Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Jack a Kosher Killer?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Agreed, Fisherman. Good point.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Vigilantee View Post
      Not in every case perhaps but statistically its most like. Sexual serial killers have problems with sex and this usually has religion at its roots somewhere.
      The Moors Murderers were atheists. In fact, Hindley expressly ABANDONED the religion of her youth in order to become a sexual serial killer.

      There is no problem with Jack being an ethnic, non-practicing Jew. In fact statistically, and going along with the theory that he was a local man, there is a one in two chance he was. But there is a problem with his being a practicing Jew, as a shochet would be. One murder (Chapman) occurred on the Sabbath.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Carrotty Nell View Post
        The Moors Murderers were atheists. In fact, Hindley expressly ABANDONED the religion of her youth in order to become a sexual serial killer.

        There is no problem with Jack being an ethnic, non-practicing Jew. In fact statistically, and going along with the theory that he was a local man, there is a one in two chance he was. But there is a problem with his being a practicing Jew, as a shochet would be. One murder (Chapman) occurred on the Sabbath.
        Ha ha ha, thats the best insight on this site all year, really


        Though I'd say Atheists are in a way as obsessed about religion as believers, rebelling against something ties you to it. All the atheists I know are bloody fanatics, worse than the regionists they criticize... lol

        Comment


        • #19
          Despite my own religious background, I am willing to concede a strong possibility (due to the locale of the Whitechapel killings) that the killer was
          a Jewish person. Furthermore it could have been a shockhet. But to bring up the Kosher rules of dietary law here seems meaningless. Judaism in any form does not support say cannibalism (that human kidney that may have been partly eaten, if the Ripper wrote that note). Also, the killer would have been running a real risk. Suppose he was following kosher laws regarding his crimes. That includes having seperate cutlery for meat and for dairy (simliar to seperate plates for meat and dairy dishes). Now, if his identity had been guesses, all any of the victims would have to do would be to smear butter or cream on top of the killer's knife. Theoretically he would have been unable to continue his "kosher" cutting with that tool. Of course he could have forced himself to continue - maybe that is what was the cause of his supposed suicide in the Thames: shame not that he killed those women, but he wasn't kosher when he did it.

          Somehow I feel this particular area of inquiry is not going to get anywhere.

          Jeff

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Letīs not forget that butchers, kosher butchers or not, have one trait in common that Jack seems to have lacked: The ability to sever a head from the body, using a knife.
            It was tried on Chapman, as evinced by the notches in her backbone, and her killer failed to complete it, for the simple reason that he did not possess a butcher's skills.
            May I say, Fisherman, that I really do admire your 'dog that didn't bark' method of reasoning that you regularly employ.
            allisvanityandvexationofspirit

            Comment


            • #21
              Human meat isn't kosher, and human blood would contaminate the knife, even when you kill it "properly," not to mention the whole "don't murder" part. Certainly there were Jews in the neighborhood, and Jewish suspects, and maybe you can make a weak case that the killings were more like Jewish butchery than Gentile butchery, but I don't really see any particularly Jewish about the murders. Real butchers use a variety of techniques, none of which correspond all that well to the murders.

              Of course we can speculate on motives and come up with weird scenarios involving religious delusion, deliberate violations of the Sabbath, even human sacrifice and (delusional) kosher cannibalism, but you can do that sort of thing with Christian suspects as well. There were plenty of Gentile butchers in the vicinity; focusing on the Jewish butchers is a bit creepy.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Carrotty Nell View Post
                The Moors Murderers were atheists. In fact, Hindley expressly ABANDONED the religion of her youth in order to become a sexual serial killer.
                Is that true? It seems to be based on her confession and jail house "reconversion" to Catholicism. Not that I know this for a fact. One has to wonder how many of her beliefs were sincere. About the most favorable theory one can attach to her is that she does what other people tell her to do without thinking things through.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Stephen Thomas writes:

                  "May I say, Fisherman, that I really do admire your 'dog that didn't bark' method of reasoning that you regularly employ."

                  I wasnīt sure whether to just sit tight with blushing cheeks and a stupid smile on my face, or to bow humbly to you, Stephen, but in the end I opted for the latter: Thank you kindly, Sir!

