Prostitute Practices In Whitechapel

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Prostitute Practices In Whitechapel

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous: Prostitute Practices In Whitechapel

Author: Clyde Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 02:39 am
Hello All, I was wondering if any research has been done (I'm reasonably sure it has) on the practices of the class of prostitutes that we see as victims in the JtR case. I am new to the boards and the JtR case study. I have read just enough books to be familiar with the case but not so many that I have choosen a suspect. By this, I hope to be not weighed down by what people have accepted as "common" accepted knowledge of the case. I realize this approach to the case may be beneath some of the true JtR scholars (God knows they are in abundance) but it seems as though many of the facts and theories have become so muddled with conjecture and hypothesis that the above are almost unrecognizable from each other (i.e fact from fiction). Here is my first question. Is it generally accepted that the customers of the Whitechapel prostitutes were lead into back alleys or out of the way places to have intercourse while standing up? I have also read that it may have been common to engage in anal intercourse with these prostitutes? The reason I am asking is I find this somewhat odd and hard to believe. Before I am compelled to believe this theory (or fact) I would like to hear from you and your opinions. My reluctance to believe this is not as nieve as it may seem. Obviously the customers followed the prostitute expecting to receive something sexual in nature. But what? I only ask because this topic has to due with my thoughts on how JtR may have subdued his victims. It also has to due with the positions the bodies were found in. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. Clyde
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 07:08 am
Hi Clyde, Dark corners for knee-tremblers? Yes. Anal intercourse standing and bending over (often used to fool punters with intercrural intercourse) - yes, according to Don Rumbelow, who added the suggestion of a consequent bending position, standing back to punter, which would enable right-handed throat-cutting matching the neck injuries. This proposed MO was endorsed by Bill Eckert of the Milton Halpern Institute of Forensic Science. (I mention this because I sometimes cite Bill in support of my overall thinking, so it is only right that I should cite him when I don't agree with him). All the best, Martin F
Author: Robeer Wednesday, 12 June 2002 - 07:57 pm
Clyde, These women were destitute, drunk, sick, weary, and weak from hunger. They would need to service the punter with the least amount of effort by finding the nearest dark spot. Laying down on a cold, damp, dirty street was out of the question. Facing a brick wall was preferrable to facing some of the ugly, smelly customers they had to accept. This position allowed them to brace themselves while the customer is punting and to use the techniques Martin mentions as the only method of birth control. This is an important point that has generated much discussion in the Case as to how JtR attacked the victims. The position facing the wall has many advantages for JtR: 1. The victim cannot see what JtR is doing or what's in his hand. 2. The victim cannot use her hands to defend herself. 3. The victim cannot kick or knee JtR. 4. JtR has her trapped against a wall. 5. JtR can grab the hair and pull back the head exposing the neck. 6. The blood spray from the neck is spurting and gushing away from JtR. 7. JtR can hit the victim over the head to knock unconscious. 8. JtR can cover the mouth with one hand and cut with the other. 9. JtR can extend his arm around the neck and sqeeze the victim unconscious. 10. JtR can grab the head from the back and slam the victim's face into the wall. As you can see this common position offers JtR many options in attacking the victim. There has been speculation that JtR simply punched the victims, stunning them with one powerful blow to the face. He then strangled them to control the blood spurting problem. Then he slit the throat with deep cuts allowing the blood to drain slowly from the wound. There was bruising on the face of some victims either from being punched in the face, the face falling on the ground, or from a tight hand grip around the face. There is no consensus as to the source of the bruising. Robeer
Author: Robeer Friday, 14 June 2002 - 10:27 am
graziano, Here is the best thread for the topic you wish to discuss about prostitutes of London in 1888 and what they would and wouldn't be likely to do. These poor women were famished, hung over, or half sick. They had to service a customer with the least amount of effort and as quickly as possible. They had neither the time nor energy to find a room which would only be profitable if the client paid for that too. Their clientele were more interested in instant gratification. They were not the type who needed a room and probably enjoyed the outdoor experience anyway. Where do you think the expression "knee trembler" comes from in the first place? Ergonomically the standing position facing the wall is the most logical and comfortable for both participants. It is a four point position for the prostitute and allows her to easily employ the birth control techniques mentioned by Martin Fido. The other basic standing position is face to face which is more awkward and far less desirable for both parties since Listerine, Right Guard, and Old Spice were not in wide use at the time. The instinctive mating position of primates in the wild is the same natural four point position most other mammals use, only difference is primates use hands and knees. As homo erectus started walking bipedal this mating position naturally evolved into an upright four point position. So to contend that London prostitutes could not master a natural technique used by their species for the last 100,000 years is a bit illogical don't you think? There were studies done around the time of 1888 that estimated the number of prostitutes in the East End and classified by group, such as the number and kind of brothels. This study estimated the number of prostitutes who were on the street with no brothel to provide accomodations. If I remember correctly this was by far the larger number. I cannot remember the source of this survey but maybe someone can direct you to it. Just remember how these destitute women were in such a need just to get doss money. It is obvious that in their condition they were beyond the point of shyness about the possibility of being seen in a dark corner servicing a customer after midnight. Robeer
