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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[erobitha]

Impartial peer review my arse.

[Losmandris]

Ouch!

[MrBarnett]

Touché!

[Losmandris]

Does anyone on here buy into that trope? Really?

[MrBarnett]

Does anyone on here buy into that trope? Really?

The likes of ‘Dr’ Bleakley obviously do.

[Losmandris]

They really do live in their own world!

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Impartial peer review my arse.

I thought we were a Qanon style denialism? I thought that was the whole point of Ripperology? That's why I got into it in the first place. Bollocks. It's off to old man Menges office for me again. Jesus, it was easier when the Freemasons were in charge, you knew where you stood.

[rjpalmer]

The likes of ‘Dr’ Bleakley obviously do.

And yet on this very thread, we have someone writing that the Ripper "got lucky" when he picked up Mary Kelly.

Thus stressing the victim's supposed carnality. One has seen this comment made on these message boards many times over the years, always by a male poster. "The Ripper hit the jackpot" when he found Mary Kelly.

Can't you see why it might cause a feminist, or really any thinking person, to squirm?

Not only is it insensitive, I think it is very likely to be psychologically wrong.

But lust is his motive, wise men keep telling me.

[MrBarnett]

And yet on this very thread, we have someone writing that the Ripper "got lucky" when he picked up Mary Kelly.

Thus stressing the victim's supposed carnality. One has seen this comment made on these message boards many times over the years, always by a male poster. "The Ripper hit the jackpot" when he found Mary Kelly.

Can't you see why it might cause a feminist, or really any thinking person, to squirm?

Not only is it insensitive, I think it is very likely to be psychologically wrong.

But lust is his motive, wise men keep telling me.

Surely the ‘got lucky’ comment refers to Kelly taking the Ripper back to her room, providing him with the opportunity to spend more time on her mutilation.

You’ll excuse me if I don’t take your comment that no woman has ever made a ‘Ripper hit the jackpot’ type comment seriously. I’m willing to bet you have only read a fraction of the posts made by women. Which sadly puts you on a par with HR and her acolytes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s been suggested that we should just give up and ignore what’s happening. This is probably good advice because the trend is set. The impetus is with the prophets of Political Correctness. I genuinely hate to imagine what society will be like in 50 years time. Massive changes are easy to oppose but it’s the insidious, incremental ones that are the hardest to overcome. We just surrender a bit here and there. Then a bit more..... The internet makes this mission easy and the tactics are obvious. They are the ones used by Rubenhold and her supporters. Decide on the agenda. Isolate those that disagree. Insult them, demonise them and give them a name (ending in ..ist or phobe) then people (who are far more worried about being called names than giving an honest opinion) start to disassociate themselves. Then they can distort what they like and it’s game over and on to the next.

Mentioning Orwell is a cliche of course but it’s valid IMO. I’m glad that I won’t be around when opinions are prescribed. When history books are redacted or revised by dangerous idiots with agendas. Lawrence Fox is right. I wish him luck because he’s going to need it.

[Abby Normal]

And yet on this very thread, we have someone writing that the Ripper "got lucky" when he picked up Mary Kelly.

Thus stressing the victim's supposed carnality. One has seen this comment made on these message boards many times over the years, always by a male poster. "The Ripper hit the jackpot" when he found Mary Kelly.

Can't you see why it might cause a feminist, or really any thinking person, to squirm?

Not only is it insensitive, I think it is very likely to be psychologically wrong.

But lust is his motive, wise men keep telling me.

hi rj
i think the got lucky refers to mary kelly having her own room. however, if anyone meant it as in because she was attractive, then i totally agree with you... it is squirm (or cringe) worthy.