Originally posted by Sam Flynn
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Fisherman View PostI think that a teahouse link has been suggested at some time, actually. But just as the case is with the jewish connection, I think we are dealing with very tenuous links. Which is why, I believe, some posters jump to the conclusion that the Ripper only some way into the process opted for trying to exploit the matter. Personally, I am disinclined to see any real relevance in the fusion of the Ripper and an exploitation of anti-jewish feelings. There is too little in it, and it is too inconsistent to work for me.
There's nothing tenuous about the connecting Jewishness of the IWMEC and the environs of Mitre Square. If the STGITE murder had been in Pinchin Street and the City one in Cheapside, there would have been plenty of Jewish residents and businesses nearby, but I wouldn't find that of any significance. As it is, the significance of those two spots does intrigue me, even if I ignore the message in Goulston Street.
Gary
Comment
-
Door to door searches could only mean a Jew living with others did it. Anderson.
Originally posted by c.d. View PostIt would seem that the real question is whether the police eliminated any suspect simply because they were a Jew or because they were a gentile.
c.d.
Does it sound fair? I don't think it does. There must have been some bias present to almost exclusively blame a Jewish household who had JtR in their midst, knowingly or not. As no Gentile family could do this, which is ridiculous.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Ripper absolutely used antisemitism as a diversionary tactic. What can we conclude from this? Can we say then with absolute certainty that the Ripper had to be a Jew or can we say with absolutely certainty that the Ripper was a gentile?
I don't see how we can possibly reach a conclusion so it seems to me that this line of reasoning is pretty much moot.
c.d.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View PostOld Jewry, now there's somewhere Jack could murder someone to really put the blame on the Jews err except he didn't
As it is, he killed at a spot which was arguably then the centre of Jewish London.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostI believe 'Old' in this case means formerly. It was the area where Jews had lived prior to their expulsion in 1290. If Jack had killed there we'd be looking for an antiquarian suspect.
As it is, he killed at a spot which was arguably then the centre of Jewish London.
c.d.
Comment
-
"We know after the murder of Eddowes that they were only looking for a male who was living alone in the area and could have possibly committed the crimes."
"Only"? I think it much more likely that they were looking for anybody who seemed suspicious for whatever reason.
c.d.
Comment
-
Originally posted by c.d. View Post"We know after the murder of Eddowes that they were only looking for a male who was living alone in the area and could have possibly committed the crimes."
"Only"? I think it much more likely that they were looking for anybody who seemed suspicious for whatever reason.
c.d.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Originally posted by MrBarnett View PostHi Fish,
There's nothing tenuous about the connecting Jewishness of the IWMEC and the environs of Mitre Square. If the STGITE murder had been in Pinchin Street and the City one in Cheapside, there would have been plenty of Jewish residents and businesses nearby, but I wouldn't find that of any significance. As it is, the significance of those two spots does intrigue me, even if I ignore the message in Goulston Street.
Gary
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 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.
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by c.d. View PostWell I live in Washington, D.C. which means that you can close your eyes, throw a stone and be pretty much assured that it will land in proximity to some site of at least some sort of historical significance. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there is some sort of connection to that site.
c.d.
Comment
Comment