Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the victims werent prostitutes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • the victims werent prostitutes

    according to a new book https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/new...ectid=12126380

  • #2
    Mary Ann Nichols

    Emily Holland,:
    "About half-past two on Friday morning witness saw deceased walking down Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road,""She informed witness that
    where she had been living they would not allow her to return because she could not pay for her room. Witness persuaded her to go home. She refused, adding that she had earned her lodging money three times that day. She then went along theWhitechapel-road".

    What was Nichols going to do to earn doss money? Nichols ended with a man/killer.

    Annie Chapman

    John Evans "
    "I last saw her there on Saturday morning, and she left at about a quarter to two o'clock. I was sent down in the kitchen to see her, and she said she had not sufficient money. When she went upstairs I followed her, and as she left the house, I watched her go through a court called Paternoster-street, into Brushfield-street, and then turn towards Spitalfields Church".

    Long saw Chapman with a man and they ended in the backyard.

    What was Eddowes doing in Mitre square with the "sailor man" early in the morning.
    What was Kelly doing with Blotchy?

    Silly.It's c;ear they were prostituting.part-time or not.There was nothing wrong being a prostitute,that's what was only available to get money
    .Still with "dignity",at least they did not swindle anybody.

    ----
    Last edited by Varqm; 09-17-2018, 02:16 AM.
    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
    M. Pacana

    Comment


    • #3
      Another book shaping up to be a complete waste of ink
      Regards

      Herlock






      "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Varqm View Post
        Mary Ann Nichols

        Emily Holland,:
        "About half-past two on Friday morning witness saw deceased walking down Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road,""She informed witness that
        where she had been living they would not allow her to return because she could not pay for her room. Witness persuaded her to go home. She refused, adding that she had earned her lodging money three times that day. She then went along theWhitechapel-road".

        What was Nichols going to do to earn doss money? Nichols ended with a man/killer.

        Annie Chapman

        John Evans "
        "I last saw her there on Saturday morning, and she left at about a quarter to two o'clock. I was sent down in the kitchen to see her, and she said she had not sufficient money. When she went upstairs I followed her, and as she left the house, I watched her go through a court called Paternoster-street, into Brushfield-street, and then turn towards Spitalfields Church".

        Long saw Chapman with a man and they ended in the backyard.

        What was Eddowes doing in Mitre square with the "sailor man" early in the morning.
        What was Kelly doing with Blotchy?

        Silly.It's c;ear they were prostituting.part-time or not.There was nothing wrong being a prostitute,that's what was only available to get money
        .Still with "dignity",at least they did not swindle anybody.

        ----
        That last bit has to go down as being your personal opinion of the overall matter, but in fact there is evidence in ONLY 2 cases that victims were soliciting when they met their killer. No evidence Liz was, no evidence Kate was, nor is there any evidence Mary was. Polly admitted "earning and spending" that last night, and Annie told her friend that she needed to pull herself together so she could get doss money. In the case of Mary Kelly we know she hasn't been working the streets as much in the time leading up to the crime,..she has about 2 weeks arrears on her room.

        This seems like some innocuous and just a matter of opinion, but to me its a critical point. If they were soliciting, then the idea they met a stranger posing as a client fits naturally. If not....what was Liz doing there and why was she groomed and dressed nicely, who was this sailor man that Kate met up with and what had she planned to do..other than heading in the direction of Kelly, that is. And if Marys killer was in her room with her permission when he struck, then the possible "stranger" element is eliminated.

        The randomness of the first 2 attacks seems to suggest an opportunistic killer and someone who likely preferred to target middle aged women who had diminished capacity in one way or another. Polly it seems was drunk, and Annie was ill.
        Michael Richards

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
          That last bit has to go down as being your personal opinion of the overall matter, but in fact there is evidence in ONLY 2 cases that victims were soliciting when they met their killer. No evidence Liz was, no evidence Kate was, nor is there any evidence Mary was. Polly admitted "earning and spending" that last night, and Annie told her friend that she needed to pull herself together so she could get doss money. In the case of Mary Kelly we know she hasn't been working the streets as much in the time leading up to the crime,..she has about 2 weeks arrears on her room.

          This seems like some innocuous and just a matter of opinion, but to me its a critical point. If they were soliciting, then the idea they met a stranger posing as a client fits naturally. If not....what was Liz doing there and why was she groomed and dressed nicely, who was this sailor man that Kate met up with and what had she planned to do..other than heading in the direction of Kelly, that is. And if Marys killer was in her room with her permission when he struck, then the possible "stranger" element is eliminated.

