the key

[Heinrich]

...
mary kelly on the other hand is different in my opinion because to me it seems that she more than the others knew her killer and he her.

One at a time is the way to proceed. By attempting to identify one man to meet all the Whitechapel murders criteria, we will be going about in circles a hundred years from now proposing any notion that comes to mind, impossible to prove or disprove. Mary Kelly is a unique case in several ways and the man who knew her best was Joseph Barnett.

[curious4]

Oh dear Phil, I do seem to have upset you with this one! Well, apart from the cartoon showing Jack looking into a mirror with different faces reflected (vicar, policeman etc), this is all my own and I should perhaps have written charity worker, vicar, slummer or something similar. You must agree that the east end was crawling with "do-gooders" - and also with those who would try to draw attention to the conditions there by writing about them. After 4 decades of living abroad my english does tend to break down on occasions, so I must apologise for the social worker bit and should have been more precise!

I do lean towards the idea of a "posh" Jack - canīt see anyone trusting a slathering maniac, talking to himself and picking up pieces of bread from the ground. For one thing what did they expect to get from him in the way of money?

Best wishes
C4

[curious]

Did you find that quote before or after positing about your "hypothesis" - if before, then I am surprised you did not quote it then. If after, it is interesting, but suggests your original posts were not as securely based as you might have hoped.

If the hawker is relevant, and there must have been many, I assume you would equally accept a cats meat salesman? One possible connection to the torso murders suggested in Mei Trow's recent book. The front room of 29 Hanbury St sold cats meat, of course, so Trow's suggestion would seem to have as much basis as your hawker?

Phil

Hi, Phil,
The post by Jon Guy was written to me and I have known about John Simmonds since that time, but that post was the first time I had heard of him. The thread was discussing the possibility that JtR had a terminal illness.

Simmonds is now also being discussed on another current thread, Laura Richards Knows . . .

You see, his address at 60 Wentworth falls in the 95th percentile of probability, according to geographic profiling, or something like that.

When I became aware of Simmonds, I was looking at the possibility of William Bury hawking more than sawdust to bars. He had the little pony cart and had apparently had worked as a hawker in his past. So I was considering that perhaps he was doing so poorly in the sawdust business because he had expanded his business to include furbelows for the ladies. On a trip he and Ellen took, he had business cards made up that indicated he was in business for himself.

The cats meat salesman is extremely interesting. I'll have to check into that book.

Well, I've got some projects I have been neglecting . . .

[Abby Normal]

Hi, Abby Normal,
I don't think I can dignify my musings with the term "theory."

When I first started reading through these cases, the "new items" just jumped out at me.

If they are important, then yes, I can see them being connected by the murderer.

The person I saw as a possibility was a hawker, but I suppose he could pose as a variety of things, perhaps a new boyfriend for Liz or Mary . . . hadn't thought along those lines before. And both these women had left prostitution for a steady man. Liz married her man, and Mary moved through 2 or 3.

I doubt a pimp because of the age and potential earning ability of most of the victims. I'm not sure a pimp would be interested in them.

The reasons I think of a hawker is that he would be familiar to the victims. He might even flirt with them, offer them discounts, or offer to allow them to pay for the items with their services and not money.

That way the women trust him and they owe him...

Does this line of inquiry interest you? Your thoughts, please, Abby Normal.

curious

Hi Curious
Thanks for explaining-interesting idea.
Its possible but I would lean more towrds the trusting part because they are acquainted with him more than the owing him because he gave them something. In my mind especially at the height of the ripper scare the women may have been more inclined to go with someone who they seemed to trust-a man they knew from the area, wether a hawker or a previous client or someone they knew from the pub. A local man, but not neccessarily a hawker. They very easily could have spent whatever little money they earned to buy something new, perhaps traded for it, borrowed it etc.

mary kelly on the other hand is different in my opinion because to me it seems that she more than the others knew her killer and he her.

[Phil H]

I am with you in thinking that Jack "befriended" his victims - perhaps posing as a social worker who flattered them by taking a "special" interest in them and who would be trusted by them.

What possible basis can there be for this?

I do not question your right to hold any view you wish, including that Jack the Ripper was a giant white rabbit, if that is your fancy. But I do ask that, if others are expected to treat ideas seriously, assertions are backed up by some sort of "evidence" or facts!

We have had the hawker "hypothesis" trailed before us with absolutely no basis, except the very odd claim that all the victims had "something new". I can follow that logic.

But where is the basis for claiming a "social worker" might be involved? Indeed, what was the definition of a "social worker" in 1888, what do YOU mean by the term, and how do you perceive him as operating?I have a feeling the words may be anachronistic.

Which suspects do you believe might have posed as such a character (if indeed the role existed)?

I don't see Kosminski as capable of posing as anything? (A Polish social worker? That would have required a "polished" performance! (Sorry )

Druitt? - maybe, but the majority view these days seems to be against MJD as a suspect. Tumblety? Le Grand? Who?

I'd also like to know WHY such previous connection was needed; how it was used? We do not need to explain how/why the women met their killer - indeed they almost certainly led him to the scene of their murders - a dark secluded spot, with a wooden fence or gate to lean against. They would, in their condition and desperation have gone with anyone - so why the need for previous meeting or subterfuge?

Pointless and groundless nonsense (IMHO).

Phil

[curious4]

drat, C4, I meant to ask you what the source of that is. I had never heard that before.

Thx,

curious

Hello C,

Think itīs in one of my books - heaven knows which one, I now have quite a library - or possibly in a newspaper report. I will try to find it. Stuck in my mind after a discussion on why Annie was called Dark Annie. As for the dress, I think it was in the context of a vicarīs wife or charity worker mentioning that one of the victims had been given clothing (or a dress) by them and Mary Ann fits the bill as she is the only victim wearing something new.

Will get back to you when I have recovered from my hectic summer - visit to JTR`s haunts, among other things The Ten Bells and at least three of the street markets.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. I am with you in thinking that Jack "befriended" his victims - perhaps posing as a social worker who flattered them by taking a "special" interest in them and who would be trusted by them.

[Phil H]

Phil, you are allowed to consider or dismiss whatever you please. But so am I.

As I did and as you are doing.

Actually, I can quote Jon Guy in a thread from Dec. 10, 2009:

I have absolutely no interest in Suspect Ripperology but there was an interesting chappy called John Simmonds, who was a 22 yr old hawker who lived at 60 Wentworth St, and he was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary a week after the double event suffering from syphilis, and was discharged on Nov 8th!!

Did you find that quote before or after positing about your "hypothesis" - if before, then I am surprised you did not quote it then. If after, it is interesting, but suggests your original posts were not as securely based as you might have hoped.

If the hawker is relevant, and there must have been many, I assume you would equally accept a cats meat salesman? One possible connection to the torso murders suggested in Mei Trow's recent book. The front room of 29 Hanbury St sold cats meat, of course, so Trow's suggestion would seem to have as much basis as your hawker?

Phil

[curious]

Actually, I can quote Jon Guy in a thread from Dec. 10, 2009:

I have absolutely no interest in Suspect Ripperology but there was an interesting chappy called John Simmonds, who was a 22 yr old hawker who lived at 60 Wentworth St, and he was admitted to the Whitechapel Infirmary a week after the double event suffering from syphilis, and was discharged on Nov 8th!!

Phil, you are allowed to consider or dismiss whatever you please. But so am I.

[Phil H]

Probably no one needed to establish rapport, but we do not know how Jack worked.

I see your proposal (a hawker) as unlikely to fit in with any currently identified suspect!!

Drabs though they may have been, they were still human beings. Polly seems to have been very proud of her "jolly bonnet" and thought she was having a wonderful day.

What has "being a human being" got to do with the issue in hand? Polly was so drunk she could hardly stand, as Emily Holland testified. Her views on her situation can hardly be taken seriously.

Annie seems not to have become a prostitute until after her husband died and money from him stopped coming in.

Are we still reflecting the use of my words, or is there a point here relevant to this discussion?

Can you begin to imagine what even a little attention would have meant to these women?

My response is that in the situation they were in at the time of the fatal attack, Polly and Annie were not looking for tenderness, but for threepence or so. "Jack" didn't need to seduce them, they would have gone with a fat, sadistic, smelly amputee if he came along - and probably did!

We do not know what "little games" Jacky played, other than the bodies -- and how many of them were there really? we don't know that either.

The number of bodies is irrelevant to the point under discussion here - but I don't remotely see a supposotional "hawker" created out of a supposition that each victim had something "new" (in itself questionable in the extreme) helps us in any way.

To eliminate or refuse to look at all possibilities is too narrow for the way my brain works. Which, I admit, is probably different from most.

To look at ALL possibilities is a waste of time and energy - what we do need to follow-up are real clues and information. We are, by and large, scornful of the exotic suspects (Carroll/Barnardo) and masonic and royal conspiracies conjured out of thin air, speculation and mis-applying evidence. The hawker idea is (IMHO) simply such a misapplication albeit in a minor key.

I'm not trying to start a new "myth" but I'm not afraid to look at what is there, and ponder things.

But you are looking at things that are not there!

The old tired and true line of thinking has not really solved anything. Not that I think it is solvable at this point, but to refuse to look at all angles, really? What does that accomplish?

I am wholly open to new ideas (as my questioning of Stride and MJK as cononical victims should indicate) but those ideas must have some solid basis, or you may as well go and play in the sandpit with the kids. You yourself comment in another recent post, "Plus, it is difficult to know what to trust as fact."

I'd respond, and ideas like this one about a hawker and "Jack's games" do not help. They muddy the waters rather than shedding light.

Take another example to site in the same earlier post: "...Hutchinson, well, I have just never heard that [he might have been a pimp]. There has been all sorts of speculation about him, but I don't know if there is really anything known for sure about him."

And most of it started out as the sort of baseless speculation akin to your "hawker". Hutchinson, to my knowledge, has yet to be firmly identified (notwithstanding posters who claim certainty). Yet we now see his walk to Romford, the night of his "watch" on Miller's Court all questioned. We see him dubbed not only a witness to events, but now as a murderer or accomplice.

There are all sorts of questions to be asked about GH, but the houses built on sand that are being "hawked around" on this site defy belief.

Phil

[curious]

Why would anyone want or need to establish a rapport with Polly Nichols or Annie Chapman?

These were worn out drabs, and at the time of their death both were staggering around the streets of Spitalfields/Whitechapel looking for trade. They'd have gone with anyone for the price of a drink or a bed.

The whole idea of "Jack" posing as something else to "win over" a future victim is so complicated (and unncessary) as to defy rationality. Almost ceratinly - in the two cases I have mentioned - "Jack" struck quickly and spontaneously, chosing women who were wholly unable to resist or even be suspicious (I think) - hence his selection of them.

Further, there is the danger of creating another myth, akin to the "arrangement" of items at Annie's feet; or the polished coins.

Phil

Phil,
Granted, no one needed to establish rapport. But we do not know how Jack worked.

Drabs though they may have been, they were still human beings. Polly seems to have been very proud of her "jolly bonnet" and thought she was having a wonderful day.

Annie seems not to have become a prostitute until after her husband died and money from him stopped coming in.

Can you begin to imagine what even a little attention would have meant to these women? Annie had even been in a physical tussle over her sometime weekend man.

We do not know what "little games" Jacky played, other than the bodies -- and how many of them were there really? we don't know that either.

To eliminate or refuse to look at all possibilities is too narrow for the way my brain works. Which, I admit, is probably different from most.

I'm not tied to the "new things" idea. It was something that intrigued me from the beginning.

Neither am I trying to start a new "myth". However, I am not afraid to look at what is there, and ponder things. Some I keep as possibilities, others I dismiss because they don't hold together to create a "bigger picture."

The old tried-and-true line of thinking has not really solved anything. Not that I think it is solvable at this point, but to refuse to look at all angles, really? What does that accomplish?

