Blameless

[The Good Michael]

Mike
afore I reply to your good and reasonable points, would you broadly agree with me that it is both unusual and rare for a serial killer to kill outside of his own social, racial and ethnic grouping?

Generally, I would agree that it isn't the norm, but I wouldn't use the word 'rare'. Good enough?

Mike

[Mr.Hyde]

Hi Malcolm X,
Reckon you are right.Hutch has had days to concoct a description that deflects attention away from JTR.One so "bad",it has also deflected suspicion away from himself.
Suspect Hutch was in on a blackmail attempt.

[Nothing to see]

Hi Malcolm X,
Reckon you are right.Hutch has had days to concoct a description that deflects attention away from JTR.One so "bad",it has also deflected suspicion away from himself.
Suspect Hutch was in on a blackmail attempt.

OK. So who was Hutchinson going to blackmail?

[The Good Michael]

Right. It could only have been Astrakhan man. So, was he real, but an exaggeration, or was he a story? If the latter, blackmail was not happening.

Mike

[Crystal]

I don't think he was real. He could have been an exaggeration, I guess. Hutch has this horrible appeal because his statement doesn't add up. Damn you Hutch! If only you'd been straight with the Fuzz, none of us poor unfortunates would be stuck on the interminable 1911 thread now...

[DVV]

It could only have been Astrakhan man.
Mike

Hey Mike,
Don't forget this superhero in your movie.

Amitiés,
David

[Limehouse]

'Blameless'

Studying the Yorkshire Ripper murders in further detail, and how the modern police force of the UK approached those crimes, I was profoundly struck by the police description of the victims when they were not working prostitutes, but rather students or the like.
The senior police officers described such victims as 'blameless', implicitly implying as such by proxy that the working prostitutes who formed the majority of the victims were not 'blameless' but in fact to be blamed for their own savage murder and mutilation.
The vast majority of women have sex one assumes, so should a woman who charges for sex be treated any differently than any other woman, especially when it comes to a serious murder investigation?
I don't think so, apart that is from 'Wilson' world, where many here do live.
In fact I believe this shows a clear intention on the part of senior police officers in the UK to sweeten up such despicable crimes against women, simply because they are working prostitutes... and this is massively clear from the efforts made by the police in all of the major investigations into the murder of prostitutes from the long distant Whitechapel Murders, through the Yorkshire Ripper and then right up to the recent Ipswich murders.
In the 'Myth', back in 1993, I noted that Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, had been flagged five times in the card index cross reference system used by the police at the time, and I stated then that it was impossible to believe that the police did not respond to the information under their control, as five flags in such a system must indicate a serious suspect, when not the killer himself.
I now discover that Sutcliffe was in fact flagged a total of ten times in that system which can only mean one thing: he was the killer.
But the senior police officers in the case, refusing to acknowledge their own information systems, pursued a completely different suspect, much to the horror of the junior officers on the street who had interviewed Sutcliffe and firmly believed him to be the killer.
There is a clear alienation process at work here in the minds of the senior police officers involved in the hunt for the Yorkshire Ripper; and I believe that process to be available in the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer as well.
In other words it couldn't be one of us, but must be one of 'them', a Jew, Johnny Foreigner or even a Geordie... just as long as he wasn't from our patch, because if he was we should have caught him by now, so to explain the obvious we create a myth, a serial killer who is invisible to all.
I firmly believe that this is what exactly happened in the hunt for the Whitechapel Murderer, that the real killer was right under their noses the whole time while the Yard chased Jews down Roadside.

Great post. I agree that the attitude towards the prostitutes was less than satisfactory. I guess it was an attitude of the times, left over from the days when women were expected to be pure, innocent, domestic and submissive. A lot has been written about the behaviour of women who resort to earning a living in such a way, but little is said of the clients.

I think though, that one of the reasons the investigating officer was so convinced that the person responsible was a Geordie was because of so-called 'experts' such as hand-writing specialists and voice psychologists advising the police. They insisted that certain psychotic tendencies and muderous aggressive traits could be detected in the letter and tape.

However, I do think that AP has a point when he suggests that there was an element of 'it couldn't be a Yorkshireman' in a similar way that the Victorian killer 'couldn't be an Englishman'.

