A general consensus as to what the Ripper may have looked like?

[Rubyretro]

I think you're right on the money here Sister Hyde. The word Jew, if spoken in a certain tone by a Gentile, is a pejorative in itself not unlike "Lipski" at that time.

To Kensei:

Despite the unreliability of witnesses, darkness and other drawbacks, I have a hard time thinking Mrs. Long and Lawende described the same person.

Long - dark, foreign, 40-something
Lawende - fair mustache, sailor, 28

Neither may have been the culprit.........

Greg

I totally agree with you, Greg.

[Sister Hyde]

I think you're right on the money here Sister Hyde. The word Jew, if spoken in a certain tone by a Gentile, is a pejorative in itself not unlike "Lipski" at that time.

Greg

Hi Greg,

Even beyond the "pejorative" aspect, just publishing Hutchinson's statement with the word "jewish" or "jew", would have incured the wrath of the locals toward the jewish community of Whitechapel, and since there had obviously been outbursts against them in the district because of the case, I guess they didn't want to fuel even more unjustified violence.

[GregBaron]

Riots in the streets...

Even beyond the "pejorative" aspect, just publishing Hutchinson's statement with the word "jewish" or "jew", would have incured the wrath of the locals toward the jewish community of Whitechapel, and since there had obviously been outbursts against them in the district because of the case, I guess they didn't want to fuel even more unjustified violence.

Again Syster Hyde, I completely agree with you here, Whitechapel was just an incident away from instituting its own pogroms...

I totally agree with you, Greg.

Wow, Rubyretro, this is a first for me...........remind me to buy you a glass of wine someday...

Greg

[Sister Hyde]

Again Syster Hyde, I completely agree with you here, Whitechapel was just an incident away from instituting its own pogroms...

Yes, all that was needed was a match, which the people had already got with the Leather Apron scare, so, almost from the beginning of the case.

[GregBaron]

Time to clean and go...

You're on, providing you return the favour - visit some of those civil war sites and Charlestown and the like.

Hi Fleetwood Mac, I'd be happy to guide you around Charleston, it is a rather charming little city with lots of drinking establishments............

Greg,

The other thing with this:

Let's say he knows Watkin will return at 1.44.

He's still chatting at 1.35.

Let's say they enter the square at 1.36. Half a minute to get to the spot and kill.

Half a minute to cut the cloth, gather the organs and wrap them up.

That gives him 7 minutes.

If he's working to Watkin's return, then how does he know when his 7 minutes are up?

Presumably he doesn't have a watch.

Time flies when you're having fun as they say - how can he guage it? How can he tell the difference between say 5, 7, 9 minutes? How can he be sure he isn't going to overrun his time?

The sensible conclusion is that he worked to footsteps and other noises, and made his escape when he heard someone approaching.

Also, JTR positions himself not far from where Watkin enters the square, and where he can be seen by Harvey if he shines his lamp when he enters from Church Passage. If JTR knew the beats, wouldn't it have been wise to have positioned himself in the opposite corner where no policeman would have entered the square?

Fleetwood, I'm not suggesting that Jack carried around a little notebook complete with Bobby beat times. I think he just probably knew he didn't have that long until a cop or other disturber came through. It's possible he knew the specific beat and even more likely that Eddowes did.

As for switching corners, I think perhaps the chosen one was the darkest in the square plus moving to the other side would put him closer to the night watchman who from there might hear the disturbance....

But I agree with your basic premise that he judged when to bail by footsteps or other noises...

Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

But I agree with your basic premise that he judged when to bail by footsteps or other noises...

Greg

Which then begs the question: if he could hear their footsteps then why can't they hear his?

Lends some weight to Cox's description of the man walking up the court 'making no noise'.

Always had a sneaking feeling for Blotchy for this. Still, 'short stout' would put him more in line with Levy than Lawende. Too many questions; not enough in the way of answers!

[GregBaron]

Silent slippers...

Which then begs the question: if he could hear their footsteps then why can't they hear his?

Remember he wore those Canadian galoshes...I forget what they're called? This idea of course has been thrashed and trashed.....

By the way, and this is hugely off thread, if ripperologists have not read Edgar Allan Poe's "A Man of the Crowd" they should............it's eerily prescient of Whitechapel and even mentions noise reducing slippers worn by (I think) the trailing narrator..............it's supposed to take place in London as well.....including sojourns through numerous back alleys and dark streets.....amazing...another less recognized work by the Master...


Greg

[Phil H]

Which then begs the question: if he could hear their footsteps then why can't they hear his?

