So who was Jack the Ripper.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Roma!

I understand what you mean : I just read that they prostituted themselves (often or not). So you think Jack selected them just because he found them in the street ?

I somehow don't think he'd have worried too much - whether he approached them, or they him; whether they were prostituting themselves or asking for his help, or he (pretended) to ask for theirs.

[Fisherman]

"Hello Roma!"

Sounds a bit like the European Song Contest, doesn´t it...?

The best, all!

Fisherman

[mariag]

I think he "selected" them because they each were a woman who would go to a secluded place with him. Like so many SK's before him, he preyed on these women because they were easily available. No mystery to that.

I don't subscribe to the idea that he had a thing against ladies of the evening per se, just that they were the easiest to cull from the herd.

[Damien]

Hi

Well, I wonder if he selected the victims or if the victims selected him...

In those days it would be very risky to speak to unfortunates - seeing it with the Rippers Eyes. He`d be anxious not to fail and not to catch someones eye...what if the woman would scream or shout for help?
I know not every unfortunate would scream, if she`s approached by a man - that`s complete nonsense.
But we are not sure (and we can`t be), if this thought was part of the killers mind...

Maybe the victims selected the Ripper, because he had something like a noble behaviour or some aspects giving him a sort of gentleman-like look. All victims were in need of money - so I think it would be a better way waiting to be selected by his victims, if he was thinking so far.
And maybe this aspects gave him an additional kick - "Haha, those whores don`t know who I am!" - something like that.

Damien

[Damien]

Don`t get me wrong - I don`t believe in the Gentleman wearing a hat...it`s just a thought. I think if he wanted to be selected, he would have been selected. Maybe he just stood some time nearby his victims, until they came by themselves?

[Fisherman]

Well, Damien, it´s not as if the unfortunates enjoyed a pick-and-choose situation. We know that many of them were out on the streets for sheer necessity. In such a situation I gather any takings would be welcomed, and in situations where there were more than one unfortunate per punter, I doubt that the unchosen ones would have been relieved.

The best!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Damien,
the Mitre Square's "3 Jews" seem our best witnesses, and they do not describe a gentleman.

Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Roma!I somehow don't think he'd have worried too much - whether he approached them, or they him; whether they were prostituting themselves or asking for his help, or he (pretended) to ask for theirs.

Arh! back on the old 'bee' theory 'a Sam

Hi all

He plucked those pritty flowers (though they were thuff' old birds) because he had time and opportunity...they could have been any number of petals..

and they took 'im somewhere where the deed could be done quietly..

(Not that no one heard him..perhaps they did?)

But my guess would be that he'd done similar things before..I cant believe the police didnt have him on record for something..they probably did...

(Perhaps not having a dog licence )

the cannon werent the only crime Jack ever commited, they were his Swan song...

Interesting discussion many thanks

Pirate

PS thanks Sam always check the small print.

[Sam Flynn]

Arh! back on the old 'bee' theory Sam.

Bee - or Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, perhaps. Remember Ted Bundy's plaster-cast or offers of a lift, Christie with his "paramedic" services, Fred West with his rented rooms, Shipman with his caring manner.

Not all multiple killers have found it necessary to pretend to procure sex as a means of ensnaring a victim.

[Cap'n Jack]

Quite right, Sam, it's more likely to be 'ave you got a light, mate'?

[lovejoy]

Hi Limehouse,
I am afraid I cannot go along with the idea that 'Jack' was 'Mr Normal' and would have been able to engage in innocent conversation with his victms, before despatching them.
There was a report that Nichols may have been roughed up by her killer, shortly before her life was taken, also the apparent 'rough treatment' in the yard of 29, and of course 'Broadshoulders' was hardly coming across as a 'Charmer'...
And where did Eddowes bruise[ of recent origin] originate?.
It would appear to have been caused by being grasped by the hand with some pressure.
Unless her boyfriend was in the habit of holding her hand in a vice type grip. it may be fair to speculate that either, it happened attempting to get her to the police station, or her killer was responsible.
There was also 'Oral history' suggesting that Mjk was being pulled along with some force along her passage note'All right my luv, dont pull me along'.
Summing up.
I would therefore suggest , that in my opinion, our killer was a outwardly violent man, even before his knife was drawn.
Regards Richard.

hi richard where did you get that oral history qote for mjk from

[tnb]

Personally I think the main problem with figuring out who 'Jack' was is that so much of the 'evidence' is so much conjecture and guesswork (albeit sometimes very intelligent guesswork).

It's pretty obvious that some of the witness statements were at best flawed and at worst irrelevant (unless you go with the disguises scenario) and equally a lot of the assumptions made by various people even at the time effectively cancel each other out, as do the myriad interpretations of various elemenets of the individual murders, murder scenes etc etc etc

Therefore almost every theory picks and chooses the parts of the 'evidence' they believe and those they ignore- meaning depending on the theories you agree with more or less you're looking for a completely different person- to a Druitt 'supporter' he must have been rich, intelligent and maybe have some medical knowledge, to Dr. Williams supporters the latter is essential; to Kosminsky supporters he must have been poor, insane and probably foreign...

Who was Jack? Definitively no-one (and probably never will be), possibly thousands- and growing...

What we need to have any hope is a proper 'wheat from the chaff' operation whereby we figure out exactly which details we can rely on and which can be dismissed (ie the letters)- now that WOULD be a project!

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lovejoy,
The 'Oral' you refer to comes from an interview with Mrs Coxs neice many years ago by Colin Wilson, and is allegedly refering to her Aunts sighting on the eve of kellys death.
The neices version however, does not tally with what Mrs Cox told the police, for Blotchy face turns into a real toff, complete with tophat[ not a silk one], and apparently is the one that kelly utters the cry'All right dont pull me along'
The neice also paints a picture into kellys character, with bringing men home [usually sailors] with a bottle of gin under her arm usually singing.
She states that her aunt saw Mjk and stranger whilst standing by her door in the court, where as her original statement, has her following the couple into the passage.
Question is therefore, what is the accurate account?
What she informed the press and police in 1888
What she relayed in conversation many years later.
Could she have ssen more then one man that night BLotchy and Astracan?
Regards Richard.