Suspect Profiles

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Suspect Profiles

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Suspect Profiles

Author: Pat Malott Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 03:57 pm
Who was Jack the Ripper? Perhaps the best way to pursue this is by trying to determine who wasn't. If Francis Coles (d. Feb 13,1891) was a ripper victim,the following suspects can be eliminated: 1) M.J Druitt - died Dec 1888 2) Sir Wm Gull - died Jan 29,1890 3) Aaron Kosminski - in Colony hatch asylum Feb 7,1891 till April 9,1894 4) Dr Michael Ostrog -in asylum 1889-1893 5) Francis Tumbelty -left england after jumping bail in 1888 6) James Maybrick - died 1889 - also can be ruled out- 7) John Pizer -"unshakable alibi" 8) Wm Piggott -alibi 9) Neil Cream - in prison at time of murders 10) Fred Deeming - in prison at time of murders 11) Dr John Sander - alibi 12) Prince Albert Victor - alibi 13) ALIOS Szemeredy - "based on wild rumors Francis Coles could have been a ripper victim because the murder was interupted by PC Thompson.This needs to be determined. Who remains that fits the general ripper description? (includes FBI profile,graphologist analysis of letters,which may not be accurate due to question of letters being genuine,and reliability of witnesses.the incorrect facts need to be eliminated). white male would avoid attention 5-5 to 5-8 height predator/hunter moustache/curled? possibly was abused as a child respectable/decently dressed didnt arouse suspicion in area age 30 something jeckyl/hyde type pail/fair complextion ? addicted to drugs or alcohol surly face/thin animal charm foreign appearance/"clerk" left handed?????? medical knowledge a freemason?????? not social (sociopath)/withdrawn average intelligence knew white chapple/lived close stout possibly single broad shoulders dominate female figure at home menial job hated women,possibly gay loner nocturnal robbery not a motive -- highest suspects remaining -- 1)George Chapman (Severin Klosowski) 2)David Cohen 3)freemasons in general 4)JK Stephen 5)John Richardson 6)Dr Thomas Barnardo 7)Thomas Cutbush 8)Jos Barnet 9)Thomas Sadler - acquitted but still possible 10)Dr Pedachenko 11)Frank Miles 12)Dr Rosyln Donston 13)someone unknown as of now Who was Jack the ripper?" If all the accurate facts are present,the answer will be obvious"(I would prefer NOT to guess)
Author: Paul Begg Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 03:57 pm
One small observation - the second of the highest suspects listed if Coles was a Ripper victim is David Cohen, yet Cohen was committed in 1888 and died in 1889. He can't have killed Coles.
Author: A. Dylan Gable Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 03:57 pm
I was reviewing the psychological profiles by the FBI posted on the casebook, and I found some holes, things that I never quite bought. Especially, the assumption that Jack wasn't trying to draw attention or was "shy." It seems to me that if he REALLY didn't want to draw attention, he wouldn't have hacked those people up in the first place!! But...
Author: John Berger Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 03:59 pm
All casualties were prostitutes working Whitechapel. All seemed to have died quickly and unaware of the killer until the knife hit their throats. The slayer stood behind the ladies with one hand over their mouths and the other pulling a blade (similar in size to a post-mortem knife) deeply and strongly. Once the victim was dispatched, he mutilated their abdominal area in a manner which suggests anger, fury and hatred. The mutilations progressed from simple stab wounds in the first victim, to an unbelievable dissection job on the last lady. The identity of the victims is certainly important here. They were all the same. Why did he hate them so much, and why did he dress as a doctor, as some witnesses report? We can note the killer was not a mercenary. A hired killer would do his work discretely. This was a man with a deranged mind, a hater of prostitutes, a resident of Whitechapel (he knew the back lanes and felt comfortable working there), a loner who had nobody to notice his bloody clothing or to ask his whereabouts. His age falls in the range of 25-39 (most serial killers are in this age group). Speculating further, I feel it is likely his mother was a prostitute and was quite cruel to him as a boy. If her main client(s) was a physician, that may correlate with eyewitness accounts of the killer dressing as a doctor; or perhaps a doctor was his only friend. He disliked publicity, as reasoned by the killing being done in laneways in the dark of night, and the lack of clues. Sensationalists are likely to kill for publicity. These women were killed out of hatred.
Author: Mona C. Buck Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 03:59 pm
I was first interested in the Ripper as a child, when I managed to sneak into the "no children allowed" section of the local library. While in college, I wrote several papers on the Ripper, probably much to the discomfort of my squeamish professors. The one thing I have always wondered about (in conjunction with the Ripper-as-offspring-of-disfunctional-mother idea) is the business with the ears. Most of the victims were "motherly" in age, since if the Ripper was in his twenties (as most serials are at their height) then his mother could have been in her fourties. Mary Kelly's pregnancy would have been the penultimate destruction of "motherhood." Several of the victims also had damage either at the time of death or previously to the earlobe. It's common, even today, for a mother to damage a child's ear by yanking on it in anger. Another aspect is that the Ripper used the "blitz" style of attack. The women were mostly drunk, and wouldn't have been able to put up much of a defense. In the wonderful book "MindHunter" it is stipulated that "blitz" kills are often associated with killers who feel inadequate. A deformed ear might not be readily noticed, but our Jack might have looked for women with damaged ears, graduated to damaging them himself, and finally after the death orgy with Mary Kelly, I think he went home and killed his mother, whom he probably lived with. Did any of the likely suspects have damaged ears?
Author: Ella Shriver Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:00 pm
He was obviously a mentally ill individual. He could have stopped his killing because he finished his goal. He has some goal he needed to reach and he did it. After this he would have no need to continue. The serial killer is a sick individual, but not a stupid one. They haven't changed any over the last hundred years. They are calculating people. He probably finished his goal and feeling that his purpose in life was complete, stopped, killed himself, or anything. He didn't stop or Kill himself out of feeling sorry for his actions. This man has no feelings of remorse. His murders were too graphic to have any emotions attached to them. This man felt he was doing the world a favor. He believed he was created to do this. The murders were caused by some deep conviction. The lifestyles of the women were probably the cause. All of these women were alcoholics and were prostitutes. They were society's ugly side. He could have very well seen he could committed no more murders without being caught and simply stopped them. They will do this. Even more, he could have changed his method. Just so he could continue. He would still have killed and it would still be graphic. He would simply do it in a different location or not expose the victim's bodies to the public. You have no idea how much this man could have done. I think you are underestimating him. As I said before, he is sick not stupid. Serial killers are very detail-oriented. (My minor was psychology.)
