|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Were his victims typical?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Were his victims typical?
Author: Steve Hodder
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 10:42 am |        | I am a complete “newbie” to this discussion group, so please forgive my temerity and accept my apologies if I am unintentionally going over old ground. However, my new-found interest in the subject has prompted me to ask the following:
All five of the “canonical” victims lived shortly before their deaths in the “wicked square mile” of Spitalfields (a feature that seemingly distinguished them from all other putative Ripper victims). Furthermore, all five had drink problems and all, except Mary Jane Kelly, were in the mid-forties. Has any research been done to confirm that they were representative of the prostitute population of East London?
It seems reasonable that these near-destitute women were the natural targets for an opportunistic murderer. The assumption being that their age and physical condition made them desperate enough to walk badly lit, almost deserted streets in the early hours, too drunk to be able to fight back. But is this historically correct?
My very limited reading around the subject indicates that a majority of prostitutes would be children, not middle-aged women. Secondly, judging by the numbers of witnesses and the late opening of drinking houses, the streets of East London were surprisingly well populated even in the early hours of the morning. The inference being that prostitutes of all ages would be walking the streets, not just those fitting the general description of the five victims. So why did the murderer pick on the women he did?
Furthermore, although the area around Flower and Dean had many cheap lodging houses, and was therefore a popular base for prostitutes, in the 1880s there were several similarly deprived parts of East London. I’ve looked at the archived postings suggesting that the locations of the victims’ homes were not necessarily statistically significant. I am not competent to comment, but I’d be interested to learn if this analysis has been independently verified.
Finally, I understand that the poor housing of the area was also home to many recent Jewish immigrants, yet none of the victims were Jewish. I gather that the suggestion is that cultural and family pressures ensured that poor Jewish women were far less likely to resort to prostitution. Is this true?
All of which lead me to wonder if the similarities in the backgrounds of Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly suggest that the Ripper selected his victims for reasons other than their vulnerability? Any thoughts? Suggestions for further reading would be very welcome.
Steve H |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 03:07 pm | | | The profilers have suggested that Jack struck in Whitechapel because it was where he lived and as such he felt comfortable there. There was a recent posting as to geographical profiling that suggested that an SK would make his first kill nearest his home and then move a little farther away from his home with each kill fanning out into a wedge shaped formation. If you look at Jack's kill sites on a map that appears to be what happened and the apex of the wedge is in the vicinity of Bucks Row (#1 Polly Nichols). I have never heard your question as to typical age etc. posed in quite that way so it does open up interesting new possibilities. If the majority of prostitutes operating in Whitechapel were younger then at least 4 of the canonicals appear to have been a deliberate choice. However, that choice may have been based on their decrepitude which made them easy prey. Which brings us to Mary Kelly and I have a theory about that which I probably should put under the Kelly thread because I don't want to spoil this discussion! |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Sunday, 29 December 2002 - 05:01 pm | | Steve,
Welcome aboard! Great post - you bring up a lot of good points.
For further reading on the period, I suggest (as was suggested to me and I have read them all now!) People of the Abyss, by Jack London, and East End 1888, by W.J. Fishman. London's is easier reading, but Fishman's is more in-depth, analytically. Paul Begg's new book "The Definitive History" has an excellent historical section on the East End.
One of the interesting things that I find with the victimology is not only did they all live within Spitalfields, they all lived less than three blocks from each other. Three of them - Liz Stride, KAte Eddows and Polly Nichols lived on the SAME street (Flower and Dean) and the other two both lived on Dorset Street.
Whether or not this is signficant is arguable. Flower and Dean Street was packed to the gills with the poor, the area holding about 4000 people.
As for the ages of the victims, it seemed to me from reading East End 1888 and the Abyss that prostitution was not limited to the young, but pretty much any woman without a husband. Anything they could do to support themselves or their families they did - whether it was occasionally selling themselves, or working 14 hours a day making boxes or sewing. As for the drink problems, that was common in the area...many of the folks had drinking problems. It was really one of their only forms of cheap entertainment. I am unsure of the Jewish question - more likely than not the answer is less that there were fewer Jewish prostitutes, and more along the lines of either coincidence (he didn't find one) or they weren't his 'type'.
