A Victorian Apron Full of Questions...

[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

[DJA]

So,the murders were a fashion statement

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Wouldn't wanna stand out by not wearing a hat

Okee dokee then.

[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.

[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.

[DJA]

Wouldn't wanna stand out by not wearing a hat

[BooksbyBJThompson]

Not all hats are caps.

A sailor hat looks nothing like a fisherman's cap.

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.

[BooksbyBJThompson]

And you know that how?

No serial killer is going to risk a kill on the way to work, on the route he takes every morning. Possible commuters like him to witnesse, possible blood stains, possible being late for work with bloody body parts in tow. Not happening. The Cross/Lechmere is a shining red herring.

[Abby Normal]

hi abby

devil’s advocate.

taking into consideration that the GSG was written by Jack the Ripper and exposes a [pro/anti]semitic motivation for his crimes… doesn’t that lead to a glaring contradiction?

if Jack the Ripper favors the Jews, then…
how would he rationalize his mutilations bolstering local Jewish sentiments when his murders are only going to incite violence and hate against the Jews (ala Chapman)?

if Jack the Ripper despises the Jews, then…
why target non-Jewish women to mutilate? Why not commit his crimes against Jews if they are the bane of his existence?

however…

so as not to come across as completely dismissive since I still find the GSG a relevant topic with regards to the case, the best answer that i can muster (for now) with regards to possible underlying Jewish motivations by Jack the Ripper is: that he took serious offense to [anglican/non-Jewish] women taking Jewish men for sexual clients (obviously, the list of offenses could run the gamut)

hi devil
the ripper killed and mutilated women because that was his fantasy amd what his serial killing was all about. the jewish stuff was just away to get back at all the jews that bothered him the night if the double event and confuse police.

[Robert St Devil]

the gsg disparages jews and what a coincidence... the ripper was seen, disturbed by several jews that night. one, schwartz, who abberline said looked very jewish.

hi abby

devil’s advocate.

taking into consideration that the GSG was written by Jack the Ripper and exposes a [pro/anti]semitic motivation for his crimes… doesn’t that lead to a glaring contradiction?

if Jack the Ripper favors the Jews, then…
how would he rationalize his mutilations bolstering local Jewish sentiments when his murders are only going to incite violence and hate against the Jews (ala Chapman)?

if Jack the Ripper despises the Jews, then…
why target non-Jewish women to mutilate? Why not commit his crimes against Jews if they are the bane of his existence?

however…

so as not to come across as completely dismissive since I still find the GSG a relevant topic with regards to the case, the best answer that i can muster (for now) with regards to possible underlying Jewish motivations by Jack the Ripper is: that he took serious offense to [anglican/non-Jewish] women taking Jewish men for sexual clients (obviously, the list of offenses could run the gamut)

[Abby Normal]

Yes, that is true, however, there's a different temperament between someone pumping with adrenaline after a kill, and a beaten man resigned to his fate in a jail cell.



And that's one of the problems. The writer was either blaming jews for an unknown offence or trying to set them up. We cannot say what he meant.

I wonder if the graffito was unfinished? We talk about the killer being interrupted with Nichols & Stride... but what if he'd also been disturbed in Goulston Street? That could explain why the writing was small enough to fit on two or three bricks? He had planned to write more below it.



Good point, Abby. Perhaps if Hutchinson was the killer he ruled if the graffito wouldn't do the trick he'd "identify" a jewish suspect and insert himself into the investigation at the same time? I'm not saying I subscribe to that belief but worth entertaining, no?

HI Harry
sorry for late response, just seeing this.

Yes, that is true, however, there's a different temperament between someone pumping with adrenaline after a kill, and a beaten man resigned to his fate in a jail cell.

Im not sure if the ripper was pumping with adrenaline after the eddowes kill or not, but if he was, then surely he was after the craziness of the stride kill (murdering a woman, being interupted by schwartz, yelling angrily etc.) and yet here he is moments later quietly chatting up Eddowes.

the rest of your posts comments and querries-yes definite posibilities-especially the last one re hutch!