Jack The Ripper Forums  - Ripperology For The 21st Century  

Go Back   Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century > Mysteries Within The Mystery

Mysteries Within The Mystery Forum for researchers to list what they feel are the most uncanny mysteries within the greater mystery....the identity and motive of the Whitechapel Murderer

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old March 10th, 2017, 06:44 PM   #11
Ralph Petroff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Brown View Post
-Ralph Petroff-

1. There's really no evidence, one way or the other, that the Ripper was intimidated by women at all. In fact, he may have been at ease in their company with the obvious exception of those times when he was consumed with the urge to murder them.

2. No offense to the victims or to your thoughts on the matter, but which victims were particularly attractive ? I'm assuming you are referring to Kelly as one attractive victim, but I get the impression you mean more than one.

3. Actually, just as many serial killers target those victims they can get their hands on easiest as target women whose attractiveness disturbs them.

How
1.) You are right; I was merely stating a possibility. I guess I should have made that more clear. Let me put it like this: Given the Ripper felt intimidated by women, I can well imagine that he might have been especially intimidated by those who were particularly attractive. But I suggest that we drop this point, as we can only speculate about that.

2.) You are right again, I thought of more than one victim. I was referring to Anna calling Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly the prettiest of all of the victims. But I myself wouldn't dare to judge that - mainly because we have only one photo of a victim that was made during her lifetime, a photo of Annie Chapman. We can assume that Mary Kelly was the most attractive one as she was the youngest victim, but actually all we really know is what the victims' dead bodies looked like.

3.) Yet again you are right of course. I think the reason why the Ripper killed especially these women was mainly because they were easily accessible. I think that he killed prostitutes because they wear so easy to approach, and that he mutilated Mary Kelly particularly gruesome simply because he had the possibility this time. Yet I think Anna's thoughts are worth considering.
Ralph Petroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2017, 08:51 PM   #12
Howard Brown
Proprietor-Administrator
 
Howard Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Eagleville, Pa.
Posts: 73,193
Default

Ralph:

I agree that Anna's thoughts are worth considering.
It is quite possible that he was intimidated by women ( perhaps not being capable of achieving an erection with one in a real life situation or having been under the thumb of a domineering mother/female authority figure).
__________________
To Join JTR Forums, Contact :
Howard@jtrforums.com
Howard Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10th, 2017, 09:15 PM   #13
Anna Morris
Registered User
 
Anna Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 3,202
Default

I spend a lot of time trying to find patterns in the C-5. (Because I have trouble sleeping. It's better than counting sheep.)

My feelings about Kate are subjective. To me she was a very pretty woman, even dead. Mary was said to be pretty but we have no image for our modern eyes. Annie was terribly ill, nearly dead. Our view of Polly could be misleading. I always thought of her as stout because the picture makes her look like she had a double chin, but consider the source. The picture of Liz shows what to me are kind of odd features.

It is said serial killers have a sight pattern as do predatory animals. SKs tend to kill (usually) women who resemble each other. But if we think of this with Jack, one pattern could be middle aged. Polly, Annie, Liz, Kate. Another pattern could be stout. Polly, Annie, Mary.

But then the heights of the victims is something to ponder. One would think Jack would choose a height he could easily manipulate via partial strangulation or what. I have often thought that height must have meant something to his method of operation. Liz and Mary were said to be about 5' 7" tall. Kate was tiny all around. Polly wore heels.

Five feet, seven inches is tall for women and harder to manipulate than five foot two or so. Does this indicate Jack was tall? I don't think he was extra tall like Tumblety or he would have been noticed.

Another pattern though I don't know if it matters since some of the victims wore bonnets, is none of them were blonde. We seem to think Mary had reddish hair. The rest had brown.
__________________
If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit.~~Henry Flower, Casebook post
Anna Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2017, 01:00 PM   #14
Ralph Petroff
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Germany
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Morris View Post
I spend a lot of time trying to find patterns in the C-5. (Because I have trouble sleeping. It's better than counting sheep.)
Poor Anna - I know what you're talking about. I didn't sleep well either. First I couldn't fall asleep for hours, then I woke up after only a few hours of sleep. Well, never mind.

