Hidden In Plain Sight

[TomTomKent]

I remain as open to the idea that Jack the Ripper was a Jew who died in an asylum not because of any judgement of what I think Jewish (or Polish or Russian) folks were like, and neither would I dimiss it on those grounds. That would be as bad as the delightful folks who didn't believe any Englishman could do such things. There was certainly an element of Anti-Semitism about the popular reports, and if we take the whole of London then Jews formed a minor fraction of the population.

But if we look at the immediate vicinity of the murders? Ah. In that area the proportion of Jews jump right up to the point that they are as likely as anybody else. And there is the thing, as with anybody else we have to judge the theory on the evidence and the facts. Now, I am not going to stick my head on the block and say I am convinced of any one suspect, Jew or not, but I will say that the detectives involved seemed fairly convinced they knew who the best suspect of JTR was, and despite the gaps in our knowledge (such as the Seaside home identification) there is some evidence that they were not just being Anti-semitic when they put a Jewish suspect on the list (but seemingly ignorant by getting the name muddled and confused). Firstly we have the marginalia being notes for personal use, not expected or required to mean anything to anybody else. There would be no reason to make claims about a Jewish suspect here if it wasn't believed. We may not know who the "only officer to get a good look" at JTR was, or if the identification was actually made at the sea side home, but we know some form of identification had been made and it was connected to some half remembered suspect that has cropped up in the personal notes of key detectives.

Further, if we take the general description given: Jewish descent, put in an asylum and died there, we could make arguments for Levy or Cohen, or if we take the name we could reconsider Kominski. Not entirely convincing, but something we should file under "distinctly possible". We aren't going to solve the crimes and the killer was in all likelyhood some complete unknown (who could be a Jew, not a Jew, a Cockney, or any other ethnicity who happened to live in London at the time), and we are probably never going to know all the details why the idea of the Jew kept cropping up with contemparies, but it is a worthy line for investigation. If for no other reason than it will shed light on the investigation (even if it fails to do so on the murderer). I have always assumed that Aberline was mistaking Chapman/Klosowski for another vaguely rememebered suspect who may have had a good reason to be suspected, and may have had a name that could also be mistaken for Kominski, and may have been diagnosed with some form of mania. But the supposition falls down as I honestly can't imagine why he would labour under such a misaprehension for so long and give interviews explaining how and why Chapman was JTR long after it would have come very apparent it wasn't the guy he had been thinking of after all.

Sorry for rambling, probably added nothing new to the conversation there...

[Tecs]

There are two options regarding what happened, because there is no doubt that for some reason the police were very interested in somebody from the Jewish community.

Either they were racist bigots, albeit normal for their time, who thought that "no Englishman could be doing this." therefore it must be a foreigner, probably a Jew.

Or

They came across an important piece of evidence which clearly pointed towards the ripper being a Jew.

The fact that the police actually went out of their way to keep the Jewish angle out of the media and public attention, (destroying the Juwes reference at Goulston St, altering witness descriptions from Jewish to foreign and even writing to the newspapers to, rather disingenuously, say that Juwes doesn't mean Jews in any language so it can't refer to Jews) suggests to me that they were not perhaps the bigots some people may think they were.

That would then leave the second option. This would tie in with the witness descriptions of Long and Hutchinson and possibly Schwartz and there are other pointers too. Perhaps the police deduced from the crime scene that Liz Stride must have been murdered by someone coming out of the club, therefore a Jew. The strange behaviour of Joseph Levy may have been interpreted as covering up for a fellow Jew. Put all this together and it may not have been unreasonable to look closely at the Jewish community, especially if we believe Martin Fido's contention that Leather Apron was not Pizer and had not been found and eliminated from the enquiry.

On the other hand, maybe the police really were bigots and just tried to keep the Jewish angle out of the press to help their investigation and prevent riots which would have been a huge hassle whoever was involved.

If we imagine a scenario today, imagine murders taking place and witnesses keep giving descriptions of men seen in the area with the one constant that "he was a black guy." You can imagine the police discussion:-

"Look, we know this fellow's a black man, but we can't let that information get out, there'd be bloody murder on the streets. So let's get the case solved and answer questions later.

