What 5 Questions Would You Like Answered?

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dave,

How do I propose to solve the mystery at this distance in time?

By refusing to believe all the BS we've swallowed over the past 125 years.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon...thought that might be the nature of your answer...and of course actually you're quite right - go ahead and disbelieve all the BS you like and I'm sure it'll get you there in the end!

Every good wish

Dave

[DVV]

But to be honest, by all accounts Kelly was also hooking at the time- the only question is if she had quit for the night and gone to sleep. There is a reasonable question about Eddowes- but she had gotten drunk SOMEHOW earlier and that required money. The only one (of the McN 5- Tabram is definitely on the game that night) that you could really make a case for NOT soliciting at the time of her murder (or shortly before) is Stride, and frankly that's just reasonable doubt.

I was on a jury once for a prostitution case and according to the evidence, there was NO question that she was a prostitute: the question we had to decide on was whether she was soliciting at that time or just asking for a ride (from an undercover cop). We decided based on her usual routine and what the cop actually reported there was no sexual request made, and that she just wanted to get home out of the rain at that hour. Reasonable doubt. [Again, I'm not an expert on LVP jury instruction.]

Agreed. Excellent post.
Stride was in Berner Street at night. (I'm fed up to point out the reputation of Berner Street.)
I'm also tired of those who ask : "show your evidence that she was soliciting!" (I don't think of Mike here, rather Lynn).

What a stupid challenge.

When women are soliciting, they don't register : "I, the undersigned bLiz Stride, will solicit tonight in Berner Street until I get my throat cut..."

Mouarff... Cheers

[C. F. Leon]

The names in bold were soliciting as I stated David, but there are plenty of possible answers for your questions about Kate, and Liz, that do not include solicitation...based solely on the evidence. Remember....the police speculated early that they thought Kate may have been at a pre-set meeting, not trawling for strangers,...and the physical and circumstantial evidence in the Stride case does not portray a woman actively soliciting right up until the last legitimized sighting of her...at 12:35am, by PC Smith.

If we assume that by being on the streets at night all single woman must have been prostituting themselves, then why dont we have any Ripper victims who were out at night but had no known history of solicitation? How would a killer know who was soliciting and who was merely homeless...or just on their way to somewhere? How is it that all the victims had at some point at least been casual or full time prostitutes? Isnt that their connective thread? Isnt that an element of the killers profile....that he supposedly chooses women actively seeking clients?

I believe its that supposed connective thread that has allowed these ill-fitting individual murders to be grouped together. Since they all had that element in their background at some point, it must have been a part of the killers victim selection process.

Perhaps, IF one man killed them all. In truth though, many, many women in the East End at that time had similar backgrounds, ...had one man killed any 5 women out at night they would have likely have had that "Unfortunate experience" in common. So this unique connective "thread" within the Group is nothing of the sort...it could have connected any number of women in that area at the time. Including women, who in the Fall of 1888, did not want or need to resort to solicitation. In other words....if someone killed any 5 women out at night alone in the relevant time period youll likely find some trace of "Unfortunate" behavior in their past to "connect" them, but that doesnt mean that they all would have actively been so engaged.

In these cases, we only know that 2 were when they meet their killer. The assumptions about the rest are just that, and its reasonable to speculate that the man that killed Polly and Annie specifically sought out women who were actively soliciting.

Hope that makes sense to you....

Cheers

But to be honest, by all accounts Kelly was also hooking at the time- the only question is if she had quit for the night and gone to sleep. If you accept Nichols, you have to accept Kelly- the same reasoning applies to both. There is a reasonable question about Eddowes- but she had gotten drunk SOMEHOW earlier and that required money. The only one (of the McN 5- Tabram is definitely on the game that night) that you could really make a case for NOT soliciting at the time of her murder (or shortly before) is Stride, and frankly that's just reasonable doubt. So, the actual count is: 2 probably hooking at the time (Nichols, Chapman), 2 probably but not proved (Eddowes, Kelly), and one reasonable doubt (Stride). (Frankly, you could argue either way for any of them, non-McN 5 included.)

The actual LEGAL case of course is different: I was on a jury once for a prostitution case and according to the evidence, there was NO question that she was a prostitute: the question we had to decide on was whether she was soliciting at that time or just asking for a ride (from an undercover cop). We decided based on her usual routine and what the cop actually reported there was no sexual request made, and that she just wanted to get home out of the rain at that hour. Reasonable doubt. [Again, I'm not an expert on LVP jury instruction.]

[DVV]

I agree. Broad Shoulders are hard to swallow.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

How do I propose to solve the mystery at this distance in time?

By refusing to believe all the BS we've swallowed over the past 125 years.

Regards,

Simon

[Michael W Richards]

Casual prostitutes killed on the streets at night... ?
And we don't have the proof they were soliciting ?
Very well, but then, it's rather your job to prove they were not.
What was Nichols doing ?
And Chapman ?
Why didn't Eddowes come backstraight to her lodging ?
And wasn't Berner Street famous for its "actively soliciting" prostitutes ?
The case of MJK, I concede, is more problematic: she's been killed in her bed. Perhaps while she was actively sleeping.

