the victims werent prostitutes

[MrBarnett]

News to me.

Glad to be of assistance. Her actual words were 'A ton of secondary sources say that the women were ugly...' A ton no less.

[MrBarnett]

Never mind ugly, were they SCANDALOUS?

Occasionally whimsical no doubt.

[MrBarnett]

Glad to be of assistance. Her actual words were 'A ton of secondary sources say that the women were ugly...' A ton no less.

I wonder if that is her interpretation or whether the word 'ugly' was repeatedly used to describe them.

[Robert]

I think some posters/authors may have gone by the mortuary pics (obviously with the exception of Kelly's) and described the women as 'old before their time' or something similar. But then these were mortuary pics! I remember dear departed and much-loved Suzi Hanney making the point that the mortuary pics tend to get used too casually, and (putting it in a way that only Suzi could) saying that the women didn't look their best.

[PaulB]

HR's accomplice, the sistersoftheabyss lady, is claiming that the 5 have traditionally been described as 'ugly'.

The SOTA lady is Rebecca Frost. As far as I know, she isn't very well-informed about the history and development of Ripper studies and therefore is probably unaware that the mortuary photographs did not come to light until 1987 and that the only images available to authors prior to that time were line drawings which didn't suggest that the victims were prepossessing in appearance. I stand to be corrected, but such descriptions - and Rubenhold has pointed to The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper by Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund, who were writing nearly twenty years ago - are not personal observations but are made in the context of the Ripper not having chosen his victims for their physical allure.

[PaulB]

I think some posters/authors may have gone by the mortuary pics (obviously with the exception of Kelly's) and described the women as 'old before their time' or something similar. But then these were mortuary pics! I remember dear departed and much-loved Suzi Hanney making the point that the mortuary pics tend to get used too casually, and (putting it in a way that only Suzi could) saying that the women didn't look their best.

Ah, sorry, I posted before I saw your post.

[Observer]

If it really were the case that the lives and motivations of ordinary people are, in and of themselves, as interesting as the lives and motivations of murderers, then I think we'd see popular biographies not even of murder victims, but of regular people.

I don't know. I'd say the lives of JTR's victims are of more interest to devotees of the case than the average citizen of the time.

What baffles me are the "researchers" who spend what must be enormous 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?

I have no problem with this, if that's what floats your boat, go for it.

JTR was an opportunistic killer. looking into the lives of those who were drawn into the saga, victims, witnesses, is not going to solve the mystery.

I am, however, most assuredly all for authors having a go!

Absolutely. Me too

[MrBarnett]

The SOTA lady is Rebecca Frost. As far as I know, she isn't very well-informed about the history and development of Ripper studies and therefore is probably unaware that the mortuary photographs did not come to light until 1987 and that the only images available to authors prior to that time were line drawings which didn't suggest that the victims were prepossessing in appearance. I stand to be corrected, but such descriptions - and Rubenhold has pointed to The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper by Maxim Jakubowski and Nathan Braund, who were writing nearly twenty years ago - are not personal observations but are made in the context of the Ripper not having chosen his victims for their physical allure.

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'.

[Observer]

JM,

I'm more than happy to wait until I get the book I ordered as soon as I heard it was due to be published before I comment on its contents.

It's the sensible course of action. Some though are rubbishing it prematurely.

[MrBarnett]

I think some posters/authors may have gone by the mortuary pics (obviously with the exception of Kelly's) and described the women as 'old before their time' or something similar. But then these were mortuary pics! I remember dear departed and much-loved Suzi Hanney making the point that the mortuary pics tend to get used too casually, and (putting it in a way that only Suzi could) saying that the women didn't look their best.

I personally don't care how attractive the women were, but they lived hard, often vagrant lives, were no doubt underfed and over 'watered', had teeth missing and scars no doubt resulting from violence against them. Their access to what we would consider the basics of hygiene facilities was intermittent at best. I bet they didn't look like the women HR likes to adorn her book covers with.

[Sam Flynn]

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

I dunno. It might give us some insight into Albert's medical history, to say nothing of the mother/son relationship, if she'd named it "Piddles".

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why jump the gun then and say it's lining up to be another waste of ink?

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Maybe I am completely wrong here, but what does it matter if the "five" were or were not prostitutes?

They were women, who were out on the streets of Whitechapel, or in the case of Kelly just a woman who lived there.

Steve

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).

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's the sensible course of action. Some though are rubbishing it prematurely.

No, I’m rubbishing her comments, which makes me doubtful of her motives and integrity and consequently this is why my hopes are not high.

[Observer]

No, I’m rubbishing her comments, which makes me doubtful of her motives and integrity and consequently this is why my hopes are not high.

I think you'd better go and look at post three in this thread where you specifically mentioned her book shaping up to be a waste of ink. That with a shaking head smiley. I don't know!