|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 357
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 5:21 pm: |       |
Hi Jeff,
I've never given anyone a single star, but I don't hesitate to deal out four or five stars when I feel it is relevant to do so.
In your case, as usual, I wish there were more stars available than five...
I do wish I had your way of expressing myself... 
All the best 
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
John Hacker
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jhacker
Post Number: 66
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 5:27 pm: | |
Jeff,
Excellent. VERY well said.
Regards,
John Hacker |
Leanne Perry
Chief Inspector
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 6:15 pm: | |
G'day,
SHANNON:, I am trying not to give too much of my views away before the release of my book. Then we can debate until our hearts are content!
Oh, and has anyone considered the fact that prostitution wasn't illegal, but creating a drunken disturbance was? Prostitutes could only be arrested and put on police record if they were creating an obstruction or using immoral behaviour in public.
LEANNE |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 90
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:13 pm: | |
Jeff, some, not ALL... Can't you see that an accusation such as being a thief, alcoholic or prostitute is degrading to a person living or their memory if passed, especially if not true about the individual. I am sure you would have a much different reaction if someone labeled your father a thief, your mother an alcoholic, or your aunt a prostitute with no proof to back it up. Today we call it libel!
Shannon
|
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 91
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:15 pm: | |
Leanne, if you read the first chapter of my book you will see that I specifically mention that prostitution was not a crime unless the solicitation caused a public disturbance.
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 358
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:46 pm: | |
Hi Leanne,
Interesting information. Here in Scandinavia we had two types of prostitution:
-- brothels, which were legal but kept under strict regulations by the police and the government -- and the women had to register themselves in special files and undergo regular medical examinations
-- unregulated street prostitution (like those similar to the Ripper women), which was totally illegal. Any woman captured on the street, suspected of such activity (regardless drunkedness or disturbance), went straight into the police records and after a couple of warnings (on a written document they had to sign) they went straight into jail. The reason for this was to prevent the spread of syphilis. So evidently this group was treated a bit more mildly in Britain. Luckily (for us), the Scandinavian approached resulted in that most of them were photographed (only in Denmark, not Sweden) and thorougly recorded at an early stage.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 47
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 7:55 pm: | |
Strictly speaking, prostitution is not illegal in the United Kingdom. Solicitation is, and so is living off immoral earnings. So in other words it is perfectly legal to charge somebody for sex, but the first law prevents you from advertising your services up front, and the second prevents the running of brothels. UK law tends to move very slowly, particularly in areas such as this one, so I imagine the law was pretty much the same in 1888. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 359
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 8:06 pm: | |
Today we have a peculiar law in Sweden that allows someone to be a prostitute, but being a customer is illegal.
The brothels became illegal, though, cirka 1907--1910, depending on which city you lived in.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 94
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 11:15 pm: | |
CAZ, "You ask: "Are you disputing that this is exactly what she did do..."
Caz, no asking as information, why she would? Realize there could be any number of reasons, just trying to understand her actions...
Shannon |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 126
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 5:06 am: | |
I've just read a few strands of this thread and am absolutely amazed at some of the comments especially from Leanne Perry and Glenn Anderson.
Leanne states:
The best evidence to suggest that Kate engaged in prostitution that morning, is that she was murdered!
and Anderson fully supports this ludicrous statement! From the depths of what fantasy nightmare did you conjure this up from?
Peter Sutcliffe's stated aim was to murder prostitutes and this he did. In error he also murdered ladies who were not prostitutes, according to Perry and Anderson however the fact they were murdered is strong evidence that they were!
Crime historian! You sound more like Noddy's biographer!
The fact is, if such things might interest you, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Eddowes was a prostitute and a great many indications that she wasn't.
Is it me or am I getting distinctly liverish in my old age?
Bob |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 361
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 6:22 am: | |
Hello Bob,
"Is it me or am I getting distinctly liverish in my old age?"
I prefer to let you answer that question yourself, Bob.
