Why do suspects have to be celebrities?

[ChrisGeorge]

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.

Hello Ruby

Having studied the "anti-semitic" links in the case, I think I can say that it is easy to get carried away in thinking that the case had to do with the Jews and anti-semitism. We are talking about the murders having occurred a heavily Jewish neighborhood so some links were inevitable. Moreover, most of the obvious links have to do with the night of the Double Event, and the links to the murders of the other nights are tenuous at best.

One of the most major of those "links" that is always cited is the infernal graffiti in Goulston Street, about which none of the observers of the case can agree as to whether it was left by the murderer or just sheer coincidence that the inscription was found above the piece of apron from Eddowes.

So I really think it is very difficult to be certain that the Whitechapel murders had a definite link to the Jews, all these bits of supposed evidence and geographic coincidences of Jewish institutions (synagogues, cemeteries, etc) being near the murder sites notwithstanding, and even despite Sir Robert Anderson's assertion, much debated, that it was a definitely ascertained fact that a Jewish man likely committed the murders.

Best regards

Chris

[Rubyretro]

Hi Chris -I do agree with you about the difficulty ..

I don't think that the murderer was Jewish at all -rather that it was Hutchinson the murderer , who was a gentile.

I think that he wanted to cast suspicion on a Jewish suspect.

Of course it's easy to say that he simply wanted to point the finger of suspicion away from himself, and Jews were a 'soft target', but one would still have to be basically antipathic towards Jews to choose that target.

Besides the 'Double Event' there is Hutch's 'false' (don't all leap at once)
witness description.

As for Polly and Annie there were jewish monuments very close by, and in Polly's case a famous jewish club existed nearby at a later date.

One thing is clear (I maybe quote it in my thread) : Jews rented rooms in pubs to hold meetings.

It is reasonable to assume that these pubs (as with the other clubs) were near jewish monuments.

It is reasonable to guess that these club meetings (as with the others) were held at weekends/near the end of the month.

I may be wrong -but the Police seem to have taken the Jewish link seriously at the time (I even think that Charles Warren took the same line as me at one time); The population seem to have believed in a Jewish link at the time.

[Ben]

The anti-Semitism issue is an interesting one.

It is impossible to determine, at this remove in time, whether or not the ripper harboured any deep-seated anti-Semitic feelings himself, but I feel there is a strong case to be made that he might at least have taken advantage of the widespread anti-Semitism in the district, and that he seized upon the opportunities presented by the largely press-generated phantom that was "Leather Apron". In many respects he would have been churlish not to, given the extent to which the Jews had become the popular scapegoat from the Nichols murder onwards. Certainly, the police seem to have harboured genuine suspicions that the killer was resorting to precisely this strategy, particularly with regard to Goulston Street graffiti and apron remnant, and with such authors as Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland giving credence to the suggestion, I'm always surprised it isn't accorded more weight.

But of course, the act of deflecting suspicion in a Jewish direction needn't make the killer an arch Jew-hater. Reg Christie made every effort to incriminate Timothy Evans, not because he had a particular aversion to the man, but simply because he was the most obvious and convenient "fall guy" around.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

Rubyretro, thanks for the clarification.

I must admit that I have difficulties with what you propose.

"...it was Hutchinson the murderer , who was a gentile.

I think that he wanted to cast suspicion on a Jewish suspect.

Of course it's easy to say that he simply wanted to point the finger of suspicion away from himself, and Jews were a 'soft target', but one would still have to be basically antipathic towards Jews to choose that target.

Besides the 'Double Event' there is Hutch's 'false' (don't all leap at once)
witness description.

As for Polly and Annie there were jewish monuments very close by, and in Polly's case a famous jewish club existed nearby at a later date."

I have no doubt that the police in 1888 feared that anti-semitic feeling would rise in the East End, fanned by the press. Warren's concerns about the GSG were genuine, I am certain. It did not matter whether "Jack" scrawled it, it could be used as fuel by those with malign interests.

But JtR/Hutchinson as a conspirator - That I have some issues with?

First, would it have been within the possibilities of the throught processess of a working class man in 1888 even to conceive that a murder, or even a string of murders would achieve a particular "political" end? (I would see anti-semitism in such a context as a political aspiration.)

For the Government, or a leading figure to conceive of such ideas might not have been impossible - they were more aware of the levers of influence, ways of communicating. Bismark could plan long-term to unite Germany, but he was a figure of influence, strong-willed, able to play puppet-master to kings and emperors, and in a position to manipulate Prussia and all its state mechanisms.

But Hutchinson had none of these things or advantages of position.

