|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3482
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 4:36 pm: | 
|
Hi Helge,
I totally agree with you on your views and the "disorganized" element.
My bet is that he was a local man, though, because of the murder sites and their risky features. Sure, the East End streets and alleys were not the maze they sometimes are described, but I strongly believe the killer was quite well aquainted with the geographical environment and even the police beats.
Of course he could have been a visitor and a sailor, but if that was the case he must either had been there often enough to feel at home in the area or was born in east End; I think it is apparent -- at least to me -- that he had quite a good geographical knowledge of the area.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 5:19 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Re the FBI quote:
"...They are often socially inadequate with few friends, and they may have a history of mental problems and be regarded by acquaintances as eccentric or even "a bit creepy". They have little insight into their crimes and may even block out the memories of the killings."
The point I'd like to make is that even the most eccentric and creepy serial killer only succeeds in earning the definition by also succeeding in not arousing the suspicions of the people he comes into contact with, in or out of the immediate area in which the repeated attacks making the headlines are occurring.
Serial killer detection, at its simplest, is still far from simple.
To take but two famous examples, Timothy Evans was hanged because he confessed to what was assumed to be a simple case of domestic murder. Easy - except for the simple fact that living in the same building was this eccentric, creepy guy, John Christie, who was busy hiding the bodies of his other female victims, while successfully hiding his eccentric, creepy side from everyone, until one of those bodies was eventually discovered by a subsequent occupier.
The other case is the suspected BTK killer, who recently sent back evidence that he was responsible for a murder (that would have been the last of the series, I believe) that was thought to have had a 'simpler' explanation - the previous prime suspect being the victim's husband, although they were unable to prove it.
Again, not nearly eccentric or creepy enough to have come to attention earlier.
Simple, for me, is 'not a Yid, nor yet a foreign Skipper'; not some alien maniac who needs to be 'caged' in an asylum so he doesn't lose it in public.
Nor is it dismissing Stride and Kelly as domestic incidents, trying to make two other men pay for what I see as the work of a single eccentric creep.
Love,
Caz
X |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 45
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 5:46 am: |
|
Thanks Glenn, for your opinion, much appreciated.
The reason I asked was that I yet could not quite form an opinion on the likelihood that Jack could be a visitor to the East End.
I agree now that all the known facts seems to imply Jack must have been very intimate with the streets, and probably also have studied the police beats?
Speculation of course, but could this have been part of his evolvement from organized to disorganized? Planning his murder spree, and then, once he got started, his "urges overcoming his caution"
What about comfort zones?
Many profilers (example Richard Walter who runs the Omega Crime Assessment Group), is of the opinion that the killer is usually familiar with the neighborhoods where he has attacked, but is unlikely to live there.
This is because the killer needs to feel safe, and not lead attention to the area in close proximity to his home (the comfort zone)
So I agree with Glenn that Jack must have frequented the area, and we must suppose it was rather familiar grounds to him. But the area should also be outside his comfort zone, in effect he must have lived a distance from the area, but still close enough that escape was easy on foot.
So what about the apron? My guess is that, even if it was not a concious decicion, it cannot have been left within the killers comfort zone. Speculation, of course, but the psychology around this seems to be pretty strong. No one leaves evidence of their crimes on their own doorstep so to speak.
So we have two possibilities. a) Jacky was on his way home when he left the apron, but still outside his comfort zone. b) Jacky deliberately misguided the police by placing the apron where he did.
We see that possibility b would imply some reasoning on the side of the killer, and a concious deliberation to write the grafitto is no longer unlikely.
I agree that possibility a is the simplest solution. But we should not rule out the possibility that the killer showed some organized traits occasionally. It is rather the norm that even disorganized serial killers show some form of organization as well.
Thus we might infer that the killer lived not far from his killing grounds, either in the direction towards Goulston street, or probably in the opposite direction.
The possible time delay between the murder and the placing of the apron could also indicate some "goings on" with the murderer. Maybe he first fled towards his home, and came up with the idea to mislead on second thought?
I realize this is a far more complicated scenario than I usually would feel comfortable with.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 46
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Hi, Caroline!
"Serial killer detection, at its simplest, is still far from simple"
Oh, I could not agree more. That is why I have previously stated "lets make it simple, but not too simple". Obviously knowing where to draw the line is the hardest thing.
I mentioned profiler Richard Walter in my previous post, and he also states that most serial killers may "appear charming and a protector". On most days, you would never know there was anything wrong with them, but they may also at times behave in very eccentric ways.
(This is why I do not dismiss the grafitto, nor other "weird" behaviour)
Basically, my take is that the killer may very well behave in a complex manner, but a strategic overview on the case will probably still reveal the case as "simple".
Thanks for your input Caz, and love right back at you 
Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 572
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 9:20 am: |
|
Helge, so far as Jack being a local is concerned, in recent months I have found the location of the Chapman killing to be key to my thinking.
Nichols probably led him to Bucks row (though he may have led her) but it was a spot from which he had an obvious escape route if interrupted. he simply ran the other way!!
Eddowes was killed in a square which had three potential exits. Kelly in a room, but in private, with a relatively low risk of being interrupted. One of the reasons I don't believe Jack killed Stride is because he did so, so publicaly and at great risk to himself.
