JTR = rolling stone that gathered no moss

[YomRippur]

Originally Posted by Abby Normal

Hi yom
I might agree with that, Many of the witnesses describe him as short, but some also say and stout. Which would describe a powerfully built man. Personally I take this view as the killer must have been pretty strong too subdue the victims so quickly.

Re simpleton. Again I could definitely see he might portray himself as a simpleton to the people around him. But IMHO he must have been highly intelligent, street smart and crafty.

I wouldn't give as much credit to his strength and intelligence. Except Mary Kelly, his victims were not the healthiest nor youngest people (not to mention, they could have been drunken and/or sleep-deprived when they met the killer).

The killer apparently knew the local areas well, but then *maybe not*. Some of the murder sites were less than ideal, such as Buck's Row (wide open street), Dutfield's Yard (next to a club), and Mitre Square (a relatively exposed area patrolled by multiple PCs). Someone with better local knowledge might have been able to pick safer locations. So my belief is, yes, he had local knowledge, but maybe it wasn't that good. This may support the notion that he was a foreigner, specifically a relatively recent immigrant, who might not have been totally familiar with the area. The shouting of "Lipski" could be crucial in determining when he moved to Whitechapel, for the murder case of Israel Lipski occurred in the fall of 1887. He was probably already in England in 1887 to have heard about Lipski.

As to intelligence, if you are alluding to the way he never aroused suspicion from his victims, then again, his victims were some of the most unfortunate people in the area who were probably willing to risk their lives to get a few shillings from anyone. As to the way he eluded capture, it was more his luck than his intelligence.

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by YomRippur

I wouldn't give as much credit to his strength and intelligence. Except Mary Kelly, his victims were not the healthiest nor youngest people (not to mention, they could have been drunken and/or sleep-deprived when they met the killer).

The killer apparently knew the local areas well, but then *maybe not*. Some of the murder sites were less than ideal, such as Buck's Row (wide open street), Dutfield's Yard (next to a club), and Mitre Square (a relatively exposed area patrolled by multiple PCs). Someone with better local knowledge might have been able to pick safer locations. So my belief is, yes, he had local knowledge, but maybe it wasn't that good. This may support the notion that he was a foreigner, specifically a relatively recent immigrant, who might not have been totally familiar with the area. The shouting of "Lipski" could be crucial in determining when he moved to Whitechapel, for the murder case of Israel Lipski occurred in the fall of 1887. He was probably already in England in 1887 to have heard about Lipski.

As to intelligence, if you are alluding to the way he never aroused suspicion from his victims, then again, his victims were some of the most unfortunate people in the area who were probably willing to risk their lives to get a few shillings from anyone. As to the way he eluded capture, it was more his luck than his intelligence.

Or maybe he knew the area VERY well. Like maybe when the police beats came through the areas. And if he let his victims lead him to their spots, he relied on there expertice as to when you could get several minutes of privacy. Sounds like a smart guy to me. Street smart.

Re being a recent foreigner. I doubt it as no witness described a man with an accent, and I'm sure at least one or two of them actually saw the ripper.

Re lipski. As it was used as a racial slur I'm sure the broad shouldered man that Yelled it at the "heavy Jewish appearance" Schwartz was a local Englishman , that yes, obviously lived in the area well prior to 1887, but no absolutely NOT a foreigner. Also, A foreigner would not have written the GSG-which I Beleive even you think is authentic and written by a whitechapel gentile.

And yes the women were drunk, except maybe stride, but they were also street smart, tough survivors. Not the barely clinging to life weaklings you portray.
Either way, he must have still been a strong man. Do you know how hard it is to kill someone with your bare hands? Even someone smaller and weaker than you, I would imagine it would still take a strong person.

And as for your last sentence, I totally disagree. He was smart enough to ruse women into accompany him to a private place for prostitution, even at the height of the ripper scare, to be perceptive enough to get out of the situation, most of the time seemingly in the nick of time before being caught in the act, and to never have been caught by police despite the police force trying to cath him as well as most of the public and various vigilance committees.

Sure he was lucky, but smart people make there own luck.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Originally Posted by GUT

Save we have no idea where he lived.

I would put him in the "wicked quarter mile", not far from Commercial Street and Whitechapel Road.

Every women killed, not only the canonical five, but if you go as far as Emily Horsnell, and include Millwood, Smith and Tabram, at the time of their death, lived 100 feet from the intersection.

He stalked them from home.
The only exception being Eddowes, but JtR, running away from the "failed" attack on Stride got away from the Met's jurisdiction, and when seeing Eddowes getting out of the Police Station, he couldn't help himself.