The frenzy whipped up by the "yellow press" in 1888 was a new thing - it took the police, and those in power by surprise. How could Hutchinson have planned, expected that to happen - unless you suggest that he was in a conspiracy with the press/reporters to gain his object? if so, they didn't do a very good job.

Put yourself in early 1888, before any atrocity has taken place and (to stepinto your theory for a moment) hutchinson is making plans - how could he? Murders such as Smith, Tabram etc attracted little press attention and no particular frenzy - so how could he assume other murders would?

When the speculation does take off, Pizer/Leather Apron is a suspect, but not because of the location of the murder or other clues, but because of rumour.

If your theory is based or relies on the GSG, then I suggest that that evidence is too controversial, and too ambiguous to bear the weight. If it was NOT by the hand of JtR then it is simply indicative of current antisemitism in Whitechapel. If he wrote it, it is too ambiguous to be certain what he meant.

And as for locations - if we were supposed to realise that Polly Nichols murder was anti-semitic because she was killed near a Jewish cemetery - and she was not killed very near - then why no assume the killer had a grudge against Kearley and Tongue's whose wharehouses overlooked two murder scenes directly - more so than any specifically jewish location bar Dutfield's Yard.

Why not suggest Polly was killed by a man who disliked stables - she was outside one - not outside any Jewish monument!!

None of the victims were (I'll even include Stride as a Jtr victim here to make the point) she was NOT killed in any way as to tie the murder in to the Jewish users of the International Club, nor did anyone seriously suggest that was the case - she was killed in an alley-way.

Finally, rather like the seven degrees of separation that supposedly can link any two people (and is often used by theorists to say A MUST HAVE known B) I think the East End was so populated by people of jewish culture and had been for so long that almost ANY location could suggest a jewish connection if one was so minded.

Sorry, I hate to be negative, but I don't see the Hutchinson as the anti-Jewish plotter theory having legs. Not only was it not something that fits the mental patterns of the period, but the evidence just isn't there.

Please come back at me, these are just my views,

Phil

[Rubyretro]

Phil -I think Ben has given the most coherent answer.

Whilst in the cases of Polly and Annie it is a moot point as to whether there is a jewish link, it can't be avoided that JtR chose to kill Stride outside the
jewish club meeting and then rushed round to kill Eddowes close to another
jewish club meeting, and then took the apron piece and dropped it under the
graffito, implicating jews. Hutchinson gave a description of Astrakhan Man
resembling a cartoon jew.

After that it is a case of whether he latched onto pointing to a jewish suspect
simply by expediency, or whether he was strongly anti-semite himself -I think that it is safe to say that he doesn't appear to have been benevolent towards jews.

If I transpose the situation to modern day Avignon, where I live, and replace the jewish community with the strong North African community here, towards which there is a great deal of racism (witness the votes gained by the extreme right/ Le Pen in the Vaucluse) -then I have no difficulty at all
imagining a crafty murderer with ingrained racism laying a trail to blame an
'Arab' and inflame an already tense situation (it would be readily accepted as true). I don't see at all why the murderer would need to be a political intellectual to do that -a sneaky fascist thug more like.

Anyway it is a bit patronising to suggest that this sort of double-think would be beyond the thought processes of a working class labourer :
If Hutch was JtR, then volunteering to place himself under the spotlight as a witness was just such a bit of clever double-think.

JtR has to have been someone quite bright anyway -he outwitted everyone.
It can't have been just pure luck that he wasn't caught.

[Ben]

Agreed, Rubyretro.

Irrespective of the killer's identity, it wouldn't have required any great intelligence or political knowledge to "help along" the public suspicion of the Jewish community. He need only have perused a few accounts of "Leather Apron" and listened to the word on the street to discover that the Jews offered handy scapegoats. Thus, any opportunity to fuel those suspicions - by committing two murders next to two Jewish clubs or scrawling a bit of graffiti, for example - could well have been seized upon by a Gentile killer. In many respects, he'd have been churlish not to take advantage of such opportunities. Again, the likes of Warren, Swanson and Smith had no problem with the idea that the killer was attempting to cast suspicion in a Jewish direction.

Best regards,
Ben

[Phil H]

I'm sorry Rubyretro, but when you argue as follows:

Whilst in the cases of Polly and Annie it is a moot point as to whether there is a jewish link, it can't be avoided that JtR chose to kill Stride outside the
jewish club meeting and then rushed round to kill Eddowes close to another
jewish club meeting, and then took the apron piece and dropped it under the
graffito, implicating jews. Hutchinson gave a description of Astrakhan Man
resembling a cartoon jew.

Every part of that list is questionable.

I and these days many others question Stride as a victim of the Whitechapel killer - a domestic at the hands of kidney is much more likely. But Stride is certainly one of the more strongly questioned victims.

