where do you stand?

[caz]

Why do we assume it had to be a "toff" OR a local? Maps of the time show houses of well-to-do families surrounded by the teeming doss houses of the unfortunate class. Why couldn't it have been a local who was fairly well off?

I think it goes to people's biased perception of how things should be rather than how they are. At the time of the murders people wanted to believe a foreigner (Jew) committed the crimes because they didn't want to accept that an Englishman could do the unthinkable deeds. The locals wanted to believe it was a "toff" (after all many wealthy including Prince Eddy frequented brothels in the East End) because they couldn't believe any local person could had committed such horrible murders. The "toffs" wanted to believe a local, because they refused to accept that a person of gentle breeding could be a secret monster.

The truth is that serial killers can range from drifters like Henry Lee Lucas, to the well-to-do like HH Holmes, wealthy enough to design and build his own hotel, to nobility like Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed . Peerage, wealth, circumstances of life, etc. none of this matters to a serial killer mentality.

Some who suffer sever trauma as kids become monsters, others rise above the mess and become productive citizens. There have been Monarchs who were monsters, and many who ruled justly and kindly. There have been wealthy people who do their best to help lower classes and those who think they should learn their place. There have been pious religious leaders who taught peace. love, acceptance, and forgiveness and then many who were ruthless with those that did not agree with them.

A serial killer knows no boundary that he or she cannot cross.

Excellent post, Raven.

He only had to act and dress like anyone his victims would have seen as a good bet. They would have seen all sorts of men along those main roads.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Personally I don't see why a Dr. Cream type or the lowliest labourer are not equally likely, assuming the victims must have thought their killer was good for a few pence (or at least not a beast with two heads) before going off with him to a quieter location where they would be leaving themselves completely at his mercy.

I would say to Phil H that we have been up to our necks in theories and theorists since Nichols made it a murder hat-trick at the end of August 1888. But theorists without any actual evidence against any individual have little choice but to go with their gut instincts about the kind of man most likely (or most unlikely) to have committed such crimes and then try and fit this to potential suspects. We just don't know what, if any, evidence once existed to connect, say, Kosminski or Druitt to a crime scene or victim. Clearly if there was any good evidence it was either not shared with other senior policemen for some reason, or those policemen did not agree it was good evidence.

But if it was much the same as it has been ever since - no more than conjecture about a certain 'type', with a nod to individual circumstances (Kosminski ending up committed, Druitt in the Thames) - there is no point in trying to judgewhat type the ripper really was (and more to the point what type he wasn't) from previous theorist's guesswork."

I know this may make you nervous, Caz - but we actually agree on this.

How do we celebrate?

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Cheers Fishy!

I edited the last bit of my post to mention personal prejudices. I don't see how we can point to any of the old or more recent prejudices such as "only a foreigner/toff/outsider/poor local/uneducated man etc etc could have done it" to argue against any of those categories, yet that's what I see happening on the boards all the time. "What did they know back then?"

The thing is, we don't know today and can't know today, but we can be sure that whoever the ripper really was, his 'type' is bound to have been proposed at some point by those with a prejudice against that particular type. Doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the likelihood of them being right or wrong.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

I would say to Phil H that we have been up to our necks in theories and theorists since Nichols made it a murder hat-trick at the end of August 1888. But theorists without any actual evidence against any individual have little choice but to go with their gut instincts about the kind of man most likely (or most unlikely) to have committed such crimes and then try and fit this to potential suspects.

Well, thank you for stating the obvious, Fisherman. You promote a particular candidate of your own, in Lechmere/Cross. Jonathan promotes Druitt. Others like the look of and argue for Maybrick.

I have no "favoured" suspect (I argue Kosminski as most likely because he seems to have been the man the two most senior officials involved thought was guilty, and they knew far more and had access to much more material than I have. MM also did not dismiss Kosminski. But I have been a Druittist in my day. That said, I do not, seek to fasten the guilt on anyone at this point. But why seek an "outsider" and someone of relative means, when we have a vast simmering population of potential killers all around.

Do you seek a middle-class killer for the torso murders?


We just don't know what, if any, evidence once existed to connect, say, Kosminski or Druitt to a crime scene or victim.

But Swanson and Anderson, read intelligently, reveal quite a lot about their thinking and the basis of their conclusions.

Clearly if there was any good evidence it was either not shared with other senior policemen for some reason, or those policemen did not agree it was good evidence.

Where is your evidence for that. Scott Nelson argues cogently for a commonality of view, though some information may have been withheld from other forces (City) and newcomers (MM) might not have been within the charmed circle.