I don't think the fact that she was murdered is enough to suggest that she was a prostitute (I just backed up Leanne on that one because I don't necessarily see that she is wrong and due to the fact that we mostly totally disagree on other issues), but I have NEVER said that Kate's murder in itself was a STRONG indication of her being a prostitute. You are reading things into my words that aren't there, Bob, and I'm amazed that you take such a short statement as a measurement of my competense, and using an arrogant tone to go with it -- I really think that is pathetic.
Besides, Leanne and me aren't the only ones here who believe she was a prostitute, far from it -- in fact, those who don't seem to be a screaming minority.
Kate Eddowes was obviously a target for some reason. Of course a serial killer very well can be mistaken and take out other women as well, I am perfectly aware of that, but is that all that lay behind your opinion that she wasn't a prostitute?
"The fact is, if such things might interest you, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Eddowes was a prostitute and a great many indications that she wasn't."
Well, Bob, I have to disagree with you (if you can accept that). I see "not a shred of evidence" to suggest that she wasn't. What should such indications be, Bob? That she lived with a man? Please...
Although they've been said before, these are the main points, which added together I think points in one direction:
1) She was an alcoholic
2) She was homeless
3) She was a part of the lowest poorest class in East End and had no special trade that could supply her with an income, except for occasional minor work
4) She had prior convictions, for drunkedness/public disturbance and obscene language
These points above are the main "qualifications" for a prostitute in the 19th century (whether you like it or not) -- and I have studied the lives of such women enough to draw such conclusions -- and in addition to that she obviously was killed by Jack the Ripper, I'd say they strongly indicate that she was a prostitute, at least at times when she had no other alternatives. We can never know anything for sure, but to suggest otherwise is wishful thinking and irrational. I really don't see the problem and why this matter is so sensitive for some individuals here.
P.S. If you can't manage to put forward your opinions about this in a proper language without personal attacks, you don't have to bother to answer this at all.
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 48
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 6:41 am: | |
I have to say that I don't take for granted that the four things you mention qualify Kate as being a prostitute. I am sure there were many of her class who were not.
My own belief that she was is based solely on the fact that
a. She was hanging around outside a mens club in the early hours of the morning at a time when men would be expected to be leaving
b. She was talking intimately with a man who was not her partner and being tactile with him (placing her hand on his chest)
c. She then passed through a small passage into a secluded square with him
These are all behaviours one would normally associate with a person engaged in an act of prostitution. However I am willing to be swayed in the other direction if somebody can come up with one item of actual "evidence" (ie not just everyone said what a lovely sort she was) to the contrary. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 363
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 6:58 am: | |
Hi Alan,
Good points. I was in a bit of a rush and just managed to mention the more general pointers -- these are nevertheless something that all prostitues from the lower class in those days had in common, and I think especially the prior convictions are more crucial in this context than the class thing itself.
These are the also the things we know about Eddowes with certainty, the ones you describe are based on witness statements, and although I don't dispute them at all and I believe them to be valid enough, I have a habit of treating such descriptions with a bit of carefulness.
But naturally I believe the points you make about Eddowes' behaviour are important ones to consider as well. And if we lay all these features together, and look at the result, I think the scale is tipping towards her as being a prostitute, and I have seen no evidence so far pointing in an opposite direction.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 95
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 8:39 am: | |
Glen, her prior convictions were for being drunk in public. I have been arrested for the same crime she has and I dont see my self as a prostitute...
Shannon |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 97
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 8:49 am: | |
CAZ, Glenn, Leanne... Killers select their victim based on THEIR perception of the victim, and we have no idea what that is. Humans make mistakes every day about others based on any number of factors, its only human nature, what is to prevent the killer from making the same mistake when selecting a victim?
Shannon |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 364
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 8:55 am: | |
Hello Shannon,
"I have been arrested for the same crime she has and I dont see my self as a prostitute... "
But then you on the other hand isn't a woman living in East End during the 19th century. You must consider the fact, that the expectations of a woman's behaviour and life-style during those days was a bit different than today.
