Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

some general thoughts

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

  • some general thoughts

    ...And possibly I posted them here before..but it seems to me to worth repeating...

    1. We know Whitechapel was the original "'city' that never sleeps." There were always people moving about the area; at no time was it ever "deserted" or totally quiet.

    2.During the Ripper period, there was a general undercurrent of panic among the residents of Whitechapel, especially after the "double event."

    3. Jews or "foreign looking" people were strongly suspected of being the murderer, to the point there were reported near lynchings of men suspected.

    4. But through all of this, the Ripper moved as if invisible.. so..

    5. either the Ripper was "invisible" escaping through the sewers as in the Ripper vs. Sherlock Holmes novel, "The WhiteChapel Horror" by Edward Hanna

    or...(and here it comes..)

    6. The Ripper was someone whom no resident of Whitechapel would look at twice So, to my way of thinking, our friend Jack could not have been a Jew or someone "foreign looking"..Such a person, walking about with blood smears on them, in Whitechapel at the height of the Ripper terror would never have gotten out of the district alive!

    So in conclusion, the Ripper must have been the most ordinary looking man you can think of...There must not have been anything "threatening" about his appearance at all...

    right?

  • #2
    right?
    I think so, Mack.

    Makes a good deal of sense to me, at least.

    All the best,
    Ben

    Comment


    • #3
      Well I suppose it could have been a resident of Whitechapel and "good old {whoever] worked at odd hours butchering and/or dressing animals..so other 'Whitechapelers' knew him to regularly have blood on him...

      But still..none of this seemed to help John Pizer (who was rather roughly handled) when his name came up during the Annie Chapman investigation...

      So I think my basic point holds up..

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Mac.........I don't think you are right.

        It was the consensus of the various doctors who examined the corpses in situ that the murderer need not have been smeared with blood. His hands would have been blood stained, but shoved into his pockets as he returned home would have solved that particular problem. Whitechapel and it's environs was not well lit in that bleak autumn of 1888, and with hat pulled down, and collar pulled up, Jack the Ripper as he stalked and walked the area would have been indiscernable as Jew or Gentile. Just my opinion of course.

        Observer

        Comment


        • #5
          I don't know Observer..I grew up in the country and helped with turning pigs into bacon a few times...and I don't see how anyone could have performed the extensive "surgery" the Ripper did without getting blood all over him...

          And, at the height of Ripper Terror...my belief is Whitechapelers would have been noticed any stranger, (particularly one acting oddly) very quickly..

          Comment


          • #6
            Jack was a very ordinary looking bloke who just happened to be a serial killer.

            SK's usually are very ordinary, you know. Especially to look at.

            You just don't want to go down an alley with them.
            http://oznewsandviews.proboards.com

            Comment


            • #7
              EXACTLY! That is precisely my point, as made in my "summation" in the first post in this thread. Jack must have been the most ordinary looking man, someone you would never have noticed...

              Otherwise, I do not see how he could have possibly gotten away with these crimes!

              Comment


              • #8
                That rules out the Elephant man and the red indian thoery then!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  yep..plus Elvis...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                    That rules out the Elephant man and the red indian thoery then!!
                    The Sioux are the men that will not be blamed for nothing?

                    DM

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well there was fellow named Custer who might not agree with that...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        With 10s of thousands of immigrant Jews in the East End, I'd say that they would have been just as inconspicuous-looking as anyone else... if you are looking for an unobtrusive suspect that is.

                        Cheers,

                        Mike
                        huh?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A man named sioux... would stand out I think ( Johnny Cash wrote a song about him once )

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            macknnc,

                            A good summation of why many of us believe that all of the "well known" suspects are so poor and that an unknown local person who is the likely suspect.
                            Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks Pinkerton... My "favorite" suspect has always been Druitt, but this is only because he was the man named in Cullen's book, the first I ever read dealing with the case, not because I think he truly was our man..but I do agree with Rumblow that there is one big piece of the puzzle missing though...why did his family suspect him as being the murderer?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X