Did the 5 canonical victims know each other?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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 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

[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.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Well, Simon, we must remember that street prostitutes often used false names (just take Eddowes' usage of a false name at the police station) in order to make themsleves harder to identify.
I have come across several examples of how such women managed to fool the police for years until the autorities finally realized that files about several women actually concerned one and the same person. In those days female prisoners weren't photographed and their personal details were rather difficult to check, specially if they had no firm address or residence.
Not only the names were often faked, but also other factual details as date of birth etc.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

I am definitely with Simon on that one (although probably for different reasons), but hey - I don't want to open a can of worms here.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Glenn,

Cans of worms are fine with me.

But before Sam berates me for being off-thread—

London's Finest [City & Met] prided themselves on knowing most things that went on in and around the streets of London. Now, they may have looked upon "X" and known her as Doris or Daisy, Gertrude or Sybil [or all of those names], but they would have recognized her. Surely to God one cop or another had "moved them on" or "cautioned them" at some time or another. We know, for instance, that Stride had been up before the Beak on a few occasions.

But as far as the cops were concerned C1 to C4 appear to have existed in a vacuum.

Regards,

Simon

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

London's Finest [City & Met] prided themselves on knowing most things that went on in and around the streets of London. Now, they may have looked upon "X" and known her as Doris or Daisy, Gertrude or Sybil [or all of those names], but they would have recognized her. Surely to God one cop or another had "moved them on" or "cautioned them" at some time or another.

No, Simon.
Believe me, I am talking from experience here, studying hundreds of cases involving street prostitutes.
Regardless of any bragging of the police, they would not likely had known or recognized any of them (the fact that Eddowes managed to make them accept a false name when she registred herself is a sad proof of that) - there were simply too many of them and because of a possible poor communication between different police districts in that respect.

Believe me, fooling the police by using a number of aliases was customary and daily procedure for them. And again, in UK in those days temporary prisoners were most likely not photographed.
I have hundreds of examples involving Danish prostitutes where the women easily fooled the police IN SPITE of that they actually were photographed (Denmark was unique in that respect) - and they still managed to get away with it!

I can assure you, the Met and the City police didn't have a clue and they would have been in good company with police forces in other countries during the same period.

Al the best