The fact that Sutcliffe was questioned up to ten times because his car had been seen in red-light districts is characteristic of the way police viewed the use of prostitutes by men at the time. It was obviously seen as acceptable for a married man to be such a frequent user of prostitutes and i am sure that Sutcliffe was not the only man whose car was clocked in the red-light districts more than several times. However, Sutcliffe had also been questioned after a five pound note found in the handbag of a victim was traced to Sutcliffe's employers. This should have set alarm bells ringing - but Sutcliffe's wife gave him an alibi.

I agree that the Whitechapel killer was probably local, that the local prostitutes were comfortable with him and that he had the ability to convince people that he was an ordinary, repectable man who was harmless. |Much the same could be said of Sutcliffe.

[The Good Michael]

Hey Mike,
Don't forget this superhero in your movie.

David,

I'm already on that. I have casting calls next week for people who look like Randolph Churchill, but are short enough for Steve Buscemi (as Hutchinson) to stoop down and loop at. Then they display their superpowers and it's another fight scene.

Cheers,

Mike

[DarkPassenger]

Thing is he probably was a respectable gentlemen, with a perculiar sexual habit.

[Ally]

Limehouse,

As I said in my post, I hardy think this is indicative of anything other than the mindset that ANYONE who contributes to their own demise by engaging in risky behavior is to be viewed with equal disdain. It is not limited to Victorian times, and it is not limited to women prostitutes.

It is a global mindset that those who die via predictable means from their own actions are viewed as less important deaths than those who die from no contributory action of their own.

[Mr.Hyde]

Mr.Hyde

OK. So who was Hutchinson going to blackmail?

JTR.
Eddowes comes back from hop picking in Kent.
She expresses the opinion that she knows who JTR is.
Soon after she is dead.
Her partner is James Kelly.
MAK follows suit several weeks after.
Her father?James Kelly.
Hutch was watching MAK rather closely.Ask yourself-why?
With Eddowes and MAK dead-Hutch may have been the last blackmailer.
Did he step up in life thereafter-ie 1911 Census?
PS.Juwes is a Frisian word.Dutch Jews constituted the majority in Goulston Street and thereabouts.
PPS.I doubt James Kelly was JTR.Don't ask me why-just a gut feeling.

[Cap'n Jack]

Thanks Limehouse
Yes, I think this 'parish' attitude is universal amongst the forces of law and order. I live in an archaic system where my small island is divided into numerous parishes, each with its own police force, and these officers spend their entire life seeking out criminals from other parishes who have committed sins in their parish, refusing to accept that it could be one of their own parishioners under their direct control.
This is what enabled the 'Beast of Jersey' to prey on vulnerable children for so long, as his parish police force were convinced that it could not be one of their own, so searched for a 'beast' outside of the parish. As far as they were concerned Paisnel was just a good old boy from the local parish.
'Not on my patch' is probably the most popular and prolific statement on any police inspector's lips.
I can't agree with Ally's statement
'It is a global mindset that those who die via predictable means from their own actions are viewed as less important deaths than those who die from no contributory action of their own.'
For is a women selling sex any different than a woman who sells adult movies; or even a woman who sells shoes?

[Ally]

For is a women selling sex any different than a woman who sells adult movies; or even a woman who sells shoes?

It has nothing to do with whether the woman is different. The actions are different. A woman making adult films or selling shoes does not by her trade go off with complete strangers into darkened alleys or skip off completely alone into dim corners with random, strange men they don't know.

It's not the difference in the woman, it's the difference in the action. Sex with strangers in alleys is risky. Selling shoes, unless you are suddenly impaled by a 4 inch spiked heel is not. And people whose actions are contributory to their demise, are viewed as less of a loss than those who were "blameless".

[Cap'n Jack]

But Ally, the majority of female murder victims are in an intimate relationship with the man who kills them, they are wives and girl friends.
The prostitutes are in the minority.
The suggestion of 'blame' is purely in the mind of the police investigating the case... and yours, of course.

[Supe]

Hyde,

1) Kate Eddowes partner was JOHN Kelly.
2) Where is the evidence Mary Jane Kelly's father was James Kelly?
3) It is very dubious--at best--that Kate Eddowes told a casual ward superintendent she had come back from hopping to finger Jack.

No runs, no hits, three errors at the least.

Don.