Did the 5 canonical victims know each other?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Simon,

Who are the '"N" number of other victims outside the usual 5' whom we might have to add to the "same circle of friends"? Are you thinking of Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Mylett etc?

I'm not particularly fussy, and I don't want to get me canonicals in a twist here My only observation is that, in order to posit that these women were close friends, one might have to account for more than the "usual suspects" (or should that be "usual victims"?). Knight focused on the C5, and made them friends because it fitted his conspiracy/blackmail thesis. I find it hard to justify that even these five would have been anything other than nodding acquaintances, if that - never mind any other possible victims that one might wish to include in the list.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Regarding who knew whom, it's interesting that the police did not previously know any of the victims. It always took a third party to identify them. The only possible exception was Kelly.

Inspector Beck inquest testimony—

"He had not been aware that the deceased was known to the police."

Perhaps Inspector Beck should have got out more.

Regards,

Simon

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

Thank you for your closely argued and erudite comment - you appear to be a sad loss to the Diplomatic Corps. Is this standard treatment of new members of the forum?

I am not sure what part of my comment is nonsens (sic). There could be a variety of reasons why the victims were not chosen at random; reasons that need have nothing to do with Stephen Knoght's theory. For example, the several prostitutes killed over a few weeks in Ipswich about 18 months ago were not - I believe - randomly chosen. I believe the killer had used all their services before and did not kill those whose services he had not. Whilst this may not be helpful in identifying JtR today, it does not mean that it is irrelevant or nonsense.

Also, if having killed his particular victims he might stop and, for example, move on to pastures new and outside London.

I had hoped that I had found a place where civil discussions on this subject could take place. I am beginning to think I was wrong.

In disappointment rather thananger,
Bill S

Bill,

I have never been much of a fan of dimplomacy, so I am afraid I have to disappoint you on that one.

In most serial killer cases the victims are randomly chosen.
As I tried to explain in my last post, only in Whitechapel the number of prostitutes was estimated to over 1200, and on such a small area it would be rather strange if some of those women wouldn't have bumped into one another. Again, I fail to see how that would tell us anything about the killer.
Also, based on witness testimonies from the victims' friends and associates there are no mention anywhere of them knowing each other on a close personal basis.

You also totally misinterpret what I referred to as 'nonsense'.
Actually, I am myself of the opinion that the killer might have used the services of the victims previous as a client and this is indeed common in similar cases, but that is not what we are discussing here - the point made by a couple of posters was whether the victims knew EACH OTHER (not if they knew the killer or not) and for that reason was chosen as victims. A conclusion for which there is no valid support whatsoever.

As for Stephen Knight, there is nothing in his book that as any actual basic in fact. It is all either total fabrication or deliberate manipulation of the few fatcs that do exist. Knight's theory about the victims being killed is based on the idea that they all got together to blackmail the government, which of course is ridiculous.
Fact is, we don't know WHY - or even WHEN - the Ripper 'stopped' (based on which victim you consider to be his last one - something that certainly isn't carved in stone). There could be a number of reasons, inlcuding that he became ill, died or was thrown in jail for other offenses (which isn't unheard of in serial killer cases). Or esle he decided to stop for other personal reasons. To try to link that to the importance of one or several certain victims is fairy-tale stuff and shouldn't be taken seriously, and I will continue to ridicule that thought any chance I get.

All the best

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Who are the '"N" number of other victims outside the usual 5' whom we might have to add to the "same circle of friends"? Are you thinking of Smith, Tabram, McKenzie and Mylett etc?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

If one suggested that Mjk was targeted as the very last victim, the only question to answer is 'why'? And what a Question...

...and what a (totally separate) discussion thread that would be, Richard!

In the context of this thread, of course, one would have to add "N" number of other victims outside the usual 5 and make them part of the same circle of friends. Given that it's hard enough to do so for a mere handful of women, it would be a bugger's muddle to make the others fit as well.

[richardnunweek]

Hi All.
I must reflect on how many of us actually believe that the Millers court murder, was the end of the series?
Taking fact/ common sense, it would imply that the 'Ripper Murders' ceased after that event.
If one suggested that Mjk was targeted as the very last victim, the only question to answer is 'why'?
And what a Question...
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Thats reasonable my friend, but as I said, just to walk the lane a bit further,.. the women we discuss all were out at the same times of night, perhaps working the same streets.

As I was at pains to point out earlier, we're talking about fortysomething casual prostitutes in the main. (And by "casual", I don't mean "idle", but "occasional".) We're not talking about Sheznay and DeLinda waving their beads at passers-by every other night of the week, sharing a joint under a lamp when trade was slow.

Or pubbing at the same watering holes some nights.

Drifting in and out at different times of the night - or day - for a tot of rum, before heading back to a doss-house kitchen for a warm, perhaps.

The "traditional" impression is of blowsy tarts drinking the evening away from 7 till chucking-out-time, with the odd knees-up or knee-trembler thrown in for good measure. We see Nancy and chums doing this in Oliver!, just as we see the "Cinematical Five" doing so in movies of the Ripper story. Whilst I have little doubt that this sort of thing did go on at times, I doubt that it was as regular, or as organised, as the "Hollywood" stereotype would have us believe.

