where do you stand?

[Monty]

Hindsight is good enough for me to avoid dropping it, at any rate, Monty. I think we need to couple that hindsight to the material we have, courtesy of police and press mainly, from 1888, and we will be fine.

Again, you misquote me. Which is a regular thing with you Ive noted. However with regards this topic you have no hindsight.

In fact, that is what I do when I say that I think that the police were of the meaning that they probably needed to look for a maniac. My hindsight tells me that there is a difference inbetween how we look upon serialists and how they perceived them - and then I add an article from the Dublin Express, dated in December 1888, saying that "detectives have recently visited all the registered private lunatic asylums and made inquiries as to the inmates recently admitted." I then couple this to Andersonīs statement from 1892 that it was "impossible to believe" that the killings could be those of a sane man, and that they must instead be those of a "maniac revelling in blood". What Anderson says here is that although there were both sane people and maniacs around, there was no need to fear that a sane man lay behind the murders.

So basically you have taken an obscure news clipping and coupled it with Andersons quote? Having read the case file, and I assume you have also, and taken in the exstensive news reports I have read, it is quite clear that the Police as a whole were not concentrating solely on a 'maniac'.

As for your excellent friend and you and your agreement on the superior knowledge of the police as opposed to us, Iīd like to join that club if I may. However, it should be weighed in that the knowledge the police amassed about people, was a knowledge that stretched only to the ones they saw reason to look into. I therefore have no hesitation to say that we may well know a lot more about the people they did NOT decide to look into. In hindsight, thatīs not a bad thing.

Thats an assumption on your part. To state they did not look into the 'people' we have looked into is unproven as you were not there at the time. Therefore you do not hold the full facts and have no ground to stand on when trying to understand the situation as it stood in 1888.

Ergo, there is no hindsight to maintain. It cannot be done.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Again, you misquote me. Which is a regular thing with you Ive noted. However with regards this topic you have no hindsight."

Eh - I did not quote you at all, Monty.

"So basically you have taken an obscure news clipping and coupled it with Andersons quote? Having read the case file, and I assume you have also, and taken in the exstensive news reports I have read, it is quite clear that the Police as a whole were not concentrating solely on a 'maniac'."

I canīt remember saying that they did. But Iīll skip the "you misquote me thing", and just state that what I DID say was that "the police worked from the assumption that the killer would very probably be a maniac BEFORE they had any true leads" (and thatīs a direct quotation). This however does not preclude that they may have maintained other leads too - in fact the "very probably" is a manner of saying that I think that this was their favoured track of investigation, whereas they kept an eye open for other possibilities too. We KNOW they suspected men that were absolutely not maniacs on the surface, Monty, so you will be correct there.
As for "obscure" news clipping, that brings us to your next statement: "Thats an assumption on your part."

And on we go:

"To state they did not look into the 'people' we have looked into is unproven as you were not there at the time."

But when did I say so, Monty? I have not specified any person at all, I have merely said that they only knew a lot about the ones they took a look at, whereas there is every opportunity that we may find out more today about people they did not research back then.
Once again, I will not say that "you misquoted me", since I find that only evokes bad blood. You misunderstood me, though.

"Therefore you do not hold the full facts and have no ground to stand on when trying to understand the situation as it stood in 1888."

Welcome to THAT particular club, Monty!!

"Ergo, there is no hindsight to maintain. It cannot be done."

Sorry, Monty, but I think that is just nonsense. Of course we may with hindsight see that for example Lechmere should have been researched better, at least to the degree that they found out who he actually was. Hindsight also tells us that the GSG should not have been erased, that Nichols should not have been stripped and washed before the examination etcetera.

But each one to his own, eh?

The best,
Fisherman
who really thinks this is growing more and more uninteresting - letīs drop it!

[caz]

Suspects? No really good ones at all. The police at the time were working on the assumption that JtR was at the very least visibly disreputable and/or eccentric, and quite possibly some sort of obvious maniac or monster, and the general public presumably thought so too. As we now know, he is far more likely to have been a thoroughly respectable and inoffensive member of the community whom nobody would suspect, and who for this reason could easily explain away things like coming home with bloody clothes by telling his wife he'd had a nose-bleed.

