|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Victims occupation
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Victims occupation
Author: Jill
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 04:48 am |        | Hi All,
Heeding Stephens advice to not add new massages to the victim boards but rather create new conversations, I've created this one instead of posting my message in the thread of Mary Jane Kelly - Crime Scene Photographs as a reaction to a previous post.
Bob-C - In your post of December 27, 11:05AM on the Mary Jane Kelly Crime Scene Photographs you write "for the other victims no such reserve was met." Actually the opposite always strikes me: for example friends of Nichols of the last few months explicitly say they do not know what she did for a living or acquaintances she frequenced.
At the inquest the only persons telling some details are her father and ex-husband, about a past long-term relationship with a man she lived with after her seperation. The only indirect reference to her occupation are her words that she had earned her lodging money three times that day, but Emily Holland does not know what she does for a living. Her ex-husband does not actively state she was a prostitute, and friends or family respond negative about her being 'fast'.
There is nowhere in the inquest a primary source of Nichols prostituting herself. I would say, some reserve was met with Nichols.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 09:33 am | | Hi Jill,
Well thought, but even your remarks do not repudiate the fact that in Eddowes's case, people claimed and protested loudly that she did not go on the streets, while with all others it was either quietly assented or at least not denied. Even the evidence shows this, Polly clearly 'getting her doss', Chapman 'having to go or I will have no place to sleep', Stride being registered as a prostitute, Kelly with Blotchydial and so on.
Now I believe there is a pretty good case for assuming that Eddowes did indulge in some occaisional prostitution, but it was testified that witnesses had 'no idea what she may have been doing there!' in Mitre Square. ...Whoring, we may suppose. She had been roaring drunk earlier in the day, where had she got the money for that? Or had Jack done it, arranging to meet her again later for a supposed sexual rendevous and 'Kwiiech!' after he'd had a stab or two at Stride?
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Searo Haga
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 01:06 am | | | Oh dear, Jill. Stephen advised that we not add new massages? Well, how the devil am I to demonstrate my theory that the Ripper was a floridly psychotic masseuse? |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 03:33 am | | Hi Bob, Searo
Bob- I know the arguments about Eddowes, and I'm of the same opinion that there is only indication of occasional prostitution. I only wanted to caution you on the contrast you made with the others as if witnesses stated that they were regular prostitutes. Instead they almost never did. With Chapman they give a lot of hints, just enough so they do not have to speak out. With Nichols we logically deduct it after the mentioning of her earning 3 times her doss' in one evening.
Searo- We almost lost our discussions on the victims board. They were saved and can be visited via the link of "Rescued Victims Pages". Stephen has explained what went wrong, and what we had to do to prevent it from happening again. By not adding new messages to the discussions in the rescued-victims-pages-thread. Instead we have to create a new topic to further the discussion there. If we are to discuss Mary, we'd better create a MJK2 topic, ...
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 04:13 am | | Hello All,
Just noticed this tragical ironical coincidence:
Amelia Palmer on the inquest of ANNIE CHAPMAN, Monday, September 10, 1888 (The Daily Telegraph, Tuesday, September 11, 1888, Page 3) :
On the Monday she observed: "If my sister will send me the BOOTS, I shall go HOPPING."
She never got there, she was killed before ever getting the chance.
John Kelly on the inquest of CATHERINE EDDOWES, Thursday, October 4, 1888 (The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3):
On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday we were down at the HOP-PICKING, and came back to London on Thursday. We had been unfortunate at the hop-picking, and had no money ...
She bought that [some tea and sugar found on her body] out of some BOOTS we pawned at Jones's for 2s 6d. I think it was on Saturday morning that we pawned the boots.
Coroner: She pawned the boots, did she not? - Yes; and I stood at the door in my bare feet.
It gave met the chills, this detail. I don't know if it is anything worth: it just caught my mind.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 06:48 am | | Hi Jill,
Accepting your points, but also cautionary, I wrote 'either quietly assented or at least not denied' which does not suggest that their being prostitutes was screamed from the rooftops. We should remember that even prostitution was not the golden gate to immense riches, it was just one part of a many-facetted life-style just to survive, at least for Polly and Co.
Of course they would (have had to) do almost anything to get money just to live- hopping, charing, cleaning, and...when it had to be, whoring. Stride earned 6d. on her death-day cleaning, for instance. Eddowes had been hopping but they hadn't earned much (pawning of J. Kelly's boots). I don't think it would be correct to suppose that the poor devils lived, or could have lived, from prostitution alone.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 09:00 am | | I know Sir Henry Smith is not usually thought of as a reliable source, for various reasons, but in his 'From Const. to Commiss.' on page 152, he says, "The 'beat' of Catherine Eddowes was a small one. She was known to a good many of the Constables, but, known or not known, she was in the streets late at night, and must have been seen making for Mitre Square. With what object?. In pursuance, it is needless to say, of her miserable calling'
We have no opinion to the contrary, do we?
Regards, Jon |
Author: The Viper
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 10:03 am | | Jon,
No, I don't think we do have much room for opinion to the contrary. To return to her lodgings by the fastest route, Eddowes should have left Bishopsgate Police Station and turned right off the front step. But she turned left towards Houndsditch, witnessed by PC Hutt.
John Kelly was expecting Kate to come home with money; instead she had got herself falling-down drunk and was almost certainly skint. (We cannot be sure of this because the murderer may have robbed her, but no money was found on her person).
Aldgate was an area where many prostitutes plied their trade. Duke Street, where Kate was seen by three men leaving the Imperial Club, was only one block to the west of St Botolph's Church which was a notorious spot for soliciting. One wonders whether Eddowes made a point of walking through Duke Street because she knew that there was a club there which men would be leaving.
