Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C-5: Killed While Soliciting or Not?

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

  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    I find it hard to believe that Polly didn't give HB's yard a try.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Matt Hood View Post
    The scenario I'm suggesting is that the Ripper found her, awake and drunk or unconscious, against the gate and he strangled her there and then moved her to do the knife work.

    As for the whispering, if the killer found her awake then surely her asking for money or offering some trade covers that?
    Lilley lived two doors from the stable yard and claimed she heard the whispering below her window.

    Of course, your scenario is possible, but when you consider the evidence of the Thrawl Street women that Polly was an 'unfortunate', and the possibility that Lilley heard her in conversation with someone some yards away from the stable door and that she also heard a 'painful moan - two or three faint gasps', it seems somewhat more likely that Polly went willingly to that dark spot for 'immoral purposes'.

    Perhaps she didn't - there are all sorts of conceivable scenarios.

    I remember AP Wolf once putting forward the idea that Polly might have been out soliciting, not for herself, but for a local brothel. At the time, I thought that was a silly idea, but having recently found evidence of there being a brothel in Baker's Row, I'm reconsidering the possibility.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    I seem to remember reading somewhere that rough sleepers tended to congregate....for safety perhhaps. In hay sheds and the like.

    It just seems odd that a rough sleeper would seek somewhere isolated and where they are in a super vulnerable position for rape, robbery or whatever.

    P

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt Hood
    replied
    Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
    Of course, she wasn't found up against the gate, she was found lying on her back in front of the gate. And the witness Harriet Lilley heard whispering and moaning in the street, so more than one person was seemingly awake in that dark and otherwise deserted back street in the wee small hours.

    Perhaps they were whispering so as not to wake Polly up.😉
    The scenario I'm suggesting is that the Ripper found her, awake and drunk or unconscious, against the gate and he strangled her there and then moved her to do the knife work.

    As for the whispering, if the killer found her awake then surely her asking for money or offering some trade covers that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Gary Barnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Matt Hood View Post
    She's drunk and tired. Her judgement was impaired. People have made far more stupid decisions under the influence than taking a brief rest in the street up against a closed gate.

    Plus, I think it more likely that she simply collapsed due to her impaired condition. She pushed on walking for longer than she could really manage and it caught up with her.
    Of course, she wasn't found up against the gate, she was found lying on her back in front of the gate. And the witness Harriet Lilley heard whispering and moaning in the street, so more than one person was seemingly awake in that dark and otherwise deserted back street in the wee small hours.

    Perhaps they were whispering so as not to wake Polly up.😉

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt Hood
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Why there, though, on a public pavement and in the open air? Were there no porches, archways, passageways, bridges, sheds or other covered places in the whole of Whitechapel? Were there no benches to sit or lie out on? (Rhetorical questions.)
    She's drunk and tired. Her judgement was impaired. People have made far more stupid decisions under the influence than taking a brief rest in the street up against a closed gate.

    Plus, I think it more likely that she simply collapsed due to her impaired condition. She pushed on walking for longer than she could really manage and it caught up with her.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Matt Hood View Post
    Emily Holland saw Mary Ann Nichols at approx. 2:30 am and described her as "very drunk and staggered against the wall."
    If we also consider that she was likely also tired as well, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to consider that she may have either sat down for a brief rest or even simply fell down in front of the gate in Buck's Row.
    Why there, though, on a public pavement and in the open air? Were there no porches, archways, passageways, bridges, sheds or other covered places in the whole of Whitechapel? Were there no benches on which to sit or lie down? (Rhetorical questions.)

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt Hood
    replied
    Emily Holland saw Mary Ann Nichols at approx. 2:30 am and described her as "very drunk and staggered against the wall."
    If we also consider that she was likely also tired as well, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to consider that she may have either sat down for a brief rest or even simply fell down in front of the gate in Buck's Row.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    When I was fairly new around here I suggested some of the women were sleeping rough and it was explained to me why this was not the case. The reasons against this were strong and factual.

    I still think not all the women were soliciting when killed and the importance of this, if true, would be the motive for the crimes and what attracted then set off the killer. There was no evidence of sexual activity of any kind, not even a solo performance, in any of these cases. In four of the C-5, abdominal wounds could point toward a sexual motive but it could be something else. The abdominal slashes remind me of gutting a fish. I am not going to go into whether or not organs were taken.

    Someone awhile ago posted some information on postmortem mutilation and a motive was something like curiosity, finding out what was inside. One post made by Gergely about mutilation of a woman´s corpse without murder involved, had the perpetrator saying he did not know why he did it. It sounded like the man had built up frustrations concerning the woman who had died of natural causes and had been laid out prior to burial.