[YomRippur]

Originally Posted by Abby Normal

Or maybe he knew the area VERY well. Like maybe when the police beats came through the areas. And if he let his victims lead him to their spots, he relied on there expertice as to when you could get several minutes of privacy. Sounds like a smart guy to me. Street smart.

Re being a recent foreigner. I doubt it as no witness described a man with an accent, and I'm sure at least one or two of them actually saw the ripper.

Re lipski. As it was used as a racial slur I'm sure the broad shouldered man that Yelled it at the "heavy Jewish appearance" Schwartz was a local Englishman , that yes, obviously lived in the area well prior to 1887, but no absolutely NOT a foreigner. Also, A foreigner would not have written the GSG-which I Beleive even you think is authentic and written by a whitechapel gentile.

And yes the women were drunk, except maybe stride, but they were also street smart, tough survivors. Not the barely clinging to life weaklings you portray.
Either way, he must have still been a strong man. Do you know how hard it is to kill someone with your bare hands? Even someone smaller and weaker than you, I would imagine it would still take a strong person.

And as for your last sentence, I totally disagree. He was smart enough to ruse women into accompany him to a private place for prostitution, even at the height of the ripper scare, to be perceptive enough to get out of the situation, most of the time seemingly in the nick of time before being caught in the act, and to never have been caught by police despite the police force trying to cath him as well as most of the public and various vigilance committees.

Sure he was lucky, but smart people make there own luck.

Rather than "tough survivors", I'm afraid these desolate women were the most vulnerable people in Whitechapel who tended to be beaten, raped, assaulted to the point they no longer cared and went back out to the streets every night. One of the victims was even dying from tuberculosis, and some victims might have had venereal diseases. The killer wouldn't need much street smarts to take advantage of them. The killer picked them because they were readily accessible, and this doesn't say much about his intelligence. I think many would agree that he had average intelligence at best.

To your point of the Ripper killing with his bare hands, note that some victims didn't show any sign of having been killed by strangulation. And we know the Ripper's main weapon was not his hands, but his knife.

As far as the killer's accent, the longest sentence allegedly spoken by the Ripper was, "You'll be alright for what I've told you." But maybe the eyewitness (Hutchinson) heard it from a distance away. Also, the killer could still have spoken good English while not being a local man if he had come from other parts of England or other English-speaking territories.

Some serial killers do have a nomadic nature, notably Ted Bundy. It's still possible that the Ripper hadn't been in Whitechapel for long and/or didn't stay for long, especially with the relatively low number of killings done in a short period of time.

Regarding the Goulston Street writing, it might not be as clear an indication of whether the writer was a Jew or gentile, as the message was rather vague in the sense that it could be a message defending Jews or accusing Jews, or perhaps some other meanings. In other words, the message could've been written by anyone. It could've been a Jew defending his own kind, a gentile incriminating Jews, or a foreigner with inadequate English skills and this unable to write clearly what he meant.

Also, the killer could have been a non-Jewish foreigner too.

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by YomRippur

Rather than "tough survivors", I'm afraid these desolate women were the most vulnerable people in Whitechapel who tended to be beaten, raped, assaulted to the point they no longer cared and went back out to the streets every night. One of the victims was even dying from tuberculosis, and some victims might have had venereal diseases. The killer wouldn't need much street smarts to take advantage of them. The killer picked them because they were readily accessible, and this doesn't say much about his intelligence. I think many would agree that he had average intelligence at best.

To your point of the Ripper killing with his bare hands, note that some victims didn't show any sign of having been killed by strangulation. And we know the Ripper's main weapon was not his hands, but his knife.

As far as the killer's accent, the longest sentence allegedly spoken by the Ripper was, "You'll be alright for what I've told you." But maybe the eyewitness (Hutchinson) heard it from a distance away. Also, the killer could still have spoken good English while not being a local man if he had come from other parts of England or other English-speaking territories.

Some serial killers do have a nomadic nature, notably Ted Bundy. It's still possible that the Ripper hadn't been in Whitechapel for long and/or didn't stay for long, especially with the relatively low number of killings done in a short period of time.

Regarding the Goulston Street writing, it might not be as clear an indication of whether the writer was a Jew or gentile, as the message was rather vague in the sense that it could be a message defending Jews or accusing Jews, or perhaps some other meanings. In other words, the message could've been written by anyone. It could've been a Jew defending his own kind, a gentile incriminating Jews, or a foreigner with inadequate English skills and this unable to write clearly what he meant.

