Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

I would only disagree with one or two inclusions in your otherwise very sensible list. Firstly, I think we can dispense with the idea of anatomical knowledge, let alone surgical skill. The preponderance of medical evidence was to the effect that he had little to none at all. As for doss houses, the possibility that the killer lived in one is very strong indeed. Such places enabled their inmates to become needles in a proverbial haystack, which may explain why they were so popular with criminals. If you accept that the killer was probably a local man, it may be worth noting that very few people in the area had a "private residence".

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben and Abby

" 'We cannot, Mr Moore told us, 'get more than the slightest information from the managers of these common lodging houses in front of which you are now standing ; their residents are to them just numbers that they don't want to know'.
Some of these lodging houses accomodate up to 500 persons per night. (...) Anyway, it is in one of these lodging houses that Mr Moore expects to find the elusive criminal."

Moore's interview : 11 Sept 1889.
Article published in Le Gaulois, 2 March 1891

[lynn cates]

crude

Hello Ben.

"I think we can dispense with the idea of anatomical knowledge, let alone surgical skill. The preponderance of medical evidence was to the effect that he had little to none at all."

Certainly true of Kate and MJ. Their killings were quite crude and unskilful.

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Excellent find, Dave! I believe Edmund Reid was of a similar opinion.

Agreed, Lynn.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Certainly true of Kate and MJ. Their killings were quite crude and unskilful.

Exactly what was the evidence of anatomical knowledge or skill in the Nichols and Chapman murders that lacked in the Eddowes and Kelly murders?

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben and Abby

" 'We cannot, Mr Moore told us, 'get more than the slightest information from the managers of these common lodging houses in front of which you are now standing ; their residents are to them just numbers that they don't want to know'.
Some of these lodging houses accomodate up to 500 persons per night. (...) Anyway, it is in one of these lodging houses that Mr Moore expects to find the elusive criminal."

Moore's interview : 11 Sept 1889.
Article published in Le Gaulois, 2 March 1891

This is rather odd!

Since when was a search which ended in failure taken as proof that they were looking in the right place?


Obviously, they were not looking in the right place, and still looking in the wrong places a year later?

Perhaps if they had scrutinized the local SWM (Single White Male), living alone or occupying a room by himself, we might not be here debating this today..... if you know what I mean!

Quote:
"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."

Lets get serious...

Regards, Jon S.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Ben and Abby

" 'We cannot, Mr Moore told us, 'get more than the slightest information from the managers of these common lodging houses in front of which you are now standing ; their residents are to them just numbers that they don't want to know'.
Some of these lodging houses accomodate up to 500 persons per night. (...) Anyway, it is in one of these lodging houses that Mr Moore expects to find the elusive criminal."

Moore's interview : 11 Sept 1889.
Article published in Le Gaulois, 2 March 1891

This is rather odd!

Since when was a search which ended in failure taken as proof that they were looking in the right place?


Obviously, they were not looking in the right place, and still looking in the wrong places a year later?

Perhaps if they had scrutinized the local SWM (Single White Male), living alone or occupying a room by himself, we might not be here debating this today..... if you know what I mean!

Quote:
"...we must keep our eyes on points of character rather than on such manifestly unsatisfactory and inadequate work as the searching of lodging-houses, which in all probability the murderer does not frequent."

Lets get serious...

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon

You wrote:

"This is rather odd!

"Since when was a search which ended in failure taken as proof that they were looking in the right place?"

Not odd at all when you consider that all of the pronouncements by senior policemen who were involved in the case are marked by pomposity and a know-it-all attitude, which might betoken more that they really knew nothing and were mostly just guessing, or else misremembering years later.

All the best

Chris

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

You wrote:

"This is rather odd!

"Since when was a search which ended in failure taken as proof that they were looking in the right place?"

Not odd at all when you consider that all of the pronouncements by senior policemen who were involved in the case are marked by pomposity and a know-it-all attitude, which might betoken more that they really knew nothing and were mostly just guessing, or else misremembering years later.

All the best

Chris

Silly me, of course you are correct, and these senior officials are all too often quoted because they made some comment which aligns with some modern misguided theory.....

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Well obviously the police didn't confine their search exclusively to common lodging houses. We know full well they conducted "house-to-house" searches which encompassed all manner of dwelling. I wouldn't conclude for one moment that they were "not looking in the right place". I've no doubt that they were looking in the right places all the time, but unless the killer was silly enough to leave incriminating evidence about his person and in his place of residence, the chance of any real progress being made during these searches was always going to be minimal. The police could easily have encountered the killer during one such search: Policeman: "Where were you on the night of the recent murder?" Killer: "Here, asleep, with loads of other lodgers". End of conversation really.

I do form the impression that some people around here just can't bear the idea of a local nondescript being the killer.

[DVV]

Hi Ben, I agree entirely with your last two posts. Yes, Moore, Reid and some others did certainly realize how convenient a common lodging house could be for the killer. Not that it was the only trail, as you said. Other officials were of opinion that he was more likely protected by his "people", but the very idea of "protecting" JtR is untenable, imo.

Bestest my dear.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I would only disagree with one or two inclusions in your otherwise very sensible list. Firstly, I think we can dispense with the idea of anatomical knowledge, let alone surgical skill. The preponderance of medical evidence was to the effect that he had little to none at all. As for doss houses, the possibility that the killer lived in one is very strong indeed. Such places enabled their inmates to become needles in a proverbial haystack, which may explain why they were so popular with criminals. If you accept that the killer was probably a local man, it may be worth noting that very few people in the area had a "private residence".

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
You may be right on both counts.

My thinking on the doss house-He removed and took away the organs for a later purpose-but for what? to play with, eat, sexual reason? something. I just think he must have had some place private to be able to do this. I doubt the ripper would be bringing these things back to a doss house, so if he did live in one he must have had some other bolt hole, perhaps his place of work, to go back to play with his trophies.

On the other point. I would settle that the ripper would have had at least a general rudimentary anatomical knowledge. To do what he did under those conditions i dont think could have been done by someone just fishing around blind.

But I just had a stupid thought. If the ripper was fascinated by internal organs, and i think he was- is there any chance he could have gotten a hold of any anatomy books?

Perhaps we should check the local library records to see who did not return there anatomy books. ; )

[The Good Michael]

You know, a somewhat lucid predator who is taking trophies, isn't bringing them to a doss house. He isn't going to want to go through the front door, passing by a watchman and a deputy carrying a uterus, or having splashes of blood on himself. If he were in some trade that required at least a bit of a bloody mess... and he ate the organs on the way home... ok.

I prefer a loner type who had a place to live with family members who understood his temperament and didn't ask many questions...aloud.

Mike

[Errata]

Is squatting completely out of the question? Personally, I always pictured a room from an incurious landlord.

[GregBaron]

Mammals are mammals...

On the other point. I would settle that the ripper would have had at least a general rudimentary anatomical knowledge. To do what he did under those conditions i dont think could have been done by someone just fishing around blind.

Hi all,

As has been pointed out before, Jack knew his way around a knife. My own inclination is that he had some anatomical knowledge from experience with animals. If a sailor, for example, perhaps he sliced up fish on the deck...


Greg

[The Good Michael]

Hi all,

As has been pointed out before, Jack knew his way around a knife. My own inclination is that he had some anatomical knowledge from experience with animals. If a sailor, for example, perhaps he sliced up fish on the deck...

Agreed Greg, but I suggest that any person in that area who suffered periods of hardship, knew how to butcher animals out of necessity. This would impart rough knowledge, especially if swine were the chosen meat.

Mike