Ed Glinert's east end book big revelation?

[Krinoid]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;145450]Krinoid,

There is nothing about cubits in the Kitab Al-Azif. As that is the definitive work on anything demonic and inexplicable, and as Abdul Al-Hazred did experience all possible things Mythos, I think your argument is dead.

I am not sure why that book is relevant or how that shuts the argument down but whatever, as long as JTR knew how Wren planned post fire London he could use that knowledge to his advantage. I don't think he went to the library and read up on everything available. And he seemed to be harnessing Jewish Old testament knowledge and making comments about Juwes as well. There is some link somewhere. Jacob the ripper?
I don't think enough emphasis has been placed on the topograpy and landscape of the East end in relation to the ripper. Or research into Wellclose/swedenborg square.Glinert was doing this and got dismissed without anything being checked (which is why I said the high and mighty comment), and I was told it was a joke that I missed which obviously it was not as I knew.
As for the triangle theory, Glinert did say it could be a conicidence and it could be, but the possibilty of getting 2 triangles is highly unlikley next to each other probability wise in general by statitistics.

[Krinoid]

Hello Krinoid,



.

Personally I try to keep an open mind about any area of Ripper research but in this case, I can't help but thinking that it is a red herring which leads to copious amounts of uncheckable facts and baseless allegations.

Acting high and mighty? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, more like.

Regards,

Boris

I would read the whole thread before you accuse me of being high and mighty and see what others were accusing me of missing Glinert's supposed sarcasm and my stupidity. The joke's on you and others here who laughed without checking...

[Krinoid]

Krinoid,

There is nothing about cubits in the Kitab Al-Azif. As that is the definitive work on anything demonic and inexplicable, and as Abdul Al-Hazred did experience all possible things Mythos, I think your argument is dead.

Sure, Von Junzt had a few good ideas, but he didn't mention it either.

Yours,

Mike

Maybe no one had not figured it out yet, I mean how long did it take to come out now about Wellclose square to be added to the theory?
Abdul Alhazred is a fictional character created by American horror writer H. P. Lovecraft. He is the so-called "Mad Arab" credited with authoring the imaginary book Kitab al-Azif (the Necronomicon), and as such an integral part of Cthulhu Mythos lore
Mark

[Krinoid]

the earlier post

the earlier mentioin I alluded to since people don't read the whole thread

Hi Krinoid,

I'll bite. I think it's pretty obvious that the understated concluding sentence to the final paragraph in the chapter is a pull-back-and-reveal in which Glinert shows his "solution" to be, in fact, a satirical jab at some of Ripperology's most silly conspiracy theories. You'll note that the distances which Glinert states divide the Ripper sites aren't reliable, and that the six-pointed star, if it had existed, ought to have been a regular shape, with all sides the same length. Instead, Glinert builds irregularity into his satirical scheme, parodying the arguments of those who believe that drawing lines between the sites actually form different shapes (Satanic symbols, arrows pointing at the House of Commons, etc). There's no rigour in Glinert's "solution", but deliberately so - it's meant to be understood to be a joke, not the long-awaited answer. I'm afraid that you've missed some of these subtleties in your reading.
Regards,

Mark

[Krinoid]

Krinoid,

Glinert's book was first published in '05 and it received generally approving comments both here and in some of the journals. Like m_w_r, I always read Glinert's solution as a joke about overly complicated JtR theories. As far as I know, everyone read it that way except, apparently, you.

Another one....

[bolo]

Hi,

I would read the whole thread before you accuse me of being high and mighty and see what others were accusing me of missing Glinert's supposed sarcasm and my stupidity. The joke's on you and others here who laughed without checking...

Where did I accuse you of being high and mighty? You said that other posters reacted that way and I wanted to tell you that this what you perceive as being high and mighty is just indifference towards a topic (the connect-the-dots game) which time and again turned out to be a dead end.

Sorry for the confusion, English is not my first language, you know.

Regards,

Boris

[joelhall]

As for the triangle theory, Glinert did say it could be a conicidence and it could be, but the possibilty of getting 2 triangles is highly unlikley next to each other probability wise in general by statitistics.

Actually if you have 6 points in a small space the odds are incredibly high for being able to make two triangles.

