Why do suspects have to be celebrities?

[Versa]

lol yes, well any neighbour is guess would be a shock! The point is that serial killers get away because the do appear to be innocuous.

I think JTR has suffered from romanticism of the victorian era and Sherlock Holmes etc. IMO JTR was a local guy, probably quiet, working class who possibly commited some crimes detected or otherwise prior to the murders. ATM i like Jacob Levy for JTR, only because we have his name and some info on him and he fits the bill, there may of been 100+ other men in living within 1mile that also fit the bill that we have no name or description of.

[Phil H]

Sorry Ben, I have to disagree with your methods and your conclusions 100%.

Practical juxtaposition was simply another way of expressing the thought of proximity, with the emphasis on whether ANYONE would pick up the connection. If you can't get that, my apologies, I'll try to use shorter words in future.

The point I am trying to get across is that it is unsafe to build a hypothesis on shakey foundations.

All I see is a muddle of loose suggestions affecting the killings of Nichols (location - though the Jewish cemetery was some distance away - as i have said before she was closer to stables, a K&T wharehouse or for that matter a school!), Eddowes (location at a site overwhelmingly Christian in its associations and not contiguous or particularly related to anything Jewish), Stride (the international Club - which is the closest you come to something Jewish) and Kelly (a verbal description alone).

You do not say anything of Chapman, or for that matter discuss Tabram (whom, to be honest, if Stride is included should at least be considered).

You tie in the GSG - but apart from the controversial nature of its association with JtR, has also been tied into MASONIC interpretation and theories.

You have not responded to my questions about whether your suggestions of Hutchinson's "plot" were consistent with likely thinking in the LPV, or HOW he could conceive his plan would gain sufficient publicity. Nor have you cited any similar incidents from other serial crimes.

You indulge in semantics.

Forgive me if I don't treat your response altogether seriously for that reason.

Phil

Phil

[Ben]

Practical juxtaposition was simply another way of expressing the thought of proximity

But "particular proximity" and "practical juxtaposition" mean different things, don't they? You claimed that that the Mitre Square location had no "particular proximity" to anywhere with a Jewish connection, which is simply wrong, and when I pointed this out, you immediately changed the goalposts to "practical juxtaposition", which was not a requirement you had insisted upon previously. Obviously, two places can have a "particular proximity" (and may be thus considered significant) without actually "juxtaposing" one another.

The point I am trying to get across is that it is unsafe to build a hypothesis on shakey (sic) foundations.

Yes, but I'm only relying on your dubious say-so that the foundations are shaky. While opinion is certainly divided as to whether Stride was a victim, it is certainly not a "dodgy assumption" as you described it earlier. As for Tabram, Nichols and Chapman, I'd argue that the decision - if there was one - to "help along" the widespread suspicions against the Jewish community would only have been put into effect once those suspicions had gathered sufficient momentum. No real sense in trying it on with the Tabram murder before there could have been any chance of a popular scapegoat being identified.

but apart from the controversial nature of its association with JtR, has also been tied into MASONIC interpretation and theories

And?

You're seriously suggesting that because a handful of modern authors and royal conspiracy theorists have tried to allege a bogus Masonic connection, it ceases to become acceptable for anyone to allege a far more plausible Jewish connection? What are you trying to convince me of here?

I didn't mention anything about a "plot". I've made the emphatically reasonable suggestion that the killer may have taken steps to assist pre-existing suspicions against the Jews when it was easy to do so. I'm not suggesting that it was his crowning incentive - far from it, but it could easily have been a secondary concern with obvious advantages, and historian Philip Sudgen seemed to recognise the merit in the suggestion.

As for "similar incidents from other serial crimes", have you honestly never heard of any other occasion in which a guilty person or group has ever tried to incriminate an innocent person or group?

Wow.

But if you're now refusing to treat me "altogether seriously", are we reverting back to the original premise of this thread now, or does anyone fancy thrashing this one out a bit more?

[Phil H]

Ben,

Your command of the facts and the power of your reasoning are overwhelming.

I readily accept that you have found the final solution to this long-standing mystery, and that your arguments and suppositions are without flaw.1

Please accept my apologies for questioning your theory in the slightest way. I should have known, I must be blind!

Sincerely,

Phil

1.However, I note that you have not responded to any of my substantive points or my questions or requests for confirmatory explanations. Perhaps I am just too stupid to understand.

[I quit this thread, which, as you say, is not intended for this purpose.]

Post edited because I accidentally mispelled Ben's name.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

You know I am with you on Liz being one of Jack's, and yes, I'm sure he made mistakes in Berner Street. But if he chose the location, or the victim, in the hope of giving this night a markedly Jewish flavour, I don't see him mucking it up quite so spectacularly with his shout of "Lipski!" in front of not one, but two witnesses, one clearly a Jew himself.

So, on we go to Mitre Square, and in no time Jack is supposed to have got his act together and made a better stab at implicating a Jew by finding a second victim and location that would suggest exactly that. And blow me if our Gentile killer doesn't allow himself to be seen again, this time by three Jews, while softening Kate up for the kill - and still he goes ahead with it.

No wonder he had to make a last-ditch effort to put a Jew in the frame, with Kate's apron in that Jewish doorway and a cryptic message on the wall about Juwes not being blamed for nothing. He had made a complete hash of it up until then.

But that's about the extent of it to my mind. After all these pesky Jews on his case, I could see him wanting to turn the tables a bit after a night like that, to try and get his own back. But really, not a fully orchestrated campaign to get a Jew buckled.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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!

Yes, that would be wise, Ben. I don't think I've ever seen anyone but you apply 'churlish' to a person's behaviour towards himself, which is why I thought you might have had another word in mind. But we live and learn.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/wotd/churlish

http://www.answers.com/topic/churlish

http://books.elliottback.com/word-of-the-day-churlish/

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/churlish

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/churlish

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/churlish

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.

So you don't think anyone at the time could have had a better idea than you do today of what events did or didn't 'happen very often'?

You say it like it's a definitely ascertained fact that educated men rarely if ever had occasion to be on any of the main roads where Whitechapel victims could be seen plying their trade of an evening, or would have avoided the whole area like the plague. It might be a fact, but then again Mac et al, along with thousands of others, might have known very well that it wasn't a fact, from personal knowledge and/or experience. So you will excuse me if I don't leap to any firm conclusions either way.

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

Hardly puts him on a par with the uneducated and homeless though, does it? What impression of class are you going to hope to convey to your associates if you are very obviously pig thick, penniless and living rough?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben,

You know I am with you on Liz being one of Jack's, and yes, I'm sure he made mistakes in Berner Street. But if he chose the location, or the victim, in the hope of giving this night a markedly Jewish flavour, I don't see him mucking it up quite so spectacularly with his shout of "Lipski!" in front of not one, but two witnesses, one clearly a Jew himself.

So, on we go to Mitre Square, and in no time Jack is supposed to have got his act together and made a better stab at implicating a Jew by finding a second victim and location that would suggest exactly that. And blow me if our Gentile killer doesn't allow himself to be seen again, this time by three Jews, while softening Kate up for the kill - and still he goes ahead with it.

No wonder he had to make a last-ditch effort to put a Jew in the frame, with Kate's apron in that Jewish doorway and a cryptic message on the wall about Juwes not being blamed for nothing. He had made a complete hash of it up until then.

But that's about the extent of it to my mind. After all these pesky Jews on his case, I could see him wanting to turn the tables a bit after a night like that, to try and get his own back. But really, not a fully orchestrated campaign to get a Jew buckled.

Love,

Caz
X

Bingo!


and I might add, who also later directly implicated a jew the night of MJs murder?

[Ben]

“Yes, that would be wise, Ben. I don't think I've ever seen anyone but you apply 'churlish' to a person's behaviour towards himself, which is why I thought you might have had another word in mind.”

Not a problem at all, Caz, but yes, I most assuredly meant “churlish” as in miserly, ungenerous, and “nigg@rdly” (a interesting word, seldom used these days for obvious reasons)! Since it obviously follows that one can be as stingy to one’s own predicament anyone else’s, my point was that the killer would have been short-changing himself if he didn’t take some steps to take advantage of the widespread suspicions that had already been levelled against the Jewish community from the Nichols murder onwards. But just to clear this one up:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/churlish

“churlish adj

1. rude or surly
2. of or relating to peasants
3. miserly”

“So you don't think anyone at the time could have had a better idea than you do today of what events did or didn't 'happen very often'?”

Oh, no. I’m only observing that Macnaghten didn’t appear to have offered any clear opinion with regard to “what events did or didn't 'happen very often”, and that includes any comment on the frequency with which educated, upper class outsiders ventured into the Whitechapel district. He might have had some very definite ideas on the subject for all we know, but he doesn’t appear to have committed them to paper in the memoranda.

“Hardly puts (Cummins) on a par with the uneducated and homeless though, does it?”

Absolutely, but then Cummins wasn’t operating within an area in which the “uneducated and homeless” represented a large portion of the population, as the ripper undoubtedly was.

“What impression of class are you going to hope to convey to your associates if you are very obviously pig thick, penniless and living rough?”

It would depend on the intended audience, I’d imagine. In the case of the Whitechapel murderer, an outward and visible indication of relative poverty and a lack of sophistication may well have communicated itself as familiar and unthreatening.

“After all these pesky Jews on his case, I could see him wanting to turn the tables a bit after a night like that, to try and get his own back. But really, not a fully orchestrated campaign to get a Jew buckled.”