But Chapman, who I am absolutely sure was a victim of Jack, was killed in an enclosed space, with only one entry/exit and with a high degree of risk that, at that time of day, residents of 29 might intrude into the yard.
Thus I concluded that Jack had almost certainly been into the yard at 29 BEFORE entering it with Chapman. He knew where he was going, or being taken. Ergo: he was VERY familiar with obscure back yards of Whitechapel/Spitalfields. To me this suggests a local rather than a visitor (however frequent).
No proof, no certainty, just the way my thought processes are working at present.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 48
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
Yes, Phil, I follow your arguments here. I'm almost certain as well now that Jack must have been very well aquainted with this area.
Maybe he frequented it as a regular customer of prostitutes. Maybe his business (or work) took him there. Or maybe he simply played in those neighbourhoods as a child?
That latter explanation works well with me. I know from personal experience that I still know the backyards and environs of my childhood playgrounds much better than any other area I have frequented as an adult!
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 574
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
That's a very interesting thought, Helge.
Certainly, I have wondered whether Jack ever lived in no 29 (in which case he might have led Chapman there) and thus knew the yard intimately, or had observed the inhabitants closely enough to know their daily timetable pretty precisely.
He may just have take a risk, of course.
By the way, Helge, i have been meaning for a while to congratulate you on the contribution you have made to casebook in recent weeks. we may not always agree, but I find your posts consistently well-written, intelligent and constructive. A joy to read. Thank you.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 51
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Well, thank you, Phil!
You know for a while I thought we had a small war going, disagreeing, and I'm happy it turned out we both respect each other.
I'm still new here, and learning the ropes. As to writing posts, I try my best. Enjoying yours as well!
Again, Thanks. You made my day.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
Hi Folks,
Is this a Poll? Sorry for the bad pun :-) Personally, I go for the simple solution of the Krazy Juwe. Anything more complicated would drive me to drink and despair...and then I could'nt be certain of my own actions, or even remember them. And what of the Temperance League?
Simplicimus! Simplicimus!
As Ever,
Rosey. :-)) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3483
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 1:48 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
I agree with Phil; your posts are filled with good reasoning and valid arguments (and I am particularly glad to finally find another Scandinavian seriously active on these Boards) -- and such could seriously be used (although we probably won't agree on the Goulston Street Message ).
Now, as for "comfort zomes" and geographical profiling, I would like to raise a finger of warning. In contrast to -- for example -- many police officers (who usually possess a general dislike of academics), I don't discount profiling altogether; I think a lot of the elements in it is interesting and helpful, but we must remember that it is based on generalisations deriving from information gathered from interviews of a limited number of criminals (many of them psychopaths and pathological liars).
Even though it is possible to establish some certain behaviour patterns for certain kinds killers, we must keep in mind that one killer is different from the last one as well as from the next, and much of the good results from profiling could also be gained from using simple common sense, in my view.
The geographical profiler's talk about "comfort zones" is something I would treat with certain caution since it is purely an intellectual creation and exercise. If a number of repeat murders are commited within a very limited area, common sense and simple logic dictates, that the murderer most likely is a resident within or close to that particular area (or has another personal relation to it) -- in my view, complex constructed patterns is not needed to establish that, and I believe it is dangerous to trust such geographical, theoretical exercises too much, since they are speculations anyway and just as well can take you wrong.
But yes, it is my personal belief that if the Ripper didn't live in the area, he at least knew it or had spent some time there previously.
P.S. By the way: I've travelled a lot in Norway, but I have never heard of an area called Strand or a city called Tau. Where is this?
I also see that we are exactly the same age.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 52
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 5:44 pm: |
|
Hi there, Glenna!
Thank you for your kind words. We may not agree on the graffito, but keep in mind that I have an opinion based on my personal reasoning. I am not adamant that my position is correct. It is an opinion, and I realize many points can be made for your position as well.
As to profiling, I don't think it is a magic solution to get all the answers. But I do think that there have been established some similarities between many cases of serial killers.
There are no rules, because serial killers don't adhere to any rules. But there will always be certain things that are more likely than others, based on common human psychology and general conditions. I think profiling may pick up on some of these statistical probabilities, and we should use them, albeit with caution.
When it comes to comfort zones, don't we all have them? I know I have. I would estimate there is an area roughly two kilometers (a little over a mile) around my property where I feel "at home". I know the names of the streets, the layout of the residential areas, the parks, etc. I could navigate almost blind through these areas. And I am indeed "comfortable" there.
Surely even serial killers must retain much of the "common" psychology that we all share? So maybe comfort zones are not just an intellectual construct after all?
In addition to that, let us consider common sense. In cases of domestic murder it is certainly most probable that the murder happens in or close to the home. Simply because that is where the victim happen to be in most cases!
A serial killer, however, leaves home to seek out his victims. It seems reasonable that he will choose an area that he knows well enough to plan his escape, etc. But less reasonable that he will choose to strike "on his own doorstep", so to speak. Partly because he would not want to bring unwanted attention to his home area (possible house searches, etc), but also possibly because he would not "disturb" his psychological perception of his "safe" area by bringing his crimes too close! Thus the theory of comfort zones makes sense to me.
