the victims werent prostitutes

[MrBarnett]

Gladys Stoatpamphlet?

Just a guess.

O'Stoatpamphlet wasn't it?

[Sam Flynn]

O'Stoatpamphlet wasn't it?

She was in disguise.

[MrBarnett]

She was in disguise.

Of course she was.😎

[packers stem]

As did all the other vagrants who congregated in the square each night.

[ATTACH]18844[/ATTACH]

How well do you know Trafalgar Square?

Vagrancy was a 'convenient' crime for arrest .
Lots of vagrants in Kiev in 2014 I'm sure .
This is how political reform happens .Lots of vagrants congregate .... simple

Bit like Russian sightseers in Salisbury ..... just the way it is

[MrBarnett]

Vagrancy was a 'convenient' crime for arrest .
Lots of vagrants in Kiev in 2014 I'm sure .
This is how political reform happens .Lots of vagrants congregate .... simple

Bit like Russian sightseers in Salisbury ..... just the way it is

And from what we know of Polly's history, was she a vagrant or a political activist?

[packers stem]

And from what we know of Polly's history, was she a vagrant or a political activist?

I am of the opinion that the social unrest was at the heart of the arrests in the square at this time.
If you want to cling to the idea that she was arrested whilst washing her smalls in the fountain then that would be your choice .
Others will have their own opinion


Under pressure from the press to deal with a situation seen as embarrassing to the great metropolis, the police started to disperse meetings in the square from the 17th of October, often resorting to violence. The tension continued, now with frequent clashes between police and protesters, and Irish Home Rulers also began to use the square to protest.

From the link I posted

[MrBarnett]

I am of the opinion that the social unrest was at the heart of the arrests in the square at this time.
If you want to cling to the idea that she was arrested whilst washing her smalls in the fountain then that would be your choice .
Others will have their own opinion


Under pressure from the press to deal with a situation seen as embarrassing to the great metropolis, the police started to disperse meetings in the square from the 17th of October, often resorting to violence. The tension continued, now with frequent clashes between police and protesters, and Irish Home Rulers also began to use the square to protest.

From the link I posted

.

I'm 'clinging' to the considerable research that has been done into Polly's background which suggests she led a largely vagrant lifestyle. So when she's arrested for vagrancy in a location where vagrants were known to congregate, I see no reason to suspect it was a false charge.

[packers stem]

.

I'm 'clinging' to the considerable research that has been done into Polly's background which suggests she led a largely vagrant lifestyle. So when she's arrested for vagrancy in a location where vagrants were known to congregate, I see no reason to suspect it was a false charge.

Then I'll leave you with your thoughts
I'm happy that people were congregating in the square primarily to join in with the political protests
Similar to today when we get political marches and protests ..... many will be unemployed , rough living etc but typically with extreme left leaning views.
Some will also be intent on using it as an excuse to riot ..... it's life .
Lots of other places a vagrant could have gone and avoided arrest if the cause was of no interest

[Roy Corduroy]

... I dont see the story about Marys stay in Paris for a fortnight impossible at all considering her up-status bordello life at that time, and her corroborated finer attire.

Hi Michael and thanks for your roundabout reply. It's her Paris story and her story only. Not "the story." And Mary apparently told this story to one person and one person only, Joseph Barnett. Nothing corroborates it. Not use of the modern day term up-status. Nor use of the phrase finer attire.

I could see her sitting at tables with someone like Millen or others quite easily in that scenario. That might scare any small town gal.

This is something you have tacked on in your own imagination Michael, sorry.

And to think of the phenomenal amount of really difficult, often times frustrating research done on the life of Mary Kelly through the years. Wasn't it Nick Connell who first found that Morganstone was Morganstern. Then the Sheldens followed the lead to now where Debs and others have continued mining that vien. Mrs Buki et al.

I thought that was the thrust of this thread. Our opportunity to carefully weight the tons of real research done by people over the years, which have made the life stories of the victims come to life, versus the bald assertion in the publicity for the upcoming book that sexist researchers have buried the life stories of the vicitims and stereotyped them.

I thought this thread would be about real known facts. And assumptions that have some, at least any chance of being correct. Little did I know.

