Who Is The Ripper? A Poll of Casebookers

[Fisherman]

Ben: But I’m suggesting the precise opposite; that you shouldn’t do that, not that you “should”!

And I once again suggest that you let me take care of my posting myself.

Why have you nothing to say on the “surgical skill” thread? Crossmere had no “surgical skill”, and yet there are people posting there, right now, insisting that the real ripper must have had some. That won’t do, surely? Hadn’t we better go over there and put them right? Or is the real enemy anyone who suggests the ripper might been a local itinerant from the same social group as his victims, despite that type of suspect being much closer to Crossmere than a “surgeon” could ever be?

Has nothing to do what we are discussing here. Here we are discussing your proposition that prostitutes belong to the lower middle class. Or that the lower middle class is on par with prostitutes, socially.

Neither applies.

Tesco is a "huge and renowned company"; that doesn’t make the man who stacks the canned fruit at Orpington a “very competent and skilled worker” necessarily, any more than the “hugeness” or “renown” of Kenworth made Gary Ridgway one. He might have been a veritable Picasso with his spray paint for all I know, but that doesn’t negate the fact that spray-painting a truck is a relatively menial task (and that’s not to impugn the worth of spray-painters or shelf-stackers).

There are spray-painters and there are spray-painters. The "menial" ones end up in a back-street workshop for crashed cars. The better ones get the jobs at the large and important car manufacturers. They make decent money and they live a relatively comfortable life. They are nowhere near the rock bottom of society.

So you didn’t read a single word I wrote about the huge different between a working class labourer in 1980s west coast America, and his direct equivalent in 1880s east London?

Yes, I did. It was all wrong.

A truck painter like Ridgway would probably have found himself in a doss house at some point if he had lived and worked in the east end of London in 1888; ditto Shawcross, ditto Rifkin, ditto Wright, ditto Sutcliffe. Conversely, many of the women who found work as prostitutes, either regularly or temporarily, in the Victorian east end would probably not have had recourse to such work if they lived 100 years later in a less $hitty, less crowded part of the world. We’re talking about a time and place where “rock bottom” was relatively normal, which it would not have been in the times and places in which Ridgway committed his crimes.

Why would we move Ridgway to 1888 and start conjuring up what he would or would not have made there? How does that apply to his REAL status: that of a middle-class truck painter with a decent income and a house?
THAT was where I said many serialists come from, and these serialists killed prostitutes who live at the rock bottom of society TODAY. That was my example, that was my comparison.

If we are to move to 1888, then you need to look at the homeless vagrants, the down-and-outs, those who turned drunkenbolts whenever they could afford it, the unemployed and poor, if you are to find people back then living at the same level as the street prostitutes.

Then there were people like Lechmere, like Robert Paul, like William Marshall, like Cadosh, like James Kent, like James Mumford, who all had a work and who all had an address where they lived and where most of them raised families. These people would have been a much better comparison with Ridgway and Hansen. They would have been the lower middle class of their day, striving people, eking out a better existance for themselves than those who occupied the same rock bottom as the prostitutes.

[Shaggyrand]

Re H. H. Holmes: Apparently a descendant (or relation) wrote a book saying Herman could well have been the Ripper, since some of the "Ripper" letters mailed in England seem to match Mudgett's handwriting and were on his stationery. Therefore, "Holmes" must have been in England at that time.

I personally think Holmes is a better fit for the killer of the dismembered corpses found around London. He specialized in charming young women and luring them into his "hotel" in Chicago. Some he married for their money, then killed them and sold their skeletons to doctors and medical schools. Very enterprising, Mr. Holmes was.

From 1888 to 1892 Holmes was building his hotel/"Murder Castle". To think that he left the country and put its construction in anyone else's hands without his oversight is ridiculous. Holmes kept turn over of the builders very high so no one would catch on. He didn't meet Pitezel, a carpenter that would become his accomplice, until 1889 when construction was well underway. There are old company records of him being in Chicago during the Ripper time frame and zero evidence of him being in England.
The book written by his relative doesn't even work as a comedy.

