"low-class Jews"

[jason_c]

Errata

These statements were not written directly by witnesses though. They were being transcribed by either a reporter or the police. They are being "cleaned up" for the wider public. Or in the case of Hutchinson removed completely.

None of this means the killer was Jewish. Simply that there were clues which pointed at Jews. Just as there were clues pointing at Gentiles.

[Hunter]

From chapter 42 -' The Ultimate JTR' - Evans and Skinner. Ex Detective Inspector, Henry Cox in Thompson's Weekly News:

'The Jews in the street soon became aware of our presence. It was impossible for us to hide ourselves. They became suddenly alarmed, panic stricken, and I can tell you that at nights we ran a considerable risk. We carried our lives in our hands so to speak, and at last we had to partly take the alarmed inhabitants into our confidence, and so throw them off the scent. We told them we were factory inspectors looking for tailors and capmakers who employed boys and girls under age, and pointing out the evils accruing from the sweaters' system asked them to co-operate with us in destroying it.

They readily promised to do so, although we knew well that they had no intention of helping us. Every man was as bad as another. Day after day we used to sit and chat with them, drinking their coffee, smoking their excellent cigarettes, and partaking of Kosher rum... I am sure they never once suspected that we were police detectives on the trail of a mysterious murderer; otherwise they would not have discussed the crimes with us as openly as they did.'

[Errata]

Errata

These statements were not written directly by witnesses though. They were being transcribed by either a reporter or the police. They are being "cleaned up" for the wider public. Or in the case of Hutchinson removed completely.

.

But are they? I mean, Hutchison actually said "Jewish appearance". I haven't seen a police document in which this is translated to "foreign". In the press it is changed to "foreign", based on interviews with Hutchison. I don't think the Police had any sway with the press, to please for the love of god don't say its a Jew. And the press of the day was not particularly sensitive (and previously not been shy about oversharing). So I have to wonder if Hutchison himself changed the description.

Or possibly didn't change it. Unless he was under police instruction (and he could have been) to NOT say "Jew", I can't think why he would not have said it to the press. I suppose he could have changed his mind, thinking that upon reflection, the man didn't look so Jewish as much as foreign. Or the man he saw could have been both foreign looking AND Jewish looking.

On the other hand, the American press had "Jewish looking". So was the American press getting it from the press interviews before the press cleaned it up (which would surprise me if newspapers shared interviews)? Or were they getting it from the police reports where it was NOT censored? Hutchison I don't think testified at inquest, so it's kind of a mystery.

If the American press got it from the British press, the American papers SHOULD have said "foreign". But they don't and that makes me think the police are not sanitizing the reports. If the police aren't sanitizing reports, then I would imagine any police report that says "Foreign" means foreign.

I try very hard to ignore the press of the day. It's historically enlightening but its value as evidence is pretty suspect.

But it's a puzzle. It's why I go back and forth on this.

[Chris]

They readily promised to do so, although we knew well that they had no intention of helping us. Every man was as bad as another. Day after day we used to sit and chat with them, drinking their coffee, smoking their excellent cigarettes, and partaking of Kosher rum... I am sure they never once suspected that we were police detectives on the trail of a mysterious murderer; otherwise they would not have discussed the crimes with us as openly as they did.'[/I]

Obviously the first bit you've highlighted means that they had no intention of helping factory inspectors to investigate people employing under-age workers, so it's only of indirect relevance to the question of shielding a murderer.

I'm not quite sure what to make of the final comment. What did the "Jews in the street" say that they wouldn't have said if they'd known they were talking to detectives? I can't see any indication in the article that they discovered any important information in this way. Does it just mean that they wouldn't have been inclined to talk to detectives at all?

