|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Shannon Christopher
Inspector
Username: Shannon
Post Number: 232
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 1:36 am: |       |
Iplatman, Your question about Goulston street is central to several theories as to who the killer was and what direction he was headed when he left the lower half of the apron.
It is my belief he was not involved in the murder in Berner (Henriques) street, but was responsible for killing Kate, and dropped the apron in Goulston street on his way home before he got too close, or was seen by a PC on his rounds.
Since the grafatti was found to be on the door jamb itself and the lower part of the apron well inside the door near the stairwell it is unlikely that the killer actually wrote the grafatti and just happened to pick that door to throw the apron into.
Shannon |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 08, 2003 - 2:44 pm: | |
"It is my belief..."
>>Belief, schmelief. Unless we have a reason to believe, our faith is misplaced. I understand that everyone does in fact believe, that we all have to have our beliefs, and that some things are good for us to believe. I know that my salvation rests in my belief. I am a believer, not an atheist, and recommend the Christian faith. But there's believing and there's believing. I chose not to believe in empirical matters unless there is significant reason to do so. I want to see relationships among a number of different evidenciary elements before I agree to believe. I understand the history of Ripperology as a con artist's heaven.
Saddam
|
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:51 pm: | |
The reckless claim that Jews are guilty of ritual slaughter has been kicked around England since at least 1290 A.D., when Edward I expelled the Jewish people from the island. It was voiced again by Arnold Leese (perhaps the most infamous British Fascist besides Lord Haw Haw) in the 1920s. Leese also used the claim that "Jack the Ripper" was a Jew to promote his agenda.
The actual Whitechapel murderer was not a Jew. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 94
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 12:12 am: | |
How can you be so sure, R.J.? |
John Fogarty
Detective Sergeant
Username: Goryboy
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 7:04 am: | |
The actual Whitechapel murderer was not a Jew.
R.J. -- Agreed. Very few Jews who'd emigrated from central Europe to Whitechapel would have assimilated to the point of having light complexions, fair mustaches, etc., by 1888. I strongly suspect Our Boy was an Irish Cockney, native to the area, whose parents or grandparents emigrated there. I'd almost be willing to bet it was someone very like Joe Barnett--who matched the killer in appearance, locale, etc., except I just can't buy the alternate motive theory as proposed by Paley.
Still, Nick Warren's chapter in The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper makes a fascinating connection between the Phoenix Park (Dublin, 1882) murder weapons and the Dorothy Stroud/Don Rumbelow knife. The Irish connection, though unprovable at this point, is compelling.
I think Our Boy was indeed a local Irishman, a Cockney, who undoubtedly had experience either as a meat butcher or mortuary attendant, also worked or had worked as a sailor (possibly aboard one of the many cattle boats in and out of the nearby docks), and was aged 28-36. I think he intentionally tried to cast suspicion onto the Jews, and probably was bigoted toward them--as were many local Cockneys, English and Irish alike. (Today, of course, the descendants of the Whitechapel Jews have moved north and west of their grandparents' residences and have been replaced, in turn, by Bangladeshi immigrants).
As to Stride's killing being part of this anti-Jewish smear, well, I still point to Schwartz's eyewitness description of the event as indicating Long Liz's killer was not the Ripper. It all hinges on Schwartz's veracity and reliability as a witness. If he was correct, it probably wasn't Our Boy (far too conspicuous, noisy, and drunk). Jon Smyth was correct in pointing out that at least one other murder--by throat-slashing--occured that same night three miles away, and most certainly wasn't done by the Ripper.
However, if Schwartz wasn't telling the truth (a la Matthew Packer), then we're back to square one. I strongly urge readers to re-examine the two versions of Schwartz's story that he gave police and press.
(Message edited by goryboy on November 12, 2003)
Cheers,
John e-Rotten
(a.k.a., Goryboy) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 7:52 am: | |
Erin--I'd just as soon not answer in the form of a riddle. But my statement is fact and it will eventually be explained. No doubt Saddam & others will think I'm merely slinging mud, but I fully plan on backing-up my claims.
Anderson's theory has a historical context. The claim that the Jews would somehow conceal the identity of a murderer in their midst --to shield him from "Gentile Justice"--was a hang-over from the Lipski affair. During the Lipski trial in 1887, certain officials in the Home Office felt that the London Jews were attempting to thwart justice even though they knew Lipski was guilty. It was during the Lipski trial that the first murmurs of restricting immigration buzzed around England, and these anti-Jewish feelings were very high during the Whitechapel scare.
