Was the killer a jew

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I do not intend this to be a 39 theory thread[ relief by many] but I must pose the question'' Was the killer a Jew?''
For those not of the Jewish faith, there are several indicators that the number 39 has major significant factors.
The 39 Melachas..
are forbidden acts on Shabbat, which runs from sundown Friday-just after sundown Sat, which suggest abstention from 39 forms of creative activity.
The Hebrew bible..
3x13 is reflected by thirteen attributes of mercy.
Again 39 is sacred.
So we have to look at the C5.
Nichols murdered at a unspecified time on Friday the 31st Aug AM..pre Sabbath
Chapman found dawn on Sat 8th Sept.[ During Sabbath]
Stride , and Eddowes killed early hours Sunday 30th Sept.Pre Sabbath]
Mary Kelly.. found 1045 am on Friday 9th Nov[ Pre Sabbath]
So if the killer was a Jew, why would he break the Sabbath with Annie Chapman.?
I just thought that this should be brought to the attention for those that are not aware of the Jewish faith.
Regards Richard.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Why would a Jew brake the Sabbath?

Well, technically I think I was born a Chistian, but that means nothing to me. So I might say breaking the Sabbath didn't mean enough, if anything, to the killer if he was indeed a Jew. Reverance is a choice. Like almost everything else.

[Phil H]

But religion, Digalittledeeperwatson - at least in the outward forms - was a greater matter for many in the late C19th. I believe thinking was different and more influenced by theological and "faith" considerations.

The "39 thesis" I discount utterly. It is too complex to have been maintained. (Take the stab wounds on Tabram - the killer was frenzied, do we expect that he kept exact count?)

As for the Sabbath - Friday night and Saturday might well have been down-time for many ordinary people. On that basis, can we narrow it down just to Jews? But equally the choice of dates - even if a Jew was the killer - might indicate many things: a flagrant insult to his former faith? a statement of some kind (the Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing springs to mind). Can we extrapolate anything from the days and times of days of the murders?

The "weekend" as we know it had not then been invented. Up too the late sixties, in Britain, many people worked on Saturday mornings before that maybe all day. Look at Bob Cratchit in Christmas Carol (what 50 years previous?) and the attitude to holidays.

But it is a good subject for debate, Richard.

Also for research. I have often thought that a good paper on the approach totime off work, the Sabbath etc in 1888 Spitalfields would be helpful. It might help us determine why certain days seem to have been the ones when murders were committed. What days off were usual among the working classes.

Why three prosperous Jews were out so late on the night Kate Eddowes was killed? Was this usual? Was it exceptional.

The social history of the period is important in understanding the habits and thought process of the people who lived in that community at that time.

Phil

[Damaso Marte]

Whitechapel had a lot of Jews, and at least one eyewitness described a foreign-looking killer. I think I'd put the chances of the killer being a Jew at least in the 30-40% range if not higher.

That said, I have always found it curious when people who believe in a Jewish killer discuss the details of Jewish law to theorize about the killer, assuming the killer was a practicing and devout Jew. I am pretty sure that murder and mutilation is against Jewish law, and I'm very certain that human organs are not kosher. I feel comfortable saying that if the killer were Jewish, he was not a very good Jew, and we should not assume he was observant in other ways.

[Damaso Marte]

The social history of the period is important in understanding the habits and thought process of the people who lived in that community at that time.

Here's a good question: how common in 1888 Whitechapel were non-observant Jews? Today, there are many people for whom their Judaism is purely an ethnicity and not at all a religion. I have a friend who is currently earning a PhD in Jewish Studies, and he has almost certainly eaten more bacon in his 30 years of existence than everyone who has posted in this thread combined.

I think a non-observant Jew makes a lot of sense as a Ripper suspect (see my post above), but did such people actually exist in Whitechapel or is this an anachronism.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Damaso

Here's a good question: how common in 1888 Whitechapel were non-observant Jews? Today, there are many people for whom their Judaism is purely an ethnicity and not at all a religion. I have a friend who is currently earning a PhD in Jewish Studies, and he has almost certainly eaten more bacon in his 30 years of existence than everyone who has posted in this thread combined.

I think a non-observant Jew makes a lot of sense as a Ripper suspect (see my post above), but did such people actually exist in Whitechapel or is this an anachronism.

Try looking in the club...there were seventy or so non-observant members in there alone - plus presumably a good number of the readership of Arbeiter Fraint...

All the best

Dave

[martin wilson]

I think Phil H makes an important point about insulting the faith, it may be significant for example that to join the IWMC Jews had to renounce their faith.
There is the schochet theory first proposed by Robin Odell I believe, and an archive thread on casebook about the possibility of it being a mohel.
Both would possibly fill the criteria of possessing some skill with a knife, without having the anatomical knowledge of a surgeon.
Reading George Hutchinsons statement without prejudice, the parcel with straps could be either one of them's knives and implements.
The Horseshoe tiepin and heavy gold chain with red stone interest me, both are associated with Jewish mysticism and protection against the evil eye, or protective jewellry generally.

