John Richardson

[Paul Sutton]

Ok, "why?"
Meaning - Why does it matter?
We all might have different reasons, we don't ask each other "why does it matter to you?". Though we know some members hold theories that require Chapman being murdered early - 4:45 am. A few have suggested Richardson should be a suspect. Other's just like to sort out what witnesses meant by their published statements.
My interest is more like the latter - sorting out the true meaning of what witnesses said or meant.

I don't have a ripper suspect, though there is one unidentified character that I am suspicious about, but he plays no role in the Chapman case that we know of.
Opinions are certainly divided between the 4:30 & 5:30 arguments.
If you're looking for a reason that is important, one probably doesn't exist, this is our entertainment - a distraction from the daily grind. Though some of us are out of the rat-race so we have other reason's.

Overall, it's not so much 'why does it matter', as 'why am I investing feelings in this'? But in addition, for this obscurantist point, the first one does apply, since it seems to make no actual difference.

It's not my business to decry others' hobbies, but I'll be honest - I'm interested in Ripperologists! Frankly, true-crime is in some ways a disgusting thing - and I'm obviously a follower. And it's been a perennial obsession, especially in this country.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That means that the starting point of Anderson's case against a Jewish suspect is nothing more than prejudice.

(PI 1)

You can’t know that. You’re making an assumption.

(HS)



You are quite mistaken, Herlock.

I am not making an assumption.

It was Anderson who made the assumption that the murderer had to be Jewish, in the absence of any suspect.

Do you want me to quote you exactly what he wrote?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

So in this crowded street, no one that knew Annie noticed her, but three days later a woman that didn't even know what Annie looked like, suddenly remembers seeing her amongst all these women who looked and dressed very similar, and becomes a reliable witness.

I'm not buying it.

Cheers, George

You don't have to buy it George, I just stated factual data. Take it or leave it.

Why should we assume everyone who lived in Whitechapel was crouched at the starters gate ready to run to the police every time a woman is murdered, just to declare "I saw her!!"
People just don't like to get involved, then there will be others who don't have a good rapport with the authorities anyway, so the last place they want to show their face is at a police station.
Two things we can be sure of here:
1 - Chapman was seen by someone between 1:50 - 5:20.
2 - Jack the Ripper was seen by someone leaving the scene.

The expression 'Not seeing the wood for the trees' reflects reality George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah, yes.

Jacob Levy, who was allegedly recognised by Joseph Hyam Levy in Duke Street.

I refer you to my post of yesterday:

# 35 The lighter side of Ripperology and suspects

in which I cited and quoted from 7 previous posts of mine on this very subject, none of which has ever received a response.

Now is that not remarkable?

No it’s not remarkable PI. It perhaps illustrates that not everyone is obsessed with Jewish suspects.

None of those Jewish suspects were name due to anti-semitism.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That means that the starting point of Anderson's case against a Jewish suspect is nothing more than prejudice.

(PI 1)

You can’t know that. You’re making an assumption.

(HS)



You are quite mistaken, Herlock.

I am not making an assumption.

It was Anderson who made the assumption that the murderer had to be Jewish, in the absence of any suspect.

Do you want me to quote you exactly what he wrote?

Yes please.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Cohen, who was found rambling in Yiddish a few weeks after he is supposed to have chatted up Mary Kelly in English and spent two hours butchering her

(PI 1)

So was Martin Fido anti-Semitic for suggesting him.

(HS)


I did not suggest that he was.

I was pointing to the implausibility of Cohen as a suspect.

[Paul Sutton]

But every discussion doesn’t have to be directly concerned with who the killer was Paul. I don’t know if you’ve ever looked over on JTRForums but suspects are almost never discussed.

Discussions can be about the width of victims' knee-caps, for all I care, but I'd ask why. I suspect the timings thing has arisen because every conceivable disagreement has been done to death.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes please.

One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type ; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.


Before he even had a suspect, Anderson, according to this memoir, had decided that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew.

The only reasons he gave were the assumptions that the murderer was being protected by people close to him and that only Polish Jews would do such a thing.

[Wickerman]

Hi FM,

I asked that question several thousand posts ago. No answer was the stern reply. The spring from a child's gaiter was found, but not pieces of leather that Richardson told the coroner (twice) that he had cut from his boot. Curious.

