Was Jack enraged by watching soliciting

[Robert]

Fish, I think we're at Cross purposes there.

[GregBaron]

Untoward subject...

Seminal fluid does not survive long in the stomach. A couple of minutes, tops. It's possible that some of it could have survived in the mouth, but the technology of the time did not afford a way to find it. I assume these doctors weren't idiots. There are secondary indicators of oral sex having taken place, most notably dirt on the knees of the skirt and small splits in the corners of the lips. Neither are noted. To be brutally frank (as if I hadn't been before this) prostitutes who engaged in oral sex made significantly more money than those who did not. Men paid more for it because it was considered "foreign". Nichols may have done this, given her statement about having had her doss money several times over in a single night. But a good many streetwalkers did not engage in that act.

Prostitutes cleaned up after each client, so it's not surprising that there was no seminal fluid on the thighs. Any other place it might have been would have been swimming with blood, and there was no way to find it after that in that era. It would not have survived in the stomach, and the throat and vagina would have been contaminated with blood. I don't think there was any doubt that at least a few of these women had sex the night they died. I think they were looking for evidence that the killer had sex with them. Which would mean they would not have been able to clean up. Evidently the killer did not engage in vaginal sex with these women, and likely not oral sex either. Which didn't mean that the killer didn't have sexual contact with them. He just didn't do in any fashion that a coroner would have recognized as sex.

None of this means that the killer either did or didn't solicit them, or did or didn't follow them. It just means that if he stalked them, he waited for them to wipe themselves off first. Which if he found their behavior so disgusting, isn't that surprising.

Excellent Errata. I must say I often wonder where you acquire your strange, esoteric knowledge. If it was the 17th century I'd accuse you of witchcraft...

With that said, I do wonder the nature of the sexual liaisons indulged in by our victims and their seedy punters...? I know some out here don't believe they participated in oral sex, I suppose due to Victorian prudery, although this may be a naive thought. Also, most people were probably filthy even though I doubt hygiene was a critical factor....And let's face it - their clothing didn't make for easy access....perhaps manual sex was a cheap and relatively less messy option......This is the type of knowledge that is most difficult to obtain because the only ones who knew were the participants(and perhaps voyeurs) and very few of them wrote books.......It's also unlikely this sort of information was passed through the oral tradition (no pun intended). Unfortunately, I do think a bit of knowledge here is relevant to figuring out the particulars of Jack's methods.....



Greg

[Fisherman]

Robert:

"I do think you have something inasmuch as IF he was motivated by hatred of prostitutes, that hatred would have increased with time."

Any chance the hatred would have peaked after 38 and a half years?

The best,
Fisherman

[Robert]

Hi Richard

I do think you have something inasmuch as IF he was motivated by hatred of prostitutes, that hatred would have increased with time. He'd have enjoyed the feeling that he was forcing some of them off the streets, to cower in fear indoors. The ones who remained would have angered him. He'd have viewed their presence as a piece of impudence and a challenge to him. They would have to be taught a lesson.

[Errata]

Thanks for the reply Richard,

Can I assume you're referring to the non-vaginal intercourse theory? It is, admittedly, difficult to categorically refute. The central idea, I believe, is that the most common form of intercourse was oral. There would not, therefore, be any seminal fluid in the reproductive tract.

The problem with the theory is that it relies heavily on the idea that the doctors were prudish Victorian gentry who were unaware of any other forms of intercourse. Most of the doctors involved were, in fact, Police Surgeons, and, more importantly, local to the area. I think it's reasonable to assume they knew what to look for, and where. The digestive tracts seem to have been analyzed in the surviving post mortem records, and no mention is made of, presumably fresh, seminal fluid.

Seminal fluid does not survive long in the stomach. A couple of minutes, tops. It's possible that some of it could have survived in the mouth, but the technology of the time did not afford a way to find it. I assume these doctors weren't idiots. There are secondary indicators of oral sex having taken place, most notably dirt on the knees of the skirt and small splits in the corners of the lips. Neither are noted. To be brutally frank (as if I hadn't been before this) prostitutes who engaged in oral sex made significantly more money than those who did not. Men paid more for it because it was considered "foreign". Nichols may have done this, given her statement about having had her doss money several times over in a single night. But a good many streetwalkers did not engage in that act.

Prostitutes cleaned up after each client, so it's not surprising that there was no seminal fluid on the thighs. Any other place it might have been would have been swimming with blood, and there was no way to find it after that in that era. It would not have survived in the stomach, and the throat and vagina would have been contaminated with blood. I don't think there was any doubt that at least a few of these women had sex the night they died. I think they were looking for evidence that the killer had sex with them. Which would mean they would not have been able to clean up. Evidently the killer did not engage in vaginal sex with these women, and likely not oral sex either. Which didn't mean that the killer didn't have sexual contact with them. He just didn't do in any fashion that a coroner would have recognized as sex.