But yes, Glenn, I agree that the more complex a profiling becomes, the more prone it is to errors. It should be kept simple, and in general terms only. And even then it should be used tongue in cheek. One should also be very conscious about why one think a particular reasoning might be valid, as opposed to use the theories as blueprints.
Ah, Tau.. It is a small community, on the verge of becoming a town, about half an hour from Stavanger by ferry, directly across the fiord. The district of Strand is the one with the fiords, the mountains, the lakes, and nature. Stavanger is the place with traffic congestion, pollution and outrageous prices at the toll stations that seems to be everywhere.
I was born and raised in Stavanger, but took to my senses and moved to paradise. LOL.
The name Tau is derived from ancient norse Taurar, which means to dabble in black magic. There used to be a Royal farm here in Viking times, and the old kings (before the christianization) supposedly had magic powers. We still have several large burial cairns here, and the harbour was, even in early Viking times, defended by trebuchets (catapults)
(by now you all know I'm a history buff)
Sorry to get carried away and so off topic, but that is the price to pay for mentioning my beloved Tau LOL!
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 03, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 430
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 1:25 am: |
|
"Kelly in a room, but in private, with a relatively low risk of being interrupted. "
I always wonder at remarks like this, because a John in a prostitute's room can hardly assume he has a "low risk" of being interrupted, no matter what the assurances given. Another client, a pimp, the coppers, who knows might pop by on their rounds. A quick kick at the door and you're cornered....
In some ways, dismantling Kelly was even riskier than the quick jobs out on the streets.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 577
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 1:40 am: |
|
Sir Robert, I agree there were risks. Butunless Kelly was in the habit of having people burst in unannounced, those risks were low. And there was a lock on the door.
I am open on the question of whether MJK was a Ripper victim (whether killed by Barnett or AN Other is a different matter). As with Stride, one of my reasons for doubting it as a Ripper killing is the location.
On this occasion I decided to include it in the list.
But picking out the one point, misses my overall point in the earlier post - which related to why I see the backyard of 29 as crucial in understanding the killer. IMHO it leads me to the view that he knew the area intimately.
One might easily, though, deduce that if he killed MJK then he had assessed the risks of killing her in her room.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 54
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 5:33 am: |
|
Sir Robert, Phil.
I have elsewhere stated that I think Jack must have been thrilled to find that he was invited indoors by MJK. His MO is simple enough. He accost prostitutes on the streets, and follows them to their desired spots. Then he rip.
He may propose a location, but to insist would be suspicious, at least after the first killings and the beginning of the Ripper scare. He would have the wits not to scare his victims.
I don't think we should go too far in trying to put intelligence into Jacks choices. He did not have that many!
On the streets there is always the possibility of being seen or interrupted. Indoors that risk is negligible. And even if he could more easily escape outdoors, the added risk of simply being identified must be taken into account. Someone in those streets might have known him.
Any serial killer must face the risk of being caught red handed. His choice of killing grounds may increase or decrease this risk. A secluded forest area would for example be low risk. Frequented city streets would be high risk. Indoors would certainly be a minimum risk scenario, as I see it.
Jack did, however, not have the luxury of selecting his killing ground. His prostitutes were in the streets, thus most of the murders happened there. One victim was so unfortunate as to invite him in. It is no more complicated than that.
Anyway, I would not think MJK was in the habit of receiving guests at night. And what if she did? Who would it be? Certainly not the police. At worst a couple of friends of her. Not likely to break in had their knocking been met with silence.
Besides, Jack had his knife.
No, I think Jack felt as safe as ever. And once he killed and started mutilating, I would not be surprised that he forgot time and place until he finished.
I'm certain MJK was a Ripper victim. Had she been killed with minimum damage, or possibly only with mutilations to her face, I would think it might have been a domestic murder. Had she been ripped, but not as extensively, I would have believed it might have been (but not necessarily) a copycat.
I have read arguments that possibly a copycat killer overdid the mutilations, or someone tried to blame it on Jack. I don't buy that. It is too contrived. Too complex.
It takes a lot of stomach to do what the killer did here. It is not psychologically easy to kill with a knife to begin with. It is even harder to mutilate at this level..and the damage to Mary was beyond what most people would have done.
So, sure, I buy that even in that relatively small area of the East End there might have been more than one killer at large. But two Rippers? Unlikely.
Consider what Jack might have done on the streets had he had more time. But he did not. Had he indulged himself as he did with Mary, he would have been caught, and there would be no mystery.
The least complicated scenario is that Jack killed Mary. And it is no mystery whatsoever why it happened indoors. Mary led him in. Poor soul.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 04, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 626
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I'm with Phil and Helge here. Certainly if the murderer did his dirty work during the nightly hours of lull, the risk of people walking into the scene would have been low. Killing and mutilating indoors was obviously less risky than doing it out in the streets.
I see one 'problem' with the simple 'solution' in that Mary led her killer back to her room, though. In the other cases, as in other cases of mutilating murderers, the murderer struck quickly, which was very likely done to enable him to enjoy doing what he actually came for as long as he could: the mutilations.
If he was invited in by MJK, he deviated from what I consider to be an important part of the way he worked and what he did. But of course, the alternative has its drawbacks as well.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 57
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Frank,
I agree that Jack's behaviour with MJK was different than with the rest. He must have waited much longer than usual before he struck. That is not the typical behaviour of a disorganized killer.
