the victims werent prostitutes

[Ginger]

To society at large who are unfamiliar with the victims of crime.
Family members, friends, and even descendants of murder victims might beg to differ.

Perhaps auhors should be allowed an attempt at redressing the balance?

JM

Propinquity does tend to skew one's perspective, yes. My mother's cracked concrete walkway is a much more real and concerning problem to me than an African village destroyed in a landslide. For the sidewalk, I'll shell out the time and money necessary, and count it very well-spent if I can fix it in such a way that it won't become a problem again. It matters to me. For the village, if someone collecting money accosts me, I'll pretend concern, and put a five in the can, and spend the rest of the day trying not to feel resentment that I've been coerced into helping what is undoubtedly a good cause, not because I care on any personal level about the African village, but rather because I live in a society which lays great stress upon the simulation of caring.

There's a deeper problem for your hypothetical author, though, in that murder victims are generally pretty normal people, at least psychologically. A serial killer most assuredly is not. The interest in a modern-day victim, one who comes from the same society as ourselves, when it *can* be sustained, generally seems to centre on how the killer used a person's normal desires and expectations against them. With an unknown killer (such as the Ripper), the victims (or perhaps more precisely, how the victims differ from those around them) become interesting for what we believe they can tell us about the identity of the killer. Why did this person end up dead, and not that one? Some physical feature? Some behaviour? Random bad luck?

If it really were the case that the lives and motivations of ordinary people are, in and of themselves, as interesting as the lives and motivations of murderers, then I think we'd see popular biographies not even of murder victims, but of regular people. The only example that I can think of is Terkel's "Working", and that, I think, has more to do with Terkel's sensibilities and voice than with any inherent fascination in the lives being revealed. You could learn what Terkel tells to you at first-hand, all by yourself, by spending half an hour chatting up the bag-boy at the grocery store. Few people do. The interest in murder victims seems mainly to me to arise from their interaction with the murderer.

There is as well an additional dimension to old crimes, solved or unsolved, to social history in general, in that the lives being discussed take place in a world that we've heard about, a world that has left its imprint upon our own, but a world in which they do things differently, for reasons that may not be obvious, and which we can never visit except in imagination. The sheer strangeness of the past can lend fascination to lives which seemed utterly commonplace and unremarkable to the inhabitants of the past. I'll pretty much guarantee that at some point in the future, the way that we of the 21st century used text-based bulletin boards to communicate is going to seem fascinating and romantic to someone, a lost technology that conjures up a time before modern advantages, with different ways of doing things, much as we today regard the telegraph.

I am, however, most assuredly all for authors having a go!

[Varqm]

People uncomfortable with prostitution are making it fancy, ok ,when in the act of prostituting they were prostitutes but when not they weren't.So when Harry was in his uniform he was a cop,when at home he was Harry,the lawn mower operator,sweeper,dish washer,etc..Ok.

----

[harry]

It will be interesting to read Rubenhold's definition of prostitution and prostitutes.Despite the years I've spent perusing these boards,the times spent in countries where prostitution was rampant,in one case where favours could be bought for a few cigarrettes,I have no real grasp of how it might have affected the ripper crimes.I'll be honest,to me the women were just victims,I care nothing of what they were.Never have,and do not think it matters.In my case,and I expect quite a few others ,Rubenhold just could be correct.

[jmenges]

After the publishing of the article yesterday she said publicly "Quite a lot of what I actually said here has been completely twisted." And "I think you need to read my book before coming to conclusions about what I'm saying - and not rely on what is paraphrased third hand in a newspaper."

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t think it’s about balance. The author appears to be saying that those women weren’t prostitutes and that those interested in the case only proclaim them so because of sexist and mysogynistic reasons or to glorify the ripper. I’m only going on what was said in The Sun article of course. Maybe she’s been misrepresented?

[jmenges]

As a general rule (there are of course, exceptions), murderers tend to be more interesting than their victims.

To society at large who are unfamiliar with the victims of crime.
Family members, friends, and even descendants of murder victims might beg to differ.

Perhaps auhors should be allowed an attempt at redressing the balance?

JM

[Ginger]

As a general rule (there are of course, exceptions), murderers tend to be more interesting than their victims.

[Varqm]

Most books about Jack the Ripper focus on the identity of the murderer and the victims are mainly considered for the clues they provide to the perpetrator. This is the case in most whodunnits, both true crime and fictional, and is also the case in real life, but I think Halie Rubenhold doesn't understand this and is of the opinion that it dehumanises the victims.

I agree most people would go for "who was the killer",and then there 100 suspects so the discussion or a lot of it will go this way.Hypothetically if there were "complete" biographies of these victims then they too would have been discussed and debated over.But info are scant.

