Who do you think Jack the Ripper was and why?

[Wickerman]

I don't think it worked that way. The reward wasn't some "dead or alive" poster.


Plus maybe the ones who did him didn't want to attract to much attention to themselves.

Btw, it's pure hypothesis. I have nothing to back this up.

Thats ok, :-)
Your reply to the thread question didn't include the "why", and I was really wondering what your "why" was.
When anyone offers a theory or belief, the reason why is to me just as important as the "what".

I just like to know what it is that makes people form a belief, what their belief is based on, thats all.

[DJA]

Henry Gawen Sutton was Jack the Ripper.

He was being blackmailed by five of his patients.

It is all there on the Internet,if you wish to work it out for yourselves.

[Abby Normal]

Henry Gawen Sutton was Jack the Ripper.

He was being blackmailed by five of his patients.

It is all there on the Internet,if you wish to work it out for yourselves.

Thanks DJA
at least you have the decency to name your suspect!
Why was he being blackmailed?
why the extra mutilation and organ removal?

Please feel free to expound on your theory-the more detail the better!

[Harry the Hawker]

Thanks DJA
at least you have the decency to name your suspect!
Why was he being blackmailed?
why the extra mutilation and organ removal?

Please feel free to expound on your theory-the more detail the better!

Well, at least he could have been in the right place at the right time:

http://munksroll.rcplondon.ac.uk/Biography/Details/4302

[Ozzy]

The link below can also be found on Sutton's wikipedia page.
If you click the link below you can read Sutton's obituary from The British Medical Journal from 1891. They also a link to a pdf file of the obituary if preferred, eg offline viewing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2273228

[YomRippur]

I want an opinion, not a definitive fact.

My opinion is that the killer was none of the known suspects, but someone quite unknown. He lived in Whitechapel, and didn't socialize with anyone, hence practically no one knew, recognized, or remembered him for a long period of time. He could be a foreigner with a cultural barrier, and/or someone asocial. He might have lived in his own room where he had a certain privacy, enabling him to be accountable to no one. The dates and times of the killings certainly suggest the killer was single and accountable to no one. I'm inclined to believe the killer might have had a better life elsewhere, but fell into hard times and moved into the slums of Whitechapel. In fact, some of the victims had also led better lives before becoming prostitutes in Whitechapel.

So, in short, six keys: living in Whitechapel, being single, being a stranger to everyone and the ability to stay that way, being asocial, being able to afford a private room (which might indicate his former, more affluent background); and the sixth key is he might not even be employed (thus even fewer people saw or recognized him) and was relying on existing savings (again, pointing to his possibly affluent history). The rent collector of the place he was living in could possibly be the only person who had seen him other than his victims and the various eyewitnesses. This was, I think, the reason he was never caught nor even reliably identified. If you cut down the number of people who ever saw you in your life, you stood a good chance of getting away with murders.

One question I have is how common and expensive private rooms were in Whitechapel at the time. I just re-read the first chapter, "Outcast London", of Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper" and it paints such a desolate picture of the place. Did the East End at the time have a somewhat more "affluent" section that had better housing other than doss houses and common lodging houses? The Ripper was likely not the most abject unfortunates of the place, but a person of certain means.

[Elamarna]

My opinion is that the killer was none of the known suspects, but someone quite unknown. He lived in Whitechapel, and didn't socialize with anyone, hence practically no one knew, recognized, or remembered him for a long period of time. He could be a foreigner with a cultural barrier, and/or someone asocial. He might have lived in his own room where he had a certain privacy, enabling him to be accountable to no one. The dates and times of the killings certainly suggest the killer was single and accountable to no one. I'm inclined to believe the killer might have had a better life elsewhere, but fell into hard times and moved into the slums of Whitechapel. In fact, some of the victims had also led better lives before becoming prostitutes in Whitechapel.

So, in short, six keys: living in Whitechapel, being single, being a stranger to everyone and the ability to stay that way, being asocial, being able to afford a private room (which might indicate his former, more affluent background); and the sixth key is he might not even be employed (thus even fewer people saw or recognized him) and was relying on existing savings (again, pointing to his possibly affluent history). The rent collector of the place he was living in could possibly be the only person who had seen him other than his victims and the various eyewitnesses.

