the key

[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

[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.

[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 . . .

[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 - can´t 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

[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.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

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.[/QUOTE

]

I'll start suspecting my Husband, Brother, Sons and male friends of all sorts of things now !

Since when was being "the man who knows you best" the criteria for murdering you ? (let alone mutilating you as Mary Kelly was mutilated).

[Heinrich]

...
Since when was being "the man who knows you best" the criteria for murdering you ? (let alone mutilating you as Mary Kelly was mutilated).

In domestic crimes (such as happen in people's homes as distinct from public places), invariably one begins by attempting to rule out the partner. In the case of Joseph Barnett, the Metropolitan's alacrity at releasing him is mystifying.

[Sally]

In domestic crimes (such as happen in people's homes as distinct from public places), invariably one begins by attempting to rule out the partner. In the case of Joseph Barnett, the Metropolitan's alacrity at releasing him is mystifying.

Only to you, apparently.

[Monty]

In domestic crimes (such as happen in people's homes as distinct from public places), invariably one begins by attempting to rule out the partner. In the case of Joseph Barnett, the Metropolitan's alacrity at releasing him is mystifying.

So, if you were a Policeman who happened to be investigating a murder of a married woman in her own how, you would automatically suspect the husband and try to prove his innocence?

The mind boggles.

The Polices duty is to gather evidence, whether it leads to or away from a suspect. It is the courts duty to decide if the evidence is damning.

Its that simple Heinrich.


Monty

[Ben]

I do lean towards the idea of a "posh" Jack - can´t see anyone trusting a slathering maniac, talking to himself and picking up pieces of bread from the ground.

But there are many shades of grey between those two extremes, C4.

A "posh" punter was just as likely to ring alarm bells as a "slathering maniac", as both would have been conspicuously out-of-place. A popular theory that held sway after the Chapman murder was that the killer may have had surgical skills, and it is likely that prostitutes avoided any well-dressed "posh" outsider for that reason. The "safest" type of client was the tried and tested local, neither posh nor an obvious vagrant.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

I wonder..

..what happens when the police interrogate a person of interest for - oh, I dunno, say four hours - and find nothing to suggest any evidence against them.

Hmm...

I don't suppose they might possibly release said person of interest?

Oh, but I was forgetting, we know so much more about Joseph Barnett than the police of 1888 did.

Bugger, they were SO stupid.

[Heinrich]

So, if you were a Policeman who happened to be investigating a murder of a married woman in her own how, you would automatically suspect the husband and try to prove his innocence?

No, you automatically suspect the husband and try to find the evidence that proves his guilt or otherwise, Monty.

The mind boggles.

It shouldn't, Monty. This is routine procedure.

The Polices duty is to gather evidence, whether it leads to or away from a suspect.

This is true, Monty, but the police do not operate with a blank slate, rather they proceed with a logical scenario in mind which experience helps them to develop. If they begin by believing any Tom, Dick, or Harry could materialize to do the deed and then evaporate into thin air, well, they would all be like the Metropolitan Police in the cases of the Whitechapel murders, i.e. left with unsolved crimes, hoping to find men with blotchy faces or red mustaches. LOL

It is the courts duty to decide if the evidence is damning.

Of course but only if the police bring that evidence before a jury to begin with. No court had an opportunity to try Joseph Barnett because the police let him go.

..what happens when the police interrogate a person of interest for - oh, I dunno, say four hours - and find nothing to suggest any evidence against them.

Nowadays the chief investigating officer would probably be reassigned to traffic division.

... Oh, but I was forgetting, we know so much more about Joseph Barnett than the police of 1888 did.

The Metropolitan's woeful record in failing to charge Joseph Barnett is all the more inexcusable in light of their knowledge of Joseph Barnett being no worse than ours, Sally.

Bugger, they were SO stupid.

I'm with you on this.

[Lechmere]

The police do seem to have ‘checked out’ Barnett as a potential suspect (as an ex-partner) but were satisfied with what they were told and undoubtedly had corroborated. Job done.

[Monty]

Heinrich,

Do you honestly want to go toe to toe with me on this?

No, you do not automatically suspect the husband as that is prejudice, and perjury is illegal.

No, this is not routine at al. As stated above. If the defence caught wind of this they would have a field day."Why is the husband the only one questioned? Why have you solely investigated his movements when you have not presented evidence?"

The police hold logical scenarios and do not hold with one. They merely gather evidence and follow that.

They let him go? Firstly he was never arrested. This because there was no evidence. However, as he was staying at his sisters he never really went anywhere.

You really are making an arse of yourself here Heinrich. I'm afraid your lack on understanding on police matters, and legal matters, is woefully lacking.

Go and research for Gods sake.

Monty.....who wonders why he bothers.

[Sally]

Monty.....who wonders why he bothers.

Just as well you do, Monty, in my humble opinion.