Phil

[curious4]

Toffs

Hello all,

While on the subject of toffs, can we spare a thought for little Sir George Arthur. Arrested while chatting up a known prostitute, a "slummer", dressed in shooting jacket, presumably with handy game pocket (oiled silk, waterproof) for the convenient transport of various body parts, actor, could perhaps play many roles to calm nervous ladies of the night. He was between wars in 1888 and fits the description given by many witnesses, right age and was arrested as a suspect. He was NOT proved innocent, merely to be who he said he was. I wonder if he was even searched? It is possible to have just one psychotic episode apparently (if you can call Jack's actions such) - perhaps post traumatic stress? And I can imagine in that case that a very strict watch would have been kept on him by his peers (also peers, presumably) for the rest of his life. He did marry, but no issue, hmm..

(please note, this post contains facts and some speculation)

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Some considerable influence must have been brought to bear if the episode was kept out of the english papers.

[Phil H]

I missed this:

I understand your point. I still go back to Chief Inspector Littlechild stating that Anderson 'only thought he knew'. Why is Littlechild so confident of this? He seems to be telling George Sims that he was just as privy to the investigation as Anderson and his judgement is just as good.

In any organisation, there are insiders and outsiders. By the chief commissioner's specific orders, ALL information went through DSS, so he definitely knew all that went on during the key months.

Littlechild and MM were not part of the main investigation - MM may never have been privy to all the info DSS possessed. But they might well have been interested, even involved in partial ways - so they may have reached their conclusions based on the evidence they had access to.

Equally in organisations, some individuals are liked, others not. Anderson was a strong personality and Littlechild might well hhave had his own view of the man, which coloured his judgement. He may - as with MM for Druitt - have decided on his own candidate for JtR and come to believe in Tumblety wholly. It seems that SY generally, did not dismiss the American.

But Anderson and DSS were the men in a position to know, and that remains at the centre of my thinking.

Phil

[Phil H]

And I can imagine in that case that a very strict watch would have been kept on him by his peers (also peers, presumably) for the rest of his life. He did marry, but no issue, hmm..

Just for the record, if Arthur was a Baronet (i.e. an hereditary knight) he did not count as a peer - though I take the play on words at face value. Only hereditery barons, viscounts, earls, marquesses and dukes (members of the House of Lords at that time) were "peers".

I am not sure what inference you are drawing from his childlessness - venereal disease, syphilis? There are many OTHER reasons for a marriage being childless.

phil

[curious4]

Peers

Yes, Phil, I thought someone would pick me up on that but couldn't resist the pun.

Of course there are, sadly, many reasons for childlessness and I would hate to bring pain to anyone, including my own family . What I meant was that what was called the "taint of madness" was at the time considered hereditary. Sorry for not making that clear.

Best wishes,
Gwyneth

[Lechmere]

In my opinion the police had no real clue as to who did it and as a result, where they felt the need to suggest a culprit, the prejudices of the day tended to hold sway – hence the mad foreigner in various guises. Or the mad homo (who, ergo, must also be a woman hater).
This does illustrate that we know better than the police.
They had better files – but those files essentially told them nothing so far as the suspects go, apart from some suspects who were exonerated at the time like Pizer. Although their files didn’t exonerate Ostrog!
This is not to say that we should not use police records when evaluating the case now. Clearly we should. It is merely saying that the police were cluseless so far as establishing who did it.

Plausible suspects? – Yes! Lechmere.
Which victims? – I would not discount any of them – including the Torsos.
Leather Apron? – Pizer but there were also other people known as Leather Apron such as Isenschmid.
Letters? - GSG, possibly Dear Boss, Saucy Jack and From Hell.

[Ben]

But why seek an "outsider" and someone of relative means, when we have a vast simmering population of potential killers all around

Exactly, Phil. A very good point.

In my opinion, there is no criminogically sound case to be made for a "toff" or upper-class individual being the culprit, or even sharing equal likelihood with a local marauder type. Three important factors merit consideration here:

1) The vast majority population of the region in which the murders were committed was comprised of the working class poor.

2) In almost all cases (perhaps actually all known ones) of serial killers murdering and disposing of his victims within a small, easily traversed area, the offender will be locally based.

3) The vast majority of serial killers come from working class backgrounds, and typically work in "blue collar" occupations.

Statistically, therefore, the case for an upper class "outsider" falls woefully short because it has no historical precedent, unlike the local marauder model, which has tons of it. And frankly, anyone who eschews a criminological approach to the study of these crimes (in favour of the purely historical, for instance) ought to steer clear of suspect-based "ripperology" in my opinion.