Author: B. Saucier Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:00 pm
I am really new at "ripperology" but I have one concern that I have not seen addressed anywhere: What in the hell was the ripper doing during the month of October? Taking what I've read so far, here is a serial killer building up to his masterpiece of murder and mutilation, fulfilling an ultimate fantasy perhaps. His crimes seem to get more gruesome as he gathers courage to mutilate and destroy his victims, and in fact, if the "double event" is truly attributable to one man, seems to have such a need to kill that he seeks out a second victim on the same night out of frustration. Yet a large block of time passes until Kelly. Was the ripper incarcerated at the time? That would seem to narrow the list of suspects. Out of town? That would seem to destroy the notion that the ripper was just an "nobody" living in the East End.
Author: Thomas M. Eubank Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:00 pm
JTR was, in my opinion, a single man. Not two, not three but one man driven by some purpose that after a hundred year we can only guess at. He carried out this purpose with brutal calm and daring. He truly belived that he could not be caught and flaunted it at every oppertunity. Wether he wrote the JTR letters or not is not very important in the whole of the case but they reflected the dark heart of this man. The FBI profiles of JTR paint a different picture of the killer than I see but then again the FBI wants every thing to fit an accepted pattern which JTR neatly dances around until he creates a whole new pattern. He was not a drooling lunitic but rather a driven man who would have appeared quite normal to anyone speaking to him until it was time to continue his work. When this happened he would become this JTR sending out to the world or just himself his message in blood. Then finaly he reached his creshendo, Mary Kelly, and the world was shocked beyond belief. Then he disappeared into ledgend, or did he? I think JTR was a very cool, calculating and outgoing person not content to hide in the shadows by day. He would have relished the attention of the press and police but not to the point of drawing attention to himself. Nor do I belive that these were in anyway sex crimes. The fact that all of the vicims were or had been involved in prostitution is merely a fact of the case not the reason for the crimes. They were women were in fact just easy targets for the killer. As you well know the conditions in the East End were nothing if not appaling at the time of the crimes and many women were forced into that lifestyle as a matter of survival. The killer needed victims that he could be alone with to carry out his crimes and what better person that a prostitute? They were used to going of with almost total strangers. An easy target in anyones book if you ask me. This was common place in the area and nobody would have taken much if any notice in it. The killer would have known this and used it to his advantage. Even after the fear of the killer had gripped the East End and the rest of London there were still women on the streets. After all the need to survive did not stop for a killer on the loose. The atention that his crime recived made the more difficult to carry out but carry them out he did and with incresing daring. The police were everywhere in the area in uniform, plainclothes and undercover but still the killer remained free. With the heat tured up to the boiling point in an effort to catch him, this man simply walked through the net at every turn. Now with this in mind how does a loner remain at large? He does not in my eyes. An introvert is easily shaken by confrontation simple because of the fact he is not used to the attention or fears it and this would have been a hinderence to the killer if he was this introverted loner. The killer was not this kind of man but rather one who could give convincing replies to who he was and his business in the area if confronted by someone. The police were looking for a loner hiding in the shadows waiting to pounce on his next victim, a dark sinister man who fit his reputation in the press. A boogey-man if you will allow me that expression. No the real killer was outgoing, someone very convincing and daring. He thrived on the danger and risk. He did not want to be caught but risked it every time he killed. That was part of the thrill for him probally as much of a thrill as the murders themselves. His outward life was neat and orderly much like his crimes. Now much has been made of the crime scenes in helping to determine what kind of person JTR was. The FBI porfile marks him as disorginised killer who killed on a whim with no planning at all but I think that the FBI and other have read too much into it and tried the force the killer to fit their profiles. In doing this they have over looked the most simple facts of the case: 1. The killer had to find his victims and get them alone so he could kill them. Now when everybody is on the lookout for a strange man killing women you are going to have to be very convincing to get them off alone with you. That is not so easily done by a person who does not like dealing with other people. 2. The killer knows that he does not have much time to work with so he has to act quickly after he has found a victim. I belive that he had no more that five to ten minutes to work with once he has started. As most people well know you can get alot done in ten minutes if yor set your mind to it and I have thought ten minutes have lasted an hour before. Now not only does the killer have to do his work before he is stumbled upon but he also has to leave the crime scene undectected. This has to be the actions of a person who is in complete control of himself and his actions. 3. If the crime scenes were as disorginised as the FBI belives then why were there not an abundance of clues to the JTR's idenity? The disorginised killer cares little for covering his tracks. But my killer was very careful and slipped away with out a trace.
Author: Cliff Korsedal Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:01 pm
For what it's worth, my personal candidate for Jack would be an unknown laborer, 25-35, foreign-born, bisexual, much like the individual who committed the ripper-like murders detailed in J. Paul deRiver's "The Sexual Criminal - A Psychoanalytical Study," published in1949, revised in 1951. This study, of which I have a copy, was referred to by Evans-Gainey in their book. The individual who committed the murders was a 34-year-old divorced white male, laborer and former hospital corpsman in the armed forces. He was placed in an orphanage at age five, even though his mother was still alive. Based on deRiver's lengthy study of this man, he emerges as a nondescript working man with a hatred of women and an overpowering urge, not only to kill them, but to destroy them (using his own word). I am of the opinion that none of the current suspects is Jack. It is understandable that researchers should examine all of the main suspects named by police, but the idea that the ripper was anyone of professional stature or note, or even a professional criminal (Ostrog) or habitual killer (Cream, Klosowski), just does not fit the type of individual who committed these crimes. As deRiver wrote of the modern-day ripper he studied: "Little did either victim realize that she had entered the hotel and was in a room with a pitiless, ruthless, sadist . . . a playful sadistic dissectionist . . . a butcher . . . a necrophiliac and cannibal." Such an individual is not likely to pursue a profession, or have a social life, or succeed at anything worthwhile. The closest ripper suspects to fit this profile would probably be Kosminski or Cohen, yet it's difficult to believe either of these poor souls (or are they one and the same) could have eluded police for so long. At any rate, the very lack of definitive evidence as to who was the Whitechapel ripper is what drives researchers on and makes life interesting!
Author: B. Saucier Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:01 pm
I originally posed a question as to why JTR took some time off in October (and was disappointed that there were no thoughts on it). Anyway, I thought that perhaps, if JTR had some sort of religious fixation and was Jewish, as many propose, then maybe he took some time off for the Jewish holidays. Alas, according to the Spertus Musuem of Judaica in Chicago, Rosh Hashanah fell on September 6 & 7th in 1888, and Yom Kipppur fell on the 15th, unlike 1997 where all the holidays fall in October. I believe there was a murder on September 8, 1888. How does as murder the day after the Jewish New Year square with a JTR being Jewish and possibly being on a "religious mission"? Any thoughts?