One question I have is how common and expensive private rooms were in Whitechapel at the time. I just re-read the first chapter, "Outcast London", of Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper" and it paints such a desolate picture of the place. Did the East End at the time have a somewhat more "affluent" section that had better housing other than doss houses and common lodging houses? The Ripper was likely not the most abject unfortunates of the place, but a person of certain means.

Hi,

why do you think he possibly had a former, more affluent background?



all the best by the way


Steve

[YomRippur]

Hi,

why do you think he possibly had a former, more affluent background?



all the best by the way


Steve

If he wasn't employed (which is what I believe), then he would need some money saved up in order to hire prostitutes and/or frequent brothels, buy some decent clothing, afford a private room, buy food, etc. He didn't need to be rich, but just needed to have had "better days" that enabled him to have some savings. His killing spree lasted possibly only 3 months, early August to early November, so he probably didn't need a lot of money to do what he did.

[Elamarna]

If he wasn't employed (which is what I believe), then he would need some money saved up in order to hire prostitutes and/or frequent brothels, buy some decent clothing, afford a private room, buy food, etc. He didn't need to be rich, but just needed to have had "better days" that enabled him to have some savings. His killing spree lasted possibly only 3 months, early August to early November, so he probably didn't need a lot of money to do what he did.

Hi,

Fair enough.That’s a well reasoned argument.

Of course even if he was not employed he could have been living with family.

I happen to agree he was living local, but don't personal feel he needed to have seen better days.

A belated welcome to the boards by the way

Steve

[YomRippur]

Hi,

Fair enough.That’s a well reasoned argument.

Of course even if he was not employed he could have been living with family.

I happen to agree he was living local, but don't personal feel he needed to have seen better days.

A belated welcome to the boards by the way

Steve

Hi Steve, I think it more probable that he lived alone. Anyone he was living with would likely wonder why he was out so late at the nights the murders occurred.

Annie Chapman, Liz Stride, and perhaps other Ripper victims were examples of people who moved into the slums of Whitechapel after having had better lives, so the same could be true for the killer. I surmised this mainly because of my belief that he was probably unemployed at the time of the killings. For him to live at least three months (during which the murders occurred) with no income would mean he had a certain amount of savings.

If the killer was a foreigner, then we would also need look at this from an immigrant's perspective. In the past and present, a lot of immigrants left their home countries only to end up in places where they were arguably worse off than before. The resulting disillusionment from having gone from a "better place" to a much worse place could at least have some impact on the killer.

The killer being an immigrant would also help him obtain the anonymity he needed, because his earlier life would probably be quite unknown to the Whitechapel residents.

[kjab3112]

My opinion is that the killer was none of the known suspects, but someone quite unknown. He lived in Whitechapel, and didn't socialize with anyone, hence practically no one knew, recognized, or remembered him for a long period of time. He could be a foreigner with a cultural barrier, and/or someone asocial. He might have lived in his own room where he had a certain privacy, enabling him to be accountable to no one. The dates and times of the killings certainly suggest the killer was single and accountable to no one. I'm inclined to believe the killer might have had a better life elsewhere, but fell into hard times and moved into the slums of Whitechapel. In fact, some of the victims had also led better lives before becoming prostitutes in Whitechapel.

So, in short, six keys: living in Whitechapel, being single, being a stranger to everyone and the ability to stay that way, being asocial, being able to afford a private room (which might indicate his former, more affluent background); and the sixth key is he might not even be employed (thus even fewer people saw or recognized him) and was relying on existing savings (again, pointing to his possibly affluent history). The rent collector of the place he was living in could possibly be the only person who had seen him other than his victims and the various eyewitnesses. This was, I think, the reason he was never caught nor even reliably identified. If you cut down the number of people who ever saw you in your life, you stood a good chance of getting away with murders.

One question I have is how common and expensive private rooms were in Whitechapel at the time. I just re-read the first chapter, "Outcast London", of Rumbelow's "The Complete Jack the Ripper" and it paints such a desolate picture of the place. Did the East End at the time have a somewhat more "affluent" section that had better housing other than doss houses and common lodging houses? The Ripper was likely not the most abject unfortunates of the place, but a person of certain means.

