A new front in the history wars? A new article on 'the five'

[MrBarnett]

Touché!

[Losmandris]

Ouch!

[erobitha]

Impartial peer review my arse.

[Abby Normal]

It makes a difference, Abby, if the evidence points to the victims not being asleep or passed out from drink when their killer found them. He may not have attacked a woman because he presumed her to be a prostitute. He may not have cared either way. Equally, a victim could have approached him for money or a drink, presenting him with an easy opportunity. But any argument should be based on the evidence, and not on flights of fancy. If the evidence points to a victim being on her feet when she first encountered her killer, I just can't see the point in trying to argue that he'd have been equally happy to murder and mutilate any man, woman or child, who was dozing or unconscious. How would we know if it never happened?



To use one of your favourites, Abby: Bingo!

In 1888 Whitechapel, the killer could pick on women out alone at night, who were thought to be "no better than they ought to be" [such a quaint expression]. It would not only make things much easier and less risky for him, if a woman was willing and able to accompany him to a quiet spot, but he may have thought that society in general would not be as outraged or quick to act, as it might with any other kind of victim.

I see no tangible difference, morally, between a woman in the 1880s struggling to survive against the odds, who accompanies a man to where he cuts her throat, and an octogenarian hoping to live a while longer, who goes to his local surgery, where he rolls up his sleeve for his GP to inject him - with fatal results if it's Dr Harold Shipman in the 1990s, and with life-saving immunity if it's 2021.

The prostitute angle shouldn't concern any of us in this day and age, and yet for some reason it continues to be a 'delicate' issue for some.

Love,

Caz
X

hey caz

It makes a difference, Abby, if the evidence points to the victims not being asleep or passed out from drink when their killer found them. He may not have attacked a woman because he presumed her to be a prostitute. He may not have cared either way. Equally, a victim could have approached him for money or a drink, presenting him with an easy opportunity. But any argument should be based on the evidence, and not on flights of fancy. If the evidence points to a victim being on her feet when she first encountered her killer, I just can't see the point in trying to argue that he'd have been equally happy to murder and mutilate any man, woman or child, who was dozing or unconscious. How would we know if it never happened?

welli think the evidences and circs point to more than likely kelly was asleep/passed out when attacked. polly nichols, tabram, maybe. Stride and eddowes-probably not.
so out of all of them.perhaps kelly theonly one that was probably asleep. but i dont really care either way.

and It dosnt matter either way if they are awake or asleep when they met the ripper if they were prostitutes or not. a non prositute awake woman could be a victim(indeed, it looks like stride was NOT actively prosituting when she met the ripper) or an asleep prostitute when the ripper found her.because the victims were all prostitutes based on their history and known facts about them.

it dosnt make them any less human or worthy or anything , and to me it actually empahasizes their humanity by the kindness and humor they had in face of such dire circs- kelly letting others crash in her room, warning freinds of the danger, eddowes making drunken siren noises(lol!), the care and concern they showed each other, etc

[caz]

Im not sure im understanding the argument from either side.

what difference does it make if the ripper found them sleeping or not? any of the c5 could have been asleep and or passed out from drink when he found them.
It has nothing to do with whether they were prostitutes or not.

It makes a difference, Abby, if the evidence points to the victims not being asleep or passed out from drink when their killer found them. He may not have attacked a woman because he presumed her to be a prostitute. He may not have cared either way. Equally, a victim could have approached him for money or a drink, presenting him with an easy opportunity. But any argument should be based on the evidence, and not on flights of fancy. If the evidence points to a victim being on her feet when she first encountered her killer, I just can't see the point in trying to argue that he'd have been equally happy to murder and mutilate any man, woman or child, who was dozing or unconscious. How would we know if it never happened?

and RJ
it does matter psychologically.. if the ripper assumed they were prostitutes he may have thought they could be more willing to accompany him to a secluded spot-easier targets. and many serial killers have used that their victims were prostitutes as an excuse-as in they are getting rid of something they find wrong, or what does it matter-thyre just prostitutes.
thats their problem, not ours. we dont feel that way.

To use one of your favourites, Abby: Bingo!

In 1888 Whitechapel, the killer could pick on women out alone at night, who were thought to be "no better than they ought to be" [such a quaint expression]. It would not only make things much easier and less risky for him, if a woman was willing and able to accompany him to a quiet spot, but he may have thought that society in general would not be as outraged or quick to act, as it might with any other kind of victim.

I see no tangible difference, morally, between a woman in the 1880s struggling to survive against the odds, who accompanies a man to where he cuts her throat, and an octogenarian hoping to live a while longer, who goes to his local surgery, where he rolls up his sleeve for his GP to inject him - with fatal results if it's Dr Harold Shipman in the 1990s, and with life-saving immunity if it's 2021.

The prostitute angle shouldn't concern any of us in this day and age, and yet for some reason it continues to be a 'delicate' issue for some.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I am in total agreement that Stride was not killed by the same hand as the rest of the victims ,and I concur with Donal Rumbellow that she could have been the victim of a domestic assault.