Author: Anders stlund Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:02 pm
I write about serialkillers for Swedish newspapers. I also hold lectures on this subject. I am currently writing the first Swedish book about serialkillers. In my researtch I have been in contact with both John Douglas ,when he still was with the FBI, and New Scottland Yard. With Douglas I discussed the remote possibility that Jack the Ripper did not exist. Please let me explain myself. This is not anything I really believe but when I started to research the Ripper for my lectures I was struck by the millions of different theories and stories surrounding the Ripper case. And since I live in Sweden we have had a similar kind of murder mystery. I am referring to the murder of our Primeminister Olof Palme. Eleven years has past now and you should hear all those theories and rumours going around. One very respectable TV producer thinks it was a suicide!!! All those theories makes the Ripper murders and the Palme assassination very similar and it makes me kind of suspicious about to much rumuors. But back to the Ripper case, let me ask you a few questions. First of all if it wouldn't have been for the Ripper letters we would not have heard of this murders today nor would they have created such a turbulence back in 1888. (A questin within the question; how much turbulence did they really create ??) But since we know that the letters are frauds and not written by the real killer they as the single most important item to create this myth and falls apart, they even gave him a name. The question is simple; if the letters woulden`t have been sent would the police still have made the connection between the murders? To me it is clear that Elisabeth Stride was not a Ripper victim and how can we be sure that it was the same murder in any of these killings? This was something I asked John Douglas and he answered me by referring to the "Green River Killer" in Seattle, according to Douglas there ise`nt really a Green river Killer, it is at least three of them, and that's why the Police and the FBI haven't been able to solve the case. Could it be the same with the Ripper case ? P.S. Did you know that Scottland Yard claimes that they don`t use the term "serialkillers" ?
Author: Kevin Hall Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:02 pm
This is to Mr. Eubank, almost all of the documented serial killer cases, esp. the ones who have been caught, the motive has always been a sexual one. Edmund Emil Kemper for one killed for a sexual motive, although I do agree not too much can be read into the fact that the victims were all prostitutes, because this killer would have killed any woman who could fulfill his fantasy albeit temporarily. It is highly unlikely that he killed solely out of hatred however because serial killers, like I stated earlier, kill out of sexual motive, although not always, organized serial killers usually kill for this reason, and disorganized serial killers do not. The FBI seems to think that JTR was a disorganized killer, however I think that the Ripper was a mix of the two.
Author: Robert A. Simon Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:02 pm
I think Jack the Ripper was an average man in every way. Medium build, average in height, fair to medium complexion, no distinguishing features such as heavy scarring on or about the face. He was problably somewhere around + or - 25 years of age. He was quiet, keep to himself and didn't cause random trouble in the neighborhood. He would have seemed trustworthy and unthreatening to the prostitutes of White Chapel. The proverbial nice guy. He probably lived or worked at a job that placed him around the White Chapel area. He had no close friends. He moved from rooming house to rooming house with his few belongings. He most likely mutilated cats, dogs, and other small animals as a child/teenager. I tend to think he was raised in the country where there was ample opportunity for him to hunt and trap as well as witness the slaughtering of pigs and other animals for food. I'll guess he ran away from home as a teenager and ended up in London. He most likely suffered childhood abuse made worse by his own and his parent(s) mental illness and anti-social behavior. He either knew the victims in the casual way one knows one's neighbors or he was engaging in prostitution himself and knew the victims through that avenue. Jack moved around the neighborhood unnoticed because he fit into his surroundings. He most likely had a drinking problem, but this was an attempt to self-medicate and lessen the psychosis. The murders seem psychological in nature. These were problably not his fisr killings, but the earlier murders probably didn't involve mutilations or more subtle ones missed by the police (if the bodies were found at all). The mutilations appear to be the physical manifastations of a progressing psychotic thought process. Killing itself no longer brought relief for his intense anger. The rage was focused on the bodies, especially the internal organs. The removal of breasts and uterus may signify a possible haterd of his mother or a desire to have these body parts as his own. After each murder Jack faded back into the neighborhood unnoticed.
Author: SKFMyers Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:03 pm
While I believe there is a high probability that the Ripper evinced some form of criminal tendancies prior to the murders, I can by no means be convinced that it could be deemed a certainty. Has anyone done an exhaustive study of unsolved crimes of a sexual or similar nature leading up to the period of the murders? In my country (USA), Theodore Bundy led an apparently unremarkable life, while at the same time murdering an estimated 30-100 women. He was even befriended by a writer who wrote extensively on the subject of criminals and their behaviour, and never suspected him until he was apprehended! While I imagine the Ripper probably evinced characteristics of what we now term the serial killer from an early age (animal mutilation &c.), this would not have found its way into official records which can now be accessed. If one accepts that the Ripper was a "disorganised" serial killer, the investigation into previous records has merit. If the Ripper was an "organised" killer, with certain disorganised characteristics, the merit recedes.
Author: LilMiss29 Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:03 pm
Did any of the Ripper suspects have a history of arsen, animal mutilations, history of severe sexual and /or physical abuse or petty run ins with the law as young men ? These traits in one combination or another, as I'm sure you know, are traits of many recent serial killers, as discovered through interviewing institutionalized serial killers of today. Another trait would be the viewing of pornography but I wouldn't know if there were any forms of that during that time period. Perhaps replaced directly by the prostitutes themselves. Or mother was an alcoholic prostitute who beat him? Mother would be overbearing. Certainly possible that the father has abadoned the family. Would probably suffer from Disassociative Disorder. What forensic psychology has been done and what did the profile say was the most likely suspect? You had mentioned that one of the gentlemen did not fit the psychological profile.
Author: Manitau Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:03 pm
I believe Jack was possibly "Jacks." However, if it was a single killer he was definitely a male. Based on the nature of the killings and the nature of the victims I believe him to be sexually frustrated (possibly incompitent or a closet homosexual). He saw women as the enemy, especially those who made intercourse their profession, and therefore made the slashing a pseudo-sexual release for his frustrations. As for his appearance he was a very average and plain looking fellow; he had to be plain enough to go through the streets unnoticed. He would have donned long dark clothing as was the style in that time and place. He also had facial hair for that was also the style at the time. I am not a forensic scientist nor are these the words of any other professional type, merely the words of an avidreader of the literature.
Author: John Hymus Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:04 pm
I definitely think the Ripper was an Englishman and not an American or Russian. I also think that he was probably suffering from schizophrenia. I found the letters that were written were the most interesting part of the case. Some seemed to be written by a very well educated person and the others the babblings of a lunatic. That is why I think that the person was probably suffering from schizophrenia or a multiple personality disorder. It would have to be the most famous case ever, but what a pity it has never been solved. On the other hand, if had then it may never have achieved the notority that it has.