So you're most likely looking for a shopkeeper or clerk with no criminal record or obvious signs of insanity who was never suspected by anybody. If that's the real solution, then the only giveaway is likely to be that this person died round about the end of 1888 - not really a lot to go on, therefore JtR's real name has probably never appeared in police records or any book on the subject.

Even the best recent suspects are suspected because they were conspicuous enough for the police to notice them. Francis Tumblety was caught with a rent-boy, which to the Victorian mindset made him a depraved pervert capable of anything. Contemporary sources show that senior officers in the case considered "sexual insanity" to include homosexuality and masturbation, both of which might in their opinion turn you into a serial killer! Tumblety is also known to us because he was pathologically driven to seek attention, wandering around in ludicrous fake military uniforms of his own invention. And the only death he was definitely responsible for came about through a quack medical procedure that went wrong. This guy was a megalomaniac gay snake-oil salesman who couldn't be inconspicuous to save his life, so of course the police noticed him! The real JtR is the guy they didn't notice, so neither did we.

Excellent observations, Mad Dan. I can see nothing wrong with your reasoning.

I tend to think too many people over the years have visualised the ripper at one extreme or the other (by class, wealth, appearance, outward behaviour, sanity and so on), when there are no good reasons for doing so. He was just another human being, who only allowed his darkest side to emerge when he was alone with a victim. Beyond that we cannot know a thing about his actual status in society, where he came from, when and why he stopped, because nobody saw him in the act of murder.

It's always possible that he was a toff dressed down, or a very poor local man (aside from the huge middle ground), so I don't understand why people's theories over the years that he was one or the other (however outlandish or 'outdated' some might appear on the surface to be) can affect any of the possibilities in any way, or give more weight to some and less to others.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

I don't understand why people's theories over the years that he was one or the other (however outlandish or 'outdated' some might appear on the surface to be) can affect any of the possibilities in any way, or give more weight to some and less to others.

Because Caz, we all have our individual ways of seeking to explain or tease out what lies behind these crimes.

One aspect of the discussion centres on the reasons why Anderson and Swanson went for a low class immigrant from the locality, while MM and Littlechild preferred "outsiders" from a higher social class. If we are to understand them, we have - to an extent - to enter with and seek to appreciate their thought processes.

I believe "Jack's" social class - given that we are talking about the heavily class conscious high Victorian period - is very relevant to how he may have worked, attracted victims, to descriptions given by witnesses, to motivation and to where he went went he was done.

But all that is just my humble opinion, of course.

Phil

[Monty]

Monty:

"Again, you misquote me. Which is a regular thing with you Ive noted. However with regards this topic you have no hindsight."

Eh - I did not quote you at all, Monty.

"So basically you have taken an obscure news clipping and coupled it with Andersons quote? Having read the case file, and I assume you have also, and taken in the exstensive news reports I have read, it is quite clear that the Police as a whole were not concentrating solely on a 'maniac'."

I canīt remember saying that they did. But Iīll skip the "you misquote me thing", and just state that what I DID say was that "the police worked from the assumption that the killer would very probably be a maniac BEFORE they had any true leads" (and thatīs a direct quotation). This however does not preclude that they may have maintained other leads too - in fact the "very probably" is a manner of saying that I think that this was their favoured track of investigation, whereas they kept an eye open for other possibilities too. We KNOW they suspected men that were absolutely not maniacs on the surface, Monty, so you will be correct there.
As for "obscure" news clipping, that brings us to your next statement: "Thats an assumption on your part."

And on we go:

"To state they did not look into the 'people' we have looked into is unproven as you were not there at the time."

But when did I say so, Monty? I have not specified any person at all, I have merely said that they only knew a lot about the ones they took a look at, whereas there is every opportunity that we may find out more today about people they did not research back then.
Once again, I will not say that "you misquoted me", since I find that only evokes bad blood. You misunderstood me, though.

"Therefore you do not hold the full facts and have no ground to stand on when trying to understand the situation as it stood in 1888."