So if JtR did NOT killer - there is no Jewish connection, he did not "chose" to kill her there and there was no "rushing" to find Eddowes.

He did not kill Eddowes outside, or even in particular proximity to a Jewish building and if anything Mitre Square had Christian associations (name and history)!

Moreover - the GSG is highly suspect - there is and can be no proof that the "Ripper" wrote it - and it means whatever one wishes. Warren indeed, saw a potential link and acted accordingly - but there is no reason for us to do so. He was concerned about mob violence, we are not.

As Hutchinson is your suspect, his description of the unknown man must, IMHO opinion be considered to relate ONLY to that crime - at least until you have shown that Hutchinson actually did the other murders. Interestingly, I don't think he ever used the word Jewish in his recorded description - so he certainly wasn't pointing the finger too clearly - and I always thought that the description reminded me of Lord Randolph Churchill (long before Gorman and Fairclough made fools of themselves by saying he was JtR!!). in other words, the Jewishness of what could be an invented word picture is in the eye of the beholder.

Even if your theory were true, it was a laughable failure as no one at the time picked it up and "joined the dots" as it were.

But as I have said I think such an idea is deeply anachronistic. No Victorian of that class, would have had such an idea. If you say i am wrong, point me to one who did.

But (and admittedly I am no criminologist) I do not believe any series of killings has ever been carried out by an individual with the sort of aim you hypothesise. Tell me if I am wrong and again, cite your example.

This sort of logic, serial crime as a complex plot or puzzle is Ok in a novel by Agatha Christie or Dorothy Sayers, but please don't apply it to Victorian london, it simply won't wash.

Perhaps you can arrange the words of Hutchinson's description into an anagram to demonstrate your thinking. I'm afraid I see your reasoning at that level - akin to the Lewis Carroll must have been the Ripper.

Forgive my dismissive tone, I mean nothing personal. Your theory is your own, but I regret that such thinking does nothing for the reputation of this subject in the wider world, and I feel i must make that clear when I seek to rebut it.

By all means come back at me, I'm here for the debate.

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Phil,

He did not kill Eddowes outside, or even in particular proximity to a Jewish building and if anything Mitre Square had Christian associations (name and history)!

The Eddowes murder was committed a stone's throw away from both a synagogue and Jewish club. I think this should reasonably qualify as "particular proximity".

Whatever we might think about the Stride murder and the GSG, I don't think we can dismiss a theory as outlandish on the basis that it relies on both of them having been ripper-authored.

Cheers,
Ben

[caz]

Yeah, but did the killer determine the spot where he struck, or his victim? There's the rub. How much control did he have over these allegedly deliberate Jewish connections?

Against this we have "Lipski!", which is a rather foolish thing for a Gentile to shout in earshot of witnesses if he is actively trying to shift the blame for his crimes onto Jews by that point.

And what the heck has any of this to do with the thread topic??

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

No, no, Ben, I’m afraid you still misunderstand my point - my fault, I am obviously not being clear enough. I’m not really talking about 'the concept of a Druitt-type as the murderer' (although to be fair, Gordon 'The Count' Cummins and Neville Heath would seem to be two exceptions to a ‘downright unlikely’ rule). I meant that Mac et al evidently didn't find the basic concept of the gent in Whitechapel, able and willing to go about his business there, to be an outlandish one for the times.

While their ideas about serial offenders like the ripper may differ wildly from today's, and most of them may have been dead wrong, they surely deserve a bit of credit for knowing better than we do what 'types' would or would not have been seen dead on the main thoroughfares where Whitechapel prostitutes would have been plying their trade.

...any opportunity to fuel those suspicions - by committing two murders next to two Jewish clubs or scrawling a bit of graffiti, for example - could well have been seized upon by a Gentile killer. In many respects, he'd have been churlish not to take advantage of such opportunities...

The graffiti is fair enough, but again, his opportunities for getting suitable victims exactly where he wanted them were arguably becoming more limited by double event night, at the height of the scare.

Not sure what you mean by 'churlish'. I've seen you use this word often, and it means rude, surly or ungracious, which doesn't seem to fit what you are trying to say here. I can see how it could have been to a Gentile killer's advantage if he could manipulate the situation, without too much trouble, to look like a Jew was involved, but his main priority was surely to grab the nearest opportunity offered to murder and mutilate, and get safely away from the scene. But if you meant it would have been silly not to deflect suspicion if it would have been a doddle for him to do so, I'd agree.