However, the situation itself was different, and Jack was not the master of events here. If MJK asked him in, what could he do but follow her? After all, he probably waited until the other victims were "ready" as well. The only difference is the time and locale, which he probably could not control.
What is the biggest problem here, IMO, is why he waited until Mary undressed. But it could be explained simply because this was a new situation for Jack. Besides, his MO would most likely be to strike when the prostitute "offered" herself, anyway. Which, in Mary's case, probably was not until she was naked in bed.
So even the differences have similarities! (if it can be said that way)
Maybe he also simply realized that this would be a long night, and he had all the time in the world.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
"Evidence against individuals is practically non existant,but it shouldn't stop any one from suggesting solutions based on common sense and experience...So I see no harm in people expressing opinions that have no evidence as proof."
Common sense and British empiricism: the deadly constellation that has prevented the field of Ripperology from understanding itself for 117 years.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 58
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Ah, Mr Radka..
We do seem to like the odd conversation, don't we all?
;)
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 632
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Is the simple explanation another example of Occam's Razor? |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 627
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
"What is the biggest problem here, IMO, is why he waited until Mary undressed."
That's exactly what I meant. He had to wait for her to take off her multiple layers of clothes, to fold & put them on a chair and to get into bed, all the while having to avoid acting suspiciously, probably having to make some more conversation than he was used to when he and his intended victims were walking over to the crime scenes. After all, after having made the deals he could just follow without having to say anything at all and strike the very moment she was ready to do business.
Besides the possible cry of 'Murder', a cut in her right thumb and some abrasions on the back of that same hand (the cuts in her arms were apparently done after death), there were no other signs of a struggle.
Being confronted with this new and unknown situation may have made the murderer feel insecure and uncomfortable rather than the opposite and not having killed for about 6 weeks may not have done his patience any good either when he finally had his hand in the cooky box while nobody was watching.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Katherine Bradshaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, June 04, 2005 - 6:29 pm: |
|
Unless of course she knew her killer |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 60
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Frank,
It is an argument against it being Jack. I agree. But it is not in my opinion enough to rule out Jack, and all in all I feel most of his MO is still intact.
Remember Mary was also the youngest victim. Maybe Jack was in an unusual situation in more ways than one.
Pure speculation, but so is the notion that he must have been on the edge of loosing control immediately after entering no. 13.
Maybe the confines of the room made it more difficult for him to maneuver into his usual killing position?
Maybe, as you say, Frank, he had to engage in conversation. And found it so interesting that he simply had to finish it? After all, Mary was in some ways different than the rest, perhaps also because he actually knew her a few minuter more?
Maybe he even contemplated not killing her, but once decided, ended up doing her the worst.
Lots of maybees. We simply do not know. The point of me bringing up these scenarios is not to argue that either one of them happened, just to indicate that there are lots of possible explanations.
Basically I think we need to look at the overall picture. And to me it still seems more likely that there was only one Ripper (simplistic view), although every single word you said, Frank, makes sense.
Katherine, could you elaborate? I fail to see why Jack should wait for her to undress only because he knew her. If that was what you meant. Or maybe you meant Jack was more comfortable with someone he knew? I would think the opposite, but that is, of course only my view.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 61
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
Diana, I was hoping Phil would explain if he, on this thread, initially thought "simple" was another example of Occams Razor, but being in a talkative mood, I will give my opinion on the matter anyway.
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" or "plurality should not be posited without necessity", are the words of the medieval English philosopher William of Ockham (ca. 1285-1349). William was a Franciscan, and a minimalist, idealizing a life of poverty, and as it would seem, simplicity.
Actually the principle of simplicity was often used in medieval philosophy before Ockham, but it was so frequently used by Ockham, that it eventually was named after him. (I can hear them saying, "here goes that Ockham again! Sigh..)
Bishop George Berkeley (1685-1753) applied Occam's Razor to eliminate material substance as an unnecessary plurality. He thought we only needed..well, thought, to explain everything.
Well..
Obviously the modern application of this "Razor" is somewhat different. It is often also called the principle of parsimony. These days it is usually interpreted to mean something like "the simpler the explanation, the better" or "don't multiply hypotheses unnecessarily."
Which is usually what we do here on casebook?
But yes, Diana, a simple solution is close to the ideals of Occam's Razor. But don't be blinded by this principle! Lest we end up like George the Bishop.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 628
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 7:20 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
Thanks for your comments.
Like you, I'm all for the simplistic view in general, including that there was only one Ripper, although in MJK's case I keep the door very, very slightly ajar to the possibility that she was murdered by someone else.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s quite feasible that, albeit being capable of superficial conversation if it didn’t take too long, the Ripper was a local loner who avoided interaction with people as much as possible. The similarly mutilating murderers I know of seem to have had a similar character trait. Jack may have come to think the world and women in particular didn’t like him, which caused him not to like the world and especially women.
Although, like I said, it has its drawbacks, I think it’s possible that, due to the developments in the street during October and without really knowing her, the Ripper found Mary Jane at the beginning of November and that things developed from there. And because he might not have felt comfortable interacting with people and women in particular, he may have chosen to avoid going to her room posing as a punter.
So, getting into MJK’s room posing as a regular John certainly at first glance seems the simple solution, but to me at least, it also seems to be an important departure from his usual MO.