Author: graziano Friday, 14 June 2002 - 11:16 am
As I already asked many times on these boards, please provide me with one piece of solid evidence about all the practices stated above. All this theory originated with the speculation of Donald Rumbelow and Martin Fido. Speculation which have never been corroborated by articles or whatever other writings pre-autumn 1888. That is not only the case for the general behaviour of prostitutes at the time but in our specific cases is quite contradicted by the descriptions of the crime scenes as we have them. The police at the time were baffled in the same way the doctors were when explaining the absence of struggle and noise. But even baffled they had to provide the public opinion with an explanation. The very romantic Robeer's description here above only considers the point of view of the prostitutes. Please consider also the clients. As I stated on the other thread I may provide a declaration done at a police station by a prostitute in 1889 clearly explaining that this was not the case at all because useless. Yes it was in Antwerpen and not in London. Please study the history of Pubs, Breweries and local mobs and you will see the system is the same. Once again, may I ask someone to provide me with the same thing in favour of the "the-victims-brought-Jack-at-the-murder-site" theory ? Thank you. Dear white-anglo-saxons-protestant people, it's time for you to understand that it is not in the streets of London that you are going to find the truth (should it have been possible it would have been already done) and only using your intellectual capabilities because the world is a bit more bigger than the trip London-New York and because feet and guts help better to solve the case than only brain. There are four ways to get to the truth (or very near): a) because you have an extremely rational and deductive intelligence and you speak yiddish and so are able to read and understand untranslated versions of the Talmud (that's the way Yazoo got to it); b) because you are a genius and probably fell on some unpublished information (that's the way Ed Carter got to it); c) because you are an insider and you worked a lot on it (Ivor Edwards and Robert Maloney); d) because you pick up scents like a bloodhound and you go where nobody went before, thanks to the previous guys (myself and the-more-and-more-wondering-if Paul Begg, who nevertheless is impeded from going where I did and will because of his misknowledge of foreign languages - as every other w.a.s.p.); Of course in all the cases you have to use Martin Fido's method (the only valid one) and go excavating archives looking name by name, but once again, a bit further than in London and New York. After the deeds, we may safely assume that they tried to cancel as much as they could, so it's traces before the events that we must look for. That's the only possibilities you have. Matrix and theories will leave you between Buck's row and Mitre Square. Believe me the culprits are not there anymore. Good bye. Graziano.
Author: Jon Friday, 14 June 2002 - 06:07 pm
This subject of a Victorian 'how-to' guide to perform in the street was touched on some years ago. I found a quote (its still here on Casebook, I guess) about the death of an aged prostitute who ran a brothel and had done so most of her adult life. The doctor was astounded to find that during her poste mortem it was discovered that she had died a virgin. Apparently this 'Madam' had conducted anal sex all her life. regards, Jon
Author: Robeer Friday, 14 June 2002 - 08:21 pm
Graziano, Your incredulous logic is undeniable. There was no prostitution in Victorian London 1888. It is all a press fiction by the likes of authors such as Donald Rumbelow with the collusion of London police departments. All these women strolling the streets of the East End between midnight and dawn were merely chatabouts accomodating lonely men roaming the streets searching only for meaningful conversation with the opposite gender in the wee hours of the morning. These women charged men a simple fee for discourse, not intercourse. Perish the thought sex would play a part in this public banter, other than as a topic of conversation. They may talk about it outdoors but never do it outdoors. The 1888 version of safe sex, to be sure. London men and women were far too civilized to ever have sex standing up outdoors. The basic missionary position inside a brick building, and never up against it, is the only way Englishmen and evidently recent immigrants could contemplate performing sex. These murdered women were not prostitutes at all just dedicated talkologists enamored with the King's English to the point they stayed up to all hours pursuing this linguistic calling. Men could not get enough and came back time and again just to pay these women to confabulate in public. So now we know the truth. JtR declared war on talking women. That's why he cut their throat. He opened up their intestines looking for the off switch and not finding it was determined to find the damn batteries and permanently remove them. If only these women would be quiet their lives would be spared. But noooooo they couldn't do that, so somebody had