Was "Jack" a thief?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Perhaps it would be more the case that theft was amongst his misdemeanours? I would expect less of a linear progression in types of crime than a progression in severity of cirme.

I think an awful lot of people living in extreme poverty in the East End probably stole, but there are degrees

.

I totally agree with this. I was thinking about the question at work today
and came to the conclusion that 'Jack' being a sneaky underhand sort of person, probably didn't ever go in for violent robbery -and I can't see any sort of progression from this to the mutilations. I do think that he would certainly have been an opportunist without moral scruple, who would quietly lift any cash or valuables if he thought that he could act the innocent and get away with it though.

And so would "an awful lot of people" living in the same conditions at the time.

Like Adam, I don't believe that he just suddenly went out and killed and mutilated without building up to it. And like Sally, I think that he probably
committed crimes in the same vein , although less severe.

For example, the murderer from my street (already recounted), before
smashing a woman's head against a stone and ramming a screwdriver through her jaw (a stranger, and no apparent motive), had a history of 'flashing'.
Danilo Restivo an italian immigrant on trial in the UK a couple of weeks ago,
bludgeoned his neighbour, and then cut her breasts off and placed them by her head (I was disappointed that no one picked up on my thread about him), and had a history of following women and cutting bits of their hair off. I think that JTR might have shown signs of that sort.

There are also crimes such as cruelty to animals or arson, which have been
cited as typical of this sort of offender.

[TomTomKent]

He may ave taken small items of oppertunity, but if he was a thief then we would have to wonder why some items were left at the scene. What would any of the ladies have been carrying that was worth taking if coins and small pieces of jewellery were left?

[Rubyretro]

He may ave taken small items of oppertunity, but if he was a thief then we would have to wonder why some items were left at the scene. What would any of the ladies have been carrying that was worth taking if coins and small pieces of jewellery were left?

Sorry, Tomtom -what coins or jewellery were left at the scenes ?

At the very least, we know that the victims being experienced in prostitution
would ask for money up front -and at least that was taken back.

We can surmise that at least Lizand Mary had had previous customers that night -but there was no sign of the money ; Nor Annie's rings.

[merlyn555]

An interesting topic this....

Jack could be considered a thief but it would have more than likely been an after thought, the killings were his first line of business.

It is not unusual for serial killers to take trophies from his victims to remind him of the grand time he had with each but they are easily disposable for him also.

As a person with Anti Social Personality Disorder (the great majority of serial killers fit this discription of ASPD) the killer has no emotional attachment to the victim or their belongings, he also has no respect or feeling of guilt towards the victim so the removal of their property would be because he desired it, it is a conscious decision to take the items.

It is highly likely that he took what ever money the victim had because it would benifit him to do so.

[curious]

Stride seen in the Bricklayers Arms, Settles Street not long before she was killed so she could easily have spent her money.

She also had a piece of green velvet which she left with a friend when she went out, and she had a flower on her lapel. She was spending some money that evening, but I don't know how much such things would cost.

I do think Jack took whatever the women had on them.

Since most people seem to think that Jack did not start out killing women, Ada Wilson is interesting.

http://casebook.org/victims/adawils.html

"On March 28, 1888, while home alone at 19 Maidman Street, Wilson answered a knock at the door to find a man of about 30 years of age, 5ft 6ins in height, with a sunburnt face and a fair moustache. He was wearing a dark coat, light trousers and a wideawake hat. The man forced his way into the room and demanded money, and when she refused he stabbed her twice in the throat and ran, leaving her for dead. It is reported that nearby neighbours almost captured the man, but he found his escape. "

[Adam Went]

Hey all,

Phil:

Ah, my apologies for being slightly off topic with my post then. In that case, the short answer would probably be a "no" IMO.

Sally:

Interesting thoughts. You're quite right about the need to steal for the poor in the East End and it was quite common.

The difference in Jack though might have been that it was almost like an addiction - once he got started in a criminal way and got away with it, his crimes progressed, even when it wasn't necessary for him to be doing so - i.e. thieving just for the sake of it. And then as you said it progressed to actual violence.