Author: J Javanovich Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:04 pm
What are the common threads? What are the dissimilarities? These items would repay a little dispassionate meditation: 1. All victims female 2. All victims "unfortunates" (possible exception: Eddowes) 3. All victims slain outside (exception: Kelly) 4. All victims murdered after midnight and before 4:00AM (exception: Chapman) 5. All victims sexually mutilated (exception: Stride) 6. All victims resided and murdered in Whitechappel (exception: Eddowes) 7. All victims murdered while "working" (possible exception: Eddowes) 8. All victims murdered by same method (notable exception: Stride) 9. All victims murdered in semi-secluded surroundings (exception: Nichols) 10. All victims subject to increasing ferocity (notable exception: Stride) 11. All victims apparently submissive and compliant (exception: Stride) There are more observations to be made, but for sake of simplicity, we'll leave off with these. Some may be random or chance; most provide valuable insight. And, just a word about method. Two distinct anatomical areas were favored by the Ripper; the throat, and the abdomen (genital/reproductive area). What might this signify, by analogy? Silencing the voice (that which reveals, accuses, scolds, denounces, etc.) and destroying the origin of life; that is, the womb = mother. Whether these associations were unconcious and symbolic or otherwise, we can only speculate. However, killing with a knife is very personal; strangulation, even more so. Shake these up together and what falls out?
Author: Jackmaybri Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:05 pm
With regard to BSaucier's post concerning the question of whether Jack could have been Jewish, I feel extremely confident in saying that he almost surely was not. The reason for this is the Goulston Street graffito. It is easily recognizable as a clumsy attempt to frame a Jew or the Jews as a group for the murders. I suppose one could argue that a radical activist group, a Stern gang of the 19th century, was at work. But if that was the case, they surely would have focused their efforts on members of the larger society with greater stature than a group of East End prostitutes. Anyway, terrorist groups usually claim credit for their work (and also for atrocities that they HAVEN'T perpetrated), and I have never heard of any Jewish group claiming credit for the murders -- or any Irish nationalist group either, for that matter. Maybe it is faintly conceivable that the murders and the graffito were the work of a Jew ostracized from the larger Jewish community and bitter about this -- and indifferent as to how recriminations against the Jews would have affected his own personal safety. But the most likely explanation is that Jack was not Jewish but clumsily attempted to take advantage of the large number of Jews living in the East End and the prejudice against them. Pointing the finger at an ostracized minority is a game as old as humanity itself. For this reason, I would just about disregard all Jewish suspects, such as Kosminski and Cohen -- though I am willing to allow that Mr. Anderson's conclusions were probably professionally based and not the result of bias. By the same token, it seems probable that Jews were not Jack's primary focus -- whores were. If Jack was really intent on formenting additional anti-Jewish sentiment, he surely would have left more clues of a similar nature at the scene of the crimes and in letters to the police and press. The Goulston Street graffito was a whim on his part. For this reason, I don't think that Donald McCormick scenario regarding Dr. Alexander Pedachenko holds up very well. As I understand that theory, Dr. Pedachenko is supposed to have committed the murders at the behest of the Russian Czarist secret police in order to discredit the large number of Russian anarchists and dissidents living in the East End and the perceived leniency towards them by the Metropolitan Police. But if the Czarist secret police really had a plan to sponsor serial murders in the East End in order to cause an uproar, they would have instigated a spring of terror, not an autumn of terror. My reason for saying this is the "blood libel" -- the atrocious story that used to circulate that Jews ritually murdered Christian girls in order to use their blood in the making of Passover Matzos. That story was used as a basis for a number of pogroms against the Jews in Russia and Eastern Europe, and the Czarist secret police certainly would have been aware of the story. If they had sponsored the Ripper murders, I think that they would have had younger women, perhaps young girls, murdered and these murders would have taken place in March or April, not August through November -- and they too would have had more Goulston Street-type clues left behind. As for BSaucier's query of why no Ripper murders took place in October 1888, I can think of several reasons, one or more or all of them serving to explain: 1) Jack was not an East End vagabond roaming around with too much time on his hands. He had regular home hours and/or regular work hours. This limited him to weekends, and he may have had pressing business or personal matters in October; 2) He was physically disabled during the month of October in some way; 3) He tried to break his habit of killing whores, as one might try to stop smoking today, by quitting cold turkey. He had enough willpower to last for one month but for no longer and he indulged himself in the most extravagant manner possible with mary Kelley in early November; and 4) Jack lay low during the month of October because he was seriously worried about getting caught. A threatening letter was sent to a witness in the same hand as the "Dear Boss" letter and "Saucy Jack" postcard on October 6, and an artist's impression of the Ripper, based on witness descriptions, was published in a London newspaper on the same day. For one month, Jack was too afraid to proceed further.
Author: Brian D. Saucier Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:05 pm
I think you have some good arguments on a number of your points, and I also think that some of your points serve to possibly eliminate suspects, which was the purpose of my questions. However, any conclusory analysis of the graffiti is difficult due to the double negative - did the "author" mean exactly what was said or should we read the words differently under an assumption that they were written by someone lacking education. How does that assumption, if made, square with the theory that Jack was not a mere vagabond, but someone with regular hours and a busy schedule? The two ideas seem to clash at least a bit. Was it an attempt to frame Jews or a defense of Jews? Do serial killers point the finger at ostracized or minority groups? As for the other explanations for the month off in October, I think that is speculation at best. The though that he was laying low doesn't really wash with the fact that Jack seemed to crave attention, especially IF we accept any of the letters to the police/press as authentic. At the very least, accepting that he was otherwise busy or afraid due to the published reports certainly would narrow dow n the list of suspects. For instance, if Jack was concerned about the artist rendition of him, that must mean that it was somewhat accurate - he wouldn't have a reason to be concerned if it was not. If the letters sent in October were cause of concern, that would seem to indicate their authenticity. Trying to control his impulses? That would point to someone with an ability to (at least somewhat) rationally address his actions, thus eliminate clinically psychotic suspects or the theory that he was schizophrenic (schizophrenics don't go cold turkey on their illness). I think we can learn a lot more about Jack if we start to eliminate suspects rather than continually add them to the list. What the casebook really needs is the "shrt list" of suspects. Anyway, thanks for your thoughts - they were appreciated.
Author: Michael Rogers Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:06 pm
What's the prevailing thought on the Ripper's cutlery of choice? Does the group lean toward the military knife, the surgeon's finer steel, or just whatever Jack had handy?
Author: Jackmaybri Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:06 pm
Ah, that question is closely related to the "surgical skill" question that is the subject of another conference. Identify the knife or knives or set of knives and you have presumably come closer to identifying the man's background. And contemporary and modern-day opinons on surgical skill seem to range from "a great deal" to "none at all". Maybe the best answer is in the middle of this range and it is that the murderer had a generalized knowledge of where body parts are likely to be -- indicating a butcher, a taxidermist, or a hunter. If that's the case, he probably used the type of knife used in those occupations. But I'm sure not a knife expert, so I will defer to someone else's opinion as to whether a knife used by a butcher, taxidermist, or hunter could have caused the wounds on the victims.
