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

[caz]

People have been saying this for many years, and they've pointed the finger of blame at everyone from a Jewish schizophrenic to a middle-class Liverpool cotton broker to a local carman to a band of homosexuals from Cambridge to a well-known painter to an anonymous ex-groom to a school teacher in Blackheath to an occultist in the London Hospital to a foreign sailor...

...I don't disagree that the victims tell us something, I just disagree what it is.

RP

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

[MrBarnett]

Fascinating stuff. Not sure it changes my views at all.

Rough sleepers generally tuck themselves into corners or against a wall. Of your four examples, two are doing that and one, who looks well-dressed might have been completely wasted or unconscious rather than sleeping. How many hundreds - thousands - of images of tucked-away rough sleepers did you have to skip over to find those?

So, kids sleep on the pavement in modern day Dublin? Interesting. And you found a man in a Dublin pub who expressed unfounded opinions? Fascinating. The relevance of that to the WM victims is? Perhaps your Dublin pub man’s name was Tim Donovan.

Sláinte.

[caz]

Hi Caz, of course these are Bleakley's examples, not mine.

Sometime back I did post on Howard site the case of an 'unfortunate' attacked, and I believe raped, while sleeping rough in an outhouse. I also posted a case of a woman sleeping in the countryside in Kent in the early 1890s that was attacked and had her throat slit by a wandering soldier. Women are attacked in their sleep by cowards. Women are also attacked when simply walking down the sidewalk.

While I certainly don't deny that the East End victims were humiliated in a sexual way, how does it follow that the murderer saw them as 'prostitutes' rather than vagrants?

Haven't mutilating murderers targeted college women? Children? Minorities?

The sexual depravity of a crime rests entirely on the murderer's shoulders, not the victim's.

All the best,

RP

It doesn't follow, RJ. Not at all. There were easy pickings to be had in the Whitechapel of 1888. But if the evidence suggests our murderer wasn't attacking women who were sleeping rough and effectively already "dead to the world", it might just follow that he actually preferred his prey alive, if not kicking, and fully conscious when he pounced. Does a hunter enjoy his sport in the same way if he simply waits for the deer - and his juicy venison haunch - to take a nap?

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Hi Gary - You showed me a picture of a vagrant sleeping in "what could be the corner of Mitre Square" --which is exactly where Kate Eddowes was found--and then seemingly protested when I showed you a vagrant sleeping on a sidewalk next to a short wall, even though both Chapman and Eddowes were within spitting distances of corners and walls, and Nichols within spitting distance of a locked gate. So I'm a little hesitant to play this game.

And anyway, I'm not Rubenhold, so I don't feel the need to argue points I do not believe. I am confident both Stride and Eddowes were standing upright when they met their killers.

I'm just not convinced that 'Ripperologists' referring to the victims as prostitutes rather than vagrants is a meaningful distinction, or even psychologically accurate.

If push came to shove, I'd say that Rubenhold and Begg have fought a largely meaningless battle. Six of one, half dozen of the other. Under the lodging house system, if one didn't have money for a bed, one either slept in the streets, or one turned a trick. So the point is rather moot. Same victim, same circumstance, same desperation. If calling them prostitutes rather than vagrants is more historically accurate, then have at it. It seems like a largely hollow argument to me.

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

Ouch.

What the hell? Tell that to Andre Chikatilo's victims. They were runaways and homeless people, almost none of them known as prostitutes, yet they were sexually mutilated. So were Kurten's victims, who were mainly just women out walking alone. I'm not going to jump aboard the bandwagon and insist that all the Ripper victims were actively prostituting themselves if I don't know that this was the case.

When last seen, Polly Nichols was so drunk she could barely stand with the aid of a wall. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if she sat down or collapsed on the sidewalk sometime in the next hour. Of course, she could have met with a client. I wasn't there, but neither was anyone else.

Here's some more photos for your enjoyment. Victorians didn't have the technology to go around photographing vagrants at night, and most modern examples are obviously taken by pedestrians walking around town in broad daylight.

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.

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


All the best.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary.

For the sake of clarity, why on earth does the rough sleeper have to be supine? Did Rubenold make that argument? That's rather a strange requirement, isn't it?

Can't a murderer roll a woman onto her back?

The final position of the corpse doesn't tell you how the woman was positioned when attacked, regardless of whether she was sitting, standing, soliciting, walking, or slumped against a gate.

Obviously, I agree that the 'beat' system is a major problem for Rubenhold's theory.

I don't care much for Bleakley's essay, but he does link 3 modern cases of people attacked while sleeping rough. A young woman found dead while presumably sleeping rough in a park in Melbourne; a Chinese man beaten to death in New York while sleeping on the sidewalk at night; an Irishman beaten and burned to death while sleeping in a homeless camp near Cork.

People out after dark in slummy areas are at risk of being victimized whether they are soliciting or not.

RJ,

What are you presenting here? A woman in India somewhere lying on comfortable bedding?

Is that the best you can do?;-)

I’m looking for a rough-sleeper lying on the pavement with nothing to cushion their head. Supine? Perhaps not essential, but HR is adamant that they victims were killed while they slept. Moving them about might wake them and cause them to make a noise and according to HR that just didn’t happen.

She’s also big on the victims having had experience of rough sleeping.

Gary

[rjpalmer]

The pattern of victimology tells us much about the psychological profile and mental state of the killer. Who the victims were and how they died tell us much.

Have it, then. Enlighten us.

People have been saying this for many years, and they've pointed the finger of blame at everyone from a Jewish schizophrenic to a middle-class Liverpool cotton broker to a local carman to a band of homosexuals from Cambridge to a well-known painter to an anonymous ex-groom to a school teacher in Blackheath to an occultist in the London Hospital to a foreign sailor.

I'd say your insights have their limitations.

I don't disagree that the victims tell us something, I just disagree what it is.

RP

[erobitha]

The sexual depravity of a crime rests entirely on the murderer's shoulders, not the victim's.

I’m not sure what the opposite of such a statement would be here? I’m pretty certain that wasn’t the point being made.

The pattern of victimology tells us much about the psychological profile and mental state of the killer. Who the victims were and how they died tell us much.

JTR did not go checking door to door to see if any were open in the hope he would find someone like Annie Chapman asleep out the back.

There is simply no way Polly Nichols or Liz Stride would have picked those spots as ideal sleeping places either.

Eddowes maybe decided that a dark corner of Mitre Square would be a nice place to catch some z’s. As we all know Kelly wasn’t on the street. This theory of vagrancy simply doesn’t make any sense.

The police and eye witnesses if not directly tell us, they most certainly allude to the fact these women were soliciting at the time of their deaths. This is much more plausible for the crime scene locations.

Therefore JTR had a grudge against ‘immoral’ women for reasons only known to him.

[rjpalmer]

I'm not sure those modern cases are particularly useful for comparison purposes, RJ.

One young female, no further details but only 'presumably' sleeping rough, and two males who could well have been the victims of bigotry or hate crime.

The 'five' we are concerned with here were all female, and when you add in the mutilations and organ removals, these murders - collectively - smack of something beyond prejudice against vagrancy.

For my money, part of the deal for the killer would have been in the actual overpowering of his victims. Can't really see him attacking spoilsports who were snoring soundly.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz, of course these are Bleakley's examples, not mine.

Sometime back I did post on Howard site the case of an 'unfortunate' attacked, and I believe raped, while sleeping rough in an outhouse. I also posted a case of a woman sleeping in the countryside in Kent in the early 1890s that was attacked and had her throat slit by a wandering soldier. Women are attacked in their sleep by cowards. Women are also attacked when simply walking down the sidewalk.

While I certainly don't deny that the East End victims were humiliated in a sexual way, how does it follow that the murderer saw them as 'prostitutes' rather than vagrants?

Haven't mutilating murderers targeted college women? Children? Minorities?

The sexual depravity of a crime rests entirely on the murderer's shoulders, not the victim's.

All the best,

RP

[caz]

I don't care much for Bleakley's essay, but he does link 3 modern cases of people attacked while sleeping rough. A young woman found dead while presumably sleeping rough in a park in Melbourne; a Chinese man beaten to death in New York while sleeping on the sidewalk at night; an Irishman beaten and burned to death while sleeping in a homeless camp near Cork.

People out after dark in slummy areas are at risk of being victimized whether they are soliciting or not.

I'm not sure those modern cases are particularly useful for comparison purposes, RJ.

One young female, no further details but only 'presumably' sleeping rough, and two males who could well have been the victims of bigotry or hate crime.

The 'five' we are concerned with here were all female, and when you add in the mutilations and organ removals, these murders - collectively - smack of something beyond prejudice against vagrancy.

For my money, part of the deal for the killer would have been in the actual overpowering of his victims. Can't really see him attacking spoilsports who were snoring soundly.

Love,

Caz
X

[Aelric]

Are these actual quotes?

Not really, but they are paraphrased and taken out of context. Maliciously out of context.

Screenshots taken from page two of the "Ripper victims were caught sleeping" thread, currently on page two of the General Victims Discussion board.

[Losmandris]

Hi Michael.

I posted an article on Howard Brown's site of a Victorian era woman, described as an 'unfortunate,' attacked while sleeping in an outhouse, so I'm not as certain as you are that it would be a million to one. If the Ripper was himself a derelict out at night, he had to take a piss as much as the next man.

