Some comments on the history of prostitution, Jack the Ripper, and the murder of Lord Errol in WW2 Kenya.

ADVISORY:  The Content Below is Somewhat Explicit.  

 One of my darker passions has always been crime.  I am guilty of watching those true crime documentaries on Netflix and Amazon Prime.  Are you? So, now I shall turn my time, albeit briefly, to an historic crime that has most likely been solved recently through the study of DNA:  Jack the Ripper.

Has there ever been a serial killer who inspired more imagination? Ted Bundy or even Charles Manson perhaps.  For some reason, these freaks have become part of the darker part of the American imagination.  I find it odd, perhaps (?) that these men were perpetrating such horrors almost exclusively against women. Why? Well we have ever been perceived as the 'weaker sex', historically.  Easy prey for some monsters.  This, at least, is a past perception.  In more recent times, I believe that this conception of women is changing.  We also have some power in a physical and mental sense, but it will take time.

Most certainly, Jack has captured the popular imagination.  He has been the subject of movies, radio, and novels.  Christ, he was even the villain in a Star Trek episode with Jim Kirk fighting Red Jack as an alien entity! 

The question I keep asking myself, is why? Probably because the crime was never solved, to the satisfaction of law enforcement, and so we kept trying to solve the problem of his identity.

So, what were his crimes? Well, there were five women, prostitutes, in the streets of a district in London called 'Whitechapel.'  Mary Ann Nichols (found August 31, 1888), Annie Chapman (found September 8, 1888), Elizabeth Stride (found September 30, 1888), Catherine Eddowes (also found September 30, 1888), and Mary Jane Kelly (found November 9, 1888). Five murders in all, classically attributed to Jack.  The killings were remarkable for their ferocity, and cruelty--knife wounds, almost surgical cuts, and disembowelment.  Ick.

Who were these women? All of them were prostitutes, who made their living trying to satisfy various sorts of male customers who frequented the streets of London, usually late at night.  Forgotten women.  Women, who were perhaps too fond of gin served in the taverns that dotted the city. Easy prey, I suppose, for a predator, or monster.  They were victims of the burgeoning industrial age in Great Britain, which took place during the last half of the nineteenth century.  This epoch created a great rift between the haves and the have 'nots' in the country, ending in perhaps one of the largest impoverished group per capita seen in modern times.  But, everything is relative, yes? Certainly, in those days, the poor located in Whitechapel saw incredible poverty, and so the women named above, would have had little recourse but to become sexual service workers.  

Now, don't get me wrong--prostitution has been around as long as we have.  It is an ancient, and was, to some extent, a necessary part of any culture.  Indeed, from the temple prostitutes of ancient Mesopotamia, to the demi-mondaine of Paris in the 19th century, there have been many shapes and sizes of prostitution.  For a long time, it was seen as a somewhat honorable institution that served an essential function.

  

In Europe, there were actually women who became concubines of the rich and powerful, the most famous of which was Veronica de Franco of Venice in the sixteenth century.  

A poetess, she became an integral part of the Doge's court in Venice, eventually perhaps making love to the King of France, or so the legend goes.  I wonder what she would have thought about how industrialization would devolve her profession to the point of the "crib girls" who were found in the American West.  

A pretty dramatic fall, eh?

In post industrial London, such women were considered by society at large as unclean, and even criminals in their own right.  Many did not wish to recognize that the reason for their "fall" had been largely due the lack of economic opportunities.  Certainly, many of the British public (or French, or American, or Russian, or whoever) didn't want to confront or fix the problems inherent in their own cultures that created such a circumstance for anyone.  And, so, these women were easy prey for someone who wished to do violence.  The Ripper's victims--Mary Ann Nichols (found August 31, 1888), Annie Chapman (found September 8, 1888), Elizabeth Stride (found September 30, 1888), Catherine Eddowes (also found September 30, 1888), and Mary Jane Kelly (found November 9, 1888)--came from the lowest echelons of London society.  It's odd, but until recently, the identity of the Ripper was unknown--that was until recently, when DNA test results on the clothing of one of the Ripper's victims, gave compelling evidence that the Ripper's identity was likely Aaron Kosminski, a mentally disturbed, 23-year-old Polish barber.  One hopes that the mystery of these five tragedies can now be laid to rest, but officially the case remains (albeit relatively) unsolved.

So, with this new industrial age, the role of sexual service workers devolved into two classes, I think:  street walkers, and higher class Maitresse-en-titre (a term meaning the chief royal mistress, usually to a king of France.  And yet, the term gradually came to describe a woman who attached herself to a more powerful, richer man for a prolonged length of time).  The nineteenth century term demi-mondaine is actually far more accurate.  There really were few, what we might call today, middle class prostitutes.

