What basis is there for a conspiracy theory?

[Joshua Rogan]

Even if he just heard she was going to squeal, he would have reasons to kill her.

So how come none of the other people - who were reported as saying they too knew who the killer was, in the same paper - didn't also end up getting murdered?

[Michael W Richards]

Statistically speaking alone, there is far more evidence that poor people begged or scratched around for money in slum areas than there is for Fenian conspiracies to eviscerate 40 year-old homeless women on the public streets.

Sam, of all people you shouldn't be putting words into my mouth. I never once said that she was killed by Fenians, I have said that Fenians, terrorists and all sorts of bad guys were in that place at that same time, in order to illustrate what kinds of men could kill and their predilection to doing so. Granted, I say that more to prove that there were other killers than just this fictional Jack running about than I do to suggest Kate was killed by one of them, but the point is there. We do not have evidence that Kate was soliciting that day, nor that she was begging, or that she found some drinking money in the gutter, what we do have is a statement that she intended to rat out someone she believed was a killer, and if she believed that based on the murders to that point, she would have to know he was really nasty. Even if he just heard she was going to squeal, he would have reasons to kill her. I suggest maybe since she was baiting a bear anyway, maybe she tried for the grand prize. Hush money.

[Sam Flynn]

Just missing that vital component Sam...any evidence of that at all.

Statistically speaking alone, there is far more evidence that poor people begged or scratched around for money in slum areas than there is for Fenian conspiracies to eviscerate 40 year-old homeless women on the public streets.

[Michael W Richards]

What I said was not in the slightest bit unlikely. As to begging - (a) why not? and (b) she was found drunk outside Whitechapel, wasn't she? (Not that it would have been impossible to get hold of a shilling from a few hours' begging there.)

Just missing that vital component Sam...any evidence of that at all.

[Sam Flynn]

What I said was not in the slightest bit unlikely. As to begging - (a) why not? and (b) she was found drunk outside Whitechapel, wasn't she? (Not that it would have been impossible to get hold of a shilling from a few hours' begging there.)

[Michael W Richards]

All it would have needed was for Kate to earn, beg, borrow or find a shilling in the gutter, and three or four gins on an empty stomach would have done the rest.

So, if that the case...what evidence do we have that Kate ever begged for money? What do you think the likelihood was that some money was just lying about in the gutter? In a poverty stricken ghetto? How long would it have been lying there? Thing is Sam, we have 2 women who were almost incoherent on booze without any known source of income to account for that, and no evidence that they solicited to get the money. Fortuitously finding money in the gutter is hardly a preferable answer to someone paying for them.

[Sam Flynn]

All it would have needed was for Kate to earn, beg, borrow or find a shilling in the gutter, and three or four gins on an empty stomach would have done the rest.

[Michael W Richards]

...but the Canonical Five, and those like them, didn't have a pot to pi$$ in. There's a world of difference.



They were the random victims of a bomb. Terrorists seldom "target" specific individuals.

Sam, Liz made money that same afternoon, she had steady work.. Mary and Kate seemed to get drunk without money or soliciting. Mary had the room in her own name. And as for terrorism being possible here, they all didn't have to be targets per se, they just had to serve the purpose. I believe Im clear about the fact that I see Polly and Annie almost certainly the victim of the same deranged killer, that does not

naturally extend then to any other Unsolved murder for me. They are to be seen independently for clarity, and there are circumstantial features in many of the which leave alternative reasoning for their murders.

If one steps back a bit to look at the broader environment, we then see simultaneous public hearings into possible corruption of Parliament by Irish self rule factions, and we have many double agents, dynamiters, and known terrorists in London as a result. We also know an assassination attempt was in progress.

[Michael W Richards]

Actually, three for sure, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. (Barnett indicated that Kelly had returned to prostitution after he lost his regular job, it was one of the reasons he moved out), and both Nichols and Chapman had stated they were going out to get their doss money. The evidence for Stride and Eddowes is more circumstantial. Prostitution was, unfortunately, something many women of the area would engage in out of necessity. Stride was, at least before moving to England, known to engage in prostitution. Eddowes seems to have come across money or drink despite having been broke earlier, and was murdered in an area where prostitution was common (there was a nearby church known as the prostitute's church as that was a place to hang out to find prospective clients). So there is, as has been made many times, a strong circumstantial case to be made that Eddowes was soliciting that night, even if it was something she might have avoided most of the time.

- Jeff

Beg to differ, but in only 2 cases do we have evidence from the victims themselves that they were actively soliciting on the night(s) that they were murdered. There is no evidence at all that Mary was doing so, there is that she spent a fair bit of time that night drinking. And when home, sang for a little more than an hour to someone she brought into her room...something that has not been done with a "client" to that point. Liz Stride is not soliciting on a nearly empty street over an hour after most everyone left, on private property in a dark passageway, and she is not doing so in her "good evening wear", with breath fresheners and flowers on her jacket. Kates case is different, but circumstantially it points to her being somewhere specific that night, not casually trolling for customers in the opposite direction where her "partner" had secured a room.

[JeffHamm]

I have always thought that the word prostitute when used in conjunction with any of the C5 should probably have an asterisk next to it to convey information like this without having to type it every time.

I have always wondered what the non-prostitute camp wants as convincing evidence of solicitation? What's the old saying? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

c.d.

Yes, I think people often forget that many women in Whitechappel resorted to prostitution, which is not to be confused with the modern conception of someone who routinely engages in it as a full time profession. I don't think any of the C5 would really fit that latter description, but rather, selling sex was simply something that was done to get through life when necessary. Nichols and Chapman both went out due to necessity on the nights they were murdered. Kelly appears to have been actively soliciting as she's reported to be seen taking Blotchy Face and Astrikan Man back to her room (all caveats in place here as to reliability, etc). In fact, if anything, Kelly's behaviour is more in line with a full time prostitute than any of the other C5, but even that could be debated given it sounds like when Barnett was working she did not resort to such activities.

Basically, it was an unfortunate fact of life that these women had little choice but to sell themselves or starve. Indicating they were prostitutes, however, does perhaps confuse the issue as it easily implies a more full time profession, but having to continuously phrase things as "were engaged in prostitution" or "were soliciting" creates clumsy and overly wordy sentences.

- Jeff

[Trapperologist]

I do think there are examples of crimes where there were accomplices but the state authorities chose to stick with the "lone gunman" theory because they want to provide a simple solution to the public. One reason why copycats proliferate and get away with it. First there's linkage blindness and then there's separation blindness.

So you always have the possibility of two or more conspiring and then you have anyone who could be politically motivated. The only question is whether or not the victimology fits with the political motivation or are they just going with creating a spectacular crime. Prostitutes wouldn't be considered a spectacle killing except for the placement and MO. Then Jack the Ripper becomes "organized" and possibly "rational" and "political".

[c.d.]

And how many were in fact prostituting at the time...2 that we know of. Of just the Canonical Group.

If a prostitute is not actively soliciting but then she decides to do so what does it entail? Does she have to go through some elaborate procedure that takes hours for her to enter into soliciting mode? These women were poor. They had drinking problems and needed money for drinks, food and doss. Even if they had no intention of soliciting on a particular night we have absolutely no way of knowing what their response would be if approached by a potential client especially one (Jack for instance) who offered more than the usual knowing he would take it back. Saying someone was not known to be soliciting that night is just way too simplistic and denies the reality that these women faced.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Actually, three for sure, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. (Barnett indicated that Kelly had returned to prostitution after he lost his regular job, it was one of the reasons he moved out), and both Nichols and Chapman had stated they were going out to get their doss money. The evidence for Stride and Eddowes is more circumstantial. Prostitution was, unfortunately, something many women of the area would engage in out of necessity. Stride was, at least before moving to England, known to engage in prostitution. Eddowes seems to have come across money or drink despite having been broke earlier, and was murdered in an area where prostitution was common (there was a nearby church known as the prostitute's church as that was a place to hang out to find prospective clients). So there is, as has been made many times, a strong circumstantial case to be made that Eddowes was soliciting that night, even if it was something she might have avoided most of the time.

- Jeff

I have always thought that the word prostitute when used in conjunction with any of the C5 should probably have an asterisk next to it to convey information like this without having to type it every time.

I have always wondered what the non-prostitute camp wants as convincing evidence of solicitation? What's the old saying? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

c.d.

[Trapperologist]

Well, simply suggesting the murderer is someone who also has connections is different from including the argument that those connections were able to pull strings and prevent the murderer from being held responsible. Once the strings get pulled, it's a conspiracy of sorts, though of the cover up type. And that too has a bit of magical thinking, in that those with power would risk their own positions to cover up such a sensational set of murders.

I think it is different too but I think other people see it as the same thing, especially if the connection is in any way linked to the conspiracy theory. The more famous books in other unsolved serial killer cases have also been proven publicly or to me personally to have been full of misinformation to the point of being considered works of fiction now. I'm thinking of The Zodiac Killer and Zodiac Unmasked and The Boston Strangler but they are still used as sources. Mary spent two unaccounted years in the West End. That in itself opens the door to links to figures in the conspiracy theory - Florence Pash for one which leads to Sickert. Obviously I don't believe in the Royal baby conspiracy. I just think Sickert was covering-up his own illegitimate offspring. There still might be a baby in the bathwater.

[JeffHamm]

And how many were in fact prostituting at the time...2 that we know of. Of just the Canonical Group.

Actually, three for sure, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly. (Barnett indicated that Kelly had returned to prostitution after he lost his regular job, it was one of the reasons he moved out), and both Nichols and Chapman had stated they were going out to get their doss money. The evidence for Stride and Eddowes is more circumstantial. Prostitution was, unfortunately, something many women of the area would engage in out of necessity. Stride was, at least before moving to England, known to engage in prostitution. Eddowes seems to have come across money or drink despite having been broke earlier, and was murdered in an area where prostitution was common (there was a nearby church known as the prostitute's church as that was a place to hang out to find prospective clients). So there is, as has been made many times, a strong circumstantial case to be made that Eddowes was soliciting that night, even if it was something she might have avoided most of the time.

- Jeff