False Flag: Jack The Ripper with author Stephen Senise

[c.d.]

"But there is no doubt that broad shoulders, who also basically fit other descriptions of the ripper, was her killer and the ripper. Peaked cap and all that."

Sorry Abby, but I think there is plenty of doubt. There are just way too many red flags in the B.S. man as her killer scenario. For instance why would the B.S. man go on to kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man? To me, the whole incident simply resembles a common street hassle. I think her killer came along after the B.S. man had left. In his report, Swanson allowed for this possibility.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I made a poor job of that piece of quoting

At least it wasn't in ALL CAPS (or peaked caps, as the case may be).

[Abby Normal]

Peaked caps were, unfortunately, rather common back then. What's worse is that cap-wearing in general was very popular, too, and remained so well into the last century. Most men of my grandfather's generation were rarely seen without one; indeed, my grandfather would often wear his indoors!

that scoundrel!!

[Abby Normal]

"But there is no doubt that broad shoulders, who also basically fit other descriptions of the ripper, was her killer and the ripper. Peaked cap and all that."

Sorry Abby, but I think there is plenty of doubt. There are just way too many red flags in the B.S. man as her killer scenario. For instance why would the B.S. man go on to kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the Pipe Man? To me, the whole incident simply resembles a common street hassle. I think her killer came along after the B.S. man had left. In his report, Swanson allowed for this possibility.

c.d.

HI CD
definitely a possibility-do you think it could have been pipe man?

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

It could have been Pipe Man but that brings up the same question. Why would he kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the B.S.man? It would be a reasonable assumption for both the B.S. man and the Pipe Man to think that Schwartz had run off looking for the nearest P.C. who would be soon on the scene. In that case, the smartest thing the B.S. man could have done would be to get the hell out of there. Remember, according to Schwartz, Stride was still alive when he ran off. So even if caught, the B.S. man would only have been guilty of pushing a woman. No big deal.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

It could have been Pipe Man but that brings up the same question. Why would he kill Stride after being seen by Schwartz and the B.S.man? It would be a reasonable assumption for both the B.S. man and the Pipe Man to think that Schwartz had run off looking for the nearest P.C. who would be soon on the scene. In that case, the smartest thing the B.S. man could have done would be to get the hell out of there. Remember, according to Schwartz, Stride was still alive when he ran off. So even if caught, the B.S. man would only have been guilty of pushing a woman. No big deal.

c.d.

Thanks CD
makes sense.

to me though-the witnesses at both stride and eddowes describe a similar man seen with the victims shortly before being found murdered who basically fit the description and was wearing a peaked cap. then in between was the anon church st sighting, a location which would match up with a route from dutfield yard to mitre square, of a man with a peaked cap, acting suspicious and wiping his hands.

you have the angered jewish slur of lipski shouted at Schwartz during the stride attack and then the GSG disparaging jews above eddowes bloody apron piece.

and peaked cap, common or not, apparently made an impression on Abberline as being significant. Something he probably wouldn't have noted if it was so ubiquitous and worthless as a clue.

It all ties together pretty tightly to me- but that's just my opinion.

[Sam Flynn]

I wouldn't say that Abberline can be said to have attached too much significance to the cap; if anything, he seems to have been more impressed by the (incorrect) detail that Kłosowski then lived in George Yard:

"The fact that Kłosowski when he came to reside in this country occupied a lodging in George Yard, Whitechapel Road, where the first murder was committed, is very curious, and the height of the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him." (Abberline reported in the Pall Mall Gazette, 1903)

I think Abberline was simply, and quite understandably, looking for anything that might reinforce his theory that Kłosowski could have been the Ripper.

[Elamarna]

Not yet read False Flag, however got Jewbaiter last year and listened to the podcast.

One serious issue i have with Stephen's theory is that if the aim emwas to point a finger at the jeeish community why did 2 of the C5 occurr in high non jewish resident streets: Bucks Row and Dorset Street, that to me seriously questions the theory.