[Pcdunn]

Shaggy: Your logic here is indisputable. I hadn't even given any thought to Holmes as the Ripper until coming across an article on the Internet. Someone on another forum said they'd interviewed the author of the pro-Holmes book and thought the case was very good.... Ripperologists know that isn't always good enough, of course.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Antony. Thanks.

A deranged pork butcher got Polly and Annie. Liz? Copy? Of whom?

Kate, yes, copy cat. "MJK" completely unrelated.

Cheers.
LC

C1 and C2.. unknown but Ischenschmid possible. Same hand here.
C3... unknown, possibly a "known acquaintance" of Stride
C4... unrelated to C1, 2, 3..possibly related to C5 though. Opportunist. Seems to me more "sinister" because of facial attack.
C5... unrelated to C1, 2, 3. Possibly related to C4.

Rank outsider for one/two murders? Bury or James Kelly.

just my views.


Phil

[Ben]

“I suggest Ben, you could very easy come up with the reasonably well-dressed serial killer if you only took the time to research the issue.”

I suggest, Jon, that you read my posts more carefully.

I never claimed that no serial killer is capable of dressing “reasonably” well. I suggested that it was extremely unlikely that the ripper would dress himself so conspicuously and ostentatiously on the streets of the east end when hunting for victims. I’ve explained why numerous times - although it should be stinkingly obvious - to reassuringly little dissent of late.

Of the list of “examples” you’ve just googled (examples that don’t contradict anything I’ve said), five out of seven committed their crimes in their own homes, which means they could have worn dressing gowns made of platinum chain mail at the time, for all the relevance they have to my observation.

“I have yet to find any examples of serial killers inhabiting doss houses”

That’s because doss houses were unique to that time and place, and were extremely common in that part of London. The “rank and file” (you know, that group you aspire to belong to, but don’t) accept that the ripper was probably a working class local man, and the chances of a working class local man not being familiar with the inside of a doss house were very slim indeed.

[Ben]

“Here we are discussing your proposition that prostitutes belong to the lower middle class. Or that the lower middle class is on par with prostitutes, socially.”

I didn’t “propose” either of those things, Fisherman.

For the record, both Crossmere and Ridgway would be considered working class, not "lower-middle class" and certainly not middle class – in this country, at least (I don’t know if the classifications are different in Sweden). In 1888, Crossmere was born to working class parents, and had a menial blue-collar occupation in a poor area of London, making him irrefutably working class. For some reason, you seem to think that having a family elevates a man’s “class” status, but in reality it has no such effect; he is simply the head of a working class family.

You also cite the likes of William Marshall and Albert Cadosch as examples of “lower middle class” men because they lived in accommodation other than common lodging houses, as though this somehow qualified them for entry into the “class” above, but this is equally inaccurate. Kelly had an entire room to herself – does that make her middle class?

William Marshall was a labourer of the type regularly found in common lodging houses, but the fact that he himself lived in a hovel in Berner Street would not have propelled him to a higher “class” than his lodging house counterparts – it could simply mean that his particular branch of the “labouring” trade did not necessitate as much travel. A labourer is generally considered a class below a white collar profession, such as that of a clerk, and yet clerks could be found in the higher-end lodging houses that you insist were the exclusive reserve of society’s “rock bottom”.

“The "menial" ones end up in a back-street workshop for crashed cars. The better ones get the jobs at the large and important car manufacturers. They make decent money and they live a relatively comfortable life.”

No, that doesn’t follow at all. The man who spray-paints crashed cars in a "back-street workshop" probably owns the workshop and does nearly every job there with the help of an assistant or family member, whereas Ridgway was just a spray-painter. You’re essentially arguing that the man who stacks canned fruit at Tesco’s is “better”, or has a “better” deal, than the man who runs the local newsagent whose numerous tasks include stacking shelves with canned fruit, which is nonsense.

Another mistake you make is to conflate poverty with known bad behaviour. Sally and I share the view that the ripper may have frequented common lodging houses, and was probably no stranger to the casual ward. Nobody said anything about turning “drunkenbolts”; that was just you with your inference that because prostitution is bad and naughty and degrading, the male equivalent of a prostitute must be equally bad, naughty and degraded.

