Did the 5 canonical victims know each other?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

One of the things that I always found attractive about Stephen Knight's Walter Sickert/William Gull/Netley theory was that the victims were not randomly chosen but were killed for a purpose. This explains why the murders started and, then ended. The latter ppoint is interesting since once they have started serial killers typically do not stop until they are caught.

I believe to suppport his theory he calims that the women all came from a very small area and drank in the same pub. Is this true? Is there any evidence that they did know each other, except for the fact that living in a small area they probably did have some social interactions?

Bill S

No, there is not even a slightest indication of that they knew each other, nor if it would ever mean anything important.
Even if they DID know each other to some degree it wouldn't be that strange since some of them appear to have lived on Dorset Street at some point (although not necessarily at the same time) and since there was so many street prostitutes around in the area it wouldn't be particularly gobsmacking if they bumbed into one another on some occasion.

However, if that would be the case, it wouldn't in any way support the idea that they were chosen because of that link.
Most serial killer victims ARE chosen at random, and prostitutes are generally chosen because they are easy targets, vulnerable, lead irregular lives and really have no other choice than to force themselves into a risky situation.
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.

Nor do any of the later alleged victims ever appeard to have mentioned knowing the previous victims (nothing at all is said about this in witness statements from their friends, spouses or relatives.

As for Stephen Knight and the Royal Conspiracy: let's get this straight once and for all - it is a load of bollocks from beginning to end. And that includes the ridiculous idea that they were chosen because they knew each other.

All the best

[truebluedub]

Evans and Rumblelow did find an article which suggested that Annie Chapman was friends with Mary Kelly (190) in the People of the 11 November, of course this was a newspaper story.
Kind Regards
Chris Lowe

[paul emmett]

I'm concerned about what I see as a problematic backlash against authors like Knight who are "out of favor." I don't think there's a coach, and I'm as sure as I can be that Gull had nothing to do with it, but just because we see their theories as failed, doesn't mean every topic they brought up should be anathema. Just because "Juwes" isn't a Masonic term, and the intestines weren't over their left shoulders, doesn't, for example, mean that the victims didn't know each other, or even that this possibility might not have something to do with the killings.

[BillS]

Did the victims know each other (& Juwes)

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

[Sam Flynn]

One final point, and I suppose I might be in the worng part of the forum for this comment

It's very easy to start a new thread, Bill - and suggest you do, erasing the off-topic bits from your previous post if possible. The "Juwes" will not be blamed for the victims knowing one another

...thanks, Bill. Top man

[BillyE]

I think it likely the victims knew each other, at least in passing. They all lived within a few hundred feet of each other, I believe two of them slept in the same doss house, and all frequented the same pubs, mostly The Britannia, and The Ten Bells, so they must have at least run into each other. Also, prostitutes would stick together to protect each other against police, clients, pimps, other threats, even if they were in competition with each other for clients or turf. None of this means they definately knew each other, or knew their killer, but the possibility does add to the flavor of the case.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Bill

Also, prostitutes would stick together to protect each other.

At least three, if not four, of the "canonical" victims were fortysomething women who prostituted themselves when they were short of money. Whilst that may have been a regular occurrence, that does not mean that they were full-time hookers by any stretch of the imagination, and their behaviour might not have been as chummy or organised as we might think.

As to their living within a few hundred feet of one another - they may have done so, but not at the same time. Added to which we must consider their respective tenures in the area:

Polly Nichols only seems to have drifted into Spitalfields in the Summer of 1888, spending most of her life previously in Lambeth and Walworth. Chapman spent her better years in the West of London and outside, arriving in Spitalfields in the early-1880s, hawked various odds and ends to scrape a living, or lived off the charity of various "boyfriends". Stride was based mainly in Poplar or St George's in the East. Kelly was heaven-knows-where, but if we are to believe her own account, she was mostly outside the East End of London until a few years before her death, and for at least half that time, she seems to have been based in St George's East or Stepney, rather than Spitalfields itself.

So, nodding acquaintances - maybe, but even then one has one's doubts. Taking the above circumstances into account, the notion of their being "friends" in any meaningful sense is difficult to believe.

[perrymason]

Good points Sam, but just for the "halibut"....Carrie Maxwell said she and Mary were friendly, but had only spoken twice in approx 4 months. So do some "hi... how ya doin's" count? Some of them lived simultaneously on Dorset at one time, correct? So if a strange woman from down the road and across the street, who has nothing to do with street whores or their hours, says she knew Mary Kelly to say hello, who's to say that anyone of the C5 might not have had similar encounters with other C5's at times.I dont mean to suggest it has any relationship to why they were the alleged five victims of Jack the Ripper....just that it might be a link with some if they werent Jacks victim.

