Tweet
CitizenX
29th December 2007, 01:01 AM
[quote=Fisherman;125758]CitizenX writes:
"Whites Row Synagogue which is the next street south of Dorset St and no more than a 100 yards away (as the crowflies). No 2 is directly opposite to Millers Court. It was originally a roman catholic church but was a Synagogue from 1870-1896"
...and thanks for that, CitizenX, though I think it slightly misleading to place it "opposite to Millers Court", since the entrance had the address 2 Whites Row.
Sorry about that i meant parallel (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...rallel&spell=1) but kept spelling it wrong
!! But shown on the map its is at the same end of the street and opposite (sorry parallel!!) millers court. But you are right that communitys were very densly populated in the area and it could change substantially from street to street.
Cheers
Kevin
Celesta
29th December 2007, 03:16 AM
Thinking of what Linda says , Sam, if the piece of apron was used to stop blood flow a patch of blood would have been evident.Its hard to determine whether "one corner of the apron was wet with blood" meant just such a patch being present,or whether the corner of apron was just wet because he had used it to stem his own blood flow from a cut---and possibly the faeces was from having wiped himself after having an accident and making a mess down below ,due to all his excitement and fear, following the murder!
Hi Natalie,
Not to launch off into this again in detail, but I thought I would mention that after the Pinchin street torso was discovered, the police search turned up a petticoat that had been folded and creased and had been used as a menstrual pad. Apparently, this creasing was noticed by the police, so I am thinking that if the apron had been used for that purpose, it would also have been noted. Just a thought.
Linda
Ben
29th December 2007, 04:11 AM
Thanks for that interesting detail about White's Row, Kevin!
I would say that it would not matter very much from what point on this circle you started the journey to George Yard – it would take you past housings that lent themselves eminently to the purpose of casting guilt on the Jews.
I disagree very stongly, Fisherman. It would depend which direction he headed, and as we've already established, there were well-known Jewish enclaves littered throughout the area. It was emphatically not a case of a Jews and Gentiles being evenly interspersed throughout the district. There were noted, and easily discernable Jewish "hotspots", some larger and better-known that others, with the area between Mitre Square and Goulston Street being perhaps the most famous. Similarly, it cannot be claimed that "most" locations were in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs (both double event murders) and a synangogue (Mitre square).
I'm not saying for a moment that "Jew-implicating" was his primary incentive, but to argue that the killer never once considered taking advantage - easy, readily available advantage - of the fact that general suspicion was already Jew-directed, would be to discard the baby with the bathwater. Then there is the GSG message to consider. Frankly, I'd be amazed if he bypassed such an obvious opportunity.
As for Dorset Steet not being Jewish, that is true, but synagogue-boasting White's Row was. Besides which, there may not have been any women with single accomodation available there. it is again worth repeating that not all "Jews-dunnit" clues need to be geographical; indeed, I believe the killer did attempt to implicate the Jews in connection with the Dorset Steet murder, but as with your "did Kelly go out again" tangent, that's a discussion for another thread!
All the best,
Ben
Ben
29th December 2007, 04:52 AM
What I tried to point to was that your suggestion that the killer perhaps chose Eddowes murder site out of a wish to be provided with a heavily Jewish dominated area to pass through on his way home (if this was where he was headed) after the strike.
Just to clarify, this wasn't quite my suggestion. The Mitre Square area itself was Jewish enough. I only submitted for consideration the possibility that the prevalent Jew-directed suspicion in the East End - fuelled, no doubt, by the (then) single piece of eyewitness testimony implicated a foreigner, in addition to the Leather Apron fuss - may have impacted to a greater or lesser degree on the killer's actions and movements.
Ben
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 05:57 AM
I disagree very stongly, Fisherman. It would depend which direction he headed
His choice was, basically, confined to Whitechapel Road or back-streets densely populated by Jews.
baron
29th December 2007, 07:21 AM
Fisherman,
There is no disputing that Jewish prostitutes and brothels were non-existant.
This is not true. In Fishman's book on East End radicals, he most distinctly talks about newly emigrated Jewish girls being lured into prostitution by seemingly, helpful Jewish men. I don't have my book here, but it seems to have been a very real and frequent happening.
This is another reason that I think JTR might have been Jewish. In heavily concentrated Jewish areas, surely with Jewish prostitutes, none of the victims were Jewish. I find this either very coincidental or intentional.
Cheers,
Mike
Fisherman
29th December 2007, 12:26 PM
Interesting, Mike; and given the character of the "world´s oldest job" I guess it´s not all that surprising if this is correct. I have not read the book you mention.
You write that you find the fact that no victims were Jewish either very coincidental or intentional, but that would depend of the rates involved, would it not? "Very real and frequent", how does that translate into numbers and/or percentages? I have always encountered the view that Jewish girls were very improbable unfortunates, and even if Jewish girls were in the business, I would have thought them rare creatures.
The best, Mike!
Fisherman
Fisherman
29th December 2007, 12:53 PM
Right, Ben!
Let´s begin by ridding ourselves of a couple of misunderstandings!
First, you write that the Rippers choice of Mitre Square because he wanted his escape route to move along Jewish housings, was not quite your suggestion. Thanks for that clarification. Maybe I read more into your wording than I should have. It had me slightly baffled, though, I must say.
