where do you stand?

[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]

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,

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[ChrisGeorge]

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

Phil

Hi Phil

The fact that he committed the murders and got away with it time and time again implies that he was a risk taker. I would submit, Phil, that in this case in which very little is known about the killer this one thing that we can bank on.

Best regards

Chris

[RivkahChaya]

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

I've never questioned that JTR could have been a Jew, and I suppose he could have even been a shecter, or someone who had trained as a shecter, but I don't think there's anything about the murders that especially suggests a shecter.

Cripes, I certainly hope that someone wasn't using his knives on animals by day, and people by night! that means that none of his meat was actually kosher! But, then, someone commented that a shecting knife wasn't like the knife that was used, according to one of the coroners at the time. So, we would have a shecter using some other set of knives, not his professional ones. At this point, we're starting to move away from the reasons for suspecting a shecter in the first place.

A professional shecter could not even sharpen his professional knives, and his "murder" knives with the same stone, because that, too would make the professional knives unkosher.

It's a matter of Jewish law that something metal, like a utensil or pot, which is accidentally rendered unkosher (or purchased second hand, so the status isn't known) can be made kosher by cleaning it and pouring boiling water over it (there are a lot of rules: the water must boil for 20 minutes, etc.), and you can kasher regular items for Passover this way.

However, it's also a matter of law that you cannot knowingly render something unkosher with the intent to kasher it later.

I'm pretty sure all butchers are trained for speed, because time is money.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Phil

The fact that he committed the murders and got away with it time and time again implies that he was a risk taker. I would submit, Phil, that in this case in which very little is known about the killer this one thing that we can bank on.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

Your last sentence defines my participation on these boards, ...without much to, as you put it "bank on", the notion that we can categorically assign murder victims that Fall to a single killer is flawed.

We barely have enough evidence to conclude preliminarily that 2 or perhaps 3 were by the same killer.

I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven rather than Risk Taker..., the uncontrolled impulses inevitably created the second condition.

Best regards Mr G

[RivkahChaya]

I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven rather than Risk Taker..., the uncontrolled impulses inevitably created the second condition.

I agree, but I couldn't quite get my slogan together.

If you'll pardon me being a little, umm, whatever, if you have to pee, and you can't find a bathroom, your risk-aversion, or, getting arrested for exposing yourself (not to mention your personal sense of embarrassment), will keep you from just going right where you are. To a point. If you have, say a bladder infection, or you really, really can't find a restroom, at some point, your risk-aversion will be overcome by your discomfort.

We don't know exactly where JTR was on some continuum; all we know is that either he wasn't risk-averse, or the impulse was overwhelming, (or both).

He could have been extremely risk-averse, but feeling overwhelmed; or, not risk-averse, and rather blase about other people's lives; or somewhere on the center of both.

[lynn cates]

loud

Hello Mike.

"I think the killer of Polly and Annie falls under the category of Impulse driven"

Certainly looks that way to me. We have a chap who talks loudly outside someone's window--not too calculating.

Cheers.
LC