Roy

[Michael W Richards]

That's assuming that the women in question were actively prostituting themselves at the same time. I'm not so sure that this would apply to Nichols, who doesn't seem to have been a long-term resident of Spitalfields; I might include Stride and Mary Kelly in that category, albeit they'd been around a little longer. Neither Chapman nor Eddowes strike me as having been regular prostitutes, for that matter.

In short, it's by no means certain that all five canonical victims would have been soliciting on the same streets simultaneously.
The idea that they would have been acquainted with one another, simply because they'd stayed in Dorset Street on occasion, is what I struggle with. It's possible, of course, but it's nowhere near as probable as some people have made out, and it's certainly not axiomatic.

Im not making statements that apply to all the victims that people believe were linked to this one killer Sam, because I dont believe 1 man is responsible for 5 victims. In Pollys case Im completely satisfied with a theory that she met her while she solicited, I think her killer is this lone killer people imagine. She told a friend she was soliciting. So did Annie. The similarities in those 2 murders are compatible with a single killer theory.

But we dont know Liz was, not Kate, and Mary was at home in bed.

[Michael W Richards]

Indeed, Gary - then again, I know everyone who frequents my local pubs... not Even when I used to go every night, I never got to know everyone by name. And this in a village with fewer than 2,000 residents, not much more populous than three streets in the Spitalfields slums.

You just made my point, they dont have to be people you know well, or even by name, but people who you might nod at when you see them.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael and thanks for your roundabout reply. It's her Paris story and her story only. Not "the story." And Mary apparently told this story to one person and one person only, Joseph Barnett. Nothing corroborates it. Not use of the modern day term up-status. Nor use of the phrase finer attire.



This is something you have tacked on in your own imagination Michael, sorry.

And to think of the phenomenal amount of really difficult, oft time frustrating research done on the life of Mary Kelly through the years. Wasn't it Nick Connell who first found that Morganstone was Morganstern. Then the Sheldens followed the lead to now where Debs and others have continued mining that vien. Mrs Buki et al.

I thought that was the thrust of this thread. Our opportunity to carefully weight the tons of real research done by people over the years, which have made the life stories of the victims come to life, versus the bald assertion in the publicity for the upcoming book that the sexist researchers have buried the life stories of the vicitims and stereotyped them.

I thought this thread would be about real known facts and at least assumptions that have some, any chance of being correct. Little did I know.

Roy

Why is it that Mary has been so hard to find in any records Roy. Maybe because some of what we believe about her is incorrect...like maybe her name and background? Since no-one has found her, its possible she didnt want to be found.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael and thanks for your roundabout reply. It's her Paris story and her story only. Not "the story." And Mary apparently told this story to one person and one person only, Joseph Barnett. Nothing corroborates it. Not use of the modern day term up-status. Nor use of the phrase finer attire.



This is something you have tacked on in your own imagination Michael, sorry.

And to think of the phenomenal amount of really difficult, oft time frustrating research done on the life of Mary Kelly through the years. Wasn't it Nick Connell who first found that Morganstone was Morganstern. Then the Sheldens followed the lead to now where Debs and others have continued mining that vien. Mrs Buki et al.

I thought that was the thrust of this thread. Our opportunity to carefully weight the tons of real research done by people over the years, which have made the life stories of the victims come to life, versus the bald assertion in the publicity for the upcoming book that the sexist researchers have buried the life stories of the vicitims and stereotyped them.

I thought this thread would be about real known facts and at least assumptions that have some, any chance of being correct. Little did I know.

Roy

Why is it that Mary has been so hard to find in any records Roy. Maybe because some of what we believe about her is incorrect...like maybe her name and background? Since no-one has found her, its possible she didnt want to be found. Or that she wasnt a Mary Kelly at all.

[Roy Corduroy]

The reason "Mary Kelly" has been so hard to find is primarily because she was an Irish immigrant, one of millions. She may have used an assumed name. Many of these people are difficult to clock. Ask the researchers who are doing the heavy lifting and they will assure you that tracing Irish immigrants is not always easy.

And folks were very mobile then.

I agree 100% with you Michael she is hard to pinpoint in the old records.

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

You just made my point, they dont have to be people you know well, or even by name, but people who you might nod at when you see them.

If that's your point, Mike, I don't have too many issues with it. My beef is with the conspiracy theorists who think that the Canonical Five must have been great mates.

Don't get too excited, though, because when I say "I don't have too many issues", I mean just that. I believe that it's perfectly possible that they weren't even nodding acquaintances.