|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 62
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 8:08 am: | 
|
Robert 
Londoners/Cockneys do quite often substitute the word anything for 'nuffin/nothing'
Just a thought.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2268
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 10:41 am: |
|
Hi Steve,
A casual prostitute does not have a set routine, so it is rather unlikely the killer selected his victims that way.
But what if his victims selected him (with the likely exception of Stride), or if it was a mutual selection? You seem to be suggesting these ladies would have reached for the smelling salts if a hairy male had approached them offering hard cash in the early hours if this wasn't one of their 'casual prostitution' nights. Isn't that ever so slightly naive, considering all the victims were desperately poor, sick, or addicted to alcohol?
If Jack knew he didn't actually have to part with any money, he could have made an offer even a 99% virtuous but flat broke Eddowes would have entered a dark, deserted square for.
Much has been made of the fact that these women were, at one time or another, prostitutes.Yet the evidence says that in three out of the five cases they were in puplic places at the time of death...
If you are applying that to Eddowes and Mitre Square, how much luckier does that make Jack, if he managed to avoid the police beats and bag a victim who was conveniently in the square with him at the right time, but was not up for a little business?
Love,
Caz
X |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
Steve
I agree with you 100%, this had nothing to do with prostitutes or sex.
It had all to do with women.
Caz seems to think that the only business men and women have together is sex.
Now that is unreal. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 196
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 6:49 pm: |
|
Stephen Swift,
Of course we all have our own opinions re Jack's choice of victim and his reasons for same.
Personally I firmly believe that Jack chose prostitutes not women in general. And in most cases these women (prostitutes) were available at very late evening hours or very early morning hours.
Whether or not these women were full or part time prostitutes does not change the fact that they had at one time or another prostituted themselves for lodging or drink.
Take Polly Nichols for example on the night of her murder. She was turned away from the lodging house because she did not have her doss money, however she assured the lodging house keeper that she would be back as it would not take her long to earn her doss money. How was she to do this at that very late hour if not for prostituting herself? Elizabeth Stride was a known prostitute even before she came to England. MaryJane Kelly was known to prostitute herself in order to live when not being kept by a male partner, and so on and so forth.
You are also assuming that these John's (Jack) propositioned these women, that is not a proven fact. Very frequently prostitutes OFFER their services to prospective clients. In the case of Jack the Ripper, it is not known to us whether or not Jack propositioned them or vise versa. We assume also that these women led Jack to their own chosen locations where they felt the most safe away from the police or prying eyes. Again only an assumption.
I am most certainly not out to degrade or bash these women for what they had to do in order to survive, however the victims of Jack that we have discussed did not prostitute themselves for their families. Often their extra money was spent on alcohol. Kate Eddowes daughter for example did not advise her mother of her new address because Kate spounged off her. Elizabeth Stride's family were supposedly drowned. Annie Chapman and Polly Nicols marriages ended due to alcohol and their husbands carried the load when it came to their children, Mary Kelly's husband died and apparently they did not have children.
These women no doubt had very little choice in careers, so to speak, but sure as hell they spent their earned money on doss house fees and booze.
I do not share your sentiment for the reasons you have chosen, however I do not feel they shoud be bashed for what they did as much as for why they did.
many regards
Julie
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 66
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Julie, you stated this killer chose prostitutes as his victims yes?
In the case of Jack the Ripper, it is not known to us whether or not Jack propositioned them or vise versa.
In the case of Jack the Ripper it is not known that ANY conversation took place at all,I am not the one doing the assuming here - you are.
We assume also that these women led Jack to their own chosen locations where they felt the most safe away from the police or prying eyes. Again only an assumption.
Again....three of the victims were killed in the street, that is not away from prying eyes is it?
Polly Nichols was not seen in the company of any male in the hours leading to her death,Annie Chapmans killer could just as easily watched her go into the yard of No29 to relive herself and followed her in,Kellys killer could likewise have waited until she was alone,Strides killer could even have come to her aid!
I cant think of a single serial killer who targeted prostitutes because of what they did for a living(but then its late and I'm tired) but I CAN think of quite a lot that targeted prostitutes specifically because they were very easy female targets.
The assumption since 1888 has been these women died because they were prostitutes,I cant prove that was not the case.......yet.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 197
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 7:56 pm: |
|
Stephen Swift
Hi Stephen
Answer to your 1st question is YES, Jack chose prostitutes as his victims.
As for your next 3 sentences, We either assume, theorize, guess or repeat what we have heard or written. There are so many unanswered questions re Jack that we cannot state either of these scenerios as we do not have the answers.
The three victims that were killed in the streets must have been out of or away from prying eyes else Jack would have been caught.
Your next paragraph doesn't make sense. Since Jack was sharp enough not to get caught, he more than likely watched his chosen victims from a safe secluded or well hidden spot.
