What had to have happened?

[caz]

There are other instances but suffice to say, because a witness does not name someone is not a good indication that they didn't know them, or identify them as locals. I see it as just a reflection of this attitude of keeping your nose out of other peoples business, let the police do the identifying, then there is no comeback on you personally.

I take your point, Jon, but I really don't think life in any part of teeming London in 1888 can have been so very much different from any time since, when the vast majority of people you pass on the street, you have never passed before and are never likely to see again. Mind you, weird coincidences do happen. My daughter thought she spotted Ken Livingstone one day recently while up in town, but realised her mistake when she got closer to the man. Later the same day she did see Ken Livingstone, the real deal this time!

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

If you stood in a major thoroughfare, (say) Hanbury St at "rush hour" in 1888, I'm sure you would see many strangers.

But the inhabitants of (say) Millers Ct knew each other pretty well. Even those of Dorset St - Mrs Maxwell knew someone she assumed to be MJK - even if she got the name or day wrong.

There must have been many comings and goings, but it remains amazing to me that there is a good chance that all of the canonical victims might well have known each other - at least by sight - having used the same doss houses in the same streets.

I well recall that in a small university town between 1969 and 1974, where there were about 2,500 students, you might not know everyone by name, but if a face went missing you sort of knew. It was strange, but you got used to seeing certain faces in the shops and pubs etc - you might not know anything about them, but they were familiar all the same.

Phil

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Unconfirmed report has Kelly frequently using at least one lodging house on the cadge, one of the residents claimed he gave her money on occasions, which was to help her pay the rent,but stated it was all drank away.
Maxwell claimed to have seen her about the ''lodging house''. which would make sense, the only possibility is that there was a mix up with young Lizzie A a court resident, who worked in a Dorset street Lodging house.
I believe therefore its a 50/50 chance that Maxwell was right.
Regards Richard.

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Damaso. Why could not an insane person do all that and yet be oblivious to the import of the action and hence not be morally culpable?

Cheers.
LC

If you have ever dealt with an unmedicated schizophrenic, or even a medicated one who has a particularly serious case, they stand out. Most people would not give one the time of day, when they were on high alert for a crazed murderer. In fact, a lot of people who were not at all mentally ill, but who had some kind of "stigma," like a stutter, or a movement problem like mild cerebral palsy, probably were avoided as well.

Casual prostitutes who really needed the money for food or lodging probably couldn't afford to turn away too many people, but I imagine that during the fall of 1888, men who otherwise would not have been avoided, were.

I think that one of two things must have been operating: either JtR was someone who presented entirely as normal (a la Ted Bundy), or he was well-known, so that if he was "off" in some way, he was generally accepted as harmless. Because the second is mostly the stuff of Gothic novels, and TV shows like Criminal Minds, while there have been plenty of Ted Bundys, I'm going to guess that it's more likely he appeared normal.

It's possible he was normal-appearing, and a local, but if he was unusual, he pretty much had to be a local, and if he wasn't a local, he pretty much had to be normal-appearing, and good at assimilating quickly.

Being "local" doesn't mean he still lived on the street where he was born, but it probably does mean he lived currently in the area, and was not a brand new-comer. If he were Jewish, he may have benefited from a "they all look alike" factor, but he probably had been there long enough to speak some English.

That gives me one thought-- if the local gentiles expected the Jewish newcomers, who spoke Yiddish, to act oddly, they may not have been aware when one of them was behaving pathologically. They may have dismissed signs of the beginnings of mental illness as just more strangeness that Jews do. Is that possible?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Phil,

Personally I very much doubt it. The place was teeming with newcomers at all times; the victims themselves had not been in Spitalfields from birth, or anything like it, and there is nothing to suggest they knew each other, by name or sight, despite their proximity, although they may well have passed one another in the street at some point without being any the wiser.

If every 'stranger', minding their own business, had been regarded with suspicion and distrust (during the murders, or before or since) the local population would have made their lives a whole lot harder than they were already.



To a certain degree yes, but I wasn't really thinking of strangers of a higher class than the average 'local' man. Many thousands of 'strangers' must have fallen on hard times and ended up in the area without immediately making everyone point and scream, like Donald Sutherland at the end of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.



Again, the witness testimony would not seem to bear this out. Had Lechmere ever seen Paul or PC Mizen before, when their lives collided on the night Nichols was murdered? Repeat for every murder night and there's a pattern of people observing other people they had most probably never set eyes on before - in the vast majority of cases I would have thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Totally agree. I mean we are talking about a city here right? Pretty much everyone is a stranger with a small percent being people you work with,buy things from, friends and family.

I think also that the bethnel green man story from Sara Lewis also illustrates that anyone, especially strangers, who acted oddly and or in the least bit perceived as threatening, would scare women off.

Strangers would not stand out or raise suspicion, but ones acting oddly would.

