A Working Hypothesis

[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.

[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]

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.

[corey123]

David,

Welcome back my friend!

About time you got back

Scorpio,


It was a fairly commone myth started during the ripper scare. A friend of mine showed me a diary entry which features the myth, and the author believe it to be true. Interesting, very interesting.

[Scorpio]

Many thanks.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Scorpio,

Here's one report from the Echo 8th September. I can't remember off hand if other papers carried the story as well, but this gives the gist of it anyway.


THE "WRITING ON THE WALL"

It is currently reported in Hanbury-street that this morning the following paragraph, written in chalk, was seen upon the wall of one of the back gardens there, and four persons distinctly stated they had actually seen the writing. The words are, "I have now done three, and intend to do nine more and give myself up, and at the same time give my reasons for doing the murders." Whether there is any truth in the matter remains to be seen.

Janie

xxxxx

[Scorpio]

Writing on the wall at Hanbury St ?, i have not heard about this before. Can anybody enlighten me ?.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Scorpio,

I'm afraid the bloody newspaper story and the other blood stain and blood trail stories are all myths, as was the supposed writing on the wall at Hanbury Street. The newspaper reporters at the time seem to have grasped at any gossip to make a story.

If you can get a copy of the Ultimate Source Book by Evans and Skinner, you'll find all of the surviving official documents and reports in there, and also check out the inquest reports here on Casebook, as that's the best way to sort the wheat from the chaff and get to the real facts. Newspaper reports are fine for filling in gaps, but they didn't half come out with a lot of crap sometimes!

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Scorpio]

Am i correct in believing that Chapmans killer cleaned his hands with a piece of paper?,which was found at the crime scene. What are the possibilities of this paper retaining a print?. I have read no accounts of a patent print , which is a print available to the naked eye, and a latent would not survive in an environment where no forensic protocols are enforced i suppose.

[DVV]

Hi Ben,

could be...but he apparently only used it from Mitre Square to Goulston St.

Heureux de te retrouver également,
David

[Ben]

Good to see you back here, David!

It could well have been that the killer learned the hard way at the Chapman murder that freshly eviscerated innards tend to leave their mark (and smell) on fabric, prompting him to make better arrangements for the next murder.

All the best,
Ben

[Errata]

I don't know...

Do you have any idea how hard it is to get blood out of leather?

[protohistorian]

Maybe he did not have his nice clothes on. Dave

[DVV]

All joking aside, though, I agree with the suggestion that Jack would have sought to avoid sullying his pockets as much as possible, and have often argued that the apron piece was utilized for organ transportation.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

very possibly.....however he did not cut any piece of Chapman's clothes.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Ben]

Errata, we know from Hutchinson that Jack is a man who posseses a degree of sartorial elegance

Good one, Scorpio!

All joking aside, though, I agree with the suggestion that Jack would have sought to avoid sullying his pockets as much as possible, and have often argued that the apron piece was utilized for organ transportation.

All the best,
Ben