Why do suspects have to be celebrities?

[protohistorian]

Hi all,
Some good, intresting and fair points made by all, but surely the odds of the killer being either famous or not must be 50 / 50.
why is it more likely that the killer would be a low class nobody then someone well known.
I think it would have been easier for a famous person in 1888 to wander the east end un-noticed then it would be today, How many people would have known what Walter Sickett or William Gull looked like for instance?
The poor of the East end had more things to worry about then the celeb culture of the day.

One big reason Spyglass is that wealthier families have resources available to them that the common man does not. If Mr. Rich's son starts acting crazy, there is the option of private hospital, boarding school, sequestration and the like. Mr. Poor's crazy child is more likely to be unattended, live in the area, not receive treatment, and wander the hood at the wee hours of the morning with a giant knife. Dave

[spyglass]

Thats of course if the parents have noticed the erratic behaviour of their crazy son before it is to late.

Was not Harold Shipman from a wealthy back ground?, and Im guessing a few others have been as well.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I refer to the idea that JTR has to be someone well-known, ie. the Duke of Clarence, Dr. Gull, Walter Sickert, etc?

I know it makes for a good tv drama or book and is commercially a winner, but it isn't common sense. Similarly, the idea of latching onto any other murderer of the era, regardless of his/her killing methods.

So many images of JTR feature a posh gent wandering about in fog, when the murders took place in the summer months and a posh geezer would stick out a mile in Whitechapel.

The puzzle is part of the attraction.....throw in a spot of romance or court intrigue....and you have a more entertaining puzzle.

[Fleetwood Mac]

My favorite suspects are James Kelly and William Bury, but I have to admit that what I really believe is that the Ripper was someone who has never been named- someone utterly obscure who slipped totally under the radar and who may even have been among those unrecognized by the census. How big a letdown would that be? But on the other hand, I suppose we could look at such a person as being clever enough to have evaded even history itself, let alone criminology.

I'd go for a bloke who belonged in those surroundings rather than someone 'slumming it'....although I would say that I don't find someone slumming it as unbelievable as some others. I don't necessarily believe he was local.....but do believe he was from that class of people (give or take a few quid).

There's a fair chance that the police did speak to this bloke at some point and either his alibi checked out or there was nothing particularly incriminating.

[caz]

Hmmm...

So did all the doctors and teachers and businessmen etc have to dress down considerably before venturing out into any East End street?

And was Macnaghten really the LVP equivalent of a Daily Mail reader? Would he have naturally been the type to be wowed by an image of a devilish toff in top hat and cape, twirling his moustache and sweeping in and out of Spitalfields with his Gladstone bag?

The 'us versus them' and 'working class mistrust of the wealthy and powerful' arguments hardly apply to Macnaghten and his strongly expressed belief that the killer had indeed been 'one of his own' - the quintessential English gentleman creeping about the mean streets mutilating the unfortunates.

If Mac had not been receptive to the idea that someone like Druitt could have fit the bill, or didn't want anyone else believing it, he could simply have kept his trap shut permanently after destroying whatever 'private information' he may have had, and put it down to some pleb's fevered Daily Mail imagination.

Except that it looks certain that it was no pleb, but an MP whose belief in a gentleman Jack was taken up by Mac and others, including Griffiths and Sims.

So what's the argument now? None of the above seem like gullible Mail reader types, who wanted their villain to be upper crust and therefore as different from themselves as chalk and cheese.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi all,

The fact that certain minority groups endorsed the idea of an upper-class or educated ripper really says more to a generalized fear of the unknown than it does to an actual prevalence of any toff-types parading the district after closing hours. I realise there’s a certain mentality doing the rounds at present that argues that “if X or Y thought the killer could be an educated gentleman, there’s no smoke without fire”, but in reality it was mostly smoke. A community with no experience of serial murder and mutilation is bound to appeal to the feared and the outlandish to explain away the phenomenon – if such unusual events can happen (they might have reasoned), then the individual perpetrator must be equally beyond our imagination, hence the theories involving toffs, midwives and bloodthirsty natives from overseas.