Author: Daniel Bauer Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:07 pm
I do not believe we have the killer named. Due to the social, economical, and political situations of the East end in 1888, the killer was completely overlooked by all witnesses, cops, and media. the kiler was on a religious crusade, however was not Jewish. We seem to forget all the accepted victims were born under the name Mary. Discounting Stride, because she was a mistake. The killings were almost definately the "blitz" attack because this was not an intimidating person. They could have spoken to the victims many times without being a threat; then pounced, causing a freeze reaction. By the time they knew what was giong on, they were dead or close to it. Unlike most Ripperologists I do not beleive hatered was the motivator. I think it was fear. That's why they were killed and then mutilated. Taken apart so they were no longer a threat. Case in piont, the last person killed was the only one to have their heart removed; that was it... Jack was done. Why did he stop? We tend to think Jacky started in White Chapel. What if that's where it ended? Serial killers often hide thier first victims (1 - 5) because they typically know them. Now, I'm not saying foreiner, but get out of the city to some farm land where someone could've easily hidden a body or two that know one would ever find. What if?
Author: Max Meldau Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:07 pm
I believe that the murderer was an Englishman, that he had an accomplice, that he had received a reasonable education and had access to money. He had the advantages, for a multi-murderer, of possessing unusual physical strength and a nondescript appearance. I do not believe that the true identity of the killer will ever be revealed. In my opinion the Jack the Ripper must have been aided and abetted in his heinous crimes by some other party and I am inclined to believe that this person was a younger man of a lower station in society than the murderer, intimately familiar with this part of the East End of London. If the FBI profile of the killer is to have credence then in seems to me to be unlikely that the Ripper could have resided for any length of time in Whitechapel without attracting adverse attention due, amongst other things, to his peculiar and schizophrenic personality. In addition, Whitechapel was not the kind of area that attracted the educated and moneyed. There were some middle-class residents in the vicinity, but they were professional men; doctors, solicitors and the like, who served the wretched community in which they lived. They were, as it were, accounted for and, notwithstanding the transient nature of many of the inhabitants of this part of London, a middle-class somewhat eccentric Englishman in his mid to late thirties, possibly homosexual and living alone would have been noticed. An accomplice would have been invaluable to such a man as the Ripper; as a Cicerone, pointing out the common lodging houses, pubs and gin shops most likely to contain victims and leading the killer through Whitechapel's maze of courts and alleys, showing him the dark corners where the miserable drunken harlots who were his prey plied their trade and where the murderer would be least likely to be disturbed. This was a very hard and violent neighbourhood where a stranger, albeit strong and armed, wandered at his peril. The assistance of one well-versed in the mysteries of East London's sinks and stews would have been indispensable. An accomplice would also have been of service in observing the movements of the Policeman on the beat, stalking would-be victims and, most importantly of all, keeping watch while the killer murdered and mutilated these tragic and unfortunate women. Jack the Ripper has been attributed by some with almost supernatural powers of escape and evading detection. I venture the more prosaic notion of a lookout man with a stop watch and a knowledge of the Police's movements. In addition we have the conflicting nature of the eye-witness descriptions. I believe that the murderer was clearly seen and described on a number of occasions. The man described as the killer varies in height, hair colour, tone of voice and build. Even if we disregard the varying nature of the murderer's clothing and facial hair; there remains an image of an individual who has the ability to be both short and stoutly-built, tall and slim, dark and sandy-haired and of an age that varies from twenty-five to forty. I am firmly of the opinion that the witnesses were telling the truth to the best of their ability when describing what they saw notwithstanding poor lighting conditions, the lateness of the hour and some witness's questionable sobriety. The crux of the matter is that most people were convinced that the murderer acted alone and that the man that they had seen was the murderer. This is why it is so difficult to reconcile the witness's descriptions. I am certain that Jack the Ripper was not alone but acted in concert with his minion.
Author: Virginia Love Long Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:08 pm
In this the 110th year of the Whitechapel atrocities, I cannot restrain myself from wondering: why do we not all concentrate upon our common goal and chosen quest, the identity of Red Jack? Booksales, individual egos and and private agendas should truly yield second place to proven historic fact, What is and was excludes considerations of book sales, private egos, and personal disputes. yielding what was and what is, eventually revealing universal naked truths Yes, that autumn of horror in London's East End was actually very in keeping with the Victorian times and mores . Perhaps we continue to complicate a very simple circumstance. Jack was an incomplete, emotionally retarded young man, born of poverty, ignorance and alienation. He was an integral segment of his home community, for better and far worst. He needed not be of royal blood, of Liverpool ties, any more than American roots. He was not Anderson's Jew, not McMachten's drowned doctor/barrister, not Abberline's Polish wife/poisoner.. Oh no, Jack has graduated now. He is Ted Bundy's grandfather, Richard Speck's uncle, Charlie Manson's godfather., Henry Wallace's stepdad. The skies are Jacky's limits now. And he's just learned how much he relishes the taste of warm woman blood. Who was he? My guess is as good as any: I think he was a London Hospital employee in the mortuary department, the so-called "laying-out" man, who cleaned and dressed cadavers for their final viewing, and, when paupers were involved, he stole the laying-out clothes between the funeral and the graveyard. These second-hand shrouds he sold to Mary Jane Kelly, to supplement her income. Again, I too only "think I know." I' m sure many other new students of the East End Horrors will dispute my personal beliefs, but here I stand.
Author: Kevin Doyle Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:08 pm
My problem with most of the profiles is that the 'science' of profiling serial killers is a distinctly recent process. As such, it is dominated by its originators: American FBI agents,criminologists and psychologists. There simply hasn't been time for the profiling process to mature and adapt to different geographic areas or periods of time. The basic characteristics and tendencies of a person living in or visiting London in 1888 are quite dissimilar in many respects to the database of modern, mostly American serisl killers studied in the development of the profiling process. Even if the attempt were made to adapt the process to take into account the psychology of a lower or middle class man in 1888 London, how sucessfull would it be? It would be very difficult to get it right based on available information. If the profiling database doesn't fit, neither will the profile. I'm certain, however, that some aspects of the profile are accurate. Clearly, these crimes were sexual in motivation. Since the sexuality displayed is deviant, it is very likely that the killer had sexual problems which could have resulted from abuse or ridicule early in life. The killer is most probably a middle aged white male who is proficient with his hands and with a knife. He was probably a loner, but we know this because of his ability to come and go from the murder sites unnoticed by family, friends or neighbors as much as we know it for psychological reasons. Other than these aspects, I'm not sure how much of the profile is useful. The best way to ascertain information on the killer is to use practical evidence, such as familiarity with the area, witness descriptions, surgical skill or lack thereof, left or right handed, etc. Finally, in response to the previous post by Ms. Long, I would say that many of the people who utilize the Casebook may not be interested in quickly reaching a 'final solution' to the murders. If the answer were undeniably found, we would all need a new hobby or vocation. Many may prefer to go on 'solving' the case into perpetuity.