Two women of the Canon died calling themselves Mary Kelly...in a row. Ok...5 weeks apart, but thats still consecutive in Jack-speak. If both were Ripper victims, maybe a link with the women,...if only one was Jack, there still might be a connection between the women, and if neither was killed by Jack, youd almost have to conclude that the naming issue is relevant, and the first woman knew of the second at least.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Good points Sam, but just for the "halibut"....Carrie Maxwell said she and Mary were friendly, but had only spoken twice in approx 4 months. So do some "hi... how ya doin's" count?

It does, but only in terms of "nodding acquaintance", Mike. That's a million miles away from being "as thick as thieves" (or blackmailers). And - note - Maxwell lived only some 20 feet from Miller's Court, much closer to Mary Kelly than Annie Chapman at 'tother end of Dorset Street, and infinitely closer than Nichols or Stride. Even so, within the parameters you describe, Maxwell had only ever spoken to Kelly for a total of - what? - 5 to 20 minutes out of 173,000 (being the number of minutes over a span of four months).

[perrymason]

It does, but only in terms of "nodding acquaintance", Mike. That's a million miles away from being "as thick as thieves" (or blackmailers). And - note - Maxwell lived only some 20 feet from Miller's Court, much closer to Mary Kelly than Annie Chapman at 'tother end of Dorset Street, and infinitely closer than Nichols or Stride. Even so, within the parameters you describe, Maxwell had only ever spoken to Kelly for a total of - what? - 5 to 20 minutes out of 173,000 (being the number of minutes over a span of four months).

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. Or pubbing at the same watering holes some nights. I think youre correct about Carrie....and its my feeling she is not someone we should assume "knew" Mary Kelly...but know, and know of...its the Eddowes-Kelly Mary Kelly alias that to me is very suggestive that Kate at the least, knew of Mary Jane Kelly just off Dorset St. Kate was Jane Kelly of Dorset to the pawnbroker, and Mary Kelly of Fashion St to Hutt.

The odds on that as a pure coincidence might be as long as the ones suggesting they met somewhere sometime on the streets. But she did use two versions of a name within her last 24 hours that belonged to the next victim in the Ripper series.....long shot or not.

My posit is that if there is some kind of link there between these two,, and the belief is that their killers were the same fellow, it might stand to reason that this fellow might also have tenuous links with the others too. Again...not suggesting a catalyst is in that link, just that the night socializers might be a somewhat smaller group than simply everyone on Dorset. Lots of Lodgers, but thats not always the all-nighters, Some had jobs, families.

I would think the C5 night crowd if out frequently might share an occassional "evening" with another C5'er. Or "any luck?"...whatever.

I realize the question is asked as it relates to a possible Ripper link, but Im not suggesting that the link need be defined by the Ripper killer.

But with Jack, for example....what if Jack was out to kill Mary Kelly Sept 30th, and heard a woman calling herself that was being released from jail at 1am. Implying access to some inner information stream I suppose. Kills Kate, finds out on what, Tuesday? when Kelly.....theres that name again, might she be known in some circles as Kate Kelly? As Barnett was assumed Marys husband .....comes in to ID her because that press tattoo detail reminded him she was still missing.

Cheesed off...he makes it his business to find out where this woman calls home, and decides to not chance a meeting but to force one...make sure he gets the right Mary Kelly this time.Which raises an interesting question....if Maria Harvey had been asleep in that room and the killer not knowing does her in, would yet another Mary or Jane Kelly have died once the killer found out, or would he have made another attempt on the Millers Court one...assuming of course at a new address..cant imagine Mary staying there after something like that happened.

That also works with a man who knows of Mary....who isnt Jack for one or both of the killings.

All the best Sam.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I think if I were seriously looking for a connection between the 5 canonical victims, I would tend to look at a common denominator and not that the women themselves. (Not that I am. Lol)

For instance, even if the victims did not know one another, was there someone else in the vicinity that might have known all five?

If I wanted to go in that direction, I would possibly look at someone running a business in the area, which might have been frequented by all five at some point. You have a few likely suspects:

Lodging House Keepers or Deputies - not so likely as it seems that the victims all stayed at different doss houses.

Someone working at the Whitechapel Infirmary. Oh no, been there and done that........with quite disastrous results.

Pub landlords?

Someone at the Casual Ward?

Well, you could have a field day.

I might think about looking at John McCarthy a bit closer. I mean, he was very well known in the area as a slum landlord.....proven connection with one of the victims. I have often wondered how many of the victims went into his shop to buy a bit of fast food in the wee small hours.

Just a bit of fun.......but they did all have (possibly ) one thing in common. Jack!

Hugs

Jane

xxxxx

[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

[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

[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.

[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