In the case of Castle Alley (McKenzie) they did, did they not, also Coles?

Of course, with the canonicals, people may have heard him and not recognised the fact.

Phil

[curious]

I don't rule it out, one of the three Jewish gentleman seemed (according to the press at the time) to be holding something back, so it is possible they saw Kosminski and that the latter or his family was known to them (or some of them.

Phil

Hi, Phil,
can't help wondering why you think they may have seen Kosminski in particular?

Thanks,
curious

[FrankO]

Based on all the eyewitness accounts, can we narrow down factors in common with all of the men the witnesses saw?

For example, an average height, average build, an average hair color, an average skin tone, etc--A composite of all traits common in most or all of the men the witnesses' face?

No matter WHO he was, it'd help to know what he generally looked like, a composite from various witness sightings.

Hi RipperNoob,

As to your original question of this thread, I think it would be very hard to narrow down features common with all the men the witnesses saw. That is to say, we could narrow down common features, but we should ask ourselves a couple of questions.

Which witnesses most likely saw the Ripper to begin with? Is there any consensus to be reached on that subject?

Furthermore, there’s the other point that's already been put forward: how reliable are the descriptions anyway?

But if we just look at all the descriptions, the best consensus I think we can reach based on them is that:
He was 5’6” or 5’7” tall, which seems to have been about the average height of men back then & there. He very likely sported a moustache, which wouldn’t get us any further either because most men wore a moustache back then. And he was very likely not dressed all that respectably but rather shabbily and in dark clothes, just like your average East End man. As far as I’m concerned the consensus can’t go any further than that.

This would, however, be in line with what I think the Ripper looked like based on the fact that he wasn’t caught. The Ripper very likely didn’t stand out physically or in the way that he behaved around other people. Except, of course, for the moment that he attacked his victims. In other words, he very likely looked like your every-day East End punter and wasn’t outstandingly tall or short. He didn’t look or act like a raving lunatic, nor was he something like many people and police seem to have expected him to be: the sinister doctor-like man with the shiny black bag.

Just my two cents, of course.

All the best,
Frank

[curious4]

Hello Sister Hyde,

I take it simply to mean someone from outside the area in this context - I think the residents would recognise someone as an outsider. Again from my newspaper skimmimg, Daily Standard 13.9.88, a woman who had reportedly lived in the area for twenty years states that (she believes) the murderer "did not belong to them" (the people who lived there).

Hello Phil H,

Canīt prove or disprove what you say about the word foreigner always being used to designate a Jew but do you have any evidence to back this up. After all not all immigrants were necessarily Jewish and if they meant Jew, why not say so?

With the best will in the world,
C4

Oops, sorry, that should be Evening Standard, remeber it well...

[curious4]

And what would such an assertion be based on? the clothing? language level?

She was a prostitute, almost on her last legs and, as someone who was there at the time (unlike us - oh I wish!) was giving her opinion. She had lived there for a long time and would be familiar with the people of the district.

Cheers,
C4

[curious4]

From my reading of period books, I seem to recall that the Victorians had a variety of words for foreigners, often precise but by today's standards perjorative:

lascars, coolies, levantines, orientals etc, and others for those of African or Carribbean origin.

I think they would have talked of Frenchmen, Germans, Italians quite specifically.

Also, I don't have the source here, wasn't Hutchinson's description of Astrakhan Man amended from Jewish to "foreigner" for publication? That seems a pretty specific parallel, if so.

Phil

I agree with you Phil, I think, people at the time would have been more specific. Thatīs why I question the use of the word "foreigner" and think it indicated someone from outside the district. I donīt, however, think that Hutchinson changed his statement, if it was him, to be PC. I have always found that anti-semitism and other anti-s are more usual in the middle classes. People who are really down and out havenīt got the time or the energy. Perhaps he said "foreigner" and the policeman taking his statement changed it to "jewish-looking".

Best wishes,
C4

[Sister Hyde]

She was a prostitute, almost on her last legs and, as someone who was there at the time (unlike us - oh I wish!) was giving her opinion. She had lived there for a long time and would be familiar with the people of the district.

Cheers,
C4

Well, if she see THE killer, but it always takes us back to the same dilemma existing with all the potential witnesses.

[HelenaWojtczak]

I'm not entirely convinced that any witness actually saw Jack the Ripper. It is entirely possible that either the witnesses did not actually see the victims, or saw men with the victims too early for it to make sense for them to be the murderer.

I agree with Errata.