How the Ripper could have died

[Sally]

I don't think JTR was Barnett.

I don't think Joe was JtR either. But I haven't ruled him out as a possible killer of MJK. That is something different.

Phil H

He was rigorously interrogated by the police. He had an alibi. He was obviously the first in line as a suspect for Kelly's murder - and was cleared of suspicion. Anything is possible, of course, but it seems unlikely in those circumstances that he had anything to do with it.

When all indications point to innocence, it seems a little unfair to continue to point the finger of guilt at those long dead and unable to defend themselves. Yet unfortunately, it appears to be a common pastime.

There is insufficient evidence to point that finger at any one individual with any real degree of credibility.

Still, back to the topic in hand...

[Errata]

So this girl was telling me today that her uncle died by bird strike. Not the usual plane oriented bird strike, but a pigeon trying to dodge a hawk slammed into his head a full speed and he died. Now that I know that's possible, I can't help but picturing Jack the Ripper dropping his gladstone bag to raise his arms ineffectually against an oncoming duck. And if you think I'm not picturing his monocle falling out of his eye as it grows cartoonishly large in anticipation of the oncoming blow, all in slow motion... well you just don't know me

[lynn cates]

conservative

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. It might be a known case.

The lad to whom I referred was pre-teen. And 15 stone was quite conservative.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

OK. Now that I know he's not your kid, I can say that he's cute, but there's still something about him that makes me think "baby Eric Cartman."

[lynn cates]

stray

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. Just found it online under "images." Can't say.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Who is that kid, do you know? older babies and toddlers are the right age for fifth disease. My son was about 10 months old when he got it, and it was his first illness, other than one runny nose after taking him to a program at the library. A couple of other kids in our synagogue had it around the same time, and they all looked like that. Is that a permanent condition with the child in that picture, or something he had for a couple of days or weeks?

[lynn cates]

inexact

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. The photo above is not exact--a bit too bright; a bit too much coverage. This chap may actually have a skin problem, not just a blotchy face from food/drink.

But, in some ways, it is close.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

Wow. My son looked like that for about two days when he had something called "fifth disease." Freaked me out, but he didn't act sick at all.

ETA: yike-- just did the math, and 15 stone is 210 pounds. Please tell me that by "school," you mean the equivalent of high school, not elementary school. My husband weighed 180lbs. in the 8th grade (13 years old), but he was also 5'10 (1.77 meters). Our son is 4'2 (1.27m) and 58lbs (a little over 4 stone), and he isn't even six yet.

[lynn cates]

example

Hello Phil, Rivkah. Here is close to an example. Often, these patches are a bit smaller and sometimes a wee bit lighter than this. Some are triangular (roughly) and situated on the cheeks.

Went to school with such a lad. Quite heavy--about 15 stone. He had those same characteristic blotches.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

I don't think JTR was Barnett.

I don't think Joe was JtR either. But I haven't ruled him out as a possible killer of MJK. That is something different.

Phil H

[Sally]

I don't think JTR was Barnett. It's not outlandish, like the Freemason theories, although I think any theory that postulates a motive other than "he was a serial killer," which is to say, the "he killed other prostitutes to try to scare MJK off working the streets," theory, is stupid, but I don't think it was Barnett. I just checked the spelling in my A-Z, and he lived until 1926. Wow. Anyway, there's another reason not to suspect him-- apparently, no suspicious behavior for the next almost 40 years.

No, it does seem unlikely. According to himself, he was married (probably common law) from 1888 (or so) onwards; and lived from at least 1897 in a small area near the London Docks. Stable sort - if given to over-indulgence apparently.

Anyway, I'm not saying I think the blotchy suspect had rosacea-- just something that looked more or less like that. Symmetrical, large areas, mostly on the central face, not necessarily bumpy, as opposed to asymmetrical, spotty, with pale areas on the center of the face, and not raised bumps, or a rash-like appearance. And not weepy, or very dry, like an infection, or scabs.

Well, whatever it was, it was visible in fairly dark conditions - so it must have been quite noticeable.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah - well, I think 'blotchy' is a bit of a catch-all term that could indicate a wide range of causes. The man may simply have been an habitual drunk - ever so many people in Whitechapel were, you know, as the fascinating if often depressing infirmary records demonstrate.

We don't know if Blotchy had a limp - not that we hear. Blotchy is unlikely to have been Barnett, though - he had an alibi.

I don't think JTR was Barnett. It's not outlandish, like the Freemason theories, although I think any theory that postulates a motive other than "he was a serial killer," which is to say, the "he killed other prostitutes to try to scare MJK off working the streets," theory, is stupid, but I don't think it was Barnett. I just checked the spelling in my A-Z, and he lived until 1926. Wow. Anyway, there's another reason not to suspect him-- apparently, no suspicious behavior for the next almost 40 years.

Anyway, I'm not saying I think the blotchy suspect had rosacea-- just something that looked more or less like that. Symmetrical, large areas, mostly on the central face, not necessarily bumpy, as opposed to asymmetrical, spotty, with pale areas on the center of the face, and not raised bumps, or a rash-like appearance. And not weepy, or very dry, like an infection, or scabs.

You can see, blotchy really meant nothing to me other than "something visible on the face." This has been an excellent exchange of posts, as far as I'm concerned. I'm from New York, and I don't think I can remember ever using the word "blotchy" as an adjective. If I used "blotch" as a noun, it was to describe something like an ink stain.

[Sally]

Hi Rivkah - well, I think 'blotchy' is a bit of a catch-all term that could indicate a wide range of causes. The man may simply have been an habitual drunk - ever so many people in Whitechapel were, you know, as the fascinating if often depressing infirmary records demonstrate.

We don't know if Blotchy had a limp - not that we hear. Blotchy is unlikely to have been Barnett, though - he had an alibi.

[RivkahChaya]

Or perhaps a skin condition? On the other hand, Barnett suffered from gout.

Rosacea is a skin condition, but I think I know what you mean-- a non-transient one. My father had gout, and that didn't cause any facial discoloration.

I just looked up gout, and apparently there is a slight association of gout and red-face, but that is a medication side effect. The same sorts of foods that set off rosacea set off gout, though, IIRC, so I suppose if you had both, you could be down with attacks of both at the same time. Did the blotchy-faced suspect also have a limp?

One thing about rosacea is that it tends to be symmetrical. My first thought when I read "blotchy" was a port-wine stain, but those tend not to be symmetrical. From what I'm reading here, if the person the witness was describing had a port-wine stain, the term "blotchy" would not have been appropriate.

[Sally]

Hello Rivkah, Abby. "Blotchy" refers to red or rosy patches--principally upon the cheeks.

It was thought to result from excessive food/drink.

Cheers.
LC

Or perhaps a skin condition? On the other hand, Barnett suffered from gout.

Uh Oh....