What's your profile for Jack?

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Oh, and the best question... What the hell was she doing out on the street, footpath, after Midnight? One long date? Or waiting to clean? Soliciting? If no club member was involved in what happened to her, and she was there to clean, then it might appear a little ludicrous the notion of the club fabricating a scenario to "protect themselves". Kinda whimpy anarchists to tuck tail at a fine opportunity such as that anyways.

[lynn cates]

a few points

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"If it looks like a rose. . ."

Or was it a geranium? Perhaps a dahlia? And the fern--maidenhair or asparagus? See what I mean?

"There is evidence to support the fact she had prostituted before."

Yes, aged 16 and in Sweden. When I was 16 I was very anti-intellectual--posh toffs, not down to earth.

"Not sure cleaning alone would be sufficient to support her if she was in the clutches of a binge portion of a cycle."

Do we know she was a binge drinker?

"We are not certain of the specifics of anything other than a woman was out late on the street possibly seen with multiple men that evening."

Indeed. So why not suspend at that point, or perhaps do a double flow chart?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the question

Hello (again) DLDW.

"What the hell was she doing out on the street, footpath, after Midnight?

Now THAT is the question.

1. One long date?

A. With whom? And why so late?

2. Waiting to clean?

A. Wearing a flower?

3. Soliciting?

A. Poor place to do it.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Well it would seem that the relevant question would be is it a requirement that the woman be a prostitute in order for her to have been a victim of Jack the Ripper? I see no reason why that answer has to be yes. As has been pointed out (and a nice job on that, too) all that was really required was that the victims be available.

c.d.

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. Not a bad idea. We could USE some fresh thinking.

What about no JTR? How's that for fresh?

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn. I've seen you use the phrase "no JtR" several times. Can you define that? That each murdered woman had a different killer? I'm sure you've spelled it out elsewhere, but I'd appreciate hearing your views. Thanks.

PDS

[lynn cates]

result

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Well it would seem that the relevant question would be is it a requirement that the woman be a prostitute in order for her to have been a victim of Jack the Ripper? I see no reason why that answer has to be yes. As has been pointed out (and a nice job on that, too) all that was really required was that the victims be available."

Quite. So perhaps we should cease the talk about prostitution? Delighted so to do.

Of course, in our next discussion of "JTR" there could be no intelligent talk about victimology.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

wandering lunatic

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

I have no doubt that Polly and Annie were killed by the same hand. Both were soliciting, both were strangled, both had deep parallel cuts to the neck.

I think they were killed by a wandering lunatic. The most likely (in my mind) wore an apron and carried knives. At one point he tried to strangle his wife. When apprehended he claimed he had been getting sheep heads and entrails for resale. Moreover, he had a violent temper and was quite delusional.

The other ladies did not exhibit the traits that Polly and Annie did.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

No "intelligent" talk about victimology? Yikes! Intelligent talk is already in short supply.

But seriously, I don't see how that eliminates JTR.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

I have no doubt that Polly and Annie were killed by the same hand. Both were soliciting, both were strangled, both had deep parallel cuts to the neck.

I think they were killed by a wandering lunatic. The most likely (in my mind) wore an apron and carried knives. At one point he tried to strangle his wife. When apprehended he claimed he had been getting sheep heads and entrails for resale. Moreover, he had a violent temper and was quite delusional.

The other ladies did not exhibit the traits that Polly and Annie did.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

If for the sake of argument, we eliminate Liz from the C5 since she was not mutilated, you have still only accounted for two of the four remaining murders. That would mean that there were two more killers roaming the streets of Whitechapel who remarkably also had a penchant for cutting women's throats and removing their internal organs.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

jtr

Hello CD. Thanks.

"No "intelligent" talk about victimology? Yikes! Intelligent talk is already in short supply."

I'll say.

"But seriously, I don't see how that eliminates JTR."

Like this: "Ooh, ooh, it MUST be JTR, after all, he killed only prostitutes."

Yawn.

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Hello Lynn,

Yes, but then you also have people trying to argue that if it can be shown that the victim wasn't a prostitute then she couldn't have been a victim of JTR.

Yawn.

c.d.

[lynn cates]

C5

Hello (again) CD. Thanks.

"If for the sake of argument, we eliminate Liz from the C5 since she was not mutilated . . ."

A weak reason. I have listed MANY better ones.

". . . you have still only accounted for two of the four remaining murders."

Alright. Nor have I touched Emma and Martha, nor yet Alice and Frances and those torsos. And, personal conjecture notwithstanding, I can't account for the Ramsey girl, Jonbenet.

"That would mean that there were two more killers. . ."

Perhaps more.

". . . roaming the streets of Whitechapel. . ."

Why roaming? What about IN Whitechapel or thereabouts? Does "roaming" somehow make the case more compelling?

". . . who remarkably also had a penchant for cutting women's throats and removing their internal organs."

Polly had no organs removed. If you wish to take THAT criterion, then we have Annie, Kate and "MJK" by one hand.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

no connection

Hello (yet again) CD. Thanks.

Whom? Certainly not I.

Prostitution has NOTHING to do with it--pro or con.

Yawn, yawn.

Cheers.
LC

[Patrick S]

Hello Patrick. Thanks.

I have no doubt that Polly and Annie were killed by the same hand. Both were soliciting, both were strangled, both had deep parallel cuts to the neck.

I think they were killed by a wandering lunatic. The most likely (in my mind) wore an apron and carried knives. At one point he tried to strangle his wife. When apprehended he claimed he had been getting sheep heads and entrails for resale. Moreover, he had a violent temper and was quite delusional.

The other ladies did not exhibit the traits that Polly and Annie did.

Cheers.
LC

Your 'wandering lunatic' sounds like a likely suspect indeed. In fact, I'm convinced that he would have likely been convicted of the Nichols and Chapman murders had he not been in an asylum (Colney Hatch?) on the night of the 'double event' and MJK. To my knowledge, his only 'alibi' for the crimes was that was detained at the time the later murders were committed. If memory serves, Abberline felt he was a promising suspect, as well. Presumably he changed his mind when the later killings occured. Taking it all a step further, one can very easily discount Stride. As well, one could argue that MJK exhibits all the characteristics of a 'rage killing' and that Barnett or Hutchinson are likely suspects. That leaves Eddowes. The murder itself is nearly identical to those of Nichols and Chapman, with the exception of the facial mutilations. Injuries of this type are often interpreted by investigators as a sign the victim was known by the attacker and specifically targeted. I have little doubt that Jacob Isenschmid would have been immediately arrested following Eddowes had he not been locked up.

So of the six (expanded from 5 just because) victims we'd have something like this?

Tabram = angry customer (soldier?)
Nichols = Jacob Isenschmid
Chapman = Jacob Isenschmid
Stride = Michael Kidney (?)
Eddowes = ?
Kelly = Hutchinson or Barnett

I've said this before, since we know so little, it sounds as good as anything else. I'm troubled that in order to make the theory work we have to discount completely the contemporary policework and assume it was almost completely incompetent.

A final note: I'd suggest that there WAS a Jack the Ripper even if he only killed Nichols and Chapman! It's just too good a name to abondon completely.

[c.d.]

Hello (yet again) CD. Thanks.

Whom? Certainly not I.

Prostitution has NOTHING to do with it--pro or con.

Yawn, yawn.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

And yet, to my knowledge, the victims in this case have never been described as being nuns, shop girls, members of parliament or ballerinas. They have always been described as prostitutes even by the police at the time. I have to assume that there is a reason for that.

c.d.

P.S. You might want to take a break from Casebook for a while and catch up on your sleep. You seem to be doing a lot of yawning.