where do you stand?

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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 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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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 who´s 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 don´t 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 let´s 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

[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

[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

[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