Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[mklhawley]

If I knew what I know when I should have known it, I wouldn't have done what I did when I did it.

Quote of the year!

[Errata]

If I knew what I know when I should have known it, I wouldn't have done what I did when I did it.

That reminds of that famous quote by a Southern woman in prison "If I'd killed him when I met him I would be out by now."

[miss marple]

In reply to Robert, in the public imagination, the east end was the lower depths, a place of extreme poverty, dirt disease and crime, a horrifying place in the greatest city of the empire,that the majority of people did not venture near.
Even Jack London in the Edwardian era when researching his book, dressed down to blend in.
You would not casually wander around the streets unless you knew them well. There are areas of London I would not feel safe wondering about today.

We know now that serial killers have a familier area they feel comfortable in. Even with ease of transport today many serial killers operate in their home range.
I find it inconceivable that a non East Ender would feel secure enough to do those killings in a strange environment.There is nothing about the murders to suggest a non local.They take place in a very localised area. In the case of Mary Kelly a knowledge of her life, the fact she had returned to the streets after kicking out Barnett,a few days before is the sort of information only a local would knew.

As for the 'toffs' who visited the east end to go to a music hall, going to with a bunch of people in a carriage to a well lit wide main road such as Whitechapel High St to see popular stars in a well appointed venue is not the same as knowing the area.
One could simplify the suspects list
by eliminating, Royalty, celebraties, Reformers, non Londoners, men with no connection with the area, men who were NOT in the area at the time. Old men. Men with NO criminal tendency. Men who lead normal healthy lives and make a positive contribution to society are not serial killers.

So we are left with a damaged human, possible childhood trauma, maybe mother an abusive prostitute. Possible history of knife usage, as in slaughterhouse or fondness for cutting flesh. Possible connection with petty crime, possible hatred of women caused by trauma. Possible lack of empathy caused by being a psychopath.
But everyone loves playing the suspects game, the more unlikely the better. I don't think that will end.
After all nobody really wants to know whodunnit, that would spoil the fun.

Cheers Miss Marple

[DrHopper]

In reply to Robert, in the public imagination, the east end was the lower depths, a place of extreme poverty, dirt disease and crime, a horrifying place in the greatest city of the empire,that the majority of people did not venture near.
Even Jack London in the Edwardian era when researching his book, dressed down to blend in.
You would not casually wander around the streets unless you knew them well. There are areas of London I would not feel safe wondering about today.

We know now that serial killers have a familier area they feel comfortable in. Even with ease of transport today many serial killers operate in their home range.
I find it inconceivable that a non East Ender would feel secure enough to do those killings in a strange environment.There is nothing about the murders to suggest a non local.They take place in a very localised area. In the case of Mary Kelly a knowledge of her life, the fact she had returned to the streets after kicking out Barnett,a few days before is the sort of information only a local would knew.

As for the 'toffs' who visited the east end to go to a music hall, going to with a bunch of people in a carriage to a well lit wide main road such as Whitechapel High St to see popular stars in a well appointed venue is not the same as knowing the area.
One could simplify the suspects list
by eliminating, Royalty, celebraties, Reformers, non Londoners, men with no connection with the area, men who were NOT in the area at the time. Old men. Men with NO criminal tendency. Men who lead normal healthy lives and make a positive contribution to society are not serial killers.

So we are left with a damaged human, possible childhood trauma, maybe mother an abusive prostitute. Possible history of knife usage, as in slaughterhouse or fondness for cutting flesh. Possible connection with petty crime, possible hatred of women caused by trauma. Possible lack of empathy caused by being a psychopath.
But everyone loves playing the suspects game, the more unlikely the better. I don't think that will end.
After all nobody really wants to know whodunnit, that would spoil the fun.

Cheers Miss Marple

This is one of the most intelligent things I have seen written in summary of a JTR suspect. Excellent stuff Miss Marple.
However, I would say that I'm not sure he 'knew' Mary Kelly's situation, just that as they talked it became apparent he had 'hit the jackpot' regarding her circumstances.

[Robert]

Hi Miss Marple

But the point I'd like to make is that statistical probabilities are just that - probabilities. How much do we actually know about Jack?