to stop them. Sex? What's sex got to do with it? This is the premise you would have us believe in spite of biology, anthropology, sociology, socioeconomics, physiology, physiography, ergonomics, climatology, mammalian instinct, primate behavior, human nature, and historical documentation provided at your request. But even if science and history are not enough to overcome the one anecdote of a hooker in Belgium perhaps the following can lay this argument to rest. The last thing Polly Nichols was heard to say: "I'll soon get my doss money," she had laughed. "See what a jolly bonnet I've got now." The last thing Annie Chapman was heard to say: "It's no use my giving way. I must pull myself together and go out and get some money, or I shall have no lodgings." Kate Eddowes was released from jail but instead of heading in the direction of her room she made for Mitre Square because she was broke and needed money to retrieve the boots she had pawned belonging to her companion. Somehow one gets the feeling they didn't expect to make money conversing about the price of tea with the first bloke they saw on the street. Robeer
Author: graziano Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 03:09 am
Robeer, your misknowledge and misunderstanding of the world of prostitution (in Europe) and your assurance in yourself coupled with your hinted intellectual superiority (which I have no problem to concede) and your relative stubborness in what you transpose from your virtual Whitechapel world created from statistics and the tale of Snowwhite and the seven dwarfs in the reality is beyond my means to fight. Who wants to fight, anyway. Good bye.
Author: Robeer Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 04:35 am
Graziano, Thanks for the compliments but I simply look at the evidence and try to make sense out it. I am no expert on European prostitution that's for sure, nor the East End of London but you have asked for documentation and other poster's have responded and then you simply ignore what you asked for. Martin Fido has given you eyewitness accounts and you dismiss those too. Rumbelow was a police officer in the area and you dismiss his knowledge of something he must have been familiar with. But for the sake of argument let's say they are all wrong and your theory is correct. Where was the pub Polly Nichols was taking her client to when she was murdered on the way? She must have had a destination in mind. We know where Chapman was headed but it was not a pub and it was outdoors and standing up. Eddowes was going away from the Imperial Club with her client not towards it. We might assume she was headed towards the empty houses on the south side of the square, but if they were locked would she go ahead and take care of her customer in a dark corner at 1:35 AM with very little traffic on the street? My guess is yes because she wanted to get it over with as soon as possible so she could go back to her room and go to sleep. Remember she had a long day and was hungover. Long Liz spent a lot of time outdoors the night she was killed. Why was she waiting in Dutfield's Yard? It appears she was there to meet a new lover. Would she have done it with him in the yard? She seemed to enjoy the outdoors so there is a good chance the answer is yes. Tabram, McKenzie, and Coles were all murdered outdoors. They were in poverty so the police eliminated robbery as a motive. Perhaps the clients didn't want to pay and an argument ensued and a knife ended the argument. Kelly was killed in a room but she was about to be evicted. Had she been evicted she too might be doing it on the street. There was no overhead on the street so they got to keep more of their earnings. Except for Kelly these women were at the bottom of the ladder. Youth and beauty were gone so the brothels weren't interested in them and men didn't want to spend the night with them so they were reduced to quickies on the street. The reason I have no problem accepting this reality is how desperate people become when they are hungry. These women couldn't afford to be proud or demanding. They were well past that point and were in a survival mode. If they wanted to have food and gin then they had to do it standing up outdoors. They were too weak to hike long distances to find accomodations just to get horizontal for a few minutes and it upped the cost of doing business. I'm always willing to be instructed so please tell me which part of the above is wrong. Remember, you are very demanding with other posters so if you make a statement we will expect you to adhere to your own high standard of proof. Finally, you enthusiastically agreed that Ed Carter solved this case some time ago and even had a photograph of JtR who looked like an angel, as you put it. The motivation for the murders was something about a conspiracy of radical Jewish immigrants who were attempting to cause political embarrassment to rich English Jews. If you and Carter solved this famous mystery why don't you two announce it to the world and enjoy the fame that comes with identifying the most famous criminal in history? In that way you could drive home the point you are arguing here because it sounds like it has something to do with the theory you two share. Robeer
Author: Clyde Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 05:14 am