A couple of weeks after the episode on the "Whitechapel Mysteries" appeared, another article - "How I Arrested a Famous Coiner" - opened with Cox's opinion on the alien question:

"It is not for me to express an opinion on the alien question. At the same time, I cannot but remark on the vast numbers of wastrels that are allowed to step on our shores. Many honest foreigners, flying from oppression and persecution, have come to England, and as English citizens have shown an example to many an Englishman. But for every honest, upright, well-meaning alien who comes to England come three, if not more, lazy, hulking, good-for-nothing rascals who would be a disgrace to any nation. We have only to spend an afternoon walking round Soho to know this - nay, an hour in one street of that dark suburb will suffice to open the eyes of the blindest. We used to have a number of the worst type of aliens in the heart of the City, but they are no longer to be found there. My colleagues and I set to work to clear them out, and, though it is true we only sent them flocking to other districts, it must be borne in mind that we scattered them, and sent them to where they would be unable to corrupt the youth of London - at least during the hours they ought to be attending to business.

I found the foreign Jews far more cute* than many of the cleverest English thieves. They never had The Reckless Abandon of the Englishman, but everything they did was done quietly, craftily - done in the dark.

One of the cleverest aliens that ever fell into my hands was Isaac Friedman, who came to these shores, and slipped into crime as easily as a duck slips into the water. The story of how I came to meet him is an interesting one, but I cannot go [into] it in detail."

[Thomson's Weekly News, 15 December 1906.
* Obviously meaning "acute" rather than "attractive" in this context.]

Oddly, the article continues with a detailed account of Cox's encounter with Isaac Friedman, a Polish Jew so skilled in chemistry that he had discovered a process by which three shillings' worth of gold could be secretly extracted from a sovereign. It's difficult to tell what truth if any there is behind this story, as "Isaac Friedman" is evidently a made-up name. As with most of Cox's memoirs, much of the story seems to have been worked up by an imaginative reporter. It may be that the paragraphs quoted above come straight from the reporter too.

[Hunter]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the reply and the added information. When dealing with press reports there is always the uncertainty about their reliability and just how much is actually verbatim from the individual being interviewed... Good point.

If there is anything to Anderson's assertion about certain low class Jews, it probably would have been bantered around privately among certain officials instead of being issued as an official statement... especially in the social climate that existed during the time. However, we do have Lushington's little marginal quote in Swanson's Oct 19, 1888 report regarding who he thought shouted the word "Lipski".

Like many people of his ilk, Anderson is a complex fellow, but at times he let his mouth (or pen) overload his brain. He nearly abandons the unwritten maxim about 'telling tales out of school' and then uses it to play the proverbial cat that ate the canary ploy.

Swanson, in his copy of Anderson's book, highlights that quote on the very page that the marginalia starts on. I find that intriguing.

[Colin Roberts]

I mentioned earlier that I am pretty sure there was no house to house search in Whitechapel as stated. I think here was a directed one, and I think it was directed at Whitechapel's Jewish sections. And the real question is why. Why search the Jewish sections and not others? Why say "we are looking for a Jew" as opposed to "We are looking for butchers" or "We are looking for people with private entrances".

In other words, why were they looking at a "race" of people (Jews) as opposed to a kind of people (Men with access to a place to change or something)? Why did they decide that the criminal had to be a Jew, when there was no evidence of it being a Jew? ...

I don't think we will ever know why they picked Jews.

I do not believe that the primary focus of the Metropolitan Police Force house-to-house search, of October 1888, was the Eastern European 'Jewish' immigrant.

