Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

Hi RJ,

Massive change of topic there, but fair enough.

You’re obviously somewhat conflicted over being in such a conspicuous minority of opinion, and for such good reason. You would prefer the ripper to have been an educated, interesting “toff”, and appear affronted that the tide of popular opinion (and overwhelming common sense) is going against you.

I’m afraid it won’t aid your cause in the slightest to list a couple of rare examples of better educated serial killers in Chikatilo and Bundy, neither of whom were “toffs” by any stretch of the imagination. The fact remains that the vast majority of serial killers come from working class background and are generally blue-collar workers.

Speaking of vast majorities, the region circumscribed by the crimes were populated in the main by the Great Unwashed and the Great Unlettered; the sort of menially employed “local chaps” you’re so anxious to exclude from any question of culpability in the ripper’s crimes. And yet, statistics have demonstrated an extremely high probability of the offender living within that circumscribed region, increasing the probability that the killer was a “local chap” rather than your West End toff who swanned in for the express purpose of ripping, adorned in his finery.

That’s why “profiling” and its adherents must be so annoying to some people; it deprives those seeking an exotic solution to the murders of the validity of their exotic “dashing doc” suspects.

I don’t know why you keep revisiting the John Douglas profile. We’ve established that it is outdated in many respects - forgivable, really, as it is now 30 years old - and would consider Hutchinson too “organised” for crazy old Jack anyway.



But what isn’t “fanciful”, and instead has considerable evidential support, is the idea of Jack murdering middle-aged prostitutes and then taking advantage of prevalent anti-semtism in the district in order to lay a false trail. In fact, far from being fanciful, attempting to throw suspicion in a bogus direction is a frequently occurring trait amongst serial killers.

He didn’t need to “hate” Jews per se - he simply recognised their obvious advantage as scapegoats.



Experience, statistics, and the demography of the locality in which the crimes were committed should immediately inform you otherwise.

Best regards,
Ben

exactly Ben-good post.
I now see more clearly why Wicker and RJ are so vehemently opposed to the rather innocuous idea that the serial killer was from the working class-wicky favors the well dressed man(!?!?) and RJ I believe goes for Dr T, who I guess was probably some kind of Toff, or wanted to portray himself as much.


its good to know where people are coming from.

[Wickerman]

I think one ends up in historical revisionism by relegated much of the anti-semitic facts of this case to coincidence.

What doesn't ring true to me is that if we suggest we have a killer who leaves his victims at or next to Jewish properties then what about Chapman, Nichols & Kelly, who were not?
That theory only fits two victims, Stride & Eddowes.

So, then the argument changes to, 'well, the killer dressed like a Jew to kill Kelly, & Chapman'.

So now we are supposed to believe the killer dressed like a Jew on nights when he did not plan to murder at a Jewish establishment, but on other nights he dressed like a Gentile when he did plan to murder near Jewish establishments.

How does he know what to dress like on any given night?
And, what type of killer has such a diverse wardrobe of clothes, not a dosser thats for sure.

Is this a genuine theory?

[Batman]

Seems the Jewish connections are a way more extensive.

Even Chapman.

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10967&page=2

[Wickerman]

And, as a footnote, we might also have the suggestion that a gentile invents a Jewish suspect for one of the murders.
Someone totally out of keeping with previous suspect descriptions.
And, why would anyone invent a middle class looking Jew as the killer, as opposed to a shabby, bearded, hook-nose misbegotten wretch who might be more at home in the backstreets of Whitechapel?

[Batman]

And, as a footnote, we might also have the suggestion that a gentile invents a Jewish suspect for one of the murders.
Someone totally out of keeping with previous suspect descriptions.
And, why would anyone invent a middle class looking Jew as the killer, as opposed to a shabby, bearded, hook-nose misbegotten wretch who might be more at home in the backstreets of Whitechapel?

Ah, but other descriptions were not causing the hysteria in the public mind. It was "Leather Apron", a Jew named Pizer that had them up in arms. JtR, probably you average anti-semitic gentile person for the time, used that to further his aims of getting away with shocking whitechapel society by treating unfortunate women as fish to be gutted and left in sexually suggestive positions for their degradation. The fact Jews were getting blamed for it was probably a bonus that he went all in on, hunting unfortunates in Jewish quarters.

A cover that appears to have also worked.

So much so that even today some people find it hard to believe that he did such a thing. Likely because a Jewish suspect is preferred, which several pieces of anti-semitic connections point directly away from.

[Ben]

And, why would anyone invent a middle class looking Jew as the killer, as opposed to a shabby, bearded, hook-nose misbegotten wretch who might be more at home in the backstreets of Whitechapel?

Because the “gentile” you’re talking about justified his 45-minute vigil outside a murder scene on the basis of the Jewish’s man’s state of dress. He was surprised at seeing a man so well dressed in Kelly’s company, which caused him to follow them. Remove the elegant attire, that that justification for prolonged loitering disappears.

If that gentile happened to be the murderer himself, he couldn’t have done very much about the fact that previous descriptions didn’t pinpoint a well-dressed Jew. It would also mean that his Jew-implicating antics extended to the Kelly murder, the double event, and possibly Hanbury Street as well, by dint of its strong Jewish connections.

