Social class of Jack the Ripper

[David Orsam]

He also uses another name for himself.

So this letter you have found is not actually in your suspect's name? Is that right?

[Pierre]

Well, Pierre, I have to admit this stimulates me a little bit. I can't see it getting us anywhere, but it does strikes some notes.

Were you aware that Alfred, Lord Tennyson, was fascinated by old murder cases? He was. This is from Richard Altick's, "Victorian Studies in Scarlet: Murders and Manners in the Age of Victoria" (New York, Norton, 1970), p. 125:

"A third Trinity College man in 1828-31 was Alfred Tennyon. The abundant anecdotal material in print has as little to say about his interest in crime as it does about his fondness for rude limericks, no doubt because his contemporaries, when they recorded their memories of him, felt that such enthusiasms were beneath the dignity of a Poet Laureate. There is, however, no question that Tennyson ws, in this regard as so many others, a true Victorian. In 1859, visiting the Tennysons at their Isle of Wight home, the Oxford mathematics don, Charles Lutwidge Dodgson ("Lewis Carroll") write to a cousin, "Up in the smoking-room the conversation turned upon murders, and Tennyson told us several horrible stories from his own experience --- he seems rather to revel in such descriptions --- one would not guess it from his poetry." Nor would one guess that the author of "Alice in Wonderland" would relish such descriptions; and his rather prissy tone suggests that he didn't.
Later in the century Tyson had a similar talk-fest with another don, this time Benjamin Jowett, translator of Plato and master of Balliol College. The story comes from H. B. Irving, son of the great actor and himself a well-regarded writer on true crime, who recalled his father telling him that "sitting up late one night talking with Tennyson, the latter remarked that he had not kept such late hours since a recent visit of Jowett. on that occasion the poet and the philosopher had talked together well into the small hours of the morning. My father asked Tennyson what was the subject of the conversation that had engrossed them. 'Murders,' replied Tennyson." One would give much to know which Victorian atrocities especially appealed to the Poet Laureate."

P. 316 [Footnotes]

Lewis Carroll on Tennyson's interest in murder: Florence Becker Lennon, "Lewis Carroll" (London, 1947), p. 73.
Jowett's testimony: H. B. Irving, "A Book of Remarkable Criminals" (New York,1918), p.11.

Tennyson was also a friend of Michael Maybrick, the brother of James Maybrick and author of lyrics to several hymns, like "The Holy City". James has been suggested as a suspect in the Ripper murders, but most students of the case reject him (the "diary" that tied him to the case is suspect). Recently Michael Maybrick himself has been suggested as the actual Ripper. And, of course, Lewis Carroll has also been suggested as a suspect.

As for Tennyson himself, the only other link to true crime is one of his descendants was that excellent writer on the subject, F. Tennyson Jesse ("Murder and It's Motives"). Of course you did not say the Poet Lauriate was suspect, you just mentioned that the letter you found hinted at some of his writings. Anyone could have done that in a letter.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge on Tennyson.

I think that the interest in murder stories and even in the supernatural was a rather common aspect of the 19th Century.

It might even be that we misinterpret this aspect and think that those who took interest in such ideas could have been candidates for murder themselves. I have seen that in some theories about poets and artists being Jack the Ripper. They are thought to be the Whitechapel killer because of their horrifying paintings or poems.

But I am convinced that this is misleading. Poe was not a killer because he wrote about murder, Sickert was no serial murderer and the other guy (the poet - whatīs his name again?) certainly seem to have been using opium (as did many others) and writing horrible poems but couldnīt have been the Whitechapel killer. At least I donīt think so.

I think the killer on the other hand (he was also part of his time) could use ideas in his own time when he was communicationg with the police, but his main interest was not painting or poetry. It was to taunt the police by killing and mutilating poor women. We should not get these things mixed up.

And Jeff, of course I do not say that you get anything mixed up. But I think others might do that.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

So this letter you have found is not actually in your suspect's name? Is that right?

As I said, he uses another name. Not Jack the Ripper and certainly not his own name. He wasnīt stupid.

And I think there is nothing strange about him using some different name that weīve never heard of.

We are used to the old story and to history as it is written. But the past isnīt always corresponding to history.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

As I said, he uses another name. Not Jack the Ripper and certainly not his own name. He wasnīt stupid.

So how do you know the letter was even written by your suspect?

[Pierre]

So how do you know the letter was even written by your suspect?

1. The writer of this letter has beforehand knowledge of the murder on Mary Kelly.

2. The writer therefore should be the killer.

3. The person I think is the killer have other data sources pointing towards him.

4. There is some information in this letter that fits his profile extremely well.

But as I said, the theory isnīt built on this letter. But it confirms some aspects of it.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

1. The writer of this letter has beforehand knowledge of the murder on Mary Kelly.

2. The writer therefore should be the killer.

3. The person I think is the killer have other data sources pointing towards him.

4. There is some information in this letter that fits his profile extremely well.

This is a terrible argument and shows you are leaping to all kinds of conclusions, because:

1. The letter, as you have now admitted, does not mention Mary Kelly and thus does not show any advance knowledge of her murder.

2. Even if you were right and it does show advance knowledge of the murder so that the writer "should be" the killer, the author of the letter could be absolutely anyone. It could be every known suspect, and those who are unknown, as long as that suspect could write English.

