|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
JTR: Smooth Talking Gentleman?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Ripper Suspects:
JTR: Smooth Talking Gentleman?
Author: Eric Cannon
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 03:06 am |        | Hello all:
I am new to the boards. Not new to the case, although the first JTR book I read was "When London Walked in Terror", checked out from the public library when I was 11 or so.
I started this thread because I wondered how difficult everyone else thinks it would be for anyone to talk a Whitechapel prostitute into going into a yard, or alley, or darkened corner of a 'Square' after say, September the 8th.
I know these women had to earn their doss money, but come on, the entire East End had to be living in terror after Annie Chapman was killed.
I have read about the "You would say anything but your prayers" quote, and the "Will you? --- Yes" quote.
Surely Jack, dishevelled appearance or not, was a smooth talker. Noone else would have been able to convice them to go to dark, private areas to do the nasty, not when the papers and gossip in the area centered on the murders. And whoever it was convinced Mary Kelly to let him into her private room.
Or, was he so rough in appearance, manner and speech, that he appeared to be a Whitechapel regular, maybe even a regular customer? Totally unsuspected by all of them?
How does he convince them all to go someplace private?
I hope this starts a good thread;
Eric C. |
Author: Caroline Morris
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:41 am | | Hi Eric and welcome,
We could ask the same of some of Peter Sutcliffe's later victims I guess (apart from those he attacked from behind with no warning). Even after he had claimed more than a dozen lives, I believe there was a prostitute in the car with him when the police questioned him about a minor, unrelated matter and his suspicious behaviour led to his arrest.
Probably a combination of two things meant that Sutcliffe would have had no fear of a victim shortage in red light areas: occupational hazard, and the fact that he didn't have two heads and a placard round his neck announcing he was the Yorkshire Ripper. Smooth talking might have been a bonus, but the ability to pay and no obvious signs of aggressiveness would likely suffice.
I do appreciate, however, that Sutcliffe's crimes were in the main spaced much further apart than Jack's, allowing complacency to creep into the equation, whereas it's hard for us to imagine women out on the streets after September 8th 1888 being remotely complacent. Sadly, there was an attitude among the most desperate unfortunates that Jack's knife could hardly make their lives any worse.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Peter J. C. Tabord
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 05:58 am | | This is something that is key to my own new understanding of the crimes. Before looking into here and some of the books I had imagined that that the Ripper lurked in the dark and leapt on his victims, but it seems clear that in most cases the victims were under the impression that normal business was about to be conducted.
I therefore imagine he must have either been a regular in the area or have looked appropriate for the class of business involved - i.e. the lowest. I can't imagine an unknown toff, smooth-talking or otherwise, being able to walk aimlessly about Whitechapel at night without attracting attention.
Could he have been disguised? Does the man (perhaps) seen by Hutchinson sound like someone in a poor disguise?
Regards
Pete |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 09:35 am | | Hi, Eric:
I have long thought that Jack had something about him that reassured the victims, that made him seem non-threatening. He could have been a Ted Bundy type, handsome, reassuring, a good conversationalist. On the other hand, or perhaps in addition, it could have been his profession or avocation that made him seem trustworthy: doctor, social worker, preacher, priest, policeman, vigilance committee member, whatever. Certainly, toward the end of the series, these women were afraid because of the atmosphere of terror and yet he still managed to find victims and to get clean away. Why?
All the best
Chris George |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 09:49 am | | Hi all,
I have wondered if perhaps the size of the Whitechapel murderer played a part in women regarding him as "harmless." Most witnesses put him at below average in height.
Another factor may be that the killer was a regular in the neighborhood - someone the women may have been familiar with and had indeed serviced on other occassions.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 09:52 am | | Chris:
"Certainly, toward the end of the series, these women were afraid because of the atmosphere of terror and yet he still managed to find victims and to get clean away."
I'm not so sure that's a completely valid reading of the facts. There's a pretty big gap between the double event and the Kelly murder, and even then he has to change his MO to get away with it.
Personally, I think either the Kelly event was a 'home invasion', or else maybe Kelly really was killed after the Carrie Maxwell sighting, and figured either the fact that it was daylight, or that she was conducting business in her room rather than on the street, offered her a degree of protection.
That's only speculation as to the existence of a greater degree of caution on the part of the Whitechapel 'unfortunates', of course; police activity no doubt also played a part. "Starve, or take your chances with Jack" is a pretty powerful motivator. Few of us know what it's like to go continually hungry these days (not to mention cold; homeless in London in November is not a lot of fun).
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Divia deBrevier
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 10:24 am | | Greetings all:
I think that the Ripper would have to be someone that blends in with crowd, comfortable in his surroundings (familiar with the Whitechapel area). And, like Chris, I believe he was probably very much a Ted Bundy type; charming, and likeable. The prostitutes probably felt like he would never harm them.