I haven’t heard any one suggest that the ripper “dressed like Jew” when he wasn’t one.

Cheers,
Ben

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ben. Just to be clear about your thinking...

By all appearances, it was Liz Stride herself who chose to be standing near the entrance to Dutfield's Yard.

Or are we suppose to believe that Hutchinson somehow enticed Stride, through a previous arrangement, to stand there, so he could then walk up to her and kill her near the club, thus implicating the Jews?

Or are you suggesting she was killed elsewhere and dumped by the club? (the forensic evidence suggests otherwise).

Or are you suggesting Hutchinson wandered the East End randomly, hoping to find a prostitute (or two prositututes) standing next to structures with Jewish conotations?

You see, that's the problem I have. How, precisely, does this anti-Semitic plot 'work'? All the best.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben. Just to be clear about your thinking...

Hello RJ

I'll let Ben respond to the Hutchinson bits, but I've taken the liberty of quoting a suspect-neutral excerpt of your post on the "Antisemitism..." thread, because I think you raised a general point that applies regardless of who the Ripper might have been.

[Wickerman]

Because the “gentile” you’re talking about justified his 45-minute vigil outside a murder scene on the basis of the Jewish’s man’s state of dress. He was surprised at seeing a man so well dressed in Kelly’s company, which caused him to follow them. Remove the elegant attire, that that justification for prolonged loitering disappears.

So Hutch invented a dressy Jew so he could give an excuse for watching them both?
Why would he be concerned about a man who, in his own words "didn't look like he could hurt anyone"?
I think your rational thinking tanked again Ben.

Why couldn't he have described a Blotchy-type character, and just said, "I was surprised to see her with such a villainous looking wretch", which is why I thought it best to watch them?

More practical, and works better than the original.

If that gentile happened to be the murderer himself, he couldn’t have done very much about the fact that previous descriptions didn’t pinpoint a well-dressed Jew.

I think you are trying to defend two quite different theories. Which might suggest your "timewaster" theory needs revising?

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

It is not beyond question that Stride’s killer first encountered her as she stood outside Dutfield’s Yard. She was observed in the company of an unidentified man (or more than one unidentified men) shortly before her murder, making it possible that one of them was her killer.

In which case, he need not have chanced upon her by accident outside the yard as only the Star report suggests (Berner Street being an extraordinary choice for a purely opportunistic serial killer of prostitutes), but may instead have encountered her first elsewhere; the Bricklayers Arms on Settles Street for instance.

He would then have suggested Dutfield’s Yard for a spot of how’s-yer-father, knowing of its strong Jewish associations, and that there was every chance those rowdy Jewish socialists types would be the first investigative port of call for the police, since they were conveniently up and about at that time.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So Hutch invented a dressy Jew so he could give an excuse for watching them both?

So he could give an excuse for loitering on the street where he was seen by Sarah Lewis.

Why would he be concerned about a man who, in his own words "didn't look like he could hurt anyone

I didn’t say he was “concerned”, and more crucially, nor did Hutchinson ever claim to have been so. He told police that he was simply “surprised” to see a man of Astrakhan’s appearance in Kelly’s company.

Why couldn't he have described a Blotchy-type character, and just said, "I was surprised to see her with such a villainous looking wretch", which is why I thought it best to watch them?

Because that would amount to an expression of concern for Kelly’s safety, which “watching” them wouldn’t have made any sense of. What good was standing on the opposite side of the street and “watching” likely to achieve in the event that the “villainous looking wretch” got knifey?

That’s the reason Hutchinson told the police he had “no suspicion” that Astrakhan was the murderer; because otherwise the police would have grilled him as to why he took no action.

Which might suggest your "timewaster" theory needs revising?

Since I’ve never subscribed to any “timewaster theory”, I see no need for any “revision”.

All the best,
Ben

[rjpalmer]

So he could give an excuse for loitering on the street where he was seen by Sarah Lewis.

Ben- The reason you have to keep fielding this question and spinning all sorts of answers is because your scenario is utterly weak and nonsensical.

Lewis saw a man standing against the wall... for what...10 or 12 seconds? She then ducked inside.

There was no reason that Hutchinson needed to explain his "prolonged loitering." No one saw him loitering for anything near 3 minutes let alone 45 minutes, nor did anyone recognize him.

It's like saying that Elizabeth Long's shabby gentile suspect in Hanbury Street, had he come forward, would have needed to explain why he had been loiting there for 45 mintutes, when, in fact, Long only saw him for 20 or 30 seconds as she walked past.

It's an incredibly weak argument. It's much easier to believe that Hutchinson's suspect merely existed. Toffs wander into the slums all the time. I can tell you tales of an elderly relative of mine who loved going into red-light districts. It was the danger and the garishness that attracted him. And yes, he dressed to the teeth, and was waylaid at least twice to my knowledge for his stupidity. He was a former Justice of the Peace but evidently considered himself 'a bit of a lad.' It's utterly naive to think these types don't exist. It's called "liking a bit of the rough."

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

The reason you have to keep fielding this question and spinning all sorts of answers is because your scenario is utterly weak and nonsensical.