Next up, this:
"Similarly, it cannot be claimed that "most" locations were in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs (both double event murders) and a synangogue (Mitre square)."
Not sure where you are headed here, Ben. Suffice to say that I argue in the opposite direction here - I see nothing strange in the fact that the killings occured in the proximity of typically Jewish institutions. I think the same applies here as it does in the case of the final destination of the bloody rag: in a heavily Jewish populated area, there will be lots of Jews and Jewish institutions.
More misunderstandings:
I have never even tried to speak of these aras as representing "evenly interspersed" Jewish and Gentile population. I now fully well that anything but that applied. The people were to a great extent living in very outspoken enclaves of either Jewish or Gentile extraction. And, of course, if this had not been the case, the question of implicating the Jews by an intentional dropping of the rag in a Jewish enclave could never have come up, could it?
What I am saying, though, is that the Jewish enclaves in the area were so many, and so much spread throughout, that the notion that a randomly thrown away rag would stand every chance of ending up among the Jews can never be dispersed.
Moreover, when you write:
"to argue that the killer never once considered taking advantage - easy, readily available advantage - of the fact that general suspicion was already Jew-directed, would be to discard the baby with the bathwater. Then there is the GSG message to consider. Frankly, I'd be amazed if he bypassed such an obvious opportunity"
...I honestly think that you are painting yourself into a corner, Ben. For if the Ripper really was that keen on taking every opportunity that offered itself to implicate the Jews, then why is it that you show no amazement at the fact that he left this one and only clue, disregarding every other opportunity to follow it up? Why did he not write "Happy Channukah!" in blood on Mary Kellys wall? Why did he not bother to let one of the many cut loose organs join the heart on his way from Millers Court; no matter which route he took from there, he would in a minute or two be passing by housings that were to more than 95 percent inhabited by Jews. He would have had every chance in the world to place a slice of her liver in one of them doorways, or perhaps balance that broken away piece of her right lung on the doorknob of the synagogue in Whites Row.
If failing to use the opportunity to drop the rag in a Jewish doorway would have amazed you, Ben, then why is it that you choose to disregard this?
The best, Ben!
Fisherman
Sox
29th December 2007, 02:35 PM
The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......I would hate to take a bet on the odds of that event. I could understand it, if he were in imediate danger of being caught, but before the double event the police were chasing shadows & myths.
Too many Sherlocks & not enough Watsons.
CitizenX
29th December 2007, 03:14 PM
The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......I would hate to take a bet on the odds of that event. I could understand it, if he were in imediate danger of being caught, but before the double event the police were chasing shadows & myths.
Too many Sherlocks & not enough Watsons.
Hi Sox,
You could ask Timothy Evans that if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...
Kevin
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 03:57 PM
Hi Kevin
You could ask Timothy Evans [about killers deflecting blame onto somebody else] if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...
Evans' circumstances there were entirely different to the situation in which Jack the Ripper found himself. For a start, Jack enjoyed greater freedom than Evans - he wasn't cooped up in a bedsit and married-with-children to his victims. Unlike Evans, there was no obvious association that would have led the police to "finger" him. Evans would have been well under the microscope as soon as Beryl and Geraldine were missed by family and friends, and he was in a very sticky situation which Christie was happy to exploit. In this he was helped - let's not forget - by some disastrous decisions taken by Evans himself.
Ben
29th December 2007, 04:18 PM
Hi Fisherman,
I think the same applies here as it does in the case of the final destination of the bloody rag: in a heavily Jewish populated area, there will be lots of Jews and Jewish institutions.
Yes, but to end up in a "Jewish populated area", he must have gone there deliberately. He wasn't plonked there by some magical higher force. And given that Jews and Gentiles were not - not! - evenly dispersed throughout, it quickly becomes arrant nonsense to claim that a randomly discarded apron had a strong chance of ending up in a Jewish enclave after returning from all the murder sites. If we accept your suggestion that he was domiciled in reasonably close proximity to George Yard, the return journey from Miller's Court and Hanbury Street would not have taken him past heavily Jewish enclaves. I have argued that the rag was offloaded primarily for convenience because Goulston Street was en route home. Accepting – again – your suggestion that the killer resided near George Yard, White’s Row would NOT have been en route home. Hanbury Street itself was, however, Jewish populated and it was there – one of five Jewish Streets referred to as such by Charles Booth – that Chapman was killed.
For if the Ripper really was that keen on taking every opportunity that offered itself to implicate the Jews, then why is it that you show no amazement at the fact that he left this one and only clue, disregarding every other opportunity to follow it up? Why did he not write "Happy Channukah!" in blood on Mary Kellys wall?
Are you serious? Or was that a little tongue in cheek?
As with your "Why didn't he nail the bloody rag to the door in Goulston Street?" objection (which ignores all manner of practicalities), you're basically arguing that unless he implicated the Jews all the time, at every opportunity, in the most incredibly blatant and unsubtle manner imaginable, he wasn't implicating the Jews at all at any point. That's such a terrible argument, Fisherman. Come on. And you're accusing me, in inelegantly patronising language, of "painting myself into a corner".