Once again, we must add all these points together. Naturally, getting arrested for being drunk in public can't alone prove that she was a prostitute, but it was nevertheless something that was associated with female prostitutes in general and quite a distinctive character feature. So it fits the picture perfectly, if you also take all the other pointers in consideration. At least they unfortunately speak more in favour of this solution than the opposite.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 365
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 8:58 am: | |
Shannon,
"Humans make mistakes every day about others based on any number of factors, its only human nature, what is to prevent the killer from making the same mistake when selecting a victim?"
I have never ruled out that possibility, I thought I made that clear in one of my messages above.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 49
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 9:05 am: | |
I have been arrested for the same crime she has and I dont see my self as a prostitute...
Equally, you have argued that Kate's lack of criminal record shows that she was not engaged in prostitution. I have been arrested seven times in my life, and I don't have a criminal record.
You can't compare our modern lives in an relatively wealthy society to the way that Kate and the others lived in that time and place. |
Faye
Sergeant
Username: Faye
Post Number: 22
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 9:56 pm: | |
Glen, you said So evidently this group was treated a bit more mildly in Britain. Luckily (for us), the Scandinavian approached resulted in that most of them were photographed (only in Denmark, not Sweden) and thorougly recorded at an early stage. . If I remember correct Liz was arrested in Sweden for prostitution. Is there a chance they made one of those pics of her? |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 367
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 2:51 pm: | |
Hi Faye,
No unfortunately I think the possibility for that is slim, I'm afraid. It was only in Denmark that this was natural proceedure, not in Sweden.
But since she for a short time was contracted to the legal brothels in Gothenburg, there is a tiny chance that she could be found in the register books that was made in connection with that. And they had photographs, but it could be that it is a bit too early for photos to be enclosed.
But I'll try and check it out when I get the chance (although it is my belief that competent Swedish researchers like Klas Lithner already would have found such items if they existed...).
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 100
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 3:32 pm: | |
Hi Shannon,
I may not like the charges laid, but if they presented the evidence that we have about Kate, I would understand how they've drawn their conclusion. And, as I indicated in the Barnett thread, it would probably end up with a "not proven" verdict. Again, a point you keep missing. You are correct, there are alternative explanations, however, those alternatives have a lower probability of being true. As such, you need much more than what you have to suggest that Kate was not a prostitute is the better explanation.
- Jeff |
Bob Hinton
Detective Sergeant
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 5:35 pm: | |
Mr Anderson,
I find your comments laughable because they don't adhere to any form of logic. Leanne Perry said:
The best evidence to suggest that Kate engaged in prostitution that morning, is that she was murdered!
and you agreed with her. Now what are you saying, that you don't really go along with that statement but agreed with Leanne ...for what reason.
I also find your assertion that because Eddowes was poor and homeless, had a drink problem etc etc it points to her being a prostitute nonsensical. You semm to overlook the fact that none of her convictions were for prostitution or anything like. You also overlook the fact that she had been in two stable realtionships with men, I believe she had been with Kelly for seven years.
You also seem to completely ignore the fact that not one single person said that she was a prostitute, a feature missing for the other victims where they were classified as prostitutes by friends and acquantances.
Anyway let me make it simple for you. Present one fact that shows Eddowes was engaged in prostitution or indeed had ever engaged in prostitution.
Bob Hinton |
Jeff Hamm
Detective Sergeant
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 101
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 5:44 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,
And thanks for the compliment. To be fair to yourself though, I've seen you post things much more clearly than myself on many occasions.
And, as for Bob's concerns, he's correct in that just because Eddowes was murdered doesn't really work as proof she was a prostitute. It just suggests that "Jack thought she was". However, I don't think one can say there is no shred of evidence to suggest Eddowes was engaged in prostitution, as there is a lot (a lot in terms of this case anyway) of circumstantial evidence to support this conclusion.