                  All the best,
                  Fisherman

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Christine View Post
                    Human meat isn't kosher, and human blood would contaminate the knife, even when you kill it "properly," not to mention the whole "don't murder" part. Certainly there were Jews in the neighborhood, and Jewish suspects, and maybe you can make a weak case that the killings were more like Jewish butchery than Gentile butchery, but I don't really see any particularly Jewish about the murders. Real butchers use a variety of techniques, none of which correspond all that well to the murders.

                    Of course we can speculate on motives and come up with weird scenarios involving religious delusion, deliberate violations of the Sabbath, even human sacrifice and (delusional) kosher cannibalism, but you can do that sort of thing with Christian suspects as well. There were plenty of Gentile butchers in the vicinity; focusing on the Jewish butchers is a bit creepy.
                    Good post Christine, also why burden all the local butchers with the Jack the Ripper tag? Surely the killer would have realised that if he was a butcher, then he would be one of the first individuals to be investigated.

                    Apart from the removal of Eddowes kidney, do any of the mutilations hint at a surgeon, or butcher being responsible for the murders anyway?

                    all the best

                    Observer

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hi Observer.

                      The one valid argument I see for Jack being a butcher or a surgeon is that people who are excited by seeing blood and guts might gravitate towards those professions. I think it's a weak argument, especially in Victorian times when many more people hunted, raised and butchered, and dressed meat rather than buying it ready to cook in a nice plastic tray. Also the "Serial Killers Occupations" thread seems to suggest that serial killers pick their careers for a variety of reasons, same as everyone else. And of course killers kill for a variety of reasons, not just to play with blood and internal organs. I think most butchers learned the trade from a father or other family member anyhow.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Stephen J Ash
                        Though I suspect he was a devout jew (probably)
                        Originally posted by Vigilantee
                        Most sexual murderers have a religious mindset, I think its almost certain he came from a very religious family whether Jewish, Catholic or some fringe sect.
                        I find these comments both ignorant and offensive. By definition, a "devout" Jew would never commit murders of this sort. As has already been said, for example, human flesh is NEVER kosher no matter HOW it's slaughtered. This is religious bigotry of the first order.

                        I do not object to several of the prevailing suspects who were of Jewish heritage; such deviancy can pop up in just about any people group. But to suggest that the laws of kashrut are behind the killings is naive.

                        There is no valid basis to even make that argument, because clearly Jack's kill method bears only the faintest resemblance (slashing of the throat) to anything found in kashrut. None of these killings evidenced humane dispatching of the victim, draining of blood, or anything of the sort.

                        Jack may or may not have been a Jew; he may or may not have been a butcher; but one thing Jack was NOT was a "devout Jew." Shame on both Stephen and Vigilantee for attempting to inject religious bigotry into the study of the crimes of a person who, by evidence of his crimes, was clearly not a "devout" anything... Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatnot...
                        Last edited by CraigInTwinCities; 06-05-2008, 06:32 AM.
                        All my blogs:
                        MessianicMusings.com, ScriptSuperhero.com, WonderfulPessimist.com

                        Currently, I favor ... no one. I'm not currently interested in who Jack was in name. My research focus is more comparative than identification-oriented.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi Craig,

                          While I completely agree with you that if the killer felt himself to be attached to a particular religion he was the lousiest possible ambassador for it, that doesn't mean he could not have allowed religion to play any part in screwing him up. It's no excuse, and I'm not saying it's the religion that is to blame when it happens, but certain people are adversely affected by it in one way or another, and bad people have always used it as a front for bad behaviour. It's not exactly unheard of for monsters to claim to have God's blessing for their monstrous actions. Whether any of them actually believe it or not must be rather difficult to establish.

                          I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that our man had a deeply religious family background that could have made him so aware of his own weaknesses that he felt there was no point in not giving in to them. At the other extreme he may have put the responsibility onto God for letting him get away with it each time. The ripper was nothing if not extreme, so it wouldn't surprise me if he had strong feelings about religion. But it could have been love or hate - or even love one week, hate the next.

                          That's how I see Myra Hindley actually: flip-flopping from one extreme to the other as it suited her purpose; no moderation and no sense of deserving to stay behind bars forever for what she did, which she should have had if she had been truly remorseful. Not surprising that anyone who could abuse the trust of children like she did would think nothing of abusing religion.

