A Victorian Apron Full of Questions...

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

And nobody is asking, did Jack wear a hat? Something goes wrong in a kill.
The lady fights.
You lose control... and your hat, a hat with a name tag, possibly, with blood stains possibly. Part of a uniform your boss won't be happy you've lost.
Yes, people wore hats back then more than they did not.
But would a serial killer?
Would Jack?
That's the first question which needs to be asked.

Hi BJ,

I'd be inclined to say "yes". Like DJA says, not wearing a hat would be more conspicuous. Anyway, regardless of that, your line of speculation is one that applies a controlled sense of reason in the killer, an attention to a minor detail that suggests an organised killer, a planner, but it's at odds with the far more real risks he was willing to take. 'What if his hat got knocked off?' What if she screamed? Or a burly neighbour just happened to be about? Dunno. There were very few aspects the killer actually had control of, so leaving his hat at home could be one of them.

I don't think it's the lynchpin of his identity anyhow. Every sighting involves a hat, so looking for hatless people is pointless by virtue of the fact there's no accounts to follow. Even if the idea that he didn't wear a hat was convincing, where does it get us? Discarding every eyewitness, so we're working with even less in an already barren field. Questions are there to be asked, but I don't think this one leads anywhere.

[MrBarnett]

And nobody is asking, did Jack wear a hat? Something goes wrong in a kill.
The lady fights.
You lose control... and your hat, a hat with a name tag, possibly, with blood stains possibly. Part of a uniform your boss won't be happy you've lost.
Yes, people wore hats back then more than they did not.
But would a serial killer?
Would Jack?
That's the first question which needs to be asked.

Pretty much every adult male wore a hat back then. A woman not wearing a hat was often taken as a sign that she was a prostitute.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Wouldn't wanna stand out by not wearing a hat

Okee dokee then.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Hi BJ,

I'd be inclined to say "yes". Like DJA says, not wearing a hat would be more conspicuous. Anyway, regardless of that, your line of speculation is one that applies a controlled sense of reason in the killer, an attention to a minor detail that suggests an organised killer, a planner, but it's at odds with the far more real risks he was willing to take. 'What if his hat got knocked off?' What if she screamed? Or a burly neighbour just happened to be about? Dunno. There were very few aspects the killer actually had control of, so leaving his hat at home could be one of them.

I don't think it's the lynchpin of his identity anyhow. Every sighting involves a hat, so looking for hatless people is pointless by virtue of the fact there's no accounts to follow. Even if the idea that he didn't wear a hat was convincing, where does it get us? Discarding every eyewitness, so we're working with even less in an already barren field. Questions are there to be asked, but I don't think this one leads anywhere.

But questioning accepted thought may have researchers think outside the box.

To assume what has been stated by witnesses as linking a hat clad man to Jack is a jump. These hat clad men dont have to be the last man these women came in contact with.

And a uniform hat would be even worse. Now the cops can narrow in on a particular type of workman. If that had been the case, we'd have evidence of a narrowing of the suspect field to that type of worker. We don't.

And as far as IDing Jack with any item or lack thereof today... well, nothing to date will get us closer. We are all entertaing mere possibles.

I just think that alternative thought has to play a role and all assumptions given a second look.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Pretty much every adult male wore a hat back then. A woman not wearing a hat was often taken as a sign that she was a prostitute.

Which makes it a curious case for Nichols... "Look what a jolly bonnet I have."

Maybe street rules were often broken.

[Fiver]

I just think that alternative thought has to play a role and all assumptions given a second look.

Agreed. Unfortunately, there are some very vocal people who are just fine with alternative thought, unless it conflicts with their theory. They try to adjust the facts to fit their theory instead of adjusting their theory to fit the facts. I'm especially wary of anyone who has published a book "proving" that somone is the Ripper.

A lot of people treat the Ripper killings as a whodunnit. In a whodunnit, we have a clear set of suspects. Times are precise unless someone is lying. Anything found is either a clue or a red herring. And a good whodunnit gives us all the information we need to solve the case.

Real crime doesn't work that way. In the Whitechapel murders, we don't even have a clear set of victims, let alone a clear set of suspects. Not everything found or everyone seen is a clue. Witness time estimates are approximate. Time of death estimates are even worse, as we know from modern forensics. I doubt that the killings will ever be solved.

At the same time, we can eliminate some suspects. Some were not in London for at least some of the killings. Others have alibis for at least some of the killings. A few were known killers, but their MOs were completely different.

[Fiver]

Pretty much every adult male wore a hat back then. A woman not wearing a hat was often taken as a sign that she was a prostitute.

Martha Tabram was wearing a black bonnet.
Polly Nichols had a black bonnet lying at her side, close to the left hand.
Elizabeth Stride had a black bonnet lying on the ground a few inches from the head.
Catherine Eddowes was wearing a black bonnet.

[DJA]

So,the murders were a fashion statement

[Fiver]

So,the murders were a fashion statement

"I am constantly surprised that women's hats do not provoke more murders." - Witness for the Prosecution