Most Police officials had very high regard for East End Jews (Smith, Dew, etc.) They were law abiding and stable. And yet, Anderson came to mistakenly believe that the Jews were shielding the murderer. I aim to prove that his claim was totally reckless and without foundation. I won't accuse him of anti-semitism, because he qualified his opinion by saying the murderer was driven insane by "unmentionable vices"--a clear reference to Aaron Kosminski and his 'solitary vices.' By the way, I tend to think that this phrase alone (aped by Macnaghten) demonstrates that he was referring to Kosminski and not Cohen. K's particular hobby doesn't cause syphilis, Cohen's did.
In the end, I cannot prove why Anderson said what he said; I can only prove that he was wrong. My hunch, though, is that Anderson exaggerated his claims for political reasons. He was a politician as well as a police official; he had to constantly convas for Home Office support. He wanted to claim "results" even when there weren't any. In his latter statements, he was vindicating his life work. Anderson's contemporary statements and actions reveal that he didn't know the murderer's identity. In fact, I believe the exact moment were Anderson's thinking went wrong can be found in The Lighter Side of My Offical Life.
|
Scott Nelson
Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 42
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 11:15 am: | |
RJ, I look forward to reading your interpretation of Anderson's statements about the Jews with respect to the Ripper. As you know, I hold the opposite view, ie., Anderson actually believed what he said and that his suspect may have been the killer. And Anderson had pretty strong circumstantial evidence for his beliefs, etc. For anyone interested in a pro-Anderson side,including an alternative witness, see the February 2001 Ripperologist. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 472
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 11:27 am: | |
Hi RJ,
Am I missing something here?
Even if you can prove Anderson’s thinking was on the wrong track, how would that by itself prove the ripper wasn't Jewish? Have you other evidence of who Jack was, that allows you to conclude who, or what, he wasn’t?
Love,
Caz
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 11:36 am: | |
RJ, what's your idea here? Are you saying that Anderson made up the story, and then fed false info to Swanson?
Robert |
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 413
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 1:28 pm: | |
Hi, John, Scott, and R.J., et al.:
Talking about the Irish connection, and following on from what Nick Warren wrote about the Irish links to the murders in the Mammoth Book, you may be interested to know that Professor L. Perry Curtis, Jr., himself of Irish ancestry, has an article in the new, 50th issue of Ripperologist (November 2003) on "The Irish dimension of the Ripper saga" in which he examines the known Irish aspects of the case.
All the best
Chris George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 1:57 pm: | |
A CONSPIRACY A CONSPIRACY!!!
I don't believe it! I thought it was taboo to mention the word cospiracy when talking about Jack the Ripper.
Victor Meldew. |
Sarah Long
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 9:34 am: | |
Ok a couple of things I want to point out.
R.J,
You have just completely contradicted yourself. You say that "my statement is fact" and yet you go on to say I fully plan on backing-up my claims".
Ok, either your statement about JTR is a fact or it is something you are claiming. Be careful to start saying what are facts and what are opinions. Since no-one knows who JTR was I don't see how we can rule out him being a Jew.
John,
Be careful on saying that Jews don't have fair complexions and look only a certain way. Everyone thought my nan and my mum were jews because they look how people would expect jews to look but they are not, there ever been, as far as we know, a jew in our family history. I have a friend who's family are jews and he is pale with red hair and the family are all very similar. They look nothing like Jews.
I just want to add that I am not suggesting that JTR was a Jew but we cannot be sure that he wasn't. |
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 97
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 2:38 pm: | |
Sarah is right. There are plenty of Jews who don't have a "strongly Semitic appearance," particularly those from the northern regions of Central and Eastern Europe. There are also plenty of people who appear "Jewish" but aren't. You can never tell just by looking at someone what might be in their background.
R.J., what makes you believe Cohen was syphilitic? The only evidence I recall from Mr. Fido's book to this effect was his discussion of the mad Jewish medical student Wirtkofsky, although he doesn't definitively assert that he and Cohen are one and the same. As Glenn pointed out in another thread, tertiary syphilis (the late stage which involves the brain and can cause psychosis) doesn't appear for about 20 years into the disease. Cohen was only 23. Either he'd have had to contract the disease in the womb (which I suppose is possible) or he got it when he was 3.