And what does it accomplish to talk about these poor people sometimes in the way that we do? They were real people, with dreams, feelings and lives that thankfully is much different from ours, but still, to call people murderers without proof or any real evidence, to totally ignore the humanity of the victims . . . it grates on me.

curious

[curious]

curious, wasn't Mary dealing in second hand clothes, along with Harvey? I read somewhere she was (I think, gosh, so many things to remember..) and Petticoat Lane was -the- place for secondhand clothing business? I was reading up on Hutchinson, and Petticoat Lane was described in one of the archived threads or dissertations on him, it was discussing him as a potential pimp or 'booty scout', I believe, as speculation about his peculiar-seeming actions on the night of Kelly's murder.

I've never heard any of this before, but that might explain some of the items of clothing in the room. I can see casting about anyway you can to raise a few pennies when you have no job and no prospects.

And Hutchinson, well, I have just never heard that. There has been all sorts of speculation about him, but I don't know if there is really anything known for sure about him.

He's never been someone I've "delved into much" and there is so much here and published that becoming an expert takes years and years.

Plus, it is difficult to know what to trust as fact.

As a newbie, I wonder lots of things but have few or no answers.

[Phil H]

Why would anyone want or need to establish a rapport with Polly Nichols or Annie Chapman?

These were worn out drabs, and at the time of their death both were staggering around the streets of Spitalfields/Whitechapel looking for trade. They'd have gone with anyone for the price of a drink or a bed.

The whole idea of "Jack" posing as something else to "win over" a future victim is so complicated (and unncessary) as to defy rationality. Almost ceratinly - in the two cases I have mentioned - "Jack" struck quickly and spontaneously, chosing women who were wholly unable to resist or even be suspicious (I think) - hence his selection of them.

The whole "something new" idea needs looking at from the perspective of likelihood. However poor in material terms, the chances of any individual having on their person at any given moment something that is "new" to them - an item of clothing, a trinket, a bit of tawdry jewellery, something picked up in the street, a flower or a "gift" from a friend, must be very high indeed.

Unless it can be shown that there was something definitely "unusual" in what the victims had on them/or had possessed (in the case of Chapman's rings) - I see no point in pursuing this line of argument.

Further, there is the danger of creating another myth, akin to the "arrangement" of items at Annie's feet; or the polished coins.

Phil

[Ausgirl]

curious, wasn't Mary dealing in second hand clothes, along with Harvey? I read somewhere she was (I think, gosh, so many things to remember..) and Petticoat Lane was -the- place for secondhand clothing business? I was reading up on Hutchinson, and Petticoat Lane was described in one of the archived threads or dissertations on him, it was discussing him as a potential pimp or 'booty scout', I believe, as speculation about his peculiar-seeming actions on the night of Kelly's murder.

[curious]

Hi Curious
What is the relationship between your theory and the victims having something new? What is your theory?

Is it that they are all connected by the murderer( a pimp perhaps or new "boyfriend"?) giving them something new?

I'm interested in what your thinking-please clear it up for me.

Hi, Abby Normal,
I don't think I can dignify my musings with the term "theory."

When I first started reading through these cases, the "new items" just jumped out at me.

If they are important, then yes, I can see them being connected by the murderer.

The person I saw as a possibility was a hawker, but I suppose he could pose as a variety of things, perhaps a new boyfriend for Liz or Mary . . . hadn't thought along those lines before. And both these women had left prostitution for a steady man. Liz married her man, and Mary moved through 2 or 3.

I doubt a pimp because of the age and potential earning ability of most of the victims. I'm not sure a pimp would be interested in them.

The reasons I think of a hawker is that he would be familiar to the victims. He might even flirt with them, offer them discounts, or offer to allow them to pay for the items with their services and not money.

That way the women trust him and they owe him...

Does this line of inquiry interest you? Your thoughts, please, Abby Normal.

curious

[curious]

Hello C!

Annie was reputed to have bought her rings from "a black man" - (more evidence, perhaps, that she was of mixed blood, hence Dark Annie?)

C4

drat, C4, I meant to ask you what the source of that is. I had never heard that before.

Thx,

curious