So who was Jack the Ripper.

[lintukorpi]

My take on why some believe certain attributed victims were not Jacks, Im one of them, is that some changes in Method, or Location, or Victim, make sense if this was a single minded kind of killer....a mad, unskilled, opportunist. It infers that the only motivations for the killer are killing and cutting.

I see only one murder that truly fits the last description, and a serious problem with the other with another victim, if there was time available to commit more atrocities. In at least two murders abdominal organs were accessed and taken, including the same one... complete, and then in partial form.

As far as knives go...there could have been different ones used, and the killer may have been right, or left handed, in certain cases.

The truth of the matter is that these 5 murders have never properly fit any idea or theory for a single killer yet. Maybe they can be.... but I dont believe that is the case myself.

I think the Jack the Ripper killings were 3 mens deeds, and maybe one or more killed others that were not assigned to Jack, but one man killed at least 2 or perhaps three of the "Canon".

Thats my guess anyway.

Best regards.

hi,
im new here, but have an opinion about this,though I still dont know much.

I think jack the ripper might have been a butcher, or in posesion of a butchers knife, you know, the big one, because the cut in mary ann nicols throat was so deep, with a good swing almost anyone would get that deep.

And maybe, jack the ripper planed to make each kill as different as possible, to prevent that anyone would find out all those kills are on his conscience, however, there is said, that most of his victims were stragled, and almost every victim he made was stabed, not cut, there was only one victim who was actually cut as i believe.

And as last of this comment, I dont really know if all of the kills were actually one guy (I am sure its a man, cause one of the witnesses said he had a beard and moustache) cause the strangulations kind of prove that theory, but if you take a close look at the letters, you'll notice the hand writing isn't the same, and faking two handwritings could get a little tricky!

greets saskia

PS. I'm sorry if you'll find any grammar mistakes, but I'm actually dutch, so...

[Fisa]

was Nichols lying?

Nichols was last to see Tabram alive. she claims they both went their seperate ays with men but Nichols couldnt identify or even give a name as to any of the two men even the name of the one she was with. did she set Tabram up and if so were the real murderes scared she would talk and silenced her to? she could have been paid well for she had a jolly new bonnet on her last night, or so she thought when saying ill be back with money soon thinking she was going to collect more monies for her deed.

just asking

gorry for grammer as well...im afrikaans...similar to dutch

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Fisa,
Martha Tabram"s friend was named Mary Ann Connelly,and she was sometimes known by her nick name of Pearly Poll.She had nothing to do with the murder of Mary Ann Nichols,otherwise known as Polly Nichols, who was a victim of Jack the Ripper. I think you may have been confusing these two women.
Best wishes

[Dan Norder]

why would abberline continue an investigation if unless he thought there was more then just teenage prostitutes?

That's a strange question. He was enforcing the law. No conspiracy theory is needed to explain that.

[Fisa]

thank you

still learning.. much appreciated

[Fisa]

thank you dan

That's a strange question. He was enforcing the law. No conspiracy theory is needed to explain that.

im asking in light of Emma Smith who reported she was attacked by two or three men,, one being a teenager on 3 april 1888. maybe its just coincidence a teenager was involved if she was telling the truth. the inspector could have been following a leed which also resullted in lord somerset fleeing the country to avoid prosecution.

apologies if upset u

Fisa
south africa

[Fisa]

ameture view of jack

this my second day of being on board and learning, watching how the debates run. my theory on jack is such : a man late 40s to early fifties who was previously in the army. he knew all his victims ( the canon five) and probably had intercourse with them before, even if not a woman in mid forties would feel less threatend by someone older and more likely to drop her guard. after the army he probably chose writing or painting or both. probably waswnt married but had a girlfriend but did not share same lodgings. frequented pubs and was well known the more suspects that arose left a minor few with alibies that didnt need to be checked. sickness and guilt was his motive for killing. killing so savagley for the guilt had hit home hard when he could not marry. his kill with a knife was from army and prob an odd job or two as a carpenter or upholsterer. we was sane in plotting but insane in the killing. would have dressed normal with a beige or brown trench or waistcoat. maybe even a normal wooden cane to help him walk with a slight limp so women would be less afraid. if he was over fifty he was well read and would know how to send various letters if he ever did. in terms of wealth he was above average but did not live or show his standard of living being conservative.

i hope this theory gets thrashed about all around as an initiation to also trying to narrow a suspect. please take me to task for i have another thory of a lesbian which i wont bring out now .

best wishes

[perrymason]

Hi Saskia,

The most difficult and yet critical part of examining these crimes is to not read into what you see before you. Im guilty of doing it, and Im still relatively new, but if I could offer that to you and Fisa as advice early on I think youll find it helpful.

The questions we cant answer are the ones we need answers to the most....for example why were each of these women killed? To satisfy the blood lust of a serial madman? To raise the consciousness about the East End strife? To punish women? Robberies gone wrong? Gangs? Pimps? Uterus collectors?

We dont know.

But you have to try and look without predjudicing the data by deciding what the relevant facts are first, ...like a Jack the Ripper proponent would do with the wounds themselves, making them somehow unique facets of only this killers actions.

