Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic

[c.d.]

But if your first stone went through the window of a Chinese restaurant, the second through the window of the Chinese embassy and you left a third on top of a fortune cookie which read 'people who live in pagodas shouldn't throw stones', might it not be reasonable to suspect you didn't like Chinese people?

In that instance, yes, it would be a reasonable but I just don't see a Jewish connection in Whitechapel. If there is one, I think it tenuous at best in my opinion.

c.d.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Gary! I of course donīt object to the description of the Mitre Square environs as being smack bang in the middle of all things Jewish in London. It was.

I didn't think you would, Fish.

The question is, however: can you kill a victim there without the murder having anything to do with the Jewish heritage surrounding the spot?
I answer that question with a "yes". You can.

I agree. The chances are the 'Jewishness' of the locations is coincidental.


I find the suggestion that the killer may have swopped Met territory for City ditto more intriguing, personally. And the Jewish surroundings came with the deal, simple as that.

I'm sure you do! I also find it intriguing that the nearest escape from the city for someone in Mitre Square was Haydon Square where Pickfords at one time had a depot.


To me, if the killer really wanted to make a point about Jewishness, I find he made a poor choice of victim in Kelly. And he forgot to write something inflammable about Jews on the walls of her room.

Of course, if he wanted to blame the crimes on the Jews, anti-Semitic messages clearly written by him wouldn't work. When I was in my slaughterman phase I wondered whether the Jewishness of the DE wasn't just a reaction to the revival of the Slaughterman Theory.

As I say, to me, it is too little and too inconsistent to be truly tantalizing. If others disagree, then Iīm fine with that; itīs all down to our different convictions and hunches.

There's nothing wrong with conviction and hunches. Ripperology is much more fun as an art than a science IMO.

[Fisherman]

But if your first stone went through the window of a Chinese restaurant, the second through the window of the Chinese embassy and you left a third on top of a fortune cookie which read 'people who live in pagodas shouldn't throw stones', might it not be reasonable to suspect you didn't like Chinese people?

But that involves direct actions taken against the buildings with Chinese connotations. No such thing happened in Mitre Square; no attack against the synagogue, no demolition in Jewry Street etcetera. It takes a much larger leap to see any antipathy against the Jews in this case.

[MrBarnett]

In that instance, yes, it would be a reasonable but I just don't see a Jewish connection in Whitechapel. If there is one, I think it tenuous at best in my opinion.

c.d.

Yes, it's tenuous. But it exists. Move the DE murder sites just a short distance away and the degree of Jewish significance becomes negligible.

[MrBarnett]

But that involves direct actions taken against the buildings with Chinese connotations. No such thing happened in Mitre Square; no attack against the synagogue, no demolition in Jewry Street etcetera. It takes a much larger leap to see any antipathy against the Jews in this case.

I was responding to CD's comment about throwing stones in DC and the insignificance of where they might land.

I think if someone kills twice on the same night, once on a Jewish premises and once surrounded by uniquely significant Jewish landmarks the question arises 'Was there any significance to that?' Anyone who answers, 'No, because there were lots of Jews all over the East End' is missing the point.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Going back to the fire Maria Harvey said - She left an overcoat, two dirty cotton shirts, a boy's shirt, a girl's white petticoat and a black crepe bonnet in the room.
As we can see by the infamous picture of Mary's remains it looks like she has a tin bath under her bed. perhaps she earned a penny or two by washing some items of clothing. The two dirty shirts?
We know there was a large fire in Mary's room that night, perhaps she left the clothing to dry in front of the large fire and Jack simply chucked the items closest to said fire on the flames to give him some light/warmth.

[Fisherman]

I was responding to CD's comment about throwing stones in DC and the insignificance of where they might land.

I think if someone kills twice on the same night, once on a Jewish premises and once surrounded by uniquely significant Jewish landmarks the question arises 'Was there any significance to that?' Anyone who answers, 'No, because there were lots of Jews all over the East End' is missing the point.

That I agree with. The matter must be regarded as potentially significant, although no real substance can be ascribed to it until we have some confirmation. And it cannot be denied that the Kelly murder offered such options for the killer, but if he tried to take advantage of them, it has gone lost how.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, it's tenuous. But it exists. Move the DE murder sites just a short distance away and the degree of Jewish significance becomes negligible.

Well, if we're prepared to define a hundred yards as a short distance from a synagogue, then anything's possible. That said, we'd have to move the bodies of Nichols, Chapman and Kelly rather more than a hundred yards to find many sites of Jewish significance in their cases.

In terms of the Ripper murders as a whole, the evidence for his having adopted an "antisemitism ploy" just isn't there.

[Batman]

But that involves direct actions taken against the buildings with Chinese connotations. No such thing happened in Mitre Square; no attack against the synagogue, no demolition in Jewry Street etcetera. It takes a much larger leap to see any antipathy against the Jews in this case.

I don't understand why some people think that the anti-Semitic connections with the Whitechapel murders is just one piece of evidence, such as location. This is simply not the case.

There are multiple pieces of anti-Semitic evidence which all must be rejected as mere coincidental things, as we are currently seeing on the Eddowes thread with Mary Jane Kelly from Miller's court Dorset Street name popping up in Eddowes' Mustard Tin under 'Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street' and as Eddowes left the drunk tank gave her name as ... Mary Ann Kelly. Okay, so some people want to chalk this up to coincidence, but then they tend to want to play the coincidence card again for actually chalk up as the GSG and the card comes out again for Jewish locations and again for LIPSKI being shouted at on Berner St., and again this deck of coincidences for the Jewish location next to a Jewish socialist club.

Someone doesn't have to agree with the anti-semitic connections at all but by doing that you are secretly selling us a Big Mac of coincidences. If anyone was to join the 'JtR has no connection to anti-semitism' crowd, they should learn they will be explaining lots of things away as mere coincidences, on top of coincidences. Credulity is stretched here... not with the suggestion that JtR was using anti-Jewish hysteria to his advantage. Serial criminals use red herrings aplenty.

The reality is we tend to not bet on random events stacking like that. And guess what, if you are a real detective, you aren't allowed to believe in any coincidences in the first place. A defense lawyer would LOVE 12 coincidence believers in the jury box. Your honour she slipped and fell on the knife... 47 times. Your honour I just happened to coincidentally be holding the knife when she slipped which is why my DNA and prints are on it. Your honour I was just standing next to the box of dope. It has nothing to do with me. Just a coincidence.

We can all believe in a coincidence here and there, but a narrative of multiple coincidences to explain away the evidence, in this case, is just wrong on so many levels. It completely abandons the idea that a suspect should fit the evidence and not the evidence fitting a suspect. Just wait on it more and a better suspect will come along and you won't have to ditch what could be important evidence.

A coincidence here or there, sure, but the Whitechapel murders can't be explained by stacked multiple coincidence 'explanations'. They really aren't explanations at all. It certainly wouldn't be a position I would put myself in. Therefore I go with a connection to anti-Semitism. JtR is an anti-Semite. Which indicates, not a Jew. Which impacts a lot of favoured suspects I am sure.

[Sam Flynn]

A coincidence here or there, sure, but the Whitechapel murders can't be explained by stacked multiple coincidence 'explanations'. They really aren't explanations at all.

This is all the explanation you need:

[Batman]

This is all the explanation you need:

[ATTACH]18825[/ATTACH]

Judiasm doesn't permulate all the cases or victims or witnesses or evidence concerning the Whitechapel murders. It was as throughout as you want it to be, then it would have been throughout, but simply isn't.

In these series of murders there are plenty of secular connections and plenty of gentiles and gangs and bobbies on the beat and all things non-Jewish. A Jewish connection is not appearing around every corner as a bloody bit of apron next to anti-Semitic writing or as a woman being seen attacked the cry out Lipski sounding out. Not all the murders are absolutely connected to Judaism as you tried to point out yourself.

So anyone reading this case will get that the anti-semitic elements are few and far between, but still there.

Basically saying, 'oh there are lots of Jews' so all of that is one big coincidence is just basically saying 'large numbers can explain everything'. You might as well just say 'Whitechapel' and claim there is no Jack the Ripper. Just five victims that aren't connected and everything can be explained by large numbers of people.

Surely there must be other criteria you have except for population densities?

[DJA]

Sam is also very fond of coincidences

[MrBarnett]

This is all the explanation you need:

[ATTACH]18825[/ATTACH]

It really isn't. 😀

[Fisherman]

I don't understand why some people think that the anti-Semitic connections with the Whitechapel murders is just one piece of evidence, such as location. This is simply not the case.

JtR is an anti-Semite. Which indicates, not a Jew. Which impacts a lot of favoured suspects I am sure.

"Some people", would that be me...?

If so, I have read and understood the full weight of your argument. And I have had more reason than just about anybody to resent those who do not.

I nevertheless find the case too meagre to draw any conclusions - and that involves the conclusion that Jack was an anti-semite. No such thing has been proven at all, not nearly - and that has nothing to do with the suspect I favour.

[Observer]

Hi Gary! I of course donīt object to the description of the Mitre Square environs as being smack bang in the middle of all things Jewish in London. It was.

It was also a two minute walk fro St Botolphs Church which was a know pick up point for anyone desirous of a prostitute. I'm not referring to the urban myth which rumour has it that prostitutes who kept within the bounders of St Botolphs were immune from prosecution either.

Eddowes had been in that area just prior to her arrest, and I would not be surprised if she was a frequent visitor to that dark little spot where she met her end.

To suggest that JTR manoeuvered Eddowes into Mitre Square to exploit it's connections to things Jewish in order to throw suspicion on the Jewish community in the East end is plain silly