None of this means that the killer either did or didn't solicit them, or did or didn't follow them. It just means that if he stalked them, he waited for them to wipe themselves off first. Which if he found their behavior so disgusting, isn't that surprising.

[Errata]

The demon drink was going to be my reason to ask Phil his thoughts on Pollys' bonnet, given the general impression that as soon as these women had any money they went straight to the pub.
However, a bit of retail therapy to cheer yourself up is an extremely good and very human explanation,and ultimately rather moving.
Apart from Polly, is there any clear evidence that the other victims were obviously drunk? in drink certainly,but falling down drunk?
It's far too subjective though isnt it? what I did think based on one of Peter Sutcliffes earliest murders is that drink can cause aggressive behaviour in some people and maybe Jacks victims were stroppy,insulting and said or did something that pushed him over the edge,although in Anne Chapmans case,Long and Cadoschs' evidence doesnt support that.
All the best.

One of the things to remember about these women drinking it that was not strictly vice. The water in Whitechapel was not good to drink. I mean you could and did if you had no other option, but it was pretty nasty stuff. They couldn't afford juice, rarely could afford milk. So gin and beer were not just intoxicants. They were thirst quenchers. So not only did everyone have a pretty high tolerance, the presence of alcohol didn't necessarily mean anything. This doesn't mean that these women were not alcoholics, certain statements indicate that at least two probably were. But it doesn't mean that they were all alcoholics.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Kensei,
Obviously a good point, but considering the time frame , a 'quickie might have led him to believe that she was not far away, hence the back door leading to the garden would have at least been a educated guess.
Regards Richard.

[Disco Stu]

Thanks for the reply Richard,

Can I assume you're referring to the non-vaginal intercourse theory? It is, admittedly, difficult to categorically refute. The central idea, I believe, is that the most common form of intercourse was oral. There would not, therefore, be any seminal fluid in the reproductive tract.

The problem with the theory is that it relies heavily on the idea that the doctors were prudish Victorian gentry who were unaware of any other forms of intercourse. Most of the doctors involved were, in fact, Police Surgeons, and, more importantly, local to the area. I think it's reasonable to assume they knew what to look for, and where. The digestive tracts seem to have been analyzed in the surviving post mortem records, and no mention is made of, presumably fresh, seminal fluid.

Whether the theoretical suspect saw the act, or simply the solicitation prior, the lack of evidence for recent connection is a major problem for the theory. Unless the killer was on the spot at the time, it's difficult to put forward a "rage killer".

In saying all this, I'm trying to be constructively critical rather than argumentative. It's great that you've put forward a theory and I'd rather see it fleshed out with answers than shoot it down.

[kensei]

In the case of Annie Chapman, if Jack was watching her from a distance and saw her enter #29 Hanbury St., then it seems to me he would have assumed Annie had some connection to that house, not that she was sneaking through a house occupied by strangers to gain entrance to their back yard. If he was waiting for both her and her customer to emerge, but only the man did, I see no reason why he would suspect Annie of being in the back yard and find it highly unlikely that he would have just walked into this strange house to search for her room to room and then eventually found her in the yard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Disco Stu,
I was never suggesting that the killer watched any sexual activity take place, just his own image of what soliciting involved.
In Tabram's case[ if indeed a Ripper event] she went into George yard buildings with somebody, killer or not,. to engage.
Nichols appeared to have taken a long time to have walked down Whitechapel high street, before entering Brady street, and on to Bucks row, plenty of time to attract custom, and be witnessed.
Chapman was seen to be in the process of entering number 29, again to a observer , the act was nigh
Stride appeared to have been some time in Berner street , with at least one man, and her intentions to a observer would have been apparent.
Eddowes also in church passage was to a observer being friendly[ I did explain that it may have been a no no on her part]
And MJK, was clearly to a observer intending to pick up .
None of this implies that such a person witnessed the act, just the actions only implied
As for evidence of sexual contact, it does not mean that none took place, just overlooked, and there are many reasons for that.
Regards Richard.