I know that Victorian sexual values have followed us into the present day, with its' constrictive attitudes, and shallow mores.  And, yet, the statement is more accurate than you might think, because Victorian society, according to historian Peter Gay, was tiered--there was a pretty world with privileged families living an idyllic existence free from sin, and then there was the 'underbelly', where anything goes.  For example, did you know that the Victorians encouraged the first explosion in pornographic media?  I say explosion, because we've been gawking at titillating pictures for thousands of years for a variety of reasons--sometimes religious, and sometimes not.   

So! Sex and violence.  One could write for ever on this topic.  But, there is a story, which took place in the early 1940s, Kenya, which highlights both.  I know, I know, a lot of stories highlight these basic human traits, but this is the one I want to tell you.  

I want to concentrate on the case of Josslyn Hay, Earl of Erroll (1901-1941), who was murdered one early morning in 1941 by person or persons unknown.  The case was never officially solved, kind of like the case of Harry Oakes.  It must have been an epidemic in the 1940s. So, why was he murdered? Well, the case likely has to do to with a woman, Diana Caldwell, as was (1913-1987).  By 1941, she was the brand new wife of Sir Jon 'Jock' Delves Broughton (1883-1943).

I think it might be a good idea, to view the participants:

Diana Caldwell - THE WOMAN.

Jossylyn, The MAN:

This last is a picture of Joss and his wife Idina Sackville on their wedding day.  She was considerably older than he, and their marriage ended soon after their arrival in Kenya.

Jock, THE CUCKOLD:

So, the story begins in 1941, when the newly married Lord Broughton brought his new wife Diana to live in the British colony of Kenya.  This community was, by then, quite notorious as a hang-out for disaffected British nobility, and other wealthy socialites, many of whom had found life in England too constricted, or simply too hot to hold them.  Indeed, many found that the freedom Kenya offered, also allowed them the freedom to do pretty much whatever they wanted, far from the watchful eyes of London society.

And, thus was born the Happy Valley Set.  This insular community lived on the outskirts of British colonial society in Kenya, and included most of the disaffected and dissolute members of the aristocracy living there.  Their drug use was rampant, and sexual experimentation a must.  Gatherings that included members of the "set," often involved strange games, cocaine, heroine, and wife-swapping.  At the heart of this group, was Joss Hay, and his wife, Idina Sackville.  At their home, they regularly held what were literally sedate orgies, where these people could indulge their eccentric tastes.  

Into this setting, came Jock Broughton, and his new wife, Diana.  The year was 1941.  The heyday of the Happy Valley Set had nearly gone, especially in the wake of war breaking out a year earlier.  But, to some degree, the relaxed morals of the aristocratic community in Kenya still held sway.  Apparently, it was an early plan of this miss-matched couple, to emigrate to Kenya (or, what is now the Republic of Kenya) and farm coffee, or tea, whatever.  They were to become "veranda farmers," what was  known as a rich bastard, sipping cold gin (or whiskey, or vodka, or what have you), watching others work his or her land, because, God forbid they should get their hands dirty.

It was not long before Diana and Joss would come into contact with one another, and indeed, an affair soon followed.  Now, this was not new behavior for Joss--whose marriages had regularly broken down due to his continual, even obsessive philandering.  Certainly, this is what ended his marriage to Idina, years earlier.  

Soon, the relationship became the talk, not only of the Happy Valley Set, but also among the larger community that revolved around the Club, where most of the colonial British society congregated.  The two lovers were not exactly shy about their relationship, most likely not caring.  Such an attitude was common to the British white ruling class, particularly in those days.  They did not care much about the opinions of others--not unless it seriously inconvenienced their activities.  

It was clear to Diana, and to many of her 'friends' among the Happy Valley crowd, that she wished to wash her hands of one husband, and gain another, younger (and totally more virile) one.  And, so, what about Jock Broughton? Do we feel sorry for the poor old git (I really should not write that...he was about the age I am now!!)?  I must confess, I do not.  He went into the marriage with both eyes open, probably deluding himself into thinking that as long as he had money, he could keep a woman like Diana.  Oops.  There was a slight difficulty there, because, um, well, Jock was broke!  Of course he was penniless in the way only the British nobility could be--living on and off of their estates in genteel poverty, as they hobbled about magnificent estates with 20,000 (jk) servants to wait on their every need and whim.  Poor bastard.  And Diana? Was she entirely blameless for not investigating her prospective husband more closely? Perhaps not, I really have no opinion one way or the other.

