Is it possible the Ripper's victim's "killed" him?

[RipperNoob]

Quoting a post from another part of the forum:

Rummaging around inside a dead body is not the healthiest of pursuits. There are all sorts of microbes waiting, especially since these ladies did not have the healthiest of lifestyles. If he even nicked himself during the struggle they would have had a point of entry. The normal human intestine is full of EColi where it usually does not cause trouble. But EColi can cause a lot of trouble elsewhere in the human body. He cut open Kate's intestines and handled them. He could have spent October being very very sick.

I had never considered this before. Is it possible that the murders stopped because Jack succumbed - either to disability or death - to an illness borne from his rummaging inside the dirty - and likely disease ridden - interiors of his victims? If he was not a professional man, is it possible he might not even have worn gloves when committing his acts?

[John Wheat]

To RipperNoob

I suppose its possible. Wether that's actually what happened though is debatable. I like the idea that the Ripper was inactive during October because he was ill though.

Cheers John

[RipperNoob]

To RipperNoob

I suppose its possible. Wether that's actually what happened though is debatable. I like the idea that the Ripper was inactive during October because he was ill though.

Cheers John

I'm speaking of after October, after the murders cease - could he not have gotten septicemia or some other illness and died from it handling all of these bloody body parts, probably without gloves? Perhaps explaining why he stopped?

[GUT]

Possible he caught something ... yes.

A professional not wearing gloves, ... Not persuaded.

[Pierre]

Quoting a post from another part of the forum:

I had never considered this before. Is it possible that the murders stopped because Jack succumbed - either to disability or death - to an illness borne from his rummaging inside the dirty - and likely disease ridden - interiors of his victims? If he was not a professional man, is it possible he might not even have worn gloves when committing his acts?

Hi,

What do you mean by "possible"? "Possible" according to what?

Philosophically, I do not understand the concept since I am not a philosopher. Does the concept have any meaning which could be related to the case or the interpretations of the case?

Sociologically, I understand it as a symbolic word which functions as a key for legitimating oneīs own idea.

Historically, I understand it as an important concept for very specific questions like "Was x in Whitechapel or London at that time, making it possible for him to murder y? When the historian has established as a fact that x was in Whitechapel or London at the time, using reliable sources, it gives the motivations for going on with studies of x as a "suspect".

But in many cases, the concept is used where it can not be historically answered, for example in statements of Lechmere. Here is my own example: "It was possible for Lechmere to be in Millerīs Court 9 November".

This is not an historical statement but a common sense statement since it is not backed up with a reliable source, and therefore, from the point of an historian, meaningless.

So what is your definition of "possible"?

Kind regards, Pierre

[MysterySinger]

What word, other than possible, would have been satisfactory Pierre?

Conversationally we are being asked for an opinion.

[GUT]

What word, other than possible, would have been satisfactory Pierre?

Conversationally we are being asked for an opinion.

But Pierre doesn't understand such concepts, he is greater than all others.

[Shaggyrand]

But Pierre doesn't understand such concepts, he is greater than all others.

ALL HAIL! Or not. Whatever.

What do you mean by SUCH CONCEPTS? Historical, rhetorical, sociological or pharmaceutical?


I realize you mean economical concepts.

[Shaggyrand]

RipperNoob-

Sure it is possible. Its definitely an interesting thought and could make a fine death scene in a book or something... Think of all the anguished dialog as crazy nasty Victorian disease X eats away at JtR while potential victims pass by a window. Such amazing opportunity for histrionics!

Assuming it stopped with Kelly and something didn't just change his MO or some police stopped counting bodies as ripper victims or...

[Rosella]

Of course it's possible. Anything's possible. Especially as Jack probably didn't have a bathroom in his abode, wherever it was. All sorts of germs on the hands, waste etc under the fingernails, and no bath or shower to have a good scrub after arriving home! Also, I suppose he could have caught something from cooking and eating part of part of Eddowes' kidney (if he did.)

[Barnaby]

I think that the word "probably" is being used in the context of mathematical probability. There is a nonzero chance that the Ripper became ill as a result of handling his victims' organs. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is also a nonzero probability that Lechmere was in Miller's Court on the night of the Mary Kelly murder.

[Mayerling]

Hi,

What do you mean by "possible"? "Possible" according to what?

Philosophically, I do not understand the concept since I am not a philosopher. Does the concept have any meaning which could be related to the case or the interpretations of the case?

Sociologically, I understand it as a symbolic word which functions as a key for legitimating oneīs own idea.

Historically, I understand it as an important concept for very specific questions like "Was x in Whitechapel or London at that time, making it possible for him to murder y? When the historian has established as a fact that x was in Whitechapel or London at the time, using reliable sources, it gives the motivations for going on with studies of x as a "suspect".

But in many cases, the concept is used where it can not be historically answered, for example in statements of Lechmere. Here is my own example: "It was possible for Lechmere to be in Millerīs Court 9 November".

This is not an historical statement but a common sense statement since it is not backed up with a reliable source, and therefore, from the point of an historian, meaningless.

So what is your definition of "possible"?

Kind regards, Pierre

In 1888 what did they think of the concept of the word "Possible"? Philosophically, Sociologically, Historically? Did it differ significantly from how we consider the concept of that term today? Has anybody ever written any studies on it today or in the 19th Century? Are you acquainted with such (I know I'm not - I never even considered it before this!)?

Good humoredly (not referring to the American ice cream brand) ,

Jeff

[Pierre]

I think that the word "probably" is being used in the context of mathematical probability. There is a nonzero chance that the Ripper became ill as a result of handling his victims' organs. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is also a nonzero probability that Lechmere was in Miller's Court on the night of the Mary Kelly murder.

Hi,

But the concept wasnīt "probable". It was "possible".

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

What word, other than possible, would have been satisfactory Pierre?

Conversationally we are being asked for an opinion.

Hi MysterySinger,

Itīs OK to use the word "possible" and it is an important concept in different disciplines.

I just do not understand how one could ask "is it possible" and then not define the disciplinary interpretation of the concept.

If the concept is meant to be drawn from medical science, how could we then answer the question as to the possibility that the killer became ill, using the tools from the medical science?

I mean, if you REALLY want to answer the actual question, you should define the key concept in your question.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

only pierre could turn a thread into a debate about a simple adjective.

possible means possible. you know like yellow means yellow.

good grief.

if you need the actual dictionary definition-go look it up.