----

[Abby Normal]

Maybe she’s just fixated on the point that at least some of the women tried other ways to earn money other than prostitution? Of course this is nothing new. No one these days holds the view that those poor women did what they did because they were nymphomaniacs or that they were just so immoral and degraded that they didn’t know any better. I think that some people get the misapprehension that because we focus on trying to ascertain the identity of the killer (as Mr B pointed out) that we care nothing for the lives of the women that died horribly. We all know that isn’t the case though and that it does a disservice to anyone that has studied the case. Have any of us ever met anyone that glorifies Jack The Ripper? I certainly haven’t.

For me, and it’s only my opinion, it feels like a bit of a cheap shot selling point. Of course this may not have been her intention but nevertheless.

im kind of with you HS.

Im all for a book that focuses on the victims. Other than the whodunnit part, the second thing that really interests me is the women victims and there lives and how they really were caring people-there human side. mary Kelly letting friends stay at her place,there sense of humor in tough times-things like that.

however, im not sure what the point is trying to claim that they weren't really prostitutes-I mean we have there own friends saying they were. and of course playing the ism card-to get attention for a new book. bah.


I also agree that making the claim without the book actually being released so the claims can be looked at and vetted is pretty pointless too. The ole I know something you don't but im not telling yet.

and this coming from someone who dislikes the once a prostitute, always a prostitute mindthink and that Kelly and stride probably werent actively solicitating the night of their murders.

[Varqm]

Precisely. As has been suggested, whilst researching her book perhaps the author was influenced by the current preoccupation with "women's movements". I don't know.

I personally, have no doubts that they were all soliciting when they met JTR, on the night of their murders.

Yeah she is wrong,these victims were prostitutes part-time/full-time and were doing so in the night of their murders.I think she did not look at these cases more and from that black and white view prostitution is bad she just went off.Perhaps she wanted to provoke something, drum up some news.
I never read a suspect book,but as these books were/are discussed here in the forums,these books provided more info about the suspects,so they were good that way.Maybe this book is that way.But all she had to do was read the inquest over and over again,and the newspaper section of this website- which by the way is as important as any JTR.

---

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe she’s just fixated on the point that at least some of the women tried other ways to earn money other than prostitution? Of course this is nothing new. No one these days holds the view that those poor women did what they did because they were nymphomaniacs or that they were just so immoral and degraded that they didn’t know any better. I think that some people get the misapprehension that because we focus on trying to ascertain the identity of the killer (as Mr B pointed out) that we care nothing for the lives of the women that died horribly. We all know that isn’t the case though and that it does a disservice to anyone that has studied the case. Have any of us ever met anyone that glorifies Jack The Ripper? I certainly haven’t.

For me, and it’s only my opinion, it feels like a bit of a cheap shot selling point. Of course this may not have been her intention but nevertheless.

[Abby Normal]

I think Rubenhold accepts that Stride and Kelly were prostitutes, so her argument appears not to be whether the victims were or were not soliciting on the night they were murdered.

sorry
Im confused.

I was responding to your second point you brought up in your original post and also that she was arguing they were NOT prostitutes.

[c.d.]

I think Rubenhold accepts that Stride and Kelly were prostitutes, so her argument appears not to be whether the victims were or were not soliciting on the night they were murdered.

Hello Paul,

Did you type that correctly?

c.d.

[PaulB]

hi Paul
Thanks for the post. Unfortunately, once a prostitute, always a prostitute.

To me the circs of the Kelly and Stride cases lead me to the conclusion that neither was actively solicitating the night of their murders.. Both had recently broken up with boyfriends and seems they were out for a good time, or on a date, or perhaps out looking for a new boyfriend.


Kelly seemed to know Blotchy, was very comfortable with him, and brought him back to her own place-something we have no evidence she did before with a client.


Stride was seen by several witnesses over the course of a couple hours meandering about with the same man-again not the behaviour of someone solicitating.

I think Rubenhold accepts that Stride and Kelly were prostitutes, so her argument appears not to be whether the victims were or were not soliciting on the night they were murdered.

[PaulB]

According to Barnett's police statement;

"I have lived with her....until last Tuesday week (30 ulto) when in consequence of not Earning sufficient money to give her and her resorting to prostitution..."

Elsewhere (publically) he only claims she took in a prostitute and let her stay in their room, but the police statement is telling I think.

What I find strange is claiming that the victims were dehumanised by being labelled as prostitutes. Doesn't that imply that the author regards women who are prostitutes as not human?

Most books about Jack the Ripper focus on the identity of the murderer and the victims are mainly considered for the clues they provide to the perpetrator. This is the case in most whodunnits, both true crime and fictional, and is also the case in real life, but I think Halie Rubenhold doesn't understand this and is of the opinion that it dehumanises the victims.