One of the things he appears to have promised Diana (an empty promise as it turns out), was to settle a goodly sum of money on her, should she fall in love with another man during their marriage, and subsequently free her.  A foolhardy move, yes? And a desperate one.  Well, it certainly didn't take her long! Now, no one knows for certain, but Diana probably expected Joss to marry her, and collect the promised money from her soon-to-be ex.  And, yet, the suspicions of her friends, and others close to the 'couple' probably could have told Diana that this was a false hope on her part:  Joss only married wickedly rich women (with an emphasis on the wicked part).  It is only logical that he would have to reject her, should she make any permanent demands.  

A lot hinges on this last point.  The affair with Joss had Diana at the forefront of Nairobi social gossip, and not in a good way.  In addition, Jock had been sent a note indicating that he was a cuckold.  She would have little choice but to leave, or marry her paramour.  What, then, would she do, should he reject her? And, what would Jock's reaction be?  We can never know the answers to these questions, but I think that we can surmise a little bit from asking them.

One:  what would Diana do? Well, she could react in several ways, perhaps one of them ending in murder.  Certainly, in the aftermath of the shooting, many suspected her of this act.  But, why would she? She was purportedly in love with Erroll, so why shoot him? Unless, of course, he'd rejected her already.  You know the story--a woman scorned and all that!

Two:  what would Jock do? What would have been the reaction of any husband, hopelessly in love with a disastrously younger wife? A man who perceived a huge attack on his honor? Ummmm. Yeah.  Big stretch there.

And, so, Dear Reader, we have arrived at the moment, as it were.  One night, matters probably came to a head between the lovers, but we don't know what exactly happened.  What occurred, is that Josh ended up parked on the road to Nairobi in the middle of the night, probably for an assignation.  Who knows?  At any rate, a local milkman found his body in the later morning, shot through the head.  The police were called, and as was the habit in many places during the 1940s, forensics were not exactly a priority.  The ground near the car was trampled, obliterating any footprints near the vehicle.  The outside of the car was also mis-handled (exclusion prints, anyone?), and no one thought to do a thorough search of the auto's interior.  Whoops.  Why? Didn't these assholes ever read (or watch) Sherlock Holmes? Fingerprints? Blood spatter analysis? No, wait.  Let's just arrest the wronged husband.  He had to have been the one who did the deed.

And, that's precisely what they did.

Jock was put on trial for the murder of Josslyn Hay, and his 'wife' Diana stood by him through it all, even hiring some great lawyers to get him off.  Although everyone in the colony thought that either one of them did it, Jock had to stand trial while Diana looked on from the gallery.  The prosecution believed it had a slam dunk case, but it didn't.  The 'evidence' was barely what we might call circumstantial--all they had was the rumor of an affair, and a botched crime scene.  To be frank, Jock's defense lawyers made mincemeat of the prosecution's arguments, waltzing around them like Fred Astaire.  Honestly, though, it wasn't hard.  Apparently, the colony tacitly conspired to let Jock off--even down to a member of the jury personally knowing the defendant.  Yes.  The juror was Jock's barber.  No! Really!  

I don't have to tell you the result:  Jock was acquitted, on what anyone could have told you was a lack of evidence.  What was the key point in his defense though, was the testimony of one of his wife's personal friends, June, who admitted that she had 'seen Jock home' the night of the murder, spent the night, later spotting him in the house within minutes of the murder--making it impossible for him to have traveled the two miles from his house to the car where Joss waited--for what? One word:  retribution.

Not his, certainly.  No, the person had to be Jock, who (with or without help) must have managed to get to where Joss had parked, and pulled the trigger.  Oh! Did I mention that the gun used to kill Joss belonged to Jock? And that he had earlier reported it missing? Premeditation anyone? Yeah, I think so.  It's the only explanation that makes any sense, given the 'facts', as it were.  

Whatever the reason, the case of Joss, Earl of Erroll's death remains unsolved, but everyone in Nairobi, then and now, knows who did it--Jock Broughton.

So, what happened to the other principles? Well, Diana divorced Jock quickly after the trial.  He returned to England, killing himself in a horrible little hotel room outside of London--rather an ignominious end.  As for Diana, she married Gilbert Colville, a friend of Joss' for many years.  She was married to Colville for more than ten years, and then she married Lord Delamere, becoming a Lady at last.  In her later years, she was known in two ways by locals:  as one of the richest white women in Africa, and also as the so-called "White Queen of Africa."  Diana died just about forty years ago, becoming one of the longest lived members of the so-called "Happy Valley Set."  She also achieved her dream of financial security and  a title.  Not a bad end for someone who came from modest beginnings, eh?  And, if you believe she got away with murder....? 

Who can say? Like I said:  it's unsolved folks, and yet still interesting to me.