Would this fit with your idea of 'simple, but not too simple'?
I'm at a loss and remain undecided here. 
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 580
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 10:28 am: |
|
To answer the earlier question, I was NOT specifically equating simplicity and Occam's razor in this instance - though I am personally a great fan of the latter as a tool in evaluating and assessing theories.
My split between simple and complex, when I opened the thread, was i think fairly straight-forward.
Simple, to me meant a solution involving a single murderer (leaving aside victims that might not be his such as Stride or MJK); probably a local (rather than a wandering PAV or Dr Barnardo!!) and killing at random (ie no previous knowledge of his victims).
By complex, I saw conspiracy theories, solutions involving complex anagrams, and involved theories such as Barnett killing to frighten Kelly and then killing her because his scheme did not work!!
I personally, am quite content that the lone local could have the most complex reasons in his head for doing what he did, and that the theory involving him would still be simple.
But this was not a poll, and i have found it fascinating to hear what other posters have had to say. I am neither seeking to parcel everyone into two groups, not suggest that there are only two approaches to the case. Heaven forfend!!
But it did seem to me that there were two contrasting views that might provide an interesting analysis tool - and so, to me at least, it has turned out to be.
Hope this helps,
Phil |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 633
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
About 7 or 8 years ago a friend of mine began to have nasty headaches. One general doctor, about five specialists and 6 years later, he got the right diagnosis. What he had was very rare, unusual and complicated. Apparently all the first medical people that saw him applied Occam's razor because he was told for years it was migraines. It wasn't. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 583
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 12:06 pm: |
|
And the answer to the ripper enigma MAY be very complicated indeed.
Or it could be very simple.
Not every medical case has complications, does it?
I try to keep an open mind.
Phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2486
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Phil,
i don't want to over complicate things, but i don't think the ripper case is complicated in the kind of ways you first mentioned, manic conspiracies etc. Of course trying to understand why someone would commit serial murders is not easy, because lets face it normal people don't want to!
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 585
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 3:15 pm: |
|
Jenni - Knight's 9conspiracy based) book remains the biggest seller on JtR as far as I am aware.
There are books constantly emerging pushing some complex theory that requires one to accept that barnett had a cunning plan; Lewis Carrol is writing anagrams left right and centre; there was no JtR - it was all about copycats (though perhaps one could argue that's the most simple of all explanations!!); even AP's Cutbush theory.
How many references are there on here to Abberline hinting at this, munro at that, Swanson at something else. That it was all a cover-up, or there were links to something else such as the Fenians (an explanation I do not dismiss).
I may have misunderstood the import of your post, but I do think that one can separate sheep and goats in theoretical terms in this case.
phil |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2487
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:04 pm: |
|
Phil,
baaa
baaa
no one cant separate sheep and goats can they? Seriously you've lost me, or maybe I lost you - either way
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 588
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Jenni - I think we must have lost each other. Oh well!
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 63
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Frank,
I cannot be certain what really happened, but I don't see Jack as trying to "get into" Mary Jane's room at all. He was most likely invited in. And it would have been hard to say "no, lets do it against that fence over there instead", If Mary asked him to follow! Especially if Jack WAS bad at conversation as he might very well have been.
Mary was in control at that point.
It follows that I don't think Jack was the one in control of the situation. At least not until he struck. This might explain why there was some deviation from his usual MO.
Thinking that Jack singled out Mary, stalked her, found out that she had a room, and subsequently planned to pose as a customer to get in, is far too complex, and blatantly outside his MO!
I would even think it must have been another killer before I accepted that Jack did that. But two Jack's pose, as mentioned before, also more complexity than I am willing to accept.
The deviations that "my" scenario entails, are far fewer and more easily explainable. At least in my head.
Also, I am willing to restate something from my previous post:
"Maybe, as you say, Frank, he had to engage in conversation. And found it so interesting that he simply had to finish it?"
to:
Maybe Jack was so intimidated by young Mary's conversation, that his usual behaviour was altered.
Same caveat, this is just speculation, but shows that there are several possible explanations, all outside Jack's control, that might have changed his behaviour this particular night.
Phil, I agree that simple\complex is a great tool to sift out the most outrageous theories. And I appreciate that this method should not be considered entirely consistent with Occam's Razor. But perhaps we should not always single out one theory where two (or even more) are also likely? In real life it is not always the most simple theory that is the correct one.
Simple strategic solutions, with room for some complex tactical situations, is my best bet (Frank, this is another, more detailed, version of my "simple, but not too simple").
(If we disagree, Phil, I think it is more a semantic question than anything else)
Apart from all this, one good friend of mine, after having read these postings, remarked that none of us were serial killers, and how could we understand how their minds worked? Actually that is to some extent true.. I asked her if she really wanted us to "experiment" to find out (A rhetorical question IN JEST OF COURSE!) She then retorted "obviously not", but stated that it would be interesting if a real serial killer actually gave his opinion. I can only say that actually, how interesting that might have been, I really hope there never will be such a person on these boards!
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 05, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 591
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 4:58 pm: |
|
I agree entirely, helge. My simple/complex division is a too, of analysis NOT of decision. I have an entirely open mind.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 64
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 05, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
I knew you had, Phil, and so, I hope, have I.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 65
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
Maybe it is time to look at some other aspects of the case using the simple versus complex approach?