[lynn cates]

knowing Jack

Hello Robert. Well, some would say we don't know jack about him. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

I think his name was Cedric.

[Scott Nelson]

No, it was Thaddius Makepiece.

[Bridewell]

There are no certainties, to my mind, only probabilities. Serial killers typically become active in their twenties so if JtR was typical and if he started his killing in 1888 and not significantly before, I would say that he is probably a white European male aged between 20 & 30, between 5' 4" & 5' 8" in height, working class, local man.
The people of London were looking for someone who looked as vicious as he actually was. JtR was probably nothing of the kind - perhaps even physically attractive, probably charming at a superficial level.
I suppose I'd better include something everyone can nod sagely and agree on:
He probably carried a sharp knife.

I probably haven't used the word "probably" enough for some, & I've probably used it too much for others. Heigh ho!

[Robert]

We are reaching a point where the typical serial killer is....untypical.

[DrHopper]

Agreed!
We are pulling out our view and generalising to a point where the only thing we can say is that "he killed people" and even that may be contentious as it could 2 or more killers!
We need a fresh perspective, a new paradigm, a new approach to our interpretion, if we are to tackle this question.
What makes these cases different from other murders of the day? Beyond them being brutal - this was the East End in the 1880s, there was more than enough brutality on a daily basis. What is it about these crimes that makes them stand out? That is perhaps the question we should be asking in order to move forward with this line of inquiry.

[Errata]

Agreed!

What makes these cases different from other murders of the day? Beyond them being brutal - this was the East End in the 1880s, there was more than enough brutality on a daily basis. What is it about these crimes that makes them stand out? That is perhaps the question we should be asking in order to move forward with this line of inquiry.

Well, organ theft was not unique, but I believe that in other cases more identifiable organs were taken. Eyes, hearts, tongues, things with easily recognizable symbolism. And things easier to get to. Symbolically speaking, I could understand the destruction of a uterus, but taking it home with you verges into the creepy weird category.

[Robert]

Even the theft of the organs has been questioned. I seem to remember Bob Hinton suggesting that organs left by the side of the body might easily have been snapped up by a rat, of whom there were a goodly number (apologies to Bob if I've got this wrong).

[Abby Normal]

Can we come up with a list of things that seem to be pretty much agreed upon about the killer? For example, if there's a consensus that the Ripper had a "carroty" or reddish mustache; or his general height; or anything else, physical or not. Just some generally agreed upon 'facts' if you will about him, his physical appearance, psyche and possible occupation and residence.

Hi RN
Actually, hair color, is the one thats the most difficult(at least for me) as the witnesses describe everything from red (carroty), to fair to brown and dark.
But I will have go at it.

White male
Gentile
English
Local-lived in the East End for a long time
Knew the streets like the back of his hand
Aged mid 20's to mid 30's
Sightly below average height 5' 5'' to 5' 7''
Stout, not skinny
Mustache
Pale skin
Dress-respectable, lower to middle class, maybe slighty shabby
Occupation status-not poor/destitute, regularly employed, off on holidays and weekends
Marital status was either single or married and dominated wife as he could come and go as he pleased without having to answer to his spouse.
Private residence and/or work place. Did NOT live in a Doss house.
Rough childhood-father abusive and/or absent. Mother possibly a prostitute
Probable surgical skill, at least anatomical knowledge
Could superficially communicate well, possibly charming, at least-to put the victims at ease.
Above avg intelligence, street smart, more cunning than lucky.
Was very familiar with the prostitute class, probably mingled with them in pubs etc.
Let the victims lead him to the murder spots
Sexually motivated crimes-"lust murderer", post mordem mutilater, Fascinated with the knife
Took internal organs with him for later purpose

[Errata]

Even the theft of the organs has been questioned. I seem to remember Bob Hinton suggesting that organs left by the side of the body might easily have been snapped up by a rat, of whom there were a goodly number (apologies to Bob if I've got this wrong).

True, but if a corpse is missing it's eyes or it's tongue and the body is still warm, likely the killer took them. Not to keep, but more a mafia-esque message sometimes popular with street gangs of the area.

Though the Mexican drug cartels win. They sew faces onto soccer balls. And I bet it is damned effective.