Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Point To Ponder : Prostitute Or Destitute ?

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

  • #16
    What strikes me is it's not like this pattern of victimology has not been played out time and time again when it comes to many serial murderers.
    Best Wishes,
    Cris Malone
    ______________________________________________
    "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
      I expect Annie's companion was asking her if she fancied getting her head down in the back yard for a few zzzzzz. I'm sure she'd have obliged, especially if he called it a "financial opportunity".

      Is this really what H.R. Pufnstuf's argument boils down to? The difference between an opportunity to eat and an opportunity to sleep?

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      I LIKE that! "Opportunity to eat and an opportunity to sleep!" That about says it all.
      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
        What strikes me is it's not like this pattern of victimology has not been played out time and time again when it comes to many serial murderers.
        Quite so, Cris. And when you look at Peter Sutcliffe's murders, for example, it becomes apparent that he often attacked sex workers because they were so easily available to him, and when he did attack females who were not sex workers, he tried to claim they deserved it for being out alone, maybe wearing a short skirt or whatever.

        What H.R. Pufnstuf seems to ignore - in her efforts to ignore the murderer of her chosen five victims - is why he chose his victims. I can't think of any other serial murderer who preferred to find victims who were already unconscious [as in sound asleep] before he attacked them. We're almost back to the theory that Jack simply wanted to harvest organs from female corpses, and rendering the victims dead was merely a means to that end.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
          I LIKE that! "Opportunity to eat and an opportunity to sleep!" That about says it all.
          Thank you Anna.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

          Comment


          • #20
            Caz

            In India, about 25 years ago, there was a serial killer known as The Stone Man, who killed males while they slept outside.

            Can't think of any others, tbough.

            Xxx
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact [email protected]

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
              Caz

              In India, about 25 years ago, there was a serial killer knkwn as The Stone Man, who killed males while they slept outside.

              Can't think of any others, tbough.

              Xxx
              Thre have been other killers that probably qualify as serial who killed homeless men and women. Most of these crimes seem to be "bum bashing"*, simply battering to death people sleeping on the streets.

              *For those in the UK, "bum" in American English means an unemployed, homeless man, usually alcoholic. From "bum" as in begging for money. Can I bum a dime?
              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

              Comment


              • #22
                Thanks Howie and Anna.

                Considering the evidence that the ripper's victims were not sleeping rough when he attacked them, it seems very unlikely that he saw himself as a 'street cleaner'. I believe Peter Sutcliffe claimed he was cleaning the streets, but this would surely have been just a twisted attempt to justify his lust for violence against women.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
                  Considering the evidence that the ripper's victims were not sleeping rough when he attacked them, it seems very unlikely that he saw himself as a 'street cleaner'. I believe Peter Sutcliffe claimed he was cleaning the streets, but this would surely have been just a twisted attempt to justify his lust for violence against women.
                  Hi Caz. I don't follow.

                  Does 'cleaning the street' specifically involve ridding the streets of folks sleeping rough, or can it not refer to 'cleaning the streets' of streetwalkers and other 'undesirables'?

                  I tend to take Sutcliffe's statement at face value, because it is entirely similar to what Chikatilo, Berkowitz, Bianchi, and other killers have said of their victims: they were scum, filth, something that society needed to get rid of.

                  Totally psychotic, of course, and we can make ourselves feel better by saying they were just 'justifying' their lust for ultraviolence, but how do we know this is the correct answer? How do I know this wasn't Sutcliffe's genuinely held belief? Don't people generally hate the people they chose to kill or brutalize? And if so, wouldn't they do it whether the person was soliciting, sleeping rough, stumbling down the sidewalk, or waiting outside a Jewish club?

                  Why does it matter? In his twisted mind, the killer was killing a 'noun,' wasn't he, and not a verb?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                    Hi Caz. I don't follow.

                    Does 'cleaning the street' specifically involve ridding the streets of folks sleeping rough, or can it not refer to 'cleaning the streets' of streetwalkers and other 'undesirables'?
                    Either or both, I guess, R.J. But either would presumably involve a killer who was seriously mentally ill, or merely seeking to excuse or justify his gruesome hobby, if only to himself. Such killers may well see their victims as 'scum, filth', but I doubt Sutcliffe was so insane as to think he was really doing society a favour, or that society would see it that way.