Hello All, Thank you all for your logic and insight. Also for taking the time to respond to such a elementary topic. My interest in this subject comes from the fact that apperently these crimes were committed in total silence. Or near total silence as the case may be depending on what witnesses stated. Is it possible that the prostitutes took the clients into the darkened corners of Whitechapel for the alure of oral sex? Was this a popular option at the time? I do know that this is the preferred transaction among modern day destitute prostitutes for a number of reasons. I believe these reasons would have carried over to 19th century prostitutes just as they do now. 1. Most modern day "johns" do not want to risk the disease that modern prostitutes carry just as 19th century "johns" probably did not want to run the risk of catching anything or taking something home to a wife or lover. I know that many uneducated men believe that they minimize their risks to some STD's if they only receive oral sex. I dont know if oral sex was as common in the private lives of married couples at the time. Was it something that "respectable" women of the time would have engaged in? This may have been the alure that brought many men into Whitechapel for this purpose. 2.Would this not have put JtR into the perfect position to have his hands near the throat of his victims? Holding them at arms length, he would then have the leverage to subdue them until unconsciousness all the while making him less suseptable to injury from a panicked victim. I'm sure the hands and arms of the killer would have run a high risk of scratching and bruising from the victim trying to remove his hands from the throat in any scenario. A face to face confrontation with the victim (i.e. standing up) would have subjected the killer to injury to his face,groin (kicking) as well as arms. I know this is the killers possible motive for wanting them in this position but it also could be the prostitutes too. The prostitute realizes that they make themselves vulnerable to attack especially from behind. And the Whitechapel prostitutes were probably no strangers to abuse off all kinds at the hands of customers. The prostitutes of today feel they are in much more control once they start oral sex (for obvious reasons) some even robbing there victims with a threat of dismemberment by biting if the "johns" dont give up something of value. 3.Speed. Many modern day prostitutes can get the customer to "arrive" much faster by oral means than from some awkward unpleasant attempt at traditional coitus. In turn it puts them back in business quicker with no mess or clean up time. Not to mention that most of the street variety of prostitute that we are dealing with in Whitechapel and most of the modern variety street prostitutes were not and are not considered sexually desireable. From the writings above it seems as though the experience of traditional sex with these women would have been down right disgusting in modern standards. By the examples given above of virgin prostitutes and one example that I read about in a book about JtR (JtR casebook maybe) a prostitute says that in her life as a prostitute she was only penetrated sexually three times the oral scenario seems plausible. If JtR went with the prostitute for the purpose of oral sex and strangled them to at least unconsciousness when they were in the kneeling or squating position and gently laid them into the prone postition after them passing out it might explain the legs being in a bent position when the bodies were discovered. This scenario also would lessen the possibility of noise or escape from a woman frantically trying to get away from a person trying to strangle them. It may also explain why one of the victims was found with breath mints (causious?) still in her hand. She having them at the ready when she had finished with the transaction? All this of course if oral sex was the method of choice at the time. Experts? Clyde
Author: Harry Mann Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 05:57 am
One little item that is a bit of a puzzle,is why it took so long for Nicholls and Chapman to find a client.Of course those early hours of the morning may not have been the best time for soliciting,though neither had stated definately that this was how they would get their fourpence,but I have the impression that quite a few posters believe the streets of Whitechapel to have been busy,both day and night. Again as all victims,except Kelly,appeared broke and in need of accomodation,perhaps it was the promise of shelter from someone they knew,that put them off guard.
Author: graziano Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 06:46 am
Robeer, Robeer, Robeer, hard as a rock. I can't announce it to the world because I did not do it. Yazoo and Ed Carter did. Ivor Edwards and Robert Maloney look in the right direction. I just listened to them and followed their track. It is true that doing that I was able by myself to uncover things that are pertinent with their solution and with the definitive solving of the case. For example what the two meanings of the Goulston street Graffito are (Ed Carter did not give all the necessary elements on these boards). By two meanings I mean the "first-glance" one (the words that you may read which have a very precise significance) and the concealed one (the coded message for which you need three keys to decode - as far as I know Ed Carter gave only one: atbash). For example why Anderson was so sure that (more or less) "a certain class of those people would not give one of them to the police". And was right. For example that there was a "Kaminsky" at 40 Berner street the night of the murder of Elisabeth Stride. But these are only elements, not a theory, and I still have some gaps to fill. The theory remains the Yazoo/Ed Carter one (let us not forget Gary Nargi). I have my hands tied. Now of course, if they disappear without having revealed anything, who knows one day. Then there is Paul Begg. I do not know how far he is. For support of my theory regarding the practice of prostitution if good sense and my example based on the declaration of the english prostitute in Antwerp is not enough (and I agree it is not so strong), I think the post of John/Jack Traisson on the other thread tells a lot. Much more than the nowadays sightseeing of Martin Fido and Guy Hatton. You can't be serious when you say that those sightseeings are enough to convince you about the general practices of prostitution in 1888 in London. As for Donald Rumbelow being a police officer, bring me a pimp. Good bye. Graziano.