The fact that they were not seen with male companions means nothing, after all they were killed so they were with Jack or Jill Ripper, or their murderer (now that is a fact)
If you cannot think of a single serial killer who targeted prostitutes, than you cannot be from the U.S. I cannot think of the guy's name off the top of my head, but I can state as a FACT that there have been such a serial killer, No question at all.
Lastly, I cannot prove that these women died at the hands of Jack the Ripper because they were prostitutes or for that matter whether or not there was a Jack the Ripper, however it is my belief as a seasoned researcher of this topic, that there was a Jack the Ripper and that he did target prostitutes.
my regards
Julie
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 201
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 3:35 am: |
|
While it is not known that conversation did take place between victim and killer,it would be foolish to believe that none did.
The continued use of the phrase,'it is only an assumption'at almost every opportunity, is a little tiresome,and in the case in point foolhardy.Although,perhaps Jack was a red indian,and communicated by sign language. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2271
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
Hi AP old chap,
Caz seems to think that the only business men and women have together is sex.
(In my best Margot Ledbetter voice) Well thank you very much AP. 
Hi Steve,
I CAN think of quite a lot that targeted prostitutes specifically because they were very easy female targets.
I can't speak for Julie but, as far as I'm concerned that's all I'm really arguing - that unless Jack crept up silently from behind in each case, his victims must have been very easy, ie co-operative, female targets.
The assumption since 1888 has been these women died because they were prostitutes,I cant prove that was not the case.......yet.
But you acknowledged the possibility yourself, that Jack may well have targeted prostitutes (or at least women he assumed would be willing to do business) 'specifically because they were very easy female targets'. And the fact that he got away with it each time suggests to me that he did indeed stick to easy targets.
Hi Julie,
The fact that they were not seen with male companions...
Which victims were not reported to have been seen with any male companions on the night they died? I can only think of one - Polly.
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1973
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Helge,
OK, Ive mentioned this a few times now and it would appear people are either misconstruing my words or just plainly not reading my posts properly.
I will highlight the significant word.
The evidence does not hint at a certain Jewish connection.
A Certain Jewish connection. As in an established fact. Get it?
I never stated that the evidence certainly does not hint at a Jewish connection. I am stating that to say there is a certainly established Jewish link is errorneous.
Suppostion and interpretation does that.
So therefore, factually speaking, I am more correct. 
I say that IF Jack wrote it, then it clearly indicates he had an issue with Jews one way or another.
Why? Why is the writing a clear indication of Jacks issues with or against the Jews?
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2765
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 1:12 pm: |
|
Funnily enough I was just studying a press report from the LVP which showed that Buck’s Row was a major meeting place and venue for Jewish socialists and agitators of the time.
As Robert has pointed out on another channel, that gives us quite a number of murder sites associated with major sites of significance to the immigrant Jews of Whitechapel.
However my general opinion is that there were so many Jews in that area of Whitechapel in the LVP that it would have been almost impossible to have murdered someone without it chancing upon the back-door of the offices of the socialist revolution or something similar.
But all connecting threads are good.
We just gotta stitch faster. |
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3086
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 4:30 pm: |
|
I agree with Monty,
and monty i must say i thought it was always clear thats what you meant if thats any consolation at all which i doubt lol.
"Don't you know it's true what they say,That life it ain't easy"
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 198
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Caz
You are correct Polly wasn't seen with a male companion, however that is assuming that there were five victims only of Jack, add Tabram for six (and yes she was seen with a man), but there are other murders that are Jack possibles.
However the men these women were seen with were not necessarily Jack the Ripper. The witness descriptions varied a great deal from one case to the other.
I still have a nagging doubt that Jack would have let himself be seen, he was too smart and or too lucky.I feel that he approached them while taking care that no one was around, whether or not he hid untill the time was just right or the darkened conditions of the street was to his advantage is certainly up for debate.
But it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
All My Best
Julie
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 68
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
The three victims that were killed in the streets must have been out of or away from prying eyes else Jack would have been caught.
Your next paragraph doesn't make sense. Since Jack was sharp enough not to get caught, he more than likely watched his chosen victims from a safe secluded or well hidden spot.
And yet Peter Sutcliffe killed women in EXACTLY the way that you say is unlikely,he walked up to them in the street,most of the time with no conversation - and just killed them - and he was never seen.
But it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Well here is my story.There is not one single shred of evidence to support the theory that Kate Eddowes was a working prostitute and until there is I'll continue to think that JtR killed women specifically and prostitutes sometimes, because they were easy targets(I still dont think Stride was working the night she died).
Caz,
What I'm getting at is just this - I dont think the killer had any contact with Nichols,Stride or Eddowes before he struck.Chapman & Kelly more than likely but not certain.And if he had no contact with them then he was killing a woman because she was a woman and NOT because she was a prostitute.