I believe that it was the 'casual dosser', so to speak; i.e. the person of precisely the same socio-economic status, as that of each of the victims that had been 'observed', to date. And, the overwhelming majority of the 'casual dosser' sub-culture, in London's 'East End', of 1888, was Gentile.

~~~~~~~

The following is taken from a post that I made, in JTRForums.com, in early April of this year:

The Metropolitan Police Force House-to-House Search, October, 1888: The Product of a 'Profile'

Was Charles Warren a 'Profiler'? What about Donald Swanson? ... Frederick Abberline?

Well, each of these gentlemen was human, ... was he not?

As humans, we have a natural inclination to generate personal impressions, i.e. 'images', of those with whom we have had no semblance of any 'contact', but, about whom, we have been given certain 'accounts'.

In other words: We have a natural inclination to 'profile' those whom we cannot visualize, except within our imaginations.

...

The house-to-house search that was conducted by the Metropolitan Police Force, in October, 1888, was not conceived of an internal Scotland Yard strategy. In fact, such practices were not typical law enforcement tactics of the time, in Great Britain, as they were generally considered to be 'illegal'. Rather, it was born of a suggestion, from a higher authority, along with assurances, to Charles Warren, that in this particular instance, it would be met with the approval of the Home Office.

The area, within which this search was conducted, however, was most certainly of Scotland Yard's choosing, and quite clearly bears the hallmarks of a geographic and socio-economic 'profile' strategy.


The Metropolitan Police Force House-to-House Search Area (Blue)¹, October, 1888, within the Context of a Geographic Spatial Analysis, of the Murder-Sites that had been 'Observed', to Date (i.e. those of Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes; but, excepting that of Kelly) (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)
Underlying Aerial Imagery: Copyright Google Earth, 2010
Overlying Plots, Labels and Color-Shadings: Copyright Colin C. Roberts, 2011

Blue Color-Bounded Region: Metropolitan Police Force House-to-House Search Area¹, October, 1888
- Area: 0.18 Square-Miles
- Inclusive of:
--- The Parish of St. Matthew Bethnal Green: In Part (i.e. a very minor portion)
--- The Liberty of Norton Folgate: In Part (i.e. a very minor portion)
--- The Old Artillery Ground: In Entirety
--- The Parish of Christ Church Spitalfields: In Part (i.e. a major portion)
--- The Hamlet of Mile End New Town: In Part (i.e. a minor, but, significant portion)
--- The Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel: In Part (i.e. a minor, but, significant portion)

Yellow Dot: Murder-Site Mean-Center, i.e. the 'Average' of those Murder-Sites that had been 'Observed', to Date (i.e. Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride, and Eddowes)
- A Point, Immediately West of Green Dragon Place, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel

Yellow Circle: Extent of Greatest 'Observed' Deviation (i.e. the Nichols Murder-Site), from the Murder-Site Mean-Center, of those Murder-Sites that had been 'Observed', to Date
- Radius: 796.24 Yards
- Area: 0.64 Square-Miles

Green Dot: Murder-Site Mean-Center, i.e. the 'Average' of those Murder-Sites that had been 'Observed', to date, along with that, which was Impending (i.e. Kelly)
- A Point, at the Southwest Corner of Wentworth Street / Osborn Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel


The Metropolitan Police Force House-to-House Search Area (Green)¹, October, 1888, within the Context of Charles Booth's Descriptive Map of London Poverty, 1889 (Click Image, to Enlarge in flickr)

¹ I have inadvertently omitted a relatively small 'block' of dwellings that was bounded by Hanbury Street (North), Chicksand Street (South), Great Garden Street (West), and Dunk Street (East), in the Hamlet of Mile End New Town. I will hopefully be able to set aside the necessary amount of time, at some point, in the coming week, for correcting this mistake, in the above imagery. But, for the time being, I will assert that its effect is negligible.

~~~

Anyway, ...

The long, and the short, of all of this is that the Metropolitan Police Force was quite clearly convinced that their primary focus - in the absence of any tangible evidence - should be those persons that resided within the parameters of the 'killing field', as it had been defined, thus far; but, more specifically, those that resided within the common-lodging-house 'quarter' of that particular region.