Now I've gone off topic.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Churlish” can also mean miserly, which is a synonym of “stingy” and “ungenerous” – my point being that it would have been “ungenerous” to his own situation to have avoided taking full advantage of the opportunities presented by the fact that suspicion against the Jews had become widespread by late September 1888. I’ll avoid confusion by using “silly” hereafter, but I’m glad you’re in broad agreement.

But we’ll draw a discreet veil over that one, and pop ourselves back on topic!

“I meant that Mac et al evidently didn't find the basic concept of the gent in Whitechapel, able and willing to go about his business there, to be an outlandish one for the times.”

That’s true, but again, if Macnaghten had fallen victim, as I suggest, to an unfamiliarity with serial crime and a forgivable expectation that the killer must have a conspicuous, interesting identity, he may have been prepared to make allowances for events that don’t happen very often, such as educated upper-class gentleman making on-and-off excursions in the least desirable areas of the East End in the small hours. That’s what I’m getting at. I don’t get the impression that Macnaghten was expressing any particular opinion about “what 'types' would or would not have been seen dead on the main thoroughfares where Whitechapel prostitutes would have been plying their trade”.

“How much control did he have over these allegedly deliberate Jewish connections?”

I’d hazard a guess at quite a bit. There would hardly have been a shortage of both prostitutes and suitable dark locations in the general vicinity of the Jewish clubs. If the killer was seized by a murderous instinct and was in the process of committing his assault, I don’t see why a temporary clouding of better judgement (the shouting of “Lipski”) can be ruled out.

Gordon Cummins' "class" was largely based on the impression he wanted to convey to others, by the way.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Phil H]

Whatever we might think about the Stride murder and the GSG, I don't think we can dismiss a theory as outlandish on the basis that it relies on both of them having been ripper-authored. Whatever we might think about the Stride murder and the GSG, I don't think we can dismiss a theory as outlandish on the basis that it relies on both of them having been ripper-authored.

Ben - when you write that you fly in the face of all scholarship, historical method and logical reason. You cannot sensibly create a "theory" on the basis of supposition. If the idea rested on just one dodgy assumption, I might run with it - two and it founders under its own instability.

Its playing juvenile games. (Sorry, but that's what it is.)

I say again. the Eddowes murder was in no practical juxtaposition to any Jewish club or synagogue - and anywhere in the East End would probably be that! She was last seen by Church Passage and killed in Mitre Square (very much Christian symbolism if I don't mistake).

I rather agree with Caz when she says:

..but did the killer determine the spot where he struck, or his victim?

I would argue that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes led the killer to the murder location - a wooden door or fence (something that gave went leant on) relative darkness and lack of people, rather than the killer.

And where is the Jewish symbolism in the backyard of No 29??

Caz, sorry I think it was me who started this digression by asking Rubyretro to explain a passing remark. My fault, and apologies.

Thanks Rubyretro and Ben,

Phil (edited for spelling)

[Ben]

Ben - when you write that you fly in the face of all scholarship, historical method and logical reason.

No, it isn't.

It is reasonable to "suppose" that Stride and Eddowes was killed by the same individual.

It is reasonable to "suppose" that the GSG was written by the killer.

You'll recall that you were the one cautioning us to heed the comments of the contemporary police, and not to dismiss anything they said out of hand, and yet here we have two “dodgy assumptions”, as you describe them, that found support from the majority of the police superiority at the time. I have by no means nailed any colours to the mast in favour of the ripper being responsible for either event, but to form a hypothesis on the basis of two perfectly logical inferences in not playing “juvenile” games, and it galls me that you should suggest as much. I could argue that your dismissal of the suggestion is just as predicated on the "dodgy assumptions" that Kidney killed Stride and that the chalked message had nothing to do with JTR.

“I say again. the Eddowes murder was in no practical juxtaposition to any Jewish club or synagogue”

But you didn’t mention “practical juxtaposition” before, did you?

You’ve changed the goalposts from “practical proximity”, which irrefutably describes the distance between Mitre Square, the synagogue and the Imperial Club. These three locations shared a “practical proximity” even if they didn’t directly “juxtapose” one another (which is a requirement you’ve suddenly insisted upon). All I’ve suggested is that the killer – who needn’t have been anti-semitic or a political crusader – may have taken steps to fuel suspicion of the Jews when it was easy and advantageous to do so.

It’s really rather a reasonable and uncomplicated suggestion, especially since serial crime (and the annuls of crime in general) are awash with instances of guilty parties seeking to implicate innocents.

Best regards,
Ben

[Versa]

in short.... they don't.


Serial killers often appear innocuous, they dont stand out from a crowd, people look them over and are always suprised when their quiet, plesant neighbour turns out to be a monster.

[Tom_Wescott]

Surely people would also be surprised if their loud, offensive neighbor turned out to be a serial killer?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott