where do you stand?

[caz]

Also, almost all other post-mortem mutilators have NOT come from the ruling/upper classes.

But 'almost' all of the general population do not come from the ruling/upper classes either, Ben. And nobody is really suggesting that the ripper was likely to have been ruling or upper class.

On a one-to-one basis, however, any man from any class can have a penchant for committing extreme violence against women, and the smart ones choose the women easiest to get hold of, least able to defend themselves and least likely to be mourned by the rest of society.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Fair enough, Phil, but you have to admit, your sample of locations is very tiny, and for all you know the killer may have crossed to the 'other side' to commit most of his murders where there was less chance of being recognised. It's happened before and it'll happen again. I'm not sure he would have been spooked by any such invisible barrier, given the risks he took to rip in the open, but you never know.

I don't have to admit anything, caz. I am not trying to persuade you, simply to explain my view.

Of the likely Ripper murders, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly, (plus if you like, Tabram) and Mckenzie are north of Whitechapel High Street.

For all i know many things are possible, and I am certainly not (check my wording) arguing north side only as an absolute. But I think it a possible and credible factor. Disagree if you will, I anticipate no less.

And was "Jack" a risk-taker? - I suggest that is only an assumption.

Phil

Hi Phil,

I only disagree in as much as one 'possible and credible factor' (such as 'north side only') is no different from another (such as 'Met only' to exclude Eddowes in the City), since we don't know where the killer slept; where his work may have taken him; where he may have had friends or relatives, or any other business in the area. We would be giving him arbitrary 'invisible barriers' set by our own personal preferences, not having a clue if any of them applied. If his everyday life involved crossing either of those divides, for example, bang goes any psychological barrier to crossing them and taking opportunities to kill on either side.

There must surely have been club members who lived or worked on the north side and walked south to attend the club, and at least one member had worked that day south of the Thames in Westow Hill, selling cheap jewellery. This must have repeated itself all over Whitechapel, with all the comings and goings. So very few would have had the luxury of a psychological barrier that kept them on one side - unless you are suggesting it was more likely to apply to a killer when offending.

It may be an assumption that whoever killed Nichols, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly was a natural risk-taker, but it's surely not an assumption that risks were taken in all those cases.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

For an animal to remain kosher-- or, for the meat to remain kosher, and salable, it was necessary not to open the intestines; if the intestines or bowels were nicked, and any contents spilled on the meat, it became treyf, which is to say, not kosher. I don't see anything especially Jewish about the way the women were killed, in relation to the way an animal is shected. Now, if they were found covered in course salt, or hanging by their ankles, that'd be different.

Whatever the killer did with his trophies--and the only letter with any credibility whatsoever suggested he might have eaten at least parts of them--I very much doubt that he would be concerned with matters of kashrus!

I suggest a shochet or someone who has witnessed shechita because the speed with which a shochet wields his knife and the extreme sharpness of that knife are parts of the process in order, as I was always told, to bring about loss of consciousness very quickly and so to spare the animal any real pain. If you wanted to kill someone extremely quickly and noiselessly it would be a good way to go as long as you don't mind the sight of blood. And I doubt the Ripper was concerned with that. This doesn't mean that I believe for sure it was a shochet. It could have been someone employed to drive the animals into the abattoir. Or someone who lived nearby and had an unhealthy interest in what was going on. As far as I know, no non-Jews are allowed to be part of the actual slaughter and examination of the meat but I don't believe there is a law that says they can't be on the premises.

Here is an article about shechita or Jewish ritual slaughter of animals for meat. It might make clearer what rivkachaya and I are discussing

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,
When new information sheds light on a hitherto unresolved issue, such as this one involving Isaacs, it's far better to rejoice in it,....

So you rejoice in one singular contrary news report?

Let me remind you what your opinion is every time I raise the Daily News report that has Sarah Lewis watching Kelly & client walk up the passage.
Apparently, when the 'shoe is on the other foot' you advise against rejoicing over a singular contrary news article, how opinions change.

The best way to resolve this is a search of Court records. Assizes records may still exist, but Assizes mostly dealt with serious cases, perhaps more serious than coat lifting. Whether Magistrate Court Records still exist, I couldn't say - but that is the direction to go.

There obviously had to have been a good reason for Isaacs being dropped as a suspect, as he evidently was, and Howard has alighted upon it.

Of course, that applies to everyone, but it does not require him to have been locked up - he could have been at a Jewish meeting, among his friends, any number of reasons could have got him off the hook.

It might undermine the credibility of some of the female witnesses who appeared to implicate him, but then there is no reason in the world why anyone should trust them above a report which states .......

'scuse me for cutting you off mid-sentence, but are we forgetting about these "unverified newspaper stories" - are you saying they sound pretty good now?
I detect a bit of the Janus in you Ben, when it contradicts you - reject it, when it confirms you, - rejoice!

They only became interested in Isaacs after the Kelly murder, I think you'll find, when Cusins made him out to be a suspicious character on grounds that turned out to be baseless, given the report in Lloyds. You've just got to reassess, Jon, and welcome new finds. Isaacs had an alibi for the Kelly murder. He wasn't the Astrakhan man, less still the ripper, and that is why he was dismissed as a suspect.

Yes indeed, after the murder, as soon as they interviewed Mrs Cusins during the House-to-house (which we have no date for), likely over the weekend - but who knows.
The important point is, she claims Isaacs was pacing his room on the night of the murder, unless you are gunning for that old "mistaking the day" argument.

What you appear to be condoning is that Mr Isaac's was in jail on the night of Kelly's murder, but when the police conducted a house-to-house, on Sat-Sun?, his landlady fingered him - for what?
He had not been in his room, he was in jail - she had never seen him?

Isaac's disappeared for 3 weeks, after the murder, only showing up at his room on Dec. 5th. Why run IF the police were his alibi for the night of the murder?

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

When new information sheds light on a hitherto unresolved issue, such as this one involving Isaacs, it's far better to rejoice in it, however much it might cast doubt upon our previously held opinions. There obviously had to have been a good reason for Isaacs being dropped as a suspect, as he evidently was, and Howard has alighted upon it.

It is well known where Isaac's roomed for 3-4 days prior to the Kelly murder, that he vanished from his room only after the murder (so clearly not in jail), in fact the police also knew that.

We have no idea which particular "3-4 days" before the murder these were, and in light of Lloyds' revelation, it should be understood that his absence was only noted after the last murder. Evidently, he was arrested and imprisoned for coat theft before then, and it's equally clear that his re-emergence on the scene in early December was due to his being released from confinement. Alas, it appears he went straight back to his thieving ways.

It might undermine the credibility of some of the female witnesses who appeared to implicate him, but then there is no reason in the world why anyone should trust them above a report which states quite categorically that the suspect was in prison at the time of the murder. Or are you suggesting Lloyds just made the whole thing up (for what possible reason?).

The police were already looking for him as a result of their house-to-house investigatgion

They only became interested in Isaacs after the Kelly murder, I think you'll find, when Cusins made him out to be a suspicious character on grounds that turned out to be baseless, given the report in Lloyds. You've just got to reassess, Jon, and welcome new finds. Isaacs had an alibi for the Kelly murder. He wasn't the Astrakhan man, less still the ripper, and that is why he was dismissed as a suspect. He was always a lousy Astrakhan man anyway. Being a homeless thief, he had little hope of pulling off even a fake display of opulence. It is beyond preposterous to claim that Isaacs in any way "verifies" Hutchinson's account. I wouldn't get too distressed about it, since you only latched onto the Isaacs business yesterday.

So now Fishman is part of this conspiracy to deceive you,.....is there no end to this madness?

I never once suggested that Fishman was trying to deceive anyone.

[RivkahChaya]

Then, there's the select few who find their own entertainment in the back streets of the East end. They choose to fulfill their illicit desires in the grimy alley's and filthy rooms of Whitchapel, they are there by choice.

Then, there are also people like W. Somerset Maugham, who was first a physician, then an author, who chose to work in the East End, out of a desire to help people who really needed him. He was also in the ambulance corps during WWI. His parents died when he was very small, and he was raised by an uncle who didn't really want to be raising him, so perhaps he just needed to feel needed, but whatever the reason, he was the son of a lawyer, who lived in France, and the uncle he later lived with was a vicar, so they were educated professionals.