“Why would we move Ridgway to 1888 and start conjuring up what he would or would not have made there? How does that apply to his REAL status”

Because if Ridgway had lived in 1888, his “REAL status” would likely have been very different. I’ll try to put it even more simply: if Jack the Ripper was a frequenter of doss houses and the occasional casual ward (as I believe he was), his predicament was no less removed from the “rock bottom” of the 1880s east end than Ridgeway’s was from the “rock bottom” of the 1980s Pacific north-west, where a menially employed spray-painter could obtain a detached house of reasonable size for himself and his missus.

[Fisherman]

I didn’t “propose” either of those things, Fisherman.

For the record, both Crossmere and Ridgway would be considered working class, not "lower-middle class" and certainly not middle class – in this country, at least (I don’t know if the classifications are different in Sweden). In 1888, Crossmere was born to working class parents, and had a menial blue-collar occupation in a poor area of London, making him irrefutably working class. For some reason, you seem to think that having a family elevates a man’s “class” status, but in reality it has no such effect; he is simply the head of a working class family.

You also cite the likes of William Marshall and Albert Cadosch as examples of “lower middle class” men because they lived in accommodation other than common lodging houses, as though this somehow qualified them for entry into the “class” above, but this is equally inaccurate. Kelly had an entire room to herself – does that make her middle class?

William Marshall was a labourer of the type regularly found in common lodging houses, but the fact that he himself lived in a hovel in Berner Street would not have propelled him to a higher “class” than his lodging house counterparts – it could simply mean that his particular branch of the “labouring” trade did not necessitate as much travel. A labourer is generally considered a class below a white collar profession, such as that of a clerk, and yet clerks could be found in the higher-end lodging houses that you insist were the exclusive reserve of society’s “rock bottom”.



No, that doesn’t follow at all. The man who spray-paints crashed cars in a "back-street workshop" probably owns the workshop and does nearly every job there with the help of an assistant or family member, whereas Ridgway was just a spray-painter. You’re essentially arguing that the man who stacks canned fruit at Tesco’s is “better”, or has a “better” deal, than the man who runs the local newsagent whose numerous tasks include stacking shelves with canned fruit, which is nonsense.

Another mistake you make is to conflate poverty with known bad behaviour. Sally and I share the view that the ripper may have frequented common lodging houses, and was probably no stranger to the casual ward. Nobody said anything about turning “drunkenbolts”; that was just you with your inference that because prostitution is bad and naughty and degrading, the male equivalent of a prostitute must be equally bad, naughty and degraded.



Because if Ridgway had lived in 1888, his “REAL status” would likely have been very different. I’ll try to put it even more simply: if Jack the Ripper was a frequenter of doss houses and the occasional casual ward (as I believe he was), his predicament was no less removed from the “rock bottom” of the 1880s east end than Ridgeway’s was from the “rock bottom” of the 1980s Pacific north-west, where a menially employed spray-painter could obtain a detached house of reasonable size for himself and his missus.

This is not interesting any more. You are all over the place and seem to grasp very little. Working class and middle class, for example, do not relate to each other. Working class is the counterpart of owning class, so it belongs to another scale. You can be working class and middle class at the same time.

The discussion is over. People already know that there is a discintion socially between prostitutes and lower middle class.

[Wickerman]

I suggest, Jon, that you read my posts more carefully.

It isn't necessarily your post Ben, it's your overall view of the concept.
The most recent being...

Your outdated, notorious preference for an educated, higher class of ripper suspect renders you quite unsuitable to lecture others on "subjective" reasoning,...

As can be seen from merely a handful of examples, my view is not in any way outdated (whatever that is supposed to mean?). It is in fact very representative of the true situation.
Serial killers, world-wide, male or female, do come from the well-to-do levels of society, but rarely if ever do we see them coming from the dregs of society.

"Jack the Dosser", would be a very rare beast, more at home in comic books than the real world.