I was browsing through my favourite Ripper book "the Definite History" by Begg, and, as many times before, I stopped at chapter eleven, concerning Catharine Eddowes.
This is also an intriguing piece of the puzzle.
Perhaps the most important in this case, IMO, is the possible link to the murder of Elizabeth Stride. If this link is real (as opposed to only perceived), then it not only will shed some insight into the personality and possible identity of the Ripper, but also link Stride more firmly to the canonical victims.
I am, of course, talking about the witness statements of Joseph Lawende (Eddowes) and Israel Schwartz (Stride).
"He was aged about 30, 5ft 7 or 5ft 8in in, (approx 1.70 m) tall with a fair complexion and a fair moustache. He was wearing a pepper-and-salt loose jacket, red neckerchief and grey cloth cap with a peak. He had the appearance of a sailor."
(Begg, p. 189, citing Lawende)
"[a] man aged 30, 5 ft 5 in (approx 1.65), small brown moustache, brown hair, a fair complexion, and wearing a dark jacket and trousers and a black cap with a peak."
(Begg p. 189, citing Schwartz)
What are the opinion about this on these boards? Is it likely that, as Begg thinks, these two descriptions fit the same man? And if so, would Jack be the assailant of Stride after all?
Who was pipeman?
More possible connections. Was Jack in any way connected to radical jewish socialism? Arbeiter Fraint had its printing and editorial offices in 40 Berner Street (Stride) Perhaps better known, the same premises also housed the International Workingmen's Educational Association (Berner Street Club)
But lets stay with the Arbeter Fraint a while. It was founded in 1885 by Morris Winchevsky, the "grandfather of Jewish radicalism".
It published radical articles. Did Jack take offence?
Again, the jewish angle. And radicalism. Leather Apron, Lipski, the juwes are the men.. Why is it that this theme keep popping up in this case time after time?
Could the simple solution be that Jack was a fervent anti-jew? Or, on the contrary, was he a jew himself, but very much opposed to jewish socialism? Was either scenario the reason why he was hanging out at Berner Street? Was that why he shouted Lipski? Was that why he wrote the graffito in a stairway leading to dwellings primarily inhabited by jews?
Ok, I am partly plagiarizing here
Actually Begg wrote:
"..it is remarkable that two of the murders that night should have been committed close to the clubs largely frequented by Jews, that both victims are said to have done occasional cleaning work for Jews, that in the one case there was a cry of 'Lipski!' and in the other that a piece of the victim's apron should have been dropped below a piece of graffito concerning the Jews"
Is this a key to the case?
Obviously my "strategically simple", but "tactically complex" idea would imply one killer behind the double event, but still leave room for complex behaviour and motives.
I would love to hear your opinions.
Anyone?
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 593
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
But it is odd if jack had a "thing" against Jews, that none of the victims were Jewish.
Equally, if the graffito was his, and he had messages to transmit, why not write to someone making that clear?
I think the Jewish connections to the so-called "double event" are coincidences. Was there not a Jewish cemetery near Bucks Row? Why not work that in?
I cannot believe that there were not Jewish prostitutes around in Whitechapel in 1888. If it was a matter of slitting throats, there must have been plenty of pretty helpless Jewish drop-outs around, like Kosminski, or Cohen (half-mad wanderers of the streets who would have been easy prey).
The Jewish angle doesn't add up for me, Helge, but I'm sure there will be plenty who will differ.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 67
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Thanks for your opinion, Phil, as always it is much appreciated.
It does not quite add up for me either, I am just trying to analyze possible scenarios here.
Let us assume that Jack was involved in radical socialism in some way. Even Jewish Radical Socialism. I can't know for sure what side he was on.. But if he was FOR JRS he needed not necessarily be after jews at all. That was my other scenario. And that one may actually be most likely, though I have not made up my mind (because of lack of evidence)
That Graffito can be read in many ways!
Political radicalism is certainly one possible trigger to Jack's behaviour.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 06, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 635
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Helge, I agree with you totally about the Schwartz/Lawende descriptions. I went through all the eyewitness descriptions and only those two seem to match. The fact that they are not exactly the same only lends more credence. If they had been identical one would start to consider collusion.
As to why Jack suddenly decided to change his MO and start doing his thing inside, I made an Excel diagram showing the frequency of his kills. As you can see they came farther and farther apart.
Nichols and Chapman had only a week between them and then the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee was formed shortly after Chapman's death. The police also stepped up their patrols and ordinary people no doubt became more watchful. The normal pattern would have been for Jack to strike more and more often. But it was reversed. We tend to accept the opinion of the public and press of the time that the police and committee weren't accomplishing much. In fact I believe they slowed him down considerably. It's the only explanation for his frequency to drop like that.
Douglas says that MO and signature are different. MO can change in response to perceived needs. The Green River Killer started by dumping his victims in the river, but as he saw that the police were watching the river he started dumping them elsewhere.
I believe the same was true of Jack. As the patrols increased and the ordinary citizens became more and more vigilant he was forced indoors. |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 173
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Hello Helge
Was just reading your post re the discription of Jack and it tied up with the discription given by Ada Wilson which was:
30 years old, 5' 6'' in height, sunburnt face, fair mostache, dark coat light trousers, wideawake hat.