A discarded apron with an accompanying message (if the two were connected), and murders committed in close proximity to Jewish clubs and synagogues is unsubtle enough, in my view, but to expect something more outlandish is, well....outlandish. You can't, after all, get any more blatant than that absurd "villainous Jew" description offered up on the 12th November.
Hi Sox,
“The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......”
What??
Shifting the blame onto an innocent party is about the oldest rule in the book if you’re the guilty party. Absolutely textbook. It doesn't matter if it implicates an individual or a larger party; it is still an oft-resorted to strategy of the guilty. Kevin’s Christie example is particularly apt. Christie shifted the blame onto the most obvious and available scapegoat around. Why expect anything less from Jack?
Best regards,
Ben
CitizenX
29th December 2007, 04:46 PM
Sam,
Your making the comparison of JTR with Evans the patsy rather than Cristie the murderer...but that's ok I get your point..
You're absolutley correct in your assessment of Evans, he had below average intelligence and both the police and Christie exploited this.
The point I was raising is that serial killers (like all criminals) will shift the blame when things get too close for comfort and the Jews (like Evans) were an easy patsy to exploit.
To my mind that makes them the most unlikely suspects..
Kevin
ChavaG
29th December 2007, 05:33 PM
Sadly Ben is right. The white slave trade was carried on by Jewish pimps in London, New York, Buenos Ayres and Rio. The pimps would line up at the docks and single out young woman travelling alone. They'd profess to help them. And the rest was the subject of melodrama for years and years. I really wish I could say that there were no Jewish prostitutes in the East End but there were. And they worked for Jewish pimps. However research suggests that they worked in brothels rather than walking the streets.
The thing is, the police might not have had any idea of who the Ripper was. But if he had been talked to by a cop, or if something happened that he thought might lead to him--even if such a thing was unnoticed--he might well take steps to lead suspicion away. The double event is doubly linked to Jews. None of the previous murders were. The Kelly murder--if in fact it is a Ripper murder--took place 6 weeks later, and maybe the heat was off by then. I don't think he was anti-Semitic or making any kind of a statement. He was simply blame-shifting. Much as Christie did.
What I would love to do would be to get at all police records just before the double event to see who they were talking to...
Celesta
29th December 2007, 05:57 PM
His choice was, basically, confined to Whitechapel Road or back-streets densely populated by Jews.
And how often does a predator hunt outside his territory? Of course, there is no telling what JTR envisioned as his territory. Inside what we see as his territory were a substantial number of Jewish folk. Even so, none of the victims were.
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 06:00 PM
He was simply blame-shifting. Much as Christie did.
Christie's circumstances were entirely different to Jack's, Chava, and on the surface at least the Ripper's personal anonymity was bolstered by the lack of obvious connections with the deceased, and the general facelessness of the East End. He had absolutely no need to deflect suspicion anywhere at that point, because the police were fishing in a very big pond.
Ben
29th December 2007, 06:18 PM
It wouldn't really have been a case of "deflecting" suspicion, Gareth, at least not primarily. It would have been more akin to ensuring (with minimal effort) that the investigative focus was sustained in a Jewish or "foreign" direction, as it would have been by the double-event, courtesy of eye-witness testimony from the previous murder, and fuelled by Leather Apron and the general anti-semitic undercurrent in the East End. The Yorkshire Ripper investigative team were also fishing in a big pond, but Humble's Geordie-incriminating hoax certainly played a part of keeping the investigative focus off non-Geordie Sutcliffe; thus demonstrating that generic scapegoats or misdirections can prove just as benefitial to the actual perpetrator as individual ones.
Great points, Chava.
I particularly welcome your use of the word "simple", because that's what it is. Blame-shifting, whether out of necessity of simple desire, is the age-old look-out of the guilty party.
All the best,
Ben
Sox
29th December 2007, 06:56 PM
Hi Sox,
You could ask Timothy Evans that if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...
Kevin
Oh? Interesting to note here is that Christie did not run to the police claiming that Evans had killed his wife and daughter, did not, in fact, leave a single clue to implicate him. John Christie clearly did not want anyone to know about these deaths, and blamed Evans only to save himself from the noose after Evans had 'confessed'.
That is a billion miles away from leaving clues for a police force who had no idea who he was, as Sam very astutely points out.
Ben is one hundred percent correct here, Jewish pimps have been in evidence for a long long time, and particulary flourished in Victorian times. As I said earlier, if there had been police hot on his heels then I could see sense in the killer helping fuel the press implication of a 'Jewish Ripper', otherwise not.
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 07:00 PM
Hi Ben,The Yorkshire Ripper investigative team were also fishing in a big pond, but Humble's Geordie-incriminating hoax certainly played a part of keeping the investigative focus off non-Geordie Sutcliffe; thus demonstrating that generic scapegoats or misdirections can prove just as benefitial to the actual perpetrator as individual ones.
The interesting thing to note is that Humble's non-Geordiness was a pure accident of his geography - it's not as if he went out of his way to speak in a Wearside accent. Although the result of his hoax was to misdirect the police, I'm sure the silly little man had no intention of drawing suspicion away from Yorkshire, anymore than the deposition of the apron outside a Jewish dwelling was necessarily a premeditated act of "deflection" on the part of Jack the Ripper.Blame-shifting, whether out of necessity of simple desire, is the age-old look-out of the guilty party.More often out of necessity, perhaps? Certainly blame-shifting may happen in cases where the guilty party is a rather obvious suspect who feels that the net is tightening. However, that didn't appear to be remotely the case from Jack's P.O.V at the end of September 1888.
