the victims werent prostitutes

[MsWeatherwax]

I find revisionist history like this really quite irritating.

Other than the fact that it would have put them in high risk situations (and may or may not have been a motive for their murders), that these women were prostitutes has little bearing to me, and I'm sure to many others who are interested in the case. I feel like trying to suggest that they were 'middle class' is, ironically, getting close to victim blaming - like if we rewrite the narrative, they will somehow become less 'deserving' of what happened to them, which I find profoundly distasteful.

Rubenhold, whose book will be called The Five, said researchers had 'fixated' on the Ripper but never thought about who the women were, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

This is also extremely unfair. There has clearly been an enormous amount of research into both the canonical and non-canonical victims - I can only assume that the author has never ventured into the Mary Jane Kelly board on here, because it's quite clear that even today, there is as much interest in her story as there is in uncovering her murderer.

[Simon Wood]

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Stride had earned 6p for helping to clean the lodging house Saturday afternoon. (https://www.casebook.org/victims/stride.html) The doorman at the house reported that she had the 6p with her when she left Sunday evening, so either the amount earned was in addition to her Saturday room rental, or else she had enough money for the room in addition to the 6p. She'd been a longterm occupant of the rooming house, and was described as "clean and hardworking" (https://www.casebook.org/witnesses/thomas-bates.html), so seems to have led a more stable existence than the other victims. When her body was found, she had no money upon her. Frustratingly, no-one says (or if they do, I've not seen), whether Stride was paid up for Sunday night as well.

Thanks for that Ginger

[Herlock Sholmes]

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?

Because they obviously were prostitutes Simon and the letter is generally considered a hoax.

[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.

[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?

[GUT]

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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

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

I think you've cracked it.

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.