Also, the killer could have been a non-Jewish foreigner too.

Hi Yom

Rather than "tough survivors", I'm afraid these desolate women were the most vulnerable people in Whitechapel who tended to be beaten, raped, assaulted to the point they no longer cared and went back out to the streets every night. One of the victims was even dying from tuberculosis, and some victims might have had venereal diseases. The killer wouldn't need much street smarts to take advantage of them. The killer picked them because they were readily accessible, and this doesn't say much about his intelligence. I think many would agree that he had average intelligence at best.

Yes they were vulnerable- as are all prostitutes. its the nature of the beast. but they were also the type of women who got in fights, scammed people, robbed their punters etc. I think they were most vulnerable because of the inebriation, not just who they were.

also, take an example from the natural world-predators often target the smallest and weakest of the herd. but does that mean they are small and weak themselves? whens the last time you saw a meek weak jaguar. hunter predators also tend to be intelligent.

To your point of the Ripper killing with his bare hands, note that some victims didn't show any sign of having been killed by strangulation. And we know the Ripper's main weapon was not his hands, but his knife.

the ones who didn't show signs of strangulation, showed signs of possibly being punched in the head. and you still need to be strong and quick to kill and mutilate someone with a knife. and subdue a person. many of the witnesses describe a stout man-as in powerfully built like a wrestler.

As far as the killer's accent, the longest sentence allegedly spoken by the Ripper was, "You'll be alright for what I've told you." But maybe the eyewitness (Hutchinson) heard it from a distance away. Also, the killer could still have spoken good English while not being a local man if he had come from other parts of England or other English-speaking territories.

all the witness needed to hear would be a couple of words to notice an accent.

And no-someone from a English speaking territory would still have a noticeable accent.

Some serial killers do have a nomadic nature, notably Ted Bundy. It's still possible that the Ripper hadn't been in Whitechapel for long and/or didn't stay for long, especially with the relatively low number of killings done in a short period of time.

I think the ripper must have been in the area for at least two years beforw his killing spree, he knew those streets like the back of his hand.

Regarding the Goulston Street writing, it might not be as clear an indication of whether the writer was a Jew or gentile, as the message was rather vague in the sense that it could be a message defending Jews or accusing Jews, or perhaps some other meanings. In other words, the message could've been written by anyone. It could've been a Jew defending his own kind, a gentile incriminating Jews, or a foreigner with inadequate English skills and this unable to write clearly what he meant.

I think most people read it as a non jew trying to throw suspicion on a jew. Abberline and most of the police did.

May I ask who your favored suspect is and does he fit your ideas you've been pushing here? chapman perhaps?

[YomRippur]

Originally Posted by Abby Normal

Hi Yom


Yes they were vulnerable- as are all prostitutes. its the nature of the beast. but they were also the type of women who got in fights, scammed people, robbed their punters etc. I think they were most vulnerable because of the inebriation, not just who they were.

also, take an example from the natural world-predators often target the smallest and weakest of the herd. but does that mean they are small and weak themselves? whens the last time you saw a meek weak jaguar. hunter predators also tend to be intelligent.




the ones who didn't show signs of strangulation, showed signs of possibly being punched in the head. and you still need to be strong and quick to kill and mutilate someone with a knife. and subdue a person. many of the witnesses describe a stout man-as in powerfully built like a wrestler.




all the witness needed to hear would be a couple of words to notice an accent.

And no-someone from a English speaking territory would still have a noticeable accent.




I think the ripper must have been in the area for at least two years beforw his killing spree, he knew those streets like the back of his hand.



I think most people read it as a non jew trying to throw suspicion on a jew. Abberline and most of the police did.

May I ask who your favored suspect is and does he fit your ideas you've been pushing here? chapman perhaps?

To your "meek weak jaguar" analogy, if the jaguar is sleep-deprived, food-deprived, and sick with diseases, then it is definitely weak and meek and easy picking for predators. The Ripper victims might have had occasional periods of good health and strength, but they were decidedly not in their best shapes when they met the Ripper late at night, drunk, hungry, and sleep-deprived.

The Ripper might have gotten more skillful with the knife as time went on. But anyone could achieve that with enough practice. So it doesn't necessary point to a strong man. Also, some of the eyewitness sightings of a stout man were deemed unreliable. The most reliable sightings were probably those of Schwartz, Lawende, and Hutchinson, and they saw a "medium-build, broad-shouldered" man.