Ben
29th December 2007, 07:04 PM
John Christie clearly did not want anyone to know about these deaths, and blamed Evans only to save himself from the noose after Evans had 'confessed'.
He was taking advantage of the obvious scapegoat, Sox - simple as that. A scapegoat can refer to a generic group or race, or it could refer to an individual. Either way, it is in the interest of the guilty party to take advantage of both. An individual scapegoat worked for Christie to the same extent that a generic scapegoat (or falsely implicated group) worked for Sutcliffe. The police didn't need to be hot on the heels of the actual offender for suspicion-deflecting to be a prudent move, especially if the opportunities to do so were so readily available. It is to the end of ensuring that future suspicion is not levelled the offender's way that these efforts are often directed.
All the best,
Ben
Ben
29th December 2007, 07:10 PM
Hi Gareth,
Although the result of his hoax was to misdirect the police, I'm sure the silly little man had no intention of drawing suspicion away from Yorkshire
Oh, absolutely. The result, however, was that non-Geordies of the Sutcliffe variety received scant attention as a result of this unintentional misdirection on the part of John Humble. I brought up the Yorkshire Ripper investigation to demonstrate that misdirected blame at a group/accent/race can prove just as advantageous to the guilty party as misdirected blame at an individual. If the result of a discarded rag and hastily daubed message was to ensure that police inquiries remained Jew-focussed, with Gentile Londoners receiving consequently scant attention, it was heavily in the killer's interest to keep that false ball rolling. Blame-shifting isn't always carried out because of a close shave or a tightening net. It would have been a simple expedient that would have impacted upon future police inquiries...to his advantage.
All the best,
Ben
CitizenX
29th December 2007, 07:51 PM
Sox,
I cited the case of Christie/Evans in response to your statement
"The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else....."
You didnt specifcally mention JTR....
OK its a ripper board but thats splitting hairs
........
Kevin
Sox
29th December 2007, 07:52 PM
The police didn't need to be hot on the heels of the actual offender for suspicion-deflecting to be a prudent move, especially if the opportunities to do so were so readily available.
This is the point we disagree on. Ordinarily I would be in favour of your opinion but not in this case because, invariably, serial killers enjoy the notoriety and bask in the 'limelight' of their shock horror tactics. That is why I would agree, but only if the police were in his back yard looking for clues.
Which, on reflection, was entirely possible. There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no? Had they spooked him?
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 07:53 PM
Although it worked to his advantage, it's worth remembering that Sutcliffe was not the originator of the "deflection" and, as both Sox and I mentioned earlier, Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion either. Had Evans not walked into the police station and fessed up, Christie may well have preferred to have kept a low profile over the whole affair.
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 07:58 PM
There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no?There had, Sox, but the best/worst was yet to come. If the Ripper felt under pressure leading up to the "Double Event", then his valves must have been close to bursting over the next few weeks. If ever he'd have felt the need to deflect blame, it would have been felt ever more acutely leading up to, and immediately after, the Kelly murder - which, of course, might well have given him the opportunity to do so. (But let's not go there)
Ben
29th December 2007, 08:06 PM
Although it worked to his advantage, it's worth remembering that Sutcliffe was not the originator of the "deflection
True, Gareth, but the fact that it did work to his advantage is the more salient point, I feel. It demonstrates perfectly that a whole host of potential suspects received very scant attention because they didn't have the right accent, and that it was acheived through minimal effort - one bloke with a tape. If such a reward could result for the perpetrator by expending such a small amount of effort (what amounted, really, to a "while I'm here..." consideration), I've no doubt that he'd seize it.
We don't know that Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion. Being the more dominant personality, he could have encouraged Evans to flee, thereby inviting inevitable suspicion.
Which, on reflection, was entirely possible. There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no? Had they spooked him?
Quite possibly, Sox. Or perhaps he was anxious that a few two may witnesses had clocked his ostensibly non-Jewish mug on the night of the double event?
Best regards,
Ben
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 08:17 PM
We don't know that Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion. Being the more dominant personality, he could have encouraged Evans to flee, thereby inviting inevitable suspicion.
Possibly, but the mere departure of Evans (and, for all anyone would have known, Beryl and Geraldine) could have been relatively easily explained away by Christie. Whether Christie would have risked stirring up a hornet's nest by directing Evans to squeal to the Merthyr plod - the specific act of "deflection" in this instance - is another matter.
Sox
29th December 2007, 08:17 PM
There had, Sox, but the best/worst was yet to come. If the Ripper felt under pressure leading up to the "Double Event", then his valves must have been close to bursting over the next few weeks. If ever he'd have felt the need to deflect blame, it would have been felt ever more acutely leading up to, and immediately after, the Kelly murder - which, of course, might well have given him the opportunity to do so. (But let's not go there)
I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I have never really been in favour of these so-called 'clues'. I would go further and speculate that the 'gap' between Eddowes & Kelly was a direct result of the double event, I think he knew Stride or Eddowes, maybe even both.
