serial killers. If they *weren't* "on the job" when murdered, then the case becomes much stranger and more intriguing, and we have to wonder if the victims knew Jack, and went willingly with him for some other purpose than sex. That's been the basis of speculation as long as there have been Ripperologists.

FWIW, I think that Stride, despite her prior conviction, was outside the club hoping to be paid to help clean up after the meeting. She'd obviously be inclined to chat and be agreeable to anyone she thought connected with the club under those circumstances. It was her misfortune to chat up the murderer (who may well have picked her because he thought that she was "on the game", standing around a stable yard entrance at one in the morning).

So far as the papers not using the word "prostitute", Google Ngrams https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...titute%3B%2Cc0 shows 1884 as the lowest year since 1800 for the use of that word. 1888 wasn't much higher. It was simply an unfashionable (or perhaps embarassing) word in the LVP. The word "unfortunate", which has been in constant decline since 1800, sees its use stabilize, and even slightly rise, between 1880 and 1900 (https://books.google.com/ngrams/grap...unate%3B%2Cc0). Sadly, there's no way to find what appearances of "unfortunate" were as a noun, rather than an adjective, or if there is, I don't know how to make Ngrams show that. I tend to suspect, though, that between 1865 and 1905, "unfortunate" as a noun was quite often a euphemism for "prostitute".

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

You assume that if the victims were not actively soliciting then they were not soliciting at all. But think about this for a minute. Were they carrying signs that said "open for business" or "closed for business?" How can we possibly know what they would or would not be willing to do at any given time? And even if they were not actively soliciting (whatever that means) they were all poor and had drinking problems. It seems that Jack had no intention of letting them keep his money even in death. So how easy would it be for him to offer twice the going rate along with some story that he just got paid and really wanted some fun? If she accepts his offer it does not mean that she is committed to soliciting the rest of the evening. It only means that a poor woman saw an opportunity for some easy money so she took it.

The issue is not so black and white as you make it out to be.

c.d.

I think if youll re-read what Ive been saying cd youll find that I'm pointing out that in only 2 cases do we have evidence that they were soliciting at the time.That gives us a foundation to assess the evidence in those cases and maybe get some information about their killer and perhapswhy they died.

In those 2 cases, I can see the signs of an opportunity killer, someone who didn't know his victims, and someone who had an interest in female internal organs.

Unless we know the remaining 3 were soliciting as well we cant assume the same situational characteristics. Particularly when the subsequent murders have unique aspects to them. Polly then Annie by one man is completely acceptable to me personally, I don't see any strong counter arguments,...but I don't see the same kind of evidence going forward. I see similarities that may have been intentionally done, rather than instinctively or compulsively.

[GUT]

it is not a matter of whether they were or were not prostitutes, they were 'unfortunates'. that is women who through poverty, drink, breakup of marriage or other circumstances were destitute. Among the options for survival was occasional prostitution. There were more occasional prostitutes in London than full time ones. Unless you were a high class prostitute, working the streets led to early death, often from tb, and sexual diseases. A full time sex worker in the 1860s had a survival rate of seven years.

So with the exception of Mary Kelly who claimed she had been involved in the sex industry since she was 16, and had been living off Joe Barnett till he lost his job and Liz Stride who had been a convicted prostitute in Sweden.It seems that only extreme poverty led the women,to walk the streets as they all with the exception of Kelly, had had better lives, families and work. They did various things to keep body and soul alive, cleaning, hopping, selling cloth flowers , shacking up with a partner to pool costs, but sometimes it was'nt enough. Chapman lost her allowance from her husband when he died and had a drink problem, the streets were the only option, Eddowes had spend the boot money on drink and was desperate to get it back.
l prefer the term 'unfortunate' to prostitute. They were not described as prostitutes in the press.

miss marple

Well said, save that even MJK was, in my opinion, an unfortunate. If we accept the story she told it was widowhood that in effect lead her to prostitution.

As far as I know none of my ancestors resorted to prostitution on bec9ming a widow, but a few did agree to what can only be considered unfortunate marriages because other options were, to say the least, limited.

[miss marple]

it is not a matter of whether they were or were not prostitutes, they were 'unfortunates'. that is women who through poverty, drink, breakup of marriage or other circumstances were destitute. Among the options for survival was occasional prostitution. There were more occasional prostitutes in London than full time ones. Unless you were a high class prostitute, working the streets led to early death, often from tb, and sexual diseases. A full time sex worker in the 1860s had a survival rate of seven years.

So with the exception of Mary Kelly who claimed she had been involved in the sex industry since she was 16, and had been living off Joe Barnett till he lost his job and Liz Stride who had been a convicted prostitute in Sweden.It seems that only extreme poverty led the women,to walk the streets as they all with the exception of Kelly, had had better lives, families and work. They did various things to keep body and soul alive, cleaning, hopping, selling cloth flowers , shacking up with a partner to pool costs, but sometimes it was'nt enough. Chapman lost her allowance from her husband when he died and had a drink problem, the streets were the only option, Eddowes had spend the boot money on drink and was desperate to get it back.
l prefer the term 'unfortunate' to prostitute. They were not described as prostitutes in the press.

miss marple

[harry]

Varqm,
I cannot be as sure as you are,but I would be interested in your,or anyone else's,description of a prostitute.I understand the simple definition of sex for money,but is it that simple?Can we be certain that when Nichols stated she had earned money the previous day,it was through prostitution,or her quest that night was in search of money for sex.?Were there alternate means of acquiring fourpence? Stride it has been stated earned sixpence for cleaning.

Nonsense,is not a very dismissive answer.I expect better from you.

[Observer]

Albert Cadosch's mother died around 1867 so any reference to cat owner is almost certainly to his stepmother.

Yes I was referring to his stepmother.

[Robert]

Hi Colin

Ancestry non-conformist records has Maria's death but curiously adds 'still-born' though the register gives her age as 30. Some sort of ghost echo of a record that's no longer on the site?