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If she is correct, where were all the other unfortunates that were supposed to be sleeping rough on the streets, none in Mitre Sq/Bucks Row, or Berner Street or did these women specifically look for locations to sleep where no one else was sleeping rough ! I dont think so !!!!!!!!!
    Exactly. Those sites simply weren't very likely locations for sleeping rough, and that's without considering the rainy weather which made Dutfield's Yard and Mitre Square even less conducive to sleep on the night of the Double Event. Certainly, there's nothing in Goldsmid's book to support the argument, as Goldsmid's examples refer specifically to people sleeping/hanging-out in those streets with a high concentration of doss-houses. Neither Bucks Row, Hanbury Street, Berner Street nor Mitre Square remotely fit into this category.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    The same section of The Five also cites Howard Goldsmid (Dottings of a Dosser) in support of the more literal meaning of "walking the streets", saying:

    "According to Howard Goldsmid, this was a common way of life for those who frequented the lodging houses on Thrawl Street, Dorset Street and Flower and Dean Street. When not lying 'on the kerbstone, in the gutters, on heaps of rubbish, anywhere', they could be seen walking 'up and down with their hands in their pockets'..." (The Five, pp356/7)

    However, what Goldsmid says is that these particular street-walkers were actually to be found IN the aforementioned streets, and streets like them as opposed, presumably, to way-out places like Bucks Row or Mitre Square, which contained no lodging houses. The relevant part of Dottings of a Dosser, Chapter VII, says:

    "Thrawl Street, Flower and Dean Street, Dorset Street, Parker Street [*], and similar thoroughfares, are, night after night, thronged with 'dossers' who have no money for a night's shelter. They lie on the kerbstone, in the gutters, on heaps of rubbish, anywhere; or walk up and down with their hands in their pockets..."

    It's probable that John Kelly's worrying about Kate walking the streets was indeed of the innuendo-free variety, and his clarification of his statement supports this: "Well, Sir, many a time we have not had the money to pay for our shelter, and have had to tramp about". I have no problem whatsoever with taking John Kelly's clarification at face value; indeed, why should I not? Just thought I'd make that clear. No, the reason I'm writing this is to point out that what Goldsmid actually said differs, arguably importantly, from how it reads in The Five.
    [*] Parker Street is in the West End off Drury Lane, and was known for its lodging houses and slum dwellings in the Late Victorian Period. A "model" lodging-house was opened there in 1903, many years after Goldsmid wrote Dottings of a Dosser.
    Whichever way you look at it the crime scene locations and the photos we still have do not support her suggestion that the victims were killed while sleeping rough on the streets where there bodies were found. The doctors all state they were killed where they were found.

    If she is correct, where were all the other unfortunates that were supposed to be sleeping rough on the streets, none in Mitre Sq/Bucks Row, or Berner Street or did these women specifically look for locations to sleep where no one else was sleeping rough ! I dont think so !!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    Originally posted by Adam Went View Post
    For me, it's more so a question of....does it matter? I don't mean to sound indifferent, and there's a decent argument to be made for either side. We're talking specifically about the nights of their deaths, but what about in the overall scheme of their lives? Nobody so far as i'm aware is trying to degrade these women by saying that they acted as prostitutes. It's simply a fact that so many of them and others like them had to resort to those means in order to have food, shelter and a drink at the time in which they lived. You did what you had to do in order to survive. I'm not a fan of this revisionist, modern take on it at all.

    Cheers,
    Adam.
    None of those thoughts were in my mind when I started this thread. Like I said I am not terribly interested at this time in who was JtR but a different pattern from ´killed while soliciting´might lead us to new information.

    Beyond how and why did these women connect to the killer, was there some other angle we could learn about? Pizer was accused of roughing up unfortunates. Why? Did he sometimes lend them money and was that how he collected? Pizer was not JtR and does not seem to be involved in these cases but were there other men who had contacts with women on the street, who filled certain needs like providing a place to sleep or loaning a few pennies?

    While I do not think Polly, Annie or Kate would have been considered as targets for robbery, remember that Emma Smith was robbed or simply attacked by a gang as she told it. What else was going on besides unfortunates and clients? There might be a lot more we can learn.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adam Went
    replied
    For me, it's more so a question of....does it matter? I don't mean to sound indifferent, and there's a decent argument to be made for either side. We're talking specifically about the nights of their deaths, but what about in the overall scheme of their lives? Nobody so far as i'm aware is trying to degrade these women by saying that they acted as prostitutes. It's simply a fact that so many of them and others like them had to resort to those means in order to have food, shelter and a drink at the time in which they lived. You did what you had to do in order to survive. I'm not a fan of this revisionist, modern take on it at all.

    Cheers,
    Adam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Anna Morris
    replied
    It is interesting to revisit Pollyś conversation with Holland. In one way it sounded like the latter would share her bed with Polly but I have wondered before if Polly would have had to pay half, etc., etc.. Polly did not like the place where she had been staying, her friend offered to share a bed at a different location but Polly did not have the money. That is an important bit of clarification. Maybe also Holland needed Pollyś help to pay for a bed. Point to ponder.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X