the victims werent prostitutes

[Bridewell]

Who wants to know the name of Albert Cadoches mothers cat?

Albert Cadosch's mother died around 1867 so any reference to cat owner is almost certainly to his stepmother.

While checking that death date I've just found a Non-Conformist Record from April 1867 documenting the baptism of a still-born Cadosch child. As Albert's mother died in that month it suggests very strongly that she died in childbirth.

[Varqm]

Varqm,
Though I wore uniforms of different kinds,none of them were a cops uniform.
Not that I blame you for being incorrect,but in the same way as you are mistaken,might not Rubenhold be pointing out a similar mistaken belief about the victims?

Nonsense,Rubenhold no doubt is wrong.Read the inquest/newspaper again,it's clear they were prostituting,at least on the early morning they were killed,ok as soon as they split with their clients they were not prostitutes,they were a friend,a lodger,mother,cook,etc..
But on that/those early morning(s) prostitution,for whatever reason,was what lead to their murders.If they had money they would probably be in a lodging house that early morning.You could call JTR a prostitute murderer.


----.

.

[Bridewell]

There will always be debate as to how many of the victims were prostitutes. For me the important aspect is not what they were but whether or not it has any bearing on why they were killed. The "Dear Boss" letter's author claims to have been the killer and to have been "down on whores" but that is widely seen as a hoax; if the hoax view is correct then I don't see any evidence that the victims were killed because they were prostitutes. I think they were killed because they were (or appeared to be) vulnerable. Alcohol intoxication is as likely as anything else in that regard.

[Observer]

Albert Cadoches mother had a cat! Wow, what colour was it?

Soot coloured I believe. Same colour as all those other grimy old city cats.

Actually, I don't think anyone goes that far, although we did ascertain the colour of Diddles, but it's interesting to find out about these people so that they are more than just names.

Fair point. However there are those who in my opinion take it a bit far.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Unfortunately, I won't be reviewing the book in Ripperologist because Rubenhold has already very rudely and completely unnecessarily stated publicly and in the newspapers that I'd purposefully tear her book apart. So, if her book is crap and I did tear it apart, she'd just say 'told you so' and claim I'm biased against it (which I am not and have no reason to be). I would have asked Richard Whittington-Egan to review it, but sadly he's no longer with us. I do have two reviewers though, so should get a balanced viewpoint.

I’m afraid that the more that I hear of this woman the less impressed I become.

[MrBarnett]

One thing I'm 100% certain of is that if the book does contain new material, the much-maligned Ripperologists will praise it to the rooftops. If not, they may not be quite so generous.

[PaulB]

I hope one of them is female, or else in the event of a negative verdict it will be down to bias blah blah blah.

Yes, one is. As in an excellent choice for that reason, is honest and takes no prisoners.

[Robert]

I hope one of them is female, or else in the event of a negative verdict it will be down to bias blah blah blah.

[PaulB]

If an author makes comments about her forthcoming book where she also takes the time to criticise everyone with an interest in the case then she is open for criticism herself in my opinion. Basically she has insulted everyone on this Forum by accusing us of ‘glorifying’ the ripper. She also appears to have said that the victim’s weren’t prostitutes. A fact that we know to be untrue.

I’ve also criticised a so-called author who claims that Vincent Van Gogh was the ripper before the appearance of his worthless book.

Authors cannot be exempts from criticism. I only said that, based on her comments, I don’t hold much hope out for her book if those are samples of her thinking. The book might turn out to be a good one though. I’ll buy it myself if Gary reads it and says that it’s good or if Paul gives it a good review in Ripperologist or on here.

Unfortunately, I won't be reviewing the book in Ripperologist because Rubenhold has already very rudely and completely unnecessarily stated publicly and in the newspapers that I'd purposefully tear her book apart. So, if her book is crap and I did tear it apart, she'd just say 'told you so' and claim I'm biased against it (which I am not and have no reason to be). I would have asked Richard Whittington-Egan to review it, but sadly he's no longer with us. I do have two reviewers though, so should get a balanced viewpoint.

[PaulB]

I know who the SOTA lady is, Paul, but I have a problem with the use of the word 'abyss' so I use the name of her website to identify her (I seriously do have an issue with the term, and even more so with Jack London's view that the POA shouldn't have been allowed to breed.)

I'll scour my copy of the Mammoth in the hope of finding 'A ton' of examples of the use of the word 'ugly'.

I know you know her name, I just mentioned it in case other people didn't. Despite the fact that she has written a book about the victims in which she is quite nastily critical of Ripper authors, especially the early ones, and has the website, she doesn't know much about research or what sources there are or where they are located, so it is quite probable that she doesn't know what information writers had to work with. As for the Mammoth, Rubenhold highlighted somewhere the authors rather tactlessly say something along the lines of the victims no winning a beauty contest. As a historian, Rubenhold should judge people by the time in which they wrote, which was twenty years ago in the case of J&B. Perhaps she did judge them and found them crass for the time, or maybe she didn't take it into account.

[PaulB]

amounts of time looking into the lives of the most obscure individuals connected to the case. Who wants to know the name of Albert Cadoches mothers cat?

Albert Cadoches mother had a cat! Wow, what colour was it?

Actually, I don't think anyone goes that far, although we did ascertain the colour of Diddles, but it's interesting to find out about these people so that they are more than just names.

[Abby Normal]

If one is studying the case yez of course it is significant Michael. However i was talking from a moralistic point of view, which appears to be the view being taken by the author. That by saying they were working girls we are devaluing them, which is not the case, that was my point.

If there is new evidence to support the view that some were not working, that of course would be significant, time will tell
Its just gender politics being used to push a publication at present in my view.


Steve

bingo El.
lets hope she at least has done good research and discovers something new about the women.

[Robert]

The Telegraph has a paywall but anyone who wants to read the full article can do so :

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=28981&page=36

[Robert]

Have a look at her Sept 15th tweet. The only part she disowns is the bit about the number of non-prostitutes.

https://twitter.com/HallieRubenhold?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

[Elamarna]

Its a very relevant point Steve, because in the case of Polly and Annie, the only 2 we KNOW were soliciting, it makes sense that their killer posed as a client to get them somewhere dark. That he was likely unknown to them, a stranger. That their killer was opportunistic and, in the latter case, shown to have an obsession with female abdominal organs. It would show us that their killer learned from his first kill (poor venue) and then applied that knowledge to the second. Some form of madness would certainly be part of his makeup.

The point I'm making is that we would have a profile for the killer of the first 2 victims. Unless we can prove that the circumstances of the other 3 Canonicals were similar, the differences in their murders and the subsequent mutilations stand out as a sign that different killer(s) were likely at work.

The main objective to this line of thinking has been that people assume 2 or more murderers working at the same time in a small geographical area is unlikely. Forgetting of course the Torsos and other murders within the Unsolved File that do not match the Canonical Group.

If 3 of the Canonical Group may have been killed by someone other than the opportunistic killer, then the motives for those could be far different and potentially far more revealing about those killer(s).

If one is studying the case yez of course it is significant Michael. However i was talking from a moralistic point of view, which appears to be the view being taken by the author. That by saying they were working girls we are devaluing them, which is not the case, that was my point.

If there is new evidence to support the view that some were not working, that of course would be significant, time will tell
Its just gender politics being used to push a publication at present in my view.


Steve