Ripper Facts

[Bridewell]

North Eastern Daily Gazette, 1st of October 1888:

"A man says he saw an individual sitting on some steps in Church lane at half past one this morning, wiping his hands, concealing his face meanwhile."

Thanks for digging that one up - I misremembered it earlier!

[Abby Normal]

....and wearing a peaked cap.

probably authentic independent sighting as it came out in the press before any of the other witness descriptions!

[Fisherman]

Sugden's book mentioned an article in The Star newspaper (after the Stride murder) about two different people who saw a man at 130 am cleaning a knife in nearby Church Lane.

This person was similar to witness descriptions

Can anyone find the newspaper source ?

This could be another witness

Craig

North Eastern Daily Gazette, 1:st of October 1888:

"A man says he saw an individual sitting on some steps in Church lane at half past one this morning, wiping his hands, concealing his face meanwhile."

[Craig H]

Sugden's book mentioned an article in The Star newspaper (after the Stride murder) about two different people who saw a man at 130 am cleaning a knife in nearby Church Lane.

This person was similar to witness descriptions

Can anyone find the newspaper source ?

This could be another witness

Craig

[Craig H]

Interesting to read about these serial killers who were married.

I'm not across this topic.

Is this then typical of serial murderers ? Or are they more likely to be unmarried and the above are the exception ?

Craig

[MsWeatherwax]

Also, Dennis Rader who was known as BTK. He was married to his wife for 34 years prior to his capture, and murdered 10 people while they were together. The Judge in their divorce case waived the usual 60 day waiting period and granted an immediate divorce as he accepted her mental health was in serious danger.

Interestingly, given some of the discussions on here, he also switched his method of murder - he either strangled (with his hands or an implement), suffocated (usually with a bag), or on one occasion, stabbed his victims. Also liked to contact the press, which if memory recalls, was how he was eventually caught.

Too bad that JtR wasn't in the habit of penning his letters on his church computer, using his own log in....

[Bridewell]

Hi Craig,

Not all serial killers are unmarried. In Britain Dr. Palmer had a wife (who was among his victims). Christie too had a wife whom he murdered. George Joseph Smith was a bigamist, but he had one "wife" or lover he kept coming home to after his "business" trips. In France, Landru had a family with children (they changed their name after his conviction). I believe Peter Kurten also had a family, but I'm not sure.

Jeff

And don't forget Harold Shipman.

[Mayerling]

Hi Wigngown

Sorry for late response

I understand Sutcliffe had familiar. Are most serial murderers single ? Was Sutcliffe the exception ?

Craig

Hi Craig,

Not all serial killers are unmarried. In Britain Dr. Palmer had a wife (who was among his victims). Christie too had a wife whom he murdered. George Joseph Smith was a bigamist, but he had one "wife" or lover he kept coming home to after his "business" trips. In France, Landru had a family with children (they changed their name after his conviction). I believe Peter Kurten also had a family, but I'm not sure.

Jeff

[Craig H]

Hi Craig,

I tend to agree but don't forget Peter Sutcliffe was married and still managed to clean up, at home, following the murders.

Best regards,

Hi Wigngown

Sorry for late response

I understand Sutcliffe had familiar. Are most serial murderers single ? Was Sutcliffe the exception ?

Craig

[Elamarna]

Well, I might be anti empire but definitely not anti British. But you didnīt say I was either.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre

indeed it is easy to be anti British Empire and still be pro British, completely different ideas.

S

[Pierre]

Pierre

You agree with me. The working classes the vast majority would have no idea.
We are talking about different classes. I am talking of the majority working class you are not and of course they have different outlooks and education on life.
By the way your anti British Empire attitude shines very brightly even if you do not intend it to. It's all about viewpoint.

Please do not state I know nothing of my countries history. Such a view is insulting and inaccurate.

Steve

Well, I might be anti empire but definitely not anti British. But you didnīt say I was either.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Pierre

You agree with me. The working classes the vast majority would have no idea.
We are talking about different classes. I am talking of the majority working class you are not and of course they have different outlooks and education on life.
By the way your anti British Empire attitude shines very brightly even if you do not intend it to. It's all about viewpoint.

Please do not state I know nothing of my countries history. Such a view is insulting and inaccurate.

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;381884][QUOTE=Pierre;381878]

Pierre

the empire you describe is a fantasy, the early empire, often said to be before 1780 was mainly Western orientated, only after the formation of the USA did the expansion in the East really take off.

you statement starting "All the men who lived and worked in the British Empire" is fundamentally wrong and seriously flawed, once again you make sweeping generalisations.

Hi Steve,

Sorry to note that you do not know the history of the British Empire. But that is certainly not your fault. Your are a natural scientist and not a social scientist or historian. You have other, and very important, qualifications.