Cheers, George

I'd hazard a guess that no-one replied because no-one here thought it of any importance. Like the press couldn't be bothered to look for it, the coroner wasn't concerned about it, the police gave no importance to it but, here, a hundred & thirty five years later someone thinks it matters so much to be crucial evidence against a witness possibly lying, or even worse, being the killer himself?
Shameful how the authorities missed such an opportunity...

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No it’s not remarkable PI. It perhaps illustrates that not everyone is obsessed with Jewish suspects.

You are completely out of order, Herlock.

I have never been obsessed with Jewish suspects.

It was Scott Nelson who suggested Joseph Hyam Levy as Anderson's witness, who is supposed to have recognised Jacob Levy in Duke Street.

It was not I who suggested any of that.

I refuted the entire case for Levy being Anderson's witness.

I put it to Scott Nelson seven times.

Yesterday I put it to him an eighth time.

He has never replied.


And you say I'm the one who is obsessed?

That is a shameful comment to make.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I'd hazard a guess that no-one replied because no-one here thought it of any importance. Like the press couldn't be bothered to look for it, the coroner wasn't concerned about it, the police gave no importance to it but, here, a hundred & thirty five years later someone thinks it matters so much to be crucial evidence against a witness possibly lying, or even worse, being the killer himself?
Shameful how the authorities missed such an opportunity...

And who gets to decide what is important?

Are Anderson's and Swanson's ramblings, written more than two decades after the murders, considered to be important when they do not contain one single reference to any incriminating evidence against their suspect?

Are Macnaghten's insinuations about Druitt considered to be important even though they entirely lack corroboration?

Why are we discussing the supposed case against Lechmere, when neither the police nor the courts were interested 135 years ago?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Discussions can be about the width of victims' knee-caps, for all I care, but I'd ask why. I suspect the timings thing has arisen because every conceivable disagreement has been done to death.

I think there’s a large element of truth the point that everything has been discussed. Pretty much everything is old ground unless someone comes up with a new theory, idea or suspect.

The timings thing arose because it’s important to allow a margin for error.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One did not need to be a Sherlock Holmes to discover that the criminal was a sexual maniac of a virulent type ; that he was living in the immediate vicinity of the scenes of the murders ; and that, if he was not living absolutely alone, his people knew of his guilt, and refused to give him up to justice. During my absence abroad the Police had made a house-to-house search for him, investigating the case of every man in the district whose circumstances were such that he could go and come and get rid of his blood-stains in secret. And the conclusion we came to was that he and his people were certain low-class Polish Jews; for it is a remarkable fact that people of that class in the East End will not give up one of their number to Gentile justice.


Before he even had a suspect, Anderson, according to this memoir, had decided that the murderer had to be a Polish Jew.

The only reasons he gave were the assumptions that the murderer was being protected by people close to him and that only Polish Jews would do such a thing.

But that doesn’t mean that no Jewish suspects can be considered or that we should dismiss on the grounds of Anderson’s poor thinking. He was looking for a reason or perhaps more accurately an excuse why the killer hadn’t been caught. So he came up with the notion, or perhaps it was suggested to him, that the killer was being protected by family or friends. He unfairly suggested the close-knit Jewish community. Of course anti-semitism existed. But we can’t exclude the possibility of a Jewish ripper on that basis. If some black guy had been falsely accused of being The Grim Sleeper for racist reasons then the killer would have gone free if they had dismissed the possibility of a black suspect.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are completely out of order, Herlock.

I have never been obsessed with Jewish suspects.

It was Scott Nelson who suggested Joseph Hyam Levy as Anderson's witness, who is supposed to have recognised Jacob Levy in Duke Street.

It was not I who suggested any of that.

I refuted the entire case for Levy being Anderson's witness.

I put it to Scott Nelson seven times.

Yesterday I put it to him an eighth time.

He has never replied.


And you say I'm the one who is obsessed?

That is a shameful comment to make.

Calm down. Why the hysteria? I was only saying that you bring up the subject of Jewish suspects with regularity.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Calm down. Why the hysteria? I was only saying that you bring up the subject of Jewish suspects with regularity.

If you refuted something that another poster had written, and you reminded him seven times, and still he did not reply, how would you feel if someone accused you of being obsessed?

You have sent me a post in which you were all worked up because I had not replied to one post, soon after you had sent it, even though I simply had not had a chance to get round to doing it.

There does appear to be an obsession with Jewish suspects among certain posters.

I am entitled to refute their claims and that does not mean that I am obsessed, as you well know.