Regarding accents, you can't always notice a foreign accent with just one or two words. Some words may sound similar when spoken in different dialects and languages. Some dialects may produce thicker accents, while some may produce subtle ones. If the accent is subtle, the listener may need some knowledge about the dialect before noticing it. And if you believe the killer had been in Whitechapel for at least 2 years, then he might have been able to pick up enough language skills to sound half-convincing as a local man.

Your point about his two years of residence in Whitechapel also seems to be in accord with my earlier point that the killer might not have been in the area very long, since two years is not a very long time. If so, then his knowledge of the surroundings and the language might have been limited. But he knew just enough to get by.

I don't have a favorite suspect. As I mentioned in my top post, the killer was probably someone most people would ignore (hence, never caught). He was likely able to achieve this "invisibility" by being unexceptional and unsociable, so he was likely to be unintelligent as well.

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by YomRippur

To your "meek weak jaguar" analogy, if the jaguar is sleep-deprived, food-deprived, and sick with diseases, then it is definitely weak and meek and easy picking for predators. The Ripper victims might have had occasional periods of good health and strength, but they were decidedly not in their best shapes when they met the Ripper late at night, drunk, hungry, and sleep-deprived.

The Ripper might have gotten more skillful with the knife as time went on. But anyone could achieve that with enough practice. So it doesn't necessary point to a strong man. Also, some of the eyewitness sightings of a stout man were deemed unreliable. The most reliable sightings were probably those of Schwartz, Lawende, and Hutchinson, and they saw a "medium-build, broad-shouldered" man.

Regarding accents, you can't always notice a foreign accent with just one or two words. Some words may sound similar when spoken in different dialects and languages. Some dialects may produce thicker accents, while some may produce subtle ones. If the accent is subtle, the listener may need some knowledge about the dialect before noticing it. And if you believe the killer had been in Whitechapel for at least 2 years, then he might have been able to pick up enough language skills to sound half-convincing as a local man.

Your point about his two years of residence in Whitechapel also seems to be in accord with my earlier point that the killer might not have been in the area very long, since two years is not a very long time. If so, then his knowledge of the surroundings and the language might have been limited. But he knew just enough to get by.

I don't have a favorite suspect. As I mentioned in my top post, the killer was probably someone most people would ignore (hence, never caught). He was likely able to achieve this "invisibility" by being unexceptional and unsociable, so he was likely to be unintelligent as well.

hi yom
well just disagree then. But IMHO the ripper must have been an intelligent and strong man to be able to accomplish what he did and never get caught.

[YomRippur]

Originally Posted by Abby Normal

hi yom
well just disagree then. But IMHO the ripper must have been an intelligent and strong man to be able to accomplish what he did and never get caught.

Fair enough. But I just want to mention something written by FBI profilers on the Ripper: his appearance at the time of the killing might not have been his usual, everyday appearance. In other words, he might have been able to wear the clothing and/or adopt the demeanor that would project an image of harmlessness and unsuspiciousness to his victims. That might have been the one area he was intelligent in. Even though I think the victims might have lacked physical strength, one thing they surely possessed was the ability to spot a troublemaker, given the high number of men they encountered. When the killer finished his job and he was back to his usual self, he might have looked and behaved like something else entirely.

[Abby Normal]

Originally Posted by YomRippur

Fair enough. But I just want to mention something written by FBI profilers on the Ripper: his appearance at the time of the killing might not have been his usual, everyday appearance. In other words, he might have been able to wear the clothing and/or adopt the demeanor that would project an image of harmlessness and unsuspiciousness to his victims. That might have been the one area he was intelligent in. Even though I think the victims might have lacked physical strength, one thing they surely possessed was the ability to spot a troublemaker, given the high number of men they encountered. When the killer finished his job and he was back to his usual self, he might have looked and behaved like something else entirely.

well I can totally agree with that!!

[miss marple]

I tend to agree with Abby Normal.

I think Jack was local, street smart, confident in his manor,knowing the area inside out and the police beats and possibly stalking victims by observing them in local pubs, he may have observe Kelly in the pub when she returned to prostitution after Joe left. Profilers have placed him as living in the Flower and Dean street vicinity. An average ordinary workman.
He made no sound which suggests instead of heavy hobnail boots he wore soft soled shoes.
One of the professions I have put foward for him is an offal dresser. They can removed the offal from an animal is less than a minute. It requires certain knife skills, is monotonous work and desensitises blood and guts.

The victims had to survive in appalling conditions, they managed to get by, have relationships, get drunk sometimes, have rows. They were no more or less vunerable than anyone else in the East End,probably better off than women who were regularly beaten by their partners or husbands. Life in the East End was dangerous for all women.

Miss Marple