That’s more or less what I’m getting at, although unlike you, I don’t see much of a problem with the killer shouting “lipski” during a moment in which anger and impulse could easily have got the better of him, temporarily clouding his judgement to what could have been a convenient opportunity to infer the guilt of one of the rowdy Jews from the adjacent club.

People often highlight the fact that there were many places with Jewish connotations in the district, but they often forget that there weren’t that many Jewish CLUBS in the area. The Stride and Eddowes murders were committed in close proximity to the IWMEC and Imperial Clubs respectively, and let’s face it, if you’re looking to find a cluster of Jews still up and about in the small hours, the clubs are the best places to make a beeline for. I'm not sure quite why or how the indications that the killer was seen by three Jews at Church Passage militates against the suggestion that the killer had sought to implicate the Jewish community, but it doesn't appear to have deterred Messrs Friedland and Sugden from inferring that an attempt to implicate the Jews may well have been a tactic resorted to by the killer.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Please accept my apologies for questioning your theory in the slightest way.”

No apology necessary, Phil, at least not for that.

If you think you’ve found a flaw in any particular suggestion I've advanced, by all means “question” away. It stimulates not only healthy debate, but also the opportunity of both parties to pause, ponder and perhaps reassess the evidence. But to accuse people of engaging in “juvenile games” when they’re only reinforcing the theories of both contemporary police officials and respected modern historians can come across as rather rude and unnecessarily inflammatory, which I feel certain was not your intention.

Cheers,

Ben

[caz]

Not a problem at all, Caz, but yes, I most assuredly meant “churlish” as in miserly, ungenerous, and “nigg@rdly” (a interesting word, seldom used these days for obvious reasons)! Since it obviously follows that one can be as stingy to one’s own predicament anyone else’s, my point was that the killer would have been short-changing himself if he didn’t take some steps to take advantage of the widespread suspicions that had already been levelled against the Jewish community from the Nichols murder onwards. But just to clear this one up:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/churlish

“churlish adj

1. rude or surly
2. of or relating to peasants
3. miserly”

You are funny, Ben. I can't see any reason for not using the great word "nigg@rdly" with an a (= stingy or meagre; stingily or grudgingly, from nigg@rd, a person who begrudges spending or giving away) as long as it's in the right context. I seem to recall MacDuff from the Scottish play saying something about "Be not a nigg@rd of your speech" when he suspects that some terrible news about his loved ones is being held back from him. [Blimey, I can't believe I had to edit this! It's certainly an education, this spelling business. ]

But as for "churlish", there seem to be a hundred and one definitions that don't come anywhere near "short-changing oneself", and only one that could just about be made to fit if you ignore all the others that put it squarely in the context of being mean, ungracious, rude or basically unpleasant towards other people.

Here is a nice example of the c word from the link you provided:

It seemed churlish to refuse an offer meant so kindly.

Anyway, I think we can agree that the ripper was no celebrity Countdown champion. He would have been churlish towards others at the drop of a hat and begrudged himself nothing, without knowing or caring how to express it best in words.

Have a good weekend.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“I can't see any reason for not using the great word "nigg@rdly" with an a”

Nor can I, but when I tried post the word with its correct spelling, it was starred (****) out as soon as I submitted my message. In order to avoid confusion, I used “@” as the most suitable substitute. The word does indeed crop up in Shakespeare, and certain translations of ancient Greek tragedies, including Euripides’ Orestes, have also used it in preference to more modern synonyms (miserly, ungenerous etc).

Another synonym of “*****rdly” is “churlish” (see what I mean about the stars?), and since I’ve already demonstrated this beyond any serious dispute, I think our best course of action now is to avoid derailing the thread in the direction of a back-and-forth stamina war (still my favourite, deep down!) on the subject of language and punctuation. You were the first to observe, very sensibly, that the thread was veering off-topic, and I hoped that the explanation I provided for my inclusion of the word “churlish” would have ended the matter, especially after establishing our broad agreement on the subject in question.

“Churlish” can mean “miserly” – that is beyond dispute.

An individual is capabale of adopting a miserly attitude towards his or her own predicament – that is beyond dispute.

So any claim that I used a particular word in an erroneous context is absolutely and irrefutably wrong, and if the need arises, I’ll defend my use of that word until this thread reaches a thousand posts, but what reasonable individual would seriously wish to press me further on this issue?

Exactly.

So, we’re finished with this distraction?

Great! All done. Everything clarified.

So it looks like we can revert back to the topic now.

Unless?…

(Gosh, I really, really hope there’s no “unless”)

Hope you’re enjoying the weekend yourself, Caz.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

I’ll avoid confusion by using “silly” hereafter...

But we’ll draw a discreet veil over that one...

You might have been better off drawing your discreet veil over it at that point, Ben.

But all's well that ends well - and "silly" shall do nicely hereafter.

Love,

Caz
X