And you are 100% correct I'm not american, I'm english.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 613
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 8:47 pm: |
|
HI Steve,
I would say on balance that I agree that Jack probably didn't target prostitutes specifically, but merely went for the most vulnerable women available.
However, I am not sure that the positions the victims were found in can confirm one way or the other if there was any interaction between killer and victim before the murder.
In Polly's case......there was no shelter for her killer to have been hiding to simply jump out on her in a surprise attack......although her death certainly was very sudden and death almost instantaneous.
Bucks Row is a moderately open, widish street with little cover, and there was certainly no cover at the entrance to the stable yard that would be sufficient to hide a killer as Polly walked passed.
True it was fairly dark, but he would have had to have been hiding actually in the entrance of the stable and it was quite flush with the walls on either side........
So I have to say that I think that some interaction between them was more likely. Not only that but it was by a gate, which is often the chosen spot for prostitutes to take clients. (There is more give in the gates and it is not so painful on the ladies backs)
Stride I think might be a different matter. There was a recess just by the spot where she was killed sufficient to hide a man and it was very dark, so yes I do think that looking at the position of the body and other circumstances around Liz's death that it might well have been a surprise attack from behind, with no interaction.
In Kate's case the body was again by gates.......and not far in front of them. However there is very little cover there for anyone to hide either........if we look at the crime scene, although it is a corner and very dark.......I think that for someone to hide in the shadows and leap out on someone is far less likely than some kind of interaction between the two just prior to the attack, although not impossible.
If we add Annie in, then it is quite certain that there was some interaction between her and her killer before death.....and as she was certainly a victim of the same man that killed both Kate and Polly....... I would have to say on balance that I think it more likely that there was interaction between the victim and killer with the exception of Liz.
I still do though have reservations about whether Kate prostituting herself that night.......and am fairly certain that Liz was on a date and turning down clients that night.......
Of course we will never know why he chose his victims, but I think like Peter Sutcliffe, it was just a case of who was handy.......prostitute or not.
Jane
xxxx |
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 72
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 10:21 pm: |
|
Ello Jane
All what you say is true of course but......
Why do we suppose he was hidden? He could easily have walked up behind them or even been coming towards them. Now this leads to the question, just how scared were these women? Obviously not scared enough not to be out walking alone after midnight.
A surprise attack is exactly that - a surprise,but it does not mean he had to lull them into a false sense of security because...and think on this,for each second that passed and he did not engage these women sexually surely he would have risked arousing their suspicions?
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 55
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 03, 2005 - 11:19 pm: |
|
Steve,
I find your arguments to be well reasoned and I usually tend to agree with them. If I understand your post, you are arguing that there is no evidence that Kate Eddowes was prostituting herself. If this is the case, I have to completely disagree. Why didn't Kate ask the police to let her stay in jail overnight citing fear of the Ripper. Failing that, she could have asked that someone escort her home. Given the lateness of the hour, why didn't she take the most direct and quickest way home? Would she have been so foolish as to stop and talk to a stranger on the street if not to conduct business? And finally, what was she doing in Mitre Square? To me, this all indicates that she wanted to be out on the street to make some money.
As for no interaction with the victims, if the Ripper approached someone directly on the street, then he was seen and if his attack failed and the intended victim got away then his description could be given to the police. The same holds true for some time of sneak attack. I think this would be taking way too much of a chance from his perspective. Better to be in a secluded spot and strike when the women are holding their skirts up. |
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 74
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:55 am: |
|
Hey CD
If I understand your post, you are arguing that there is no evidence that Kate Eddowes was prostituting herself. If this is the case, I have to completely disagree. Why didn't Kate ask the police to let her stay in jail overnight citing fear of the Ripper. Failing that, she could have asked that someone escort her home. Given the lateness of the hour, why didn't she take the most direct and quickest way home? Would she have been so foolish as to stop and talk to a stranger on the street if not to conduct business? And finally, what was she doing in Mitre Square? To me, this all indicates that she wanted to be out on the street to make some money.
Well I think you may be a tad naive' in thinking the police would provide an escort home for a drunk but as to her taking the quickest rout home - she did not have a home because she & Kelly lacked the money for a bed and she had been staying in casual wards, a good indication she was not selling herself for the price of a bed.
We do not know the man she was seen talking too WAS a stranger CD.I'm not sure if Shoe Lane casual ward was in the direction she was heading or even if the wards admitted in the early hours but she was certainly not heading to Cooney's.
As for no interaction with the victims, if the Ripper approached someone directly on the street, then he was seen and if his attack failed and the intended victim got away then his description could be given to the police. The same holds true for some time of sneak attack. I think this would be taking way too much of a chance from his perspective. Better to be in a secluded spot and strike when the women are holding their skirts up.
