Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ben
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 10-02-2018, 09:41 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Seems the Jewish connections are a way more extensive.

    Even Chapman.

    https://forum.casebook.org/showthrea...t=10967&page=2

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post

    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?
    Last edited by Wickerman; 10-01-2018, 12:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    Right after the murder of Nichols, you had a suspect called 'Leather Apron'...
    I've opened another thread, Batman.

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    ... but only in connection with the Double Event, apparently. Canonical murders 1, 2 and 5 occurred in predominantly gentile locations, with nary a discarded garment nor graffito in sight. Hutchinson might have reported a foreign/Jewish-looking suspect, but so did Mrs Long.
    Right after the murder of Nichols, you had a suspect called 'Leather Apron' who happened to also be Jewish. Therein is the start of the view that JtR was a Jew although there was already strong anti-semitic views being held at the time.

    So prior to the JtR murders JtR doesn't appear to be using the anti-semitic hysteria to his advantage because it wasn't associated until Pizer. Then he had cover to go about as a gentile, meets with Chapman. When Pizer is cleared he then uses tries to put the blame back on the Jews again, first by attacking Stride near a Jewish socialist club, shouting Lipski when seen, in the hope that someone might associate this with a Jew. Then he fails to get his emotional satisfaction and goes off to do his signature on someone else and follows this up by throwing her bloody apron piece into a Jewish market sector with some anti-semitic graffiti underneath. Again, people hear about this and suspect a Jew, so off he goes to Kelly as a gentile, following the path of Chapman again.

    It isn't hard to figure out that JtR was using anti-Semitic hysteria as a cover for himself.

    Which really deals a stake to the heart of ideas that JtR was Jew. Either he was a gentile or a Jew with a serious identity crisis.

    Heck even many of the investigators ended up believing he was Jew.

    So to that end, JtR was successful. Which seems obvious because he wasn't caught.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben View Post
    He doesn’t need to “hate” Jews - he simply recognised their obvious advantage as scapegoats.
    ... but only in connection with the Double Event, apparently. Canonical murders 1, 2 and 5 occurred in predominantly gentile locations, with nary a discarded garment nor graffito in sight. Hutchinson might have reported a foreign/Jewish-looking suspect, but so did Mrs Long.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    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.

    Further, the idea of "Jack the Jewbaiter" murdering middle-aged prostitutes in order to implicate the Jews is every bit as fanciful as the Royal Conspiracy of the 1970s
    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.

    Misogynists, like psychopaths, come from various economic backgrounds; no reason to believe he was a non-descript chap a la Lechmere, Barnett, Hutchinson, etc. etc
    Experience, statistics, and the demography of the locality in which the crimes were committed should immediately inform you otherwise.

    Best regards,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 10-01-2018, 03:09 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    Hi Jon,

    Why is it you can always be bothered to argue, but you can't be bothered to provide sources
    I’ve provided my sources on numerous occasions, I’ve discussed them extensively with RJ and others, and I refuse to do so again purely at your behest. As for your accusation that I can “always be bothered to argue”, you’re an interesting pot to call this kettle black!

    You said you weren’t going to discuss Packer again, recognising that it was off-topic, or was that piece of advice dependent on you having the last word on the subject first?

    So you’re disputing that Packer initially told the police he had closed his shop without seeing anything of consequence that night? Or are you now claiming that he did mention the grape-buying episode during his initial interview on the 4th October, and that White mysteriously didn’t mention it in his report?

    I asked him what time he closed his shop on the previous night. He replied Half past twelve"
    Sgt White.

    Also...
    "....he said “Yes, I believe she bought some grapes at my shop about 12. o'clock on Saturday."
    Sgt. White.
    These two quotes originate from different sources. The first is from White’s original interview where Packer mentioned nothing of Stride or grapes, whilst the second is from a reported conversation that took place between Packer and White as the latter made his way to the mortuary.

    Had that been so they would have no need to use "it appears", they would have been justified in being more assertive had their inferences been confirmed
    But they were confirmed, which is why they were “justified in being more assertive” on 14th November when they published their report, assertively declaring than Hutchinson’s account had been “considerably discounted”.

    The Echo were the ones who admit the police do not tell them anything
    The Echo were the ones who used to complain about the police “not telling them anything” prior to mid-November, prior to the divulgence of the information that Hutchinson had been discredited. Thereafter, with their curiosity assuaged, and their suspicion of police silence ameliorated, they had no cause to complain.

    Bemoaning the fact that the police refuse to share information on one particular subject does not equate to an acceptance that they would never share any information on any subject at any point.

    I’m not suggesting that the Echo were lying about anything. They expressed irritation at a particular instance of police reticence relating to a particular topic.

    The statement of any important witness in a murder case such as this will be thoroughly tested before it is rejected.
    Actually, I think you’ll find that “the statement of any important witness in a murder case such as this will be thoroughly tested” before it is accepted. Contrary to what you’ve long convinced yourself of, the “unchangeableness” of a story doesn’t serve as its ultimate gauge of truthfulness, and the police are perfectly capable of arriving at a conclusion that a witness probably lied, regardless of to what extent, if any, his story “changed” (as Hutchinson’s did considerably between the press and police versions).

    All the best,
    Ben
    Last edited by Ben; 10-01-2018, 02:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X