Author: Robeer Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 07:36 am
Graziano, So what you are saying is several ripperologists have already solved this case whether they know it or not? And there definitely is a mysterious Jewish connection and we would all understand if we could only read the Talmud in the original language? Damn, I took Spanish! Perhaps Julian Rosenthal and Rabbi Leen need to step in and give this revelation some serious thought. And Yazoo, why are you holding out on us? Ivor, Robert, Paul how long have you all known about this? Are Stephen and Ally in on it too? Before this post I had decided what you were insinuating is all the pub owners got together and hired some muscle to get rid of all independent contractors. But I wasn't even close! This is Raiders of the Lost Ark stuff. Now I can hardly wait to know what this theory is. You do realize Graz now we have to hunt you down and torture you until you give it up! And Rumbelow, this man ordered a pimp almost an hour ago. Would somebody please call Don and see what the hold up is! Robeer
Author: NR Tomasheski Saturday, 15 June 2002 - 11:20 pm
In response to some interesting posts on this Board, and finally having a weekend on which to do it, I pulled out from my library today Steven Marcus's 1974 _The Other Victorians: A Study of Sexuality and Pornography in Mid-Nineteenth Century England_. In order to place his subject in context, Marcus devotes some time to prostitution, focusing on the work of William Acton, whose _Prostitution, considered in its Moral, Social and Sanitary Aspects, in London and other Large Cities and Garrison Towns, with Proposals for the Control and Prevention of its Attendant Evils_ was published in a Second Edition in 1870. I do not own a copy of Acton's Prostitution, but (and here the true researcher in me shows) it sounds like a fascinating read. I have also read several volumes of Victorian Pornography, though the only one I currently own is Teleny. I'm not sure how accurately these volumes reflect typical sexual practices of the time, but they certainly reflect popular fantasies -- the sort of acts one might expect a prostitute to be asked to perform -- and include oral sex and buggering, as well as oro-anal stimulation, use of foreign objects . . . well, I suppose that's enough to give the idea. I noticed several posts seem to imply that the practices of English Prostitutes may be extrapolated from those of her sisters in Europe. I disagree. There was a different Legal perspective on each, partnered with a different stereotype among the general populace, whether that was a cause or result of the former. In thinking about JtR, I find that Social Context is the thing. (For Example, Mary Kelly may have wanted to legitimise her chosen career with the story -- true or not -- of her sojourn in France and her preferred name (?) of Marie Jeanette.) And now for something completely different: Graziano: I have a feeling some of what you have to say might actually be interesting, if only it could be understood. Must your posts be so floridly cryptic? NR Tomasheski
Author: Robeer Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 02:59 am
NR, Thanks for the post and the reference material. Graziano is hands down the most fascinating/perplexing poster on the boards. When things start to get slow around here the graz instinctively comes to the rescue and gets things stirred up. I'm never quite sure if he's serious or just toying with us, but dull he's not. I can't figure out what he's driving at on this topic. He is trying to convince us that East End prostitutes don't have sex in ambient situations and if we understand this fact we will begin to solve the mystery, but only if we are fluent in Ancient Hebrew. That will be necessary to decipher the hidden message of the Goulston Street graffiti. I'm seriously considering enrolling a certain gentile I know in the Jewish Community Center for a crash course in classic Hebrew. I will stand out like a sore thumb sitting in the midst of 12 year old Jewish kids preparing for their Bar Mitzvah but I shant let grown up pride stand in the way of solving this case. Fascinating quote in your info file. Who is the author? Robeer
Author: Martin Fido Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 10:43 am
Hi Mr Tomasheski! two things to bear in mind about Acton always: (i) He had a sheltered upbringing as the only brother of five sisters; was deeply shocked by what he encountered in Paris Lock Hospitals during his medical training, and reached the erroneous conclusions that prostitutes were motivated by intense libido, and satisfying sexual appetite was extremely dangerous to the health. (ii) He was highly thought of in the profession as a practitioner and inventor of improved medical instruments, but he was not regarded as a scientist: his theories were perceived as crap by those in a position to review them seriously. Which, unfortunately, did not include the general public, and which has led to the Victorians being rather unfairly regarded as universal believers in the mythical Actonian disease spermatorrhoea, or that masturbation would make you blind (after growing hair on the palms of your hands), or that the evil mutilation of clitoridectomy was a necessary "cure" for little girls who played wtih themselves. All the best, Martin F
Author: NR Tomasheski Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 03:18 pm
Thanks, Martin F I _knew_ you'd be familiar with Acton! Thanks for your insights. NR Tomasheski
Author: Martin Fido Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 08:09 am
Hi NRT, Looking back at my piece I see I might have left the impression that Acton himself believed in clitoridectomy. He didn't. Like most of the medical profession he thought it an outrage. But his own obsessive preching on the danger of excess sex in men or released sexual appetite in women contributed to the vile practice, which still had an adherent in America as late as the 1920s. All the best, Martin F
Author: Robeer Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 11:44 pm
Graziano, I should have asked these questions earlier before being drawn into a debate on whether East End prostitutes knew how to do it outdoors. If prostitutes refuse to do it on the streets and seek the shelter of a pub or common lodging house how does that help us solve this crime spree? What difference does it make? Why is this an issue? You have been coy about discussing your theory and have dropped tantalizing hints. From rereading your postes and stringing the hints together you seem to be saying: 1. There definitely was a Jewish connection to the Ripper murders. 2. It is no accident these murders occurred in Jewish neighborhoods. 3. Jewish radicals and anarchists were angry with the established London Jewry for lack of economic assisstance to immigrant Jews arriving in the East End. 4. A plan of terrorism was conceived and put into action, the purpose being to disturb, distress, and intimidate the Anglicized Jews in London. 5. This plot included the destabilization of all civil authority in London. 6. The murder and shocking mutilation of prostitutes was part of the plot. 7. The Goulston Street grafitto was a part of the plot and served as a cryptic warning to Jews who could read ancient Hebrew and were familiar with the Talmud. 8. Sir Robert Anderson was educated enough to understand the import of the cryptic message. Sir Charles Warren possibly understood as well. 9. The Hebrew word 'atbash' and the fact there was a "Kaminsky' family residing at 40 Berner Street the night of Stride's murder are both significant clues. 10. A number of ripperologists have stumbled onto the solution whether they realize it or not, while others haven't quite figured it out but are close or on the right track. Collectively this group would include: Ed Carter, Yazoo, Gary Nargi, Jack Traisson, Ivor Edwards, Robert Maloney, and Paul Begg. Rather than continually take issue with posters for being wrong and way off base, why don't you be a good sport and link all these elements together into a coherent theory of how and why these impoverished East London prostitutes were murdered in such horrible circumstances and why the murders suddenly stopped? If you figured out the solution in parallel with other students of the case you have every right to advance this theory and make a positive contribution to solving this famous case. Robeer
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 12:41 am
Robeer--Hello. Two words: Martha Tabram. No Jewish connection. No conspiracy. Merely an unfortunate woman that was murdered by an enraged, disturbed individual. And yet, Robert Anderson clearly numbered her among the victims. This should tell us all the sort of person that Anderson was really looking for. Cheers, RP
Author: graziano Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 01:49 am
1. yes, do not even listen to the guys who say the opposite, it's a loss of time. 2. Note that the connection with "something jew" happened only after the Chapman murder. There was nothing from the "murderer" to try hinting at "something jew" with Tabram, Nichols and Chapman. This is why the night of the double event must be seen in a total different light from the previous murders. The connection with "something jew" completely disappears after (Kelly, Mylett, McKenzie, Coles). Something/someone joined in that night. Why all that happened in Whitechapel is no mistery, "Jack" was at home there. 