The idea of the Ripper being a Toff, or dressing like a Toff, is probably inspired more by the contemporary theatrical drama, Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, playing around London at the time.

I think you are right. Apparently, several people who saw the play actually went to the police with the suggestion that the actor who played Jekyll & Hyde was JTR, his performance was so convincing.*

It does present a visual treat, top hat, cane, little black bag & cape swirling through the midnight fog. Who can resist such a romantic figure.

You should watch the 1931 movie with Fredric March, which is probably the closest screen adaption of the play that was running in the East End. March is excellent. As romantic, and kind, as Jekyll is, Hyde is really vile. It's actually quite shocking. UK viewers will have to give Miriam Hopkins' Cockney accent a pass. It's a US film that wasn't made for international distribution, and the accent is "Mockney"; intended to suggest the East End to Americans not really familiar with it, while still being comprehensible.

This man is respectably dressed, but still not a Toff.

As I thought more about the "morning/evening" and what those words meant, I wondered if "respectably dressed" might simply mean dressed in evening clothes. People were all about changing clothes according to the time of day then, and it had a lot to do with airing out one's work clothes, back when getting stuff laundered wasn't so simple, and while it was only the upper classes who fussed about black tie vs. white, someone with a steady job and a room of his own would change clothes after work, and put on something for the evening, as opposed to dossers, who wore all their clothes all the time, as they had no where else to put them.

I mean, Bowyer was probably someone who could put on clean underwear every day, and a shirt every couple of days, and change his trousers and coat when he got home from work for evening clothes. He'd probably have at least two pairs of pants, so his wife, if he had one, could press one while he was at work in the other, and he always had a sharp crease in the morning. I don't recall what George Lusk did for a living, but he always looks "well-dressed" in photos, which, granted, are photos, but he probably owned a couple of coats, and several pairs of pants and shirts. That may have been all it took to look "respectably dressed" to someone who had to wear all his clothes all the time.

I remember being told that Evening began at 6:00 pm when I was a kid.

I was taught that if an event begins at six pm, or later, one wears evening clothes, and if it begins after four pm, but will end well after six, one should still wear evening clothes. My mother was a bit pretentious like that. I know all about what kind of wine to serve with what meats, and even the rare occasion when you should chill a red wine (roses, pinot noir, or a dessert red wine of some sort, and wines you will serve outdoors on a very warm day, but in the last case, just chill them in the fridge, then serve them on the open table).

*The London stage production used an interesting effect, by which, part of the Jekyll-to-Hyde transformation took place in full view of the audience. It was done by putting make-up on the actor (Richard Mansfield) in make-up that was visible only under certain light, and having the stage lit without that light, then changing the light as the transformation took place.

Paramount studios used the same technique in the 1931 film, which, if anything, is more effective in a black & white film (or so I've read; I've never seen it on stage). Here's a youtube link to the first transformation scene in the '31 film. Go in 1 minute if you are impatient. Onstage, after the light trick, Mansfield would fall down, grab a wig and false teeth and hurriedly pull them on, get back up, and run off stage, and that was the end of the scene (maybe the act, I'm not sure). He'd get make-up touch-ups, wig straightened, hairy, long-nailed gloves, and soforth, before the next scene. It had to be pretty darned cool.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Let's nip this Isaacs business in the bud before it creates any further confusion.

It is well known where Isaac's roomed for 3-4 days prior to the Kelly murder, that he vanished from his room only after the murder (so clearly not in jail), in fact the police also knew that.

"The witness on the house to house inspection gave information to the police, and said she remembered that on the night of the murder she heard the prisoner walk about his room."

So, clearly, Isaac's was not in prison.

"When he suddenly vacated his room after the murder of Mary Kelly, Cusins became even more suspicious. She took her suspicions to the police, who searched his room and found he had left behind a violin bow. The police, assuming Isaacs would return for the bow, asked Cusins to keep a look out for him."

