Jack The Ripper solved?

[Stewart P Evans]

Date

Cheers, Stewart. I remember the illustration is in Scotland Yard Iinvestigates so I`ll have a look later. Would love to know the date on it whenever you come across it.
Although, I doubt there were any witnesses to Ludwig been escorted into Leman St at that time of night, unless that young lad looking on in the illustration was the lad he was threatening at the coffee stall and it was he who spoke to the journalists.

I am now able to say it's from Pictorial World, but the exact date eludes me. It must be after the Eddowes murder as the illustration is of a crowd at the Mitre Square murder scene, so the beginning of October, 1888.

[Hunter]

Hi Cris. Can you think of any other well-known Ripper books from say the 90's or later that presented a new suspect and offered ideas "contrary to what's established" that you actually liked and feel are worthwhile or are you saying they're all just hack pieces of notoriety seeking Yankee dollar machines?

Hi Tom,

You've given me an idea for something more to write about. Thanks.

I've learned that message boards are not the place to go into extensive detail about anything. Things get swallowed up quickly - especially on threads that are contentious or develop into diversionary topics. And what I was referring to and your subsequent questions involve matters that are not so 'cut and dried' as that part of my post or your question may imply... but I'll try to give a short answer for now.

There are few books that I haven't at least gleaned some information from. That's always a positive thing, no matter how outlandish or highly speculative most of the book is, and suspect related books - especially non contemporaneous ones - are usually highly speculative, and have to be by their very nature.

There are two post 1990 books that I consider to have offered nothing informative or useful for me - Cornwall's and Harrison's books. I guess I could add 'Uncle Jack' to that list, but I've forgotten when that was written.

On the other hand, 'The Fox and the Flies', while full of conjecture and a tedious read, had some information on Joseph Isaacs that I found useful. To me, that was worth the price of the book. Most suspect books do have previously unpublished information that even someone who has studied this subject extensively can find helpful.

The problem comes with the public at large - the broader audience that must be reached if one hopes to sell more that a few copies to a small specialized group. It has to be sensational, or it gets little to no attention from the mainstream press, and thus, limited sales and/or little notoriety. Its not just about the 'Yankee dollar'; its notoriety as well. And unfortunately, much of that notoriety goes to people who delve into this subject with a gimmick, outlandish proposals, and/or little criteria for proper historical research. People who have just a passing interest in 'Jack the Ripper' often do not know the difference and are taken in. To this day, most people are familiar with the Royal conspiracy and nothing else.

Most people who publish a 'Ripper' book or conduct lectures on the subject are not snake oil salesmen. But some are, and one only has to look at the press reports and book sales over the past 30+ years to see why that is lucrative for some to pursue. Good marketing takes precedent over good background and research. Its just the way it is. And I am a self-employed business owner who certainly believes in free enterprise. But I offer a service to people that has to stand on its own merits or I will soon have no credible business.

That does not necesarily apply here. People get taken in by schemes every day. And as I previously mentioned, the very nature of this subject means its ripe for the picking, while very good articles and books written by real researchers usually only reach a small dedicated group.

[Jon Guy]

I am now able to say it's from Pictorial World, but the exact date eludes me. It must be after the Eddowes murder as the illustration is of a crowd at the Mitre Square murder scene, so the beginning of October, 1888.

Thanks for that, Stewart !!

[Phil Carter]

two eads are better than one...

I've got two top hats, but I'm buggered if I'd wear one around Whitechapel at night.

Hello Stewart,

One to go the races at Epsom or weddings, and one to go to the Palace, one hopes! :-)


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Stewart,

One to go the races at Epsom or weddings, and one to go to the Palace, one hopes! :-)


Phil

Anyone has got to be better than the one he was seen wearing at the weekend

[Stewart P Evans]

Nice

Anyone has got to be better than the one he was seen wearing at the weekend

You are such a nice bloke Trevor.