The triangles of course make a shape nothing like a Star of David, and if we only have to vaguely represent something to have evidence of conspiracy this could open the doors for all kind of inane assumptions and theories.

Honestly there is nothing in these triangles, or any other map shape. The idea of killings making shapes on a map has become something of the lore of mysteries for decades, but really without any foundation. It makes for good films about the FBI hunting down serial killers, but in reality how many serial killers really went to this much effort to do something with some kind of supernatural or mystical meaning?

Few, if any, I'd wager. Simply because it's the act of killing which is meaningful. The places mean nothing to the serial killer, it's simply the killing which is the work. If the killer was leaving a message by location they would be more likely to choose significant places which send out there message. Otherwise who is going to get it? If the killer is unknown, the victims are unknown, and the method of killing is vague (I'm sure you'd find throat slashing a very common form of murder, and post-mortem injury or mutilation not as uncommon as you might believe), then why makes an even more vague message to go with it?

This is a bit like writing Italian with ancient Greek letters, then sending the letter to a blind Chinaman. Not only does it not make sense, the intended recipient probably isn't even going to think about decoding it and simply throw it away.

As far as this theory goes specifically:

- The two triangles do not make a Star of David

- The distances are not 2000, or 1600 cubits from each other, as can be seen by the different side lengths of the triangles - both of which are different sizes anyway.

- The reference to Jews does not really have much bearing even if the killer did write it. In fact I believe the killer may have written it, but whoever did deliberately wrote a nonsense poem, perhaps taking a sly stab at the amount of letters written to the press and police and the stupidity of it all, and purposely using the medieval spelling to draw attention to the word Jews (see my other post: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...uwes#post43769) simply to get people in even more disarray than they already were. Either that or the killer deliberately chose that spot to drop the piece of rag in order to create panic or nervousness.

Even so, then and now no one is quite sure what the meaning of the graffiti was. To use it as proof of anything if the meaning is not known is slightly odd to say the least.

- Why would anyone choosing to make some type of mystical or significant gesture choose Whitechapel? Frankly no one really gave a monkey's about this part of London, and I dare say it was only the press sensationalising the crimes and plastering them everywhere that got everyone's attention rather than any killer. If the press hadn't made such a fuss about it I wonder if this sit we're posting on now would even exist, and the crimes ending up like so many unusual unsolved disturbing murders. Old books and papers are full of these mysteries by all accounts, but no one has ever heard of them. It's a bit like the McCann girl disappearing - who can name all the other children who went missing that year?

Surely if someone was making a statement they would choose an area they knew from the first would attract attention, and which would get their message across?

- References to symbolic meanings in people's theories are often only paraphrased or taken out of context, or worse simply made up from words which appear in hard to read old works which somehow is supposed to give them more weight.

- As for references to the Hebrew OT - this is simply a play on words. This was the Christian OT (Jews don't have a NT, so why would they name anything OT?). Plenty of people would have been familiar with the Bible - after all the King James version was created in essense to ensure a unified language across Great Britain, as dialects had proven confusing to travellers and others, and similar words could mean very different things.

Remember that the Church was also the social and in many ways, locally political hub of the community, keeping records and being a place for discussion, announcements and socialising. We still have church halls to perform the same, albeit much lesser, function today - social events, club meetings, etc.

The book you are trying to refer to here is the Tanakh, which is the Jewish Bible, which includes the more well known Torah. The Septuagint is the parts of the Tanakh included in the Christian Bible as the OT. These weren't heavily guarded secrets the Jews kept from the English, and there was quite a bit of converting going on in various places. There is not really any significance that someone had a knowldeg of the Bible.

Besdies which, as Jews made up a large proportion of the Whitechapel district (my own ancestors were amongst them), and employed many of te local people, or worked for them or with them, elements of Judaism, specifically Yiddish and Ashkenazi origins would have been part of many people's daily lives, and indeed in England we still use a lot of words from Jewish origin as part of our colloquial speech and writing.

[Krinoid]

an excellent post by Joelhall

I like the post as it has constructive criticism and before I get pounced again like last time,doesn't mean I agree with all of it,but is what I am looking for.



[QUOTE=joelhall;145486]Actually if you have 6 points in a small space the odds are incredibly high for being able to make two triangles.