Additionally, many people suffer from the "that happens to other people, not to me" way of thinking. Perhaps this was true of the prostitutes in Whitechapel? This combined with Timsta's statement of "Starve, or take your chances with Jack" could explain how the Ripper found his victims.
Warm regards,
Divia |
Author: Monty
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 01:22 pm | | Hello all,
Monty was propositioned by a prostitute outside Kings Cross last month.
Monty turned down the offer....honest !
Until Monty turned her down, Monty hadnt said a word.
Prostitue told me all about a place we could go.
Now you tell me, whos a smooth talker ?
Monty
 |
Author: Jim Jenkinson
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 02:00 pm | | Monty,
I've been outside Kings Cross many times and nothing like that has happened to me.
The only lady that spoke to me asked me if I was "looking for business". How she knew I was on my way to Oxford Street with my suitcase full of white sports socks (various sizes) I'll never know.
Jim
 |
Author: Dan Norder
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 02:33 pm | | Hi Eric, welcome to the boards.
You said [some snippage ahead]:
>I know these women had to earn their doss money,
Don't underestimate that. Lack of food and shelter are two very powerful motivators.
>I have read about the "You would say anything but your prayers" quote,
The person who said that was most likely not the ripper, in my opinion anyway.
>and the "Will you? --- Yes" quote.
And this witness sighting is inconclusive as well. In fact, I'm not sure any of the witness sightings we have were sightings of Jack the Ripper.
>Surely Jack, dishevelled appearance or not, was a smooth talker.
Organized serial killers often are. I tend to believe Jack was one, but there is a lot of room to argue that point.
>Noone else would have been able to convice them to go to dark, private areas to do the nasty,
This is the thing you said that makes the least amount of sense. Lots of other people convinced lots of prosititutes to go to private or semi-private areas. That's what prostitutes do. That's how they earned money. That's how they survived. Unless you assume that penniless homeless people just stopped doing the only thing that amounted to a paycheck for them for three months, prostitution had to be, and obviously was, still continuing. I don't think smooth talking is all that necessary to purchase a service women are desperate to give.
>And whoever it was convinced Mary Kelly to let him into her private room.
Not necessarily so. He could have invited himself in (with the much argued about missing key, for example, or simply having watched MJK reach through the window to unlock the door and then doing the same himself) or been someone she already knew. Hard to say.
>Or, was he so rough in appearance, manner and speech, that he appeared to be a Whitechapel regular, maybe even a regular customer? Totally unsuspected by all of them?
He most likely either appeared to be or actually was a Whitechapel regular. I don't know about regular customer though, many people assume he was sexually dysfunctional, but then if someone had been around prostitutes without doing anything he'd still appear to be a regular customer.
>How does he convince them all to go someplace private?
Easiest and most likely:
1) Asks for the special of the day.
2) Decides to go along when they offer their services. (Like Monty, above. Well, he says he didn't go along, but you get the point.)
Less likely:
3) Bops them on the head and drags them there.
4) Finds them already asleep or inebriated.
Most unlikely:
5) Gives them poisoned grapes.
6) Entranced them with voodoo magic and they sleepwalked there.
I'm sure there are bound to be more possible explanations, but the simplest ones make the most sense. Prostitutes would continue on with their regular daily lives, especially with the amount of time between killings and the increased police presence.
Dan |
Author: Brenda L. Conklin
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 07:14 pm | | If the sighting of Mary Kelly in the morning after the murder was supposed to have happened is correct, a very simple theory could explain Jack's motive:
Each of the prostitutes turned him down and it enraged him!
1. Mary Kelly had a terrible hangover that morning, according to the lady who saw her . She made the comment she was so sick, and even pointed out her vomit. If Jack approached Mary Kelly at that time, she likely would have turned him down because she was so hungover.
2. Likewise Kate Eddowes...she HAD to be hungover, she had been raging drunk earlier in the evening and had only had a bit of sleep in the jail. I can't imagine she left that jail chipper as a spring sparrow. If Jack had approached her for sexual favors, I feel she would have turned him down at that time.
3. Liz Stride (if in fact she was a Ripper victim, which I happen to doubt) - its pretty obvious that Liz was waiting for someone. Statement "Not tonight, maybe some other night" explains it all.
4. Annie Chapman - Annie was sick with what would turn out to be a fatal illness. Maybe she turned Jack down because she felt bad (although the fact that she and Jack went to the yard in Hanbury Street..I can't imagine why she would have followed him there unless she was planning to go through with a sexual encounter.)
5. Polly Nichols is the only one I can't get to fit this theory. She had purposely set out to get money for the doss. However, there is a period of time there unaccounted for...maybe she had found enough customers and was on her way back when Jack found her, and she turned him down?
All of this is sheer speculation, of course and just another in a string of endless theories that could never be proven, but fun to think about, nonetheless. The longer I spend thinking on this case though, the more I become convinced Jack was just a regular Whitechapel guy whose face was well known amongst the regulars. I don't believe there was anything special about him at all, least of all to be royality, artistically inclined, a businessman, or a medical man. I don't think Jack was intelligent enough to practice black magic. I think he had only the basics as far as an education, he was unhappy with his life, had a severe inferiority complex (which he made up by pretending superiority), and that he had one hell of a woman-hating mean streak.