[Wickerman]

I'd like very briefly to address a tangential issue raised here in relation to one particular "ripper myth", before returning - immediately, and without a fuss - back on topic.

Ben, lets not make a fuss when one is not warranted.

Might I suggest you drop the intentionally condescending term 'Toff', as a true Toff is a member of the Upper Classes.
Neither Dr. Phillips, nor Montague Druitt, nor Dr Neil Cream, were members of the Upper classes, yet Monty very likely, and certainly Dr's Phillips & Cream are known to have worn the top hat.

It is not a black & white issue Ben, much to your chagrin, so a little broader understanding of the inhabitants of Whitechapel & environs might help you here.
Not everyone who wore a top hat was a Toff.

[Ben]

The main one I would suggest is clearly Hutchinson’s A-man – notice there’s a man lurking at the end of the court.

No, Lechmere,

Almost certainly not.

Firstly, Hutchinson's statement had been discredited several days prior to the publication of the Penny Illustrated Paper image in question, and secondly, the individual depicted bears no resemblance to the Astrakhan man as described by Hutchinson. No Astrakhan collar or cuffs, no black parcel, and completely the wrong type of hat. I agree with Stewart's view that the illustrators were more likely to have had Mrs. Paumier's account in mind, as it appeared in the same edition, although I use the word "account" very loosely in her case. There is no evidence that she was taken seriously or even investigated by the police (did she even have any police contact?), and the oh-so-cryptic and devilishly cunning "gentleman" she described may well have been a surreptitious salute to the author of the "Dear Boss" missives, which made Jack the Ripper out to be a "haha the fools!" type of games-player.

The man from Ringers is even more difficult to take seriously as a potential ripper sighting. Firstly, we don't even know who was responsible for the original sighting, which makes it second-hand hearsay or worse, and secondly, if McCarthy had anything to do with it, as alleged in the article, it is conspicuous in the extreme that he said nothing about it at the inquest.

If the sketch was "probably impressionistic", it cannot possibly have been a faithful recreation of a specific police-endorsed description of the supposed ripper. It's either or. And if it's not the latter (and it clearly isn't), that's one more reason to ditch it as any sort of evidence of a sustained interest in Hutchinson's description.

If well-dressed people populated the contemporary stories then we have no reason to doubt the possibility of their existence

If three-humped, serpentine-headed, Plesiosaur-like monsters "populated the contemporary stories" of Loch Ness, "then we have no reason to doubt the possibility of their existence".

Unfortunately for this sort of reasoning - yours and the Nessie-hunter's - it completely overlooks the possibility of exaggeration, invention and titillation. People want Jack the Ripper to be posh and upper class and well-dressed and special and interesting, just as they want Nessie to be a real monster, rather than a floating branch. As much as I disagree with the Cross theorists, I thought I'd be on the same wavelength as them on this point at least.

For example we know Abberline believed Hutchinson’s toff tale and also believed that Hutchinson could see the details he mentioned with the level of lighting available at that hour. I would suggest that Abberline was in a better position to determine what was believable in Hutchinson's account than we are now.

This is taking us even further off track, and the last thing we want is a long-winded and repetitive Hutchinson thread-derailment (though I could be presumptious in my use of "we" there - who knows who could be gagging for one?), but briefly, no. Abberline's enthusiasm for Hutchinson was not to last long, and if it lasted at all it was because the sheer rarity of a mutilating serial killer (on his doorstep) may have prompted him to accept scenarios that under "normal" circumstances would be considered highly improbable and outlandish, e.g. if Jack the Ripper was this mad, evil, out-of-the-ordinary individual to his minds, he'd probably have an appearance to go with it.

Without those lodging houses skewing the data it would undoubtedly have been quite affluent.