During the centuries of British rule in the world, economical institutions, social institutions, armies, organisations, schools, exploration and culture were strongly merged when the British met with other cultures and learned about them. The British organized huge administrations in the areas where they dominated and they created entirely new societies by including the men living in their territories in the British organisations, armies and systems of administration.

All this meant that they constructed new ways of living and that they founded common organisations, where the natives were educated and put to work in the British Empire and where the "British" were born outside of the motherland. It is a very fascinating history, Steve, and actually, I do not think you would believe it if you read about it. I think it is one of the most fascinating pieces of history in the world.

I strongly recommend The Oxford History of the British Empire. Volume III: The Nineteenth Century. (Ed. Porter & Louis).

The vast majority of person in 19th Century Britian were illiterate or semi literate at best, most never never travelled overseas unless to emigrate of serve in the navy or army.

Steve, we are not talkning about the majority. We are talkning about those who created the Empire. And the Victorians were a very important part of all this.

You show a complete lack of understanding of 19th century Britain, the average person in the street knew nothing of the cultures of the other parts of the empire.
Indeed the same was still true in my youth, this has now fortunately changed greatly.

Oh, dear me. Steve, we are not talking about the "average person in the street" now. We are talking about the nation builders! I am sorry to note that the average person very seldom has any idea about who created the world he lives in. I do not say that imperialism is something good - but your economical systems, social systems, medical systems, everything you have, is a consequence of the politics of the nation builders during the centuries of the British Empire!

The Victorians would not have existed were it only for a queen - they lived on money from the colonies and from the positions they got in the administrations of the British Empire!

But they also lived on the money from the money and land they took from natives, the money they earned in the banks they founded and from the food that should have been eaten by poor people around the world, but was brought to the wealthy British in the Empire and the motherland instead.

Of course the "average man" does not know this. It is a terrible history. And Jack the Ripper is created within these settings and is a part of this terrible history.

Certainly the ruling classes had a different view to this, but they were a minority.

Haha! But they were the RULERS, Steve!

you obviously will not agree with this, but such is your way when you try to promote an idea to fit your theory.

Sorry, Steve. The British Empire is no hypothesis. It was reality.

Despite all the thousands of words posted publicly and privately, not one single piece of checkable data has been provided, just an continuing number of assertions are given, that we are all then told to accept.

There is little point in continuing this debate at any level at all.

128 years have passed, Steve. Why the hurry. We do not need another bad hypothesis.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

As a follow up to my last post.

There were of course populations of immigrants from Empire countries in Britain in the 19th century, the majority of these would have been in or near the major docks such as London, Liverpool, Bristol and Cardiff.

In the case of Indians for instance it is estimated that there may have been some 40000 employed as: seamen, diplomats, scholars, soldiers and officials,
in addition the richer classes would have come as students to both universities and Public schools.

The vast majority would have been working as sailors, and yes given proximity of the docks to Whitechapel they would certainly have been known of in the area, that does not mean people understood their cultures.
To suggest that Britain was a multicultural society in 1888 is a great exaggeration.

The communities were extremely small and under developed compare to say Jewish immigrants, the first mosque built in Britain was 1889, in Woking by a convert. Surprisingly the first official Hindu temple was only constructed in the 1980's , however one was opened in London in the late 1920's.

To suggest that the general population would have understood the concept of honour killings is unproven, and I would suggest unprovable.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;381878]

Hi Steve,

What do you mean by "in the UK"? In 1888 your country was an Empire and had been so for hundreds of years. The extension of it was vast. It contained Africa, America, Australia, Burma, Canada, Egypt, India and the West Indies.

And what do you mean by "a completely different culture"? All the men who lived and worked in the British Empire knew the cultures where they were living. For hundreds of years the men in the British Empire learned about what you call "completely different culture". They were everywhere in the British Empire. They were also in Whitechapel.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

the empire you describe is a fantasy, the early empire, often said to be before 1780 was mainly Western orientated, only after the formation of the USA did the expansion in the East really take off.



you statement starting "All the men who lived and worked in the British Empire" is fundamentally wrong and seriously flawed, once again you make sweeping generalisations.
The vast majority of person in 19th Century Britian were illiterate or semi literate at best, most never never travelled overseas unless to emigrate of serve in the navy or army.

You show a complete lack of understanding of 19th century Britain, the average person in the street knew nothing of the cultures of the other parts of the empire.
Indeed the same was still true in my youth, this has now fortunately changed greatly.

Certainly the ruling classes had a different view to this, but they were a minority.

you obviously will not agree with this, but such is your way when you try to promote an idea to fit your theory.


Despite all the thousands of words posted publicly and privately, not one single piece of checkable data has been provided, just an continuing number of assertions are given, that we are all then told to accept.

There is little point in continuing this debate at any level at all.

Steven