Yes but thats the point, Nichols,Stride and Eddowes were NOT killed in secluded spots they were killed ON public thoroughfares.I'm sure you have seen photographs of the murder sites C.D, all of which quite clearly show they could hardly be called secluded.
My real point about Kate Eddowes though is that she is alone among the victims in not being named as a prostitute either by witnesses or people who knew her and as I already said,I think the fact that she had been sleeping at the casual wards is a strong indication that this woman was not selling herself.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Harry Mann
Inspector
Username: Harry
Post Number: 202
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 3:45 am: |
|
The murders and mutilations would not have taken place during daylight hours,I am certain of that,so darkness did afford a more seclusive time of advantage for the killer.Dutfields yard was perhaps the darkest of the murder scenes,therefor offered the most seclusion,albeit perhaps not the location affording the least likelihood of interuption.
Therefor it might be a matter of opportunity overiding other fears,especially if Stride was reluctant to move elsewhere. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 442
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Monty,
If Jack wrote what I think is clearly (disagree all you like, it is your prerogative) an anti-Semitic message, then that indicates that he was anti-Semitic to some degree.
How bland do you want me to state this and still argue as if I'm stating this as a definite fact?
So... what I would really like to hear is why you think the GSG is not anti-Semitic?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3092
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:27 am: |
|
Yo Helge,
Surely the point is this,
First off it’s a pretty big if.
Secondly viewing GSG as anti Semitic that is clearly subjective. It is entirely dependent on ones own interpretation of the facts.
That's not to say it is or isn't, it's just to say.
It is not clear what the GSG means, therefore it cannot show us anything.
But anyway, I don't know if that’s what Monty was getting at.
You ask him why he thinks it’s not anti Semitic, but what is there to make you think that it is
Jenni
""
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1975
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
Helge,
Why is it clearly an anti semetic message?
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 614
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
HI Steve,
I did think along those lines myself at one point........would it have been possible for Jack to take the women unawares and for it to be a feasible scenario? I ended up deciding against it for a few reasons.
Firstly, if we look at Bucks Row......not full of little alleyways, but a very uniform street, with few hiding places, no doorways, no niches.....nowhere for him to hide anywhere along the street in fact. Opposite was the wharf which provided better opportunity for cover, but he would have had to have been on the same side of the street as Polly to stand any chance of surprise.
There is no cover at all.......I have posted my pic of Bucks Row underneath.....as it was on the night of her murder. Seriously do you think that anyone could have snuck up on Polly without her being aware of it? I just don't, only my opinion, but give me a good counter argument and I will be happy to reconsider.
Mitre Square is similar........an open echoing square......where would he be able to hide to jump out on Kate? True a better venue for him slightly than Bucks Row, but the only place he could have hidden would have been in murder corner itself......and I am still worried that he would have been able to conceal himself there and jump on Kate without her having too much of a chance to get away........as cd said......there would have been way too much risk involved.....a squirming woman in an open space is far more risky a target than a woman trapped against a gate with her skirt hitched up around her waist.
So on balance, I still do think that it is more likely that Jack had them cornered when he attacked.....and the only way I can see that happening is if he propositioned them first......with the exception of Liz, who I do have serious doubts about anyway.
Jane
xxxxx
 |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 443
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Monty, Jennifer,
Clearly the police at the time considered that people would connect the message and the apron, and instigate a possible riot against the Jewish population. And as such it does have an anti-Semitic link if I am correct in that this was Jacks intention all along. (And yes, this is clearly speculation, and I have said so before..)
This does not warrant "clearly". But this does:
Even if this is NOT true (i.e. Jack did not write it), it was most probably written by someone with anti-Semitic motives. Ideed, the most promising argument for the GSG NOT being written by Jack is that it was anti-semitic libel, only coincidentally being connected to the apron.
And here is the catch. If the two scenarios I proposed are wrong, then clearly there must be an alternative. If no alternative can be found that reasonably explain what was meant, then I think we should agree that (as yet) no alternative exist.
And if no alternative exist, it is not possible to logically dismiss my interpretation! Not if we are to keep this on a reasonably sane footing.
Just because it is POSSIBLE (however unlikely) that Martians wrote the message, it does not mean we can take such a proposition seriously.
So that is why I challenge you to make up a reasonable alternative interpretation.
If one cannot be found, then it is clearly an anti semitic message anyway...
Simply by pointing out that something cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt get us nowhere, and would invalidate 99% of all discussions here on Casebook.
This is why I state my question again. Why is the GSG NOT anti-Semitic? I'm not engaged in trench warfare here. Convince me, and I'll gladly reconsider my position.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 444
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Jane,
The only thing that gets on my nerves when walking in "unsafe" neighbourhoods at night is when someone overtakes me from behind. There is always a split second chance there where that someone is close enough to attack.