Not sure if its been touched on.

Interesting book, with great historical perspective on late 19th century East London.

Steve

[jmenges]

Hi Steve,
On the show I asked what the significance of Bucks Row, as an example, has towards his theory and he indicated that just by murdering in the manner that he did, inflicting the wounds that he did, in imitation of ritual slaughter, would be enough to point in the direction of a Jewish perpetrator. I tend to wonder if the Jews were scapegoats for most all of the crime in the East End at the time, as most recent immigrants as a class usually are, so that if a crime is committed by a non-Jew and it remains unsolved for any length of time, eventually Jews of that certain class would be suspected by a healthy percentage of the gentile population anyway.

[Sam Flynn]

why did 2 of the C5 occurr in high non jewish resident streets: Bucks Row and Dorset Street, that to me seriously questions the theory.

Buck's Row, now Durward Street, adjoins Brady Street, the site of a disused but important Jewish cemetery. The site of Nichols' murder and the cemetery are, I'd guess, just under a third of a mile apart:



I can't recall off the top of my head what the Jewish connection to Dorset Street is but, if there was one, I'm sure Stephen will explain.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,
On the show I asked what the significance of Bucks Row, as an example, has towards his theory and he indicated that just by murdering in the manner that he did, inflicting the wounds that he did, in imitation of ritual slaughter, would be enough to point in the direction of a Jewish perpetrator. I tend to wonder if the Jews were scapegoats for most all of the crime in the East End at the time, as most recent immigrants as a class usually are, so that if a crime is committed by a non-Jew and it remains unsolved for any length of time, eventually Jews of that certain class would be suspected by a healthy percentage of the gentile population anyway.

Hi Jonathan

That was a good question, unfortunatly i dont buy the ritual slaughter angle.
Of course a point you all missed on the podcast, or at least i did not pick it up was that the very first finger pointing by Locals around Bucks Row was not at members of the Jewish community but at those working at Harrison, Barber. Tomkins, Mumford and Brittion are highlighted by the locals, who put grafiti on the gates and the Press.
It was only after the Police announced them clear that the accusations stopped.

To me if you meant to point at a group, you commit the murder in an area of high occupancy of that group. Not in an area with less than 5%, such as Bucks Row, yes it is close to a Jewish Cememtry, but areas just to west had a far higher concentration.
While Bucks Row apears to mark the beging of lower jewish occupancy to the East, Dorset street stands out as an area of equally low Jewish occupancy in an area of otherwise high occupancy, almost an island.

I love the research, but i feel the theory with regards to the motive of the killer is less than convincing.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Buck's Row, now Durward Street, adjoins Brady Street, the site of a disused but important Jewish cemetery. The site of Nichols' murder and the cemetery are, I'd guess, just under a third of a mile apart:

[ATTACH]18627[/ATTACH]

I can't recall off the top of my head what the Jewish connection to Dorset Street is but, if there was one, I'm sure Stephen will explain.

Hi Gareth,
Yes i of course am well aware of the cementry, i have some photos of it in the forth coming book, but its not close enough in my opinion to imply any sort of Link to the Jewish community.
The arkel map (agreed it some 10 years later) shows less than 5% occupancy by the Jewish community in both Bucks Row and Dorset Street.

When looked at with the comments i have made in the reply to Jonathan above, it just does not work for me.

Its an interest theory for a motive, just not one i agree with.


Steve

[cnr]

Not yet read False Flag, however got Jewbaiter last year and listened to the podcast.

One serious issue i have with Stephen's theory is that if the aim emwas to point a finger at the jeeish community why did 2 of the C5 occurr in high non jewish resident streets: Bucks Row and Dorset Street, that to me seriously questions the theory.

Not sure if its been touched on.

Interesting book, with great historical perspective on late 19th century East London.

Steve

Hi Steve,

I've just made a few quick comments (below) by way of discussing some of the points you raise.