                    Totally psychotic, of course, and we can make ourselves feel better by saying they were just 'justifying' their lust for ultraviolence, but how do we know this is the correct answer? How do I know this wasn't Sutcliffe's genuinely held belief? Don't people generally hate the people they chose to kill or brutalize? And if so, wouldn't they do it whether the person was soliciting, sleeping rough, stumbling down the sidewalk, or waiting outside a Jewish club?
                    Okay, substitute 'justifying' with 'shifting the blame', from themselves to their victims, and you get an idea of why they might need to see their victims as 'blameworthy', in whatever way.

                    Why does it matter? In his twisted mind, the killer was killing a 'noun,' wasn't he, and not a verb?
                    I don't think it does matter, R.J, except that a certain female author has claimed that some of the ripper victims were murdered because they were rough sleepers and not because they were prostitutes, and the evidence does not lend itself to that conclusion. If she wants to understand why these women were killed, that evidence should matter.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hi all,

                      Anna:

                      Yes, financial is the key word. We should remember that Liz Stride was cleaning rooms for some money on the day prior to her murder, Catherine Eddowes had not long been back from hop picking, etc etc - I don't mean to claim that prostitution was their only source of income as and when they needed it, they did other things as well. But life for them would've been a day to day proposition, and if that particular day they felt it necessary to earn some more money by soliciting, then that's what they would do. I don't think they would've seen it as so much of a moral conundrum as we do.

                      Paul:

                      So....you're agreeing with me?

                      Dan:

                      It's difficult to know what was being spoken about when witnesses only heard fragments of a private conversation, but yes you're probably right about Annie. Certainly it would seem that the went into the backyard of 29 Hanbury of her own free will. We know that she was in very poor health though and I reckon she would've just been feeling very sorry for herself indeed. But if she was approached for that purpose, again, financial gain is financial gain and at Annie's age and with her health failing, she would've had little choice but to take those opportunities when they came along.

                      Personally I still don't understand why it's seen as being some sort of moral dilemma or that there's some kind of stigma attached to speaking about what these women did or didn't do to make ends meet - personally I admire them for having the strength to keep on keeping on through what must've been very challenging and upsetting circumstances at times.

                      Cheers,
                      Adam.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Both, on occasion, I’d say.

                        Eddowes is the one that gives me most pause for thought. But why else would she have gone into Mitre Square with a strange (presumably) man? John Kelly had popped his boots so they could eat and yet she had somehow managed to acquire enough money to get roaring drunk. What kind of a reception could she have expected from Kelly if she returned empty-handed? She could have remained in the relative comfort and unquestionable safety of Bishopsgate nick, but no, she wanted to be released so she could go back to where she had likely acquired some money earlier in the evening.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi Gary - are you confident that if 'Jack' came across a woman stumbling drunkenly down the pavement at 3 a.m. --Polly Nichols?--he wouldn't have strangled and stabbed her? Or a woman resting on the sidewalk, for that matter?

                          Are the posters insisting that a woman HAD to be soliciting in order for 'Jack' to become enraged enough to kill her? That, like the 'Dear Boss' writer, he was truly 'down on whores'? (It appears to be what Caz is saying in her last paragraph, when she insists that Rubenhold can't truly "understand" the murders unless she acknowledges the women were soliciting).

                          Yet, except as a matter of 'modus operandi,' --a way of luring a woman into a dark corner--(and I am not sure 'Jack' even bothered to attempt that in the case of Liz Stride; he seems to have just attacked her when she was standing near the pavement)--no one has convinced me that it mattered one iota to 'Jack' whether he was killing an 'unfortunate' or a 'whore' or a 'houseless creature' or a 'drunk' or a 'bag lady.'

                          Yet people say that it DOES matter, and are even getting angry about it. Maybe I'd be angry at Rubenhold, too, if I honestly thought that it mattered.

                          Rubenhold may well be wrong about Nichols not soliciting (on the other hand, she could be right...whatever her intentions, Polly may have been too drunk to proceed, gave up, and had simply wandered toward the gate, found it locked, when she was discovered by 'Jack')---but I'm not sure Rubenhold is entirely wrong when she implies that Jack was killing 'houseless creatures' as opposed to 'prostitutes.' The line between the two was mighty thin, wasn't it? Maybe the thinness of that line was part of the 'point'? At its heart, isn't the "political" difference between a 'homeless' person and a derelict why some people tend to get angry about this discussion?