Nobody in 1888 could possibly have perceived that a century’s worth of serial killers have defied that expectation, and as such, we can almost forgive the belief of a contemporary investigator such as Macnaghten (who was hardly a professional policeman) that an English gentleman represented the most likely suspect. But it’s quite illogical for anyone to argue that Macnaghten’s professed belief in Druitt as the most likely suspect somehow increases the likelihood of an educated, upper class individual having been responsible for the murders, especially when the majority of the contemporary police seniority refuted the suggestion.

It’s essential not to confuse receptivity to unconventional, unpopular ideas on the part of senior police officials with regard to the killer’s financial and social status, with actual knowledge of serial crime, garnered over many decades since 1888. The latter is surely of more value. Macnaghten should not, therefore, be used as a trump card for anyone arguing the “Oh, but it could have been a toff!” angle. And while I accept Caz’s reasonable observation about doctors and teachers being resident in the areas, they also belonged in the considerable minority.

In addition to the sensation-seeking incentive behind any desire to seek "celebrity" ripper suspects, I suspect a lot of it has to do with the amount of information on any given "celebrity" already in the public domain. The more you know about the person, the more you can use that knowledge against them, and that possibility just didn't exist for the Great Unwashed and Undocumented of Whitechapel, whereas it most assuredly did for the likes of Druitt and Tumblety.

That the killer was probably both locally based and of working class origins should, I hope, be beyond question these days.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Who said anything about a 'prevalence' of 'toff-types parading' the district?

You certainly missed my point, which was not that because Mac an co believed the ripper was an English gent, there's a good chance he was. Far from it. Statistically speaking, there's a much better chance he wasn't.

Any community of mostly non-toffs, non-midwives and non-bloodthirsty foreigners would likely favour 'theories involving toffs, midwives and bloodthirsty natives from overseas' in order to 'explain away the phenomenon' of this killer in their midst. I don't think anyone would argue with that. But it's the fear of the unknown at work here and the need to distance oneself from the beast within. It's not based on any evidence either way and therefore cannot tell us a damned thing about the actual killer.

If a community of university professors found themselves with a thief in their midst, they might equally favour theories involving the cleaner, the cook or the postman, but without any evidence there's no wrong or right.

The point about Mac and co's beliefs is a very simple one and it's the only one I'm making. They obviously had no problem with the basic concept of a Druitt type being able to come and go and mind his own business in the Whitechapel of '88, nor any prejudice against 'one of their own' being a homicidal maniac, or they would presumably not even have contemplated such a theory, lest they make fools of themselves or let the side down.

That in no way 'increases the likelihood of an educated, upper class individual having been responsible for the murders', so there's no need for you to panic quite so much.

I absolutely agree with you regarding the tendency to latch onto 'names' on the basis of how much information we have on them that can be made to appear sinister. There must be untold numbers of unspecified, faceless individuals who would all make far better suspects than the ones we know about, but they remain untouched and largely untouchable. The killer is more likely, statistically, to be lurking in this vast majority than sitting there in plain sight with the very few names that have revealed nothing to us, no matter how much we try to prod them into submission. And yes, Hutchinson is one of them, regardless of his status.

If it is beyond question these days, that the killer was 'probably' both locally based and of working class origins, then it should also be beyond question that he has 'probably' yet to be thrown kicking and screaming into the ripperologist's spotlight.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

To me, it is somewhat anachronistic to see the Victorian policemen taking a "class"-based view of the case. Macnaghten simply listed three names of men who, in HIS OPINION, were more likely to have done the murders that Cutbush. Druitt was his own favoured suspect it appears based on information given him privately, but Swanson and Anderson (more closely connected to the actual cases) believed it was Kosminski (or someone similar).

Since then the views have seemed to follow a sort of convention of the times - thus we had conspiracy theories in the years after Watergate (never heard about before!).

Now we have writers out to sell books and make a name who simply pick on any name either from eminent Victorians - hence, Barnardo, Carroll, Miles etc; or minor characters from the surviving documentation - Barnett, Mann, Donovan etc.

Doctors are the exception it seems - medical men (and women!), as the files show - have always been considered possible suspects - Macnaghten thought Druitt a doctor, and there were investigations of a medical student. Leonard Matters theorised about Dr Stanley.

The "game" changes with the decades: when I first started reading on the subject in the 60s the files were closed. The aim seemed to put names to whomever would be named on the file when it was opened - it appears people always thought the police had identified someone, even if they could prove nothing.

Then Cullen revealed the memorandum, and we had Druitt, Ostrog and Kosminski to play with. Of the latter two almost nothing was then known, so inevitably Druitt - as a scion of the middle-class and thus with more written and surviving evidence to be found - received the focus.

Fido put Kosminski under the microscope, and this was reinforced by the Swanson marginalia. Ostrog also had flesh put on his bones and appears to have been exonerated.

But I see no tendency to finger the "toffs" over the dregs.

Though that said, it was childhood nightmares of the top-hatted, caped and sinsiter figure striding over wet cobbles (images from the 50s Hammer film) -images of the toff/doctor - that got me interested in the first place.

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Just to be clear, I wasn’t accusing you personally of suggesting that upper class educated suspects somehow go up in value on account of Macnaghten’s (et al) views. I quite agree that they appeared to have no problem with the concept of a Druitt-type as the murderer, but I suggest that this “not having a problem” may owe more to a lack of familiarity with the nature of the crimes and the attendant expectation that such a criminal must be a far cry from the norm, than it does to any real validity in the theory. If they had more experience in that department, a few more objections might have been raised, with theories that had hitherto been considered unproblematic being ditched as borderline outlandish. Fundamentally, the fact that a police official in 1888 had no problem with a given concept shouldn’t mean, necessarily, that we should have “no problem” with it either – again, not that I’m accusing you personally of adhering to this mindset!

Best regards,
Ben

[Phil H]

Ben

Since we don't have any idea WHo the murderer(s) might have been, would it be wise to throw out ANY serious suspect?

(I say murderers (plural) because Stride and Kelly, not to mention others, may have been killed by different hands.)

Macnaghten listed THREE men who MIGHT have been the killer - the one who was of a different social class to the others was a man on whom he had private information, and about whom there were circumstances that were suggestive (such as the date of his apparent suicide).

I cannot say why Macnaghten put forward those three names. Ostrog seems very odd - a conman/thief - but there do appear to have been enquiries made about him, and as potentially dangerous - at the time. Kosminski was, I assume the same person that Swanson and Anderson had in mind (albeit they all could have been confused about identity).

Thus, in his summary brief McN swept up the suspect favoured by those who were on the scene before him (in 1888) and his own candidate. If he did indeed possess information or intelligence about MJD, the he would have looked very foolish had he omitted him and Druitt had then been found to be responsible!

In preparing briefing, annotating the record, officials (and I speak as a serving British civil servant) cannot just discard information on a whim. McN, I believe, acted responsibly.

Even today, though we can probably safely discard the frivolous modern candidates (Mann, Miles, Prince Eddy, Dr Barnardo, JK Stephen, Dr Gull and the others) we should certainly not - at least IMHO - dismiss any of the individuals who were "suspects" at the time - so MJD, Ostrog, Druitt, Tumblety should remain in scope.

Some of these we might footnote as unlikely - Ostrog would seem to be a case in point - but we may yet discover records that show why he was mentioned. Just as (unlikely though it may be) something may emerge, one day, about Druitt and his family's suspicions or those of his friends.

Just my thoughts,

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

I fully agree that the contemporary police suspects cannot and should not be easily dismissed. I feel it goes without saying, though, that some of their suspicions and theories were predicated on a lack of knowledge of serial crime and its perpetrators. For instance, serial killers very rarely put an end to their murderous activity by committing suicide or because their "brains gave way altogether", but one can appreciate how both theories might have seemed appealing to the uninitiated. That doesn't mean that Macnaghten et al acted in anway improperly - only that they were dealing with a largely unknown phenomenon at the time. Less forgivable, as you say, are the authors touting the Prince Eddys and the Dr. Bernardos who don't have the excuse of living in a comparatively unenlightened era.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

Ben,

Do we know much more today - or do we just pretend we do?

