So who was Jack the Ripper.

[DVV]

I would think that to cast suspicion on anyone it first must be established what Canon murders were committed by one man. Since the C5 is an unworkable concept, including victims with no mutilations post mortem, and another with almost every imaginable act of savagery performed upon her indoors, the only profile that could be considered is of a inconsistent, mentally deranged individual.

Hello Michael
I think the C5 concept is less unworkable since the victim who has not been mutilated has been killed on the same night of another victim, and since the one who suffered the last "savagery" has been killed indoors... as you already mentionned...

Amitiés,
DVV

I would think that to cast suspicion on anyone it first must be established what Canon murders were committed by one man. Since the C5 is an unworkable concept, including victims with no mutilations post mortem, and another with almost every imaginable act of savagery performed upon her indoors, the only profile that could be considered is of a inconsistent, mentally deranged individual. Since the street loonies would be known commodities by locals and cops, it seems unlikely that the man was overtly insane, and still remained unknown to everyone.

The man who killed some of these women could walk among sane people without suspicion, and obtain victims during a "serial spree", and maybe only for those few minutes at the end of the month or before the 9th of the next, acted "bloodthirsty" or "mad". Only his victims likely ever saw that side of him. Its also possible that he never remembered what he did....fugue states are not unknown.

He easily could have been a respectable butcher, tailor, docker, or an accountant or lawyer for that matter.

Drooling madman is not the answer,...proven by 120 years of trying to make sense of the crimes on that basis.

He had some charm...to lure victims into the dark while their co-workers were being killed,... he likely showed them money, or maybe even handed some over, which he took back after the kill,... and he was capable of very fast, somewhat competent, field surgery. And he never once left a bloody boot print, or allowed anyone to see him leave.

This man may have had the heart of a devil, but he also apparently conducted himself in a manner that didnt draw attention when he was using his "day" personality.

Best regards.

[DVV]

Sorry for re-posting! my connection drives me crazy this week...
As to Graham's post, I'm afraid that will lead us to the Anderson's suspect...
And I must confess that I hate Anderson more than Jack...

[DVV]

Hello Norma,
I can't deny this, but on the other hand the fact that Lawende always stated that he couldn't recognize the man, but was still used by the police so long after, is intriguing...
And are we sure that was a case of common stabbing? The newspaper did not say so. And again, if it was so common, why did the police recall Lawende so long after?
Besides, I think it's more difficult to describe somebody that you just saw some seconds than to recognize him.
To be frank, I also mentionned Grainger because I'm a little bit frustrated about the absence of discussion about him.
My last post about him ("other suspects...") was never answered
And when I compare him to some other suspects, I think he should deserve more attention.

Amitiés,
David

[Graham]

There was also the suspicion that Lawende recognised the man as a fellow Jew, and thus would not make any accusation against him.

Graham

[Natalie Severn]

I agree David.He was also very violent and mentally ill so he would fit the bill,especially since in build aand height at least,he must have resembled Lawende"s man.
Best
Norma

[DVV]

I can't deny this, but on the other hand the fact that Lawende always stated that he couldn't recognize the man, but was still used by the police so long after, is intriguing...
Besides, I think it's more difficult to describe somebody that you just saw some seconds than to recognize him.
To be frank, I also mentionned Grainger because I'm a little bit frustrated about the absence of discussion about him.
My last post about him ("other suspects...") was never answered
And when I compare him to other suspects, I think he should deserve more attention.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

Graham,
I agree with you.We cant be sure, but he appears to have been full of contradictions-driven by demonic urges while at the same time cool and efficient in the execution of his victims,always in control----though not in the case of Mary Kelly, where he appears to have become very heated and wild.But even in the case of Mary Kelly there was no trace of sexual activity. Therefore,given no evidence of it in any one of the crime scenes, I suspect Jack may not have been committing the murders for sexual reasons.

[Natalie Severn]

But Grainger was let go.In any case,Lawende caught only the faintest glimpse of a man in the dark all of seven [7] years previously.Within a few days of that sighting in the dark, he believed he wouldnt know the man again,so After 7 years I doubt very much things had improved!
Besides Grainger wasnt caught mutilating dead women. It was a stabbing-quite common then as now in London.
Best
Norma

[DVV]

Of course, Graham, and that's why he is my second choice!
But if JtR is somebody who has been named, he can be Grainger.
Everything fits (age, madness, location of the attack on Alice, maybe the appearance of a sailor...).
Only further information can dismiss him. But the little we know is really impressive...
Other suspects like Barnett, Kidney, Chapman havn't been recognized by nobody, and too much can be objected against their candidacy, though they are interesting.
Amitiés,
David

[Graham]

My first choice would be an unknown local.
My second, William Grant Grainger, for he has been identified by our best witness (Lawende) after an attempt to rip up a woman in Spitalfields. And he was both a lunatic and somehow a sailor.
Amitiés,
David (broken-English poster)

David,

In my reading of the situation, the police could never be certain that the man seen by Lawende was actually Grainger.

Graham

[Observer]

Hi Joel, and Graham

We can only speculate

Surely serial killers are individuals, so it's important not to pidgeon hole them too much. Ridgeway was pressured to some extent by police activity, Sutcliffe was not, indeed Sutcliffe was interviewed on a number of occasions, but went on killing. It's these examples of their behavior however that might point us in the right direction in trying to understand what made Jack the Ripper tick.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

My first choice would be an unknown local.
My second, William Grant Grainger, for he has been identified by our best witness (Lawende) after an attempt to rip up a woman in Spitalfields. And he was both a lunatic and somehow a sailor.
Amitiés,
David (broken-English poster)

[Graham]

i dont believe this either. nor do i think an interrogation would stop this kind of killer. especially given its publicity. someone who can do that to another human being is unlikely to react positively to a bit of a talking to.

joel

Hi Joel,

I think both Ted Bundy and Peter Sutcliffe are on record as saying that they were terrified of being interrogated by the police in case they gave something away. However, both in fact were interviewed by the police yet continued to kill, so maybe our WM was of the same stamp.

Problem is, back in 1888, it didn't really matter how hard the police questioned a suspect; if the suspect held out, there was nothing in the way of forensic evidence, as we know it today, to give the police any assistance. Most times, only a confession would reward the police for their efforts.

Cheers,

Graham

[joelhall]

Hi Nats,

I respect your opinions, but speaking purely personally I'm not sure that the WM was the sort of killer who actually got a sexual thrill out of what he did.
But again, who knows?

Cheers,

Graham

i dont believe this either. nor do i think an interrogation would stop this kind of killer. especially given its publicity. someone who can do that to another human being is unlikely to react positively to a bit of a talking to.

joel