The police were already looking for him as a result of their house-to-house investigatgion, which is likely another reason they accepted Hutchinson's story, quite independently, they already had their detectives on the lookout for this man described by Hutchinson.
It also explains why Hutchinson, accompanied by the two officers, failed to locate this character, Isaac's took to his heels for the next three weeks, only returning on Dec 5th.

Only when we take an calm impartial review of the circumstances do we see that two features of Hutchinson's story are to some degree verifiable.
The first, was his claim to have been the loiterer seen & confirmed by Sarah Lewis.
The second, was a local resident already on their 'Person of Interest' list who fit the description detailed by Hutchinson.
It does become a little clearer why Abberline felt inclined to accept Hutchinson's statement, that he was no liar.

I see absolutely no evidence that "many a man with middle class origins wound up in the East end due to falling on hard times." Fishman's examples would have been in the EXTREME minority of the population, and even than, he would have been relying purely on the lodgers' say-so that they were respectable "once upon a time". Could be bollocks, and it does seem strangely reminiscent of modern-day "pub-talk". "I used to be well pucka, me, I $hit you not mate!".

Your perception could be considerably enhanced by a thorough attempt at research as opposed to the usual "I think", "in my opinion", etc.
So now Fishman is part of this conspiracy to deceive you,.....is there no end to this madness?

Regards, Jon S.

[curious4]

Toffs

Hello Phil,

Yes indeed he did and was glad both of his clean room to return to when he needed to and his hidden money. He could also pose as an american sailor waiting for a berth, which must have been a help. His reception on his first visit to the house by Thick's daughters shows how much appearance affected one's status and how one was treated.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth/C4

[Phil H]

But interestingly, even Jack London fled from one situation, did he not - the smell was so foul and offensive?

Also he was American - so the spoken English would have been less obviously "posh" compared to the local argot.

Phil

[curious4]

Toffs

Hello Phil,

True enough. Jack London did it but as he came from humble origins he could carry it off.

Best wishes,
C4

[Phil H]

Just occured to me that they might have been watching FOR fires, which makes more sense - no evidence either way unfortunately.

I think they would have been watching fires (if they were doing anything) - for the drama and spectacle.

I think you misunderstood me about Edward dressing up. I didn't mean he might have been whoring. I think Edward's tastes were much more refined and sophisticated. No, I meant that ANYONE can put on someone else's clothing. It is another thing to BECOME that person or pass as them.

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Let's nip this Isaacs business in the bud before it creates any further confusion.

Firstly, we most certainly do not "both know Joseph Isaac's dressed in such a coat". It was observed by the press - and only by the press - that Isaacs resembled the man described by Hutchinson who was alleged to have worn one. This might have amounted to little more than Isaacs having the same Jewish appearance or a similar dark/pale complexion and slight/heavy moustache. Given Isaacs' lowly status as a cigar-maker of "no fixed abode", I can't see him swanning around in an expensive Astrakhan coat, unless it was something else he nicked.

Secondly, and far more importantly, Isaacs had an alibi for the Kelly murder, according to an article in the Lloyds Weekly Newspaper of 23rd December 1888 discovered by Howard Brown on JTRForums. I'm very surprised that Howard's excellent find received no commentary at all considering that Isaacs is occasionally touted as a suspect even today, and not just on message boards.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=17438

Note the relevant passage:

"The result is that it is ascertained that at the time of the murder he was undergoing a term of imprisonment for stealing a coat, which proves he could not have been connected with the murder"

Maybe it was an Astrakhan coat he stole? Who knows? Who cares? He could not have been the killer, and he could not have been Astrakhan man.

Well, of course you will take issue with descriptions published by police

No. I take issue with bogus nonsense that appeared only in the newspapers. I also take issue with statements which were initially taken seriously by the police before being thrown out and discredited.

And I'm not about to repeat the tally, it spoke for itself. I suspected you would feel cornered and attempt to refute it, 5-1 stands firm

No it doesn't. it doesn't "stand" at all. It was exposed as flawed and demolished, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't cling to the delusion that easily swattable and nonsensical attempts to elevate the ripper's social status had me in any way "cornered'.

Bowyer only claimed to see Kelly once, not twice.