And in such a situation, a person may choose to abort an attack even a split second before actually committing.
Thus it is reasonably "safe" for any potential killer.
I'm not saying this is what happened, just that we cannot dismiss the possibility.
And I'm editing here to mention that we recently had just one such murder happen on the streets of a nearby town. We know it happened that way, because there were actually witnesses.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 04, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3098
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 8:30 am: |
|
Yo Helge,
I guess it depends on what you mean?
Jenni
"Bring it all back to you"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 445
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Jenni,
Caveat: I really try to say what I mean, but that is harder than you think sometimes..hahah
But yes, it always depend on what we mean doesn't it?
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 04, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3101
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
Yo Helge,
i mean that you say
Clearly the police at the time considered that people would connect the message and the apron, and instigate a possible riot against the Jewish population. And as such it does have an anti-Semitic link if I am correct in that this was Jacks intention all along.
does the fact the police were clearly scared of a Jewish riot mean the message was clearly anti semitic or were the police just being over cautious?
when we say anti semitic we mean something very specific. How can we say that something that is unclear is clearly anything.
It doesn't even mention the word Jew. i know i'm getting picky here.
now second to that i thought you were saying Jack did write it because of this whole Jewish connection thing you brought up?
Jenni
"Bring it all back to you"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1978
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Helge
I asked out of a need for clarity, not confrontation.
Anti –semitism is one valid interpretation of the writing. However, the Police acted out of caution because time was of importance. That said, it seems they needed clarification as they themselves were not certain if the word ‘juwes’ actually meant Jews in any way, shape or form.
2 other interpretations are:-
1) Defiant statement.
2) Rallying call.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 446
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:51 am: |
|
Jenni,
I don't think the police were being overcatious as there seems to have existed a very real possibility of a riot, or at least isolated acts of violence against the Jewish population. It was a clear and present danger, and thus their actions were justified IMO.
But I don't see why you can say there was no anti-semitism expressed in the GSG. Even if it had no connection to the apron, or the murders at all, it seems highly contrived to me to think that it was anything but anti-Semitic.
And yes, anti-Semitic is specific. Technically it may be a wrong word to use, inasmuch as I'm sure whoever wrote it was not thinking about Semites, but Jews. But (and I could go very technical on this, but choose not to), basically was I mean is it was a slander against the Jewish population in the area.
(Anti-Semitic: prejudiced against Jews, discriminates against Jews, dislikes Jews; source Babylon English-English)
Now, if you notice, I don't see the message as unclear at all. There are different ways to read it, but to make any one such interpretation stick it is necessary to explain it in context.
And the contexts seems very clear to me, it was slander.
Another interpretation necessitates another probable context, and I see none. That is not to say I claim none exist, but only that I cannot even consider another interpretation until a reasonable alternative exist.
You are correct in that it technically does not mention the word Jews, but in order to come up with another probability (as opposed to possibility), one must be proposed. So far I have seen no other interpretation that even begins to make sense, and therefore stick with the probable misspelling of Jews.
Which, in the semi-literate society that existed back then, actually makes a lot of sense. Half the population probably could not write a single sentence without at least one misspelling!
And yes, I (as in me personally) think Jack did write the GSG to implicate the Jews, and that clearly (here we go again) indicates an anti-semitic (or anti-Jewish) mindset.
But that is speculation, and I know it. The reason I also talk about the other alternative (the GSG being random graffitied slander) is that even this alternative indicates an anti-Jewish mindset, and this supports my initial use of the phrase "clearly anti-semitic" as well!
Which may have answered Monty's initial question. At least I hope so!
And, just if anyone wonders...obviously I think it was a fair question...
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3106
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Yo Helge,
i was not being that pedantic about the word semitic. Sorry that you thought I was
Jenni
"Bring it all back to you"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3107
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
ps, actually i do think it probably does refer to Jews. I would go as far as to say, there doesnt seem to be a suitable alternative word than Jews for what Juwes means.
But does that make it anti Jewish - i mean probably? maybe? i don't know, lol.
An intepretation remains an interpretation since we have no way of knowing what was originally meant. As such it is subjective. thats all im saying.
yo
"Bring it all back to you"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 447
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
Monty,
Our posts crossed.
I hope you did not interpret anything I said as an attempt of confrontation either. As I said, it was a fair question
By now you may see that my use of "clearly anti-semitic" is IMO independent on whether the GSG was written by Jack, or whatever the police might have thought.
The way I interpret it is not that the police actually questioned if Juwes meant Jews, but rather that they considered the possibility that it was a specific spelling in use by a specific group of people. For example, they checked if it was in use by any Jewish groups themselves.
Anyway. It is obvious that they needed to look into possible alternatives, but AFAIK none was found. Personally I dismiss any connection to freemasonry and the like. It falls under the category "contrived" IMO.