The graphic representations of wild-eyed 'monsters' wielding knives in the backstreets of Whitechapel in the contemporary press are not intended to be truthful representations of who the police were looking for.
They are only press creations intended to strike fear into the populace, it helps to sell copy.

The respectable gent, quiet, polite, living alone, keeps himself to himself, they are the ones you have to be wary of.

[lynn cates]

smaaaack!

Hello Phil. Thanks.

And here's a big smacker for you! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

As can be seen from merely a handful of examples, my view is not in any way outdated (whatever that is supposed to mean?)

What "can be seen", exactly, from that "handful of examples", Jon? Men who poisoned members of their own family in their own homes? Men who have been photographed wearing a bow-tie on a single occasion? All very fascinating I'm sure, but what "true situation" are they supposed to reflect?

I'm afraid yours views are outdated, very much so. Not since the 1970s has it been popular to cast a well-dressed, "well-to-do" gentleman in the ripper's role, and it's really only authors of trashy books naming celebrity suspects who go there nowadays. I don't believe I ever used the expression "dregs of society", but the vast majority of serial killers come from working class, blue-collar backgrounds, which not-so-coincidentally described the vast majority male population in Whitechapel. Not a single expert on the subject would dispute such an obvious, long-established reality.

"Jack the Dosser", would be a very rare beast, more at home in comic books than the real world.

You do write some hilarious nonsense sometimes.

"Dossers" represented the norm in the east end of London at that time. The average working class male (you know, the sort of person everyone but you accepts that the ripper was likely to have been) was likely to have lived in a lodging house or some other form of shared accommodation; the opportunity to live completely "alone" being hard to come by, given the overcrowding in the district.

I doubt that you were completely serious in suggesting that an average local man belongs in a "comic book", whereas your favourite "well-dressed" gentleman with a black bag represents normality; no, a wind-up I'm sure.

The graphic representations of wild-eyed 'monsters' wielding knives in the backstreets of Whitechapel in the contemporary press are not intended to be truthful representations of who the police were looking for

I realise that, but where did I suggest otherwise? Or are you seriously suggesting that if the ripper lived in a lodging house, he must have been a knife-wielding "wild-eyed monster"?

The respectable gent, quiet, polite, living alone, keeps himself to himself, they are the ones you have to be wary of.

No, Southern Ontarians who haven't researched their chosen subject in anything like sufficient depth are the ones you have to be wary of.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

"Dossers" represented the norm in the east end of London at that time. The average working class male...was likely to have lived in a lodging house or some other form of shared accommodation; the opportunity to live completely "alone" being hard to come by, given the overcrowding in the district.

Yes. This is true.

Contrary to some of the less-informed [let's say] opinions that I see are floating around on this thread the working class - labouring class in contemporary common parlance - denoted anybody who laboured for a wage and incorporated the casual labourer living in common lodging houses and casual wards every bit as much as those in regular work able to afford to pay rent on a private room, rooms or house.

The lines - such as they were - between the two were thin, fluid and unpredictable. Many - a great many - found themselves on both sides of that line at various times as their fortunes fluctuated. In case-related terms, we can see exactly this in the case of Barnett, who had regular employment, lost it and regained it later on. We know that he lived both in privately rented rooms and in lodging houses as his fortunes allowed.

Anybody who thinks that it was only the humble labourer who lived that sort of life should think again: the lodging houses and casual wards of London were populated by labourers, yes, but also clerks, bakers, butchers, engineers, cabinet makers, slaters, tailors, turners, fitters, grooms, carmen and a multitude of others - whether single, married or widowed - and sometimes with their children in tow. Many - like Barnett - improved their fortunes and returned to a more stable life - others did not.

Certainly, there was no 'lower-middle' class to which those in regular employment belonged. All that typically stood between them and the casual workers living in the doss house was a precarious weekly wage - which could and all too often was, lost.

There is no social distinction to be made here, only a financial one.

I don't see any merit in the notion that a casual worker staying in a common lodging house or a casual ward is less likely to have been a murderer than either a man in regular work [from whom in any case he was virtually indistinguishable in every observable criteria other than the cash in his pocket] or a man from the higher levels of society - far less than him, in fact.