On a related there, I think a few people are getting the wrong idea about the "well-to-do" elements in Whitechapel and Spitalfields. It is essential that Charles Booth's Poverty Map is not misunderstood. Whitechapel High Street and Commercial Street were flanked with red, but that does not mean top hatted toffs lived there. We need to "zoom in" on the individual buildings if we're to understand what was being referred to. For instance, The Britannia pub (Ringers) at the corner of Dorset Street was shaded red, indicating that the publican there was considered "middle class" and "well-to-do", and since "the streets are coloured according to the general condition of the inhabitants" it is fair to conclude that red referred to similar occupations.

All the best,
Ben

[mklhawley]

Hello all,

While on the subject of toffs, can we spare a thought for little Sir George Arthur. Arrested while chatting up a known prostitute, a "slummer", dressed in shooting jacket, presumably with handy game pocket (oiled silk, waterproof) for the convenient transport of various body parts, actor, could perhaps play many roles to calm nervous ladies of the night. He was between wars in 1888 and fits the description given by many witnesses, right age and was arrested as a suspect. He was NOT proved innocent, merely to be who he said he was. I wonder if he was even searched? .

That was the case with Sir George Arthur of the Price of Wales set. He put on an old shooting coat and a slouch hat and went to Whitechapel for a little fun -San Francisco Chronicle, November 18, 1888.

Hi Curious,

Sir George Arthur was picked up for suspicious behavior on the streets of Whitechapel -a lone male giving unfortunates a hard time- and because he fit a Ripper description of wearing an american slouch hat. This is exactly the case for Francis Tumblety, and coincidentally, this particular article was the very first time people heard of Tumblety (Kumblety) as a Ripper suspect. Since the two were picked up (by constables most likely) around the same time for the same reason, we can see a general directive to constables was given to be on the lookout for lone males in slouch hats. Recall that Tumblety claimed he was only arrested for wearing a slouch hat.

Sincerely,
Mike

[curious4]

Slouch hats

Very true, Mike. You never know, I might even come round to your way of thinking eventually. Not yet, though, we all have our own favourites!

Best wishes,
C4/Gwyneth

[Ben]

Addendum to my above post, I'd also take issue with the suggestion that local working class suspects are targetted because of "snobbery". They're not. They're targeted because expert opinion, historical precedent and criminological insights indicates that they make the most likely suspects. It could be far more persuasively argued that some of those who choose an upper-class suspect do so because they can't bear the idea of a "boring" solution to the crimes.

[caz]

2) which victims were"Jacks" work?

My prime "model at the moment would be: Polly; Annie and (maybe) Kate with Mckenzie as a later possibility.

Liz Stride I still think died by a different hand (possibly Kidney) based on the very public location; lack of mutilation; the fact that she almost certainly was not soliciting (she was on a date) and the site - off "Jack's" usual beat.

Hi Phil,

I'm having a bit of trouble working out what you mean by "Jack's" usual beat, considering you only have Buck's Row (Aug 31) and Hanbury St (Sept 8) down as definites, followed by Mitre Square (Sept 30) and Castle Alley (July 17 1889) as possibles!

How do you figure that Berner St was too far from this tiny sample of locations for him to have wandered, or that he could have had no reason to ever go there? You don't even know where he started out from, or where else in the area he frequented.

Berner St was the kind of 'very public' location where the killer could have seen Stride, presumed she was soliciting and tried to persuade her to go with him somewhere that wasn't 'very public'. That's probably just how it had worked with Nichols and Chapman, who would have been in public places where they could expect to find customers, then moved on somewhere more private to conduct business. He was hardly going to try mutilating them at the pick-up point. So if you are right about Stride not soliciting, her killer could soon have realised his mistake and made her pay for it.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

Town planners have a conventional wisdom that certain structures or buildings can have an impact on who people behave in their environment.

So lets say you have a shopping street with a bridge half way down. Shoppers may well walk along until the bridge and then turn around. they won't cross the bridge even if they know there are shops on the other side.

In medieval towns, an arch or gateway spanning a street can create a "rain shadow" on the opposite side. It is as though the building becomes a psychological barrier - the territory on the other side unknown.

in London (leaving aside the west End as a free zone) the Thames acts as that sort of a barrier - I have known people from SE London who have never, or rarely, been to North London and think, if they do go, that it feels different.

I see Whitechapel High Street as possibly (no absolutism here) that sort of invisible barrier for "Jack" - a wide street with a different street pattern on the other side.

Phil