Jack the Ripper is more properly a time and a place rarther than just a man. The crimes were events that claimed Fall 1888 in East London as their own. Did one man run amok? Did several men? Were more than one man responsible for the killings categorized as The Canon?

This is why I think we need to review the crimes, not a spree, then we can perhaps better chart the likely pool of suspect candidates.

When we look at why each may have died, and the evidence of the night, we do not get a clear view of some shadowy man...we see a ghetto in turmoil that had some clearly remarkable killings happen within a relatively short window of time, and 5 women who died horribly during that time.

My Best regards.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

And as last of this comment, I dont really know if all of the kills were actually one guy (I am sure its a man, cause one of the witnesses said he had a beard and moustache) cause the strangulations kind of prove that theory, but if you take a close look at the letters, you'll notice the hand writing isn't the same, and faking two handwritings could get a little tricky!

Hi Saskia,

Why bring up the letters? None of them are actually proven to come from the killer in the first place - all or most of them are today considered hoaxes.

And what's with this about a man with a beard and moustasch?
Several different men was seen in connection with the crimes (yes he most certainly must have been a man), but I can't recall any important one with a beard. Who are ayou referring to?
The most likely person who might have been the Ripper was the 'sailor' guy seen by Lawende, and he certainly didn't wear a beard, nor did the men seen by Mrs Long or Schwartz.

All the best

[lintukorpi]

Hi Saskia,

The most difficult and yet critical part of examining these crimes is to not read into what you see before you. Im guilty of doing it, and Im still relatively new, but if I could offer that to you and Fisa as advice early on I think youll find it helpful.

The questions we cant answer are the ones we need answers to the most....for example why were each of these women killed? To satisfy the blood lust of a serial madman? To raise the consciousness about the East End strife? To punish women? Robberies gone wrong? Gangs? Pimps? Uterus collectors?

We dont know.

But you have to try and look without predjudicing the data by deciding what the relevant facts are first, ...like a Jack the Ripper proponent would do with the wounds themselves, making them somehow unique facets of only this killers actions.

Jack the Ripper is more properly a time and a place rarther than just a man. The crimes were events that claimed Fall 1888 in East London as their own. Did one man run amok? Did several men? Were more than one man responsible for the killings categorized as The Canon?

This is why I think we need to review the crimes, not a spree, then we can perhaps better chart the likely pool of suspect candidates.

When we look at why each may have died, and the evidence of the night, we do not get a clear view of some shadowy man...we see a ghetto in turmoil that had some clearly remarkable killings happen within a relatively short window of time, and 5 women who died horribly during that time.

My Best regards.

I have to say, I've been thinking of that to, why did he (or they) kill those women? what does catch my eye is the fact that all the victims were female prastitutes.

also did I find out, that all of the kills, were in close range of a school! maybe he wanted to take the prostitutes away from those schools. its just a thought, I might be wrong.

I have printed one of the letters he (maybe) wrote, one word is unreadeble, and ofcourse I am now trying to figure out what it is...
I'm always trying to do the imposible.

greets saskia

PS. thanks for your respond

[lintukorpi]

well, the beard and moustasch is about Emilly walter, one of the witnesses, who said he had a beard and moustasch.

and this is just what I think

[Fisherman]

Hi Lintukorpi!

Just noticed that you yesterday brought up a suggestion that is commonly marketed: that the Ripper was a butcher.
One thing that applies in that discussion, is the fact that he apparently tried to sever the head from the body in both Chapmans and Kellys cases, as evinced by notches present in the spinal column on these victims. Dr Phillips was very clear on the point that the notches pointed to a failed decapitation in Chapmans case.
I think that we have to accept that IF he was a butcher, he would have accomplished to decapitate these women!

The best,

Fisherman

[Red Zeppelin]

I kinda meant that Stride and Kelly sound like domestic crimes to me. The fact that they were prostitutes could have been coincidental. But I take your point.

Ok Sasha, fair enough. Sorry for the late reply.

[DVV]

Hi Lintukorpi!

Just noticed that you yesterday brought up a suggestion that is commonly marketed: that the Ripper was a butcher.
One thing that applies in that discussion, is the fact that he apparently tried to sever the head from the body in both Chapmans and Kellys cases, as evinced by notches present in the spinal column on these victims. Dr Phillips was very clear on the point that the notches pointed to a failed decapitation in Chapmans case.
I think that we have to accept that IF he was a butcher, he would have accomplished to decapitate these women!

The best,

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,
I'm not sure at all that Jack wanted to behead his victims. All victims, except Stride, have their throat cut to the spine - not only Chapman and Kelly.
So if Jack really wanted to behead his preys, why didn't he came with a proper instrument to do so, after his "failure" in Buck's Row?

Amitiés,
David

ps: Phillips was also quite clear that Stride was a ripper's victim, and dismissed Eddowes as such...

[Dan Norder]

Hi Fisa,

Brainstorming is fine and healthy, but this part caught my eye:

we was sane in plotting but insane in the killing.

I'm not sure how that would work. If he planned the murders while sane then insanity would never need to come into it. If he was insane when he killed he would have either been also insane when he planned the murders or he wouldn't have planned them ahead of time at all.