Welcome to THAT particular club, Monty!!

"Ergo, there is no hindsight to maintain. It cannot be done."

Sorry, Monty, but I think that is just nonsense. Of course we may with hindsight see that for example Lechmere should have been researched better, at least to the degree that they found out who he actually was. Hindsight also tells us that the GSG should not have been erased, that Nichols should not have been stripped and washed before the examination etcetera.

But each one to his own, eh?

The best,
Fisherman
who really thinks this is growing more and more uninteresting - letīs drop it!

Christer,

Why the change to bold font? It gives the impression you have lost your composure and are shouting at me, am I to conclude that?

Yeah, you didnt, apologies. You stated an untruth.

You were the one who used the word 'people'. I never stated you were referring to a specific person either. Wasnt quoting you so yeah, its wise to skip that part.

Sorry, Monty, but I think that is just nonsense. Of course we may with hindsight see that for example Lechmere should have been researched better, at least to the degree that they found out who he actually was. Hindsight also tells us that the GSG should not have been erased, that Nichols should not have been stripped and washed before the examination etcetera.

As you do not hold the full facts regarding Cross what the Police did or did not know of him at the time, you cannot have an understanding of the situation as it was then. Therefore hindsight does not exist.

What you provide is your own view on Cross, based on your own knowledge of what happend.

Monty, who really doesnt care how uninteresting this is for you, he is just concerned with the blantent attempt to mislead the readership again.

[Rubyretro]

Good idea for a thread -

I would say:

1) the three most plausible suspects (if any)?

I can only think of two (in no particular order of merit)

a) Kosminski - a local man
b) An unknown local man

Beyond that, whilst there may be sufficient circumstance regarding many of our current 'suspects' to allow us to speculate, that's all there is - not enough for me.

2) which victims were"Jacks" work?

Probably all of them up to Kelly, including Emma Smith etc. Even the Ripper ha to start somewhere. Subsequent to that, Alice McKenzie perhaps.

3) most plausible identity of Leather Apron who harrassed women in the area?

John Pizer.

4)) which if any letters came from the killer?

I don't think any of them did.

Gosh, I'm with Sally, right back on the first page, but with the exception of the inclusion of 'Kosminski' amongst the suspects.

Otherwise, in reply to Monty's assertion that the Police involved in the case at the time were better qualified to judge the suspects than 'we' are today; That would suppose that :
a) 'we' are incapable of learning, by ourselves, from all the many case histories of serial killers which have become public between 1888 and the present day. In other words, all those cases taught us nothing and were worthless.
b) professional studies analysing serial killings involving mutilation which have been made available between 1888 and the present day, are worthless
c) the worldwide sharing of information and opinion, which we know today, is worthless.

I can't go with the opinion that our collective shared superior experience and trained analysis of it is worthless. I think that it has got to be worth more than the opinions of a policeman , on the ground at the time, which were formed by very limited knowledge of the wide subject.

Fishy is right.; experience tells us that it isn't Mr Red or Mr Black that is generally the culprit, it is Mr Grey...

[Fisherman]

Monty:

Why the change to bold font? It gives the impression you have lost your composure and are shouting at me, am I to conclude that?

Not at all, Monty. I just find it easy to show whoīs saying what that way. I could let you have the bold text if you wish?


"You stated an untruth."

I did? Where and when? Are you perhaps saying that I stated something that cannot be proven, something that I simply believe to be the truth? If so, you need to word it a bit more carefully.

"You were the one who used the word 'people'. I never stated you were referring to a specific person either. Wasnt quoting you so yeah, its wise to skip that part."

Hmm? How else would I word it? "People" in general that were not look into are people that we stand a chance of getting a fuller picture of than the police did back then if they did not look into them.
Somehow, you seem to think that I was speaking of somebody specific - which I was not.

As you do not hold the full facts regarding Cross what the Police did or did not know of him at the time, you cannot have an understanding of the situation as it was then. Therefore hindsight does not exist.