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 14 November 1998 - 04:09 pm
I'm troubled, Kevin, by the widely-held belief/assertion that the Whitechapel murders were "sexual" in nature. I'm no psychologist but it seems that if the murderer was sexually excited by the acts he perpetrated, he would be more likely than not to have left some evidence...obviously, like sperm. I know this is vapory speculation. The Victorians don't seem to shy away from the issue, if the sperm were found at any of the sites. Swanson or some other official cites the characteristic of "self-abuse" as a piece of evidence for a particular suspect's possible guilt. Gender played a role, obviously. The tempoary or permanent occupation of the victims obviously plays a role. But if the murderer's sexuality is involved, it's involved in a more indirect, convoluted way than the typical idea that comes to mind of reaching sexual orgasm/climax during or immediately after the commission of the crimes. The possibility certainly can never be ruled out that (sorry if this is grossing anyone out) the murderer ejaculated fully-clothed. It's just that the relative quickness of the victim's deaths (cutting the carotid artery) doesn't quite jibe with a man who finds pleasure in a living, helpless victim that he torments and has power over until he achieves gratification. The rapidity (relative, once again) of his mutilations and quick escapes, along with the evidence of him having, to me, wasted time going over the inventory of some of the victim's possessions (Chapman is a striking example of this) suggests again that sexual gratification during the commission of the act wasn't part of this killer's primary characteristics. If sexual release/gratification played a part, I would SPECULATE that it might have played a part in the build-up of tension before the murders and/or, with the taking away of organs and other souvenirs (again, Chapman's rings is the striking example), the killer used these objects later to achieve whatever sexual gratification he could. I could be, and most probably am, wrong. But I have misgivings or doubts, and I am hardly qualified to put my suspicions/doubts into words, whenever the Whitechapel murders are generally classified as "obviously" sexual in nature, perhaps motivation. As you say, too much profiling seems rote/redundant/habitual, doesn't take into account time and geographic and cultural differences. But profiling depends, and I think still does, on interviews with caught and convicted serial killers. JtR was never caught. We barely know where or how to look for him, let alone recognize him over 100 years later. It would be too much to ask of a professional criminal profiler to waste his or her time on a case whose few facts are buried in history, and the urgency of the case hardly competes with crimes committed today, last week, or last year. Just my bumbling. Feel free to mock and ignore.
Author: Jay Hilderson Thursday, 26 November 1998 - 10:36 pm
I am an ameteur ripperologist in Australia. I have been fascinated with the case for the better part of 12 years. I have a theory, I suppose everyone else does too, that is more like food for thought, and I haven't heard or read of it being suggested before, so If anyone can correct me please do. "Has it ever been suggested that the ripper may have been a Policeman?" Before it is dismissed, let us look at some points that even the arguing experts would agree on :- 1. The killer had to have an intimate knowledge of Whitechapel and its local residents? - Wasn't this the greatest assest of policing in that era? 2. The killer was able to approach his victims without them having any fear. - One would expect local policemen to be well aquainted with Whitechapels "professional" women. Also, a policeman would be the only male on the streets when the fear was at it's height, that would not be mistrusted by those that did brave the streets. 3. The Killer was able to move undetected, not only from the public, but also other Police, especially at the height of his reign of terror. - Queen Victoria authorised the transfer of extra police at Whitechapel at the time. They were all looking for a madman (and with respect, people's perceptions of what a serial killer would look like differ greatly in this pschologicaly aware era), a policeman would not be viewed in this manner. Also, the Ripper's most daring murder, Catherine Eddows, was murdered with the pressure of 15 minutes to dodge the beat of Police Constable Watkins. Firstly, who better would know the beats of the local police, and would be confident to be still very close to the crime scene when the alarm was raised. The local public that may have heard the commotion would surely have gone to see what was happening, therefore a member of the public leaving the scene would be uncharacteristic, but a policeman? Also, has there even been any research as to which Police attened all the murder scenes, within a short time of discovery - Don't Pschiatrists believe that a lot of serial killers enjoy returning to the scene of their crimes? 4. If we want to bring a conspiracy factor into this theory - what better reason would the Metropolitan Police and/or Scotland Yard have for concealing the identity of the murderer? One of their own?? If anyone has any suggested reading or research sources, form which I might be able to delve further, please let me know. I would also appreciate any comments or criticisms from my fellow ripperologists.
Author: Yazoo Friday, 27 November 1998 - 12:13 am
Hi, Jay. I say, as an amateur myself, that you can't automatically rule it out and can't automatically rule it in. I THINK it rather unlikely (certain former policemen known to be lurking hereabouts might even be offended at the idea!). First, the PC would have to be off-duty to commit the murders. Why? All these PCs had beats. I think Begg gives an instance where a PC refuses to leave a spot where he's been ordered to stay when someone rushes up and tells him they've found another body. If he's off his beat, he's got some 'splainin' to do! Next, while JtR may not have been dripping in blood, he probably wasn't very clean either. Third, he'd be known to almost all his fellow PCs who were on the job -- he wouldn't pass undetected (unsuspected maybe, but not for long). He'd have to dodge them, not be missed from duty, and be able to stand near a fellow cop with more than a few bloodstains on his uniform if he had to. Fourth, ask Stewart Evans but I think the populace (or maybe just the press) were less than cordial to the police anyway. There was a riot over job issues not long before this time -- Bloody Sunday it was called (how many "Bloody Sundays" are there in history?). There was talk of the force being a "political police." And Swanson, the guy put in charge of the force, took some heat for supposedly "militarizing" the force. Go to Stewart though on this...that's what the rest of seem to do! The others here are more knowledgable on the literature. And they can definitely give you better guidance towards or away from the police suspect idea than I can. So take this post for what it's worth -- almost nothing! Someday I'll be helpful to SOMEBODY, sorry I couldn't help you, Jay. See you around, Yaz
Author: Christopher T. George Friday, 27 November 1998 - 12:27 pm
Hello Yaz and Jay: As Yaz says, I do not know what Stewart Evans may have to say about this as a former policeman. However, I do not think that pursuing the idea that a full-time member of the force could have been Jack the Ripper is likely to be a very fruitful avenue. The faces of the policemen would have been too well known. I would think that a likelier line of enquiry might be to look into individuals who held quasi-official positions, e.g., private detectives or vigilantes. The British murderer John Christie of 10 Rillington Place fame was a special policeman, and some murderers seem to enjoy being close to an enquiry and having some sort of status in the community as a type of "official." In the case of Jack, if he was say a vigilante, it might have given him the "in" to be trusted by a lady of the night who might walk with him into the shadows thinking he was a protector rather than a murderer. Chris George
Author: The Viper Friday, 27 November 1998 - 07:38 pm
Yaz I think your point about 'militarisation' of the force applies to General Sir Charles Warren, not Swanson. Warren was a military man by training & he later returned to the army. His competence in the military is well documented - see references to his command at the Battle of Spion Kop, January 1900 during the Great Boer War.
Author: The Viper Friday, 27 November 1998 - 07:45 pm
Sorry, for those of you without immediate access to a history book the word competence should be preceded by "lack of". (Typical ironic Brit statement).
