JTR a "local" man? Arguments for and against

[Septic Blue]

Many Thanks, Glenn

Not to go off topic: I hope you are well; and I wish you the best of luck with the upcoming release of your book.


Colin

[Debra A]

As to Maxwells referring to "all sorts" we are now being asked to believe that she actually meant "all sorts" in relation to trades or religion.

We know that isnt true as she contextualises her statement referring to "silk high hats" indicating "class" not "trade" or "religion".

But isn't Maxwell answering a specific question here, put to her by a juror?
Maybe the question something like; "what type of hat was the man you saw wearing?" (annoyingly,they never print the bloody inquest questions, just the answers!)Her reply then being more in the context of; 'she couldn't describe what sort of hat he was wearing but had it been a 'respectable man's' high silk hat she would have noticed' i.e. it would have been more unusual 'class' of hat for that area and would have stuck out, although she was accustomed to seeing men of all types with women.

or was she specifically being asked if the man she saw was wearing a high silk hat?...for a reason? Maybe there was a known knife wielding Whitechapel prostitute botherer living in the nearby area who fitted this 'high silk hat appearance of class' description...even though he was a local scumbag...

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho Debra A

But isn't Maxwell answering a specific question here, put to her by a juror?

Not according to the transcript as I read it. Unless the stenographer did not write down such questions. perhaps he did or perhaps he didnt. Although it appears that he did not as a rule write down the questions. As not one is mentioned. yet we know that they could ask questions as it is mentioned in the transcripts ("The jury had no questions at this stage"). In the Eddowes case, the jury questions are recorded. I wonder why not in the Kelly inquest?

Its very odd.

But. In the Eddowes case the following is given:

By a Juryman: I don't take the names of the lodgers, but I know my "regulars." If a man comes and takes a bed I put the number of the bed down in my book, but not his name. Of course I know the names of my regular customers.

Now we know that the juries questions were written down for the Eddowes inquest....yet here is "By the Jury" and it isnt in response to the Jury (as the question would have been written down). So I take this to infer that "By the Jury" does not necessarily mean a question was asked. You will note, again, that in this instance, it is exactly the same as Cox....reinforcement of a previous statement or trying to justify oneself. In this case...defence of her handling of lodgers records.

At any rate......if she did (answer a question), then a hat was part of it (the question). And if a hat was part of it, and she mentions tall silk hats, then the question must have mentioned that hat. And if it did, then such a hat is not indicative of trade but class. And that is the context of her answer. Unless such a hat is typical of a type of trade?

If she didnt answer a question and just turned her head to make some kind of off the cuff statement......her statement is still in the context of class...not work. As no body wears a tall silk hat to work?

What does "by the jury" mean? Addressed to the jury? Whether in response to a question or not?

Cox does it as well:

By the Coroner: I feel certain if there had been the cry of "Murder" in the place I should have heard it; there was not the least noise. I have often seen the woman the worse for drink.

This doesnt seem to be in direct response to anything but delivered, unbidden, as some kind of reinforcement perhaps. To copperfasten her statement earlier.

But I cannot understand that in relation to Maxwell as she doesnt mention a hat until now.

At any rate,........the fact remains......that her statement regarding "all sorts" can only refer to class....given that it is in the context of a class indicating silk hat that the statement is made.

There is no need for contortions or deconstruction to try and porve otherwise.

Its quite clear.

p

[Pilgrim]

A Great Post.

#24

~~~

Thanks, Colin.

A great post, and surely well worth repeating. I'm limiting myself to posting a link to it; making some small attempt to follow my better judgment.



My Regards.

[Monty]

Hey Debs,

Re your query. Inquest statements went...

The Coroner; What clothes had the man ? - Witness: Dark clothes; he seemed to have a plaid coat on. I could not say what sort of hat he had

[Coroner] What sort of dress had the deceased ? - A dark skirt, a velvet body, a maroon shawl, and no hat.

By the Jury: I should have noticed if the man had had a tall silk hat, but we are accustomed to see men of all sorts with women. I should not like to pledge myself to the kind of hat.[/QUOTE]

Basically it would seem that Maxwell had witnessed a man with a hat.

The Juror, picking up on this may have asked a leading question, for example, was it a distinctive hat?, a tall silk hat?

Its obviously something plucked from a report or other information that the juror had noted.

Monty

[Monty]

Guys,

Anyone who has what is called "a proper interest" may question a witness at the inquest. He or she can get a lawyer to ask questions or they can ask questions themselves. Questions must be sensible and relevant. This is something the coroner will decide. There are no speeches.

Those who have a proper interest are a parent, spouse, child and anyone acting for the deceased; anyone who gains from a life insurance policy on the deceased; any insurer having issued such a policy; anyone whose actions the coroner believes may have contributed to the death, accidentally or otherwise; the chief officer of police (who may only ask witnesses questions through a lawyer); any person appointed by a government department to attend the inquest; anyone else who the coroner may decide also has a proper interest.


Basically, the question was put forward by a juror, who was appointed to attend.

Monty

[Ben]

My response to Colin's otherwise very sensible post and timely reminder than Whitechapel was not the only cesspit in London, ran as follows:

But, again; compulsive killers, in many instances I'm sure, go wherever they want to go, do whatever they want to do, and kill whomever they want to kill

And that rarely, if ever, involves continued commuting into the same tiny-radius concentrated locality every time, especially if there were myriad other prostitute hotspots elsewhere and the killer had the availability of transport, and cash aplenty for transport, and the police presence was increasing in that area after each murder. It doesn't matter what you are "sure" about. Common sense and experience dictate otherwise; that the vast majority of serial offences (perpetrated in the same area) are committed by someone with a bolt-hole in that area, especially if the area is as closely clustered as it was in 1888 Whitechapel. In this case, the vast majority population in that district was working class and often semi-literate, and what an amazing coincidence, the vast majority of serial killers also derive from a working class background.

I'm sorry if working class killers are boring. I'm sorry if simplicity is boring. I'm sorry if decades of experience and expertise is boring, but to rule it out as the most likely explanation smacks of hobbyism, and a desire to seek a glamorous explanation to a series of barbarous crimes, and I'm sure that isn't remotely true of you personally.

Canter had unfortunately mounted the Maybrick bandwagon when he penned that quote, as he never espoused any communter theory in his "Criminal Shadows". On the contrary, he was at pains to illustrate that in the studies he'd carried out, the commuters had been rare, and that the most "parsiminious" explanation is that the killer walked to the crimes from where he lived. But if we wish to quote selectively from "Mapping Murder":

"If the area covered by a series of crimes is circumscribed, then in the majority of cases the serial offender has a base of some sort within that area.

It was Dr. Kim Rossmo who pioneered geoegraphical profiling, incidentally, not David Canter, and his experience and expertise led him to believe that the killer lived relatively central to the murder district. He didn't draw up a profile and think "Hey, maybe it was some wealthy outsider who kept commuting into the same concentrated area (like no serial killer has ever done) before heading home in time for Pimm's o'clock." Nor did his knowledge conduce the knee-jerk ejaculation "They would have gone where their compulsions led them !!!" He knows better from experience, and if we're willing to learn anything from other cases, so should we.

If in this day and age, Montague John Druitt were living in Blackheath and practicing in King's Bench Walk, whilst having a particular affinity for Indian Curry; would we be at all surprised to find him spending his free time in Brick Lane ???

You're honestly comparing a modern upper-middle class individual heading for a curry on bring lane with a Victorian upper-middle class man going for a meal in the same area, in 1888? Wow.

Meanwhile, the "pendalum" stays right where it has been since toffs, hobbyists and dinosaurs ceased ruling the field several decades ago; in the direction of experience and simplicity, and both epithets indicate the stronger likelihood that the killer was a faceless, working class nobody from the East End; i.e. one of the majority population.

Boring, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, Colin. You raised some sound observations; just really didn't like the notion that "Oh, too many people are arguing boringly simply solutions, so let's go back to the 70s where toffy outsiders ruled the roost. Unfortunatey, they don't and never have. We know better from experience then, and we certainly know better from experience now.

And no, Lars, Maxwell was not talking about class. She's talking about "all sorts", but of course we all knew that "all sorts" proliferated the district, that was never any news to a seasoned student of the case. The vast majority of these "all sorts" were poor and working class, even if some wore hand me downs and had a "shabby genteel" appearence and wore a Fagin-esque top hat. If you were a genuine toff with a top hat, you certainly wouldn't venture into Dorset Street. You need only wait in the comparative safety (and affluence) of the Aldgate area for the prostitutes to come to them. It is significant too that Maxwell wasn't able to describe that hat but said she would have noticed if it was a silk top hat.

Her reply then being more in the context of; 'she couldn't describe what sort of hat he was wearing but had it been a 'respectable man's' high silk hat she would have noticed' i.e. it would have been more unusual 'class' of hat for that area and would have stuck out

Precisely, Debs!

[Mr Poster]

Hi Monty

I appreciate your point but.........

At the other inquests, jury questions and answers were recorded.

There were either none at the Kelly inquest or they werent written down.

"By the jury" at other inquests appears to denote information not provided toa specific question.

I assume, given the way the inquest material is written, that there was some kind of standard format. Yet no questions are recorded for the kelly inquest.

And "by the jury" at th eother inquests appears to be not in response to questions.

op

[Debra A]

Cheers Monty

Basically, the question was put forward by a juror, who was appointed to attend.

That's what I've always understood (by the juror) or (by the coroner) in an inquest report to mean. A specific question asked by either to the witness. The responses are often recorded but hardly ever the specific question that was asked.
These questions were often off the cuff too, you often see jurors being told off by the coroner for being a bit overzealous and cross examining a witness when they are not supposed to be doing so.

Anyway, thanks Mr P for bringing this 'high silk hat' comment to my attention, I hadn't noticed it before and it is an interesting aspect. I'm off topic with my interest here so I'll leave you to it.

[Pilgrim]

Canter/Rossmo/Brantingham.

Transferred from the thread "Is it plausible that Druitt did it?"

Kim Rossmo

Ph.D. 1996, Simon Fraser University, Criminology, Geographic Profiling: Target Patterns of Serial Murderers.

M.A. 1988 Simon Fraser University, Criminology, Fugitive Migration Patterns.

"The work that I did on geographic profiling was part of my PhD studies at Simon Fraser University School of Criminology. I was fortunate to have had two professors there to study under, Paul and Patricia Brantingham who had developed a theoretical model that looked at where crimes were most likely to occur, based on where an offender lived, worked and played. And so what they said, and I’m being very over-simplistic here, is that every one of us has an activity space, the areas that we live in, work in, play in, and our movement patterns around the city. Where they intersect with suitable target sites, that’s where crimes will occur." NCIS Conference, 1998.

~~~

David Canter

In 1986, police forces across the south of England were struggling to find the Railway Rapist who was then renamed the Railway Killer after murdering a victim for the first time. Dr. David Canter, a psychologist and criminologist from the University of Surrey, was invited to compose British crime's first offender profile. When John Duffy was later arrested, charged and convicted, it turned out 13 of Canter's 17 proclamations about the perpetrator were accurate. Profiling became commonplace in large-scale police searches afterwards.

Psychology for Architects (1974)

The Psychology of Place (1977)

Fires and Human Behaviour (1990)

Criminal Shadows (1 st ed. 1994)

~~~

"One of the interesting differences between real experts who base their opinions as much as possible on scientific findings and those pseudo-experts who people the astrology and psychic columns is that the pseudo-experts typically offer clear and categorical views with great confidence. By contrast, scientists are aware of the weaknesses of their opinions and will often be less certain." David Canter, Mapping Murder, p. 105-106.

[Monty]

Mr P,

Im assuming that you are looking at Kellys inquest notes from the Telegraph or Times Reports.


If I remember correctly, the full and proper inquest notes are either lost or destoyed. These would have the full questions and responses.

The newspapers that I mention above only include what they deemed relevant, hence the reason there are two news accounts and one slightly differs from the other, it certainly does with the Eddowes.

By the juror or By the coroner is reference to a question asked by either parties in terms of clarification. As Debs says.

Monty

[IchabodCrane]

How do you know he did head for a second Jewish club as opposed to it being coincidental?

On the same night, two prostitutes were murdered in the immediate vicinity of two separate Jewish clubs. Later, the bloodied apron of the second victim was found under a chalk graffito reading 'The Juwes are the Men who will not be blamed for nothing'. It is quite obvious that after Leather Apron Jack the Ripper tried his best to keep the public convinced that the murderer was Jewish. There are just too many coincidences for one night. He was a local and knew both clubs.

[Mr Poster]

Hi Monty

Thanks for that. I wasnt aware of that aspect.

Hei Ichabod

On the same night, two prostitutes were murdered in the immediate vicinity of two separate Jewish clubs.

And three werent. And Whitechapel was full of Jews and their clubs no doubt.

Later, the bloodied apron of the second victim was found under a chalk graffito reading 'The Juwes are the Men who will not be blamed for nothing'.

and?

It is quite obvious that after Leather Apron Jack the Ripper tried his best to keep the public convinced that the murderer was Jewish.

No its not.

There are just too many coincidences for one night. He was a local and knew both clubs.

If thats what you want to believe.

p

[Ben]

It is quite obvious that after Leather Apron Jack the Ripper tried his best to keep the public convinced that the murderer was Jewish. There are just too many coincidences for one night

I'm with you all the way with this one, Ichabod.

It was discussed very extensively on the "Bloody Apron" thread, and I agree, there's a very compelling case to be made that the killer took advantage of the prevalent anti-semetism in the distrct (the generic scapegoat, if you like), and sought to use it to his advantage. It may be significant too that the GSG was found in one of the mos concentrated Jewish hotspots in the district. Since Liz Long had given a description of a "foreigner", despite having failed to see the man's face, a Gentile killer may have considered it prudent to take advantage of this misdirection. Realistically, it would have churlish not to have taken advantage of a favourable situation.

Cheers,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

If the GSG is real and is the work of someone taking advantage of anti-semitism (two big ifs), then the GSG can only be an attempt at portraying what a vengeful Jew might say. This is my interpretation of the GSG, but so many experts think the opposite. I don't see their reasoning, but it's a fact.

So, are you saying the GSG is a portrayal of an avenging Jew?

Mike