                          I doubt it was hatred of children, however, that primarily motivated Hindley. So I don't see the ripper necessarily hating the women he killed either. He may only have hated anyone or anything that stood between him and the thrill of encountering his next willing victim.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by caz View Post
                            Hi Craig,

                            While I completely agree with you that if the killer felt himself to be attached to a particular religion he was the lousiest possible ambassador for it, that doesn't mean he could not have allowed religion to play any part in screwing him up. It's no excuse, and I'm not saying it's the religion that is to blame when it happens, but certain people are adversely affected by it in one way or another, and bad people have always used it as a front for bad behaviour. It's not exactly unheard of for monsters to claim to have God's blessing for their monstrous actions. Whether any of them actually believe it or not must be rather difficult to establish.

                            I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that our man had a deeply religious family background that could have made him so aware of his own weaknesses that he felt there was no point in not giving in to them. At the other extreme he may have put the responsibility onto God for letting him get away with it each time. The ripper was nothing if not extreme, so it wouldn't surprise me if he had strong feelings about religion. But it could have been love or hate - or even love one week, hate the next.

                            That's how I see Myra Hindley actually: flip-flopping from one extreme to the other as it suited her purpose; no moderation and no sense of deserving to stay behind bars forever for what she did, which she should have had if she had been truly remorseful. Not surprising that anyone who could abuse the trust of children like she did would think nothing of abusing religion.

                            I doubt it was hatred of children, however, that primarily motivated Hindley. So I don't see the ripper necessarily hating the women he killed either. He may only have hated anyone or anything that stood between him and the thrill of encountering his next willing victim.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Hi caz..wont you doin' up this late? havnt you a bed to go too?

                            We need to be very very cearful hear..remember how extreme right wing web sites have twisted the work by respected Ripperologist like Rob House.

                            However if you are going to figure in Schizophrenia as a motiff? then religeon will almost certainly play a part in that estimation......

                            I have talked this ove at length with my brother.. and schitzophrenia and Religious/ Power obsession are pretty much inter-linked.

                            However the fact is that Schitzophrenia has no racial or religeous barriors

                            It is about obsession and religious obsession often becomes intwinded in this condition.

                            Please do not get bogged down in anti-semitism..everyone on casebook deplores it..and it has nothing to do with what is actually being argued

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Caz,


                              I see your point and appreciate it here. And given that I am currently hip-deep in BTK research, I am well aware that serials can hide themselves in the guise of a religion. (Rader was a church president.)

                              That's not my objection, though; the quotes I cited further down the thread specifically used the phraseology, "devout Jew."

                              To me, that implies "a genuine and practicing and observant member" of a particular religion.

                              That's where I object; that's not how serials operate. Religion is a MASK for these folks, a way to throw others off the scent of their real identities. They are "devout killers" perhaps, but are not devout members of any religion...
                              All my blogs:
                              MessianicMusings.com, ScriptSuperhero.com, WonderfulPessimist.com

                              Currently, I favor ... no one. I'm not currently interested in who Jack was in name. My research focus is more comparative than identification-oriented.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by CraigInTwinCities View Post
                                I find these comments both ignorant and offensive. By definition, a "devout" Jew would never commit murders of this sort. As has already been said, for example, human flesh is NEVER kosher no matter HOW it's slaughtered. This is religious bigotry of the first order.

                                I do not object to several of the prevailing suspects who were of Jewish heritage; such deviancy can pop up in just about any people group. But to suggest that the laws of kashrut are behind the killings is naive.

                                There is no valid basis to even make that argument, because clearly Jack's kill method bears only the faintest resemblance (slashing of the throat) to anything found in kashrut. None of these killings evidenced humane dispatching of the victim, draining of blood, or anything of the sort.

                                Jack may or may not have been a Jew; he may or may not have been a butcher; but one thing Jack was NOT was a "devout Jew." Shame on both Stephen and Vigilantee for attempting to inject religious bigotry into the study of the crimes of a person who, by evidence of his crimes, was clearly not a "devout" anything... Jew, Christian, Muslim or whatnot...
                                Yeah, and I find your rant completely ignorant of the politics that were involved in the case.
                                Stephen and Vigilantee were making points under a thread titled "Was Jack a Kosher Killer".

                                Please apologise to them !!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X