But ok. "Defiant statement". Hm.... Do you mean as in Jack being tired of Jews getting blamed for everything and saying that finally there would be something real to blame them for?
Again, contrived IMO.
Unless, of course, Jack was that Jew?
Opinion?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 448
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
Jenni,
I did not think you were pedantic
I am the pedantic one!
LOL!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3108
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:26 am: |
|
Yo Helge,
no probs.
If JTR didn't write the GSG, then doesn't that put a stop to any Jewish link that it may or may not represent?
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1979
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Helge,
I am not saying that there is NO anti-Semitic or Jewish inference in the writing.
What I am saying, and have done for some days now, is that there is no undisputed, ascertained, unequivocal, indisputable, irrefutable, uncontested evidence which supports a connection between the writing and the Jews.
Read ‘Juwes’ (if that was the true spelling of the word, we have many versions) phonetically and it comes out ‘Jews’ or ‘Juw-es’. Its no great leap of the imagination, even a Rossers mind, to suggest the word is Jews. And if they immediately thought Jews the fear that Joe Public thought Jews was enough to have the writing removed.
Precaution was the watchword of the day. And rightly so.
Due to its location, the writing had to be investigated. Again, rightly so. The interpretation is an anti-semetic remark. That’s your interpretation and some feel the Polices interpretation. Unfortunately neither you nor the Police wrote it and therefore one man only knows its context.
Do you mean as in Jack being tired of Jews getting blamed for everything and saying that finally there would be something real to blame them for?
No, not really. The writing could have been placed by anyone and aimed at anyone. Juwes, Jews, James, Juives, Juews, juewes....
As mentioned before, no matter how contrived you feel that particular reason is or how ambiguous it reads to me, the true reason for the writing is known only to one man.
The rest is conjecture and interpretation.
Cheers,
Monty
PS a link to an article I wrote with the Late Great How Brown. Not yet deceased but the way he packs those Cheese steaks God only knows why.
http://casebook.org/dissertations/rip-gsgdebate.html
PPS
My opinion? I think the writing, if written by Jack, is a non-clue. It gives us nothing but possible handwriting. My favoured reasoning for Juwes is either a cockney phonetic spelling or D’Onstons reasoning.
That said, there is nothing in the writing to hint at any crime let alone the murders, let alone Eddowes murder for that fact. Thats the ambiguity.
The real and most productive clue is the apron.
It begins.....
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 806
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Jenni,
If JTR didn't write the GSG, then doesn't that put a stop to any Jewish link that it may or may not represent?
Of course, but that has never stopped the speculation and never will. Still, those who want to believe (and it can be nothing but a belief) Jack wrote the message ought to ponder Monty's PPS above. The real clue is the apron -- yet even in 1888 everyone seemed to have devoted much more time to wrestling with the chalked scrawls.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3109
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hi,
Its right to be cautious i wasn't saying other wise. all i am getting at is that it does not mean there must have been a Jewish connection or it must have referred to the Jews just because the police acted as they did.
'That’s your interpretation and some feel the Polices interpretation. Unfortunately neither you nor the Police wrote it and therefore one man only knows its context.'
ah!! this is what i have been trying to get at. if only i could write in such a nice way!!
Jenni
ps read Monty and Hows article its fab!
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 599
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
" you are arguing that there is no evidence that Kate Eddowes was prostituting herself. If this is the case, I have to completely disagree. "
A question for the group : Eddowes body was found wearing no drawers or stays. How common would this have been, and can we make any assertions that walking around sans drawers would have facilitated street sex ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3110
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:56 am: |
|
Yo Don,
yes the apron was actually linked to the crime!!
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3111
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 11:59 am: |
|
Yo Robert,
just because she was found,
you can guess the rest so i'll stop now in case people actually think i might believe it to be a fact!
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 77
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hey Jane
Seriously do you think that anyone could have snuck up on Polly without her being aware of it? I just don't, only my opinion, but give me a good counter argument and I will be happy to reconsider.
I think I can yes.I dont think he did 'sneak up' on Nichols,Stride or Eddowes. Consider when you walk down the street,how often has someone passed you without you really taking any notice at all? Now I realise that it was late(or early) & that there was supposed to be a killer on the loose but.........
That did not stop these women walking the streets in the wee hours and presumably it did not stop trade either.
With minds befuddled by drink,fatigue and sickness would the victims have really 'seen' the figure coming towards them or approaching from behind given that fact that we,in full possesion of our faculties, pass and are passed by strangers everyday who we so often do not 'see'?
During that split second in passing you could be on your back and dead before you really even knew what hit you. So many victims of violent crime are assaulted in this way I'm really surprised very few people consider it an option.
You do not need shadows and doorways to be invisible.