The triangles of course make a shape nothing like a Star of David, and if we only have to vaguely represent something to have evidence of conspiracy this could open the doors for all kind of inane assumptions and theories.
true to some extent
As far as this theory goes specifically:

- The two triangles do not make a Star of David

my posting said "twisted" star

Glinert never said this,he said a twisted like the murder tried to do it?
- The distances are not 2000, or 1600 cubits from each other, as can be seen by the different side lengths of the triangles - both of which are different sizes anyway.
Glinert never said they were the same size read carefully.- Even so, then and now no one is quite sure what the meaning of the graffiti was. To use it as proof of anything if the meaning is not known is slightly odd to say the least.
I never said this was proof,just throwing out that JTR seemed interested in Jewish history IMHO
- Why would anyone choosing to make some type of mystical or significant gesture choose Whitechapel? maybe it was more to do with wellclose area and possibly the Church.

And he did draw attention to the area, which brought massive changes to the people's living condition, so that did work.
- There is not really any significance that someone had a knowldeg of the Bible.
I diasagree IMHO

[Krinoid]

What about that the first couple of murders fall onto important dates in the Jewish calendar?

[Rubyretro]

What about that the first couple of murders fall onto important dates in the Jewish calendar?

Is that true ?????? what are they ? Please explain ?

[Rubyretro]

I am dead wary of Conspiracy Theories and 'occultism' theories -and basically I'm with you Joel; None the less , we've got to consider some things ..

[QUOTE]

, but in reality how many serial killers really went to this much effort to do something with some kind of supernatural or mystical meaning?[/

QUOTE]

There is a certain type of killer (hearing meaningful 'messages' from God ?), and having compulsions to transmit these messages in a certain way, that might try and kill to a rigid pattern.

If the killer was leaving a message by location they would be more likely to choose significant places which send out there message. Otherwise who is going to get it? If the killer is unknown, the victims are unknown, and the method of killing is vague (I'm sure you'd find throat slashing a very common form of murder, and post-mortem injury or mutilation not as uncommon as you might believe), then why makes an even more vague message to go with it?

The killer might feel that he was very much cleverer than ordinary mortels,
and enjoy leaving what to him are blatent clues, but feeling everyone else was far too dim to 'understand'.

- The reference to Jews does not really have much bearing even if the killer did write it.

Oh ? Given the boiling racial tension in London at the time, he was pouring petrol on a fire (I don't think that he personally wrote the GSG by the way).

Even so, then and now no one is quite sure what the meaning of the graffiti was.

- It's pretty clear that it's not pro-Jewish.

?

Frankly no one really gave a monkey's about this part of London,

I am beginning to see that in the Socialist Jewish Clubs, the strikes, public unrest etc We have the birth of the Labour Party, (a very short time later) the birth of the Russian Revolution, a different movement leading to nazi Germany. the birth of a new writing style (Jack London leading onto Orwell), education and the Ragged Schools, the Suffragettes, Dr Barnardos, etc etc infact people WERE giving a 'monkey's' -and somewhere Jack was one catalyst
..just one reason why the case endures..

and I dare say it was only the press sensationalising the crimes and plastering them everywhere that got everyone's attention rather than any killer.

Given the shot timespan, the small geogaphical area, the jewish immigration problem and the 'sexual' side of Jack's mutilarions -plus the utter savagery of MJK's murder...and then....nothing, they were crimes bound to stand out.

Surely if someone was making a statement they would choose an area they knew from the first would attract attention, and which would get their message across?

-
Obviously the fact that we have forums on the matter today, means that the person DID attract attention (more than he realised).

, keeRemember that the Church was also the social and in many ways, locally political hub of the communityping records and being a place for discussion, announcements and socialising.

On the Lenin threads that I read today, it said that Lenin loved the churches in the East End -because they were preaching Socialism and allowing debates.

Besdies which, as Jews made up a large proportion of the Whitechapel district (my own ancestors were amongst them), and employed many of te local people, or worked for them or with them, elements of Judaism, specifically Yiddish and Ashkenazi origins would have been part of many people's daily lives, and indeed in England we still use a lot of words from Jewish origin as part of our colloquial speech and writing.

These immigrants were percieved as cheapening the labour market by their numbers and desperation, and deforming the culture (by alot of inhabitants of Whitechapel).