3 and 5. Radicals/Anarchists (jewish or not) are angry at all established order. Their terroristic actions are allways aimed at demonstrating how useless and deceiveful the established order is in the protection of people. Police, judges, magistrates are regarded as representative of whatever established order. Pimps are regarded as the meanest way of exploitation of human being by human being in a capitalistic society. All the above have to be fought. With derision the formers. With violence the latters. Religion gives a "moral legality" to all established order, it defines for it what is good, what is bad. In fact it helps established order to justify itself. It must be fought also, with derision. 4. Since the times of the Roman Empire, Jewish communities had a considerable legal powers over their members. When I say legal, i mean it. Not only in fact this power could be expressed by creating social pressure (nobody had any economic/social relation with an excommuniated Jew) but the Jewish community by the mean of its rabbinical courts relied on state authorities for inflicting phisical punishments: floggings, food privations and so on, till capital punishment. For this kind of system, Jewish authorities often received the encouragement and support of the hosting countries. Of course I am speaking here of infranging the Talmudic law. Translated versions of the Talmud do not reflect allways the original statements. 6. Yes. 7 and 8. The Goulston street graffito was certainly understood by Rabbi Adler and Anderson. It was aimed at them in any case. I do not know what kind of guy was Warren, but I doubt he was as educated as Anderson in this kind of things. I think that both Anderson and Rabbi Adler tried to conceal it not to envenimate the anti-semitic sentiment but I do not know if there was any kind of agreement between them. Rabbi Adler could have been deceiving Anderson, Anderson could have known it, I simply do not know. Note that here I only speak about the prima facie meaning of the graffito. For the coded message I do not know if someone understood it, but I would find it hard to believe that Rabbi Adler did not. Unless he did not see how it was displayed. 9. Atbash is a way of coding messages. You take the letters and you replace them by others in the alphabet with a predetrmined order. Atbash: a/t b/s. Another way is Albam: a/l b/m. Of course first you have to be sure not to confuse letters. The first letter of the Goulston street graffito is a "T". And the purpose is to be read as such in the superficial meaning of the graffito. But it is considered a "T" only because of the context in the word "The". You take it out of the context and the letter is not a "T" anymore. It looks more as a "Y", doesn't it ? The Goulston street graffito has been copied letter by letter by Warren. He even paid attention to the laying of the letters one by one in the words. Unfortunately he did not pay attention to the exact laying of the words. Reading from left to right or from right to left, from top to the bottom is only a convenience, a convention. The Goulston street graffito (coded message) has to be first read as a painter reads his painting. Hope I am not too cryptic but there I have serious difficulties in explaining, in fact the Goulston street graffito is a drawing. The "Kaminsky" at 40 Berner street is a thing I am particularly proud of. I think nobody till now has discovered it. But you certainly have noticed how easy this guys switched from one name to another. At the beginning it was for them some kind of due protection. Many were constantly tracked by the Okhrana. But an official document of 1884 is quite clear on the subject.These guys moved a lot, from city to city, leaving traces all around. Do not belive documents kept in synagogues all disappeared because burned in the Pogroms or by the Nazis. In the same way the czarist regime was not anti-semitic but had some kind of tacit association with the Jews, the total disappearance of documents is one of the greatest historical untruth spread around. But how convenient. 10. John/Jack Traisson only posted something interesting on the boards. I do not know if the purpose was to bring water to my mill or the opposite. Ivor Edwards and Robert Maloney certainly have understood a lot of how these murders were carried on and I think they made major discoveries. But they are anglo saxons and protestants. How could they ever believe or even imagine "foreigners" could baffle the english police and researchers to such an extent ? God save the Queen from such an affront. As they say in France: "Verstehen zu siegen ist nichts, man soll auch verstehen wie den Sieg zu nutzen".. Yazoo and Ed Carter know. Gary Nargi....hé hé hé. Paul Begg has understood. I do not think officially solving the case is a good thing. Not even hinting to some kind of final solution in the way I stated above. Bad things under and who is dead is dead. But this is only my opinion. The opinion of a foreigner...for what is worth. But do not believe nobody knows there outside. Good bye. Graziano.