And it goes without saying that the example could have been Chinese guy, asian guy, white guy in a predominantly black/asian area, guy with a Manchester accent etc etc

Either way, I do understand the feelings involved and despise any hatred against anyone, anywhere.

Regards,

[Errata]

Out of all of the suspects debated back and forth today, of the 8 or so suspects put forth by the police only Kosminksi is known to be Jewish. Ostrog might be Jewish, but they don't know. Abberline evidently thought it was Chapman, Macnaghten thought it was Druitt, Littlechild thought it was Tumblety, etc.
Anderson thought it was "a Polish Jew". Swanson named the Polish Jew as Kosminski. Swanson also said that the man he thought was Jack the Ripper was dead. Kosminski was not dead. Ergo..

Anyway. I am not seeing any prevailing attitude that shows the police thought Jack the Ripper was Jewish. Looking over the list of witnesses there may be half a dozen Jews on that list. It seems more like the newspapers and any group of men larger than 3 thought the Ripper was Jewish... Or maybe the police were afraid that murders so soon after the Lipski murder were going to be trouble.

And maybe the stories of mobs chasing down Jews for being the killer are apocryphal. And maybe the stories of what lengths the police went to in order to protect these people are as well. But the head Rabbi of London and others did write letters to Warren thanking him profusely for everything he did to protect Jews during this time.

I don't think that the police at the time were bigots. I mean, any more than your average 19th century man (like I don't think any constable was going to let his daughter marry a black man). I think that they had a lot of frustrations and cultural miscues from their Jewish witnesses because they didn't think it necessary to brush up on the culture. To get help from the Jewish leaders who were offering it. Now, this could be due to arrogance. But I would think that after a fourth or fifth body, the arrogance would fade. Or it could be that they didn't have any Jewish suspects to deal with, only witnesses. And being as lazy as the rest of us, didn't feel the need to be tutored on six people you just have to get to an inquest.

Anyway. I'm not going to rule out anyone without a reason. But this stuff is why it kinda doesn't ring true to me.

And on a random note, if anyone has any idea how stegosaurus reproduced I have a $50 bet on it.

[The Good Michael]

Errata,

I think it must have been similar to chickens. Every since I was a kid, I've thought lizards and birds were closely related because of their feces and egg-laying. So, why not chickens?

Mike

[TomTomKent]

So with Anderson, Swanson and Abberline all stating their suspect was a Polish Jew, which is 5% of the officers who named a suspect, and obvious confusions over the names, you don't think there is any merit to the idea that a Polish Jew was being sought as a suspect? If half your investigators are making reports down the same lines it does not mean they are right, but it means theyhave a good reason.

That the rest of Jewish society wanted the ripper caught, or appreciated diligent action to prevent a pogrom is not the sort of thing that makes me think "oh well, one of those chaps can't have done that". The vast majority of any social group would show an equally charitable attitude, and would find it as shocking to think the ripper may have been one of their own. That just puts the Jewish suspects on equal footing with everybody else. The marginalia was unique in that it had no reason to disguise names or details, and if the name Kominski was wrong, we have to assume there was good reason for the rest of the details to be described as accurately as he could remember,allowing for the intervening time.

[jason_c]

Errata

I dont want to make more of it than need be but your statement that you hoped the killer wasnt Jewish is telling. Over 100 years later and you (quite legitimately) have these feelings. Imagine how much more intense these instincts would have been at the time.

This is not meant as a criticism. Simply an observation of the likely mixed emotions of any community. A desire for the criminal to be caught - just lets hope hes not one of "us."

[Chris]

So with Anderson, Swanson and Abberline all stating their suspect was a Polish Jew, which is 5% of the officers who named a suspect, and obvious confusions over the names, you don't think there is any merit to the idea that a Polish Jew was being sought as a suspect?

Chapman/Klosowski wasn't Jewish, though.

[TomTomKent]

Ah, true but in muddled and befuddled mind i thought that Abberline had been under the impression he was. I am clearly wrong about that and appologise profusely.

[Errata]

Errata

I dont want to make more of it than need be but your statement that you hoped the killer wasnt Jewish is telling. Over 100 years later and you (quite legitimately) have these feelings. Imagine how much more intense these instincts would have been at the time.

This is not meant as a criticism. Simply an observation of the likely mixed emotions of any community. A desire for the criminal to be caught - just lets hope hes not one of "us."

Oh I know. And i realize that confessing a bit of a bias makes any argument I might make suspect. I think however that to not disclose the bias would be more disingenuous. I would like to think that since i know I have this predisposition, that I try to make extra sure that I am dismissing a theory for the right reasons, but that may be wishful thinking.

Michael: chickens dont have giant spiky tails in the way. it's a mechanics issue

TomTom: I think the marginalia is interesting, because it is such a terse statement it can interpreted a few ways. I had always thought that Swanson was identifying the man to whom Anderson was referring. Not that he was agreeing with the suspect choice. Sort of saying "Kosminski was the suspect at the Seaside Home" not "Kosminski was the killer". Swanson also said that the man he thought was the killer was dead in 1895. Kosminski wasn't dead. He wasn't even dead when the Marginalia was written. So I can't really speak to who exactly Swanson thought was the killer. It certainly may have been Kosminski, or someone confused with Kosminski. But he was one of the few who never did a "My Years at the Yard" or whatever. Now I think that's actually admirable all things considered, but it doesn't leave us with a wealth of material about his thoughts and methods. And of course, all of this assumes the Marginalia is genuine. A topic I leave for those with greater fortitude than I.

[TomTomKent]

I see it the exact opposite way: If he is talking about somebody who he thought was dead, and Kominski was not dead, he has obviously confused two suspects, if not in name, then in their fate. That leaves the possibility (and yes I admit it is only a possibility) that there was a suspect, who had died in an asylum. In fact, from the content of the marginalia and the other documents you mentioned, it is possible, even probable, that he had in mind an entirely different suspect he thought was "Kominiski". Because Kominski did not die in the asylum, was not "raving" from "brain fever" and so aggressive he had to be restrained. That simply does not describe Kominski. But it does describe a suspect, that for some reason he thought was "Kominski". I would suggest the suspect was Eastern European, and Jewish, or could be mistaken for Jewish, as was described, and was violent, raving and was restrained, then died in custody shortly after.

Martin Fido may not have made a conclusive argument for that suspect being the Ripper (an entirely different issue) but he does make a good argument for there being good reason for the police to be interested in the suspect, and for Cohen being that suspect. I have seen a simaler argument that Levy could have been that suspect.

I think what I probably put across badly in previous posts is the distinction between the police having a viable reason to investigate a Jewish suspect, the issue of that suspect being the Ripper and the issue of that suspect being Kominski. I don't think the man was Kominski, but I do not think that is reason enough to disregard everything else that was noted about him, including the idea he was part of the Jewish community. Show me another suspect who matches the rest of the statements and a good reason why he might have been confused with Kominski, and I would give it open consideration.

[Tecs]

Chapman did pretend to be Jewish though didn't he?

Didn't he tell somebody that he'd been married according to Jewish customs?

Maybe should check before putting my head above the parapet, but hey, I'm amongst friends!

Regards,

[protohistorian]

Hello Tecs, Parapets are overated Buddy! This is a scan of pages 122 and 123 of the Trial of George Chapman. Grey line at far right is relevant section. Dave

[Roy Corduroy]

So I actually just don't think JtR was Jewish. But if he was, would he shout "Lipski" to deflect suspicion? In a heartbeat. He's cutting women in half, he's creating enormous problems for his own community, why WOULDN'T he? Clearly his moral compass is already broken.

Yes, and this sounds like something Joe Lis (aka Silver) would do.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

Jews were less than 1% of the population of London.

But Jews were more than 30% of the East End, and more than 50% of the immediate areas of the murders. So yes, it's very possible Jack was a Jacob, but like Errata I'm inclined to believe he was not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[protohistorian]

I have put this up before but cannot remember where. Here is a colorized bacon map from 1899 showing Jewish population density in our favorite area. Dave