The Five

[Ms Diddles]

It would seem Eddowes was thimble tapping at the time of her death.

Oh, thanks Monty!

This doesn't ring any bells with me (not that that's unusual!).

Is that just supposition because a thimble was found amongst her belongings, or were there reports of her actually engaging in thimble tapping?

[Monty]

Hi Paul,

The only one I'm not so sure about is Eddowes.

I mean, it would make perfect sense that a woman in her circumstances would engage in casual prostitution to survive, but IIRC there is no particular evidence of this in her case.

Agree it's got more to do with accessibility of victims rather than prostitution per se regardless.

It would seem Eddowes was thimble tapping at the time of her death.

[Ms Diddles]

What is the source saying that all the victims were soliciting at the time they were murdered? As far as I recall, which isn't very far these days, the police said they were all prostitutes, not that they were soliciting. Ot's a reasonable assumption that they were - Nichols and Chapman went out late at night with the intention of soon returning with the money for their beds, Stride and Eddowes may have been (they were seen with men, if it was Eddowes that Lawende and Co saw), and Kelly was soliciting. There's little doubt that Rubenhold's theory that they weren't prostitutes is hogwash, and it's questionable that they weren't soliciting, but I'm not sure that their murderer killed them because they were prostitutes. They were probably just approachable, and likely to have gone with him to somewhere dark and quiet.

Hi Paul,

The only one I'm not so sure about is Eddowes.

I mean, it would make perfect sense that a woman in her circumstances would engage in casual prostitution to survive, but IIRC there is no particular evidence of this in her case.

Agree it's got more to do with accessibility of victims rather than prostitution per se regardless.

[PaulB]

I do know that many Ripperologists tend to paint all the women with a single street prostitute brush. Simply presuming they were soliciting at time when there is no evidence they were, that is a kind of bias towards these women. There is in fact evidence that only 2 of the alleged Ripper victims on the Canonical list were actively soliciting when they met their killer, and both personally stated that to friends the respective nights that they were killed.

What if being a working street prostitute was not a deciding factor in whether he would kill a certain victim? What if someone was trawling for those kinds of victims, and Jack wasnt? 3 of Five victim investigations did not reveal any evidence that the women were actively soliciting on their murder nights. Liz, Kate and Mary.

So it appears that the majority of murders that are attributed to Jack the Ripper did not reveal active solicitation as one of his requirements.

This along with many other facets of all the murders to me suggest that what hampers this area of study more than any other single issue is the presumption that the Canonical Group is a logically constructed series based on evident similarities, including Victimology. When it actually isnt that at all.

Its a grouping that was made based on the lack of real information about the killer..or killers.....the fact the kill zone is very small comparatively with other serial crimes, and that the murders all occurred...and remain unsolved.....within a 2 1/2 month period.

The Canonical Group premise may well be the yoke around the neck of Truth.

What is the source saying that all the victims were soliciting at the time they were murdered? As far as I recall, which isn't very far these days, the police said they were all prostitutes, not that they were soliciting. Ot's a reasonable assumption that they were - Nichols and Chapman went out late at night with the intention of soon returning with the money for their beds, Stride and Eddowes may have been (they were seen with men, if it was Eddowes that Lawende and Co saw), and Kelly was soliciting. There's little doubt that Rubenhold's theory that they weren't prostitutes is hogwash, and it's questionable that they weren't soliciting, but I'm not sure that their murderer killed them because they were prostitutes. They were probably just approachable, and likely to have gone with him to somewhere dark and quiet.

[Linotte]

Hi Tani! There’s some good stuff in The Five. Unfortunately, readers haven’t really had a chance to parse it out. Kathleen Faure’s work on prostitution in Victorian London and Katherine Crook’s paper on the victims and prostitution as a legit form of labor should be read in conjunction with The Five to get a more holistic understanding of what the women’s lives were like. I’d also recommend Playing the Whore, by Melissa Gira Grant.

These women were often doing several kinds of jobs just to survive. It’s similar to today’s hustle culture. According to Faure, it was generally accepted among the poor and working class that sometimes women in particular would have to resort to prostitution as a means of making ends meet. To them, it was really just another income stream. That’s at least how I look at it.

[Monty]

"...3 of Five victim investigations did not reveal any evidence that the women were actively soliciting on their murder nights. Liz, Kate and Mary."

There is evidence Eddowes was soliciting at the time of her murder. She wasnt darning her socks.

Nor was she asleep. Coalhole covers do not make comfortable pillows.