Interestingly, one thing they never do in those films - presumably to economise on extras - is to show the multiple hundreds of people who lived in short, narrow thoroughfares like Dorset Street. The upshot of this is that the "pub at the corner" becomes a feasible "hub of the community", as perhaps we want it to have been.

Whilst I don't deny that the pub played an important social (even anti-social) role, they were comparatively small in size. The truth of the matter is that the Ten Bells, Blue Coat Boy and Britannia added together couldn't have accommodated even a tiny fraction of the population of Dorset Street at any one time. That the sort of interactions seen in soaps like Eastenders or Coronation Street went on under such circumstances ("Evenin' Mary"... "Ello, Chick".... "Polly been in yet?") is hard to credit.

Reflect on Prater, for example. "Gawd, Milly... gissa tot o' rum"... "That'll be fourpence, Liz"... "Put it on the slate, dear - I got some work comin' in today. (Gulp!). Seez ya later!". A slight exaggeration, perhaps - but I wouldn't mind betting it was nearer the truth.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Whilst I do not disagree with you that the fog of drink may well have dulled Chapman's alertness to the situation, it's worth pointing out that, after the so-called double-event, there were no street murders. Jolly Jack went awfully quiet after announcing himself in such grandiose fashion.

All we are left with is Millers Court. And if that was a "Ripper" murder I'll eat my hat.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Simon writes:

"I have no evidence to support my supposition, but would suggest that if the women were connected in some way Chapman, having learned via the newspapers of the circumstances which drove Polly Nichols to her death, would have taken care not to to allow exactly the same fate to befall her."

Fair enough point, Simon. But the combination of drink and need for money may provide a good answer to Chapman not picking up on the warning. And we can safely assume that every unfortunate of the whole of Spitalfields was aware of the risks involved in streetwalking after the night of "the double event", but that did not keep them off the streets.

The best, Simon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just out of curiosity, Bill; what´s your take on the double event? If you endorse a view (do you?)of all the canonical five having a common background leading up to their final lethal involvment in it all, I think that the combination of Stride and Eddowes is the hardest part to explain, given that Eddowes had just been let out of custody when the Ripper caught up with her. Any thoughts on it?

Welcome to the boards, by the way; although there is the occasional whiff of gunsmoke out here, I think and hope that you will find that there are good friends and much learning to be found Casebookwise!

The best!
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Bill,

It's a fair point. The C5 may well have known each other, Apart from Kelly they were of similar ages and backgrounds. Maybe they ran a mutual support group. Who knows?

But one thing does militate against them knowing/having an interest in each other/being a discrete group of women in whom the "Ripper" was interested, and it is most apparent between Nichols and Chapman. The circumstances of their being on the streets on the nights of their murders were identical. No money for lodging, keep the bed, I'll soon be back with the money.

I have no evidence to support my supposition, but would suggest that if the women were connected in some way Chapman, having learned via the newspapers of the circumstances which drove Polly Nichols to her death, would have taken care not to to allow exactly the same fate to befall her.

To dismiss the possibly of the C5 knowing each other as nonsense is nonsense in itself, but proving otherwise, though probably impossible to do, is worthy of discussion.

Keep it up.

Regards,

Simon

[BillS]

Did victims know each other?

Glenn,

Thank you for your closely argued and erudite comment - you appear to be a sad loss to the Diplomatic Corps. Is this standard treatment of new members of the forum?

I am not sure what part of my comment is nonsens (sic). There could be a variety of reasons why the victims were not chosen at random; reasons that need have nothing to do with Stephen Knoght's theory. For example, the several prostitutes killed over a few weeks in Ipswich about 18 months ago were not - I believe - randomly chosen. I believe the killer had used all their services before and did not kill those whose services he had not. Whilst this may not be helpful in identifying JtR today, it does not mean that it is irrelevant or nonsense.

Also, if having killed his particular victims he might stop and, for example, move on to pastures new and outside London.

I had hoped that I had found a place where civil discussions on this subject could take place. I am beginning to think I was wrong.

In disappointment rather thananger,
Bill S

[paul emmett]

So in all likelyhood - if there is a link between them it might be their living situation and their vulnerable position, possibly even their age.
The rest has to be considered a pure coincidence.

Hello, Bill. Welcome to the boards.

Hello, Glenn. "Nonsense" is, as we find out repeatedly here, such a subjective term. For example, I "question" the above quote, espescially it's abrupt shift from "in all likelyhood" to "has to be." There could have been any number of links between the victims: the way their hair hung, or didn't; the way they smiled, or didn't; the way they carried themselves, or didn't; or any other of an endless string of possibilities. It has to be that we aren't ready to say what got to Jack and what didn't.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I am with Paul Emmett on this one. I don't subscribe to all of Knight's theories but I do find the idea that the victims weren't chosen at random interesting and a possible way of explaining why the murders stoped suddenly.



Bill S

That's absolute nonsens.

All the best

[Suzi]

Hi Janey et al-
Yep I agree...Mc Carthy is certainly a pivot in this whole dabacle I reckon though can't quite put my finger on where or why...but the Dorset St hub does ring rather odd bells from time to time.

As to Pub Landlords....I wonder to this day why The Ringers (both) weren't interviewed...well I assume they were- but nothing inquest related at all....and that's before we get to The Bluecoat Boy and the Horn of Plenty and Gawd knows how many unnamed pubs!

Too right they knew eachother by sight I say

Suz xx