I disagree, as you may have seen. The material allows us to reflect on it in hindsight to a useful extent. And that works quite well although we all know that we lack full knowledge - as did the police back then.

What you provide is your own view on Cross, based on your own knowledge of what happened.

What we all do, Monty, is to provide our views of the case, based on our respective knowledge what happened. I donīt see that as a problem - I see it as a healthy basis for the type of discussions these boards are meant for.

Monty, who really doesnt care how uninteresting this is for you, he is just concerned with the blantent attempt to mislead the readership again.

"Blatant", you mean? It saddens me that you should say something like this. Since I disagree, I can only conclude that you are somewhat unbalanced, so letīs stop this exchange before it descends into nothing but unsubstantiated accusations. The boards can do without it.
I must therefore tell you that any further posts from you along the lines you are employing now, will remain unanswered by me.

Any form of caserelated discussion, though, is something I much welcome.

Your choice, Monty.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Damaso Marte]

I am confident that the killer's name has never been posted anywhere on this website. I am inclined to think that the killer was a local, though one in a strong enough financial position to own multiple hats (not sure how expensive of a habit multiple hat ownership would have been in 1888)

For the sake of argument, I am a "defender of orthodoxy" on this forum and hew to the C5. However, I could with equal ease be convinced that Stride was killed by a different hand, or that McKenzie or Tabram were killed by the same hand as the C5. I would be much, much more hesitant to drop Kelly/Eddowes or to accept Coles.

I don't know anything about Leather Apron, so I will decline to answer that question.

I think that all of the letters are hoaxes.

[lynn cates]

words

Hello Jonathan. Good reasoning.

"with the Royal Watergate saturating culture like a thin film of vomit"

Hmm, I knew there was a reason i liked you--it's your way with words, in stating the truth.

Cheers.
LC

[RavenDarkendale]

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.

[Phil H]

Otherwise, in reply to Monty's assertion that the Police involved in the case at the time were better qualified to judge the suspects than 'we' are today; That would suppose that :
a) 'we' are incapable of learning, by ourselves, from all the many case histories of serial killers which have become public between 1888 and the present day. In other words, all those cases taught us nothing and were worthless.
b) professional studies analysing serial killings involving mutilation which have been made available between 1888 and the present day, are worthless
c) the worldwide sharing of information and opinion, which we know today, is worthless.

Well, among consideration you seem to ignore are:

* they has access to more information that we now have - they could cross-question witnesses, look Joe Barnett, or Pizer in the eye

* they were aware of the "buzz" on the ground

* they were NOT gulty of assuming that experience teaches right lessons

* that analyses since 1888 might be wrong

* that worldwide sharing of information may be irrelevant and misleading.

But there we have it, modern arrogance versus 1888 arrogance. Fact is, we know know more than they ddi then, and for all our C21st belief in scientific advance, we are likely to find ourselves wrong as much as did those Victorians who followed the bumps on heads, or other scientific dead-ends. We are not the end, we are just as much "on the road" as they were in 1888.

saturating culture like a thin film of vomit

I really see no need for that kind of language, but I can think of current posters it might describe!!

Fisherman - most of us use the convention - when we do not use !quote boxes" of bolding the citation, not the response. Why have you decided to reverse that convention?

Phil

[mklhawley]

Even the best recent suspects are suspected because they were conspicuous enough for the police to notice them. Francis Tumblety was caught with a rent-boy, which to the Victorian mindset made him a depraved pervert capable of anything. Contemporary sources show that senior officers in the case considered "sexual insanity" to include homosexuality and masturbation, both of which might in their opinion turn you into a serial killer! Tumblety is also known to us because he was pathologically driven to seek attention, wandering around in ludicrous fake military uniforms of his own invention. And the only death he was definitely responsible for came about through a quack medical procedure that went wrong. This guy was a megalomaniac gay snake-oil salesman who couldn't be inconspicuous to save his life, so of course the police noticed him! The real JtR is the guy they didn't notice, so neither did we.