In other words: The 'Met' was acting on the basis of an unwittingly generated 'profile', that suggested that 'Jack the Ripper' was, in all likelihood, to be found residing amongst his prey.

~~~~~~~

It should be noted that there were enclaves of Eastern European 'Jewish' dominance throughout the 'killing field' of 'Jack the Ripper', as had been 'observed', by mid-October 1888 (Yellow Circle).

And, it should also be noted that the largest concentration of registered common-lodging houses, throughout London's 'East End' of 1888, - and, perhaps London's entire metropolis of 1888 - was very densely situated, within an area that is approximated by the triangle, having the Kelly, Chapman, and Tabram murder-sites as its apexes.

Each of the ten victims of the so-called 'Whitechapel Murders' (exclusive of the Pinchin Street Torso) resided within this concentration of common-lodging houses, immediately prior to her demise.

Martha Tabram, Annie Chapman, Mary Jane Kelly, and Alice McKenzie each died, either within, or on the fringes of this concentration of casual doss-houses; while Emma Smith alleged that she was assaulted within the same.

I believe that the overall focus of the house-to-house search was the person that either resided, or went about his daily routine, ... amongst the victims of the murders that were being investigated; be that a Gentile, or a Jew.

And, I believe that the primary focus of the search was the Spitalfields 'casual dosser'; which, almost by definition, was a Gentile.

Note: I believe that some mention was made, to the effect that particular attention was paid, during the course of the house-to-house search, to the person that lived alone, and therefore had the wherewithal to easily come-and-go, without attracting any unwanted attention. This possibility notwithstanding, I believe that the determination of the search-area parameters, was based upon a particular focus; that being the Spitalfields doss-house 'quarter'.

[Natalie Severn]

Brilliantly illustrated .Thankyou Colin.

[Errata]

I do not believe that the primary focus of the Metropolitan Police Force house-to-house search, of October 1888, was the Eastern European 'Jewish' immigrant.

Wow. Excellent job. I had known about the "triangle" of the high population of Jews and had assumed that was what had been searched.

And I am actually glad to be wrong about some kind of institutionalized anti-semitism.

But this begs another question. How do they get from a socio-economic profile to
"During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews"

I cannot fathom that they found absolutley zero non Jewish men who could come and go in secret. And what were the findings of the socio-economic directed search? Anderson's words seem to indicate that the results of that search led to inevitable conclusion that it had to be certain low class Polish Jews. Was that because they found something during the search, or was it because the search was kind of a bust, and therefore it was polish Jews because "It is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice"

And why is Anderson referring to them as a class, and not a race as he does later? Do only low class Jews not turn in their own, where middle class Jews do? Is it low class Jews versus low class Anglicans? Is it an implication that the entirety of the East End is Jewish?

If the cops were making a socio-economic driven search, how did Anderson get a racial conclusion? How did it go from apples to oranges?

[Chris]

I cannot fathom that they found absolutley zero non Jewish men who could come and go in secret. And what were the findings of the socio-economic directed search? Anderson's words seem to indicate that the results of that search led to inevitable conclusion that it had to be certain low class Polish Jews. Was that because they found something during the search, or was it because the search was kind of a bust, and therefore it was polish Jews because "It is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice"

This is exactly what we were discussing above:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=176939&postcount=28

[Errata]

This is exactly what we were discussing above:
http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...9&postcount=28

I understand that. My curiosity is based on there seeming to be some sort of translational issue. As though the cops did their search and said, "well, 2+2=4, so the answer is four." And Anderson said "Right. Zebras. I hear you loud and clear."

They did a house to house search. They clearly did not find him. The thesis is that Jack the Ripper is in the same socio-economic class and area as the victims. So the thesis is either true, false, or there was an error in the experiment.

So the conclusion is
A: Yes he is in fact in that area and class
B: He is not in that area and class or
C: we cannot come to a conclusion because our methods were unsound.

Anderson says
D: It is low class polish Jews.

It's like Schroedingers cat a little. It can be alive, It can be dead, It can be both alive and dead, it cannot be a direct descendant of the Avatar of Bastet. I mean, it could be, but you couldn't possible get that from the experiment.

And it is not my impression that Anderson has so much experience with low class Polish Jews to for a conclusion like that. So in the chain that starts with the cops making the searches to Anderson, where did A B or C become D?

[Colin Roberts]

And I am actually glad to be wrong about some kind of institutionalized anti-semitism.

Of course, we cannot be certain that your assessment was incorrect, but, I do tend to believe that it was.

But this begs another question. How do they get from a socio-economic profile to
"During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews"

I cannot fathom that they found absolutley zero non Jewish men who could come and go in secret.

"investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such ..."

Every man in the 'district'?

To which "district" was Anderson referring?

I would imagine that they actually came across a fair few adult males that were able to come-and-go, with a certain degree of regularity, without attracting any unwanted attention: Gentile and Jewish, alike.

But, presumably, none of these men proved to be of any particular interest, to those that were conducting the search.

In any case, I would have to believe that they would have come across a great many additional adult males - again, Gentile and Jewish, alike - that were able to come-and-go, with a certain degree of regularity, without attracting any unwanted attention; had they searched a more sizable portion of the 'killing field', as had been 'observed', by mid-October, 1888.

Again, ...

"every man in the district" ???

But I read Anderson's narrative as follows:
(1) The murderer obviously lived in the "immediate vicinity" of the murder sites.
(2) ...
(3) During the house-to-house search the police had investigated [and eliminated] every man in the vicinity who was living alone ("every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret").

Of course, there was a great deal more, to the "'immediate vicinity' of the murder sites", than that, which fell within the parameters of the house-to-house search.

[Chris]

Of course, there was a great deal more, to the "'immediate vicinity' of the murder sites", than that, which fell within the parameters of the house-to-house search.

Yes, that was partly what the little map I posted above was meant to illustrate. The search area included only 2 out of the 5 preceding murder sites (1 out of 4 excluding Tabram).

I think Anderson is trying to be Sherlock Holmes, but there are gaping holes in his argument - the search area didn't include the "immediate vicinity"; the police really had no way of eliminating men who lived alone; and if the murderer was being shielded by his family, that was no indication that he was a Polish Jew.

By the way, I agree that the search area was aimed at the Gentile "underclass" in the neighbourhood of the "blackest streets" around Christ Church Spitalfields. But coincidentally it did include areas with a large percentage of Jewish inhabitants, and there were reports at the time characterising it as a "Search Among the Jews":
"The police are making a house to house visit amongst the Jews at the East-end. They demand admission to every room, look underneath the beds, and peer into the smallest cupboards. They ask for the production of knives, and examine them. In some cases they have been refused admittance until proof was produced of authority."
[Star, 17 October 1888
http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s881017.html]

But at the same time it was explicitly denied that the search was directed at the Jewish population:
"The Central News further says that certain statements, to the effect that the police are conducting indiscriminate search among Jews' houses in the East-end, is an entire misrepresentation. It is well-known that ten days ago a body of fifty police were told off to visit and systematically inspect houses of all inhabitants, entirely regardless of nationality in the neighbourhood of the crimes. This was done, the officers doing their work in plain clothes, and being met, in almost every instance, with the willing co-operation of the householders."
[Evening News, 17 October 1888
http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881017.html]

[Errata]

Was the search conducted by the same cops? I mean, were they all your average beat cop from two or three stations, or were some beat cops, some detectives, some from better neighborhoods, some city, some muny, whatever?

[Chris]

Was the search conducted by the same cops? I mean, were they all your average beat cop from two or three stations, or were some beat cops, some detectives, some from better neighborhoods, some city, some muny, whatever?

I don't know the answer to that, but Swanson said something curious in his report, when describing the boundaries of the search area:
"with a few exceptions - but not such as to convey suspicion - covered the area bounded by ..."

Can anyone explain that comment?

[Errata]

I don't know the answer to that, but Swanson said something curious in his report, when describing the boundaries of the search area:
"with a few exceptions - but not such as to convey suspicion - covered the area bounded by ..."

Can anyone explain that comment?

isn't that the same as starting a sentence "No offense but..."?
Where clearly the content of the message is going to be directly in opposition to the preface?