Who were they?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So you struggle to include Liverpool as a source for where the Ripper came from but you are more than comfortable at including 'abroad'?

Again, it may be your opinion but that opinion 'must have' been forged from some sort of evidence, surely? So what was the evidence that you have been privy to which causes you to look 'abroad' and rule out, say, Liverpool (or Manchester, or Canterbury, or Portsmouth, et cetera)?

That's right.

It came from three considerations:

(1) Lawende described the suspect seen with Eddowes as having the appearance of a sailor - and the Whitechapel area abounded with foreign sailors

(2) I think that there are indications in the graffito that the writer's first language was not English but German

(3) The murders stopping as suddenly as they started could be due to the murderer's leaving the way he came - via the nearby port

[Iconoclast]

Hi Al,

I've lived north of the border for the last thirty years and I have no idea what that means!!!

Bampot, yeah!

The rest of it, I've no idea.

East Coast maybe?

I think the east coasters speak rather better 'Scottish/English' than that, Ms. Diddles. I lived on the east for 23 years (Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Portobello, Midlothian, Scottish Borders) and I too have no idea what Abe's imagined Scotsman is saying.

I would also disagree that 'barn pot' is the Scottish equivalent of the more ubiquitous 'toss pot'. The former is a highly affectionate expression, rather like - dare I say it - 'you idiot', whereas 'toss pot' would only ever be shared affectionately between two blokes in a boozer at 2 in the morning when one has slightly disagreed with the other over which is the 'bigger' club - Gala Fairydean or Cove Rangers - before each attempt to good-naturedly smash the other's face in.

[Ms Diddles]

Hi CD,

Yeah, that's exactly what it means. For a Scottish variation, you can use "Bam Pot". For context, here's it in an everyday sentence:

"That's a load of dingies y' wee bam pot, y' ken hee haw"

Hi Al,

I've lived north of the border for the last thirty years and I have no idea what that means!!!

Bampot, yeah!

The rest of it, I've no idea.

East Coast maybe?

[Iconoclast]

You're arguing that the murderer was most likely a member of the working classes and that he lived in Whitechapel?
I would agree with that except that I would say he lived in nearby Spitalfields, that he lived there for the entire period in which the murders were committed, but that he was not ordinarily resident there.
That does not mean that I think he came down from Liverpool.
I think he came from abroad.
I agree with your first sentence but I do not have any suspect in mind and therefore nothing to prove.

So you struggle to include Liverpool as a source for where the Ripper came from but you are more than comfortable at including 'abroad'?

Again, it may be your opinion but that opinion 'must have' been forged from some sort of evidence, surely? So what was the evidence that you have been privy to which causes you to look 'abroad' and rule out, say, Liverpool (or Manchester, or Canterbury, or Portsmouth, et cetera)?

[Iconoclast]

I do not know what you mean by 'claims'.
I have my opinion, based on circumstantial and identification evidence, and on an analysis of the well-known graffito.
I have never claimed that any person identifiable by name committed the Whitechapel murders.
As I wrote in a comment on another thread a few minutes ago, the murderer must have lived within easy reach of Hanbury Street, Dorset Street, and Goulston Street.
That means he must have lived in Spitalfields.

I find it unusual to see 'opinion' separated from 'claim' because the one frequently leads to the other (in your case, the evidence has caused you to form an opinion which you have then expressed in what looks for all the world like a claim).

Now, all I was asking you to do is to elaborate on the specific evidence that led you to form such an opinion and thereby - albeit apparently unknowingly on your part - make a claim about where the murderer 'must have' lived. Your evidence led you to say 'must have' and that's such a strong claim to make (whether you recognise it or not as a claim). It feels rather self-predicting: you have homed-in on three locations which were close within the Spitalfields orbit but completely ignored Durward Street, Henriques Street, and Mitre Square which were well outside of the Spitalfields orbit (in the case of the former two).

I'm just trying to understand why you would be so adamant about where the murderer 'must have' lived? As it happens, your opinion very much suits my argument as it includes Middlesex Street at its south-west edge, but it nevertheless doesn't make sense to me to 1) restrict your known loci and 2) be so categorical that you feel you can state that something 'must have' been true. Apologies for rubbish screenshot - best I could do in the moment.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I looked up toss pot. As far as I can tell, it means jerk or stupid person. The traditional meaning had more to do with being a heavy drinker.

c.d.

Hi CD,

Yeah, that's exactly what it means. For a Scottish variation, you can use "Bam Pot". For context, here's it in an everyday sentence:

"That's a load of dingies y' wee bam pot, y' ken hee haw"

[erobitha]

I guess when I say "Whitechapel", I really mean "Whitechapel or Spitalfields". I agree that there's a good chance that he lived in Spitalfields. That seems to be the direction that he was headed after the Eddowes murder.

What I meant to say in my 2nd sentence is that if someone lived in Whitechapel/Spitalfields, that doesn't prove that they were in that area at the times that the murders occurred, but it's much more likely that they were than that they weren't.