[lynn cates]

back then

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"If you have ever dealt with an unmedicated schizophrenic, or even a medicated one who has a particularly serious case, they stand out. Most people would not give one the time of day, when they were on high alert for a crazed murderer."

Of course, Polly and Annie were both incapacitated and may not have recognised such a person. And when they were killed, there was no high alert.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I take your point, Jon, but I really don't think life in any part of teeming London in 1888 can have been so very much different from any time since, when the vast majority of people you pass on the street, you have never passed before and are never likely to see again.....

I think there is broad agreement that the East End was teeming with people who by and large did not know each other, but that does not mean they were mostly strangers.
I'm not at all suggesting that Lawende actually knew the 'Redneck' in Duke St. but just refused to identify him, but neither am I inclined to think the 'Redneck' was a total stranger.

All I was pointing out earlier was a local man would be able to move about better than a total stranger without drawing attention to himself. As an example, a local man known to accost women at best may be made fun of, at worst may be reported to police, but once identified he is let go.

However, a total stranger acting in the same way will draw attention to himself sooner and he may be lucky to make it to a police station alive - as we have reports to substantiate a couple of instances of this nature.

Given his ability to disappear through the backstreets and presumably blend in with the populace at large I tend to see this killer as local man in the context that he was a familiar face in the area, not to say he must have lived in the area, though he may have.
This killer was not your average uneducated dosser, in fact I basically agree with the first four points suggested by Mia in post #1, I just have a different interpretation of the fifth point.

[Jon Guy]

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"If you have ever dealt with an unmedicated schizophrenic, or even a medicated one who has a particularly serious case, they stand out. Most people would not give one the time of day, when they were on high alert for a crazed murderer."

Of course, Polly and Annie were both incapacitated and may not have recognised such a person. And when they were killed, there was no high alert.

Cheers.
LC

Annie incapacitated, Lynn ?

[Phil H]

Annie WAS ill was she not? She may not have been at her most "perceptive" given that fact and after a long night wandering the streets. Even if, as i believe, she may have died earlier than usually accepted, she had been on the streets some hours.

Phil

[Jon Guy]

Tabram had been drinking, Nichols was out of her skull, Chapman had a beer at around midnight, Stride had visited the Queen`s Head and maybe another later, Eddowes had been out of her skull, Kelly was drunk, McKenzie had drinks bought for her, and Coles was pissed.
Out of the lot, Chapman was probably one of the most sober. Yes, she was very ill but hardly incapacitated as witnessed earlier in the day.

Just wondering why Lynn has only Nichols and Chapman as incapacitated .. !!

[harry]

I doubt that Whitechapel was teeming with pedestrians after midnight,plus in the dark and gloomy gas lit streets,it would have been easy for anyone,not wanting to be identified,to pass along unidentified.The reason I believe Schwartz,is that he did what I believe most would have done in the circumstances,that is cross to the other side of the street,a nd not get involved.A likely response even today.Brown was possibly the nearest to what might be a sighting of the killer,and what did he see?

[Phil H]

Yet there seems to always have been movement on the streets.

Polly Nichols clearly expected to find custom when Emily Holland met her at c 2.30 am, and Holland was about too.

Cross and Paul were on their way to work before 4.00 am. The house at 29 Hanbury Street was astir around 5.00.

Whatever we think of Hutchinson's testimony, his reports of the comings and goings from Miller's Ct suggest prolonged activity.

I'm not saying the backstreets were teeming with life - though the main thoroughfares may well have been - but people were about constantly. Shops and pubs seem to have been open late too.

Just examples but significant, I think.

Phil

[lynn cates]

sick

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Annie incapacitated, Lynn?"

Absolutely.

1. She was terminally ill.

2. Her shaky gait suggested she was tipsy.

3. She stated that she had been ill and in infirmary.

4. "Must not fold up."

A VERY sick woman.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I currently live in a very small town which I took to be a village until I was corrected. We have four pubs, one bank, one chemist and one small supermarket, among a few other retailers. Whenever I walk into town I typically see around four or five people I could name, and probably a dozen or so whose faces are familiar. That leaves far more who almost certainly live or work locally, whose faces ring no bells whatsoever, and whom I might not bump into again, or at least not recognise again if I did.

So when I talk about 'strangers' in Spitalfields in 1888, I don't restrict this to people who were either new to the area or just passing through; I include the veritable sea of unfamiliar, anonymous faces that don't necessarily register as one goes about one's normal business.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Polly and Annie

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"Just wondering why Lynn has only Nichols and Chapman as incapacitated .. !!"

Because, of the five who interest me, they were--without doubt--incapacitated.

Liz had no signs of alcohol; Kate was lucid (review her conversation with Hutt). If Hutchinson is to be believed, "MJK" was not drunk when she met A-man.

Hence, Polly and Annie--incapacitated.

Cheers.
LC