What you said about the victims' heights made me think about this aspect again. I think it was Elizabeth Long (though you always have to be careful when it comes to witnesses) who said the man she saw with Annie Chapman was only a bit taller than Annie - who was 5 feet tall. Joseph Levy described the man they saw with Catherine Eddowes as about 5'3 - what would fit with Ms Long's description. On the other hand, Joseph Lawende described the very same man as considerably taller than Levy did; he said (if I'm not mistaken) the man might have been about 5'9 tall. But Elizabeth Stride was not in vain called "Long Liz", and I can hardly imagine a man being only 5,3 tall dragging Long Liz on the ground by her shoulders. So this would indicate a considerably taller perpetrator and with fit with Lawende's discription. Also, it might fit with the man Emily Marsh says to have seen in her shop asking for Mr Lusk's address only one day before the "Lusk Letter" arrived. But yet again, it is not clear who of the witnesses actually saw the Ripper.
Ralph Petroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 05:13 AM   #15
Mr. Poster
Twit
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Twit Town
Posts: 2,474
Default

Quote:
Other geographical profilers suggest that the first murder of a serial killer has to be close to where he lives - might suggest that the Ripper could have lived somewhere near Buck's Row. But on the other hand, this would be way more distant from Mitre Square and Goulston Street than Flower and Dean Street.

The problem with geographical profiling is that on the one hand I do believe in it, while on the other hand (at least in this case) there is some contradictory information. And I personally don't have enough knowledge about this matter to decide which of these information I believe in.
I'd be very careful about thinking we know something when the thing supporting that "knowledge" is profiling of any sort - especially geographic profiling.

Like profiling generally it has no underlying theoretical foundation.

In addition - the entire notion of someone "living" anywhere in that part of Victorian London is spurious at best given that we know that large chunks of the population were essentially transient or homeless and "living" at any of a number of doss houses and temporary lodgings.

And the problem remains that "profiling" of any sort is based on tiny data sets that are in no way representative of the population of London in 1888 in any manner whatsoever.

So I for one am very suspicious of saying we know he was local or anything else based on profiling...

p
__________________
"Chance hasn't yet peached on Jack the Ripper.If she ever does, it will probably be cause for grotesque disappointment among the Ripperologists, who get as much joy from attacking one another's lunacies, as from any problems originally posed by the Whitechapel murderer" R. Gowers, The Independant, Saturday, 31 December 1994
Mr. Poster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 07:07 AM   #16
Caroline Morris
Author
 
Caroline Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Petroff View Post
But Elizabeth Stride was not in vain called "Long Liz", and I can hardly imagine a man being only 5,3 tall dragging Long Liz on the ground by her shoulders. So this would indicate a considerably taller perpetrator...
Hi Ralph,

While I accept Stride as a probable victim of the ripper, I believe it may be a canard that her nickname "Long" Liz referred to her height. I suspect it was on account of her surname, which she got from her late husband, John Stride. People named Stride were often called "Long" Stride, regardless of how long-legged they actually were.

Also, beggars can't be choosers, and even if the ripper killed all of the Whitechapel victims, the total number forms a small sample. He would have been limited by how many women were out on the streets on any given night, alone, vulnerable and willing to accompany men who, for all they knew, could have violent tendencies. As the murders went on, women would have become more wary, if still desperate enough to take such risks. I doubt very much that the ripper would have had the luxury of factoring in hair colour, age, looks or figure in his selection process. It would be more about the external circumstances and what he thought he could get away with before the first witnesses came along.

In short, he killed (IMHO) Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly (and possibly others, previously and subsequently) because of where they happened to be at the time and why, rather than anything about them physically which might have appealed, repelled or reminded him of a hated female in his life. These women came to him ready weakened physically, by poverty, sickness, exhaustion or alcohol. There is no evidence it went beyond that.

Love,

Caz
X
__________________
I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen
Caroline Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 12:25 PM   #17
Anna Morris
Registered User
 
Anna Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 3,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Petroff View Post
Poor Anna - I know what you're talking about. I didn't sleep well either. First I couldn't fall asleep for hours, then I woke up after only a few hours of sleep. Well, never mind.

What you said about the victims' heights made me think about this aspect again. I think it was Elizabeth Long (though you always have to be careful when it comes to witnesses) who said the man she saw with Annie Chapman was only a bit taller than Annie - who was 5 feet tall. Joseph Levy described the man they saw with Catherine Eddowes as about 5'3 - what would fit with Ms Long's description. On the other hand, Joseph Lawende described the very same man as considerably taller than Levy did; he said (if I'm not mistaken) the man might have been about 5'9 tall. But Elizabeth Stride was not in vain called "Long Liz", and I can hardly imagine a man being only 5,3 tall dragging Long Liz on the ground by her shoulders. So this would indicate a considerably taller perpetrator and with fit with Lawende's discription. Also, it might fit with the man Emily Marsh says to have seen in her shop asking for Mr Lusk's address only one day before the "Lusk Letter" arrived. But yet again, it is not clear who of the witnesses actually saw the Ripper.
Witnesses are notoriously bad at estimating heights. In most cases then and now footwear would have had some level of heel which can add height. The discrepancies in reported heights only amount to a few inches.

