Social class of Jack the Ripper

[Ben]

Bowyer's Wednesday afternoon/evening encounter was not part of his police statement

Indeed Jon, but such an encounter would certainly have been "part of his police statement" had it involved a man of conspicuous appearance in the company of the victim; or else the police were grossly incompetent for failing to elicit such important information. In fact, if we accept the description as accurate, it would mean a potential Jack the Ripper sighting would have been concealed for eternity were it not for a single gimlet-eyed Welsh journalist.

I'm confident that the above was not the case; that the police and coroner were not incompetent, and that the description was an invention.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I have absolutley no idea what social class our killer was from but from anylizing the only hard evidence we have I'm pretty certain he didn't live in the area of the murders but visited the area to commit his crimes

I disagree, Pink, and I'm not aware of any evidence - hard or otherwise - that would implicate a "commuter" type of offender over a "marauder". In addition, I can't think of a single serial killer who continued to commute into the same small region to select, murder and dispose of his victims.

[Abby Normal]

This was not the night of the murder though Abby, different night.

No. The quote in the paper that Debra found was the night of the murder.

[Sam Flynn]

I can't think of a single serial killer who continued to commute into the same small region to select, murder and dispose of his victims.

Agreed, Ben, especially since Victorian London had many areas where "unfortunates" roamed the streets at night, several of them within reasonable walking-distance of Whitechapel. Even in the East end, the killer had plenty of other places where to find easy prey, yet his activities were confined to one of the most overcrowded and dangerous districts of them all!

A curious place to "commute" into, to say the least. This in itself is a strong indicator that he stayed in Whitechapel out of necessity, not choice. There was plenty of choice elsewhere.

[Wickerman]

Wait Wickerman, your claiming Bowyer was not in the court around 3:30 am on the night of the murder?

No I'm not claiming that Rocky, your question suggests you are not aware of two separate articles concerning Bowyer?

The first article concern's Bowyer seeing a dandy (collars & cuffs) in the court talking with Kelly on Wednesday afternoon/evening.
The second article concern's Bowyer out fetching water on Thursday night.

I think you are talking about the second, whereas I am talking about the first.

[Wickerman]

No. The quote in the paper that Debra found was the night of the murder.

OK, just to be clear, this is the article I am talking about.

Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag.
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.

[Wickerman]

Indeed Jon, but such an encounter would certainly have been "part of his police statement" had it involved a man of conspicuous appearance in the company of the victim;....

You can tell from Bowyer's police statement, Abberline only asked him how he came to discover the body, nothing else. Bowyer was not asked to provide an account of his movements every night of the week leading up to the murder.
At the inquest, one juror departed from the line of questioning and asked Bowyer when was the last time he saw Kelly, to which he replied on Wednesday - hardly likely to be a lie now is it.

In fact, if we accept the description as accurate, it would mean a potential Jack the Ripper sighting would have been concealed for eternity were it not for a single gimlet-eyed Welsh journalist.

We have no cause not to "accept the description as accurate", though I have no doubt that being your predictable self, you will

I'm confident that the above was not the case; that the police and coroner were not incompetent, and that the description was an invention.

But Ben, isn't that your carbon-copy response to every witness statement you don't like, ....all lies, or invention?
If I had 50p for every time I've heard you say that....

There's a yawning gap between the issues you "think" should be raised by a witness at an inquest, and the reality of who is actually in charge of the inquest, and in consequence, who decides what issues are raised.

[Ben]

You can tell from Bowyer's police statement, Abberline only asked him how he came to discover the body, nothing else.

So Abberline was an incompetent moron then, according to you? Too stupid and lazy to bother ascertaining whether or not the witness had last seen Kelly in the company of a suspicious stranger, and unaided by Bowyer's inexplicable unwillingness to provide these rather essential details of his own volition? There is no possibility - absolutely none - of the police failing to extract the pertinent detail from Bowyer that he had last seen Kelly with an unidentified and highly conspicuous man on Wednesday night. There is no possibility - absolutely none - of police and coroner being so cretinously dopey as to engineer, unwittingly, the absolute suppression of the "peculiar-eyed" suspect until some bright-eyed, bushy-tailed representative of the Western Mail decided to ask the relevant questions.

At the inquest, one juror departed from the line of questioning and asked Bowyer when was the last time he saw Kelly, to which he replied on Wednesday - hardly likely to be a lie now is it.

Not likely at all, but still managing to be more likely than omitting (for what possible reason?) the fact that the victim was accompanied by a mysterious stranger.

The trouble with you, as always, is that you seek a titillating, glamorous explanation to these violent murders, rather than a realistic one, and are accordingly affronted at any suggestion that the ripper was an anonymous local coward, as opposed to your preferred educated personage with a funny walk, peculiar eyes, and dripping fangs.

[Ben]

Agreed, Ben, especially since Victorian London had many areas where "unfortunates" roamed the streets at night, several of them within reasonable walking-distance of Whitechapel.

Quite so, Gareth, and great to see you back here!

For too long has the myth persisted that Whitechapel was the hub of prostition in London, which it clearly wasn't - unfortunately for those with "commuter" suspects. The very few serial killers we know about who had means (i.e. transport) to "commute" generally did so on a much wider scale, and did not repeatedly target the same tiny locality.

All the best,
Ben

[pinkmoon]

I disagree, Pink, and I'm not aware of any evidence - hard or otherwise - that would implicate a "commuter" type of offender over a "marauder". In addition, I can't think of a single serial killer who continued to commute into the same small region to select, murder and dispose of his victims.

The dates had a pattern a local person would have a more random scattering of dates the only facts we can't despute are the dates.

[Ben]

The dates had a pattern a local person would have a more random scattering of dates

No, I'm afraid that wasn't the case at all.

A "local" in regular or semi-regular employment could expect his murder schedule to be dictated by his work hours just as much as an outsider.

[packers stem]

Quite so, Gareth, and great to see you back here!

For too long has the myth persisted that Whitechapel was the hub of prostition in London, which it clearly wasn't - unfortunately for those with "commuter" suspects. The very few serial killers we know about who had means (i.e. transport) to "commute" generally did so on a much wider scale, and did not repeatedly target the same tiny locality.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben
There is no evidence at all to suggest we are looking for a serial killer who lived locally and killed at random.
Are there any other instances of a serial killer who by fluke picked out the last two victims at random when they were both using the same uncommon name on the day they died.Lottery winning odds probably
Modern day profiling is built upon probabilities.
When there are improbabilities, the whole thing falls down

[Ben]

There is no evidence at all to suggest we are looking for a serial killer who lived locally and killed at random.

Yes, there is.

The vast, vast majority of people accept that the killer belonged to precisely this group, whereas it's generally only conspiracy theorists seeking an "interesting" Hollywood-esque solution who insist otherwise. The idea that the killer targetted victims named "Kelly" is generally considered nonsense too, and for good reason.

[GUT]

No, I'm afraid that wasn't the case at all.

A "local" in regular or semi-regular employment could expect his murder schedule to be dictated by his work hours just as much as an outsider.

Pretty basic isn't it, anyone, local or not, may have had work or family or social commitments that dictated their schedule.

[GUT]

Hi Ben
There is no evidence at all to suggest we are looking for a serial killer who lived locally and killed at random.
Are there any other instances of a serial killer who by fluke picked out the last two victims at random when they were both using the same uncommon name on the day they died.Lottery winning odds probably
Modern day profiling is built upon probabilities.
When there are improbabilities, the whole thing falls down

Well there is evidence, now is the evidence persuasive is a different issue.