Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Was There No Money Found on Any of the Victims?

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

  • Why Was There No Money Found on Any of the Victims?

    One curious fact of the Whitechapel Murders that has never been satisfactorily explained is the absence of any money on any of JTR's victims. After all, they were all of a profession that dealt strictly in cash, and one in which payment is made before services are rendered, not afterwards. So why was there never any money found on any of the victims?
    17
    JTR searched them for money and valuables after killing them.
    5.88%
    1
    JTR attacked them as he was proffering the money, so they never actually got it.
    29.41%
    5
    JTR had prepaid them in advance, knowing that they would spend it all, but would then trust him to be good for more.
    0.00%
    0
    JTR had bartered with them, offering them goods such as stale bread instead of cash.
    0.00%
    0
    JTR was such a smooth talker that he convinced them to wait until afterwards to be paid.
    5.88%
    1
    JTR had cultivated them generously as a 'regular' client beforehand, so thay trusted him to be good for the debt.
    5.88%
    1
    JTR had promised them a grand payment if only they would go with him.
    17.65%
    3
    JTR bought them liquor beforehand.
    0.00%
    0
    JTR promised them a job and a better life.
    0.00%
    0
    There had actually been money there, but it was pocketed by the individuals who found the bodies.
    17.65%
    3
    Who said there was no money? - what about those farthings at Annie Chapman's feet?
    17.65%
    3

  • #2
    Would it be an aspect of ritualism/occultism to remove whatever was in their pockets ?

    The reason that I ask is that it would seem more UNLIKELY that the Ripper would waste or expend valuable time in rifling through these women's pockets for their lifesavings,UNLESS it was for a ritualistic reason.
    To Join JTR Forums :
    Contact [email protected]

    Comment


    • #3
      There are SO many possibilities, why the victims were absent any currency when they were discovered. One reason, might simply be the "hand to mouth", lifestyle these prostitutes existed under. As quickly as they received money, so they, in turn, spent it. Whether it have been on food, lodging, or alcohol. The fact that the amounts they took in were minimal, to say the least, would only serve to prove this all the more.

      Comment


      • #4
        But all prostitutes demand payment in advance, except for regular customers that they can trust. This would hardly have been the case with these street women. They obviously could not have spent this money just received from the Ripper, if indeed there WAS any money exchanged. And I find it hard to believe that the Ripper would have risked the time searching his victims for the money - especially in the case of Chapman and Eddowes - as it would have been a purely nominal amount not worth the risk of his capture or identification. Unless maybe he WERE dirt poor himself. But still.......

        I think there is more than meets the eye here, hence some of the more unusual choices on the poll. (you guys DID vote, didn't you?)

        Comment


        • #5
          I dont think they had any on them anyway, they would have spent it on booze, or if they had any, might have gone to find a bed for the night...

          Comment


          • #6
            Disregard the 2nd post on this thread,since the times,they have a'changed.

            I believe that these ladies were skint.... although it has been suggested that the approach of the Ripper towards the victims in one or more instances may have been attempts at robbing them..as in a move calculated to enable him to proceed in his butchery. By more or less suggesting to a victim that he was there for their cash and not looking for sex it might have facilitated his true aim....according to that theory. I have doubts that this is a viable theory although you can't immediately dismiss it outright.

            After Chapman's murder...as a starting point, I for one would consider the possibility that women had begun arming themselves and that the killer,unless he was completely oblivious to the effect he was having in the area would have considered the possibility that the women had begun arming themselves and as a result probably ( in my view) not pursued any attempts at "hold ups", since the once completely vulnerable women might now be pistol packin' mamas...with an equally sharp knife on their person.
            To Join JTR Forums :
            Contact [email protected]

            Comment


            • #7
              If they did carry some kind of weapon, was that allowed in those days????

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Currerbell
                If they did carry some kind of weapon, was that allowed in those days????
                Yes, if you believe your Conan Doyle in the Sherlock Holmes canon. Britain used to be a lot like Texas in the LVP, and anyone who could afford a weapon could carry it. At least, Holmes, Watson, and numerous of the canon miscreants carried pistols, apparently legally. I dunno re knives and such; perhaps SPE or someone else in a position to know could help out here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  This isn't that complicated, is it ? Unless you believe these women would have had sex and then collected their money, Jack had to at the very least have taken back the coins he gave them.

                  Originally posted by WTM View Post
                  And I find it hard to believe that the Ripper would have risked the time searching his victims for the money

                  As he had already committed a deranged act, I don't think we can say anything along the lines of "He'd disembowel them on the streets but taking their coins - that was just too much of a risk."

                  I also think that said coins would have made a great trophy, especially for someone living with others. Neat, clean and compact...nothing to raise an eyebrow. He may even have used the same coins again and again.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bell:

                    When I mentioned "pistol packin' mamas", I didn't mean to suggest the prosses carried handguns. I meant knives or even scissors.
                    To Join JTR Forums :
                    Contact [email protected]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      of course, I just wondered if it was illegal for people to carry some kind of weapon back in the LVP...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        They surely had no money?

                        MOst of them were out whoring because they were skint (its a matter of known fact).

                        I presume money would have transferred hands after the act, and assuming they were killed whilst getting ready to do th edeed......its not surprising there was no money on them.

                        p

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bell:

                          I am not sure if carrying scissors was an "offense"...and not really certain if a being in possession of a knife (obviously we are referring to a concealed knife..) would be considered illegal...in the UK.

                          Maybe someone else knows...I should...but don't offhand.
                          To Join JTR Forums :
                          Contact [email protected]

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thanks How...

                            You're welcome Bell.

                            Hopefully someone does know...and will let us both know.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Would be now How!!!!! Gawd you can't leave the house heading for the airport even thinking about scissors!!!!!!!!!

                              Just checked and haven't found any ref to a scissor related unpleasantness.............in the LVP, (There's an unpeakable tin-opener related total horror in WW2 but that another seriously horrible story)

                              Mind you in Dial M for Murder- Hitchcock- the scissors were the offending item wielded by Grace Kelly....IF JTR had had a pair about his person....they wouldn't have come from his sewing kit I fancy!!!


                              In the LVP tho -Scissors were quite an unusual and prized article a bit like tweezers,nail files etc etc..A semi sharpened knife would have done for most of those bits and pieces- as if they actually bothered most of the time.

                              The posh (!) bits that Kate had on her person IMO didnt belong to her in the first place or she'd 'acquired' them along the way! Certainly NOT that red leather number!!

                              Like you'd pick up half a pair of specs....mind you I would if I lost mine!!..Blooming 'eck!!!!....... half a one's better than none!!!

                              Pass the eye!!!!!!!!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X