Being one of the "profiling" fans, I tend to think that Jack killed in this area because he was familiar with it. My personal belief tends to think that he probably didn't live there, or else he lived in one of the more middle class sections, as I don't believe he could have been from the lower classes. And I also feel that he chose his victims based on when and where he got the urge, not out of any specific stalking. Also, keep in mind that all of his victims appeared much younger than they actually were - a lot of the press reports screwed up the ages, some by five to ten years. So it could be likely that if Jack had a "type" he was hunting for, it was for women between 20-40. In the end though, I think he chose his victims semi-randomly, whoever he spoke to or offered themselves first when he was out and about.
Hope this answers some of your questions.
B |
Author: David Jetson
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 06:35 am | | "I don't believe he could have been from the lower classes" - Why not? I'm not trying to be smart here, but I haven't seen any proof that Jack couldn't have been poor. I'm poor myself, I grew up in what Americans call the projects and what the english call a council estate. That makes me the sort of person who in 1888 London would have been very familiar with Whitechapel or whatever slum was my local area.
Serial killers are extraordinary people, and some of them have the sort of intelligence that would enable them to "pass" for, at least, "shabby genteel" by the standards of the time. I scrub up pretty well myself, despite the fact that I'm from a very poor background and left school at the age of 16. I can write and spell better than many people I know who went to university.
My point is: being from the lower classes doesn't make you dumb. It doesn't mean you can't "pass" for middle or even upper class if you're smart - look at all the scammers that have done just that. A person can be intimately familiar with the slums and still be an outstanding person.
I'm not saying that you're definately wrong. I'm saying if you have something that I haven't heard of that indicates JtR could or couldn't have been anything, I'd like to hear it. |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 03:52 pm | | David,
I think it depends on what we mean by lower classes. At one point Brian was saying "lowest of low" -- people with obvious deformities, no job of any sort, etc, which I think makes sense. If now he just means poor in general I would have to disagree with him too for all the points you raise.
I think the killer could have been from the lowest classes of East End. The timing of the murders (weekends, nights) suggests someone with a fulltime job, but of course just because someone works full time it doesn't mean that they aren't poor.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 04:33 pm | | David and Dan,
Let me clarify, cause I don't want to turn this into another pissing battle.
There are different levels of "poor". There's the "working" poor, who are simply poor because they don't make enough money - but they have a job and they have a place to live. I think Jack could have been one of these.
Then there are the "out of work" poor, who for whatever reason are not working then. Either they aren't skilled, or there isn't any work for them to do, or whatever. I don't think Jack could have been one of these, as it appears that his killing schedule indicates he held down a job.
Then there are the completely wretched, will-never-find-a-job-and-will-spend-the-last-few years-of-their-life-in-workhouses-or-on-the-street poor. These are the ones with deformities, crippling injuries from previous jobs, the old, the insane, and everyone else in the "lowest of the low" category. I definitely don't think Jack could have been one of these, as he would not have had the energy or the time to go about killing. If he wanted a meal and a bed, he'd have to work hard in a workhouse for it, and wait in line all day. There were no places where handouts were simply given (except Jail) without something in return - typically a hard days work was required
When you look at Mazlow's hierarchy of needs (watch out - I'm bringing in psychology here) no one who does not have basic shelter, food and clothing is going to be running around trying to satiate his sexual desires.
The main problem with throwing the label of "poor" out there is that it means something completely different today AND back then almost everyone in London could be considered "poor". When 20 shillings (1 pound) a week is considered doing well - and that's what many of the working poor lived off of - it's difficult to generalize with that label.
Personally, and I can't support this with fact so don't yell at me about it, I think he had to be more of a middle class individual - a clerk, a medical student, or someone with a comfy type of job - someone who would fit into the Whitechapel area, but not appear so rich as to stand out. At the same time, he had to be someone to whom a next meal or lodgings was not a primary concern, because if they were, he'd have spent his time finding his next meal, not his next victim.
I hope this makes sense.
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 05:02 pm | | Brian,
It does make more sense when you describe your terms. We need to be careful how we throw words like "poor" around as it can have a huge range of meanings.