[jmenges]

Simply presuming they were soliciting at time when there is no evidence they were, that is a kind of bias towards these women.

Of course this is not what the book suggests. Rubenhold claims that the victims, outside of Kelly, never engaged in prostitution of any kind, subsistence or otherwise, and all of the existing evidence that they did should be completely ignored. That position is its own kind of bias, and far uglier in my opinion.

JM

[c.d.]

The Canonical Group premise may well be the yoke around the neck of Truth.

I'm not aware of the non-Canonical Group premise solving the case or any particular approach doing so for that matter.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

I do know that many Ripperologists tend to paint all the women with a single street prostitute brush. Simply presuming they were soliciting at time when there is no evidence they were, that is a kind of bias towards these women. There is in fact evidence that only 2 of the alleged Ripper victims on the Canonical list were actively soliciting when they met their killer, and both personally stated that to friends the respective nights that they were killed.

What if being a working street prostitute was not a deciding factor in whether he would kill a certain victim? What if someone was trawling for those kinds of victims, and Jack wasnt? 3 of Five victim investigations did not reveal any evidence that the women were actively soliciting on their murder nights. Liz, Kate and Mary.

So it appears that the majority of murders that are attributed to Jack the Ripper did not reveal active solicitation as one of his requirements.

This along with many other facets of all the murders to me suggest that what hampers this area of study more than any other single issue is the presumption that the Canonical Group is a logically constructed series based on evident similarities, including Victimology. When it actually isnt that at all.

Its a grouping that was made based on the lack of real information about the killer..or killers.....the fact the kill zone is very small comparatively with other serial crimes, and that the murders all occurred...and remain unsolved.....within a 2 1/2 month period.

The Canonical Group premise may well be the yoke around the neck of Truth.

[Geddy2112]

And as if the killer walked along Hanbury Street checking for unlocked doors, walking through the passage to another unlocked door and then…what a bit of luck, a woman sleeping in someone’s backyard!

All whilst parking his unattended cart round the corner since he was actually on the clock... it's amazing really, one might say unbelievable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

While I mostly agree with this, there have been posters portraying Maria Lechmere in the most negative manner possible to brute force her, and by extension her son, into the 1988 FBI profile.

I didn’t know that Fiver. Like The Five though it’s the problem with having an agenda of course and the lengths that some will go to to make things ‘fit.’

That's an excellent point. Stride lying down to sleep in a pile of mud is laughable. It's even more laughable when you consider mud may have been a euphemism - there was a pony that regularly came into the yard.

And as if the killer walked along Hanbury Street checking for unlocked doors, walking through the passage to another unlocked door and then…what a bit of luck, a woman sleeping in someone’s backyard!

[Fiver]

I’ve never seen anything on here or JtRForums that’s in any way disrespectful to the victims or women in general. Neither Ally on here or Steve over there would put up with it for a second.

While I mostly agree with this, there have been posters portraying Maria Lechmere in the most negative manner possible to brute force her, and by extension her son, into the 1988 FBI profile.

Then she edited the evidence on Nichols to make her point which is hardly to her credit. Her theory that the killer simply came upon women sleeping rough isn’t born out by the facts. Kelly and Chapman refute it and if Stride was a victim she could hardly have found a worse place to bed down for the night.

That's an excellent point. Stride lying down to sleep in a pile of mud is laughable. It's even more laughable when you consider mud may have been a euphemism - there was a pony that regularly came into the yard.

[Tani]

This case always drags you back in Tani.
It's like a mobius strip, there's absolutely no escape.

Don't feel inhibited in posting or replying to posts, everyone sees the case through their own personal prism.

Thanks

[barnflatwyngarde]

I spent a long time reading and lurking. I was 13 when I joined. I realised I had very little ability to communicate effectively here as I hadn't the knowledge base and still have trouble keeping up with some names and so on. My Ripper A to Z has been so useful, if outdated (it's a 1992 copy). I've gained a lot of knowledge from this place.

I can finally write posts!!!

This case always drags you back in Tani.
It's like a mobius strip, there's absolutely no escape.

Don't feel inhibited in posting or replying to posts, everyone sees the case through their own personal prism.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I spent a long time reading and lurking. I was 13 when I joined. I realised I had very little ability to communicate effectively here as I hadn't the knowledge base and still have trouble keeping up with some names and so on. My Ripper A to Z has been so useful, if outdated (it's a 1992 copy). I've gained a lot of knowledge from this place.

I can finally write posts!!!

Good to have you back Tani