29th December 2007, 01:01 AM
[quote=Fisherman;125758]CitizenX writes:
"Whites Row Synagogue which is the next street south of Dorset St and no more than a 100 yards away (as the crowflies). No 2 is directly opposite to Millers Court. It was originally a roman catholic church but was a Synagogue from 1870-1896"
...and thanks for that, CitizenX, though I think it slightly misleading to place it "opposite to Millers Court", since the entrance had the address 2 Whites Row.
Sorry about that i meant parallel (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...rallel&spell=1) but kept spelling it wrong
!! But shown on the map its is at the same end of the street and opposite (sorry parallel!!) millers court. But you are right that communitys were very densly populated in the area and it could change substantially from street to street.Cheers
Kevin
Celesta
29th December 2007, 03:16 AM
Thinking of what Linda says , Sam, if the piece of apron was used to stop blood flow a patch of blood would have been evident.Its hard to determine whether "one corner of the apron was wet with blood" meant just such a patch being present,or whether the corner of apron was just wet because he had used it to stem his own blood flow from a cut---and possibly the faeces was from having wiped himself after having an accident and making a mess down below ,due to all his excitement and fear, following the murder!
Hi Natalie,
Not to launch off into this again in detail, but I thought I would mention that after the Pinchin street torso was discovered, the police search turned up a petticoat that had been folded and creased and had been used as a menstrual pad. Apparently, this creasing was noticed by the police, so I am thinking that if the apron had been used for that purpose, it would also have been noted. Just a thought.
Linda
Ben
29th December 2007, 04:11 AM
Thanks for that interesting detail about White's Row, Kevin!
I would say that it would not matter very much from what point on this circle you started the journey to George Yard – it would take you past housings that lent themselves eminently to the purpose of casting guilt on the Jews.
I disagree very stongly, Fisherman. It would depend which direction he headed, and as we've already established, there were well-known Jewish enclaves littered throughout the area. It was emphatically not a case of a Jews and Gentiles being evenly interspersed throughout the district. There were noted, and easily discernable Jewish "hotspots", some larger and better-known that others, with the area between Mitre Square and Goulston Street being perhaps the most famous. Similarly, it cannot be claimed that "most" locations were in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs (both double event murders) and a synangogue (Mitre square).
I'm not saying for a moment that "Jew-implicating" was his primary incentive, but to argue that the killer never once considered taking advantage - easy, readily available advantage - of the fact that general suspicion was already Jew-directed, would be to discard the baby with the bathwater. Then there is the GSG message to consider. Frankly, I'd be amazed if he bypassed such an obvious opportunity.
As for Dorset Steet not being Jewish, that is true, but synagogue-boasting White's Row was. Besides which, there may not have been any women with single accomodation available there. it is again worth repeating that not all "Jews-dunnit" clues need to be geographical; indeed, I believe the killer did attempt to implicate the Jews in connection with the Dorset Steet murder, but as with your "did Kelly go out again" tangent, that's a discussion for another thread!
All the best,
Ben
Ben
29th December 2007, 04:52 AM
What I tried to point to was that your suggestion that the killer perhaps chose Eddowes murder site out of a wish to be provided with a heavily Jewish dominated area to pass through on his way home (if this was where he was headed) after the strike.
Just to clarify, this wasn't quite my suggestion. The Mitre Square area itself was Jewish enough. I only submitted for consideration the possibility that the prevalent Jew-directed suspicion in the East End - fuelled, no doubt, by the (then) single piece of eyewitness testimony implicated a foreigner, in addition to the Leather Apron fuss - may have impacted to a greater or lesser degree on the killer's actions and movements.
Ben
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 05:57 AM
I disagree very stongly, Fisherman. It would depend which direction he headed
His choice was, basically, confined to Whitechapel Road or back-streets densely populated by Jews.
baron
29th December 2007, 07:21 AM
Fisherman,
There is no disputing that Jewish prostitutes and brothels were non-existant.
This is not true. In Fishman's book on East End radicals, he most distinctly talks about newly emigrated Jewish girls being lured into prostitution by seemingly, helpful Jewish men. I don't have my book here, but it seems to have been a very real and frequent happening.
This is another reason that I think JTR might have been Jewish. In heavily concentrated Jewish areas, surely with Jewish prostitutes, none of the victims were Jewish. I find this either very coincidental or intentional.
Cheers,
Mike
Fisherman
29th December 2007, 12:26 PM
Interesting, Mike; and given the character of the "world´s oldest job" I guess it´s not all that surprising if this is correct. I have not read the book you mention.
You write that you find the fact that no victims were Jewish either very coincidental or intentional, but that would depend of the rates involved, would it not? "Very real and frequent", how does that translate into numbers and/or percentages? I have always encountered the view that Jewish girls were very improbable unfortunates, and even if Jewish girls were in the business, I would have thought them rare creatures.
The best, Mike!
Fisherman
Fisherman
29th December 2007, 12:53 PM
Right, Ben!
Let´s begin by ridding ourselves of a couple of misunderstandings!
First, you write that the Rippers choice of Mitre Square because he wanted his escape route to move along Jewish housings, was not quite your suggestion. Thanks for that clarification. Maybe I read more into your wording than I should have. It had me slightly baffled, though, I must say.
Next up, this:
"Similarly, it cannot be claimed that "most" locations were in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs (both double event murders) and a synangogue (Mitre square)."