I think Liz' autopsy showed she was either 5'5" or 5'7" tall.

I recently had another thought about the attack on Liz, but it is only a thought. If she thought she was going to be punched in the face or something similar, she may have brought her hands up and ducked down or bent her knees. That would contribute to her position when found. If she was simply protecting her head it would help explain why she clutched the cachous and had not discarded them.

I feel she must have known her assailant and didn't consider him to be dangerous. Maybe she knew he was mentally ill but didn't think he would kill. I only partly joke when I suggest she may have said, "Aaron, why are you acting like the Whitechapel fiend!"

I do believe it was her who cried, "no, no, no," but not in a loud voice. During the Ripper scare this is amazing, IMO.
__________________
If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit.~~Henry Flower, Casebook post
Anna Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 05:33 PM   #18
San Fran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anna Morris View Post
Witnesses are notoriously bad at estimating heights.
They are also bad at estimating ages when they're in the dark, I'm sure.

The known age of the known victims, likely underestimation of age in darkness, and no sexual acts suggests an older perp.

Quote:
Serial killers also prefer younger victims: About 18 percent of all victims fall under the age of 18, while just over 10 percent are over the age of 60.
After peaking at age 29, the chances of being murdered by a serial killer dramatically decrease in one’s 30s, 40s, and 50s.
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/2/1380315...s-victims-data
The preference is victims younger than themselves. I doubt the older ones just happened to be the victims of opportunity. But there might be stats on the average age of the women out at night.
San Fran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 06:10 PM   #19
San Fran
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 205
Default

Here is the Casebook thread on the average age of prostitutes in Whitechapel.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3257

FrankO averages his sample, which includes Mary at 25 which is not established, at 38.

Sam averages them between 22 and 35. So the end result is less than 35. And the four known victims were over 40.

What are the odds you'd find four victims of opportunity in a row at least 5 years older than the average? Just one over versus under the average would be 50-50 wouldn't it? But five five over?

The conclusions drawn on Casebook however seems to fly in the face of the evidence which is not unusual.

Last edited by San Fran; March 22nd, 2017 at 11:31 AM. Reason: My math error: excluding Mary 25 (sic) UPS the avg. Not lowers.
San Fran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 21st, 2017, 07:14 PM   #20
Anna Morris
Registered User
 
Anna Morris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Idaho, USA
Posts: 3,202
Default

I think it is hard to estimate ages of prostitutes in 1888 East End of London for several reasons.

Prostitution was legal for women to engage in. Any woman in desperate need at any time could resort to casual prostitution.

Much of the prostitution was "casual" rather than a profession. Women were at an economic disadvantage in the society and women performed casual prostitution for a variety of reasons.

Since there were not good retirement plans and supports for middle aged widows, they may have made up a larger percentage of the prostitute count.

I am sure there are a number of other variables to consider.

Serial killers are said to have a sight pattern they seek, similar to the way predatory animals seek prey targets. Perhaps Jack wasn't interested in age, but in body movements or general appearance. Maybe Polly, Annie, Kate and Mary walked in such a way that they appeared just drunk enough to be easy prey.

I have also wondered if Jack struck after a conversation with the women. Surely he didn't kill or try to kill EVERY woman he interacted with. Yet we don't have reliable accounts of Jack approaching other women, that we know of. We don't seem to have any accounts of Jack attempting his routine but not finishing or of women escaping. (I believe the Mrs. Lewis/Kennedy tales but we have no way to know if this was Jack. Whoever was that man he was very ineffective and creepy. Jack must have been able to lull his victims.)

Considering conversation, I wonder if the women said something that set him off. One pattern for all of the C-5 seems to be the ability to verbally banter with people. (There must have been some unfortunates who were not quick in speaking or who were basically shy.) Every one of the C-5, I think, qualify as "cheeky" in the verbal department.
__________________
If the shawl doesn't fit, you must acquit.~~Henry Flower, Casebook post
Anna Morris is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10 Beta 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright @ Howard & Nina Brown 2015-2022