Could this be the same man? Also carotie mostache man mentioned in Kelly murder.
Jeff |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 69
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Diana,
I agree totally. I think you must be right. One should be careful not to read too much out of statistics, especially with so little data to work with, but it does make sense that it should be harder for the Ripper as people in general, the prostitutes themselves, and police\vigilantes where more on the watch.
This is why I find it possible that Jack actually eventually found the risk to be simply too high in London, and carried on in New York (Carrie Brown).
The delay might also explain why Kelly was so mauled. Jack had a lot of pent up agression\urges.
However, my personal take is still that Jack happened to get indoors with Kelly by chance. After all, he could do nothing more than to follow the prostitutes where they wanted.
It is a possibility that he stalked Mary, or even knew her, but much less likely (although I admit certainly not impossible!)
If the Carrie Brown murder was indeed the handiwork of Jack, then it is perhaps interesting to note that it also occurred indoors. Perhaps Jack got a taste for that.
The mutilations on Old Shakespeare was not as extensive as those on Kelly, but the room was actually less private, and he could have lost his nerve (well, actually he did a nasty job there too).
Jeff,
Very interesting indeed. I am sure Jack did not start off his career as a fully fledged killer. The failed attack on Ada Wilson started off as an attemted robbery, but it is interesting that the perpetrator went for the throat on being refused.
Ada was even a "seemstress", often used as a common term for prostitute. It could very well have been an immature Ripper attack, but your guess is as good as mine.
The similarities in description just might lend some credit to this possibility, though!
On the other hand, regarding Hutchinson's statement, I'm not so sure about a fair moustache being the same as carotty.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1811
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 06, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
But it is odd if jack had a "thing" against Jews, that none of the victims were Jewish.
You're thinking in one dimension. I wouldn't find it odd at all.
Just think how much an anti-Semitic ripper would have resented any of the women who hung around Jewish men's clubs, ready and willing to sell themselves to the Jews.
If Jack was anti-Jew, he would also have been anti any non-Jew who associated with them.
I would actually think it more odd if a Jewish ripper had specifically targeted non-Jewish prostitutes.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 596
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 1:59 am: |
|
You can explain anything by such logic, Caz.
I'm not thinking in one dimension at all, because I am not promoting one theory - simply looking at alternatives - indeed, thinking in the round if you will.
You respond to my posts as if to overturn the alternatives by making what IMHO are impossibly absolute staments. such as: "If Jack was anti-Jew, he would also have been anti any non-Jew who associated with them."
That is neither true nor provavble. He MIGHT have been, not he WOULD please. Racism and anti-semitism comes in many guises in my experience.
But if it were true that "Just think how much an anti-Semitic ripper would have resented any of the women who hung around Jewish men's clubs, ready and willing to sell themselves to the Jews."
Then this would ONLY apply directly to Stride's killing, and many of us, these days, have doubts whether that was the Ripper's work.
Eddowes was killed near a synagogue and three Jews coming from their club appear to have passed her and the killer moments before her death, but that hardly makes your point.
Are you seriously putting forward the theory and arguing that ONLY Stride and Eddowes were JtR's work? Where is the Jewish connection with Nichols, Chapman or Kelly?
And what's all this nonsense about Jewish rippers? No one even suggested such a thing and where does the argument take us?
I say again, my recent posts have sought to examine alternatives to the rather narrow theories presented, with no particular attachment to any. Please try to understand the point being made, rather than responding as if I had proposed some full-blown theory.
Phil
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 72
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 3:44 am: |
|
Phil, I think I briefly suggested a Jewish ripper, but only as a perhaps not so likely scenario.
Just to clear up something concerning my proposal (NOT a definite statement) of Jack's possible connection to "Jewish radical socialism". It is based solely on circumstantial evidence. It also relates only to the double event, as you say.
But I was not proposing this as the basis for all the Rippers work. He might have been a loony tunes crazy son of a.. long before the canonical five (or four or whatever). Such a person might very well have had VERY strong political opinions though. Likely to be very radical. We know there was great political unrest, and, as so many times before, the jews got the blame.
In all this turmoil, I don't see it as unreasonable that Jack, whoever it was, was caught up in all this. And he must have been an angry man. About something..
Just a working theory at best, to see where we might get. Maybe it is not a "simple" theory, but we should set up simple versus complex on this thread, should we not?
But, if it is true, it actually does explain the "jewish" elements of the case better. (if in fact there are any!)
So. Restating for clarity. Jack may have been part of some political movement, not necessarily in an organized way. He may simply have had strong feelings about some issues. Much of what was going on those days had to do with Jewish social radicalism.
His killings was not necessarily meant to be part of any political statement. He was just letting of steam, perhaps. But, given the reasoning in that previous post of mine, it might be possible that his political beliefs spilled over in some of his actions anyway.
I don't think Jack was the kind of person to come up with cunning plans to make room for social upheaval.
But to some extent that was exactly the result of the Ripper Scare, was it not?
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 599
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:14 am: |
|
Helge you wrote: "...it actually does explain the "jewish" elements of the case better. (if in fact there are any!)"
I think the latter part of your statement is spot on.
I'm far from convinced that there are ANY Jewish elements of the case.
