the victims werent prostitutes

[PaulB]

I’ve said that I’ll be the first to admit it if the book is a good one. And of course there could be some good information in it. But from what I’ve read so far about the author’s outlook - that we’ve all been glorifying the ripper - and her claim that the victim’s weren’t prostitutes when they obviously were it doesn’t fill me with confidence I’m afraid.

There's quite a bit of discussion about this elsewhere on Casebook, the other place, and on Facebook.

I have to say that this has nothing to do with Rubenhold's book, which may or may not deliver on her claims, and whilst her comments may not fill one with confidence, we shouldn't really judge her book by them. Having said that, as was observed in the other place, 'When you make claims prior to a book's publication, and accuse people of sexism or misogyny, you can't expect a free pass.'

[Herlock Sholmes]

There's quite a bit of discussion about this elsewhere on Casebook, the other place, and on Facebook.

I have to say that this has nothing to do with Rubenhold's book, which may or may not deliver on her claims, and whilst her comments may not fill one with confidence, we shouldn't really judge her book by them. Having said that, as was observed in the other place, 'When you make claims prior to a book's publication, and accuse people of sexism or misogyny, you can't expect a free pass.'

Absolutely Paul, we’ll have to wait and see. My hopes aren’t high though

[Abby Normal]

There are two questions, one is whether the victims had ever provided sex for money and, if so, that forever branded them as prostitutes, the other is whether they were soliciting when they were murdered. There are other technical questions such as whether the casual sale of sex, in which we are told many women engaged when it was necessary, would be considered prostitution by the victims or their associates, or by the police. The police in 1888 described them as such, so did the press, and we've all considered the question since then - we know Stride and Kelly were prostitutes and the locatios where Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were found suggests that they had gone there for sex. Despite some reservations, especially about Eddowes, the conclusion is that all were prostitues. Hopefully, Rubenhold's book will provide convincing evidence to support her conclusions. Unfortunately it is six months away, which is a lot of time for what is currently an utterly unsupported claim to infect the same minds that currently think DNA on a shawl has identified Jack the Ripper or that a diary has shown him to be James Maybrick.

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.

[Joshua Rogan]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

---

[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]

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.

----

[Ginger]

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

[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

[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?