Author: Robeer Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 06:06 am
Graziano, Thank you for responding to each of the numbered items. I'm still curious about why you are so adamant that East End prostitutes did not perform their services outdoors and would seek out the nearest pub or lodging house and why they were murdered on the way to one of the places? Why does this 'prostitute practice' matter so much to the solution of this case and how does it relate to all the other factors you mention? I get the feeling from your previous debate on the subject it is a pivotal point in unraveling the mystery. Robeer
Author: graziano Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 03:21 pm
Robeer, for your eyes only, and always following the "jewish connection" lead it is interesting to note that Jeff Bloomfeld on these boards reported some time ago about the arrest of Diemschutz and two others radical companions of him by the police in 1889 following some disturbances at 40 Berner street. Now, this arrest followed a day were a procession was organized by the Anarchists of 40 Berner street. In fact it was a demonstration in the streets of London in favour of the "Jewish Unemployed and Sweaters' Victims". I think the exact date was some day of march 1889. Starting point of the demonstration: 40 Berner street. Ending point of the demonstration: Mitre Square. Of course some researchers will see it very normal because they will say that it started at the anarchists' club and ended just in front of the Great Synagogue. Rabbi Adler was certainly not pro-anarchist but nevertheless let the procession in. Certainly this is only a mere curiosity but to couple with the fact that synagogues in the west were often used by jewish radicals movements for their meetings and testifies of the very intricated inimity/complicity between established jews and the ones coming from the east. Certainly not really perceived by the Gentile population of the time. I repeat, just a mere curiosity, but the fact is that "Jack" followed the same track some months before. Good bye. Graziano who shortly will answer your previous request.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Saturday, 22 June 2002 - 04:24 pm
Nota bene, Radicalism and fundamentalism have always coexisted within Christianity to some degree or other. The same is true of Judaism...as it is with Islam. The so-called "Atbash" code was used in the Pythagorean 'academies' long before the Knight Templars used it,(in Hebrew/Latin/Greek), to secure their international financial transactions. Next question pliss :-)
Author: graziano Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 01:41 am
Thank you, very interesting...but...so what ? The point here is that we have two murders in one night. The first happens in the yard of a house used by guys who claim themselves to be the representative of the ever-bigger class of Jewish poor, fomenting revolt to erase any social cleavage (being that in the jewish community or in the general social classes). The second right in the back of the Great Synagogue, symbol and center of power of the rabbinical class, strongly historically and socially tied and allied with the rich jewish class and the secular authority of the hosting country, seen by the formers as oppressing the poor Jews. Both guys (East-End anarchist and Rabbi Adler and co.) having a deep rabbinical-talmudic education. And then we find a message on a wall (the history of which is known) whose significance is only clear for the one used with the Talmudic studies. Certainly a lot of significance, I think, or do you believe all that to be pure coincidence for the "lunatic" killer, or maybe all that "simbology" could have been known and followed by a fellow like Hutchinson, Barnett or Kelly ?
Author: graziano Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 05:32 am
Of course you may explain also the two murder's sites not by coincidence but by the fact that that night both Elizabeth Stride and Kate Eddowes were deeply concerned and embedded in some sort of clash among the "jewish community" and chose each their side and that the former was supporting radicals, the latter the rabbinical authority and that they used both thus to perform near the two buildings more representative of their "mentors" (in fact, the more representative in the whole London) for soliciting and then giving back the money for the cause. You may.
Author: Simon Owen Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 06:17 am
Is there any evidence that the meaing of the word ' Juwes ' would be known to someone with knowledge of Talmudic studies ?
Author: graziano Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 08:45 am
No. At least not to my knowledge. The "U" was added because of its necessity in the coded message to form the word "Amun". In the superficial meaning of the Graffito it hadn't any use/significance whatsoever. Maybe there was an hinting to the Jubelo/Jubela/Jubelum thing and Anderson/Warren being Masons, I do not know, but it does not make any sense to consider it that way. Anyway, being necessary to the coded message, it was not a disgrace to add it there since there were no significant meaning/phonetic distorsions in the superficial message. Hebrew alphabet does not know the "U". Good bye. Graziano.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 07:27 pm
It is quite possible someone swapped the bricks around :-) Revised thus: Blame be for who will dare, the Nothingmen - not the Juwes. :-)
Author: John Patrick Sunday, 23 June 2002 - 08:49 pm
Rosey, Perhaps Coronzon? John Patrick
Author: Robeer Tuesday, 25 June 2002 - 01:56 am
Graziano, You have argued vociferously that East London prostitutes did not perform sexual services on the street, in alleys, public squares, or any other outdoor place. You have insinuated this aversion to outdoor sex is important to understanding how and why the victims were murdered in the locations where their bodies were found. You suggest this preference is important to revealing the identity of the perpetrator(s). Could you elaborate on why this prostitue practice in Whitechapel is a clue to the solution of the case? Robeer
Author: Mark Andrew Pardoe Thursday, 18 July 2002 - 06:29 pm
And further more. Why are they speaking German in France?
Author: graziano Friday, 19 July 2002 - 03:03 pm
German, French, fun vanen shtamt der Mensh, anyway ? Eine eintsyge Shtime, eine eintsyge Varhait. Oder di Oyfgang den Shturem. Well, dit war nur ein frayen Gedank. Not in german, not in french. Good bye.

Add a Message