(Message edited by Rapunzel676 on November 12, 2003) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 4:51 pm: | |
Erin--You might be surprised to know I argued a similar point on the old message boards. But remember in the original Cohen theory, Cohen is Nathan Kaminsky. We know that Kaminsky was treated for syphilis (and released 'cured') in the workhouse infirmary in Spring of 1888. The following Autumn, Kaminsky/Cohen is a raving lunatic. I agree this appears to be too short a time span for the patient to move into teriary syphilis from a state of remission, but then, it's not my theory. To be fair, Cohen suffered from a wasting disease, which could have been a number of things, including syphilis or consumption. But if Cohen was Kaminsky he did indeed have syphilis, because it was not curable in the 19th Century.
As Scott Nelson suggest above, there are other ways of looking at the identification of the suspect, and I recommend his dissertations. My own opinion is that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski.
Let me give one reason why.
In 1910, Anderson wrote this:
And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion of a loathsome creature whose utterly unmentionable vices reduced him to a lower level than that of a brute."
Let's forget religion for a moment--- Anderson is just quickly dismissing any outcry that he is anti-semitic; it's just happens to be a fact that the suspect was a Jew. Fair enough. The more interesting point, though, is the second-half of the statement. Does this strange reference to a "vice" give us any clue to who the suspect was? Anderson is saying the suspect went insane ('reduced to a brute') from an "utterly unmentionable vice." What does he mean by this? Swanson identifies the suspect as "Kosminski." Macnaghten does, too, and clarifies the "utterly unmentionable vice" as "solitary vices." Here is the answer. The Colney Hatch records state in red ink that the cause of Aaron Kosminski's insanity was "self abuse", ie., masturbation. It all fits. Common sense suggests that Anderson is referring to Aaron Kosminski's case notes in claiming his "brutishness" was caused by self-abuse. And there is no evidence that this peculiar diagnosis fits with either Kaminsky or Cohen. Kaminsky, in fact, suffered from syphilis---not known to be a side effect of that particular hobby. An any rate, both Swanson & Macnaghten name the suspect by name. I see no solid reason to doubt that the suspect was Aaron Kosminski.
Caz--Your logic is good.
Robert--Simply put. No. I don't think Anderson is lying.
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 2:47 pm: | |
Ripperology is such an amazing thing. In order to say what they do above, these posters must have at least the basis of a case solution in their grasp. Yet they know it not.
Saddam
|
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
Whoever has the answer to the many vexations above surely will be the recipient of much love. The hearts of all of us who need love aspire to resolve this question. And may the humblest among us be their deliverance.
"I believe the exact moment were Anderson's thinking went wrong can be found in The Lighter Side of My Offical Life."
>>Wrong, schmong. Anderson may have been an operator behind, and sometimes above the law, but there is no information to indicate he misconstrued in a significant way the information before him. Public officials today lack the latitude and access he had in pursuing police work, and this leads us to misunderstand on the one hand what he considered correct as on the other hand what he misconstrued. There is a solution in his book, but there is not wrong there.
Saddam
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 9:30 pm: | |
Hi all,
Interesting article on "blood libel", "anti-Semitism", and "anti-anti-Semitism" ! on Israel Shamir's web site.
www.israelshamir.net/english/blood.html
His latest book "The Flowers of Galilee" recently banned in France, now being published in the US.
Rosey :-)
|
Kris Law
Sergeant
Username: Kris
Post Number: 46
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 19, 2003 - 4:47 pm: | |
Saddam,
I find all your arguments very tired. You remind me of Anderson himself with his smug claims to "know" who the killer is, but won't tell. You imply on countless threads all over this board that you have the case solved. Solved, schmolved. I would like to see all the irrefutable proof you have uncovered that countless researchers over a hundred year span haven't been able to discover.
In short, spit out the proof or shut up and move on.
I'm sorry to everybody for the tone of this message, but more and more I find myself really enjoying certain threads only to be slapped in the face by Saddam's rude and arrogant comments, who is seeming more and more like someone who doesn't have any purpous except to insult people and put down whatever they think. If you have some REAL evidence Saddam, I would LOVE to hear it. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 178
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 10:58 am: | |
David, love is there. Its just in knowing where to look. I'm not talking about the cheap Hollywood forgery, but real validation of one person by another. I would so much love to share what I have found in Christ. I promise you, love is there. |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 7:51 pm: | |
Dear Diana,
How odd? Our two most mystical... knight and knightess... proceed toward the "center", even though they were cautioned not to "run through the cacti naked". What do they know?
Rosey :-))
|
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 20, 2003 - 12:51 pm: | |
I agree with Diana 100%.
David
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page