A Working Hypothesis

[Scorpio]

A Cut Above

Assuming Hutchinson description is accurate, what level of society and what occupation, if any, can we infer from astrakan man?. Pauperdom is obviously out, folks who are walking the street day and night scratching a living just cannot afford the time and energy to indulge in this activity, it seems to me. Jack existed in a economic strata above his victims, i am certain,yet he moves within there cultural landscape with facility. I would guess Jack was a skilled/semi skilled blue collar man who was streetwise but prosperous enough to look at odds within the slummier parts of Whitechapel.

[Ben]

I disagree, Scorpio.

Without wishing be boringly rank-and-file about this, I consider it very unlikely that the killer belonged to any other group than the working class poor, which comprised the vast majority of people living in the area at the time. Given the closely clustered nature of the crimes and the limitations in terms of transport opportunities, the killer was overwhelmingly likely to have lived a short walkable distance away. The eyewitness description accorded most significance by the police was provided by Joseph Lawende, who referred to a rough and shabby looking individual with the appearance of a a sailor.

Many, if not most serial killers select victims from their own social stratosphere, and I don't see this one being any different.

It isn't true to say that paupers couldn't afford the time to indulge in murderous activity on account of their preoccupation with trying to "scratch a living". If they were able to intoxicate themselves with gin of a night, they certainly had the time available to kill prostitutes in the small hours, and moreover, if there was no work to be had at any given time, it was something over which they could exercise no control, and in such a predicament they may as well have done precisely what they wanted with their time.

Hutchinson's description was discredited. The Astrakhan man almost certainly never existed, let alone killed anyone.

Best regards,
Ben

[Scorpio]

I disagree, Scorpio.

Without wishing be boringly rank-and-file about this, I consider it very unlikely that the killer belonged to any other group than the working class poor, which comprised the vast majority of people living in the area at the time. Given the closely clustered nature of the crimes and the limitations in terms of transport opportunities, the killer was overwhelmingly likely to have lived a short walkable distance away. The eyewitness description accorded most significance by the police was provided by Joseph Lawende, who referred to a rough and shabby looking individual with the appearance of a a sailor.

Many, if not most serial killers select victims from their own social stratosphere, and I don't see this one being any different.

It isn't true to say that paupers couldn't afford the time to indulge in murderous activity on account of their preoccupation with trying to "scratch a living". If they were able to intoxicate themselves with gin of a night, they certainly had the time available to kill prostitutes in the small hours, and moreover, if there was no work to be had at any given time, it was something over which they could exercise no control, and in such a predicament they may as well have done precisely what they wanted with their time.

Hutchinson's description was discredited. The Astrakhan man almost certainly never existed, let alone killed anyone.

Best regards,
Ben

I also believe that JtR belonged in the same social sphere as his victims but at different poles. Let me Provide an example to clarify my position; Peter Sutcliffe belonged in the same social sphere as most of his victims, coming into contact with them regularly through his itinerant work and leisure, but there was a significant difference in the standard of living with many of them.