By the way Jane - is their a full set of those pictures you did anywhere on this site and if not where can I get some?
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 616
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Hi Steve,
I'm not really being adamant here one way or the other about the method of attack......really I just feel on balance that it was more likely that it was a case of propositioning rather than a pounce on scenario. I can't see any reason really that it couldn't have been the way you describe for a certainty, just that there are a few things that make me wonder.
The first is that in the case of Polly Annie and Kate, they were all in places which would be classic venues for a prostitute to take a client. It is quite likely, in fact almost certain that prostitutes had set places to take clients to and these murder spots fit the requirements to a T, which seems a bit coincedental.
For instance in Bucks Row, the gates were literally next to a house that had occupants inside at the time. If he was going to pounce, then I should have thought it would have been more sensible to wait until she was by the wall further along, where there were no overlooking houses, just a wharf on one side and a wall on the other. Obviously not proof of anything, it just leaves me pondering....
The other thing with Polly is that she was wearing quite a tightly fitting Ulster coat, which went down to her feet......this coat along with the dress underneath was up around her waist when she was found and it was pulled down by Paul I think (Might have been Cross, but one of them) and still buttoned.
This would have meant that her killer if he pounced on her unawares had the unenviable job of trying to hoist up the garments, on a dead weight to inflict the mutilations.....
I won't go into how difficult it would have been to manouvre those garments up above her waist, but you can imagine that it would take some valuable time that her killer didn't have. Logically, he would have had the knife in one hand which would mean that he had to try and wriggle several layers of clothes up, with only one hand, and I just think that if that was the scenario, he would have used the knife to just slit the garments up to the waist and save valuable time.
If the garment had already been pulled up by the victim herself, then his job was half done for him and all he had to do was get on with his work unencumbered.
I know this doesn't mean anything in itself, it's just that it seemed to feel more plausible to me. I suppose it depends whether we view Jack as an organised or disorganised killer and whether he would have planned the attacks or just dived in and hoped for the best. I have to think that he was at least aware of the time of the police patrols and bore in mind that his time frame was limited. Why didn't he just slash Polly's clothes to get access to her torso? Her stays were also still in place and only loosened, which again would fit in with the idea that Polly had lifted the clothes herself.
There are lots of other things that niggle me about it, but I don't want to write War and Peace here. As I said, I'm not entrenched about it at all.....but just see some problems attached.
Jane
xxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 04, 2005) |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 617
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Oh my reconstructions:
They are all here on the site, but with posts between them so you have to plough through a bit, but I have set up an album on line with all of my stuff on if anyone wants to go and have a look, which I thought was easier.
Here is the link:
http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/janecoram/album?.dir=a0c7
I have tested it and it should work. If not let me know.
Anyone can download them from there I think.......but if anyone wants higher resolution ones just let me know. The only thing is they can only be for personal use I'm afraid as they are all going in my book and are copyrighted. I can give permission if anyone wants to use them for anything, but please just ask first.
Hugs
Jane
xxx |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2773
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 04, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
I still think it happened like this:
'ELIZABETH DAVIS sworn.
( Examined by Mr. Shepherd.)
I am the wife of Thomas Davis . In May last, I lived in Clarke's-court, Holborn, very near Little Turnstile: I was coming up Holborn, last May, the 5th, between nine and ten in the evening: a man spoke to me; the first word he said, was, where are you going? I did not immediately answer him; he met me, and turned back with me; I did not know he spoke to me; he said again, where are you going? I said, home; he said, where is your home? I said, not far; he said no more to me for some time; he continued walking a little before me, and sometimes a little behind, from the top of Chancery-lane, to near the Bull and Gate; he then accosted me with a nosegay he had in his hand, and said, are not these very pretty flowers? to the best of my recollection; but I cannot say to this last word; it was a largish nosegay; I said, yes, Sir; I did not take particular notice of the flowers; he put it to my nose, but I did not let it touch me.
Had you an opportunity of observing his face and his person? - I took particular notice of him every time he spoke to me; I looked at him when he spoke to me; he then said, will you smell at them? and I said, no, I thank you, Sir, I am not partial to flowers; and I did not think they were natural flowers, but I did not say what I thought.
Did it occur to you at the time that he had the nosegay in his hand, that they were not natural flowers? - Yes, it did; after that, he directly caught me by the throat, and with his other hand he gave me a blow across the thigh; and at that time I heard my clothes rent.
Did you feel the wound at that moment? - No, Sir; I pushed his hand from my throat, and he struck me a blow on my breast; I cried out, to the best of my knowledge, murder; I cannot tell what became of him; he went on, and I turned up my own court, I was so near my own home; there is but one house between the yard and the court; I knocked at the door, and they let me in; I first saw my landlady, Sarah Garrison ; I was so much alarmed, I was not sensible; I did not know what I said; I fell into a fit, and was laid on my landlady's bed.'