Not sure where you are headed here, Ben. Suffice to say that I argue in the opposite direction here - I see nothing strange in the fact that the killings occured in the proximity of typically Jewish institutions. I think the same applies here as it does in the case of the final destination of the bloody rag: in a heavily Jewish populated area, there will be lots of Jews and Jewish institutions.
More misunderstandings:
I have never even tried to speak of these aras as representing "evenly interspersed" Jewish and Gentile population. I now fully well that anything but that applied. The people were to a great extent living in very outspoken enclaves of either Jewish or Gentile extraction. And, of course, if this had not been the case, the question of implicating the Jews by an intentional dropping of the rag in a Jewish enclave could never have come up, could it?
What I am saying, though, is that the Jewish enclaves in the area were so many, and so much spread throughout, that the notion that a randomly thrown away rag would stand every chance of ending up among the Jews can never be dispersed.
Moreover, when you write:
"to argue that the killer never once considered taking advantage - easy, readily available advantage - of the fact that general suspicion was already Jew-directed, would be to discard the baby with the bathwater. Then there is the GSG message to consider. Frankly, I'd be amazed if he bypassed such an obvious opportunity"
...I honestly think that you are painting yourself into a corner, Ben. For if the Ripper really was that keen on taking every opportunity that offered itself to implicate the Jews, then why is it that you show no amazement at the fact that he left this one and only clue, disregarding every other opportunity to follow it up? Why did he not write "Happy Channukah!" in blood on Mary Kellys wall? Why did he not bother to let one of the many cut loose organs join the heart on his way from Millers Court; no matter which route he took from there, he would in a minute or two be passing by housings that were to more than 95 percent inhabited by Jews. He would have had every chance in the world to place a slice of her liver in one of them doorways, or perhaps balance that broken away piece of her right lung on the doorknob of the synagogue in Whites Row.
If failing to use the opportunity to drop the rag in a Jewish doorway would have amazed you, Ben, then why is it that you choose to disregard this?
The best, Ben!
Fisherman
Sox
29th December 2007, 02:35 PM
The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......I would hate to take a bet on the odds of that event. I could understand it, if he were in imediate danger of being caught, but before the double event the police were chasing shadows & myths.
Too many Sherlocks & not enough Watsons.
CitizenX
29th December 2007, 03:14 PM
The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......I would hate to take a bet on the odds of that event. I could understand it, if he were in imediate danger of being caught, but before the double event the police were chasing shadows & myths.
Too many Sherlocks & not enough Watsons.
Hi Sox,
You could ask Timothy Evans that if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...
Kevin
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 03:57 PM
Hi Kevin
You could ask Timothy Evans [about killers deflecting blame onto somebody else] if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...
Evans' circumstances there were entirely different to the situation in which Jack the Ripper found himself. For a start, Jack enjoyed greater freedom than Evans - he wasn't cooped up in a bedsit and married-with-children to his victims. Unlike Evans, there was no obvious association that would have led the police to "finger" him. Evans would have been well under the microscope as soon as Beryl and Geraldine were missed by family and friends, and he was in a very sticky situation which Christie was happy to exploit. In this he was helped - let's not forget - by some disastrous decisions taken by Evans himself.
Ben
29th December 2007, 04:18 PM
Hi Fisherman,
I think the same applies here as it does in the case of the final destination of the bloody rag: in a heavily Jewish populated area, there will be lots of Jews and Jewish institutions.
Yes, but to end up in a "Jewish populated area", he must have gone there deliberately. He wasn't plonked there by some magical higher force. And given that Jews and Gentiles were not - not! - evenly dispersed throughout, it quickly becomes arrant nonsense to claim that a randomly discarded apron had a strong chance of ending up in a Jewish enclave after returning from all the murder sites. If we accept your suggestion that he was domiciled in reasonably close proximity to George Yard, the return journey from Miller's Court and Hanbury Street would not have taken him past heavily Jewish enclaves. I have argued that the rag was offloaded primarily for convenience because Goulston Street was en route home. Accepting – again – your suggestion that the killer resided near George Yard, White’s Row would NOT have been en route home. Hanbury Street itself was, however, Jewish populated and it was there – one of five Jewish Streets referred to as such by Charles Booth – that Chapman was killed.
For if the Ripper really was that keen on taking every opportunity that offered itself to implicate the Jews, then why is it that you show no amazement at the fact that he left this one and only clue, disregarding every other opportunity to follow it up? Why did he not write "Happy Channukah!" in blood on Mary Kellys wall?
Are you serious? Or was that a little tongue in cheek?
As with your "Why didn't he nail the bloody rag to the door in Goulston Street?" objection (which ignores all manner of practicalities), you're basically arguing that unless he implicated the Jews all the time, at every opportunity, in the most incredibly blatant and unsubtle manner imaginable, he wasn't implicating the Jews at all at any point. That's such a terrible argument, Fisherman. Come on. And you're accusing me, in inelegantly patronising language, of "painting myself into a corner".
A discarded apron with an accompanying message (if the two were connected), and murders committed in close proximity to Jewish clubs and synagogues is unsubtle enough, in my view, but to expect something more outlandish is, well....outlandish. You can't, after all, get any more blatant than that absurd "villainous Jew" description offered up on the 12th November.