Mind you, nobody is claiming that her murder proves she was a prostitute, and Leanne's suggestion it was the "best evidence" is putting things a bit strong. A modern police force would immediately check for such a background based solely upon the fact that the other victims in the series were prostitutes. Meaning, her becomming a victim is one event that suggests the possibility of such a background. As does her location, as does the testimony concerning her behaviour just prior to getting murdered, etc. Such an investigation might, as with some of Sutcliff's victims, resulted in it being discovered she wasn't a prostitute. The police of the time, however, don't seem to think this was the case but we don't know what they did to check her background along those lines. They may only have assumed she was.
Shannon's concern that none of this is sufficient to "prove the charge in a court of law", however, is not the point. We can't go back, so we have to work with what we have. We have to use the data we have and choose the explanations that are most suggested by the data. Given that, our "conclusions" are always "tentative", and we would have to be willing to change those conclusions if new evidence demonstrates they are wrong. So far, however, the simplest explanation involves Eddowes being engaged in prostitution, and that explanation causes no problems with the evidence and also fits the pattern laid down by previous and subsequent murders in this series. In fact, that explanation accounts for an awful lot of the data concerning Eddowes behaviour, and because it accounts for a lot of the limited evidence, some would argue this is a form of proof in and of itself (this kind of "proof" is called "bootstrapping" whereby a large number of otherwise unrelated facts get accounted for by a common explanation).
So, is the notion that Eddowes was engaged in prostitution a reasonable tentative conclusion? Yes.
Is it proven in the sense that no other explanation can be offered? No, but I think we all agree on that already.
The alternatives, however, are much more tenuous and eventually large monkeys start being introduced to avoid reaching the unwanted conclusion. Because the alternatives require a new explanation for each of the pieces of evidence, we end up with more and more unproven "conclusions". For example, "Eddowes got drunk by hanging out with people who just bought her drinks for free"; no evidence supports this "conclusion". Or "Eddowes was chased/followed into Mitre Square"; no evidence this happened either. But now we have 2 unsupported conclusions.
Prostitution, however, is a common explanation for both of these apparently unrelated events - she got drunk without any money, she was seen talking with an unknown male in a mannor that the witnesses interpreted as a prostitute and client, she ended up being murdered in a location suitable for the services of a prostitute. Same conclusion explains all of these; one assumption for all these known facts. The "discussion with the unknown male" requires some other explanation, giving us 3 unrelated conclusions to explain each of these events. (remember, she was in jail so the "unknown male" isn't someone she got free drinks from unless you stretch things and they planned to meet ... but for what? etc).
- Jeff |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 369
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 7:29 pm: | |
Dear Mr Hinton,
Still in your usual mood, I see...
Well, if your are expecting clear proof or simple explanation of things, I have to disappoint you, I'm afraid. Such things doesn't exist in the Ripper case, whether we like it or not. Most of us here simply analyses things from subjective deductions and our own experiences.
But I'll do my best to comment your statements above.
"I also find your assertion that because Eddowes was poor and homeless, had a drink problem etc etc it points to her being a prostitute nonsensical. You semm to overlook the fact that none of her convictions were for prostitution or anything like."
You are totally missing the point. Your first sentence I naturally have to disagree with, although we can't say anything for certain. These characteristics doesen't prove anything, that's true, but I do think we have enough circumstances regarding Kate Eddowes' character and social life that suggests she occasinally "walked the streets" in the way we discuss here. Drinking problems, prior convictions, living among the poorest class, her late night excursions (especially at the hight of the Ripper scare), all points at this being the case. I didn't say it proves anything, I just believe it to be most likely.
Since I've studied such women and a historical context comparable to that of the Ripper case for some years now, and have come across and carefully studied over 800 women in the year span between 1880--1910, I can assure you that in almost all of this tragic examples, these above mentiones characteristics are basic ones (in about 98 percent of them). You do the mistake to believe that arrests and convictions in connection with these women has to be for prostitution and nothing else if it is going to show us anything. That is a complete falacy. A prostitution charge didn't fall on many of them (their whole existense depended on keeping away from the police during situations that involved the prostitution act and they were generally more sucessful in this than the police was to discover them), but nearly all of them had multiple convictions for drunkenness, disturbing the peace, obscene language or conduct. All of them had been arrested on charges for being drunk in public, and all of them were poor and homeless, living in shelters or in cheap flats for shorter periods.