[Damaso Marte]

I think Phil H makes an important point about insulting the faith, it may be significant for example that to join the IWMC Jews had to renounce their faith.
There is the schochet theory first proposed by Robin Odell I believe, and an archive thread on casebook about the possibility of it being a mohel.
Both would possibly fill the criteria of possessing some skill with a knife, without having the anatomical knowledge of a surgeon.
Reading George Hutchinsons statement without prejudice, the parcel with straps could be either one of them's knives and implements.
The Horseshoe tiepin and heavy gold chain with red stone interest me, both are associated with Jewish mysticism and protection against the evil eye, or protective jewellry generally.

In the "did the killer have anatomical knowledge" thread, Prosector makes the argument that Jewish butchers would have used a different kind of knife than non-kosher butchers, and the knife used in the killings was closer to the latter. This gave me pause when it comes to the "generic Jewish butcher" theory.

What kind of knives would Jewish barbers have used?

[The Good Michael]

I am pretty sure that murder and mutilation is against Jewish law, and I'm very certain that human organs are not kosher.

Murder and mutilation is against most human law. Being orthodox or non-practicing has nothing to do with what a human being is capable of doing.

Mike

[martin wilson]

There is an early 20th century scochet knife set up for sale for $5,500 at Jo Schonberg Galleries.
Have a look and let me know what you think.
Mohel circumsision sets are smaller, googling via images show them to be of the scalpel type, although there are other knives, I'm not sure that they could have inflicted all the injuries.

[lynn cates]

percentage

Hello Damaso, Dave.

"Here's a good question: how common in 1888 Whitechapel were non-observant Jews?"

Dave is quite correct. The Orthodox Jews detested the IWMEC since they were non-observant.

It is not clear, however, what was their percentage of the total Jewish population.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

What about the recent immigrants from Poland etc? Did they dress differently (in the way we see in pre-War films of Russia and eastern Europe). Did they adhere to somewhat different rites?

I am thinking in particular of the Kosminskis.

Phil

[Errata]

So, I'm just going to say this, and it's nitpicking and I know it... but...

When referring to a person, it is better to say that they are Jewish, rather than saying they are a Jew. And there is some subtle difference between the two that doesn't really matter at this point. It comes down to context.

When someone says to me "I didn't know you were Jewish" that's fine and I usually say "Why yes, I am Jewish"
When someone says "I didn't know you were a Jew" I flinch. Because usually something ugly follows that statement.

There is no appreciable difference between the two, but I have never had a bigot call me Jewish. They have always referred to me as "A Jew".

Consequently, every time someone refers to someone as "a Jew" makes me cringe a little. I don't for a moment think any of you are bigoted. Like I said, the preference has to do with context, and none of you have ever addressed me or anyone else in that context. It's just you know how one ******* can ruin it for everybody? Well they did.

As for the actual topic, no observant Jew could mutilate a person in that manner without being severely delusional. Severely in an almost non functional kind of way. However it would be fair to say that about a quarter of the Jews in London were non observant. Weddings and funerals sure, but not observant. They would still identify as Jewish, they just wouldn't have set foot in a synagogue or prayed in a very long time. It may be more than a quarter, there was not a lot to praise god about in the East End.

[Errata]

What about the recent immigrants from Poland etc? Did they dress differently (in the way we see in pre-War films of Russia and eastern Europe). Did they adhere to somewhat different rites?

I am thinking in particular of the Kosminskis.

Phil

Only for the first couple of years. I mean, they would not be a little group of matroyska dolls trundling through the streets, but they would wear things slightly differently. But adopting English culture was important to these immigrants, so as soon as they were buying new clothes (or used new clothes) they would be buying English styles. Still with scarves probably, because they were valuable, but Western cuts and cloths.

[Observer]

So, I'm just going to say this, and it's nitpicking and I know it... but...

When referring to a person, it is better to say that they are Jewish, rather than saying they are a Jew. And there is some subtle difference between the two that doesn't really matter at this point. It comes down to context.

When someone says to me "I didn't know you were Jewish" that's fine and I usually say "Why yes, I am Jewish"
When someone says "I didn't know you were a Jew" I flinch. Because usually something ugly follows that statement.

There is no appreciable difference between the two, but I have never had a bigot call me Jewish. They have always referred to me as "A Jew".

Consequently, every time someone refers to someone as "a Jew" makes me cringe a little. I don't for a moment think any of you are bigoted. Like I said, the preference has to do with context, and none of you have ever addressed me or anyone else in that context. It's just you know how one ******* can ruin it for everybody? Well they did.

As for the actual topic, no observant Jew could mutilate a person in that manner without being severely delusional. Severely in an almost non functional kind of way. However it would be fair to say that about a quarter of the Jews in London were non observant. Weddings and funerals sure, but not observant. They would still identify as Jewish, they just wouldn't have set foot in a synagogue or prayed in a very long time. It may be more than a quarter, there was not a lot to praise god about in the East End.

I'm not sure how to take the above Errata. Does the

"It's just you know how one ******* can ruin it for everybody? Well they did."

mean that Richard God bless him Nunweek is guilty of bigotry? I have read most of Richards posts, and I must say he most definitely does not come across as a bigot. Of course, I may very well have hold of the wrong end of the stick, apologies in advance if I have.

Regards

Observer