[Roy Corduroy]

RE: "Dates of Jewish Calendar"

Rube, See General Discussion thread Murder Dates and Times page 3 post 24

click here -

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2255&page=3

[joelhall]

There is a certain type of killer (hearing meaningful 'messages' from God ?), and having compulsions to transmit these messages in a certain way, that might try and kill to a rigid pattern.

But this is different - there are no meaningful messages of any kind, simply bodies dumped in the street. At least when serial killers wish to communicate they do it in a way which is either obvious (not necessarily the meaning but obvious that something is amiss with the crime scenes or victim which warrents closer attention), or something that is consistant throughout (like a calling card or specific way of killing, or items taken as trophies). The closest we get to trophies in this case is haphazard at best, and there is little in the way of consistancy with the killings. Throat-cutting would be so common a form of murder at the time that it would not be suggestive of anything (after all their weren't that many means of murder barring knives at the time). There is no conclusive evidence that suggests they are by the same hand, they are merely tied together as they resemble (i.e. throat cut, female victims, various degrees of post-mortem injuries inflicted) each other and through logic, much less any message...

The killer might feel that he was very much cleverer than ordinary mortels,
and enjoy leaving what to him are blatent clues, but feeling everyone else was far too dim to 'understand'.

...and if the killer thought he was more intelligent he would at least have made a way for them to be decyphered, otherwise he was wasting his time. Killers of this type who leave messages, leave them so they will be seen by someone, otherwise there is no purpose of the message in the first place. After all messages are communications. If we were to suppose that the bodies were deliberately placed, then the individual murder sites themselves would be more suggestive than the end result. If the killer wanted to send a message I also reckon he would have become pretty frustrated that no one had been able to pick up on it after a while.

Really theorising of messages in this manner defeats it's own purpose. Messages are there to communicate. If the killer was prepared to kill in the first place in order to send this message, why would he not make sure it was understood? Messages are pointless otherwise, and considering the killer would have gone to so much trouble, one would have to wonder what bearing this would have if the messages wasn't even noticed in the first place?

Oh ? Given the boiling racial tension in London at the time, he was pouring petrol on a fire (I don't think that he personally wrote the GSG by the way).

Well this wasn't quite what I meant. I mean it has no bearing on the murders, but as I noted if the cloth and writing were deliberately placed or chosen by the killer this was to stir things up. As for boiling racial tension, I think this was blown up somewhat. There has and will always be racial tension, but between white people is hardly dividing along racial lines, unless you mean xenophobia. In which case it was not the wide scale often believed. Immigrants were nothing new to London, especially the East End, nor for that matter other dock towns, such as Liverpool. I know this as these are the places my family come from, European Jews being among them, and this well before the LVP. Remember these were ports, well used to trading with the rest of the World by this point - we're nearing the end of the British Empire which was built upon global trade and transport. Foreign influences on culture were nothing new.

- It's pretty clear that it's not pro-Jewish.

Actually, no it's not. Double negatives in slang, especially here in the South-East and London are very common, particularly when people don't have a great grasp of grammar, and especially when the last word is 'nothing' (anyone else ever notice that?). e.g. 'What you been doing?' - 'I ain't been doing nothing.' 'What do you want?' 'I don't want nothing.' 'We won't be blamed for nothing, 'cos we ain't done nothing', etc. To me if I were to see this I would not think that someone was having a pop as Jews, I would think some Jew was annoyed at being made a scapegoat and writing in defiance. That's how I originally read it and it still stands to me, as well as other's I've asked (who have no knowledge of the Whitechapel murders). Their immediate impression is a Jew wrote it. In fact until I joined this site, everyone I asked read it that way, too (although it's probably just because we're dead common!)

I am beginning to see that in the Socialist Jewish Clubs, the strikes, public unrest etc We have the birth of the Labour Party, (a very short time later) the birth of the Russian Revolution, a different movement leading to nazi Germany. the birth of a new writing style (Jack London leading onto Orwell), education and the Ragged Schools, the Suffragettes, Dr Barnardos, etc etc infact people WERE giving a 'monkey's' -and somewhere Jack was one catalyst
..just one reason why the case endures..