Again, just speculation....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Sally]

The difference in Jack though might have been that it was almost like an addiction - once he got started in a criminal way and got away with it, his crimes progressed, even when it wasn't necessary for him to be doing so - i.e. thieving just for the sake of it. And then as you said it progressed to actual violence.

Again, just speculation....

Cheers,
Adam.

Adam

I'm sure that theft was a way of life for many. One thing to consider (for example) is that people could be, and were, arrested and imprisoned for vagrancy. It is quite easy (for me, at least) to see how, given the choice between being honest and imprisoned or dishonest and free - and perhaps with a roof over your head - many people would have taken the latter option.

The other thing that occurs to me is that a successful thief might obtain a sense of empowerment from that success. Theft - personal robbery particularlly - is an attempt at domination. It doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to see how robbery might have led to violent robbery, and so on.

[Rubyretro]

Well committing sneaky petty thefts and never being suspected of them, might given a sense of his cleverness at getting away scott free with crime
-and have inspired the Ripper to feel that he was above the law. "empowerment" is the word you used, Sally -and I'll go along with that..

[Adam Went]

Hi Sally,

Yes, I agree with you about potential violent robberies. A successful one may have led a man like JTR to gain more confidence and almost dare himself to go one better the next time, and that just builds and builds until the killings start. What it all comes back to though is the suggestion that he didn't just start murdering and mutilating prostitutes out of the blue but may well have had a criminal past, possibly just a list of petty crimes. But of course if he didn't get caught, it's even harder to say...

Cheers,
Adam.

[FrancoLoco]

A few thoughts while I really should be working:

I'd assume that the standard procedure would be for the customer to pony up the cash at the beginning of the transaction. If that takes place at the murder site itself, it's a vulnerable moment for the victim since she's now concentrating on putting the money in a safe place, whether it be in a fold in her clothing, in a shoe, a bag, whatever.

But I don't think that they'd be taking him to that lonely and isolated spot without getting the money up front. It think it more likely that any exchange of money would take place before entering any of the sites. If it takes place in that manner, such as at the front of 29 Hanbury or in Church Passage, it also gives Jack an opportunity to see where she keeps her money.

But in either case, I think Jack has to hand them some coin, and the fact that they were found without it says to me that Jack took it back, along with anything else he may have found.

A question: were any of the victims found with any coin in their possession?

[Phil H]

...in either case, I think Jack has to hand them some coin, and the fact that they were found without it says to me that Jack took it back, along with anything else he may have found.

An interesting point FrancoLoco.

I think there are several alternatives:

a) JtR didn't pay - if so why? Does it imply they knew him; owed him one? trusted him?

b) he paid and took it back with anything else he found because it was money and he needed it

c) he paid, but needed to get the "coins" back because of what they were - "polished farthings" (I know all the arguments against); some other forgery? some other con? Was this was because whatever was used might implicate JtR or lead the police to him?

Thinking about (c) was there a trade that used "tokens" of some kind (circular coin-like objects that might have been passed off as coins?

On (a) if he did not pay, that might tell us something, but equally if so, why was no OTHER money found? Nichols we know was broke, and Chapman, but Eddowes? or Kelly (if a JtR victim)?

Phil

[Versa]

Thinking about (c) was there a trade that used "tokens" of some kind (circular coin-like objects that might have been passed off as coins?


Phil

I could be wrong but I think workhouses sometimes minted their own 'tokens' although whether that practice was still in effect in 1888 I don't know. Some large companies (I know mining companies did) also paid in tokens spendable only at the company stores.

http://www.tokensociety.org.uk/topic...se/index.shtml

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm guessing Chapman's rings didn't wrench themselves from her fingers, so yeah, he robbed his victims.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil H]

There was a previous discussion of "Jack" as a thief - but the title threw me.

I add a link here

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2917

for those who want to revisit what was said.

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

And there was an essay on the subject written by yours truly published 4 years or so ago in Ripper Notes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott