Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Answer in the victims' backgrounds

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Answer in the victims' backgrounds

    I know next to nothing about this case but from an analytical point of view, I'm wondering whether the answer to the case is in the victims' backgrounds. Naturally, I mean beyond the prostitution. Some character trait. Some common relatives. Something. I'm sure the answer is there. Because without that, you are left with random murders - which may easily have been perpetrated by different killers. Or just one psychopath.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Sasha View Post
    I know next to nothing about this case but from an analytical point of view, I'm wondering whether the answer to the case is in the victims' backgrounds. Naturally, I mean beyond the prostitution. Some character trait. Some common relatives. Something. I'm sure the answer is there. Because without that, you are left with random murders - which may easily have been perpetrated by different killers. Or just one psychopath.
    It is pretty accepted that Jack was a sociopath. Serial killing almost always consists of random murders, that is why its so difficult to catch them. All their victims have one trait usually, eg Bundy killed brunettes with hair parted down the middle, Jack's was prostitutes (or maybe just women in general), Dahmer's was young ethnic gay men. It is called the IVT (Ideal Victim Type) and most serial killers have them.

    Comment


    • #3
      It seems that a good percentage of the victims all had been reasonably well off at some point earlier in their lives - married, children, held down jobs, etc. So perhaps one of the common traits is that it had all fallen apart a bit for them - and this made them easy victims for a killer like JTR. Desperate, broke, middle-aged women (MJK aside of course) who all enjoyed a drink a bit too much.

      Of course it's been mooted before that the victims might have known each other and been in some sort of league together, but there's no evidence to support that, just supposition - perhaps one or two had bumped into each other occasionally or knew each other by sight but that's about the extent of it.

      IMO it was a situation that they all came to share in their own individual ways without having any real background with one another - there was, after all, many thousands more in exactly the same boat who didn't have a rendezvous with JTR.

      Cheers,
      Adam.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks guys. That was very helpful. :-)

        Comment


        • #5
          Hello Sasha,
          I have always thought that it was more than a coincidence that all the women (apart from MJK) were more or less the same height and age. If Jack did hate women, perhaps the one he hated the most was roughly this height and age. I donīt know why MJK didnīt fit this description - perhaps it had become too dangerous to kill on the streets and he took someone who had her own room. She was at least, as he called them, one of the "whores" he was "down on".

          Best wishes,
          C4

          Comment


          • #6
            Another link perhaps

            Just realised that all the canonical victims bore the names of queens. Mary, Ann, Catherine and Elizabeth. Is this another common link. My keyboard has gone mad in the heat and won t do question marks and has taken over the whole top row / maybe it s getting tired of all my questions!

            All the best
            C4

            Comment


            • #7
              curious

              Are not "Mary, Ann, Catherine and Elizabeth" also all the names of saints, Biblical names - Mary (various New Testament figures including the mother of Jesus, the Magdalen and mary of Bethany),; Ann Mary;s mother and Elizabeth, Mary's cousin and the mother of John the Baptist. St Catherine - of the wheel fame - is I think "of Sienna"?

              As Queen's we had two Queens Regnant - Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart (co-Sovereign with William II). Charles I's consort was Henrietta Maria. James II was married to Mary of Modena.

              In Scotland there were several Queen Marys, not least "Mary Queen of Scots" (executed 1587) and her mother Mary of Guise.

              Queen Anne ruled 1702-14. Richard II had a Queen Ann (Neville) and Richard II was married to Anne of Bohemia.

              Henry VIII had two Queen's called "Catherine" - of Aragon and Howard, and Catherine of Braganza was consort to Charles II.

              Princess MARY of Teck was, of course, later to be engaged to HRH Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence.

              Bringing things down to the mundane, were not many "Christian" or forenames, biblical in the C19th both for men and women? All four of the ones I am discussing fall into that bracket - equivalent to Thomas/Tom; John; Peter; Andrew etc for men

              Phil

              Comment


              • #8
                Phil..

                Yes.

                And additionally, I believe two of the victims were Roman Catholic, so even more likely they'd have saints names - which were in any case common.

                How things change. I bet there weren't many Chloe's, Holly's or Amber's around in those days..

                Comment


                • #9
                  I bet there weren't many Chloe's, Holly's or Amber's around in those days..

                  But nicknames were common:

                  "POLLY" Nichols; "Liz" Stride (even "Long" LIz as a reference to stride/step).

                  Joseph Barnett was "Joe", his brother Daniel, "Danny".

                  In my post-war youth, every male surnamed "Miller" was called "Dusty"; "Whites" were "Chalkies" (I think that was a wartime thing). Perhaps every generation has its preferences.

                  Phil

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes

                    Absolutely - for instance all the various versions of Elizabeth over time - Liz, Beth, Bess, etc.

                    Once upon a time, Phil, we'd have been calling you 'Pip'

                    Comment


                    • #11


                      Sally - probably only because I give people the "Pip"!!

                      Good to chat again.

                      Pip-pip,

                      Phil (Pip)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Phil H View Post


                        Sally - probably only because I give people the "Pip"!!

                        Good to chat again.

                        Pip-pip,

                        Phil (Pip)
                        Oh come now, Phil - your'e not so indigestible!

                        Nice to see you too

                        Toodle-Pip!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          curious

                          As Queen's we had two Queens Regnant - Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart (co-Sovereign with William II). Charles I's consort was Henrietta Maria. James II was married to Mary of Modena.

                          In Scotland there were several Queen Marys, not least "Mary Queen of Scots" (executed 1587) and her mother Mary of Guise.

                          Queen Anne ruled 1702-14. Richard II had a Queen Ann (Neville) and Richard II was married to Anne of Bohemia.

                          Henry VIII had two Queen's called "Catherine" - of Aragon and Howard, and Catherine of Braganza was consort to Charles II.

                          Princess MARY of Teck was, of course, later to be engaged to HRH Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence.

                          Phil
                          If you want to stretch it a bit further even... you can even include Empress Matilda (reigned 1140-ish?). Matilda was the name of Aaron Kosminski's sister whom he attacked with a knife.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                            curious

                            Are not "Mary, Ann, Catherine and Elizabeth" also all the names of saints, Biblical names - Mary (various New Testament figures including the mother of Jesus, the Magdalen and mary of Bethany),; Ann Mary;s mother and Elizabeth, Mary's cousin and the mother of John the Baptist. St Catherine - of the wheel fame - is I think "of Sienna"?
                            Hello Phil et al

                            But they are all common given names of the day, aren't they? A number of the unfortunates, including Mary Jane Kelly, were Catholics, so of course they would have the names of saints. No great mystery there.

                            What commonality the victims had was that they were all from the same strata of society, all in the same poor section of the city, and out on the streets late at night touting for customers. No other common features that 121 years of study has shown, despite various speculation from conspiracists that there was some common link.

                            Best regards

                            Chris
                            Christopher T. George
                            Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
                            just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
                            For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
                            RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Henry VIII had two Queen's called "Catherine" - of Aragon and Howard
                              ,
                              3 -Catherine Parr
                              http://youtu.be/GcBr3rosvNQ

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X