Hi Sox,
“The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......”
What??
Shifting the blame onto an innocent party is about the oldest rule in the book if you’re the guilty party. Absolutely textbook. It doesn't matter if it implicates an individual or a larger party; it is still an oft-resorted to strategy of the guilty. Kevin’s Christie example is particularly apt. Christie shifted the blame onto the most obvious and available scapegoat around. Why expect anything less from Jack?
Best regards,
Ben
CitizenX
29th December 2007, 04:46 PM
Sam,
Your making the comparison of JTR with Evans the patsy rather than Cristie the murderer...but that's ok I get your point..
You're absolutley correct in your assessment of Evans, he had below average intelligence and both the police and Christie exploited this.
The point I was raising is that serial killers (like all criminals) will shift the blame when things get too close for comfort and the Jews (like Evans) were an easy patsy to exploit.
To my mind that makes them the most unlikely suspects..
Kevin
ChavaG
29th December 2007, 05:33 PM
Sadly Ben is right. The white slave trade was carried on by Jewish pimps in London, New York, Buenos Ayres and Rio. The pimps would line up at the docks and single out young woman travelling alone. They'd profess to help them. And the rest was the subject of melodrama for years and years. I really wish I could say that there were no Jewish prostitutes in the East End but there were. And they worked for Jewish pimps. However research suggests that they worked in brothels rather than walking the streets.
The thing is, the police might not have had any idea of who the Ripper was. But if he had been talked to by a cop, or if something happened that he thought might lead to him--even if such a thing was unnoticed--he might well take steps to lead suspicion away. The double event is doubly linked to Jews. None of the previous murders were. The Kelly murder--if in fact it is a Ripper murder--took place 6 weeks later, and maybe the heat was off by then. I don't think he was anti-Semitic or making any kind of a statement. He was simply blame-shifting. Much as Christie did.
What I would love to do would be to get at all police records just before the double event to see who they were talking to...
Celesta
29th December 2007, 05:57 PM
His choice was, basically, confined to Whitechapel Road or back-streets densely populated by Jews.
And how often does a predator hunt outside his territory? Of course, there is no telling what JTR envisioned as his territory. Inside what we see as his territory were a substantial number of Jewish folk. Even so, none of the victims were.
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 06:00 PM
He was simply blame-shifting. Much as Christie did.
Christie's circumstances were entirely different to Jack's, Chava, and on the surface at least the Ripper's personal anonymity was bolstered by the lack of obvious connections with the deceased, and the general facelessness of the East End. He had absolutely no need to deflect suspicion anywhere at that point, because the police were fishing in a very big pond.
Ben
29th December 2007, 06:18 PM
It wouldn't really have been a case of "deflecting" suspicion, Gareth, at least not primarily. It would have been more akin to ensuring (with minimal effort) that the investigative focus was sustained in a Jewish or "foreign" direction, as it would have been by the double-event, courtesy of eye-witness testimony from the previous murder, and fuelled by Leather Apron and the general anti-semitic undercurrent in the East End. The Yorkshire Ripper investigative team were also fishing in a big pond, but Humble's Geordie-incriminating hoax certainly played a part of keeping the investigative focus off non-Geordie Sutcliffe; thus demonstrating that generic scapegoats or misdirections can prove just as benefitial to the actual perpetrator as individual ones.
Great points, Chava.
I particularly welcome your use of the word "simple", because that's what it is. Blame-shifting, whether out of necessity of simple desire, is the age-old look-out of the guilty party.
All the best,
Ben
Sox
29th December 2007, 06:56 PM
Hi Sox,
You could ask Timothy Evans that if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...
Kevin
Oh? Interesting to note here is that Christie did not run to the police claiming that Evans had killed his wife and daughter, did not, in fact, leave a single clue to implicate him. John Christie clearly did not want anyone to know about these deaths, and blamed Evans only to save himself from the noose after Evans had 'confessed'.
That is a billion miles away from leaving clues for a police force who had no idea who he was, as Sam very astutely points out.
Ben is one hundred percent correct here, Jewish pimps have been in evidence for a long long time, and particulary flourished in Victorian times. As I said earlier, if there had been police hot on his heels then I could see sense in the killer helping fuel the press implication of a 'Jewish Ripper', otherwise not.
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 07:00 PM
Hi Ben,The Yorkshire Ripper investigative team were also fishing in a big pond, but Humble's Geordie-incriminating hoax certainly played a part of keeping the investigative focus off non-Geordie Sutcliffe; thus demonstrating that generic scapegoats or misdirections can prove just as benefitial to the actual perpetrator as individual ones.
The interesting thing to note is that Humble's non-Geordiness was a pure accident of his geography - it's not as if he went out of his way to speak in a Wearside accent. Although the result of his hoax was to misdirect the police, I'm sure the silly little man had no intention of drawing suspicion away from Yorkshire, anymore than the deposition of the apron outside a Jewish dwelling was necessarily a premeditated act of "deflection" on the part of Jack the Ripper.Blame-shifting, whether out of necessity of simple desire, is the age-old look-out of the guilty party.More often out of necessity, perhaps? Certainly blame-shifting may happen in cases where the guilty party is a rather obvious suspect who feels that the net is tightening. However, that didn't appear to be remotely the case from Jack's P.O.V at the end of September 1888.