I can appreciate people being skeptical about the Ripper finding a woman sleeping rough in the backyard of Hanbury Street; on the other hand, I've never been too keen on the idea of a middle-aged woman with one foot in the grave soliciting at 5.25 a.m. in the morning, ie., several hours after the pubs have closed down.

The evidence that she was soliciting comes from Elizabeth Long. If you are willing to ignore that evidence as dubious, Annie could just as easily have been followed by someone who watched her enter the passage.

I'm fine with accepting Long's evidence, but bear in mind that means the suspect was a foreigner over the age of 40.

How many people in these parts are willing to throw their preferred suspect in the rubbish bin on the strength of that evidence?

Cheers.

You make some very good points here RJ. Does make you wonder who would be a potential client? Someone who has been up all night or someone that has just woken up?

On another point from what I can recall from reading in Jack London and George Orwell. Poor people at the time, with no place to sleep tended to wander about all night, because they would often be moved on by the police if they tried to have a kip, then sleep during the day in parks etc, where they were less likely to get hassled or moved on.

Off all the places to find to sleep, the backyard of an accessible building would make sense from the perspective that you are less likely to be found by the police but I just don't see it where she was found, I would have thought it more likely she would have slept in the passageway inside. But of course I could be completely wrong and there is simply no way of knowing for sure.

[Losmandris]

There exists no profession where the credentialed professionals do not look down with complete disdain upon the amateurs.

Right now there is a boom in non-archaeologists doing archaeological work, especially with assistance from satellites. I believe a young girl discovered some ruins in South America by simply analyzing Google Maps images. I happen to be friends with a few PhD archaeologists on Facebook, and the awful things they said about this little girl were really unbelievable.

Completely standard human behavior.

So very true. Sadly. Its a real disservice for both the academics and the people they are critical of. Can't really see this changing anytime soon, will probably get worse especially if the amateurs are starting to step on even more toes. The academics will feel even more threatened.

[erobitha]

There exists no profession where the credentialed professionals do not look down with complete disdain upon the amateurs.

Right now there is a boom in non-archaeologists doing archaeological work, especially with assistance from satellites. I believe a young girl discovered some ruins in South America by simply analyzing Google Maps images. I happen to be friends with a few PhD archaeologists on Facebook, and the awful things they said about this little girl were really unbelievable.

Completely standard human behavior.

Remember it wasn’t law enforcement individuals who cracked the 50 year old Zodiac cypher, but keen amateurs with skills that the FBI didn’t have.

Don’t f**k with Cats on Netflix is a real-life example of how keen amateurs managed to be two steps ahead of the police in tracking down a murderer.

I never dismiss ‘amateurs’ as some actually may have the key to unlock the secrets others have struggled with for years.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Michael.

I posted an article on Howard Brown's site of a Victorian era woman, described as an 'unfortunate,' attacked while sleeping in an outhouse, so I'm not as certain as you are that it would be a million to one. If the Ripper was himself a derelict out at night, he had to take a piss as much as the next man.

I can appreciate people being skeptical about the Ripper finding a woman sleeping rough in the backyard of Hanbury Street; on the other hand, I've never been too keen on the idea of a middle-aged woman with one foot in the grave soliciting at 5.25 a.m. in the morning, ie., several hours after the pubs have closed down.

The evidence that she was soliciting comes from Elizabeth Long. If you are willing to ignore that evidence as dubious, Annie could just as easily have been followed by someone who watched her enter the passage.

I'm fine with accepting Long's evidence, but bear in mind that means the suspect was a foreigner over the age of 40.

How many people in these parts are willing to throw their preferred suspect in the rubbish bin on the strength of that evidence?

Cheers.

Wasn’t Chapman described as an ‘unfortunate’ by Tim Donovan?

[Damaso Marte]

I hear what you are saying but I think it is more than just getting 'wound up'. Yes, for a lot of people, including myself, this is an occasional hobby thing but there are a lot of people, who have worked really hard on research, writing books etc. Why is it that their opinions and research can either be dismissed or frowned upon because they are not an academic? It could apply to a whole range of other areas as well, not just this one. And for me, that's the point here I don't like some getting all snobby about history, its the kind of thing that can put people off.

Of course it is not life and death for you or me but it may feel like it a bit to someone, who is really passionate about a subject or has put in a hell of a lot of work into something to then have it disparaged, simply because they didn't have the right letters after their name.

There exists no profession where the credentialed professionals do not look down with complete disdain upon the amateurs.

Right now there is a boom in non-archaeologists doing archaeological work, especially with assistance from satellites. I believe a young girl discovered some ruins in South America by simply analyzing Google Maps images. I happen to be friends with a few PhD archaeologists on Facebook, and the awful things they said about this little girl were really unbelievable.

Completely standard human behavior.