I do not believe he went mad after the murders, but that he was suspected by some people after Mary Kelly's murder, and he pretty much behaved himself after that.
Of course, this is just what I THINK. I've reached a point where I can no longer entertain the thought of the Ripper being anyone of any importance.
(oh what the heck, everyone knows I'm a Barnett-head):-)
Love you all!!!!!!!! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 13 September 2002 - 08:26 pm | | | He's as good as any Brenda,-- better than some |
Author: Eric Cannon
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 12:09 am | | I enjoyed reading all of your posts, and I am really glad I found this site. I am sure you all know this, but there was a CNN.com article(that's pretty bigtime!) this summer on the site. I found that, and here I am.
Dan, I take your point about that one sentence in my post not making much sense. The entire post is a bit rambling and incoherent...note the time! I also do tend to underestimate the effect of some things, particularly length of time between the "double event" and the Kelly butchering; also the need for food/shelter.
I agree with what a lot of you mentioned about Jack likely being a local. It is not very likely that he went about Whitechapel wearing a big Dracula cape and a magician's top hat, carrying the infamous black bag as a lot of the art and movies have portrayed him. There is a good chance, I think, that some of the victims recognized him, or even knew him socially as a result of them all living in the same area. I always kind of picture Jack like the drawing you usually see when "Kosminski" is talked about, a somewhat pathetic wretch that would have fit in with the other pathetic wretches wandering the streets at all hours. Yet he must have had some trait or characteristic that gave the victims a sense of security, such as being recognized, or as being... a SMOOTH TALKER! Also, lets not forget the role of alcohol which seemed to be a big part of all these women's lives. Obviously it would lower inhibitions considerably, especially in combination with one of the above traits.
Enough blathering, I am done for now. I do appreciate all of your posts and input.
Cheers,
Eric |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 14 September 2002 - 05:08 am | | Jim,
She was a 'elderly lady' with a can of super strong Tennents. Need I say more ?? I was waiting for a mate who was thought he was waiting for me at Kings Cross. It turned out that he was waiting at the Thameslink, Pentonville road Kings Cross. Bit of a difference eh ?
There was a young girl about 16 going around as well and a few lads. How can you miss them ? I guess its cos Ive been trained that way. Very sad, anyway, back to the subject...
.....Eric, dont worry, incoherent posts are rife on these boards (see me above).
Dan,
Like Monty above. Well, he says he didnt go along........do I detect a note of disbelief Mr Norder......wheres my lawyers number ??
Seriously, a wonderful post.
Monty
|
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 11:50 am | | Monty's right (above), I was in Oklahoma City two weeks ago and was propositioned by a young coloured girl, she did all the talking, it was her business, she had a place in mind, it was her business. All I had to do was say "yes" or "no".
Jack's victims would have been no different, he did not need to be a smooth talker just smile and hand over 4d .......they would take him to their place of choice......'Jack' would do the rest.
But, I do agree, the killers manor & appearance would have been nothing to cause alarm or suspicion.
Regards, Jon
(I said "no") |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 15 September 2002 - 11:53 am | | duplicate  |
Author: Caroline Morris
Monday, 16 September 2002 - 04:34 am | | The killer had a manor?? His victims might have been well impressed by that. 
Perhaps he gave them his business card:
Dr Killmore,
Bedside Manor
and they swooned with desire.
Sorry, Jon, couldn't resist. I agree with everything you say, though. "Er, ok then", or even a nod of the head if he spoke no English, is all our smooth talking Jack would have needed to find himself escorted to a perfect spot for a spot of 'hack, chop, mince', as Bob Court would describe it.
Love,
Caz |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 18 September 2002 - 05:29 pm | | Chris,
The Ripper a priest? That's a new one on me. Or maybe he just dressed like a priest when he was out trolling?
Brenda,
Nice theory! Cheers! 
All,
I agree with what Martin once reminded us -- we're dealing with women who routinely wander off into dark corners with complete strangers. Sure, they might have some regulars, but the majority or a great number at least, were most likely to belong in the "stranger" category. These poor women had to resort to prostitution to survive on the street. They were engaging in acts of desparation. So anyone who didn't look like Quasimodo was probably an acceptable client.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 09:33 am | | Mr Apron
I have a hunch you'll regret that derogatory remark about Quasi.
Your light hearted friend
S. Maralda |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 09:41 am | | Dear Esmeralda:
Excuse me for confessing my infidelity to you here in this public place. It shames me to admit it to you, but I always let the ladies feel my hump.
Yours truly
Quasi |
Author: ALAN SMITH
Thursday, 19 September 2002 - 09:57 am | | Quasi,
Thats ok dear but I do object to posters making dromadary remarks at your expense.
Esmy |
|
|
|
|