[Disco Stu]

Weren't the medicos of the opinion that, "no recent connection", had occurred? Given the murders of 7th and 30th September have such short time-frames, how does the theory explain the killer watching the victims having intercourse, when there's no evidence of intercourse having just occurred?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Abby,
I am not suggesting that he ventured out every night /morning with a huge knife in his pocket, although not impossible.
Many serial killers actually plan the days they set out to kill, we already have the dates of similar pattern in the Ripper murders, my thirty nine theory outlines that rather well.
The term ''enraged'' may be a trifle out of context, how about incensed, he may have had religious mania, 'You will say anything but your prayers'' could relate to that.
To witness women solicit themselves on the streets, for money may have triggered a urge to punish that was beyond his control.
As for a secluded position.
Tabram was off the streets, Nichols may have been followed into the dingy Bucks row, Chapman was already in a backyard, Eddowes could have ventured herself into Mitre square, to get away from a over amorous sailor boy, Stride was inches away from a dark yard, and Kelly had her own room, and possibly a unlocked door.
I would not class it, as a classic crime of passion, unless we interpret Mary Kelly as quite different.
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

Hi,
When one talks of Jack the Ripper, visions of him approaching prostitutes as a punter appear, however was this the actual case?
Was Jack enraged by the act of soliciting, was the anger fuelled by seeing these women accost men?
In the case of Tabram, we know that she and Pearly Poll, flaunted themselves with soldiers, and we know that Martha went off with one of them .
I ask the question ..did her killer wait until she was alone before moving in , actually entering George yard buildings finding the tired and drunken Tabram on the first floor landing.
In the case of Nichols, we know there is a time discrepancy between the time she was seen by Emily Holland , and her death in Bucks Row, which could indicate ample time for her to attempt to attract a punter, especially with the ''jolly bonnet''
Did Jack observe such a scene, and follow her , possibly accosting her in Brady street,
In the case of Chapman, we have the perfect case of possibly a ''watcher'', it is entirely possibly by the time frame, that Mrs Long saw Chapman and a punter about to enter the yard, and entirely possible that he left the passage into Hanbury street, leaving the exhausted Annie sitting against the fence, and Jack moved in , and the ''No'' and thud was heard.
In the case of Stride we have the whole evening of apparent soliciting, leaving the ''Brickmakers arms''. the scenes in Berner street, and the loitering outside the club..
Was Jack ''Broad shoulders'' or the loitering pipeman..both strong candidates.?
In Kate Eddowes, once more we have the apparent solicit in church passage, the hand on chest, which could indicate a ''back off, as well as a sign of affection,if the former then it is possible that the sailor type walked off , and the Ripper followed her into Mitre square..
In the case of Mary Kelly, we have her apparently on the pick up on the eve of the 8TH, seen with a young man, also we have Hutchinson's account, even Mrs Maxwell's porter at 845am on the 9TH.
We could have the same observer scenario present here also..
I feel that the stalker option , is an alternative to the punter approach that most of us adhere to..
The rough abusive killer is my idea of ''Jack''
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard
I highly doubt it. First of all, most serial killers deepest motivation comes from the pleasure they derive (or urges released) from their acts. For JtR it was what he could do to a woman with a knife-murder, mutilation,extracting organs. Anger at them solicitating(for being whores basically)may be a superficial reason that some serial killers may give as a reason to justify there actions but i think most experts would agree the true motivation is deeper than that.

Secondly, timing (and logistics)is an issue. JtR was in and out of there in the nick of time and i just dont see this jibing with someone who is going to have to see a women solicitating and/or completing an act with another man, then being able to get to her right after the first man leaves and with her still in the secluded location.

Thirdly-planning. Is the killer in your scenario venturing out evry night with a sharp knife in his pocket in the chance that he knows he might be enraged by seeing a women solicitating? Is he planning on being enraged? How do you plan on a crime of passion? It does not compute.

[Cogidubnus]

Apart from Polly, is there any clear evidence that the other victims were obviously drunk? in drink certainly,but falling down drunk?

Well I would contend that Eddowes couldn't have been entirely sobered up, and at Dorset Street witnesses suggest that Kelly was pretty far gone...and that was before she and blotchy polished off the beer...so the former possibly still tottering a little and the latter maybe somewhat more horizontal than that...

All the best

Dave

[martin wilson]

The demon drink was going to be my reason to ask Phil his thoughts on Pollys' bonnet, given the general impression that as soon as these women had any money they went straight to the pub.
However, a bit of retail therapy to cheer yourself up is an extremely good and very human explanation,and ultimately rather moving.
Apart from Polly, is there any clear evidence that the other victims were obviously drunk? in drink certainly,but falling down drunk?
It's far too subjective though isnt it? what I did think based on one of Peter Sutcliffes earliest murders is that drink can cause aggressive behaviour in some people and maybe Jacks victims were stroppy,insulting and said or did something that pushed him over the edge,although in Anne Chapmans case,Long and Cadoschs' evidence doesnt support that.
All the best.