What do we really know about Jack?

[lynn cates]

essence of ripperology

Hello Phil.

"But be sure you have analysed the victims you feel are surely "Jack's" and don't just tag on to the coat-tails of others."

And this is the essence of ripperology.

Cheers.
LC

[Jason]

I don't think we can assume that all the descriptions are of "Jack" or any for that matter.

I think Mrs Long was there at the wrong time. Chapman had probably been dead hours by the time Mrs L walked down Hanbury St.

I am also unconvinced that Lawende saw "Jack" with Eddowes - they may already have been in the Square.


Phil H

you have to remember this: for the 1st time in their sad and pathetic lives, the place they lived was of massive interest to the media and world beyond.....if it were today, SKY tv would be camped on Hanbury Street with other journos based on different streets....every man or woman with a mouth would be wanting to give their side of the story and how they saw "the man talking to her ".....the east end was swamped with people wanting to hear a story, it wasnt relevant to the papers if it was pertinent or in any way truthful.....the editors of the day would make kelvin Mckenzie blush......certain papers established themselves on the back of JTR and others were unable to cope......there are approx. 5% of the statements from "witnesses" that can logically be considered as being possibly genuine....the rest can "do one".......

[Lechmere]

Phil H
"My advice, miakaal, would be to ignore the so-called descriptions.
I believe for instance that Chapman was dead long efore Mrs Long was in Hanbury Street that morning.
He clearly knew the area in detail - who else would follow a woman through the doors of 29 Hanbury St unless they did - or had been there before?
He had somewhere to go back to quickly after an attack - to dispose of body parts and clean up.
He may - I stress MAY - have some superficial knowlegde of animal anatomy.
He fitted in to the East End.
He could, at least for a short time, appear safe to his victims.
The times of the murders may tell us something."

I can't think of any suspects who might fit that bill.

OR CAN I?

[Phil H]

I don't think we can assume that all the descriptions are of "Jack" or any for that matter.

I think Mrs Long was there at the wrong time. Chapman had probably been dead hours by the time Mrs L walked down Hanbury St.

I am also unconvinced that Lawende saw "Jack" with Eddowes - they may already have been in the Square.

And I have huge doubts about Schwartz's evidence.

Also why should "Jack" dress up as a woman - even a bit? Done badly it might even attract attention.

In any case, Polly and Chapman, at least, would probably have gone with anyone for 4d given their circumstances and state.

Phil H

[miakaal4]

Ha ha, yeah, I have been in that state myself! But seriously, it wouldn't take much to wrap a skirt around the legs and put a shawl over the head.
Its just the differences in descriptions. I mean we could settle on about 5'6" with sandy or light coloured hair. Stocky and speaking with an educated accent.
But that would get me accused of neatly fitting JM in the frame.
He has been described as dark and foreign looking too, but their idea of foreign to ours might be worlds apart.
We don't actually know much do we.

[Phil H]

To be honest, I don't think Polly or Annie would have noticed a disguise, even if "Jack" had dressed up specially.

Phil

[miakaal4]

Hi Phil,
You got any thoughts on disguises? I mean black moustache and sandy eyelashes? It would be very easy to blacken a moustache, but unlikely one would think of applying mascara! There is also all the "Jill" theories, which could tie-in with your "appear safe" idea.

[Phil H]

My advice, miakaal, would be to ignore the so-called descriptions.

I believe for instance that Chapman was dead long efore Mrs Long was in Hanbury Street that morning.

He clearly knew the area in detail - who else would follow a woman through the doors of 29 Hanbury St unless they did - or had been there before?

He had somewhere to go back to quickly after an attack - to dispose of body parts and clean up.

He may - I stress MAY - have some superficial knowlegde of animal anatomy.

He fitted in to the East End.

He could, at least for a short time, appear safe to his victims.

The times of the murders may tell us something.

But be sure you have analysed the victims you feel are surely "Jack's" and don't just tag on to the coat-tails of others.

Phil H

[miakaal4]

This thread is not a wind up, I am hoping for a good information input from you guys, sort of lazy research, hope you don't mind.
From what I have read of the witnesses statements, it appears on the surface that there are very few things that tally concerning JtR's appearence. I have five examples below:
Liz Long. (aka Durrell) re:Chapman.
Thought he wore overcoat. Looked over 40. Foreigner. Brown Deerstalker hat.
Shabby genteel.
William Marshall. re: Stride
Black moustache. Sandy eyelashes. 5'5"/6" tall. Black cutaway coat, dark trousers. Round, small peak cap, like a sailor. Stout. Educated voice. Clerk. Decently dressed. Did not see whiskers.
Israel Schwartz. re: Stride
Dark small moustache. Fair hair. 5'5" tall. 30 ish. Full face. Broad shoulders. Dark jacket and trousers. Black cap with peak. OR
35ish. 5'11". Fresh complexion. Light brown hair. Dark overcoat. Old black felt hat with wide brim. Clay pipe.
Joseph Lawende re: Eddows
Medium build. Look of a sailor. Salt and pepper jacket. Grey clothe cap. Reddish handkerchief. 30 ish. 5'7"/8" tall. Fair complexion and moustache.
George Hutchingson re: Kelly
Respectable, Jewish look. Long, dark coat with Atsrakhan collar and cuffs. Dark jacket and trousers. Light waistcoat with thick watch chain. 34-35 ish. Fair complexion. 5'5" tall. Dark hair. Slight moustache curled at ends. Red handkerchief.

When we compare the above we have a man of between 5'5" and 5'8".
Fair complexion, dark small moustache, but with light hair and eye lashes.
Dresses like a sailor or a low middle class business man. looks Jewish or foreign but speaks with an educated English accent.
Or he is 5'11" and see above.

We know the killer has a working method of quickly overcoming any resistance from his victims. He may be of average height but he is strong. He was aware of the blood spill enough to keep most of it away from him. He is not just into the kill, but seems to use that as a means to mutilate which seems to be his real motive. He works quickly and in silence.

He probably knows his way around the area well.

Not much to go on really. A lot of houses in the slum districts had the doors removed for firewood, and may only have a piece of rag against the drafts, they had nothing worth stealing. But the hallway would often lead to another exit to a different street. Also there were cellars under some of the buildings that could be used to get from one street to another very quickly, these were in places police sometimes feared to walk alone. Did the killer quietly use these avenues to avoid the police?
It seems to me that the killer wore different hats and clothes for every killing. This would give a confusing list of descriptions from people already considered of dubious character. Prejudices could have been at work in their discriptions, and in Hutchingsons case I have read of old scores being settled against rivals, and even him being paid to look out for the suspect he say's he saw. A different motivation for his statement perhaps?
So is there really anything definate about the killer that can be written in stone?

Cheers, Miakaal4