Interesting though that you think Jack must have been middle class but admit you can't support it with any reasons. I wonder why you think it then... trying to use research to boost a specific suspect or two, or just have a specific theory in mind that falls apart with a low class killer?
But anyhow, I'd say Jack was likely to be low class. The higher up the economic ladder he'd be, the less likely he'd be killing prostitutes outside and stealing all the money off of them, or fitting in in Whitechapel in the first place and not killing elsewhere. We can't rule out middle class or even high class, the odds just get worse and worse the more money any suspect has.
Maslow's heirarchy of needs wasn't really backed up by any good data when he created it, but at the lowest levels the conclusions are pretty fundamental. On the other hand, even a desperate hungry poor person will fulfill sexual needs if there's an opportunity for that and not an opportunity for food. Otherwise the poorest of poor would all just die out within a generation. To the contrary, often they are the ones having the most kids.
Regarding Steve's original post, I hadn't heard that most prostitutes then were children. Even if that were true, it's possible that they still went to sleep earlier than others, perhaps due to biological reasons or because of the police patrols. Jack got most of his victims pretty late at night/morning.
The sample size of accepted victims is awfully low to be trying to draw too many conclusions about whether he was targetting a certain age range, physical type, ethnic background, etc. But based upon the locations of the murders I think it's highly likely that Jack killed in the area he did because he lived in the midst of it. An outsider looking for easy targets could have gone elsewhere. Certainly as the police hunt intensified, Jack could have picked another poor area and probably had easier pickings.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 05:49 pm | | Dan,
Call it more of a gut feeling than supporting any research theory or suspect. Before I want to start researching that line of thinking, I want to be throughly grounded in the period, the methods of the police, etc. As you so helpfully pointed out before, I was lacking in that area, and I've done a lot in the past few weeks to change that.
And I recognize your point about the higher up the economic ladder the person was, etc, but what evidence is there that he stole money from the victims? And why would take necessarily point to a lower class killer? If I had just killed someone and chopped them up, stealing their wallet wouldn't bother me at all. And if you believe the newspaper reports, there were two farthings found on Annie Chapman.
As for Maslow, I also agree - if I hadn't gotten it rammed down my throat in college and in my first job (as a dorm director) I'd not think highly of it, but it does have its uses.
Just keep in mind, having a tuppence for a prostitute is tuppence less for food - I don't think many of the poorest of the poor used them. They couldn't afford it. Why not just find a wife and have a bunch of kids who can then go get jobs and make more money for the family? That's the main reason you had 5-8 kids per family back then. Less a fulfillment of the sexual urge and more of a fulfillment of the monetary and food one.
I agree that Jack lived there, but there were some middle class people who lived in Whitechapel - policemen, the shop owners, the lodging house owners, and you've got London Hospital.
I'm sure that if I sat down and gave it some serious thought I could string together some actual evidence that points to a middle class killer, but I'm not feeling well, and I'm hungry, so I'll leave that to another day. 
B |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 06:05 pm | | Brian,
Fair enough on most your points. I didn't mean to imply that truly poor people would use a prostitute, just that obviously poor hungry starving people don't give up sex entirely to look for food. Not that that really had anything to do with the Ripper or anything.
As far as stealing money off the victims, I don't have primary sources to back that up but from other conversations here I think we established that no victims had any money on them. Since I believe prostitution fees are paid upfront he had to have stolen at least the money he gave them, plus whatever little else they had.
Sure, a killer of any standing could steal that money. But considering all the other things the killer was in a rush to do in limited time in a place at which he couldn't rule out the possibility of being spotted, it seems less likely that someone would stick around to do that instead of taking that time to flee unless he really needed the money. Surely a royal wouldn't bother at all, a lower class person most likely would, and everything in between would be on a sliding scale.