What alternatives are there? Something to eat or drink? At one o'clock on a Sunday morning the last pubs and chandler's shops were almost certainly closed - remember Hutt had warned her that it was too late to get another drink. Besides, she probably had no money to buy anything.
A walk to sober up? Unlikely. She had convinced the policeman that she was sober enough to be released from custody.
A meeting with somebody? Personally I think not, especially in respect of a meeting with JTR which some commentators have suggested. Of course nothing is totally impossible, but let's be realistic: what is the real likelihood of that theory being correct?
No, for my money Eddowes was trying to earn a few pence to take home to Kelly. They needed money desparately and whether through her own guilt or fear of his retribution, probability says that it was her aim that night.
Regards, V. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 12:58 pm | | Jon -
I think we've been down this road before with regards to Major Smith and Catherine Eddwoes. The point, as I recall, was that if her "beat" were so small and she was well known to a number of constables, why didn't PCs Robinson and Simmons- who arrested her - desk sergeant Byfield at Bishopsgate Police Station - who admitted her - or PC Hutt - who let her go after asking her name - appear to know who she was?
I grant you my thinking is not carved in stone on this point, but after considering the points raised by Bob Hinton, I'm wondering if, after all, received opinion might be wrong in this case and that, rather than being a dirty little scrubber constantly soliciting, Eddowes might only have been the occasional prostitute when economy demanded?
But, as always, only my opinion. I have not yet come across any official statement contrary to Major Smith's assertion - by the time of Eddowes' inquest, she was regarded as an habitual prositute and as such she has remained.
CMD |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 06:31 am | | CMD makes an excellent point about the local police officer's lack of familiarity with Catherine Eddowes.
In case my earlier poste was misconstrued, the point of it was that Eddowes did prostitute herself for money on occasions. More than once it has been suggested on these boards that she did not. Whether prostitution represented Kate's only or even main occupation is a different question entirely, (and whether we believe Major Smith's comments is yet another!).
From the little information we have, it would appear that Eddowes falls into the bracket of a part-time prostitute, resorting to it when needs must to supplement the meagre earnings that she and Kelly had. The same would seem to be true of Annie Chapman.
Regards, V. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 04:08 pm | | Dear Everyone,
As far as I know the only reference to Eddowes being a prostitute was that passage quoted above from Major Smith, a man who never let the facts stand in the way of a good story. Don't forget he gave us the nonsense about blood stained water draining from a sink.
I am not aware of any other indicator that she was a prostitute. Does anyone else? In fact everyone else seems to go out of their way to insist she wasn't.
The other thing to bear in mind is this, when they were short of money what did Eddowes and Kelly do? They pawned clothing, they went hopping, they split up so one could get a bed in lodgings and the other could get a bed elsewhere, she did everything in fact except go on the streets. Do you honestly think Kelly would agree to wander the streets barefoot if he could get money just by making Catherine turn a trick or two?
The other thing to remember is that unlike other prostitutes Eddowes seemed to have remarkably stable relationships. She was with Conway for about sixteen years, and with Kelly for about seven. Contrast that with the known prostitutes.
The point about the police constables not knowing Eddowes might not be very clear to people unfamiliar with the way London was policed. The Metropolitan force policed all of London apart from the City which had (and still has)its own police force.
Now the City was only one square mile, making it the smallest area in Britain with its own police force. I find it inconcievable that with such a small area and such a relatively small amount of officers policing it they would not have known the girls working their patch, especially since according to Smith 'she was well known to his men'.
At best the case against Eddowes being a prostitute is not guilty, at worst not proven.
all the best
lets hope the bugs dont get you
Bob Hinton
PS I'm doing this on a Sinclair ZX81 Is this Y2k proof? |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 08:02 pm | | Bob H.,
Thanks for your comments. Over and above the fact that some people will always accept the ‘conventional wisdom’ that is handed down in books, (be it Major Smith’s or many others since), I think the reason why most people believe that Eddowes did indeed prostitute herself lies in her behaviour. That on her release from custody she:-
a). Did not return directly to her lodgings, despite the late hour.
b). Was identified as the woman seen talking to a man in an area known for its prostitutes.
c). Was found dead in a secluded square shortly afterwards.
We have to explain this chain of events satisfactorily. I have your book and am well aware of your thoughts on the matter, but I think you are in a minority in believing in the blackmail meeting theory. When studying JTR, where so little is established as hard and fast fact, it is always worth considering several different solutions to the minor mysteries and then weighing up the relative probabilities of each. More often than not the most obvious answer will be the correct one. The more obscure a solution is, the less likely it is to have happened. There is obviously room for subjective judgement here, but I see prostitution as by far the most plausible explanation for Eddowes’ behaviour.
In the East End, many people were mistrustful of the authorities to varying degrees. Lodging house keepers like Frederick Wilkinson, publicans and anybody subject to licensing or inspection could not admit to anything which might imply that they keep disorderly premises. Paramours were at pains to avoid suggestions that they might have lived off immoral earnings. That, combined with a reluctance to speak ill of the dead, explains why the true character of the victims may not always have emerged at the inquests.
I do agree with you entirely about the nature of Kate’s relationship with John Kelly. There appears to have been a deep, lasting bond between them, very different to that between Stride and Kidney, and even MJK and Barnett. Though we must be careful not taken in by stereotypical behaviour, Kelly doesn’t look like a pimp who would send Eddowes out on the streets. However, that is not to say that he wouldn’t turn a blind eye to Kate’s activities if she did occasionally what hundreds of other East End women were forced to do as the final, desperate means of making ends meet.
Hoping those bugs don’t bite! Regards, V. |
|
|
|
|
