Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripper Facts

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    This is a Shoemaker's Knife of roughly the same period.



    The handle part would be wrapped in leather or some other material.
    Swedish steel! Top notch quality.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
      Swedish steel! Top notch quality.
      Actually, I was going to message you last night to ask the significance of the fish?
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
        Errata isn't an expert on knives. Wickerman (Jon Smyth) is.
        I think I detect a typo there Scott. I'm an ex-pat, not an expert.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          Actually, I was going to message you last night to ask the significance of the fish?
          The company went into business in 1880, and they came up with the idea of depicting fish on their products. For what reason, I can´t say; Eskilstuna, where the factory was situated, is not even by the sea.

          If it had only been about that shark, one could have guessed there was an allusion to the sharp teeth. But actually, from the outset, there were eleven different fish on the products, and it was only after some time that ten of them were abandoned and the shark became the only one left.

          Bahco, a Swedish tool and steel company, bought the company and kept it´s name up until the late 1970:s.

          Comment


          • There’s a view Jack lived around Flower & Dean Street.

            Alternatively, if he lived outside the area, some say he used a bolt hole to wash up.

            What could this “bolt hole” have been ?

            Does this mean Jack stayed at a lodging house for the night ?

            Or, would some professions (such as doctors, army, police) had some lodging in That area where they could stay ?

            Craig

            Comment


            • I've been reading about "slumming" - where those from the upper or middle class visited East End out of curiosity.

              I gather that's more to do with small groups who visited at night and then left the area.

              If Jack lived outside the area, I'm assuming he would have had to stay somewhere (at a lodging house or somewhere else) rather than walk or take a ride when he may have had bloodstained clothes.

              Was there a part of East End that someone like that would have stayed ?

              Craig

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Craig H View Post
                I've been reading about "slumming" - where those from the upper or middle class visited East End out of curiosity.

                I gather that's more to do with small groups who visited at night and then left the area.

                If Jack lived outside the area, I'm assuming he would have had to stay somewhere (at a lodging house or somewhere else) rather than walk or take a ride when he may have had bloodstained clothes.

                Was there a part of East End that someone like that would have stayed ?

                Craig
                There were all sorts of accommodations available in that neck of the woods at that someone could rent...single rooms, doss houses, warehouse spaces, hotels,...

                I agree with your assumption the bloodstaining would make shared accommodation less attractive, I think he either lived alone locally, or had a room rented to wash up in.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Craig H View Post
                  I've been reading about "slumming" - where those from the upper or middle class visited East End out of curiosity. I gather that's more to do with small groups who visited at night and then left the area.
                  Not necessarily at night, and not just the East End. Some slummers dressed up as locals and went undercover, often for the purpose of discovering more about how the poor lived (Jack London being a prime example), whilst others might hire a cab and go "on safari" at any time of the day.
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PaulWilliams View Post
                    The only known facts about the killer are that he:
                    a) was at the murder sites when the murders were committed and
                    b) carried a knife, which he used with great violence to inflict the recorded injuries.


                    The official witness statements, those recorded at the inquest or given to the police, are facts in so much as they represent what the witness said. The accuracy or truth of those statements is open to debate.

                    Other facts about the crimes, but not necessarily the killer, are:
                    1. A witness said that Annie Chapman was wearing two rings on the night of her death. Neither ring was found after the murder.
                    2. A piece of bloodstained apron belonging to Catherine Eddowes was found in Goulston Street, below a piece of graffiti.
                    It's difficult to even bank the bolded as facts as we simply don't know if the murders were linked.

                    The facts are that a number of extremely vulnerable women were brutally murdered in East London during the late 1800's and in some of those cases a degree of post-mortem violence was in evidence, the purpose of which is open to speculation. The perpetrator/s evaded capture for those crimes.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X