To that end there seems to be very little on the police investigation into Michael Kidney, perhaps the police were blinkered in their approach to Stride by the fact that Eddowes was killed a short time later and they fell into the trap that some researchers have fallen into by suggesting that two victims were the work of the same killer when they may not have been. Coincidences do often occur.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Did you not even bother to read my post, Trev, before saying you were in 'total agreement' with something I never wrote??

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

95% agree with all the above with exception of Kelly. In my view she was soliciting and she too had a few drinks on her that night. Knowingly or unknowingly the killer got ‘lucky’.

Stride is a curious one I grant you, but the manner in which she was killed with the throat being slit in that manner, and then only for Eddowes to be butchered an hour later is too much a coincidence as Trev describes. The chances of that really? Although I am open to the possibility that perhaps JTR thought Stride was soliciting and maybe because of her accent thought she was drunk. But to suggest the same hand did not kill Eddowes is too big a leap for me.

Stride is curious, everything about her murder is so different to the other murders before and after, which to me suggests a different killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

Im not sure im understanding the argument from either side.

what difference does it make if the ripper found them sleeping or not? any of the c5 could have been asleep and or passed out from drink when he found them.
It has nothing to do with whether they were prostitutes or not.

and RJ
it does matter psychologically.. if the ripper assumed they were prostitutes he may have thought they could be more willing to accompany him to a secluded spot-easier targets. and many serial killers have used that their victims were prostitutes as an excuse-as in they are getting rid of something they find wrong, or what does it matter-thyre just prostitutes.
thats their problem, not ours. we dont feel that way.

but to deny they were prostitutes is just denying the truth. they were, to one extent or another. its unfortunate, but true.
and I DONT think they were all actively soliciting the night they met the ripper. I think kelly and stride probably werent.

95% agree with all the above with exception of Kelly. In my view she was soliciting and she too had a few drinks on her that night. Knowingly or unknowingly the killer got ‘lucky’.

Stride is a curious one I grant you, but the manner in which she was killed with the throat being slit in that manner, and then only for Eddowes to be butchered an hour later is too much a coincidence as Trev describes. The chances of that really? Although I am open to the possibility that perhaps JTR thought Stride was soliciting and maybe because of her accent thought she was drunk. But to suggest the same hand did not kill Eddowes is too big a leap for me.

[erobitha]

When I visited Dublin in the mid 1990s, there were children as young as 8 or 10 sleeping on the sidewalk. This was downtown, near O'Connell's Bridge.

Being from a small town in the U.S., this shocked the hell out of me, and later, when in a pub in the Clontarf Road, I asked an old man about it.

He waved his hand. "They are druggies."

Now, maybe he was right. Maybe they were all druggies. I have no way of knowing. But I doubt he knew all of them personally, but such comments are often made by people who want simple answers to complex social problems. It makes it easier not to think about them.

Trust you to reference the city I have lived in for the past 13 years, having moved to Dublin from London in 2008. It’s a city I know intimately well. A minor correction to get out the way first. It is O’Connell Bridge not O’Connell’s Bridge. Fun fact, it has the distinction of being wider than it is long.

Dublin’s homeless population today is driven on the whole because of drug addiction, mainly heroin. Alcohol addiction then follows a close second. There are families who have been on the street, but I am glad to report much has improved in the way of services and supports since your last visit. Still much work to do.

It is a fair comparison. Addiction has driven them to the streets and forces them to commit acts that they would not in a reasonable state commit. Much like the victims of JTR. I would argue alcohol addiction is major driver for why most, if not all, the victims had to turn tricks. It was a needs must kind of deal.

Casual prostitution is exactly that and that is exactly what they did. Is it fair we define them as just prostitutes? Probably not, as ironically the only one who seemingly had any brothel experience was Mary Jane and she was killed in her bed. However, to simply pretend that all the evidence does not point to them being engaged in solicitation, potentially drunk solicitation, at the time of their deaths is just pure folly. The drunken selling of their bodies is what most likely triggered him. That gives a very telling insight into his psychological state.

Mary Jane was 100% upright when last seen alive but found dead in her bed. Maybe it was just sleeping women he had an issue with?

[Abby Normal]

Im not sure im understanding the argument from either side.

what difference does it make if the ripper found them sleeping or not? any of the c5 could have been asleep and or passed out from drink when he found them.
It has nothing to do with whether they were prostitutes or not.

and RJ
it does matter psychologically.. if the ripper assumed they were prostitutes he may have thought they could be more willing to accompany him to a secluded spot-easier targets. and many serial killers have used that their victims were prostitutes as an excuse-as in they are getting rid of something they find wrong, or what does it matter-thyre just prostitutes.
thats their problem, not ours. we dont feel that way.

but to deny they were prostitutes is just denying the truth. they were, to one extent or another. its unfortunate, but true.
and I DONT think they were all actively soliciting the night they met the ripper. I think kelly and stride probably werent.