I much prefer language around “it is less probable” than outright “impossible” when making any claims of absolute evidence. It”s my biggest bug bear in this debate.

Unless there is proof a candidate was not in London or even the country on the specific murder dates we cannot rule them being there as impossible.

It less probable the murderer was Walter Sickert, MJD or Tumblety as it is highly possible that all of them were someone else on at least one date of the murders. Not impossible.

It could be argued it is more probable the murderer was a local than someone who came into the area. Not impossible.

In the absence of absolutes probability is the best we have.

[Lewis C]

You're arguing that the murderer was most likely a member of the working classes and that he lived in Whitechapel?

I would agree with that except that I would say he lived in nearby Spitalfields, that he lived there for the entire period in which the murders were committed, but that he was not ordinarily resident there.

That does not mean that I think he came down from Liverpool.

I think he came from abroad.

I agree with your first sentence but I do not have any suspect in mind and therefore nothing to prove.

I guess when I say "Whitechapel", I really mean "Whitechapel or Spitalfields". I agree that there's a good chance that he lived in Spitalfields. That seems to be the direction that he was headed after the Eddowes murder.

What I meant to say in my 2nd sentence is that if someone lived in Whitechapel/Spitalfields, that doesn't prove that they were in that area at the times that the murders occurred, but it's much more likely that they were than that they weren't.

[c.d.]

I think a "tosser" is just a British version of an American "jerk." Don't know about the pot, though.

I looked up toss pot. As far as I can tell, it means jerk or stupid person. The traditional meaning had more to do with being a heavy drinker.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

Thank you, A.B. that really helps clear it up. Well, sort of.

I hope you don't consider me a tosser for simply asking the question and I appreciate that you took the time to respond as opposed to not giving a toss and that you didn't respond with lot of toss.

Now "toss pot"..."toss pot"....let's see....

c.d.

I think a "tosser" is just a British version of an American "jerk." Don't know about the pot, though.

[FISHY1118]

People seem to be taking this thread too seriously especially when it's the joke part of Ripperology.

Totally agree Wheat .

Not really worth getting worked up over.
After all, only on here by a tiny select few is the Maybrick dairy and watch seen as somehow proof that James Maybrick was indeed jack the ripper.

In the real world most people would laugh at such a suggestion as nothing more than the good old fashion fairytale its turn out to be .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well you can't have it both ways here.

What is your evidence for these claims?

I do not know what you mean by 'claims'.

I have my opinion, based on circumstantial and identification evidence, and on an analysis of the well-known graffito.

I have never claimed that any person identifiable by name committed the Whitechapel murders.


As I wrote in a comment on another thread a few minutes ago, the murderer must have lived within easy reach of Hanbury Street, Dorset Street, and Goulston Street.

That means he must have lived in Spitalfields.

[Iconoclast]

You're arguing that the murderer was most likely a member of the working classes and that he lived in Whitechapel?
I would agree with that except that I would say he lived in nearby Spitalfields, that he lived there for the entire period in which the murders were committed, but that he was not ordinarily resident there.
That does not mean that I think he came down from Liverpool.
I think he came from abroad.
I agree with your first sentence but I do not have any suspect in mind and therefore nothing to prove.

Well you can't have it both ways here.

What is your evidence for these claims?

[Iconoclast]

There's more of a need to prove that someone was in London on the dates of the murders if the person didn't live in London than if they did. A working class person who lived in Whitechapel maybe can't be proven to have been there on the dates of the murders, but that's by far the most likely scenario.

It is the classic difference between that which is possible and that which is plausible. Is it possible that Maybrick was in London at the time of each murder? Well, absolutely, yes, though possibility is the weaker of the two arguments. Is it plausible that he was in London at the time of each murder? It absolutely is. He was self-employed so he answered to no employer about his movements. He had his brother as a reason to be in London. He had Gustavus Witt (we discovered after the scrapbook came to light) to visit in the Minories.

Does that make him a credible suspect? Not really - it takes more than plausibly being in Whitechapel to be considered a serious candidate. But does the lack of any evidence that he was there necessarily rule him out of contention? Of course it doesn't and it shouldn't be a measure of whether he (or anyone else) was Jack. We don't have the records to answer the question, but that doesn't therefore mean that the answer is an immediate 'No'.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There's more of a need to prove that someone was in London on the dates of the murders if the person didn't live in London than if they did. A working class person who lived in Whitechapel maybe can't be proven to have been there on the dates of the murders, but that's by far the most likely scenario.

You're arguing that the murderer was most likely a member of the working classes and that he lived in Whitechapel?

I would agree with that except that I would say he lived in nearby Spitalfields, that he lived there for the entire period in which the murders were committed, but that he was not ordinarily resident there.

That does not mean that I think he came down from Liverpool.

I think he came from abroad.

I agree with your first sentence but I do not have any suspect in mind and therefore nothing to prove.