The graffito is not proven to be linked to Jack or the apron (it is a surmise more or less probable dependent on your position on other things).
The Jewish links to Stride's or Eddowes' murders
are theories advanced by some, but baseless in terms of evidence. I do not recall them as being put forward by earlier writers.
The trouble with the JtR case is that, the longer we go on, the more there is a tendency to grasp at anything which might provide a new insight. Nothing wrong in that at all. But we must remember that an innovative idea is not evidence and that as a foundation for elaborate theoretical structures, it is very unsafe.
I am speaking generally here and not referring to any particular poster's views.
Relating this to the theme of the thread, the "simple" explanation is that Jack killed because he felt compelled to and the fact that crimes scenes are close to Jewish cemeteries, clubs or synagogues is accidental or coincidental. That may not be the final word on the case, but a Jewish link would certainly, IMHO, fall into the complex category.
Phil
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1815
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
You argued that it would have been odd for an anti-Semitic serial killer not to have sought out Jewish prostitutes to attack.
I merely disagree, because any bigot like Jack, who definitely had a "thing" against women, could well have had a "thing" against Jews too. If he was anti-Semitic, as well as anti-women, what could have worked this scumbag up into a lather more than the thought of a woman prepared to service Jews?
Serial killers will try to justify their actions any way they see fit at the time. So it's just an idea, no more. But it does fit with what was going on in the area Jack targeted.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 600
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Well, Caz, if someone can prove the graffito was written by Jack, or that other potential Jewish connections are more than coincidence, I might be more sympathetic to your idea.
Phil |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 639
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
At this length of time it probably will not be possible to prove anything. We have to look at possibilities and probabilities.
There is a possibility that Jack was Jewish (BTW I think that word should be capitalized). I base that reasoning on the known fact (not hypothesis) that there was a huge Jewish immigrant population in Whitechapel at the time. I don't say that because of any disrespect for Jewish people. If JTR had happened in Novosibersk I would have suggested a Russian, or Melbourne an Australian.
It is also possible that he was an antisemitic gentile. Evidence: There was widespread resentment against the Jews in Whitechapel at the time. Proof: Leather Apron was said to be a Jew. Warren feared antisemitic riots when he erased the graffito. The chief Rabbi found it necessary to make public statements to the effect that it could not have been a Jew. Possible Evidence: Stride attacked outside Jewish Club; effect of Ripper murders was to create more antisemitic sentiment which might have been what he wanted. |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 75
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
Phil, I accept that evidence for the "Jewish" link is weak. We may never know if it is true or not.
On the other hand, to me, it seems unreasonable to think Jack killed "just because". There must have been something that tipped him over. Maybe he had a rough childhood. Lots of people do. Few become killers. Even fewer serial killers. I think that for that to happen, something must be seriously eating them.
Racial hatred, or political extremism might be that elusive spark. But I'll have to go with Caz' "it's just an idea, no more".
Certainly I do not think it is a given fact. It should not be considered more than a hypothesis, kept in mind as possible when sifting through the evidence.
It would explain the Lipski shout. It would explain why Jack hung around that very area that night. It would explain why the apron ended up in Goulston street, it would explain the graffito.
And it would set Jack in a context.
But for all these possibilities, I agree that it is "complex", and utterly unproven. But so is most "facts" about Jack.
New angles just might just give new insight, but should never be considered "facts". Actually, Phil, I may not necessarily think the odds are better than you do. But, based on what little we know, it works.
However, If I was forced to try to persuade anyone to consider this angle, I would choose to focus on the Schwartz/Lawende statements. Those are "solid" evidence (compared to simply making up theories today). To me, the "simple" solution is that they actually witnessed the same man. I mean, what are the odds of having two Rippers that even looked similar?
Also, what are the odds that Stride was assaulted twice that very same night, and within minutes! Here I go with simplicity, because we are talking strategically. I don't care if the assault on Stride is outside Jack's MO. It happened! The MO is actually only a theory. Keeping some elements of fact out of it is cheating. MO's are not consistent anyway.
The simple solution is that Jack killed both Stride and Eddowes. Thus we know reasonably well that he shouted Lipski. We know reasonably well that he carried the apron to a spot where the police felt (coupled with the graffito) that the incident might have sparked off a riot against the Jews.
Simple\complex? Those things happened. No one can prove that Jack wanted it to have anti-Jewish overtones. But that happened. Shouting Lipski, and (possibly) writing the grafitto, fits with an anti-Jewish attitude. So it is not unreasonable to speculate that perhaps indeed Jack had such sentiments.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 07, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 76
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 9:13 am: |
|
Diana,
Obviously I agree on what you said. You also made me think. Does anyone know if papers like the ones printed by Arbeiter Fraint also debated the prostitution issue? Or was it debated in the Berner Street Club? I know some debate was stirring up on the social issues of the time.
And that is an understatement perhaps.
(And yes, I have finally learned to capitalize the word Jews. In Norway we write nordmenn og svensker, etc. No capitalization. And no disrespect intended on my part either..obviously)
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 605
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
By the way, for clarification, when I say that i am sceptical of "Jewish" elements of the case, I mean the associations of an anti-semitic kind.
I am quite happy, indeed drawn to, the theory that jack might have been an immigrant Jew - Kosminski.
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