          The randomness of the first 2 attacks seems to suggest an opportunistic killer and someone who likely preferred to target middle aged women who had diminished capacity in one way or another. Polly it seems was drunk, and Annie was ill.
          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.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Another book shaping up to be a complete waste of ink
            I'm rather more optimistic. There are many books on the subject whose main arguments I've found contentious or unconvincing, but which otherwise contain information and insights I've not encountered before.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • #7
              Just a suggestion but is it not possible for example that Liz Stride wasn’t soliciting on the night of her murder but was waiting for an ‘admirer.’ Someone saw her though and recognised her as a prostitute and tried to do business. An argument ensued....

              It’s difficult to see how we can prove that a known prostitute was actually actively soliticiting at the time of her murder. Eddowes might not have been actively soliciting but her victim probably approached her assuming that she was. She would have been unlikely to pass up the opportunity of earning a few pence.

              If the author of this new book is trying to say that these women weren’t prostitutes then I can see little value as we know that they were. If she is saying that they also tried to earn money by other means then I can also see little value as we know this too. Then when we hear, as we’ve heard before, talk about ‘sexists’ ignoring the victims or Ripperologist being irreversibly wedded to the ‘old ideas’ I do tend to yawn.
              Regards

              Herlock






              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

              Comment


              • #8
                Maybe I am completely wrong here, but what does it matter if the "five" were or were not prostitutes?

                They were women, who were out on the streets of Whitechapel, or in the case of Kelly just a woman who lived there.

                They met the most horrendious amd brutal of deaths and it matters not one jott if there were or were not prostitutes does it!


                If Dr Rubenhold has found new information on the ladies, thats fantastic and all power to her elbow, i missed the recent talk, having relovated to Glasgow, and two visits in 2 weeks was just not possible.
                Lets wait and see what the book tells us before passing judgement,



                Steve

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                  I'm rather more optimistic. There are many books on the subject whose main arguments I've found contentious or unconvincing, but which otherwise contain information and insights I've not encountered before.
                  Fair comment Gareth
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/727132...hapel-murders/

                    If I’m wrong I’ll be the first to admit it. But this doesn’t bode well in my opinion.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                      Another book shaping up to be a complete waste of ink
                      Why don't you wait until the book is published before condemning it? As Sam Flynn has suggested, there are more often than not a few new snippets in new publications on the subject, which is only a good thing. Paul Feldman's book on Maybrick is largely fantasy. There's no denying though that it was well researched, and threw new light on certain aspects of the case regarding Maybrick

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                          Maybe I am completely wrong here, but what does it matter if the "five" were or were not prostitutes?

                          They were women, who were out on the streets of Whitechapel, or in the case of Kelly just a woman who lived there.

                          They met the most horrendious amd brutal of deaths and it matters not one jott if there were or were not prostitutes does it!


                          If Dr Rubenhold has found new information on the ladies, thats fantastic and all power to her elbow, i missed the recent talk, having relovated to Glasgow, and two visits in 2 weeks was just not possible.
                          Lets wait and see what the book tells us before passing judgement,

                          Steve
                          Hi Steve,
                          Whether they were prostitutes or not is of no importance whatsoever, except being a feature shared by all the victims and possibly explaining why they were found where they were. It might also help to distinguish the type of person the murderer might be. Sadly, the publication of the book is six months away, so Rubenhold's unsubstantiated claim has plenty of time to join the DNA and the Maybrick diary in the public mind as a truth it might not be easy to shake if the book doesn't deliver.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                            Mary Ann Nichols

                            Emily Holland,:
                            "About half-past two on Friday morning witness saw deceased walking down Osborne-street, Whitechapel-road,""She informed witness that
                            where she had been living they would not allow her to return because she could not pay for her room. Witness persuaded her to go home. She refused, adding that she had earned her lodging money three times that day. She then went along theWhitechapel-road".

                            What was Nichols going to do to earn doss money? Nichols ended with a man/killer.

                            Annie Chapman

                            John Evans "
                            "I last saw her there on Saturday morning, and she left at about a quarter to two o'clock. I was sent down in the kitchen to see her, and she said she had not sufficient money. When she went upstairs I followed her, and as she left the house, I watched her go through a court called Paternoster-street, into Brushfield-street, and then turn towards Spitalfields Church".

                            Long saw Chapman with a man and they ended in the backyard.

                            What was Eddowes doing in Mitre square with the "sailor man" early in the morning.
                            What was Kelly doing with Blotchy?

                            Silly.It's c;ear they were prostituting.part-time or not.There was nothing wrong being a prostitute,that's what was only available to get money
                            .Still with "dignity",at least they did not swindle anybody.

                            ----
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Observer View Post
                              Why don't you wait until the book is published before condemning it? As Sam Flynn has suggested, there are more often than not a few new snippets in new publications on the subject, which is only a good thing. Paul Feldman's book on Maybrick is largely fantasy. There's no denying though that it was well researched, and threw new light on certain aspects of the case regarding Maybrick
                              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.
                              Regards

                              Herlock






                              "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X