Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic

[Sam Flynn]

Unless, of course, that is exactly the point, as Stephen Senise argues. The setting (Whitechapel) was chosen because of its connection to Jewish immigrants.

More straightforwardly, and far more likely, it was simply where the killer lived.

[c.d.]

I may be wrong but I seem to recall a discussion some time ago regarding "Lipski" being commonly used as a verb as well as a noun. I.E., hey I'll come over there and "Lipski" your ass. Anybody want to shed light on this?

c.d.

[MrBarnett]

On Tuesday 18 September, just 12 days before Catherine Eddowes was murdered, a police constable responded to cries of murder as he was patrolling in the Minories. The cries led him to Three Kings Court a notorious spot reached from the Minories by a narrow alley. Here he found a man with a prostitute much in distress. The constable brought them out from the yard , and sent the man on his way. He accompanied the prostitute a little way along the street, and learned that the man had pulled out a knife. The man was of course Ludwig who was taken into custody at 3 a.m. that same night for trying to stab a man at a coffee stall.

This incident took place within a very short walk of St Botolphs Church.

And if Eddowes had been killed in 3 Kings Court, we'd probably not be having this discussion.

[Batman]

The argument proposes that all the murders were committed in Whitechapel to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment.

I think it really doesn't have to go that far to make sense. JtR used anti-semitic sentiments as cover and also created some red herrings to mislead investigators. He enjoyed terrorizing Whitechapel society be they Jew or Gentile. He was an anti-semite, but this is purely incidental to the fact he could use the anti-Jewish hysteria to his advantage.

It actually fits by just following the chronology of events.

1. Nichols is murdered. No prior Jewish Serial Killer connotations. Some association with gangs and therefore gentiles.
2. Leather Apron becomes a public Jewish suspect due to unfortunates complaining about him.
3. This is exploited by JtR to murder Chapman. People are looking for a Jew, not a gentile.
4. Following Chapman's murder, Leather Apron is exonerated by way of a PC witness, the best witness he could possibly have. Therefore the Jewish association with JtR is no longer valid.
5. Strides is murdered next to a Jewish club with the anti-semitic remark LIPSKI shouted out during an attack.
6. Eddowes is murdered next to the most significant synagogue in Mitre Sq.
7. Her bloody apron piece (also remember Leather Apron) is dumped with anti-semitic graffiti written above it (or at least graffiti sure to incite anti-Semitism associations with JtR, again).
8. The area on Goulston street is a Jewish market area.
   
   So what after? Are there more anti-semitic possible connotations? Maybe. I don't know but there is this possibility...
   
   
9. Hutchenson sees a man who is dressed up to the nines and of Jewish appearance before MJK is murdered.
10. A bundle of clothes has been burned in Kelly's fire to the point that the spout on the kettle appears to have been melted off.

Who knows? Maybe he actually went out his way to look like a Jew going in and then burned that gear up, leaving looking like a gentile?

Anyway, even without that, the point is JtR obviously didn't plan this all along. He went with it, when he thought he could use it as cover. I think what we are seeing is his reactions to that chronology. He is following the case. Following the news. Following societal responses. Nothing really more complex than that. Just a homicidal maniac throwing out red herrings if he can exploit that to his advantage.

[Observer]

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

On Tuesday 18 September, just 12 days before Catherine Eddowes was murdered, a police constable responded to cries of murder as he was patrolling in the Minories. The cries led him to Three Kings Court a notorious spot reached from the Minories by a narrow alley. Here he found a man with a prostitute much in distress. The constable brought them out from the yard , and sent the man on his way. He accompanied the prostitute a little way along the street, and learned that the man had pulled out a knife. The man was of course Ludwig who was taken into custody at 3 a.m. that same night for trying to stab a man at a coffee stall.

This incident took place within a very short walk of St Botolphs Church.

[etenguy]

If there is such an overwhelmingly high frequency of Jewish related things in Whitechapel then how come the case isn't chock full of those relationships? It's only in some elements of the case. There is loads of things not connected to Judaism in the crimes.

The argument proposes that all the murders were committed in Whitechapel to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment. Exactly what the murders did. As the murders progressed some additional connections are made, including the GSG - erased by the police specifically to avoid a potential anti-Semitic riot. There was no need to have a chock full of specific relationships for every murder for this argument to be valid. They just needed to take place in Whitechapel and the locals and the press would do the rest. For instance, it is argued that the murders were as barbaric as they were so people would draw parallels with barbaric murders that took place in Hungary and Poland which the press had reported heavily.

I'm not an advocate of the theory, and nor does my summary do it justice, but it is pertinent to this thread.

[MrBarnett]

It's enough of an explanation for me, Gary. Given the lie of the land and its residents, these Jewish references are perfectly explicable without having to read any special symbolism into the locations of the murders.

Two killings outside of Whitechapel/Spitalfields: one in STGITE in the middle of the area that had once been known as Tiger Bay and was then (1891) the only part of that parish that had a heavy concentration of Jewish residents, and once in the City, in the area that was considered the historical heart of Jewish London.

Two murders on the same night, and afterwards he left a clue under some graffiti referring to the Jews in another dark blue area.

On the principle of waste not, want not, here's something I prepared earlier to show how Jewish the old Tiger Bay Area had become:


A glance at the surnames and places birth of those living in Brunswick Street in 1891 reveals how thoroughly Tiger Bay had become a Jewish enclave. It would appear that only 10 of the street's 292 inhabitants were not of Jewish/East European origin. A high proportion of them (approx 67%) had been born outside the British Isles.

Goodman
Clyde
Lazarus
Jacobs
Dimbinske
Woolf
Waxman
Reece
Isaacs
Silverman
Cohen
Solomons
Abrahams
Ris
Rosenfeld
Isaac
Lask
Sneider
Fienberg
Shienkiel
Kuntstler
Schwabinger
Weingrum
Vitzer
Ruben
Goldberg
Morganstein
Fanberg
Schuster
Goldberg
Sutton
Roberson
Williams
Cohen
Adiger
Goodglass
Birkenbaum
Rosenberg
Bernstein
Brooker
Rosenthal
Tuchwaber
Galand
Lewis
Jacobs
Rothman
Green
Goldstein
Come
Shrank
Cricoger
Clements
Pall
Miller
Leopard
Silverston
Silverstein
Levy
Silverstein
Coffee
Leigh
Sheridan
Gosher
Shibowski
Levy
Goldstein
Krieztman
Shapiro
Woolf
Yeller(?)
Price
Yetran
Simons
Rosenberg
Cohen
Bearman
Weiss
Geider
Weiss
Laureneski
Dolgen
Weinberg

[Batman]

Unless, of course, that is exactly the point, as Stephen Senise argues. The setting (Whitechapel) was chosen because of its connection to Jewish immigrants.

If there is such an overwhelmingly high frequency of Jewish related things in Whitechapel then how come the case isn't chock full of those relationships? It's only in some elements of the case. There is loads of things not connected to Judaism in the crimes.

[etenguy]

It's enough of an explanation for me, Gary. Given the lie of the land and its residents, these Jewish references are perfectly explicable without having to read any special symbolism into the locations of the murders.

Unless, of course, that is exactly the point, as Stephen Senise argues. The setting (Whitechapel) was chosen because of its connection to Jewish immigrants.

[sleekviper]

In 1888, if someone wants to kill twice in the same evening, in two different locations, and wants credit for both, how does he do it? He has zero possible window with leaving victim one laid out for anyone to find; people run for help, while he walks. Running draws attention, he will walk. Staying ahead of the news is a good thing. Hiding victim one does not appear to be something he will do, and she won't be ripped up since time is important to reach victim number two. His answer then, could be to increase the chance of finding her straight after death, and delay the speed from discovery to running for help. he needs a group that feels pressure from society, and yes a group. A single individual may still run straight away, but a group is going to panic before seeking help. Someone will probably worry about how they will survive this mess as a group, someone will want to get anyone remotely viewed as criminal away from the location, someone may want to pray for guidance, and someone is going to just want to think about things before they do anything since the backlash from this could destroy lives. It is about control; manipulating the fears of one group, to achieve the end result of two kills. I could be completely wrong, and it isn't a sure thing to work, but makes sense to me. I don't know why he would not leave a message in a victims pocket; no guessing, or worry about having it seen that way.

[Sam Flynn]

It really isn't. ��

It's enough of an explanation for me, Gary. Given the lie of the land and its residents, these Jewish references are perfectly explicable without having to read any special symbolism into the locations of the murders.

[Observer]

If you want to call it ludicrous, then thatīs your choice. If you cannot bring every other poster to agree with you on the point, you need to concede that.

Indeed everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how ridiculous. If that's what they want to believe as i said that's fine with me. I'm just wondering though if we havn't got a little bit of the antics we had on the Maybrick threads. Just an opinion of course.

[Fisherman]

Dutfields Yard was used for immoral purposes Fisherman. The resident of number 38, a couple of doors away from the yard, who's name escapes me at the moment said as much. Wess knew it was used by prostitutes, but procrastinated at the inquest. Again, do you think Stride's murderer would go to such lengths as to lure her in the yard of the IWEC to incriminate a Jewish man of being her murderer? It's ludicrous, not worthy of debate in truth.

If you want to call it ludicrous, then thatīs your choice. If you cannot bring every other poster to agree with you on the point, you need to concede that.
I agree that there are problems with the suggestion of the killer deflecting the guilt on Jews. I personally donīt think he did so. Thatīs what I have on offer. If you want more, you must ask somebody else.

[Observer]

It is unlikely, at any rate, yes. But it does not change how Gary is completely correct to point out the Jewishness of the venue. Coupled with how Stride died outside a Jewish club, it is hard to deny that this may carry significance. As you will have understood, I donīt ascribe to any such significance being in any way proven, but I do feel that it may be counterproductive to throw the suggestion out as rubbish.
So I admit that there MAY be something in it, although I personally donīt think there was.

Dutfields Yard was used for immoral purposes Fisherman. The resident of number 38, a couple of doors away from the yard, who's name escapes me at the moment said as much. Wess knew it was used by prostitutes, but procrastinated at the inquest. Again, do you think Stride's murderer would go to such lengths as to lure her in the yard of the IWEC to incriminate a Jewish man of being her murderer? It's ludicrous, not worthy of debate in truth.

[Fisherman]

I was sort of talking generally and you mentioned something I wanted to address.

My view, or my criteria for evidence, as you maybe have read me asking others these days, is "probabilities" because we don't have scientific facts in a forensic sense as per modern investigations, so "probabilities" are all I have.

So I would say the connection is "probable" rather than proven, myself.

To me, it is more of a "possible" than a "probable". But we will always differ on matters like these - it is part and parcel of Ripperology.