Author: Yazoo Friday, 27 November 1998 - 10:46 pm
My mistake. Thanks, Viper.
Author: Jay Hilderson Saturday, 28 November 1998 - 10:50 pm
Thanks for your thoughts Christopher and Yaz. Just a couple of thoughts though. If he were a PC he would have had a well know face...wouldn't this have assissted the Ripper in gaining the confidence of the Whitchapel victims, especially at the height of the terror when strangers would have been avoided. And in answer to the suggestion that his workmates would have worked it out, if we do accept the canonical five, the Ripper only did his deeds over a couple of months, then they ceased suddenly - either the Ripper died, was unmasked unbeknown to the public or he fled. Draw your own conclusions. Popularity of the police force aside, if you were a prostitute in Whitechapel in late 1888, and you knew there was a madman on the loose, wouldn't you have just a little more faith in the police, especially if you were fearful of "sinister strangers"?
Author: Jeff D Sunday, 29 November 1998 - 09:57 am
Just a point for consideration on the suspects thread. One of the great mysteries that remains a prominent arguement in the hunt for Jack the Ripper, has been the start of the murder and mutilations (if we accept that as being Nichols), and then the cessation, (ending with Kelly), if we concentrate on the canonical five as a series. If we look specifically at this ten-week period, we understand the greatest mystery, is how someone could start such a murderous campaign, then just as suddenly stop, with no further activity after Mary Kelly. This has always remained my focal point, and I have always felt that when we determine why the murders ceased, we would discover our mystery man. If we look at all suspects ever put forward, there is not one that we could apply a cast-iron reason behind such a spree, that would culminate and end so suddenly on Nov.9th. in Whitechapel. Not one, that is except for a certain American doctor, who we have sufficient information to put him in the area at the beginning of the series, then leaving at the end of the series ? I have, for quite some time, concentrated my efforts on Joseph Barnett as one of the better suspects, but the fact that he lived such a peaceful existence up to 1926, weighs heavily against his inclusion as the best possible suspect. I shall always keep an open mind with respect to suspects, but Dr. T is genuinly the only real suspect ever put forward, who we can apply solid reasoning toward the cessation of the murders in Whitechapel. I just thought I'd post this for open discussion, and would welcome any comments. I have a number of reasons of my own that count against Tumblety, but no way could anyone do what they did to Kelly, and go back to normality. Our main JtR suspect, has to have been incapacitated (gaol or asylum), dead, or left the area. Does anyone have any further facts that would explain any suspect, having such a reason to end the spree (Kosminski/Cohen et al - OK, maybe). Jeff D
Author: AKT Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 01:38 pm
I think some theories are logic, but some are just intended to put discredit on some organizations. I'm thinking about Freemasonry, which is no evil organization, and which has nothing to do in Jack the Ripper's story. Some people like to put discredit on the order, but it's non-sense. I read that the freemasons had killed Mozart. Who believes that ? Why would the masons listen to Mozart during their lodge work if they didn't like him ? Feel free to send me your comments !
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 02:44 pm
Hello, AKT and Jeff, I agree on your posting, AKT. The murderer belonged to all sorts of groups...probably the biggest of them all is his gender group. To accuse a group of the actions committed by one of its members, without showing direct evidence of the conspiracy or organizational strategies behind the commission of the deeds, is silly, prejudicial, and dangerous. It's like saying, if we know JtR is male, then all males conspired to kill the traditional five victims. To Jeff, I'd like to add a fourth and fifth category to his three possible reasons for the ending of the series. Jeff's list includes: 1) incapicatation (jail/asylum), 2) death. 3) leaving the area. I'd include the following: 4) Dissolution of a partnership. Bianchi and Buono (The Hillside Strangler -- note the singular was/is still used) are a notable example. They would probably never have been caught if Bianchi hadn't killed again, in Washington state, on his own and then confessed against Buono in the "Hillside" murders, in California, for a lesser penalty in his Washington conviction. Together, they went undetected; alone, at least Bianchi murdered again, became vulnerable, "careless," and was caught. I believe Buono never confessed to the murders; fibers from a chair in his home and the impression of a police badge left in his wallet were the only "physical" evidence against Buono. His conviction rested primarily on his partner's testimony against him. Once Bianchi had left Buono and California, the "Hillside" killings abruptly stopped. 5) Changes in the MO and signature of the murderer. Police have a hard enough time recognizing when killings are related even without much of a change (or any) in MO or even geographical area. There are people on this website who probably think there never was a "real" serial killer who came to called JtR. In the 20th century, Henry Lucas is a good example of this type of serial killer. No law enforcement agency in the United States even knew they had a serial killer until late in Lucas's "career." He combined various means of killing, varying types of victims, varying methods of body disposal...and also travelled a great deal -- I think the number of states where he murdered is in double digits; his murders range to high double digits to over 100. Take away the travel, and the other factors would leave the police, the press, and the public with idea that multiple murderers were loose...an army. (Lucas also had one or more partners for much of his killings). There is also a serial murderer in California who calls himself, I believe, the Zodiac Killer who taunted the police that he would change his MO and victims and everything else to "throw" the police off his trail. I believe his taunt is several years old (maybe a decade or more) and he was never caught. His "original" series abruptly stopped too. It's very hard to say these examples are unique enough to disqualify as possible fates for JtR. Yaz
Author: Bob_c Saturday, 12 December 1998 - 02:59 pm
Hi everyone, Why did Jack stop? If we knew that we'd know (almost) everything. The main points of course: 1 Jail 2 Death 3 Left area/city/land 4 Asylum 5 Full outbreak of insanity, causing physical incapacity 6 Accident causing physical incapacity 7 Disease causing physical incapacity 8 Near-capture or belief of near-capture 9 Police asking questions too near to the hearth. are already well covered here and elsewhere. We must ask then if there could be other logical grounds for Jack to stop. One ground could be that Kelly, the misfit in Jack's timely MO, was the target of his love (hate). He killed the others as a warning to Kelly (Hello Joe) then, as Kelly didn't do that what he wanted, killed her. I say misfit for Kelly because a number of differences between Kelly, who was a bit higher in situation, and the others is immediately apparent (age, degree of mutilation, even hair colour etc.) This theory has been propounded a number of times by various people and can be just as true or false as others, pointing mainly to Joe Barnett, which I don't completely follow. There are others that could come in question for it beside Joe, although Joe is not, as far as I'm concern, exonerated. The suspect must, however, have had a reason for cessation of the killings. Take, as example, McCarthy of the same named Rents. He also comes in question if you like. He lived in the immediate area, must have been well known, is supposed to have been a bit of a bully, had every chance and ground as landlord to enter Kelly's room (demanding arrears of rent) and could have sent his man Thomas Bowyer ostensibly seeking rent to 'discover' Kelly's body shortly after the murder. Having murdered on his own doorstep, he had a good reason to stop, otherwise for him it could look risky with police having been all over the place. I would rule out McCarthy for a copy-cat killing, however. If he wanted to get rid of Kelly he just needed to evict her. Or did they have a secret liaison? Did Kelly have some intimate contact to McCarthy which caused him to allow the arrears to rise to 30s., a large amount of money in those days. Why did Kelly say to a friend that she was scared, although Joe still had regular contact and presumably would protect her (as long as he was not JTR)? They were all scared of the ripper, but did she mean that? Naturally an adventurous theory and probably poppycock, but is, for example, McCarthy absolutely clean? Do we know about him? It must not have been Joe that night in Millers Court as the bloody water ran down the gutter. Bob
