| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 03, 2003 - 9:23 pm: |       |
It appears that most of the victims lived in or around Dorset Street. Suppose there was a regular customer who had been serviced by the victims many times. He maybe lived in or frequented Dorset St. They thought of him as harmless. Then something happened to make him snap. It would explain why they trusted him even after the scare became widespread. "It's ok to go with 'im. 'e's safe as houses. I knows 'im". |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 5:18 pm: | |
Diana,
A very plausible point, I believe the killer lived in that immediate vacinity, and lets face it who would you trust most, a partner of one of their own?
Richard. |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 366
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 5:24 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
Quite possible -- at least I don't find it implausible that he at one time or another could have been a customer of prostitutes. And I also believe he lived in the area. Whether he really knew them or not, I dare not speculate. But it is possible, by all means.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Alan Sharp
Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 50
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 7:09 pm: | |
Diana
I'm going to hark back to that John Douglas profile again. In Douglas' opinion "Jack hunted nightly for his victims" and "Many other women would have come into contact with this subject but were not assaulted because the location was not secure enough."
If Douglas' profile is accurate then you are quite right, Jack would probably have been a fairly familiar face around the haunts where the ladies of the night hung out. |
Diana
Detective Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 132
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 9:48 pm: | |
So if Jack had been caught the surviving Whitechapel prostitutes would probably have said, "'im? 'e's not Jack. 'e wouldn't 'arm a flea. I've gone wi' 'im lots o times." |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 368
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 05, 2003 - 2:59 pm: | |
Probably, Diana. Probably. 
Yes Alan, I think Douglas' opinion might be correct.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, October 04, 2003 - 6:24 pm: | |
No evidence whatever indicates the murderer was a regular customer of prostitutes in Whitechapel.
Saddam
|
Alan Sharp
Detective Sergeant
Username: Ash
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 9:15 am: | |
Looking through the press reports for something else I came across this yesterday:
Another "unfortunate" alleges that on the Saturday night, an hour or so prior to the latest tragedies, she was accosted by a man in Shadwell, who desired her to accompany him to a dark court or alley in the neighbourhood. She refused to go anywhere except to her own house, and the man, finding her firm in this determination, at last left her. She disliked from the first the peculiar look of the man, who, she is convinced, is the murderer; and she adds that she could easily identify him again.
I must have read this four or five times before but because of this thread it suddenly jumped out at me this time. Funny how I find myself frequently dismissing reports like this out of hand, when in truth there is every possibility that this woman actually had a lucky escape.
And Saddam, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that he wasn't either. That's why people speculate. |
Petra Zaagman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, October 06, 2003 - 10:11 am: | |
No, indeed Saddam..
but anyway, a point IS set.
And, lots of other serial killers were outwardly normal persons. It's a very good possibility that Jack was indeed not suspected, just because 'he wouldn't harm a flea' many others were, so why not Jack? |
Monty
Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 296
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 11:35 am: | |
How many is "regular" ?
Does it depend on how many victims ?
Monty
 |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 3:36 pm: | |
Whatho Sadders,
The case can't be prooved either way; it's just an interesting theory which is worth considering.
Cheers, Mark |
Glenn L Andersson
Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 407
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 07, 2003 - 7:04 pm: | |
Saddam,
If we were going to fully adapt your harsh criterias for how to study the case, we wouldn't get anywhere whatsoever! There is assuming and there is speculation; there is a difference between the two...
Cheers, mate!
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Shannon Christopher
Detective Sergeant
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 117
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2003 - 5:08 am: | |
Saddam, coin toss. No evidence either way. He may have been a client, he may have been the street sweep who always wanted to have one, and couldn't afford it. IMO, he lived in the area and more specifically so did the women. They may have been murdered in a wide area ranging from Hanbury on the north, Bucks' Row on the east, Miter Square on the west, but all of the women lived within a two or three block square on Flower & Dean / Dorset street.
Shannon |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, October 10, 2003 - 7:09 pm: | |
All,
Ah, but I haven't even begun to tell you how harsh my criterias are! Not only harsh on the evidence, but harsh on ourselves as well! Time, high time is nigh, when every last bit of Ripperology, and the Ripperologists too, will be put to the ascetic whip!
Saddam
|
Erin Sigler
Police Constable
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 5
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 17, 2003 - 2:33 pm: | |
Arthur Shawcross, a notorious New York serial murderer I've mentioned in another thread, was well-known to the prostitutes he killed and considered a harmless old man (he was only 44, but looked older). One of his last victims was a notoriously tough pro that even the police thought would be safe from him. Although I haven't heard as much, given the looks of the man suspected of being the Green River Killer, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this were the case with him as well. |
Mara
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 12:39 am: | |
Is the John Douglas' profile on the site? I would like to read it. Thanks.
|
Peter Sipka
Police Constable
Username: Peter
Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:51 pm: | |
Mara,
If you go to Joseph Barnett's suspect page, you'll see a comparison between Barnett and the "F.B.I. Profile." of Jack the Ripper. This is the best I can do for you.
-Peter-
|
Glenn L Andersson
Chief Inspector
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 716
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 9:57 pm: | |
Or -- if you would like to go a bit further (since the FBI profile comparison to Barnett is somewhat incomplete) -- read his book The Cases That Haunts Us, where it is displayed more fully.
All the best
Glenn L Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