I don’t “have to keep fielding this question”. Please don’t embrace the delusion that I’m perpetually hassled by an army of posters who all share your proclaimed aversion to Hutchinson as a suspect, anxious as you are to descend on any related thread en masse with their righteous outrage. We all know that the only “fielding” required is in response to the same two or three people, whose preoccupation with an upper-class, educated outsider ripper governs their approach to this particular topic.

No one saw him loitering for anything near 3 minutes let alone 45 minutes, nor did anyone recognize him.

Hutchinson had no idea of the extent of Lewis’s ability, or otherwise, to recognise him again should their paths have crossed subsequently.

I never suggested that he was under any pressure to explain his “prolonged” loitering. I suggested that he claimed to have stood there that long for the purpose of “planting” Astrakhan man in the room for as long as possible, and also to allow for the possibility that he was seen by other potential witnesses during his vigil.

It's much easier to believe that Hutchinson's suspect merely existed. Toffs wander into the slums all the time

Easier for you to believe perhaps, but for those of us who moved on from toff rippers long ago, it is altogether less palatable. It’s a common misconception that “slummers” entered the nocturnal east end sporting their finest clothes and accessories. The vast majority of them (i.e. the ones that didn’t get mugged or worse) dressed down for the occasion.

You’ll also find that a “bit of rough” could be procured throughout London, and needn’t have involved an excursion into the most notorious area of London at a time when plain clothes police and self-styled vigilantes were apt to harass anyone who appeared even vaguely out-of-place.

You appear to be confusing 1888 Whitechapel with Place Pigalle.

All the best,
Ben

[rjpalmer]

Hi Ben.

Do you think it is an accident that the ladies of the East End are soliciting in Aldgate and Whitechapel rather than Bow and West Ham?

Red-light districts ALWAYS rely on men coming in from outside the area. Don't be so naïve, Ben. They are in Whitechapel because it abuts the City and they want to make it easier for West-Enders to find them.

In my old home town, back when the cops used to have a 'sweep' of the slums on a Saturday night, they used to put the names of the 'Johns' in the newspapers. It wasn't the least bit rare to find lawyers, well-off businessmen, or University types among the names.

Easier for you to believe perhaps, but for those of us who moved on from toff rippers long ago, it is altogether less palatable.

Who said he was the Ripper? I merely state that these types do, in fact, exist. I've known one, and I can readily imagine that he would have behaved in exactly the manner that Hutch describes. The instant laughter. The bonhomie. The trying to kiss a streetwalker. Then suddenly realizing that his idea might not have been so great, so he hesitates at the court, worrying that he might get sandbagged yet again...but goes anyway. It rings true. But since this toff has not yet been identified, I am hardly in a position to claim he is the murderer. Personally, I suspect that he and Kelly know one another.

It’s a common misconception that “slummers” entered the nocturnal east end sporting their finest clothes and accessories. The vast majority of them (i.e. the ones that didn’t get mugged or worse) dressed down for the occasion.

Better be careful, Ben. If the difference between being a toff and being a non-descript local chap is just a matter of changing one's clothing, then you've just seriously undermined your "local man" profile, haven't you?

Good luck with your theories.

[Ben]

Hi RJ,

Do you think it is an accident that the ladies of the East End are soliciting in Aldgate and Whitechapel rather than Bow and West Ham?

I utterly dispute that no soliciting occurred in Bow and West Ham. I’m afraid you’ve succumbed to the popular misconception that Whitechapel was the only “red light district” in London, whereas in reality it wasn’t even the largest. I’m sure a lot of soliciting went on in and around Aldgate and St. Botolphs church, but it generally involved the ladies approaching the gentlemen in their carriages, rather that the gentlemen themselves making their own precarious top-hatted excursions into the abyss.

As interesting as your comparisons with your old home town may be, I’m afraid they’re not in the slightest bit applicable, unless it happened to be the most notorious slum hotspot in the county at a time when a notorious serial killer was active in that very hotspot.

Who said he was the Ripper? I merely state that these types do, in fact, exist

Yes, but they don’t dress in their most expenses clothes and display their thick gold watch chains in the most “vicious semi-criminal” locality in London, in the small hours, when the hunt for the ripper was afoot. Unless you can provide me with a specific example of someone who did so, besides Astrakhan, who departed the district unaccosted? Monmartre this wasn’t.

Then suddenly realizing that his idea might not have been so great, so he hesitates at the court, worrying that he might get sandbagged yet again...but goes anyway.

And in so doing, the strutting tit only goes and corners himself in a tiny room in a claustrophobic court with a single escape route, safe in the knowledge that a potential mugger or wannabe ripper-hunter had just “stooped down” to gawp at his mug, and then followed him to this potential death-trap.

If the difference between being a toff and being a non-descript local chap is just a matter of changing one's clothing, then you've just seriously undermined your "local man" profile, haven't you?

Well, considering how many non-descript local chaps there were in situ compared to dressed-down “toffs”, I think the “profile” is pretty safe. It disturbs me greatly that anyone seriously still disputes the likelihood of the killer being a “non-descript local chap”.

All the best,
Ben