Author: artemis Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 11:38 am
Hi. I'm new to this board, having only recently found this fabulous website. I studied the OU course "Charles Booth and Social Investigation" for my Hons in 1997. Toynbee Hall, where middle class university students lived while studying the poor in the 1880s, is as I am sure you all know, on Commercial St. During my studies I read that these students/investigators came under suspicion, partly because Toynbee Hall backed on to George Yard buildings and also because they were "toffs" and knew the neighbourhood very well, could walk about among the poor without arousing suspicion, and could "disappear" into the Hall after the deed was done. I would be v grateful for any opinions or material on this matter. Artemis
Author: Christopher T. George Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:27 pm
Hi, Artemis: I think the record is pretty clear that almost everyone was under suspicion during 'The Autumn of Terror' as it was called. The narrator in the recent British musical "Your Truly, Jack the Ripper," the CD of which I highly recommend as giving a good idea of the atmosphere in the East End of London during the murders, without bending the facts (hard to say of many other fictional/movie/musical ventures on Jack!!!), says it when he states: "Everyone and anyone was under suspicion." So the fact that students at Toynbee Hall were under suspicion does not say much. Chris George
Author: artemis Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:33 pm
Hi Chris Thanks for responding. Do you personally think anyone at Toynbee Hall fits the "frame"? Artemis
Author: Christopher T. George Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 01:45 pm
Hi, Artemis: I don't think we have any more reason to suspect the boys of Toynbee Hall than any other inhabitants of the East End. In the book "Doctor in the Nineties" by Dr. D. G. Halsted, the author, who was a young intern at the London Hospital in 1888 and who lived well into our century (he wrote his biography at age 94, thus the title), states (p. 55) that "...it was almost enough to be arrested if one was so much as seen in the street with a black bag...." So you could say that there was far more reason to suspect a member of the medical profession than the students of Toynbee Hall due to the idea that the mutilations undertaken by the murder required anotomical knowledge. Chris George
Author: A.M.P. Sunday, 03 January 1999 - 05:13 pm
Hi, Artimis and welcome. If you have studied Social History at degree level you will know more about the Toynbee Hall than this East End boy, so apologies if I'm teaching you to suck eggs. 'Slumming it' became quite popular in the 1880's with the new social conciousness. When the papers put around stories about middle-class suspects (doctors especially) the residents at the Toynbee Hall did come under scrutiny. That's despite the fact that few of them had any medical knowledge. You say that Toynbee Hall residents could ".. walk about among the poor without arousing suspicion". That may have been true for those who were recognised, but I suspect that for the newcomers who were not known it was a different story. Of all the well-intentioned, middle class reformers active in the district, it is my understanding that the Salvation Army girls were the safest. The locals saw them as no threat and they could enter even the worst common lodging houses without fear. Well-dressed or well-spoken men aroused suspicion automatically. This is partly because of the crusades by people like Frederick Charrington to seek out and close down vice at the time. Another interesting point is that a number of Toynbee Hall residents joined the vigilantee committees which were active when the murders took place. This increased their presence on the streets at night. The Toynbee Hall was situated at 28 Commercial Street. A number of organisations worked out of that address. I have found the Metropolitan Assoc. For Befriending Young Servants, the Society For Organising Charitable Relief & Repressing Mendicity and the Society Of Utd. Friends For Relief Of Aged & Infirm. I have no idea which if any of these were associated directly to the Toynbee Hall - you might be able to help me. In addition there were other places at the southern end of Commercial Street which seem to have a charitable base with odd names like the 'Home Of Industry'. Please stick with us. We could do with somebody with your expertise. Good hunting.
Author: artemis Monday, 04 January 1999 - 04:37 pm
Thanks AMP for the welcome. Today I came across some material I forgot that I had kept from my course. It is a huge database of a house-to-house survey conducted by some of Charles Booth's researchers in 1886. It reveals much about the inhabitants of Spitalfields and other areas. This sort of material is of course merely peripheral to Ripper studies but nonetheless I find it fascinating to peruse as it holds first-hand details about the living conditions. Better not say more as I'm on the wrong message-board. I will go now and see if there is a more relevant board! Artemis
Author: Christopher T. George Tuesday, 05 January 1999 - 12:08 pm
Hi, Artemis: I suggest you put it under "Social Conditions in the East End." Chris George
Author: J Wednesday, 20 December 2000 - 02:00 pm
My profile of Saucy Jack: Medium build and height. 175 to 190lbs. 5'8 to 6'0 white male, educated, one of the first sociopaths. Knowledge in medicine, familiar with area, his mother was probably a prostitute-with terminal illness, abusive. He was possibly, but not likely abused by mothers clients, he has a definite hatred of the womb, place of birth-therefore causing mutilation of victims. He has an affliction with the name Annie, as some victims had Annie in there names, and others were sometimes known as such. Jack had inside police information before released to public, re: letters. He felt or thought of what he was doing as a game, but none of the other players (investigating officers, public) understood his rules. He felt superior to everyone else in that he was capable of such acts when most can not even comprehend them. left several clues as to new victims-murder sites. None taken seriously until to late. I feel that the coroners and anyone directly involved with the case should have been more closely examined as suspects, instead of dismissing them and their stories as truth, as was done during WhiteChappel murders. My first and strongest suspect, Wynne E. Baxter, coroner- who initially examined most of victims. J
Author: Simon Owen Wednesday, 20 December 2000 - 03:00 pm
Are you Tom Sleman , J ?
Author: Martin Fido Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 03:31 am
Jeff D - Your points are excellent. Cohen (but not Kosminski) explains the stop. Kaminsky, although only speculatively identified with Cohen, explains the start. Martin Fido
Author: Rotter Thursday, 21 December 2000 - 05:41 am
While on the subject of the "Polish Jew" theory I am delighted to be able to address a question to the ever-suave Martin Fido. You have somewhere indicated that you have been in touch with contemporary Kosminskis. Was there anything of substance revealed, and if so have you published it? If not, do you intend to? Could we get a little preview/summary? Could you also elaborate on the story told here some time ago about the researcher who was warned off contacting the Kosminski family, who had apparently complained to the authorities about possible antisemitic overtones of such an inquiry?

Add a Message