Anderson, Swanson, Abberline, later Macnaghten, were not only dealing with something potentially new - a serial killer (if that is what the Whitechapel murderer was - if, for instance, he only killed 3, his tally was lower than other serial killers at the time).

The main thing that was new - IMHO - was the context. the yellow press was building this thing up into a frenzy. Speculation piled on speculation, there was near panic and the danger of anti-semitic outbreaks. The police were fire-fighting.

We see little (at least I have seen little) similar concerns about the exactly contemporary torso murders, or the disappearances of people which i have read about. It is only JtR - a monster given a name (probably by the press) and built up into a crescendo of terror.

Thus the statements about putting an end to his life or being caged might well be for public consumption rather than because the police believed it.

Take MacN's memo as an example - this was almost certainly written, in my view, as the basis of lines to take which the Home Secretary could use in the House if Parliamentary Questions were raised about Cutbush.

Had they been then the answer would probably have been along the lines of: "The police believe that any of three individuals are more likely than Cutbush to have been the Whitechapel murderer, and one of those is known to have committed suicide. (Sub-text: the nation can breathe easy.)

What the Home Secretary could not have done, would have been to leave the question hanging, six years on, with the risk of the fire-rekindling.

So I think we should look carefully at what the police said, and understand their reasons for saying it and the context of their remarks.

But criminal psychology was a new thing to them, I'll agree.

Phil

[Rubyretro]

I largely agree , Phil, however :

Do we know much more today - or do we just pretend we do?

We obviously know far, far, more today about serial killers -given the advance in forensics, the advances in criminal psychology (as you say) the exchange of knowledge, not only amongst countries but amongst the educated sections of populations, interviews on film with killers themselves
etc.

I agree with Ben.

I would expect that the Police at this time had less understanding of serial killers than some members of Casebook today.

The main thing that was new - IMHO - was the context. the yellow press was building this thing up into a frenzy. Speculation piled on speculation, there was near panic and the danger of anti-semitic outbreaks. The police were fire-fighting

.

Exactly -it was the press frenzy and the danger of anti-semitic outbreaks which made this case different than, say, the 'torso' case.

Which is why, personally, I believe that studying the 'anti-semitic' link is crucial to this case.
I don't think that it's a coincidence.

[Phil H]

Rubyretro, you wrote:

"...studying the 'anti-semitic' link is crucial to this case...I don't think that it's a coincidence."

I'd be grateful for clarification of what you mean. Are you saying:

a) that the murderer was anti-semitic, and that was his motivation?

b) that the police were anti-semitic and that affected their response in some way? or

c) that others used the murders for anti-semitic ends?

Maybe you meant something else completely, but I'd very much like to follow your argument.

Thanks in anticipation,

Phil

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=Phil H;139292]Rubyretro, you wrote:

"...studying the 'anti-semitic' link is crucial to this case...I don't think that it's a coincidence."

I'd be grateful for clarification of what you mean. Are you saying:

a) that the murderer was anti-semitic, and that was his motivation

?

Phil, when I first found this site I was, like other new members have remarked like 'the kid in a sweetshop', and I spent a week just reading around it.

(I have to say that until the start of August, when I start a new job, I have alot of leisure time).

It struck me after reading all the evidence that a) Hutchinson was my favourite suspect and b) there was a clear indication that the murder sites were chosen specifically to target prostitutes who were soliciting jewish clients. So I wrote a thread (under Hutchinson) entitled something like 'Hutchinson and anti-semitism ???'.

I was very green then, but none the less there is something to be said for having a 'clean palette' and having an unbiased overview, rather than being bogged down in the details that we all collect on Casebook.

Because of those details I've now gone back on some of the things that I wrote then -obviously, JtR was a lust killer and anti-semitism wasn't his only motive (an 'excuse' to himself ?), and I've become very interested in Hutch the person (and have developed a theory on him) Also I no longer believe that Hutch and Toppy were the same person.

I still stand by the view however, that the primary motive for these crimes was to put the match to the gunpowder, in adding to the anti-jewish climate in Whitechapel and whipping it into hysteria by leaving clues which would
point to a jewish suspect.

(read my Thread)