Hi Yom Rippur

I think the Booth poverty maps will answer your question. Late 19th century London would not appear to have been too dissimilar from the current day with relative wealth juxtaposed on poverty. The maps on here show the Whitechapel Road, Commercial Road and Commercial Street were all fronted by relatively wealthy dwellings, even some of the off main drag areas such as Goulston Street would have appeared to include some fairly comfortable residents. The areas of dark blue/black representing the "semi-criminal' are primarily the Flower and Dean and Thrawl Street areas of common lodging houses. Certainly wouldn't be a long way to go to more salubrious dwellings from the murder sites

Paul

[Storm Teacup]

I think it was possibly, MJ Druitt, Joseph Barnett, or George Cross (the man who 'discovered' Polly Nichols body).

However, Druit has to be my most favored suspect. Perhaps because, he seems to be written off too quickly. It is my opinion that there would have been a valid reason for Melville Macnaghten to risk naming someone of a social standing that could jeapordise his reputation and possibly result in him being slapped with a lawsuit. Serial killers aren't always local guys, they do travel away from areas in which they are familiar, to commit their crimes in areas where they are less likely to be spotted or recognised. Whitechapel in the 1880's may have been a great source of pornography. The culmination of destitute women made it an excellent location for easy prey. Andrei Chikatilo (the Rostov Ripper) had a shack in the woods, away from home/ people who could recognise him. Druitt could have easily afforded a bolt hole, seeing as he already kept lodginings in two different locations. From what we know about him, he didn't seem to socialise very much outside a patriarchal setting. He did not come from a poor background, but this is no way indicative of being exempt from potentially growing up in a surrounding filled with violence and degredation. Although, not an underachiever, having to support himself as a school teacher after obtaining a law degree could be an insult to a fragile self image in a socially agressive, male dominated setting. Especially if he did indeed see himself as sexually inadequate. Having a pristine background is sometimes another layer of acceptability to cover up what really exists in the cases with some serial killers. The inconsistencies surrounding his death are also suspicious. A lot of people dismiss his candidacy because he had a cricket match only hours after Annie Chapman's murder. I would suggest that the extreme adrenalin rush JTR got from his murders, on the contrary, would have given him the high he needed for the focus and drive it takes to accomplish high impact physical/ mental tasks. That is, until the burnout and self-loathing kicks back in.

[YomRippur]

Hi Yom Rippur

I think the Booth poverty maps will answer your question. Late 19th century London would not appear to have been too dissimilar from the current day with relative wealth juxtaposed on poverty. The maps on here show the Whitechapel Road, Commercial Road and Commercial Street were all fronted by relatively wealthy dwellings, even some of the off main drag areas such as Goulston Street would have appeared to include some fairly comfortable residents. The areas of dark blue/black representing the "semi-criminal' are primarily the Flower and Dean and Thrawl Street areas of common lodging houses. Certainly wouldn't be a long way to go to more salubrious dwellings from the murder sites

Paul

Thanks for pointing me to those maps. I looked at one made in 1887 and, indeed, there were plenty of "some comfortable" and "fairly comfortable" living areas in Whitechapel at the time. This strengthens my belief that if the killer was indeed a few cuts above the most unfortunates, he would be able to find a relatively decent place to live that would also offered him a certain degree of privacy to do his deeds. Living among people in "good areas" would also make him less suspicious as opposed to living in more crime-ridden areas. In short, he was likely neither very rich nor abjectly poor, and this "in-between" quality might have allowed him to "blend in" more effectively in the crowds of Whitechapel. Also, eyewitnesses' descriptions of him varied from "well dressed with gold chains" to "shabbily dressed". It was likely that someone in between social classes might have owned a couple of good clothes but also some shabby ones.

[Geddy2112]

For me I do not think JtR existed. I think out of the five Canonical victims there might have been two or even three murderers. I do not think the double event was a double event and possibly Mary Kelly was murdered by someone different from the other four.

[Iconoclast]

You left out Teacher.

And Liverpool cotton trader ...