Whitechapel... the land of wackos

[pr1mate]

Is it just me or was Whitechapel the land of wackos. It is shocking to me that there are this many people that could be in contention of being the ripper. It seems that people were just casualy murdering woman and or going nuts in WC.

Is this typical of the period or was there something about Whitechapel that either attracted all the nut jobs or made people go insane once they got there?

[babybird67]

i dont know about the land of wackos...

just because there are a lot of suspects there doesn't mean all of them were guilty of murder. In fact, we know Klosowski was a killer, and Bury, but probably neither was the Ripper. All the other suspects are just that, suspects, with varying degrees of circumstantial evidence range.

John Bennett once told me there were very few actual murders recorded in Whitechapel...none for the previous two years if i recall what he said...although Sam Flynn has pointed out that this may not mean there were no murders, they may have simply been categorised as something else, but it is easy to fall into looking at Whitechapel through a pair of lurid red specs of distortion. It was probably no more or less violent than any other area teeming with people, overcrowded, with high levels of poverty and deprivation.

just my views...

[The English Gardener]

Wackos?
Well, maybe...
1888 saw London as two vastly different places. On one hand the City, the economic epicentre of the world... hugely wealthy and the capital of the biggest empire the world has ever seen. Whilst - literally - just across Bishopsgate, spread out like a filthy blanket, lay the East End. The left hand one of plenty, the right closed into a tight fist which trapped all those within it. Here lived {but only just} the desperate byproducts of the wealth enjoyed by the City, crammed into squalid doss houses {for those who could afford them} while others slept where they could in the daytime and nightly "carried the banner". People living at the very edge of survival, the dispossessed, the
down on their lucks and the discarded. I'd use the word "disenfranchised" if any of these unfortunate souls had ever enjoyed a level of enfranchisment in the first place. Social reform was still but a twinkle in any real, meaningful sense. Under these conditions it's probably a little more than unfair to talk of "wackos" or "nut jobs".
And if that sounds patronising you have my apologies. The people of Whitechapel and Spitalfields in 1888 were probably much more stable than you are assuming {certainly a sizeable proportion of the Jewish population maintained a high standard of respectablity}, and your question would suggest that, perhaps, you should read up a little on the inherent social conditions on the ground before making what appear to be huge {and misguided} assumptions. Sorry. Needed to get that off my chest.

[pr1mate]

When I spoke of wackos and nut jobs I was speaking of 2 very specific groups. Those that killed people and those that were committed. Either way I correctly used the terms, derogatory as they may be. When I say WC was land of the wackos I refer to what seems to be a large number of people that kill and or are committed. I did not know if this was common of the time or of the place. That is why I asked the question. Perhaps you should request clarification before ranting based solely on your incorrect interpretation of what was written.

[The Grave Maurice]

Well said, Gardener. And, pr1mate, as far as I'm concerned, there aren't "many people that could be in contention of being the [R]ipper". In fact, there aren't any. Whoever did it was unknown and will probably stay that way.

[babybird67]

When I spoke of wackos and nut jobs I was speaking of 2 very specific groups. Those that killed people and those that were committed. Either way I correctly used the terms, derogatory as they may be. When I say WC was land of the wackos I refer to what seems to be a large number of people that kill and or are committed. I did not know if this was common of the time or of the place. That is why I asked the question. Perhaps you should request clarification before ranting based solely on your incorrect interpretation of what was written,

hi again Pr1mate

for the first category, those that kill, as i said in my post, it would be good to get hold of John Bennett who is a very experienced tour guide, who gave me the figure of no murders the previous two years in that area, when i saw him in chat one day and asked him that very question...how frequent was murder in that area? We also have George Hutchinson here, also a tour guide, also very knowledgeable...i am sure either of them could answer your question...perhaps you might pm them?

The second one, the number of committed; i have no idea on this one but i would say mental health has been a very misunderstood area of health throughout the ages but in the Victorian era such 'care' was in its infancy and very little understood. You had maladies like 'neurasthenia', basically hysteria by another name, and people could be confined for this. (A pet topic of mine since i have M.E and you find some psychologists seeking to reintroduce hysteria as an actual illness...some of them think we have it...medicine doesnt always progress, sometimes it regresses as well!)

anyway, somebody else may know more about the asylum statistics for you.

Just a word about language; the words you choose can often communicate in a way you don't anticipate, and they can often communiate something you don't mean...look at the following two phrases:

'why were there so many wackos and nut jobs in Whitechapel."

or

"why was there a lot of violent crime, specifically murder, and mental illness in Whitechapel'

The second choice of words is a lot less emotive; it communicates a respect for the social condition that is removed from the first, I think. The second query will undoubtedly be treated as more serious than the first, don't you think? Many people here have spent their lives studying the people of Whitechapel and have a great empathy with them...i think it is just a matter of respect and maybe thinking a little bit about how your phrasing might come across? Maybe something to think about? I often post compulsively and am slowly being trained out of that to think a little more deeply about what i say before i say it. Just a suggestion.

[The English Gardener]

You think that was a "rant"? It wasn't. And you should be prepared for many such postings unless you treat the subject - and the very real history - with a little more respect and attention to the social conditions of the time.

[Septic Blue]

1888 saw London as two vastly different places. On one hand the City, the economic epicentre of the world... hugely wealthy and the capital of the biggest empire the world has ever seen. Whilst - literally - just across Bishopsgate, spread out like a filthy blanket, lay the East End.

We seem to have lost North London, South London and West London!

On one hand the City, … Whilst - literally - just across Bishopsgate, spread out like a filthy blanket, lay the East End. The left hand one of plenty, the right closed into a tight fist which trapped all those within it. Here lived {but only just} the desperate byproducts of the wealth enjoyed by the City, crammed into squalid doss houses {for those who could afford them} while others slept where they could in the daytime and nightly "carried the banner". People living at the very edge of survival, the dispossessed, the down on their lucks and the discarded. I'd use the word "disenfranchised" if any of these unfortunate souls had ever enjoyed a level of enfranchisment in the first place.

I trust you realize that this is a sweeping generalization.

[pr1mate]

Just a word about language; the words you choose can often communicate in a way you don't anticipate, and they can often communiate something you don't mean...look at the following two phrases:

'why were there so many wackos and nut jobs in Whitechapel."

or

"why was there a lot of violent crime, specifically murder, and mental illness in Whitechapel'

Thanks for the language arts lesson but, my selection of phrase was intentional and conveyed both my detest and lack of respect for a lot of these people I have been reading about.

I have noticed that most posts here are very eloquent. Well thought out and well written. I think this is perhaps the European influence of most of the writers.

I am a direct contrast in communication style. I try to keep it somewhat short and do not see the need for all the filling blah blah crap.

I could say ... At first glance there appears to be a great number of disturbed people in whitechapel. Perhaps this is due to the lack of wealth or poor living conditions. Or, perhaps this is just how it was during the period. Whichever the reason, I believe there to be a higher than normal number of murders, as well as, a higher than normal number of people being committed. My thought on this subject may be distorted since I am only reading about such people. This observation is somewhat bothersome to me and I am curious if my assumptions are correct? If so, what do you think is the cause of this.

OR

I could say.. These people in whitechapel seem like whack jobs killing and going nuts. What do you think?

I prefer to use the second. It has everything I wanted to say, the feelings I want to convey and the question I would like answered. It takes 2 seconds to type and 1 second to read.... Just my thought anyway.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Pr1mate,

I would like to RESPECTFULLY and quietly add what I feel are a few, very pertinent points here.

Whitechapel and Spitalfields had a terrible reputation as being the poorest area of all, in ALL of London. This was one of the definitive causes of the prostitution, which was rife.
It goes without really having to be said, but at that time, the newly arrived poor from abroad, the dregs of society, the misfits, the lawless, the uneducated, the physically infirm and the mentally retarded all found their "home" in the area. That doesn't mean that ALL the residents were any of the above, but poverty causes people in such circumstances to be unable to, even if they wanted, to get out from their situation.

It isn't, and cannot be compared to anything known in London today. In the society we live in, the old recieve a pension. It didn't exist then. Familes were larger, jobs were fewer, education was limited, children worked, for droplets of pennies because in the family it was needed and expected. There wasn't a health service. No such thing as adoption (not before the Adoption Act of 1927 infact). Children were often abandoned. Illiteracy was the norm amongst the poor. (3 of MY great-grandparents could neither read not write). Please excuse me for relating from my own family, but it may give you some idea.

Social conditions were indescribably bad, and the survival birthrate was very very low. Many children were born with defects, mental and physical, caused in many cases by malnutrition during pregnacy. These children, SHOULD they survive childhood, had very very little chance of working. My maternal Grandmother (b.1888) was one of 9, only 5 survived beyond 3 years old and one of THEM was in an institution for the impaired most of his life. "Feeble" he was labled as. A little later, people would say, "not quite all there"..it is only in the last 30/40 years or so we have a better understanding of mental illness in children.
For example...
My Grandmother was fortunate in relation to many. She was the youngest of the 9. Her father died when she was 5, aged 48. Bronchitis, pnuemonia. He was illiterate. Her mother was illiterate, but insisted that THIS child went to school...so she was taught to read and write, and aged 12 got a job as a scullery maid in a "toffs" house in the West part of London. She was nearly 25 before she for the first time turned on an electric light via a switch. Hard as hell, growled like an angry guard dog, but selfless, loved children. She died in 1978 aged 90.
One of her elder sisters stayed in the poverty of Whitechapel/Hoxton until after WW2, dying in 1954, aged 80. She could still not read very well and wrote very poorly indeed. Another sister, at 18, becoming pregnant with a market porter. They had 4 living children, 3 more died. She reached 60 years of age.
One brother joined the Army at 16, and he could hardly write either. He ended up with 9 living children, 8 of whom were boys.. and ALL of them were sent into the army too. 3 others died in infancy, before birth or were stillborn. He died aged 88 in 1961, stone deaf, half blind. But he never complained.
The remaining brother,as I mentioned, was institutionalised from an early age, died in 1967. aged 84. I met him. He had a speech defect, a wonky eye and was "slow" to understand what people said to him. He thought the world of us kids.

Seizures, or fits for example, were treated with a locked room in a mental institution. They simply didnt know what Epilepsy was and how it could be treated in those days either. These poor people were regarded as lunatics.
People with eyesight defects didnt always have glasses, many went without. It didn't matter to many, they couldn't read anyway.

Sanitation was terrible, and in the areas mentioned above, a shared public toilet amonst many houses in a back yard was common. Cold running water was a tap in the back yard. Heating, was unusual. Lighting? Candles, for the most part. Overcrowding was prominant. Not unusual with 6, 7 or 8 sharing two rooms. SMALL rooms. And sometimes just the one.

All these things, and probably many more reasons, should be taken into account before, I respectfully say to you Pr1mate, you make comments as you did above as I quote you below...
Please, again, respectfully, do not misunderstand, I chastise you not. But I think that the above may be a helpful eye opener, to what the East End was REALLY like.

Is it just me or was Whitechapel the land of wackos. It is shocking to me that there are this many people that could be in contention of being the ripper. It seems that people were just casualy murdering woman and or going nuts in WC.

Is this typical of the period or was there something about Whitechapel that either attracted all the nut jobs or made people go insane once they got there?


See what I mean?

Respectfully,

best wishes

Phil

[pr1mate]

Thanks for the reply. It does give me an idea of what life was like though that was not what my questions was. I still disagree with what is or is not the proper way to ask a question. A question is a question. Stop getting all worked up over the words that are chosen. If you kill someone or you are committed then you are a wacko.


Main Entry: wacko
Variant(s): also whacko \ˈwa-(ˌ)kō\
Function: adjective
Etymology: by alteration
Date: 1975
: see wacky


Main Entry: wacky
Variant(s): also whacky \ˈwa-kē\
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): wack·i·er; wack·i·est
Etymology: perhaps from English dial. whacky fool
Date: circa 1935
: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : crazy

[The Good Michael]

This was a legitimate question. How can there be so many contenders for the Whitechapel murders if there isn't a preponderance of loonies to choose from? Now, the same can be asked of any large city where crimes have been committed. The social conditions in many cities that are stuffed to the brim with immigrants and local impoverished, create an environment that imparts different mores and characteristics upon the people dwelling within (not all). As outsiders, surely we can look at some of them as being different due to circumstances.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Let´s not forget that one of the inhabitants (probably, at least) of the area was Jack the Ripper. After his explorations, it stands to reason that all interest would focus not on the decent, ordinary, striving people of the area - that would have been about in thousands and thousands - but instead on any character that could possibly be interpreted as being in the slightest way deviating.
If, for instance, somebody was in the perfectly legitimate habit of taking walks at nighttime, such a thing would be blown out of all proportions by the man´s neighbours after Jack had presented himself.

I think that no matter where Jack had surfaced, we would have gained "knowledge" of a great number of ... ehrm, "whackos" belonging to the district at hand. And as fate would have it, Jack surfaced in Whitechapel and Spitalfields, a melting pot of different cultures; something that has always made people glance suspiciously at each other: "They eat CATS, I´m tellin ya!", "I hear they eat their fish RAW!", "Blimey, that man KISSED another man!". Add to this the widespread poverty that meant that heaps and heaps of people had to adjust to the changing realities of life from day to day, and try to come up with solutions to find food and warmth enough to cope, meaning that what would have been a very ordinary person under better circumstances instead turned into somebody who took part in begging, stealing, prostitution and gambling - and who had ample reason to try and forget about it all by way of alcohol or drugs.

Given these factors, how could our knowledge about Whitechapel NOT be riddled with stories of strange characters?

The best,
Fisherman

[Steve S]

Of course,If you're looking at murder suspects,you don't bump into many well-balanced,pacifist characters......

[belinda]

Murderers aren't neccessarily "wacko" for example Bundy intelligent,educated.

People can do these things and still be technically sane.