Working to order or not ?

[mariab]

Lynn,
What is your take on Tom Slemen's book, where he attempts to build an argument for the Ripper victims as informants?
Oh come on! Why not simply assume the Royal conspiracy theory?

[Tom_Wescott]

Slemen's book was a fun read for me, since he touched upon subjects of interest to me, such as socialists, the Phoenix Park murders, and the Parnell Commission. Unfortunately, it doesn't all tie together into a convincing argument. His supect is Claude Conder, friend of Sir Charles Warren.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

theory

Hello Tom. Thanks for that. If something is not all tied together and has a natural feel, I can't handle it--as an explanation.

Did he prove convincingly that this person actually existed?

Another concern for me would be the mutilations. I presume he tried to pin all 5 murders on Conder (sp?)? But to my mind it makes no sense whatsoever to link the murders on a political motivation AND include the abdominal mutilations.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Whodunnit?

I certainly think there is a case to be made for the killer to be someone from the so-called "upper classes" - not the royal conspiracy theory - such a marriage would be invalid for two reasons: heir to the throne has to have parliamentīs permission to marry and is not allowed to marry a catholic. I have recently read "England, an Autobiography" - pieces written by people who were in England at the time (from the romans up to present time) - and the description of how the "slummers" treated the prostitutes is a good indication of how one "class" viewed another.

As for motive - obviously mad as a bunch of frogs - but seems to me he could have been looking for something - possibly the soul? Donīt think he was gathering body parts - he left part of the womb in one body for example.


"Time and trouble will tame a headstrong young woman, but there is no force on earth which will tame a headstrong old woman." Dorothy Sayers

[Tom_Wescott]

Lynn,

Conder most definitely existed. However, Slemen provides absolutely zero sources for his many claims, and a lot of his important claims regarding the Ripper crimes are, to put it nicely, mistaken.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

web site

Hello Tom. Thanks for the information.

"Slemen provides absolutely zero sources for his many claims"

Indeed. I know a web site like that. Many interesting claims about Stride and Eddowes but no evidence. But without THAT I lose interest.

Cheers.
LC

[chudmuskett]

Hi all, I think I need to explain better what I meant in my original thread. First of all, I would like everyone to know that even though I find this case most interesting, I do not take the majority as gospel and when I come out with a 'theory' it is only an idea. I haven't fallen into any way of thinking that I truly believe it with a passion and spend day and night in search of the answer. It is an avenue of thought that I will be looking into, call it more a casual hobby. I really think there isn't much in the way of new hard evidence, the case is riddled with speculation and we have as much chance of unravelling this as the mysterious case of Jesus. The other thing was when I said Job I meant it in the broadest possible terms, I wasn't trying to be specific. I meant it from how a Burglar might say to his accomplice "Its time to go to work" to (for example) A employing B to get him body parts. Also, someone said in this thread "Lets take it that it was a job then how do you explain the mutilations". Well, I like to think of JTR as having an anger management problem which only appears as a schizophrenic second personality. So the first personality did the "Job" but subconsciously new he we doing wrong which in turn triggered the second personality that brutally mutilates his victim, not for HER sins but for HIS..... There you go, you can make anything sound authentic and feasible with this case.

[FrankO]

Although I don't believe the killer was paid to do it I do think the motive is a much better one than the sexual killer theory.

Hi Joel,

I don't agree with you here. Because, first of all, there were much better and far less risky ways of obtaining body parts or organs. Secondly, all victims were women, had their skirts lifted and abdominal and private parts cut, and were all left in degrading positions with their legs sprawled.

While he didn’t show any interest in actually having sex, the above to me clearly indicates that Jack the Ripper was driven by something having to do with women and their sex/womanhood. So, perhaps he wasn't the sexual killer you meant in your quote, there was an important element of sex in what drove him.

All the best,
Frank