"Down On Whores"

[Callie]

Good evening Gentlemen,

I’m the neophyte of the group so I’m not sure I can really add anything of significance to the conversation but for what it’s worth I do think Jack chose his victims because they were available to him. I think at the time(s )of night that he killed his victims there weren’t many young/old/infirmed out and wandering the streets. But for the sake of argument let’s say there were, they would probably be very wary of any one (especially a man) who approached them especially after the murders became headline news. Whereas due to the victims “occupations” they would not only be open to a man approaching them but they would encourage it. The very nature of their jobs gave Jack the opportunity to get close enough to attack them.

Without knowing Jack’s background it is hard to definitively answer if he chose them because they were whores, drunks or he was just a misogynist. It very well could be some combination thereof. I do think the killing of the victims wasn’t Jack’s main focus per say, I think the mutilations were and their deaths were just the outcome.

[Bridewell]

Good evening Gentlemen,

I’m the neophyte of the group so I’m not sure I can really add anything of significance to the conversation but for what it’s worth I do think Jack chose his victims because they were available to him. I think at the time(s )of night that he killed his victims there weren’t many young/old/infirmed out and wandering the streets. But for the sake of argument let’s say there were, they would probably be very wary of any one (especially a man) who approached them especially after the murders became headline news. Whereas due to the victims “occupations” they would not only be open to a man approaching them but they would encourage it. The very nature of their jobs gave Jack the opportunity to get close enough to attack them.

Without knowing Jack’s background it is hard to definitively answer if he chose them because they were whores, drunks or he was just a misogynist. It very well could be some combination thereof. I do think the killing of the victims wasn’t Jack’s main focus per say, I think the mutilations were and their deaths were just the outcome.

Hi, Callie,

This pretty much reflects my own view at this moment in time. I agree with you - and with Hunter.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Garry Wroe]

I think Jack wanted to specifically kill what he saw as ugly useless prostitutes. But others might suggest that he specifically went after older women who would pose less of a physical threat than their younger counterparts.

Personally, Tom, I think that the killer minimized the risk of being seen, interrupted or caught red-handed by restricting his forays to the small hours when the streets were largely deserted of human traffic. Thus, just about the only potential victim he would encounter was the older, less desirable type of woman desperate to earn her doss. In other words, he didn't specifically seek out such women - which goes some way to explaining his tactical shift when killing the younger and far more attractive Mary Kelly.

[Sally]

This pretty much reflects my own view at this moment in time. I agree with you - and with Hunter.

Hmm. This is a conundrum, isn't it?

On the one hand, it appears that 'Jack's' ultimate goal was to eviscerate; and that being the case, it was what was inside women that interested him rather than the women themselves. This is perhaps borne out by the manner in which he despatched his victims - it looks highly impersonal; as though they themselves were more of an obstacle to his goal than anything else.

So yes, the fact that they were prostitutes may simply have been due to their availability - although some question regarding Kelly, perhaps?

On the other hand, if he was a misogynist, doing in prostitutes would be an obvious course of action. They were a great social evil in contemporary terms, after all, so he might well have felt quite justified in disposing of them - perhaps as a woman-hater he hated whores most of all?

So on those grounds, he may have targetted prostitutes because of negative association.

Ah, but was he a misogynist?

[Hunter]

"The removal of the uterus was specific and intentional."

Certainly true in Annie's case.

Hi Lynn,
It was true in every case this specific organ was removed.

On the other hand, if he was a misogynist, doing in prostitutes would be an obvious course of action. They were a great social evil in contemporary terms, after all, so he might well have felt quite justified in disposing of them - perhaps as a woman-hater he hated whores most of all?

Hi Sally,
You may be right, but I believe disposing of them was a means to an end and not and end to a means.

[lynn cates]

Dr. Sequeira

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"It was true in every case this specific organ was removed."

Could be.

However:

"I have formed the opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ." [Dr. GW Sequeira in Evans and Skinner, "Ultimate Companion" p. 226.]

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi Lynn,

"I have formed the opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ." [Dr. GW Sequeira in Evans and Skinner, "Ultimate Companion" p. 226.]

I would usually answer that - and there is an explanation - but since I devoted about two years on an article that should soon be in the NIR which includes this topic, I'll refrain from an answer at this time.

[lynn cates]

future

Hello Cris. Thanks.

In which case I look forward to your article.

Cheers.
LC

[SarahLee]

What about the spreading of the victims' legs? That could conceivably be understood in connection with a hostility toward prostitutes.

That's certainly a possible interpretation of it, but I don't think that there's any chance at all of us completely understanding what was going through his mind at the time so it's dangerous to read too much into it.

It could equally be construed to be a reference to childbirth . . . or have no meaning at all and just be a convenient way of positioning the body to meet his aims.

And... how many men in the LVP would have known what and where the uterus was?

I'm not sure Hunter, but I think it might be more than men today.
They may not have understood the complete functioning of it, or known the anatomical name but I think men of that period would be more familiar and hands on with internal organs than those today.

Any of them who had the need to prepare their own food and who might be lucky enough to afford or acquire fresh meat would very likely be familiar with bringing home a whole rabbit or chicken and the process required to gut it - and by extension I'd guess that they'd recognise those organs which differ between male and female.

My grandmother was born in 1904 and as late as the 1980s I have memories of her hanging whole rabbits in the pantry - and of watching her skin and gut them.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Sarah

I agree wholly with the first half of your post...

As regards the second though, therein lies the rub...it was your grandmother and not your grandfather...I'm not saying it was universally true, but I suspect all those aspects of food preparation would generally be seen as woman's work rather than mens...certainly, in things culinary, my own grandmother tended not to trust men with anything more complex than shucking peas!

All the best

Dave

[SarahLee]

Shucking peas? Your grandmother was more trusting than mine - she wouldn't let anyone loose in her kitchen

I really don't know if that was the norm - my grandfather had passed away before I was born, so no idea whether he would have had the honour of both catching the rabbits and gutting them if he'd still been around. On reflection you could well be right though.

[Cogidubnus]

I suspect not too many wild rabbits to catch and gut in Whitechapel...though Issenschmidt seemed to find plenty of livestock I suppose!

Dave

[SarahLee]

Are you trying to shatter my illusions about fluffy bunnies running around the streets of Whitechapel?

I'd suspect that it was one of the cheaper available meats though, due to the relative ease of acquiring it compared to meats that need to be farmed - and probably no shortage of people willing to bring it into London to sell. If you were buying at the cheaper end of the market I can't imagine it coming ready skinned and prepared for you, but the more I think about it the more I think you're right about it being "women's work".

Just as a point of interest, I'll have to have a hunt around and see what I can turn up on Victorian rabbit recipes - if nothing else it may reignite some childhood memories of my grandmother's old recipes. (I know that she just missed out on being born in the Victorian period, but it was her grandmother who taught her to cook and I don't think she changed many of those dishes)

[Bridewell]

Hi All,

Just an additional query which suggests itself. If he killed because he was "down on whores" or "down on women" generally, why take a kidney, which is an organ common to both genders? The uterus I can (sort of) understand, but not a kidney, unless he has some specific purpose in mind.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Good point Colin...

Dave