[Wickerman]

What "can be seen", exactly, from that "handful of examples", Jon? Men who poisoned members of their own family in their own homes? Men who have been photographed wearing a bow-tie on a single occasion? All very fascinating I'm sure, but what "true situation" are they supposed to reflect?

Too superficial Ben, you need to look deeper.
- William Palmer was a Physician and General Practitioner. He was not from the lower classes, and dressed accordingly, a respectable member of society.
- Andreas (Andrew) Bichel, was described as a respectable fellow with his own home, who appeared harmless to all those who knew him. Supported, wife & children employed by an innkeeper, and dabbled in fortune telling.
- John Rulloff, a noted Philologist and author.
- Theo. Durrant, a medical student & Ass. Sunday School Superintendent.
- Holmes (Mudget), from an affluent family with a privileged childhood, dabbled in Pharmacy.
I'm sure you are quite familiar with the others I listed. It is not their appearance, but status & background, their standing in society, not whether they had a photo taken in collar & tie (c'mon Ben, really!)

Your objections like some of your arguments are far too superficial to be taken seriously.

Although you try to pooh-pooh the idea of a serial killer 'with means', history is well acquainted with the respectably dressed serial killer.
My views are supported by volumes of examples, though I have yet to see any abundance of examples of the "down-at-the-heels", shabbily-dressed, Dosser-type, as a serial killer.

A serial killer can and does come from every level of society, what is unique and unsupported by the evidence is your view that the respectably-dressed serial killer is the product of fiction.
More to the point, your view is the result of simply being ill-informed .

Not since the 1970s has it been popular to cast a well-dressed, "well-to-do" gentleman in the ripper's role,

You're all about popularity aren't you Ben. The popular view very often leaves much to be desired, the popular view is intended to appeal to the masses.
Try to put popularity aside and look at the historical picture of where serial killers are known to come from.
(ie; ALL ...levels of society)

... I don't believe I ever used the expression "dregs of society", but the vast majority of serial killers come from working class, blue-collar backgrounds, which not-so-coincidentally described the vast majority male population in Whitechapel. Not a single expert on the subject would dispute such an obvious, long-established reality.

Part of your problem is identifying what is meant by "working class".
The designation is not narrow enough for your purpose, Klosowski was working class, Bichel (above) was working class.
You can be quite respectable and still be working class.
Your view, unless it has changed was, the killer is more suited to the shabby Dosser-type, in appearance more like a "Blotchy" than a "Druitt".

You do write some hilarious nonsense sometimes.

"Dossers" represented the norm in the east end of London at that time. The average working class male (you know, the sort of person everyone but you accepts that the ripper was likely to have been) was likely to have lived in a lodging house or some other form of shared accommodation; the opportunity to live completely "alone" being hard to come by, given the overcrowding in the district.

You're not listening again!
(not reading, actually)
I said "Jack the Dosser" - which specifically means a killer who resides in a doss-house.
Of course "dossers" were well represented numerically, but how many of them were serial killers?
You get it now?

No, Southern Ontarians who haven't researched their chosen subject in anything like sufficient depth are the ones you have to be wary of.

Cute!
On that very subject, the archivist has now located the "missing" request, and is to look for the press account of Issacs arrest on the 8th, and the possible court appearance on the 9th subject to that arrest, if, a bail or remand was authorized.
So lets wait and see if he is successful.

[Ben]

Contrary to some of the less-informed [let's say] opinions that I see are floating around on this thread the working class - labouring class in contemporary common parlance - denoted anybody who laboured for a wage and incorporated the casual labourer living in common lodging houses and casual wards every bit as much as those in regular work able to afford to pay rent on a private room, rooms or house.

Absolutely, Sally. Some very sensible and sane points, in the absence of which an unwary visitor to this thread would be in peril of leaving it with the impression that anyone from the "dregs" or "rock bottom" of society is "working class", whereas anyone with a home and a family must be "lower middle" or "upper working" or some equally nonsensical modern construct.