Cheers Mike

The names in bold were soliciting as I stated David, but there are plenty of possible answers for your questions about Kate, and Liz, that do not include solicitation...based solely on the evidence. Remember....the police speculated early that they thought Kate may have been at a pre-set meeting, not trawling for strangers,...and the physical and circumstantial evidence in the Stride case does not portray a woman actively soliciting right up until the last legitimized sighting of her...at 12:35am, by PC Smith.

If we assume that by being on the streets at night all single woman must have been prostituting themselves, then why dont we have any Ripper victims who were out at night but had no known history of solicitation? How would a killer know who was soliciting and who was merely homeless...or just on their way to somewhere? How is it that all the victims had at some point at least been casual or full time prostitutes? Isnt that their connective thread? Isnt that an element of the killers profile....that he supposedly chooses women actively seeking clients?

I believe its that supposed connective thread that has allowed these ill-fitting individual murders to be grouped together. Since they all had that element in their background at some point, it must have been a part of the killers victim selection process.

Perhaps, IF one man killed them all. In truth though, many, many women in the East End at that time had similar backgrounds, ...had one man killed any 5 women out at night they would have likely have had that "Unfortunate experience" in common. So this unique connective "thread" within the Group is nothing of the sort...it could have connected any number of women in that area at the time. Including women, who in the Fall of 1888, did not want or need to resort to solicitation. In other words....if someone killed any 5 women out at night alone in the relevant time period youll likely find some trace of "Unfortunate" behavior in their past to "connect" them, but that doesnt mean that they all would have actively been so engaged.

In these cases, we only know that 2 were when they meet their killer. The assumptions about the rest are just that, and its reasonable to speculate that the man that killed Polly and Annie specifically sought out women who were actively soliciting.

Hope that makes sense to you....

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Simon!

Hi All,

One more question.

How many of you are committed to solving the mystery of the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

At least four.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

I'm one of those folk who believe that we're probably never going to track down the killer...there are simply too many folk crammed into a small area, most of whom we've never heard of, and never will.

That said, I'd be delighted to be proved wrong.

My interest in the case, if the truth be known, is down to (a) a family connection with the area...virtually all my mother's antecedents were there...
and (b) an general interest in history...

I'd be happy enough just to know as much about the case, the area, the times, the mores and the background as possible...It's a wonderful diversion from the harsh realities of life too.

Is that so outlandish? And if so, just how do you propose to solve the mystery at this distance in time?

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

Hi DVV,

Surely, by now, you must have come to a decision about whether you're committed to solving the mystery, or merely content to spin your wheels for all eternity avoiding the issue.

Regards,

Simon

Of course, Simon. But how can one poster answer you about the others ?

I myself am so committed to solving the mystery that I'm dead sure I've solved it.

I know, it's worse.

[Simon Wood]

Hi DVV,

Surely, by now, you must have come to a decision about whether you're committed to solving the mystery, or merely content to spin your wheels for all eternity avoiding the issue.

Regards,

Simon

[C. F. Leon]

I did a lot of D&D-style gaming when I was younger and as a GM (gamemaster) my mentor's rules included:

1) The Gamemaster is God, whatever you may name Him.

2) God is bribable: inquire as to rates. God does NOT take cash, and it is tacky to offer such. Chocolate, pizza or beer is preferred.

3) The game is a learning experience- God is NOT going to GIVE you the answers because you are too lazy to find things out yourself. However, God will give you clues as to the direction to find the answers- especially if you insist on going down blind alleys or dead ends.

Under this system we really learned how to ask questions to get the most information.

So, my questions would be:

1) Is the identity of what we call "JtR" or "The Whitechapel Killer" (or killers) still discoverable with surviving material, whether it is know to the public or not? Where should we look? Has any published author (as opposed to someone writting in private correspondence or a diary) hit upon the right answer or even reasonably close? [Both are basically the same question.]

2) Are there any more photographs of the victims or witnesses (or Abberline) to be discovered? [follow-ons would be asking about individuals]

3) Is there any evidence as to Mary Kelly's real identity in existence? Where should we look?

4) What was the actual wording of the GSG? If the writing was illegible, what did the writer INTEND to say? (We actually had something like this in a game: There was a note written by a character, and the GM had to write it and show it to us. However, his handwriting was bad and we argued that the NPC would not have been writing with a ball-point pen running out of ink.) Was it connected with the killing/-s?
[I'm kind of uncomfortable on this one: it's technically 2 questions and we want both parts, but they are not directly connected. I probably need to work on the phrasing a bit more.]

[DVV]

How can [I]we[/I] know that, Simon ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

One more question.

How many of you are committed to solving the mystery of the Whitechapel murders?

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Adieu

Oh, Mike... are you definitely leaving the boards again ?

[DVV]

Casual prostitutes killed on the streets at night... ?
And we don't have the proof they were soliciting ?
Very well, but then, it's rather your job to prove they were not.
What was Nichols doing ?
And Chapman ?
Why didn't Eddowes come back straight to her lodging ?
And wasn't Berner Street famous for its "actively soliciting" prostitutes ?
The case of MJK, I concede, is more problematic: she's been killed in bed. Perhaps while actively sleeping.

Cheers Mike