I also want to add that living together with a man -- almost like man and wife -- wasn't uncommon, nearly half of them did that. But you seem to totally rule out that this could be possible and on this misconception you base your conclusions. I'm afraid it only shows that you are a bit ignorant of the living conditions discussed here. These "relationships" were for many a necessity for financial and security reasons, and sometimes they evolved into romantic relationships as well. I could give you a hundred examples of such couples (where the woman was living of prostitution) who met one night over a drink and suddenly decided to move together. This was very common and sometimes it was to benefit for both of them, sometimes it led to that the man used her and lived on the money she had earned on the street (and therefore almost became her pimp). It is indeed laughable to claim that a woman of such "character" (to use 19th century language) didn't do prostitution just because she lived with a man for several years. I'm not overlooking any facts, I'm just saying that their value as evidence on your part is completely useless and unvalid.
So how can we adapt this on Eddowes and the other Ripper victims? Let's just make clear, that we do have conflicting testimonies regarding her drinking habits. But the majority, among them her own daughter, described her as an unpredictable alcoholic and the fact that Eddowes had at least one conviction for being drunk in public and also were so drunk she couldn't stand up some hours before of the murder, lead me to deduct that she during periods had great alcohol problems, and that John Kelly (in company with some of the witnesses called at the inquest) probably wasn't telling the whole truth about this matter (which is totally understandable and not that unusual). Does this alone prove her to be a prostitute? Absolutely not. But looking at these circumstances in relation to the other chracteristics I do think it's an important point. You are totally free to disregard it, but I prefer not to do so.
There have been similar discussions regarding Elizabeth Stride, whose drinking tendensies and prostitution conducts have been disputed, so Eddowes is absolutely not unique in this context.
"You also seem to completely ignore the fact that not one single person said that she was a prostitute, a feature missing for the other victims where they were classified as prostitutes by friends and acquantances."
The last statement in that sentence is completely wrong. Witness statements regarding the other women, especially Stride, was indeed reluctant to accept them as prostitutes. This is again a returning opinion about these women in general, especially from people who knew them or belonged to their family. This was not something ordinary people wanted to get mixed up with. I also want to add that Stride also lived permanently with a man, Michael Kidney. So what does that prove?
"Anyway let me make it simple for you. Present one fact that shows Eddowes was engaged in prostitution or indeed had ever engaged in prostitution."
As I indicated earlier, that would not be a simple task for anyone in any aspect of the Ripper case. I can't produce any evidence of anything and neither can you, Mr Hinton. But I would very much like you to give some alternative explanations to all circumstances surrounding the case, proving Eddowes or any of the other victims wasn't prostitutes. That is, as you'll find, just as hard to prove as the opposite. But the chance for her being an occasional prostitute is a more logical suggestion, I believe -- and less speculative.
The points presented here and in the posts above is circumstancial and pure assumptions, but if you expect anything more than that, your perception of the whole Ripper case is incredibly distorted. I believe in my interpretation of the facts available and you probably believe in yours. And I still haven't seen any "evidence" proving the opposite view, neither by you or Shannon Christopher.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 370
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 7:46 pm: | |
Hi Jeff,
"Mind you, nobody is claiming that her murder proves she was a prostitute, and Leanne's suggestion it was the "best evidence" is putting things a bit strong. A modern police force would immediately check for such a background based solely upon the fact that the other victims in the series were prostitutes. Meaning, her becomming a victim is one event that suggests the possibility of such a background."
Yes, I am very well aware of that. I don't think Leanne meant it exactly as she wrote it, though, but I admit she put it a bit strong. I think she partly meant it as a funny remark and so did I. But I do regret now that I backed that post up, since it totally uncesessary have become so blown up in proportions. Stupid, stupid, stupid... 
Thanks for your kind words back, Jeff. Once again, in your last message, you managed to be quite spot on. What am I going to do with you..?
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