That's my reasoning for that idea anyway.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Diana
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:31 pm | | | Probably the conflict arises because of the use of labels. Jack probably had a job. His schedule indicates that. I had never thought of it before but you're right, if he was starving he wouldn't be spending what little he had on prostitutes. The night MJK died she asked Hutchinson for money. He hadn't any and so they parted. Probably she would have had to earn that money. Hutchinson is a good example of someone too low on the economic scale to be Jack (unless he was lying of course!) Eddowes boyfriend, the hop-picker who had to pawn his boots probably would have been too low also. The grape seller who was a Stride witness although he wasn't a suspect gives us a picture of one who might be just right. If his fruit stand was an everyday enterprise he might have made enough. Diemschutz (another non-suspect) had a going jewelry/trinket trade. He would have been high enough on the scale. If JTR were William Gull or Prince Albert Victor we would expect that the victims would have been high class West End ladies of the night. I'm not suggesting Diemschutz or the grape seller as serious suspects, only using them as indicators of a certain socio-economic level. And this has just suggested another train of thought which means it doesn't belong on this thread! |
Author: David Jetson
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:36 pm | | | I didn't mean to start an argument, I was just trying to clarify what you meant. As it happens I fully agree that Jack was unlikely to have been on the very bottom rung, and very unlikely to have been anywhere near the top one. Working poor sounds most likely to me, and that doesn't rule out a better off storekeeper or trader or whatever by any means. |
Author: Diana
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:45 pm | | | Kosminski was a hairdresser. That would have worked. |
Author: David Jetson
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 08:57 pm | | | Kosminski was the suspect that seemed "most likely" to me last time I seriously considered it. I'm not particularly attached to any suspect, though, so I don't have any pet theory to promote. I still think it's possible that it was somebody none of us have ever heard of. The only suspects I definately disregard are the ridiculous ones like Gull or Prince Eddie. |
Author: Dan Norder
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 10:25 pm | | Diana,
We have to be extremely careful about what we read into witness testimonies. I don't think we have any good evidence to indicate that Hutchinson really had no money.
Hutchinson could have made the entire thing up (never talked to Mary at all, wasn't friends with her, the guy he claims to have seen with her was pure invention, etc.), so whether he had money or not can't be determined.
If he was truthful about the incident, there are several ways to look at what that exchange really meant.
MJK: "Mr. Hutchinson, can you 'lend' me sixpence? (wink wink, nudge nudge, I'll make it entertaining for you)" GH: "I can't (don't want to buy your services), I spent all my money going down to Romford. (sorry, not interested)"
MJK: "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence? (I really need the money I swear I'll pay you back.)" GH: "I can't (I know it wouldn't be a loan because I'd never see the money again), I spent all my money going down to Romford. (or whatever it takes to get you to leave me alone)"
MJK: "Mr. Hutchinson, can you lend me sixpence? (whether come-on or genuine)" GH: "I can't (I got no money!!!), I spent all my money going down to Romford. (wish I hadn't)"
If you think the last one is true, then you have to start wondering about how he paid for his room, etc.
All around, for these reasons and many more best kept in the George Hutchinson threads, I think Georgie was a liar.
Beyond that, even if George was penniless at that time, that killing could have been a break in and attack, for which no money would be needed. To really rule him out as a suspect on financial ability alone we'd also have to know how much money he had back around the times of the previous killings.
Just thought I'd add that in here as a response to one remark I thought was off in an otherwise well argued message.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: Howard Brown
Monday, 30 December 2002 - 10:28 pm | | | ....you folks have pointed out the "grundlagen" for a Jack-as-Prole scenario very well....but,then there is the organ removal. Maybe its an idee fixe with me,but like Brian in his way,I have a "gut" feeling that this fact remains the pivotal one in the case. Dan's comment on the fact that people will while even in the most extreme condition economically,prioritize drugs over food,hookers over heat for the hacienda,donations to religious boobs,and whatnot,is so endemic to many rank and file proles everywhere,that its not uncommon. Perhaps the despair of East London caught up to one particular fellow in that fashion. Then again,there's the organs..... |
Author: Brian Schoeneman
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 01:08 am | | Diana,
Packer (The grape dealer) was full of crap. He told four different stories - one to the police, one to the Evening News, another to private detectives in the hire of the Mile End Vigilance committee, and then another version to Sir Charles Warren. His times were different in each story, and it appeared the he was changing his story to satisfy new information - specifically about the age of the suspect - that came out in the press in between each of his different tellings of it. He kept pestering the press, trying to get his name back in the papers, such as claiming he saw the killer on a number of other occassions until they realized he was an attention hound and quit talking to him.