                          I can think of four examples in L.A. alone of men who wandered into the slums in order to kill tramps, hobos, and the homeless. Andrei Chikatilo killed, for the most part, homeless youths and girls he met at train-stations--in most cases they weren't "known prostitutes," they were simply runaways or destitute. In Chikatilo's mind, their very existence was an affront to his beloved Communist Party. Next up we have warped nurses who kill the elderly and the sick by smothering them with a pillow or giving them an overdose. Then we have the mass shooters who walk into a gay bar or a mini-mall mainly frequented by Mexicans. There is a 'eugenics' angle to their murders--in their mind they are killing the worthless, the dregs of society, the worn out, the enemies of the people.

                          I'm told by the profiling crowd that I am supposed to believe it is "all about sex" with Jack, but I don't see 'Jack' as being fundamentally different than these other murderers, so yes, I feel as if it might be missing the point to insist that he is "only killing prostitutes" (to steal one of Rubenhold's mysterious statements that, for some reason, is in quotation marks).

                          Whatever theory one may believe, 'Jack' is not killing Kate Eddowes. He's killing an idea, a symbol, a cultural cliché, a signal, a representation. Whether he sexually abuses his victims or not, I don't think it's about sex. It's about society. It's ALWAYS about society.

                          So, in this sense, I disagree with Caz about Sutcliffe and his motivations. Referring to his murders as the 'hobby' of someone who has no greater motivation than getting off on sexual violence does indeed miss the point. In my humble estimation, it misses it by a much wider margin than Rubenhold misses it.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            No, I’m not confident of that, RJ. But what a coincidence, eh, that in Nichols, Chapman and Kelly, the women he bumped into just happened to have been prostitutes and were out on the streets looking for money in the wee small hours. Stride too as far as her occupation went, but not as far as we know looking for cash on the night of her murder. And if we add in the 6 other WM victims, his % for picking up ‘probstitutes’ is still quite high - possibly 100%.

                            As for Kate, either she was stumbling drunkenly through the darkest corner of Mitre Square or she went there willingly with her killer. Or, perhaps she lay down on the cold, hard, damp pavement hoping to get 40 winks before the next beat copper moved her on.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              IMO, JtR killed because something about interactions with those particular women set him off. It could have been conversation having nothing to do with prostitution or maybe some of the cases had to do with prostitution and some not. Those women were available because they were active--walking, resting, wandering, etc.-- on the streets at those places and times. IMO the murders were crimes of opportunity.

                              It is possible JtR asked the women to 'walk with' him, meaning prostitution and the women rejected him for one reason or another. I still wonder if JtR wasn't in some way repulsive, frightening or crippled.

                              If we put any credence on the Mrs. Kennedy/Mrs. Lewis stories, a creepy man asked women to follow him to, then down, a dark passage. He initially refused to 'treat' them. Since JtR tended to strike after the pubs were closed, maybe Polly, Annie and Kate were not interested in business without payment of a drink?

                              None of the victims were found with any money though I still see the farthings at Annie's feet mentioned from time to time. Maybe JtR did not offer payment for services and maybe the women turned him down and he became enraged? It looks like Mary Kelly invited him in and she surely would have demanded money up front but there is always the possibility she rejected him and he followed her home, accessing her room through the broken window or through some other subterfuge.
                              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by R. J. Palmer View Post
                                Hi Gary - are you confident that if 'Jack' came across a woman stumbling drunkenly down the pavement at 3 a.m. --Polly Nichols?--he wouldn't have strangled and stabbed her? Or a woman resting on the sidewalk, for that matter?

                                Are the posters insisting that a woman HAD to be soliciting in order for 'Jack' to become enraged enough to kill her? That, like the 'Dear Boss' writer, he was truly 'down on whores'? (It appears to be what Caz is saying in her last paragraph, when she insists that Rubenhold can't truly "understand" the murders unless she acknowledges the women were soliciting).