I won't deny 'Jack' was a catalyst, but we should be wary of placing too much weight on a single set of incidents. For a long period there were various philanthropists, Jews included (another of my ancestors was one of them), but this was not the great focus we often believe it to be, just one of many social problems of the times. One reason for the focus again I must add was the media focus. This is hardly the same as Jack deliberately trying to focus attention on the area however, I think we agree on that. These people who worked within the East End were private individuals or groups, and there wasn't as much pressure placed on central government by them as is often believed. Rather the efforts were more about 'helping others to help themselves', or change from within. There was only so much government could do at the time - remember this was before our modern taxation systems which came into being during the First World War. Money came from private individuals who put their own time and efforts in, whilst government was really concerned with legal processes, and national economy and security. Besides which you could knock down the buildings and improve the general conditions, but how do you get the people themselves to change? That does not come about simply through regeneration or passing laws.

However there is a difference between philanthropists and agencies acting for social change and people caring about a few prostitutes getting bumped off. It's surprising that whilst many people think thee was a lot of Cockney solidarity abounding at the time, from many accounts what was known as the 'respectable working class' at the time dispised these people and what they did for the area (the prostitues and criminals, not the helping hands I should make clear). People's lives were hard enough without worrying about criminal behaviour making the area worse.

But the bottom line is I don't believe we can thank Jack the Ripper for these changes in attitude. Certainly he could be seen as another nail in the coffin for the old conditions, but this has to work both ways - while some might see him as signalling the beginning of a more socialist structure, others would see him as a typical outcome of problems people brought onto themselves.

However, whether Jack was the catalyst or not however was not what I was arguing, but the intent. I do not believe the killer was trying to make some sort of moral argument about the deprivation of the area by slicing women open. This is what the theory seems to be suggesting.

Given the shot timespan, the small geogaphical area, the jewish immigration problem and the 'sexual' side of Jack's mutilarions -plus the utter savagery of MJK's murder...and then....nothing, they were crimes bound to stand out.

But it still takes media to do that. It's one thing having them stand out in their locale, but how many people from other areas were in touch with the squalor there? The ripper crimes are well known for their lack of witnesses, and even in the hustle and bustle the next morning after each one, most of what was going around was rumour and wild speculation - for example how many women claimed they heard the cry of 'murder' personally the day after the Dorset Street killing?

The best example of how much media intervention played in this can be seen by the fact they really 'invented' Jack. The crimes themselves, whilst savage, gained a lot of their notoriety from the letters, the threats, the 'witness'' statements to journalists, and not least the name 'Jack the Ripper' - all means of sensationalism. This wasn't just a killer who murdered a mere handful of unknown women in a small area in a very short space of time. This was a journalists wet-dream! This was a case where the vigilance committee were sent part of an internal organ said to belong to a victim, where there were challenging letters to police and the public published in newspapers, where false leads were publicised so even at the time people had a misunderstanding of who the killer was.

This was a crime which was discussed not only across England but also abroad, on th continent and in the US. This would not surely have happened through word of mouth so quickly had it not been for the sensationalistic publication of the murders. We're led to believe that savage acts were nothing new to the area - after all look at Emma Smith's case. Whilst there's a certain revulsion towards what the ripper did after killing the victims, this was done to Smith whilst alive. To me that makes it an even more brutal attack.

There were other crimes which did not have quite the same impact, despite their severity, and remember this was a more or less closed community - few people cared much for those in the squalor of the East End, much like today - things are given lip-service but the blind eye is often turned - what percentage of people who can actully do go to Africa to dig wells, rather than donate a couple of quid during Comic Relief? Even today, with the modern press using such media as TV and the internet, we are still unaware of much of the murder that occurs in Britain, unless the press decide to follow it. In the 12 months to March 2009 there were 648 murders in Engalnd and Wales, yet how many of these are we aware of?

This is why I question such a theory - simply because it is the killer's own intention which would be behind the theory rather than the focus given by others, and that it is far-fetched to believe that someone would commit acts of such butchery for the 'common good' of society. One man's personal mission is for himself in these instances, rather than the benefit of others - this is a little like suggesting Raoul Moat decided to run amok to draw attention to police actions and call for changes to PACE and the justice system. Even if any of the murders last year had been hoping to make some statement, I don't recall that we heard of any. And 600 murders in a population of 60 million+ is hardly too commonplace to become complacent.

-

Obviously the fact that we have forums on the matter today, means that the person DID attract attention (more than he realised).

It does now, certainly. However again, the subject has a lot to do with press coverage spreading than the crimes themselves (see above). It's only through documentary evidence and press reports at the time we know anything of the case - in fact before the 70s the vast majority of what people knew was purely from press reports, and even in the immediate decades which followed the crime was not as popular as it is today. This very forum is called Casebook - Jack the Ripper forums, but Jack the Ripper is a media invention, and much of the imagery was contemporary sensationalism.

On the Lenin threads that I read today, it said that Lenin loved the churches in the East End -because they were preaching Socialism and allowing debates.

This is no doubt true, as socialism plays a large role in the Christian religion, although I'm not sure what point you're making, sorry.

These immigrants were percieved as cheapening the labour market by their numbers and desperation, and deforming the culture (by alot of inhabitants of Whitechapel).

True, but this doesn't negate the fact that Jewish culture had started to merge with that in England, and in some respects already had. Much the same is happening today, at even quicker rates, and attitudes are often not as different with time as they are believed to be.

Remember too that not all of these Jews were immigrants at time! A large number of them were London born and bread and still others from other parts of the country. No matter what their country of origin was of course, Jewish culture was not as alien as would be believed. There were already synangogues firmly in place taking up prominent space, along with Jewish areas, which weren't new to the area, Jewish tailors and sochets, merchants, etc. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish until his conversion at 13, and this was decades before the killings. Something that should be noted when looking at the old records, specifically BMD registers, is that other than the Church of England, Jewish marriages were also legally recognised in England and Wales. There was a reason for this - in that there had been Jews in England for a while, who had settled in. The religion is separate from the country of origin. The Jewish Naturalisation Act was passed in 1753, and Jewish Emancipation allowing Jews to sit in parliament was enacted by the 1860s. Prior to this, the Lord Mayor of London was a Jew - Sir David salomons.

Whilst one might have a grudge against foreign immigrants, one would not necessarily have it in for Jews. In fact it seems often the dislike of Jews at the time was exaggerated, and only directed towards those Jews seen as foreign invaders. Indeed many of the settled and accepted Jews also resented these newcomers.

You could liken this to England today which is seeing - not for the first time - an influx of Eastern Europeans on a large scale. In some parts of Britain road signs are in Polish and there are Polish shops, and Polish neighbourhoods which have sprung up very quickly. Go into the pubs and there are Polish beers, and meals. I even learned a bit of Polish working with Poles, and I was not the only one. The bottom line is not everyone resents foreigners who come in, even if they create problems. Mine and most of my friends annoyance was and is directed towards the government rather than the immigrants themselves for changes which have and are happening, and there is no reason to suspect it was otherwise little more than a century ago. We are only really talking 3 or 4 generations back. When entering a new country it is only natural for various immigrants to live close to one another, but it is impossible to have a fully closed society within such a small area. A basic rule of survival in any form is to work with your surroundings rather than against them. For instance without working within the established community, how could one earn money, or eat, or find somewhere to live? The businesses and houses were owned by the established community and so you have to integrate on some level in order to survive and flourish.

[The Good Michael]

Rubyretro,

You say that the grafitti is clearly NOT pro-Jew. That must make me an idiot, because I cannot grasp another meaning except a pro-Jewish one. This isn't the thread for it, so I'm bowing out. Just think how one anti-Jewish statement could have possibly inflamed the Anglo population when they were already inundated with such things. It wouldn't have been possible. The only thing that could warrant an erasure was the idea that a Jew was taking credit for the murder.

Cheers,

Mike

[Rubyretro]

The closest we get to trophies in this case is haphazard at best, and there is little in the way of consistancy with the killings

.
mutilation of the sex organs and the face -and the taking of a kidney and
a heart 'haphazard' ? Killings on or close to weekends, at night, within a few months, strangulation, throat cutting -quickly and in silence- followed by mutilation of the sex organs and face, organ harvesting, silently getting away, all the victims being women and soliciting when killed in a small geographical area, the killer cutting the body from the side so as not to get bloody -no consistancy ?? Do you really believe that there were several killers -not linked at all- who just happened to be capable of this at the same time ?

then the individual murder sites themselves would be more suggestive than the end result. If the killer wanted to send a message I also reckon he would have become pretty frustrated that no one had been able to pick up on it after a while.