3. This letter was stated in an earlier post to be one of your data sources so if the rest are like this one your theory is doomed.

4. There is a clear danger of you seeing what you want to see here and any information in the letter could be false, especially if he is writing under a false name, in metaphorical language, as you claim.

[Pierre]

This is a terrible argument and shows you are leaping to all kinds of conclusions, because:

1. The letter, as you have now admitted, does not mention Mary Kelly and thus does not show any advance knowledge of her murder.

2. Even if you were right and it does show advance knowledge of the murder so that the writer "should be" the killer, the author of the letter could be absolutely anyone. It could be every known suspect, and those who are unknown, as long as that suspect could write English.

3. This letter was stated in an earlier post to be one of your data sources so if the rest are like this one your theory is doomed.

4. There is a clear danger of you seeing what you want to see here and any information in the letter could be false, especially if he is writing under a false name, in metaphorical language, as you claim.

1. Yes, it has the name Mary, the adress and date. If he had written the actual names, the police
would have been there waiting for him.
2. If the person I think is the killer, he wrote it.
3. As I said, this letter is not in the theory. Perhaps you did not understand
that.
4. That is always a clear danger. And everything I have can be "false".

Thanks for your support in the criticism. I do it constantly myself.

I especially note your word "doomed". It reveals how you feel about me right now.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

2. If the person I think is the killer, he wrote it.

That is a circular argument. If the person is the killer, he wrote it. If he wrote it, he is the killer. If he is the killer, he wrote it. And so it goes round.

[David Orsam]

1. Yes, it has the name Mary, the adress and date.

There were lots of women called Mary in London.

And I ask again. Is the address in plain English or 'metaphorical language?

[Pierre]

That is a circular argument. If the person is the killer, he wrote it. If he wrote it, he is the killer. If he is the killer, he wrote it. And so it goes round.

Yes, some arguments can be circular and they can still be meaningful.

Regards Pierre

[Pierre]

There were lots of women called Mary in London.

And I ask again. Is the address in plain English or 'metaphorical language?

Yes, generalizations are always helpful when you want to do anything to destroy an argument.

What do yo think, David? Do you think the Whitechapel murderer wrote the exact adress to the police?

I believe that you will try to destroy any argument you see. So I will get back to you when you are finished with that.

And if you understand that I already try to destroy my own arguments, I can perhaps get back to you soon.

Regards Pierre

[David Orsam]

As I said, this letter is not in the theory. Perhaps you did not understand that.

No, I understood what you were saying alright, only it didn't match what you told us in your 'I think I have found him' thread. In that thread, at #58, you said:

'So what can I tell you about what I know about him?

1.He was extremely organized.
2.He was not a jew, not a “lunatic”, not a doctor.
3.The murder dates are connected to his own personal motive.
4.The methods he used are clearly connected to his own motive.
5.He wrote to the police.
6.He wrote a letter to the editor in a paper not signing it “Jack the Ripper” where he gave the exact address to one of the murder sites.
7.If the police had understood his communications, they would have caught him.
8.He wasnīt interrupted efter killing Stride. He was just being very cautious.
9.With the murders he wanted to say something to society.'

It was point number 6 in your 'theory'. Only, we now learn that he did not give 'the exact address' to one of the murder sites.

And, furthermore, as you now seem to be denying any reliance on the letter, it means you you don't actually know that he wrote a letter to the editor in a paper. So that's one point down of the things you 'know', 8 more to go.

[David Orsam]

Yes, some arguments can be circular and they can still be meaningful.

You are saying circular arguments can be meaningful and meaningful arguments can be circular?

Interesting perspective.

[David Orsam]

What do yo think, David? Do you think the Whitechapel murderer wrote the exact adress to the police?

No, Pierre, since you ask. I don't think the Whitechapel murderer wrote any such letter in advance of the murder, whether to the police or the press or anyone else. I think your over-active imagination is responsible for thinking he did.

[Mayerling]

Hi Jeff,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge on Tennyson.

I think that the interest in murder stories and even in the supernatural was a rather common aspect of the 19th Century.

It might even be that we misinterpret this aspect and think that those who took interest in such ideas could have been candidates for murder themselves. I have seen that in some theories about poets and artists being Jack the Ripper. They are thought to be the Whitechapel killer because of their horrifying paintings or poems.

But I am convinced that this is misleading. Poe was not a killer because he wrote about murder, Sickert was no serial murderer and the other guy (the poet - whatīs his name again?) certainly seem to have been using opium (as did many others) and writing horrible poems but couldnīt have been the Whitechapel killer. At least I donīt think so.

I think the killer on the other hand (he was also part of his time) could use ideas in his own time when he was communicationg with the police, but his main interest was not painting or poetry. It was to taunt the police by killing and mutilating poor women. We should not get these things mixed up.

And Jeff, of course I do not say that you get anything mixed up. But I think others might do that.

Regards Pierre

You are right Pierre, the Victorians enjoyed murder stories and the supernatural (as we still do, actually). Also, don't feel bad, I barely recall Francis Thompson's name too. Until he was revealed to be a Ripper candidate, I had never heard of him or his poetry.

Jeff