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely, Trev. It doesn't follow from the limited evidence we have, but the same evidence doesn't rule it out either.

In Stride's case, it could be that her killer saw her in the company of another man - or men - and assumed she was soliciting, and lost his temper when she snubbed him. That could apply whoever her killer was.

Love,

Caz
X

I am in total agreement that Stride was not killed by the same hand as the rest of the victims ,and I concur with Donal Rumbellow that she could have been the victim of a domestic assault.

To that end there seems to be very little on the police investigation into Michael Kidney, perhaps the police were blinkered in their approach to Stride by the fact that Eddowes was killed a short time later and they fell into the trap that some researchers have fallen into by suggesting that two victims were the work of the same killer when they may not have been. Coincidences do often occur.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

But we cannot rule out the fact they they did solicit the killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Absolutely, Trev. It doesn't follow from the limited evidence we have, but the same evidence doesn't rule it out either.

In Stride's case, it could be that her killer saw her in the company of another man - or men - and assumed she was soliciting, and lost his temper when she snubbed him. That could apply whoever her killer was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

You chose to infer this from something I wrote, RJ, but that was not what I set out to imply. It is the evidence which strongly implies that this particular sexual mutilator did not attack women while they were sleeping rough. If you want to argue that this was because he couldn't find any, and had to make do with women who were up and about and unsuspecting of his motives, then fine. But it would be a strange argument.



I'm not sure why that's relevant, RJ. Our killer could in theory have attacked men, women or children, who were on the streets alone because of such problems, but that's simply not what the evidence suggests about the criteria for his victim selection in the series we are discussing.

It doesn't follow that Jack had a particular downer on women who were actively soliciting, or at least appeared like they might be. It could just be that he went the lazy route, and preyed on women who were not obviously averse to his company. He attacked them because they were there. But where is the evidence that he would have turned to attacking rough sleepers for the same reason - if they had been there in sufficient numbers? We can only work with what we are given.

Love,

Caz
X

But we cannot rule out the fact they they did solicit the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[caz]

Caz now implies that the 'vagrant' explanation must be wrong, because the victims were sexually mutilated.

Ouch.

You chose to infer this from something I wrote, RJ, but that was not what I set out to imply. It is the evidence which strongly implies that this particular sexual mutilator did not attack women while they were sleeping rough. If you want to argue that this was because he couldn't find any, and had to make do with women who were up and about and unsuspecting of his motives, then fine. But it would be a strange argument.

Obviously a great many homeless people are either mentally ill or have drug and alcohol problems.

I'm not sure why that's relevant, RJ. Our killer could in theory have attacked men, women or children, who were on the streets alone because of such problems, but that's simply not what the evidence suggests about the criteria for his victim selection in the series we are discussing.

It doesn't follow that Jack had a particular downer on women who were actively soliciting, or at least appeared like they might be. It could just be that he went the lazy route, and preyed on women who were not obviously averse to his company, or seemed unlikely or unable to put up much of a fight. He attacked them because they were there. But where is the evidence that he would have turned to attacking rough sleepers for the same reason - if they had been there in sufficient numbers? We can only work with what we are given.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

The victims, RJ, tell us that a serial killer was active in the area. No more, no less. And potential serial killers/offenders come in all shapes and sizes; all races and classes; any age from young to old; pretty much any profession you can think of; any marital status yet defined. They will all have their own criteria for what makes the ideal victim; what makes the whole experience worth the risks; and what they believe they can get away with. The obvious example was Dr Harold Shipman, who bumped off his elderly patients by the hundred, before anyone cottoned on. His weapon of choice was the humble syringe, now saving countless lives across the globe.

The Whitechapel five [or four for Stride excluders] were just one man's idea of how to get away with murder, and it worked.

Just as Shipman's patients were innocent lambs to the slaughter, so were the five we discuss here.

Love,

Caz
X

We must not get carried away with this argument because there is no conclusive proof one way or the other but if we look closely at the evidence and the crime scenes we are able to draw inferences which do give us a clearer picture in my opinion, that being that the victims were not killed while sleeping rough, and that clearly shows Rubenhold has misled her readers in order to overexagerate the lives of these victims.

Tabram
Found on a staircase, was she sleeping and the killer just happened to find her by chance? - Not on your nellie

Nichols- Found in the street does the crime scene location suggest that it was a location for anyone to go to sleep- Highly unlikely

Stride- Crime scene and time of death suggest that where she was killed she was not sleeping

Chapman- Found in a back yard was she sleeping rough and the killer just happednd to find her- Not on your nellie

Eddowes -Again crime scene location does not suggest it was a suitable place to sleep having regards to the weather that night and the close proximity to her lodgings

Kelly- This argument does not apply

Throughout the investigation I do not see any evidence to show that any of the above victims regularly or occasionally slept on the streets.

As has already been said people wanting to sleep rough seldom just plonk themselves down on any old pavement leaving themselves open to the elements

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk