Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic

[Sam Flynn]

I think you don't have any actual objective criteria to accept or reject evidence.

I've got criteria alright. Factual evidence I accept; speculation is entirely open to challenge.

[Batman]

FACTS, that's all. What are the facts that support the idea that Jack himself might have been using an "antisemitism ploy" in respect of the Nichols, Chapman and Kelly murders?

We also need to bear in mind the facts in respect to the Stride and Eddowes murders, for that matter. Facts like the density and distribution of the Jewish population, the actual disposition of Eddowes' body in relation to the synagogue - those kinds of things.

Why shouldn't we? Like I said, we're dealing with the real world, not "Columbo by Numbers".

Sorry but that's circular to say your criteria for evidence are facts.

A fact is established with evidence. It is the evidence that makes it a fact (or not). This is why I am asking what is your criteria for evidence. The criteria that gives you facts to accept and what to reject.

We have provided the evidence which is why we are forwarding the possibility that this is a fact of the matter. That anti-semitism was involved and likely used a cover by JtR. You have claimed that this evidence is all coincidental. Like ALL of it. So obviously you reject anti-semitism in close proximity to a ripper crime, be it in writing, vocalized or locational. You don't allow for these types of deductions.

So what would you allow as evidence of anti-Semitism to know it was a fact?

I think you believe the claim isn't falsifiable from the start. That there is no evidence that could exist to possibly prove such a thing.

Which is fine, but then your criteria for evidence must be so strong that I can only imagine you accepting medical evidence, IF even that. Do you accept the medical evidence?

[MrBarnett]

Yeah, that's the other one. It must have read to people at the time, especially after Chapman, that JtR was butchering women like he preparing Kosher foods by shechita. Jews certainly couldn't have missed that one.

What I meant by the 'slaughterman theory' was the suspicion that fell on the Harrison, Barber men after the Nichols murder. The local populace thought them very sinister and an accusation was chalked on the gates of the Winthrop Street yard. There were various articles putting forward slaughtermen as suspects. The Leather Apron thing soon overtook that theory though. Then when LA, as personified by Pizer, was cleared, it was said that the police had 'revived' the slaughterman theory.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry but that's circular to say your criteria for evidence are facts.

It isn't circular at all. I rather hope that all evidence is factual.

[Observer]

has anyone explored the possibility that the killer had a downer on Kearley and Tonge? The body was a fair bit closer to that building than it was to the synagogue.

Heck Sam, I think you're onto something there!

The killer had developed diabetes. Kearley and Tonge distributed sugar. He was down on sugar.

Excuse the frivolity, in truth though it's not far removed from the fantasy being exhibited in this thread.

[Sam Flynn]

Yeah, that's the other one. It must have read to people at the time, especially after Chapman, that JtR was butchering women like he preparing Kosher foods by shechita.

He evidently wasn't but, if others were misguided enough to think that he was, then that's down to them, not the killer. Ditto Mrs Long's perception of a "foreign" suspect with Annie Chapman and Hutchinson's "foreign/Jewish" suspect with Mary Kelly.

[Observer]

It isn't circular at all. I rather hope that all evidence is factual.

By the way it's possible we've got another wind up merchant on our hands.

[MrBarnett]

This map gets about a bit (thanks to Jerry D for originally posting it).



I forgot to mention the RabbinicalCollege. (The map's from 1878 not sure whether the college was still there in 1888).

So, we have the largest and the oldest synagogues in the country, a Rabbinical college, Jewry Street and 'Old Dook's Place' the centre of Jewish 'sporting' life. Hell of a coincidence that one murder was here, another on the premises of a Jewish club and between the the a message referring to Jews?

[Sam Flynn]

So, we have the largest and the oldest synagogues in the country, a Rabbinical college, Jewry Street and 'Old Dook's Place' the centre of Jewish 'sporting' life. Hell of a coincidence that one murder was here, another on the premises of a Jewish club and between the the a message referring to Jews?

Well, it was a Jewish part of town, and had been for centuries.

Usual caveat about this being from 1899, and unfortunately the map didn't cover the City, but...



The blue/dark blue bits are streets with a high Jewish population, and stuck in the middle of that blue splodge at bottom left quadrant of the map are the sites of many of the murders. Finding some Jewish connection to the murders - whether in the form of people, dwellings, establishments or even graffiti - shouldn't be too difficult.

[Batman]

He evidently wasn't but, if others were misguided enough to think that he was, then that's down to them, not the killer. Ditto Mrs Long's perception of a "foreign" suspect with Annie Chapman and Hutchinson's "foreign/Jewish" suspect with Mary Kelly.

That's the whole point. Their perceptions are being exploited.

[Batman]

It isn't circular at all. I rather hope that all evidence is factual.

The evidence we have provided to you is factual.

The locations, verbal and written evidence that you reject.

So this can't be your only criteria for accepting what is factual or not if you reject it as factual. Right?

The problem is you aren't describing what sort of criteria you accept as evidence or not, but in your posts here you have clearly demonstrated a few things pointing out what they 'could' be.

A fact is established with evidence. It is the evidence that makes it a fact (or not). This is why I am asking what is your criteria for evidence.

You have claimed that this evidence is all coincidental. Like ALL of it. So obviously you reject anti-semitism in close proximity to a ripper crime, be it in writing, vocalized or locational. You don't allow for these types of deductions.

So what would you allow as evidence of anti-Semitism to know it was a fact? This is another question you haven't answered after several attempts, which is suggesting you don't have any.

I think you believe the claim isn't provable from the start. That there is no evidence that could exist to possibly prove such a thing.

Which is fine, but then your criteria for evidence must be so strong that I can only imagine you accepting medical evidence, IF even that. Do you accept the medical evidence? Another question I am gauging with to see what your criteria for evidence are.

Otherwise, you are basically just cherry picking what evidence to accept and reject and this is identifiable with people who have no discriminatory criteria for evidence or only use it when they want.

[MrBarnett]

Well, it was a Jewish part of town, and had been for centuries.

Usual caveat about this being from 1899, and unfortunately the map didn't cover the City, but...

[ATTACH]18824[/ATTACH]

The blue/dark blue bits are streets with a high Jewish population, and stuck in the middle of that blue splodge at bottom left quadrant of the map are the sites of many of the murders. Finding some Jewish connection to the murders - whether in the form of people, dwellings, establishments or even graffiti - shouldn't be too difficult.

Aldgate certainly was and had been. Most of the area coloured blue on your map will have been fields when Aldgate became the centre of Jewish London. I'm not talking about population density but cultural and historical significance.

Are you suggesting that if we stick a pin anywhere on the blue part of your map we'll likely hit somewhere else surrounded by the largest and most ancient synagogues, a Jewish School, a Rabbinical College, a street named after the Jews and another 'centre of the Jewish sporting world?'

Go on, have a go...

[rjpalmer]

Speaking of proximity, has anyone explored the possibility that the killer had a downer on Kearley and Tonge?

Yes, actually. I think A.P. Wolf did indeed explore that possibility with his suspect Thomas Cutbush.

[Darryl Kenyon]

I believe the City of London police headquarters was once on old Jewry street. That's it Jack wanted to put the blame on those bloomin coppers

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer, hope you are well....



It was part of the beat PC's duty to check all doors that can be entered at street level. There was a door inside the entrance, so why wouldn't he do what was expected of him?
This places him inside the entrance where he can see if a rag had been there 30 minutes previous, he would have to step over it.

When PC Long was not sure of something, he said so, here are three examples.

[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.

[Coroner] Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.

[Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion.

[Coroner] Is it possible to get it at once? - I dare say.

As demonstrated above, PC Long was not concerned about saying when he wasn't sure about something. Which is why we have no reason to believe if he had not been sure that the rag was there at 2:20 then he would have gave the same answer as he did above, that he wasn't sure.

He said he was sure, which we have to take as a reliable opinion.

Quite so, Jon! It of course also applies that there is every reason to believe that he checked the premises in the same manner on both occasions, and that would form a very good ground for his certainty. "Hello! This rag was not here before!", sort of.