Exactly, because he only saw her once, as faithfully reported to the inquest. He saw her for the last time in the court at some point on Wednesday afternoon. He did not see her afterwards with some tit with "very peculiar eyes" (because we know serial killers look weird and scary like that!) or he would have said so at the inquest. He did not see her before then because that would have been earlier in the afternoon, and not the evening, as related in that bogus filthy press report. You have provided no convincing evidence that the evening started later in Victorian times, as you keep claiming. In fact - wait a minute! - I've had another look, and the press report said Wednesday NIGHT, not "evening", whereas Bowyer stated at the inquest that he last saw her on "Wednesday afternoon".

The contradiction is thus even more blatant than I thought.

I see absolutely no evidence that "many a man with middle class origins wound up in the East end due to falling on hard times." Fishman's examples would have been in the EXTREME minority of the population, and even than, he would have been relying purely on the lodgers' say-so that they were respectable "once upon a time". Could be bollocks, and it does seem strangely reminiscent of modern-day "pub-talk". "I used to be well pucka, me, I $hit you not mate!".

Instead, we have repeated sightings of a man in a morning suit or cutaway coat

Cutaways and morning coats featured ONLY in the Stride murder, but the man or men who wore them evidently had nothing to do with her murder, less still the ripper murders as a collective. Stride was attacked by a different man who arrived intoxicated from Whitechapel; he may have been the same man seen by Lawende outside Mitre Square, i.e. the shabby, rough looking man who almost certainly killed Eddowes.

This man is respectably dressed, but still not a Toff. Whether he had a condescending view of these poor creatures who lived off the streets is anyone's guess, but he probably was a local man, just not one that lived directly among them.

No.

"This man" is nothing of the sort. He was not "respectably dressed", according to the most reliable evidence out there (with the emphasis on Lawende again) and he probably DID live directly among them, being a member of the majority population: the working class poor.

All the best,
Ben

[curious4]

Fires

Just occured to me that they might have been watching FOR fires, which makes more sense - no evidence either way unfortunately.

Cheers,
C4

[curious4]

Watching fires

Two points, curious4:

a) it is one thing to dress up to pass unnoticed in a crowd (a form of camoflage), another to pretend to be something you are not;

b) the incident with the coin (which I think comes from Philip Magnus' biography of the King) indicates how the then Prince acted spontaneously, even though pretending to be something he was not.

Incidentally, whatever the truth of the room on Watling Street, has anyone ever found any actual evidence that Edward did watch fires in the East End?

Phil

Hello Phil,

Yes it does seem an odd thing to do - perhaps it was a euphemism for looking for a "hottie" lol.

The eastenders were used to visitors from the "other world" - slummers, do-gooders and socialists etc., but I don't think any visitor would have been stupid enough to venture into the east end alone.

You are quite right about the loos. I can remember my step-father reminiscing about the one they had when he was a child (born about 1916) and how much it stank. This was a bog standard (sorry) hole in the ground out in the country, but with all the people in the house using it, the one in Hanbury street can't have been that fragrant either!

Thanks for the book reference, I read quite a bit and some are library books, so it's not always easy to check. Must start writing things down!

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

I wonder if this is the same kind of issue as the clock bells. People reported time as the most recent bells they'd heard, or their best guess, and that was apparently good enough-- or every event in the 1880s happened on the quarter of an hour.

That is certainly a distinct possibility, that a rough estimate was close enough. Quite possibly anything that occurred after you hear a 5:30 chime, was timed as 5:30, until the next chime at 5:45.

I know I have heard people get into discussion that are almost arguments in recent years, when one person will say "afternoon," and another will say "but it's 6pm; that's 'evening,'" and the first person will counter with "It doesn't get dark until 8:30 this time of year."

Afternoon is only the alternate to before noon, neither one having a specific window of time associated with the expression. Both times span 12 hours each.
Its just that we have been educated to use morning and evening instead, so now we divide the daylight into three, Morning, Afternoon, and Evening. 'Before-noon' has fallen into disuse.
I remember being told that Evening began at 6:00 pm when I was a kid.

As times change, so vocabulary changes, we must avoid imposing our modern vocabulary on the words of these 19th century witnesses.

Regards, Jon S.