[Ben]

“- William Palmer was a Physician and General Practitioner. He was not from the lower classes, and dressed accordingly, a respectable member of society”

Oh, for crying out loud…

First of all, William Palmer poisoned members of his family in his own home for financial gain, as opposed to killing prostitutes on the streets in a destitute and crime-ridden pocket of London’s east end. If he felt like dressing “respectably” at the time he administered this poison (for whatever reason), he could do so with impunity, knowing full well that wearing expensive clothes in his own home would not have imposed any obstacle to committing his crimes – unlike Jack the Ripper, who hunted for victims on the mean streets of Whitechapel, where muggers, vigilantes and plain-clothes policeman were ever-present.

He does not compare in the slightest to a serial murderer of prostitutes, and nor does Edward Rulloff, who also killed members of his family in his own home. Similar story with Bichel and Holmes – both men could have worn any clothes they wished because their crimes were committed in their own homes (or hotels). They didn’t need to “dress down” to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to themselves.

“Although you try to pooh-pooh the idea of a serial killer 'with means', history is well acquainted with the respectably dressed serial killer.”

I succeed in pooh-poohing the idea of a serial killer "with means" because a), they are in the conspicuous minority in comparison to those without, b) there is not the slightest whiff of evidence to suggest this particular serial killer had any, and c) these particular crimes occurred in a place where only a tiny fraction of the populace had “means”.

The expression I used to describe the vast majority of serial killers was “working class” and “blue collar” (which is a statement of fact, unluckily for your conclusions), and the 1888 east London equivalent of a working class, blue collar worker was a “down-at-the-heels, shabbily-dressed, Dosser-type” - the category to which most men in the east end belonged. The direct 1888 equivalent of a modern-day Sutcliffe was a working class "dosser".

“The popular view very often leaves much to be desired, the popular view is intended to appeal to the masses”

Who said anything about "the masses"? It’s your silly "well-dressed" phantom with a black bag who appeals to them. No, I’m talking about people who have actually taken the trouble to educate themselves on this case and serial crime in general. It is popularly accepted by this group that the ripper was probably a local working class nobody, and rightly so.

“Your view, unless it has changed was, the killer is more suited to the shabby Dosser-type, in appearance more like a "Blotchy" than a "Druitt".”

Yes, Jon, that is very much my view. It is shared by the majority of researchers for good reason, and I frankly question the sanity of anyone who has deluded themselves into accepting otherwise. The overwhelmingly vast majority of men in the district would have looked considerably “more like a Blotchy than a Druitt”, and moreover, Lawende used the term "rough and shabby" to describe the man he saw with Eddowes (or a woman wearing “the same” clothes as her) ten minutes before the discovery of her body.

“Of course "dossers" were well represented numerically, but how many of them were serial killers?”

You might as well ask how many serial killers were active on the streets of Victorian England, and if the answer is “not many”, would you therefore conclude that Victorian serial killers are rare and thus unlikely? As I’ve already pointed out, the lodging house was unique to that place and period in history; that is why dossers were “well represented numerically” back then, as opposed to today.

Thanks largely to your baffling and all-consuming obsession with the idea of “Gentleman Jack”, you’ve bypassed my original point completely and moved onto such irrelevancies as family-poisoning doctors, but just to steer the discussion back on track, I was simply pointing out how unlikely it was that the real killer would dress in glaringly expensive clothes when out hunting for victims on the streets, regardless of how affluent he might have been in reality.

“On that very subject, the archivist has now located the "missing" request, and is to look for the press account of Issacs arrest on the 8th, and the possible court appearance on the 9th subject to that arrest, if, a bail or remand was authorized.
So lets wait and see if he is successful.”

Yes, let’s WAIT – and for pity’s sake let’s not POST – on that subject until then!

Regards,
Ben

P.S. If you keep following me around like you're currently doing, every thread we participate in will result in a tedious, alienating, and thoroughly off-topic exchange of tetchy point-counterpoint posts that will put most people off. But please don't let that deter you...