What do we really know about Jack?

[andy1867]

I think in all honesty...what we know about Jack..is virtually nowt
We know what he did..or mostly what he did...
We surmise we know why he did it
We know when he did it
We seem to know who he did it to..
but we don't know who he is... or was..
Ive just finished reading Londons Shadows by Drew D Gray, and have come to the conclusion that it could have been virtually anyone..doesn't have to be a prince, pauper or horse slaughterer..Jew, Mason or Monarch.
It was a violent society...
The East end was a ferment of political, racist and religious ferment...
too much of a mess to glean anything from...
Who was Jack?...someone who took advantage of the whole dogs breakfast of a society that had plumbed the depths...

[Hunter]

Now there's a theory in the making...Jack the Poacher

Might explain his peaked cap/deerstalker and his sheer elusiveness too!

And they're used to quickly field dressing game in the dark... even finishing the animal off sometimes by cutting its throat.

[curious4]

Poacher

Well, we all know what his delight on a shiny night was at least!

[Cogidubnus]

Now there's a theory in the making...Jack the Poacher

Might explain his peaked cap/deerstalker and his sheer elusiveness too!

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'Day Curious 4

Yes, it was.

I presume you mean that yes hunting was mainly upper class.

Just have this picture in my mind of the old retainer/farmer/slaughterer pointing out the "interesting bits" to someone younger.

Not just the naughty bits either but things like a "nise bit of Kidne".

[curious4]

Bits

Hello GUT,

Yes, it was. Just have this picture in my mind of the old retainer/farmer/slaughterer pointing out the "interesting bits" to someone younger.

Best wishes,
C4

[GUT]

G'Day C4

One thing we know for certain is that he knew what a uterus looked like (not sure I would under the circumstances), either from hunting or slaughtering - don't let us leave out the farmers here! Certainly one could get an idea from books, but an illustration is not exactly the same thing.

100% agree. Example I've gutted plenty of fish and chooks but really have little idea of any of the stuff I pull out, because I'm not interested in the guts I'm after the flesh.

A slaughter-man would have been different because they really disposed of very little of the beast, especially a cow or sheep. If experience came from hunting it would depend on what he was hunting, if it was small game the intestines would probably be of little interest [because anything usable is so small] but if larger game like deer it would be a bit like cattle, I would imagine. But wasn't hunting larger game, ie deer, for the upper class.

[curious4]

A view of a womb

Hello GUT,

One thing we know for certain is that he knew what a uterus looked like (not sure I would under the circumstances), either from hunting or slaughtering - don't let us leave out the farmers here! Certainly one could get an idea from books, but an illustration is not exactly the same thing.

Unless he did have some medical training, of course - doubt it though.

Best wishes,
C4

[GUT]

G'Day Michael

Thanks for explaining.

Don't worry I am not always polite, but am happy to say when something puzzles me, you should see me when I get my heels dug in. After all I argue for a living, I'm not sure if that makes me more argumentative or if I try to avoid it so I don't feel like I'm at work.

I had obviously misunderstood your earlier post, I had thought that you were contending that Jack had written "Dear Boss" and it just didn't add up to me.

But on rereading I see that you meant the the inspiration behind the name and letter killed at least two.

I really don't at the moment agree with your position that he only killed two but I understand why some think that way.

And while I am new to these boards I've been lurking for years and studying Jacky for decades.

But still freely admit don't know everything and don't have a grasp on a lot of peoples hypothesis on all issues.

[Michael W Richards]

G'Day Michael

Really not sure how you reach this conclusion, can you explain. I have to admit still a lot to learn.

Hi GUT,
You remind me of me when I started asking questions here, still polite enough not to disagree immediately.

I was referring to the letter received by Central News on September 27th, the infamous Dear Boss,... its the first time anyone uses the name "Jack the Ripper", and based on the date, only Polly and Annie of the Canonical Group had been killed before it was used.

My contention GUT is that the profile of the killer of Annie and Polly is rare, and pretty specific, whether the venue is on the street on in the backyard. A double throat cut to ensure quick blood loss, both major arteries, and a desire to cut into the abdomen as soon as the victim has been positioned with her legs askew and she has lost consciousness. That killer, according to almost everyone excluding Dr Bond, revealed a man, likely by himself, with some knowledge of anatomy and the ability to use a knife with roughly a med students' precision. That is the man who is supposedly crowning himself Jack the Ripper in the letter....which by the way is virtually certainly not from that killer.

Then we have Liz Stride,.....unlike the 2 murders previously, then Kate Eddowes...the only other women with that same killer profile with the exception of Alice Mackenzie possibly, and Mary Jane, a woman killed in her own room after likely passing out from the excess booze before 1:30am. Kate Eddowes killer did not have the same skill with a blade that was seen in those first 2 murders, and if the intended objective was indeed a kidney, not a partial uterus, then he chose an odd position to place kate in to make that as easy as possible. He could have tilted her on her side facing away from him let alone placed her face down for that excision. In almost no light to boot. Mary Kelly's killer need not have, nor demonstrated, any skill or knowledge with respect to his cutting.

So there it is for me.....2 that fit, 1 that may, and 2 that do not.

Cheers

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Strengh, cunning and what looks to be some idear of whats inside a body but for me thats about it Im very unsure if anybody had seen him at all.

[John Wheat]

Not Enough.

[curious4]

Jack alive

He's dead! Everything else is guesswork.

Yes - he must be now.

But when I first became aware of "Jack" in the early 60s (I didn't start serious reading until c 1972) it was just about possible he was still alive (albeit VERY old) assuming he had been say 18 in 1888.

Finding out about Jack gave me nightmares, my later reading was partially to allay those fears. And as a 12 year old I found the idea that he might still be alive very creepy and fightening.

Phil H

Hello Phil H,

Same here, except that I was living right in the middle of where the murders took place (where the Whitechapel road meets Aldgate street). What had me sleeping with the light on after a visit to Madame Tussauds was the fact that he could still be alive.

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman



Have a look at this from 1903. What percentage of men are wearing a 'peaked' cap? If the PC had been as ubiquitous as the flat cap, witnesses would not have bothered to mention it. It would be a bit like saying, ' He was wearing trousers.' The wearing of a peaked cap was clearly something worthy of mention.

Three sightings of a PC is surely significant.

MrB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTjzryR7FSg

If was was not sufficiently familiar with common Victorian dress I wouldn't have wrote what I did.

And, lets not forget, the man seen by PC Smith wore a deerstalker.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Wickerman

the peaked cap was very common.

Have a look at this from 1903. What percentage of men are wearing a 'peaked' cap? If the PC had been as ubiquitous as the flat cap, witnesses would not have bothered to mention it. It would be a bit like saying, ' He was wearing trousers.' The wearing of a peaked cap was clearly something worthy of mention.

Three sightings of a PC is surely significant.

MrB

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTjzryR7FSg