Lucky girl.
She could have been slaughtered. |
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 79
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 12:06 am: |
|
Stunning work Jane and thank you
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Hi Steve.
The Yorkshire Ripper didn't only kill in Bradford, but travelled to other towns too. If Jack the Ripper targeted ANY woman, then why didn't he move to other parts of London, or even other towns, for his victims, once the hunt for him had become intensified in Whitechapel ??
The fact is, these women WERE all prostitutes, and without a non-prostitute victim, you can't make the comparison with Sutcliffe.
Your idea of surprise attacks, without any propositioning, doesn't hold much water either. The Ripper accompanied Chapman into the backyard, he was seen by Lawende & co. talking with Eddowes, and Kelly took him back to her room. Also, PC Smith identified Stride talking with a man shortly before her death, and you can't say that this man WASN'T her killer.
With regard to "places of business", Mitre Square WAS a known prostitute's spot. Kelly's room WAS a place of business, and it seems likely that the backyard in Hanbury St. was too. Can you prove that Dutfield's yard wasn't used often by prostitutes either ??
The one thing we seem to agree on, is that the Ripper found these destitute women to be the easiest prey. I'm sorry if my previous comments annoyed you Steve, but until some concrete evidence to the contrary is found, I'll continue to believe that the Ripper, for whatever reasons, did particularly target this type of woman.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 02, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Hi Caz.
I don't think that there was any element of luck about Eddowes "bumping into" her killer in Mitre Square.
Philip Sugden (Double Event - page 178) says, "BUT IT WAS THE DARKEST CORNER IN THE SQUARE, AND A FAVOURITE PLACE FOR PROSTITUTES AND THEIR CLIENTS".
Besides this, the evidence we have suggests that Eddowes was seen talking with her killer by Lawende &Co.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 200
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Steve Swift
I picked up a very sarcastic tone to your post, however if you deem it necessary to come across that way that's up to you.
There is NO evidence whatsoever to agree with nor is there evidence to shoot down what I said with respect to Jack hiding, and his cunning ways,unless you know something that I don't.
As for Eddowes, there is as little evidence to support that she was a prostitute as there is to dispute it, so we are no further ahead.
You have your opinion and I have mine, we are both entitled to same, so unless you have evidence that hasn't been put forth as yet, we are both on the same level.
regards
Julie
|
Steve Swift
Detective Sergeant
Username: Swift
Post Number: 81
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 9:04 pm: |
|
Ello David
The fact is, these women WERE all prostitutes
Prove it, show me statements saying Kate Eddowes was a prostitute.
The Yorkshire Ripper didn't only kill in Bradford, but travelled to other towns too.
Peter Sutcliffe had a car.
he was seen by Lawende & co. talking with Eddowes
Being seen with a woman before she was killed does NOT make you the killer.
and Kelly took him back to her room
and you know that for a fact.....how?
Also, PC Smith identified Stride talking with a man shortly before her death, and you can't say that this man WASN'T her killer.
Well it certainly was NOT the man Schwarz saw assaulting her AFTER Pc Smith saw her.
With regard to "places of business", Mitre Square WAS a known prostitute's spot.
I'd be interested to see your source of this information because it is the first I've heard of it.I know the church NEAR Mitre square was.
Julie,
I picked up a very sarcastic tone to your post, however if you deem it necessary to come across that way that's up to you.
I do not do annoyed and I do not do sarcastic.If I did then you would not be picking up sarcasm you would be certain of it.
As for Eddowes, there is as little evidence to support that she was a prostitute as there is to dispute it, so we are no further ahead.
Actually there is NO evidence to support she was a prostitute and because of that I go on the assumption that she was not.
None of her relatives said she was.
None of her associates said she was.
She had no police record as one.
But the other four were so she must have been?
Just to re-cap Julie and David. I do not deal in internet rage,sarcasm or hate. I conduct all my posts with good manners (I would hope) and always try to use a well reasoned discussion based on fact.If you detect inflections in the written word then may I suggest it is,in fact,all in your mind.
Bill Shankly to a Liverpool fan:
"Where are you from?"
"I'm a Liverpool fan from London."
"Well laddie . . . . What's it like to be in heaven?"
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Hi Julie.
Please don't take to heart the sarcastic nature sometimes present here. I keep running into this sort of thing all over the boards.
As you say, we're all entitled to our opinions, and if everyone remembered that, then discussions would be much more enjoyable and productive, and we wouldn't get side-tracked by ego-tripping or bad manners.
With regard to Eddowes, I'm not going to say that she was a regular prostitute, but the corner of Mitre Square where she was killed, WAS a favourite spot for prostitutes and their clients. Perhaps she only resorted to this activity when in the most desparate need for money. Having said that, I could of course be totally wrong.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
