where do you stand?

[Phil H]

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised any more when I see this arse backwards reasoning.

And I will be the one accused of writing 'rot' for pointing out the bleedin' obvious: the killing did continue after Polly and Annie, which is perfectly in line with their killer being someone who was still at large to kill more.

Well, I won't say you're talking rot, just reciting the old conventional wisdom, as is your wont.

I don't rule out a single killer of the five, more victims or less. But I think now it's only one option.

I don't see it as remotely impossible that one hand killed Polly and Annie, but did not kill Stride or Eddowes or kelly and may have struck again with Mackenzie. What would have prevented him in between is something i cannot say, but I think there are indications in that direction.

Equally Eddowes might be by the same hand as Polly and Annie (but I find it harder these days to see Liz and Mary as his handiwork).

My mind is open to all potentialities and possibilities.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Yes, I daresay Annie regretted the conversation.

Cheers.
LC

"Outside someone´s window", Lynn ...? You thinking of any specific person here?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

...the key here is it must be someone who could NOT have continued killing after the second murder. Because the killer of Polly and Annie would have killed more if still at large.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised any more when I see this arse backwards reasoning.

And I will be the one accused of writing 'rot' for pointing out the bleedin' obvious: the killing did continue after Polly and Annie, which is perfectly in line with their killer being someone who was still at large to kill more.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

conversation

Hello Christer. Thanks.

Yes, I daresay Annie regretted the conversation.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

foreign man

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

I refer to Mrs. Long's purported sighting of Annie and the "foreign looking man."

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

... while there had met his long-term mistress, Sarah Robertson, who was every bit his comfort zone.
Caz
X

What - the East End of her ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Phil
Maybrick, being a middle middle class tradesman.
Maybrick was a northerner and would have been totally out of his comfort zone in the East End.

Hi Lechy,

Maybrick isn't a bona fide ripper suspect, but you couldn't be more wrong about him. Firstly, he came from a working class family (his father was an engraver) and began his own working life as a shipping clerk. He worked his way up from there, but that didn't bestow class, and he would always have been considered lower middle, or at best a nouveau riche.

Secondly, he had lived and worked in the East End close to Whitechapel as a young man, and while there had met his long-term mistress, Sarah Robertson, who was every bit his comfort zone. In later years his business took him to America, and he was a frequent visitor to London, so he was no stranger to travel and he was also a regular user of prostitutes in addition to his drug habit. The East End would have been like a second, or third home to him.

This is presumably why the diary author thought this 'northerner' could be turned into the Whitechapel Murderer.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hello Mike.

"I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven"

Certainly looks that way to me. We have a chap who talks loudly outside someone's window--not too calculating.

Cheers.
LC

Steady on, Lynn - we apparently have TWO chaps talking - and one of them may not have been very happy about that.

If it was just the one chap performing some sort of monologue, then we neet to turn our minds to some sort of mentally challenged person.

And why would we do that ...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Mr Lucky]

Certainly looks that way to me. We have a chap who talks loudly outside someone's window--not too calculating.

Hi Lynn

Are you referring to Mrs Lilley or someone else?

[alex]

Sorry for deviating off topic but I felt RivkahChaya’s notes on Mansfield required some comment.

The London stage production used an interesting effect, by which, part of the Jekyll-to-Hyde transformation took place in full view of the audience. It was done by putting make-up on the actor (Richard Mansfield) in make-up that was visible only under certain light, and having the stage lit without that light, then changing the light as the transformation took place.

Onstage, after the light trick, Mansfield would fall down, grab a wig and false teeth and hurriedly pull them on, get back up, and run off stage, and that was the end of the scene (maybe the act, I'm not sure). He'd get make-up touch-ups, wig straightened, hairy, long-nailed gloves, and soforth, before the next scene. It had to be pretty darned cool.

Make-up and lighting changes were central to Mansfield’s transformations but, I’m afraid, I don’t recognise the Hyde-specific wig or the running off stage for make-up touch-ups and hairy, long-nailed gloves before returning for the next scene as Hyde. There was no need for any of this as the only on-stage Jekyll to Hyde transformation brought the play to an end.

The first on-stage transformation comes towards the end of Act 3 where Hyde taunts Lanyon before drinking the potion: “from the glass which he puts down with a loud cry. He reels, staggers and clutches the table, calls out in Jekyll’s voice ‘Lanyon! Lanyon!’ Then he straightens himself and walks erect to centre-stage as Jekyll.” This concludes Act 3.

The second and final on-stage transformation comes in Act 4 where, during a soliloquy while looking out of a window at the rear of the stage, mainly with his back to the audience, after some shivering convulsions and clasping of his face in his hands, Jekyll falls into a chair and realises: “he has slowly turned into Hyde and now sees himself in the glass and rises with a shriek.” Hyde then lurches to centre-stage, drinks poison and falls to the floor, dead. As Lanyon, Poole, Newcome and Agnes enter, the curtain falls, bringing the play to an end.

In addition to make-up and lighting effects, Mansfield achieved his transformation through dramatic alterations in stature, bearing, facial and vocal expression. He was aided in this by a single wig, worn for both Jekyll and Hyde. This full-bodied wig was heavily greased so that it could be smoothly swept back and to the side for Jekyll, or tousled and pulled forward as Hyde; the grease ensuring it would retain the desired style. Both styles can clearly be seen in the famous double-exposure publicity photograph of Mansfield in the dual role.

(The specific quotes in the above come from stage direction in the original Lyceum script of Mansfield’s Jekyll and Hyde performance.)

The idea of the Ripper being a Toff, or dressing like a Toff, is probably inspired more by the contemporary theatrical drama, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, playing around London at the time.
It does present a visual treat, top hat, cane, little black bag & cape swirling through the midnight fog. Who can resist such a romantic figure.

Interestingly, in terms of Jon’s point, for the early performances of Jekyll and Hyde at the Lyceum, Mansfield wore the same low-crown, wide-brimmed hat as both Jekyll and Hyde. By the 18th August, however, he had taken to wearing a silk chapeau as Jekyll; thus appropriately clothing his doctor in what would come to be seen as classic Ripper garb.

Once again, I’m sorry for this distraction.

Best wishes
alex

[lynn cates]

loud

Hello Mike.

"I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven"

Certainly looks that way to me. We have a chap who talks loudly outside someone's window--not too calculating.

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven rather than Risk Taker..., the uncontrolled impulses inevitably created the second condition.

I agree, but I couldn't quite get my slogan together.

If you'll pardon me being a little, umm, whatever, if you have to pee, and you can't find a bathroom, your risk-aversion, or, getting arrested for exposing yourself (not to mention your personal sense of embarrassment), will keep you from just going right where you are. To a point. If you have, say a bladder infection, or you really, really can't find a restroom, at some point, your risk-aversion will be overcome by your discomfort.

We don't know exactly where JTR was on some continuum; all we know is that either he wasn't risk-averse, or the impulse was overwhelming, (or both).

He could have been extremely risk-averse, but feeling overwhelmed; or, not risk-averse, and rather blase about other people's lives; or somewhere on the center of both.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Phil

The fact that he committed the murders and got away with it time and time again implies that he was a risk taker. I would submit, Phil, that in this case in which very little is known about the killer this one thing that we can bank on.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

Your last sentence defines my participation on these boards, ...without much to, as you put it "bank on", the notion that we can categorically assign murder victims that Fall to a single killer is flawed.

We barely have enough evidence to conclude preliminarily that 2 or perhaps 3 were by the same killer.

I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven rather than Risk Taker..., the uncontrolled impulses inevitably created the second condition.

Best regards Mr G

[RivkahChaya]

I suggest a shochet or someone who has witnessed shechita because the speed with which a shochet wields his knife and the extreme sharpness of that knife are parts of the process in order

I've never questioned that JTR could have been a Jew, and I suppose he could have even been a shecter, or someone who had trained as a shecter, but I don't think there's anything about the murders that especially suggests a shecter.

Cripes, I certainly hope that someone wasn't using his knives on animals by day, and people by night! that means that none of his meat was actually kosher! But, then, someone commented that a shecting knife wasn't like the knife that was used, according to one of the coroners at the time. So, we would have a shecter using some other set of knives, not his professional ones. At this point, we're starting to move away from the reasons for suspecting a shecter in the first place.

A professional shecter could not even sharpen his professional knives, and his "murder" knives with the same stone, because that, too would make the professional knives unkosher.

It's a matter of Jewish law that something metal, like a utensil or pot, which is accidentally rendered unkosher (or purchased second hand, so the status isn't known) can be made kosher by cleaning it and pouring boiling water over it (there are a lot of rules: the water must boil for 20 minutes, etc.), and you can kasher regular items for Passover this way.

However, it's also a matter of law that you cannot knowingly render something unkosher with the intent to kasher it later.

I'm pretty sure all butchers are trained for speed, because time is money.

[ChrisGeorge]

And was "Jack" a risk-taker? - I suggest that is only an assumption.

Phil

Hi Phil

The fact that he committed the murders and got away with it time and time again implies that he was a risk taker. I would submit, Phil, that in this case in which very little is known about the killer this one thing that we can bank on.

Best regards

Chris