So don't put any credence on to what he said.
Personally, I don't put any credence into what ANY of the witnesses have to say, because witness testimony is almost always flawed, unless they were standing two feet away staring at the crime when it happened.
A working poor individual would have fit in in Whitechapel. A lower middle class individual would have fit in. An upper class person could have blended in by buying crappy clothes (like Jack London did when writing People of the Abyss). But I doubt that Gull or Prince Eddy could have pulled off pretending to be poor. London at least had some idea of what poor people were like - he had been one. Royalty however, only knows royalty, and they wouldn't have kennelled their dogs in Whitechapel it was so crapfilled. The idea of them stepping foot into it is just not realistic.
Howie's point about the organs points to me a sexual serial killer, taking his trophies so he can relive the experience. But it also points to a middle class or poor working class individual - he needed to have a place to live to store them. If he didn't, why take them in the first place? Why go to the trouble of planning ahead and having something to carry them in and escaping from the scenes with them to just toss 'em out?
On the subject of organ removal, I think that the taking of the organs doesn't necessarily mean he had medical experience. Personally, I think it is more likely than not that he had some kind of medical training, if only because the removal of the kidney from Eddowes was tough to do - you have to cut through a lot of the viscera to get to a kidney from the front which is why you generally don't do it that way, you go in from the sides. But he'd been ripping up women for a while, it's conceivable that he got better at it.
And I recognize that there are some logical reasons why a very poor person would have forgone eating for sex, but the difference between sex and drugs, donations to religious boobs, etc. is that you can't do those in the privacy of the local toilet by yourself. A poor man had other outlets for his sexual desire that would have let him have his fun AND have bread that week.
B |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:05 am | | "Poor" is relative.
Just taking three superficial examples....
1 - Was Jack a resident of a common lodginghouse?
If we are to believe both the police & press then the residents of the East-end were as interested in the tracking & capture of this killer as the authorities, likely even more-so.
Living in crowded conditions harbouring a weapon, possibly with clothes showing obvious signs of bloodstains would be most precarious for such a killer. Then there's the organs, how & where would he hide them if the murders were committed for either ritual purpose or for sexual gratification?. This scenario has serious flaws.
2 - Was Jack a resident of a divided house, similar to Hanbury Street?.
If the killer had a room to himself it would certainly help him to stay private and undetected, but, living among your own kind in a dwelling such as were found in Hanbury St. also has its drawbacks. Neighbours know their neighbours, and if they have reason to be suspicious about one tenent word would spread rapidly, as we know it often did.
Witch-hunts were reported numerous times in the press, false accusations, rumors, etc.
Living in a divided dwelling is possible for the killer but it has its problems.
3 - Was Jack a resident of a singular dwelling, similar to those in Bucks Row?.
Obviously the most acceptable domicile for this killer would be a singular unit, either a house or appartment (similar to George Yard Bldgs).
Residents of this type of dwelling were still poor but not at the lowest edge of the scale.
If the killer had some experience in killing (as is suggested) and displayed some knowledge of anatomy (as is suggested, but not surgical) then we are looking for someone who has fallen on hard times. Someone who has known better days.
The missing money at the crime scenes is a good indication that the killer was in dire financial straits. Carefull and meticulous enough to retrieve his 'fee' yet smart enough not to take anything that had to be pawned, and could therefore be traced (Cigarette case in Eddowes belongings, etc).
Jack was poor (due to circumstances?), intelligent, street-smart, patient & cunning.
I think we are dealing with a man who had fallen in society, not that he was or had been from the upper-class, not at all. But that he had occupied a slightly higher station in life at some point, but still I think, an East-ender.
I think Jack was low-income, working class, single. And his victims were only 'typical' in so far as they were numerous, vulnerable, available & willing.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 11:02 am | | | I agree that the grape seller was unreliable as a witness. As to his socio-economic level it probably would be representative of one who could be Jack. I think we have to look not too high and not too low. |
|
|
|
|