Ben
29th December 2007, 07:04 PM
John Christie clearly did not want anyone to know about these deaths, and blamed Evans only to save himself from the noose after Evans had 'confessed'.
He was taking advantage of the obvious scapegoat, Sox - simple as that. A scapegoat can refer to a generic group or race, or it could refer to an individual. Either way, it is in the interest of the guilty party to take advantage of both. An individual scapegoat worked for Christie to the same extent that a generic scapegoat (or falsely implicated group) worked for Sutcliffe. The police didn't need to be hot on the heels of the actual offender for suspicion-deflecting to be a prudent move, especially if the opportunities to do so were so readily available. It is to the end of ensuring that future suspicion is not levelled the offender's way that these efforts are often directed.
All the best,
Ben
Ben
29th December 2007, 07:10 PM
Hi Gareth,
Although the result of his hoax was to misdirect the police, I'm sure the silly little man had no intention of drawing suspicion away from Yorkshire
Oh, absolutely. The result, however, was that non-Geordies of the Sutcliffe variety received scant attention as a result of this unintentional misdirection on the part of John Humble. I brought up the Yorkshire Ripper investigation to demonstrate that misdirected blame at a group/accent/race can prove just as advantageous to the guilty party as misdirected blame at an individual. If the result of a discarded rag and hastily daubed message was to ensure that police inquiries remained Jew-focussed, with Gentile Londoners receiving consequently scant attention, it was heavily in the killer's interest to keep that false ball rolling. Blame-shifting isn't always carried out because of a close shave or a tightening net. It would have been a simple expedient that would have impacted upon future police inquiries...to his advantage.
All the best,
Ben
CitizenX
29th December 2007, 07:51 PM
Sox,
I cited the case of Christie/Evans in response to your statement
"The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else....."
You didnt specifcally mention JTR....
OK its a ripper board but thats splitting hairs
........Kevin
Sox
29th December 2007, 07:52 PM
The police didn't need to be hot on the heels of the actual offender for suspicion-deflecting to be a prudent move, especially if the opportunities to do so were so readily available.
This is the point we disagree on. Ordinarily I would be in favour of your opinion but not in this case because, invariably, serial killers enjoy the notoriety and bask in the 'limelight' of their shock horror tactics. That is why I would agree, but only if the police were in his back yard looking for clues.
Which, on reflection, was entirely possible. There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no? Had they spooked him?
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 07:53 PM
Although it worked to his advantage, it's worth remembering that Sutcliffe was not the originator of the "deflection" and, as both Sox and I mentioned earlier, Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion either. Had Evans not walked into the police station and fessed up, Christie may well have preferred to have kept a low profile over the whole affair.
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 07:58 PM
There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no?There had, Sox, but the best/worst was yet to come. If the Ripper felt under pressure leading up to the "Double Event", then his valves must have been close to bursting over the next few weeks. If ever he'd have felt the need to deflect blame, it would have been felt ever more acutely leading up to, and immediately after, the Kelly murder - which, of course, might well have given him the opportunity to do so. (But let's not go there
) Ben
29th December 2007, 08:06 PM
Although it worked to his advantage, it's worth remembering that Sutcliffe was not the originator of the "deflection
True, Gareth, but the fact that it did work to his advantage is the more salient point, I feel. It demonstrates perfectly that a whole host of potential suspects received very scant attention because they didn't have the right accent, and that it was acheived through minimal effort - one bloke with a tape. If such a reward could result for the perpetrator by expending such a small amount of effort (what amounted, really, to a "while I'm here..." consideration), I've no doubt that he'd seize it.
We don't know that Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion. Being the more dominant personality, he could have encouraged Evans to flee, thereby inviting inevitable suspicion.
Which, on reflection, was entirely possible. There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no? Had they spooked him?
Quite possibly, Sox. Or perhaps he was anxious that a few two may witnesses had clocked his ostensibly non-Jewish mug on the night of the double event?
Best regards,
Ben
Sam Flynn
29th December 2007, 08:17 PM
We don't know that Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion. Being the more dominant personality, he could have encouraged Evans to flee, thereby inviting inevitable suspicion.
Possibly, but the mere departure of Evans (and, for all anyone would have known, Beryl and Geraldine) could have been relatively easily explained away by Christie. Whether Christie would have risked stirring up a hornet's nest by directing Evans to squeal to the Merthyr plod - the specific act of "deflection" in this instance - is another matter.
Sox
29th December 2007, 08:17 PM
There had, Sox, but the best/worst was yet to come. If the Ripper felt under pressure leading up to the "Double Event", then his valves must have been close to bursting over the next few weeks. If ever he'd have felt the need to deflect blame, it would have been felt ever more acutely leading up to, and immediately after, the Kelly murder - which, of course, might well have given him the opportunity to do so. (But let's not go there
)I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I have never really been in favour of these so-called 'clues'. I would go further and speculate that the 'gap' between Eddowes & Kelly was a direct result of the double event, I think he knew Stride or Eddowes, maybe even both.
, easy
, simple
search of the patient records for Oct. 1888, find the guy with the giant slice in his hand or septicemia, and we can wrap up this little mystery and all go out for a few pints. My favorite beverage on earth is a nice cool pint of Boddingtons.
Comment