JTR a "local" man? Arguments for and against

[Pilgrim]

If this murderer was an anti-semite, I would say he would most likely have been aware of the Great Synagogue whether he was non-local or not. Whereas a local suspect, Jewish or Gentile, would perhaps seem more likely to have been aware of the Jewish club. In my view that would be one reason why the proponents of the idea that the murderer was a local resident tend to mention the club in Duke Street first while omitting the somewhat more obvious presence of the Great Synagogue. It has happened before and on this thread it happened again.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi
The original intention was to deduce a clue as to whether JtR was a local from the fact that he proceeded without hesitation to another specific venue (in this case another Jewish Club or the Synagogue) after he failed in disemboweling Stride in Berner Street. It may suggest that he was a local.

I agree all other Jewish discussions should have their place on other threads.
IchabodCrane

[Mr Poster]

Hi ho

Can we take the Jewish conspiracy theories elsewhere please?

After all SamF did go to the trouble of establishing this one to descide if our man was local....not his problems with Jews.

If I kill a couple of chickens in a yard full of fowl....it doesnt mean I have a problem with chickens.

p

[Pilgrim]

Association.

..............

Originally posted by Pilgrim, 3rd January 2008, 12:35 AM.

~~~

Mitre

Effective symbolism works by - Suggestion/Insinuation. The same might be said about any effective process of scapegoating. As no conscious or obvious intent can be proven.

~~~

“I believe there must only be allusion. The contemplation of objects, the images that soar from the reveries they have induced, constitute the song...To name an object is to suppress three quarters of the enjoyment of the poem, which derives from the pleasure of step-by-step discovery; to suggest, that is the dream. It is the perfect use of...mystery that constitutes the symbol...” Stéphane Mallarmé, 1891.

~~~

My Regards.
.....
360 graden zicht vanop het dak

[paul emmett]

the fact that both murders of the double event took place outside of Jewish clubs, plus the graffito, makes it extremely unlikely that all this is just a co-incidence

I think that is true and if you give any credence to "Lipski," it all becomes even more unlikely. Then there is the fact that Tanner said Stride "worked among the Jews." And while I know I have heard the same said regarding Eddowes, I can't find it right now. But there's still the wonderfully "ironic" fact that one of the first to ID Eddowes's body said it was Phoebe the Jewess.

[IchabodCrane]

So do you move away from JtR as a gutter of women to a killer ouside clubs with a diverse MO as evidenced by the difference between stride and Eddowes.

Whether Stride was actually a Ripper victim or not has certainly been much debated, but she is still in the so-called 'canonical five', reflecting a consensus among the majority of those who have researched the case. I admit that after all she may not have been, but the case has been researched for a 120 years and she is still taken as a ripper victim by the majority of researchers. So it is fair to base further reasoning on the assumption that she was a victim of the same man as Eddowes.

Again, the fact that both murders of the double event took place outside of Jewish clubs, plus the graffito, makes it extremely unlikely that all this is just a co-incidence, and makes it more likely that the killer was local with a certain knowledge of the location of Jewish clubs in his area, and with an agenda on that particular evening to leave clues to a Jewish identity of the killer. On that particular evening because there had been at least one Jewish suspect discussed in the newspapers in the weeks leading up to the so-called 'double event', and at the time it was a hot topic with the police and the public that the killer might be Jewish. Hence also the commissioner's decision to eradicate the graffito.

He could also have been a stranger/commuter who asked the way to the next Jewish club, it just seems less likely.

[Mr Poster]

hi ho

"London was an extremely hospitable environment for the practice of prostitution. It's size provided anonymity, protection from police harassment, and a constant supply of customers. The police were generally more concerned with prostitution in the West End since "it was [there] more likely to come to the notice of respectable persons, press reporters, and foreigners." For most of the 1880s, East End prostitutes were left to ply their trade in relative peace. "

E.Trudgill, "Prostitution and Paterfamilias," in The Victorian City, 2:701.

Now if thats not a good reason for a non-local to go down Whitechapel for a bit of tail.....I do not know what is.

p

[judyj]

Glenn

I would answer your question with a yes. There were many slaughterhouses in
the area as you stated, so how could the police prove whether a person was wearing human blood as opposed to animal blood. And with the many many persons working in these houses on a per day basis etc, how would the owners of these slaughterhouses know each worker by sight.

julie

[Mr Poster]

hi ho Ichaabod

The other three weren't killed by the ripper.

well.....thats an interesting point of view.

But based on that.....the only link you have is that the two women were killed outside Jewish clubs.

So do you move away from JtR as a gutter of women to a killer ouside clubs with a diverse MO as evidenced by the difference between stride and Eddowes.

Its an opinion I havent heard before and I am sure no doubt that should you start a thread on the fact that the only two ripper victims were stride and Eddowes you would be engaged in much lively debate.

p

[NOV9]

Your "starter for ten", from MrP My first take on that would be: "he who plunders locally can jettison locally". My second take on that would be: "he who carries organs an appreciable distance increases the risk of being caught in possession of incriminating evidence".

Absolutely a local

[Ben]

Many thanks for the reply, Colin, and I agree wholeheartedly with the above.

Best wishes,
Ben

Mr Poster, Ben, Gareth, Monty, Glenn and Pilgrim,

Many thanks to each of you, for your responses to my initial post on the "Is it plausible that Druitt did it?" thread, and/or its transposition (with minor adjustments) to this more suitable thread. It took a while for me to gather my thoughts, so I certainly appreciate the feedback.

Don't get me wrong, Colin.

I don't think I have, Ben; and please don't get me wrong. Even in light of the assertions, which I have made, I too believe that a local person of blue-collar society would be our best bet.*

*"Local": Not necessarily an East Ender. We must acknowledge the fact that certain areas outside of the East End, in which blue-collar society was indeed predominant, were actually more "local" in the geographic sense, and perhaps just as "local" in the social sense, as sizeable portions of the East End itself.

The following predominantly blue-collar areas were actually in closer proximity to the killing fields of Jack the Ripper, than any portion of the East End beyond Regent's Canal:

- St. Luke
- The Liberty of Glasshouse Yard
- Charterhouse
- St. James Clerkenwell (eastern half)
- St. Sepulchre ("Smithfield")
- The City of London*** (excepting most of The Temple)
- The Borough of Southwark and St. Mary Magdalen Bermondsey (those portions, which were closest to London Bridge and Tower Subway)

***The City of London was infinitely more populated in 1888, than it is today; and the majority of those who actually resided there, were of blue-collar society

*"Blue-Collar": Not necessarily poor.

And BTW, Ben; I certainly wouldn't include you amongst those whom I perceive to be following some sort of trend. Your position on this issue, has been quite clear, for quite some time.


Colin

[Ben]

So its not so much that our man was operating in Jewish areas.....its that he was operating quite close to the main thoroughfares which, being more respectable, happened to be more jewish

That's because there were lots of "main thoroughfares" in the area relative to the size of the district, Lars. You'd be pretty hard pushed to find any random location in the area than resided an appreciable distance from a "main thoroughfare". We're not just talking about Jewish areas either. We're talking about both double-event murders being committed in close proximity to Jewish clubs (which, unlike other Jewish establishments, were likely to be active in the small hours) after which a message expliciting mentioning Jews was found near Eddowes apron in the most concentrated Jewish locale in the area. Ichabodcrane believes the chances of this being a random coincidence is slim. I agree.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I'm not sure what the majority of experts say, but several contemporary police officials subscribed to the view that the GSG was an attempt to implicate the Jews, and Philip Sugden recognised the merit in the suggestion too. If you and I are of a similar view to theirs, I'd say we're in pretty goo company.

Ben

[Mr Poster]

This notion of the Jew angle is just wrong.

If we look at the image below, we see that apart from Millers court, the killing locations were very near to positively affluent parts of Whitechapel (at least as the poverty map describes them).

And we all know that the Jewish community were more respectable than the local scumbags.

So its not so much that our man was operating in Jewish areas.....its that he was operating quite close to the main thoroughfares which, being more respectable, happened to be more jewish.

p