It was the nature of the barbaric, or 'non-English', nature of murders themselves which was meant to provide the inculpatory signature - and indeed, it did: note racist street talk and anti-Jewish riot on the day Chapman was killed.

I propose that JTR used whatever was at his disposal to make his point, and that he evolved in being able to throw the switch this way or that, as circumstance permitted or called out to him. As a killer, he strikes me as a quintessential opportunist. And just like real life, nothing in this case is perfectly static, black over here, white over there. The lab approach is not really on offer - I don't say that disparagingly; maybe just as a way of acknowledging what we're left to grapple with.

Dorset Street might have been considered an 'English island in a Jewish sea', demographically. As I argue in the two editions of my book, circumstance may well have led JTR to that particular island - but the island was still in Spitalfields and linked to a series. The overkill involved (literally), was supposed to get the message across beyond all reasonable doubt. He overplayed his hand I believe, and the resulting outpouring of horror backfired on him - hence the need to wander into Commercial Street police station and re-establish the narrative.

There is evidence of migratory outbreaks east along Whitechapel Road and Commercial Road, from the main area of Jewish settlement. Certainly, both the attacks on Nichols and Wilson, happened not far from Jewish cemeteries. And we have evidence that already, around Bucks Row, there was a notable Jewish presence - see quote below. Or alternatively (since you have 'Jewbaiter', pls refer to the 'end of chapter 13 notes and map). This is from the Echo edition of 6 September, 1888 - the day Nichols was buried.

There were large crowds around Buck’s-row, this afternoon, the numbers being augmented by many Jews, now observing one of their special holidays.

...and thanks for your kind comments about my research. Also, please note my new sign-off, below - it's probably the most important part of this post.

Stephen - I'm not here to convince anyone; I just want to go home.

https://www.tweeddailynews.com.au/news/the-real-reason-behind-jack-the-rippers-rampage/3177827/

[Elamarna]

Jonathan and Gareth,

Maybe Stephen does not see the actual location of the murders as being important in themselves. Particularily if he feels the implied ritual slaughter is enough on its own.

Steve

[cnr]

The police had their views and they were there but my contention on the graffito is http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...=2290&page=269 , post #2687.
Didn't they search for the writer,asking the residents of the dwelling with no results? But your point on why it was the ripper who wrote it or the police thought it was him is interesting.But it also all could be coincidences and not connected.

Thanks Varqm. My apologies, I'd missed this earlier. (I'm still getting the hang of this).

I would like to imagine that Long's senior colleagues arrived at their conclusions with respect to his (and Halse's) evidence correctly and diligently, by the book, leaving no stone unturned - including the search of the building which you mention ("every door", if I'm not mistaken ?).

At the same time, it may be that they were, occasionally, putting the pieces together as part of an inter-related sequence or bigger picture, that may or may not, be fully visible to us as burghers of 2018. It's possible, as you suggest, that they did not definitively seek to nail down every aspect, in it's own right as though existing in a vacuum unto itself - for better or worse.

Who's to say why, exactly, they came to the conclusion/s they did ? As I've said elsewhere, we have a fragmentary knowledge of the episode, and I wish the case notes had more to tell us. We are at a distinct disadvantage in so many ways - and I'm reminded of it often.

Ultimately, what speaks to me is the question of 'blame', and that the 'Jews' were already being "blamed" for the murders. Also interesting, the graffito's thematic relationship to the early morning's other events. It's a personal perspective, but maybe it was also present in the logic of the police - and there are indeed suggestions along those lines.

Be assured, I am genuinely interested to know whether there were any police dissenters... or among officialdom, more broadly.

I know of the bureaucrat, Lushington's somewhat out of kilter interpretation - compared to those of the police - but even he seemed to think it genuine. I wonder whether we know of other, less orthodox-inclined official opinions on the matter...

Stephen

https://www.echo.net.au/2018/04/ripper-murders-plot-blame-londons-jewish-ghetto-tweed-author/