                                Yet, except as a matter of 'modus operandi,' --a way of luring a woman into a dark corner--(and I am not sure 'Jack' even bothered to attempt that in the case of Liz Stride; he seems to have just attacked her when she was standing near the pavement)--no one has convinced me that it mattered one iota to 'Jack' whether he was killing an 'unfortunate' or a 'whore' or a 'houseless creature' or a 'drunk' or a 'bag lady.'

                                Yet people say that it DOES matter, and are even getting angry about it. Maybe I'd be angry at Rubenhold, too, if I honestly thought that it mattered.

                                Rubenhold may well be wrong about Nichols not soliciting (on the other hand, she could be right...whatever her intentions, Polly may have been too drunk to proceed, gave up, and had simply wandered toward the gate, found it locked, when she was discovered by 'Jack')---but I'm not sure Rubenhold is entirely wrong when she implies that Jack was killing 'houseless creatures' as opposed to 'prostitutes.' The line between the two was mighty thin, wasn't it? Maybe the thinness of that line was part of the 'point'? At its heart, isn't the "political" difference between a 'homeless' person and a derelict why some people tend to get angry about this discussion?

                                I can think of four examples in L.A. alone of men who wandered into the slums in order to kill tramps, hobos, and the homeless. Andrei Chikatilo killed, for the most part, homeless youths and girls he met at train-stations--in most cases they weren't "known prostitutes," they were simply runaways or destitute. In Chikatilo's mind, their very existence was an affront to his beloved Communist Party. Next up we have warped nurses who kill the elderly and the sick by smothering them with a pillow or giving them an overdose. Then we have the mass shooters who walk into a gay bar or a mini-mall mainly frequented by Mexicans. There is a 'eugenics' angle to their murders--in their mind they are killing the worthless, the dregs of society, the worn out, the enemies of the people.

                                I'm told by the profiling crowd that I am supposed to believe it is "all about sex" with Jack, but I don't see 'Jack' as being fundamentally different than these other murderers, so yes, I feel as if it might be missing the point to insist that he is "only killing prostitutes" (to steal one of Rubenhold's mysterious statements that, for some reason, is in quotation marks).

                                Whatever theory one may believe, 'Jack' is not killing Kate Eddowes. He's killing an idea, a symbol, a cultural cliché, a signal, a representation. Whether he sexually abuses his victims or not, I don't think it's about sex. It's about society. It's ALWAYS about society.

                                So, in this sense, I disagree with Caz about Sutcliffe and his motivations. Referring to his murders as the 'hobby' of someone who has no greater motivation than getting off on sexual violence does indeed miss the point. In my humble estimation, it misses it by a much wider margin than Rubenhold misses it.
                                Hi R.J,

                                I'm not sure what your beef is, or why you think some of us would get 'angry' about this discussion. For my part, I'm merely bemused by Hallie's apparent campaign to sanitise the murders by arguing that the victims were not soliciting when attacked, but asleep. If the evidence had supported her argument I cannot imagine ripperologists over the years trying to make that evidence say something different. Why does it matter to Hallie so much, that she would have the evidence say something different about her five chosen victims?

                                I'm also not sure how anyone could argue that the victims were killed by someone whose motivation was any more sophisticated than satisfying a sick personal need by murdering and mutilating defenceless females he encountered on the streets. It needn't be about 'sex', but he did pick on females, so are we looking for a seven-stone weakling, who simply didn't have the guts to attack males, even one lying in a drunken stupor?

                                It was a tragedy that these women were vulnerable to such a killer, but they clearly were. The most vulnerable might have been a sick, older woman who was sound asleep in a quiet place, while the next most vulnerable may have been in such dire straits that she would go out alone at night and accept any financial opportunity, decent or indecent, offered by a complete stranger. But it might also have been enough for the killer to see a woman and merely imagine her to be in that category. I doubt he was fussy, as long as he thought he could do what he came for and get away with it - the easier she made his life the better. He could love her for being an easy target, and hate her for it at the same time. We can't know whether he preferred his victims conscious and compliant to begin with, or didn't care as long as they gave him no grief. But the evidence is what it is, and suggests that his victims were not lying down and asleep or resting when he struck. An exception would appear to be MJK, although I don't buy the breaking and entering theory and believe the killer began with a woman who was awake and on the move, if weakened by poverty, ill health, alcohol or sheer exhaustion.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X