...And without the poverty, squalour, crime and intense overcrowding in the district (a great deal of which had eff-all to do with lodging houses)...without all of that inconvenient, data-inconveniencing stuff, then yes, that part of the East End is pretty much indistinguishable from Belgravia. And without that snow, ice, sub-zero temperatures and placement on the globe, Antarctica could become really rather toasty.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Might I suggest you drop the intentionally condescending term 'Toff', as a true Toff is a member of the Upper Classes.

Greetings from Ontario, Jon.

And might I suggest familiarizing yourself properly with the discussion at hand before wading in with unnecessary and inappropriate criticism? I was responding to Trevor's use of the phrase "upper-class wealthy men" and Stewart's reference to slumming "toffs", which clearly wasn't intended as an "intentionally condescending" slight. It should be fairly obvious that Charles Ludwig, for instance, was not an upper class "toff", and nor was he likely to have passed himself convincingly off as one, even if the sighting did happen in the Minories, and not on the streets of Whitechapel.

[Tom_Wescott]

For what it's worth, John McCarthy was said to keep up with fashion and to dress 'gentlemanly'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[caz]

I think it's all a matter of degrees. Ben is arguing against the likelihood of the upper classes mingling with the great unwashed of Whitechapel on the meanest streets in the wee small hours, and therefore against the likelihood of the ripper coming from the upper classes to ply his gory trade there, dressed up to the nines.

But the thing is, I don't think anyone would seriously argue with that. What most people seem to be pointing out is the fact that Whitechapel was most certainly not out of bounds to all sorts of educated, reasonably well off, respectably dressed, middle class professionals and businessmen, some in the habit of wearing top hats, all more than capable of dressing down if they didn't want to attract negative attention.

The artist, actor and illustrator Weedon Grossmith wasn't an upper class toff exactly, but he was 'posh' and upper middle class, took great pride in his appearance, frequented the West End clubs and so on, yet he and his wife, and their upper middle class friends and associates, were happy to put on plays at the Pavilion Theatre, close to Buck's Row, and even Sir Henry Irving attended a first night there in the 1890s.

To read many of Ben's posts, you'd think anyone fool enough to do this would be lucky to emerge alive from the experience.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Yeah but at 2:00 am? in one of the worst parts of town? With gold chains, pins, spats? Possible but not very likely.

[caz]

Well Abby, that's not really what I was saying, was it? Although I don't expect the Pavilion closed for the night very early, despite it being in a dodgy area.

The man Hutch described seems to have been more Del Boy than Burlington Bertie. A flashy East End type would have had no trouble togging himself up from the ol' clo' stalls in the Jews' Market (as Petticoat Lane was also known), and adding cheap but gaudy accessories. The local villains, according to one Grossmith anecdote, tended to go to the West End looking for tipsy toffs to fleece, knowing that the pickings would be considerably richer there in both senses.

I'm not saying that Hutch's Flash Harry existed, nor that Hutch could easily have described him in such detail if he did. And I'm not saying this man ought to be considered a suspect. I'm saying there is no reason why men of a similar description would not have been a feature of the district.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Well Abby, that's not really what I was saying, was it? Although I don't expect the Pavilion closed for the night very early, despite it being in a dodgy area.

The man Hutch described seems to have been more Del Boy than Burlington Bertie. A flashy East End type would have had no trouble togging himself up from the ol' clo' stalls in the Jews' Market (as Petticoat Lane was also known), and adding cheap but gaudy accessories. The local villains, according to one Grossmith anecdote, tended to go to the West End looking for tipsy toffs to fleece, knowing that the pickings would be considerably richer there in both senses.

I'm not saying that Hutch's Flash Harry existed, nor that Hutch could easily have described him in such detail if he did. And I'm not saying this man ought to be considered a suspect. I'm saying there is no reason why men of a similar description would not have been a feature of the district.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I agree. I just have trouble beleiving one would be out and about at that TIME in the district.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Caz
I agree. I just have trouble beleiving one would be out and about at that TIME in the district.

Abby
You are quite correct anyone on their own no matter how they were dressed at that time of the morning walking the back streets un armed would be fair game.