This is the exact series of misconceptions about Francis Tumblety that has even caused the saltier Ripperologists to be duped. Your first argument I will be dealing with in an upcoming article, so I'll wait on that, but believing he was pathologically driven to seek attention is way off the mark. Francis Tumblety wore 'ludicrous fake military uniforms' and seeked attention in countless cities for one reason, to make money. His brilliance was not in the art the snake oil, it was in marketing himself. Never did he publicize his private life and denied having one up to his death. Matching up his public persona to your perception of who JtR was is an exercise in ignorance. To say that the Tumblety file at Scotland Yard only consisted of enjoying rent boys is another serious misconception.

Sincerely,

Mike

[Monty]

I am quite staggered at you arrogance Ruby,

Our collective shared superior experience? It what way are we superior?

We may have a better understanding of human behaviour today (assuming our superiority isnt a misplaced assumption, after all phrenology was cutting edge of its time wasn’t it?) however when it comes to the specific suspect knowledge the police held with regards to this specific case, it is very clear we do not have the full account.

Therefore to state we are in a better position to assess the situation regarding specific suspects in relation to this case is absurd and plain wrong. We are not. We are slaves to what little information has survived, and therefore in NO position to claim we know better.

You don’t.

Monty

[Monty]

Monty:

Why the change to bold font? It gives the impression you have lost your composure and are shouting at me, am I to conclude that?

Not at all, Monty. I just find it easy to show whoīs saying what that way. I could let you have the bold text if you wish?


"You stated an untruth."

I did? Where and when? Are you perhaps saying that I stated something that cannot be proven, something that I simply believe to be the truth? If so, you need to word it a bit more carefully.

"You were the one who used the word 'people'. I never stated you were referring to a specific person either. Wasnt quoting you so yeah, its wise to skip that part."

Hmm? How else would I word it? "People" in general that were not look into are people that we stand a chance of getting a fuller picture of than the police did back then if they did not look into them.
Somehow, you seem to think that I was speaking of somebody specific - which I was not.

As you do not hold the full facts regarding Cross what the Police did or did not know of him at the time, you cannot have an understanding of the situation as it was then. Therefore hindsight does not exist.

I disagree, as you may have seen. The material allows us to reflect on it in hindsight to a useful extent. And that works quite well although we all know that we lack full knowledge - as did the police back then.

What you provide is your own view on Cross, based on your own knowledge of what happened.

What we all do, Monty, is to provide our views of the case, based on our respective knowledge what happened. I donīt see that as a problem - I see it as a healthy basis for the type of discussions these boards are meant for.

Monty, who really doesnt care how uninteresting this is for you, he is just concerned with the blantent attempt to mislead the readership again.

"Blatant", you mean? It saddens me that you should say something like this. Since I disagree, I can only conclude that you are somewhat unbalanced, so letīs stop this exchange before it descends into nothing but unsubstantiated accusations. The boards can do without it.
I must therefore tell you that any further posts from you along the lines you are employing now, will remain unanswered by me.

Any form of caserelated discussion, though, is something I much welcome.

Your choice, Monty.

All the best,
Fisherman

Yeah, ok

Monty

[caz]

Hi Phil.
Yes, I've been around Ripperology since before Knight came on the scene, so I do know what you mean about 'waves' among authors.

The important point to keep in mind, there are "Toffs" and there are "well-dressed" men, the two are not the same in my book. Was Dr. Neil Cream a "Toff" in your book?, he was a murderer, and a murderer of prostitutes, not all murderer's are gutter snipe's dressed in rags and tatters.

I tend to think this image of a low-life dosser committing the crimes is one of denial, along the lines of modern day snobbery. Only someone out of work, rough, no class, no morals, and belonging to the criminal classes could commit a crime like this - which I take to be classic melodrama. Its like believing all the criminals must look evil - which we both know to be rubbish.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Jon,

I totally agree with you - that's exactly the impression I get from some of today's theorists.

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 (eg Kosminski ending up committed, Druitt in the Thames) - there is no point in trying to judge what type the ripper really was (and more to the point what type he wasn't) from previous theorists' guesswork and personal prejudices. The prejudices themselves can't argue against a certain type, if it's as likely as any other.

Love,

Caz
X