Since I believe that as well as carrying out his own personal warped fantasies he was a racist who wanted to cause trouble for the Jewish community, by making it look as if the killer was one of them, I think that he largely succeeded at the time, and he wouldn't have been frustrated -pleased more like it. Certainly I think that the murder sites are suggestive.

as I noted if the cloth and writing were deliberately placed or chosen by the killer this was to stir things up

.
We totally agree there, then.

As for boiling racial tension, I think this was blown up somewhat.

I think that it's been underestimated if anything ; I've only just read about the spate of arson attacks against Jewish businesses, the ugly riots against Jews following (infact) Chapman's murder(not Pollys). The crowd trying to pin
the murders on any Jewish butcher, BSM and Pipeman hanging about thhe Berner Street club and shouting 'Lipski !' (taken as a racial insult against Schwartz). This is going beyond Xenophobia.

People's lives were hard enough without worrying about criminal behaviour making the area worse.

We know that people were very worried about the murders -not as common in the area as you might think. We know from witness statements (conversation in Liz's lodging house kitchen) that Prostitutes were very frightened. Why do you think people formed a vigilante group ?

But the bottom line is I don't believe we can thank Jack the Ripper for these changes in attitude.

I certainly don't 'thank' Jack for anything !!

]

I do not believe the killer was trying to make some sort of moral argument about the deprivation of the area by slicing women open. This is what the theory seems

I certainly don't think that -I think that he did hate Jews and want to cause
trouble for them, but this was an excuse to indulge his sick behaviour.

.

This wasn't just a killer who murdered a mere handful of unknown women in a small area in a very short space of time.

'JUST' a killer, 'MERE handful' nasty.

Of course journalists leapt at the case, same as modern ones leapt on the case of Fred West and Denis Nilson : that's because they're unusual.
You've only got to see the photos of MJK's body and Catherine Eddowes' to see that even if the Press hadn't of added to the furore with fake letters, a savage killer in the midst of a community, who remained undetected who caused a stir.

we are still unaware of much of the murder that occurs in Britain, unless the press decide to follow it.

Figures for murders in Whitechapel do exist and they were not so common.
The press would always report on a case such as MJK's.

it is far-fetched to believe that someone would commit acts of such butchery for the 'common good' of society

.
Totally agree.

[QUOTE]

in fact before the 70s the vast majority of what people knew was purely from press reports, and even in the immediate decades which followed the crime was not as popular as it is today. This very forum is called Casebook - Jack the Ripper forums, but Jack the Ripper is a media invention, and much of the imagery was contemporary sensationalism.

Untrue. I believe that you're 28, and I'm 50. My mother's family on her mother's side came from the East End, and my Father's family were obviously Jewish on his mother's side, from London (but I know no details). I heard about JtR from my earliest childhood, and the murders were referred to in such things as Startrek -other series -and I got the references immediately.
The case wasn't purely an invention -it marked the lives of the people who lived through it, and they talked about it to their children and grandchildren.

.

No matter what their country of origin was of course, Jewish culture was not as alien as would be believed. There were already synangogues firmly in place taking up prominent space

You could say the same of the North African population in France -and you should see the racial tension here ! Have a look at the scores that the Front National achieves in the Vaucluse, where I live.

Whilst one might have a grudge against foreign immigrants, one would not necessarily have it in for Jews. In fact it seems often the dislike of Jews at the time was exaggerated, and only directed towards those Jews seen as foreign invaders. Indeed many of the settled and accepted Jews also resented these newcomers.

No doubt -but as the main group, they surely bore the brunt.
They obviously flooded the job market, putting wages down -and as you say built Synagogues, kosher butchers etc, and alot wore 'strange' clothes and didn't speak the language. Of course intergration took place (I myself have Irish, indian -lascar sailor-jewish, cockney, welsh -who knows what, in me)
but it's over time, and these are immigrants arriving oen-masse. They were
escaping from Tsarist Russia, and soon Germany -and the world was heading towards the Holocaust (in the context of History, it's a very short time).
If Mosely got support in the East End, it's because the racism against Jews was ingrained.