Author: Jack D. Killian
Monday, 26 February 2001 - 09:21 pm |        |
Hi Joseph,
I think David's profile information is fairly descriptive and gives a glimmer of his personality and philosphical approach.
Your profile, on the other hand, it is more challenging to discern much....except for your favorite suspect ;-)
I would guess you have a subtle sense of humor.
For my $.02 worth, I liked Rick's short, concise autobiographical info. I feel as if I know him a whole lot better and will probably be able to more easily understand his constructive criticisms and feedback in future posting discourses. And all at a small cost of overhead on this board.
I'd offer up a few words about myself here, but discretion may be the better part of valor for now in this venue.
Highest regards,
JDK |
Author: Joseph
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 10:45 am | |
Hello Mr. Killian,
I think that how I'm seen has more value, in comparison, to how I see myself. For example, I don't think I do anything all that interesting these days, I'm fifty years old, and a fulltime collage student; wow. My girlfriend thinks that's a bad jam, (Groovy). I like sports cars; so what. My sons think the cars are cool, and they plan long Sunday rides/picnics in the country with them. Perspective; go figure. |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 11:07 am | |
| I'm a window cleaner, and besides Jack the Ripper, my other hobby is my Hornby train-sets. I have three sets, The Flying Scotsman, another flying Scotsmen and the other I forgot the name of it, but if you're really interested I'll go an have a look. I have a station with little people mingling about, a bridge and three holding sheds. (snore). |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 11:10 am | |
| Oh it's another Flying Scotsman, funny that because the man in the shop said it was 'The Pride of Shrewsbury' |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 01:59 pm | |
Rosemary,
when you and me have our teaparty, you'll have to invite Jade, then while she's cleaning your windows, you and me can play with her trainsetJ
Rick |
Author: Jade Bakys
Tuesday, 27 February 2001 - 02:33 pm | |
Awe yippee
thanks Rick. J |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:29 pm | |
Hi Joseph,
Thanks for the expose on yourself.
I, as you, do not do anything too interesting these days. I am a 42 year old (soon to be 43) computer engineer. My 20 year old son thinks everything I own (or do) is Not cool). My two year old son seems to behave as if I am still a bit cool; who knows?
I envy Jade's train set hobby....wish I could commit to a hobby as this.
To move on, this anti-semitism thread has seemed to dry up. It seems anti-semitism issues played in important role in the process of this investigation. I am still not sure if Eddowes' killer wrote the graffitto, if the writer was Jewish, or if the message was anti-semitic. It is an equally interesting (aka, significant) fact, that the killer happened to leave the piece of the apron at the base of the wall where the writing was, regardless whether or not he/she wrote the chalked message. The killer, most likely, saw the writing.
JDK |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 07:30 pm | |
Jade,
Okay....why did the killer take the uterus?
JDK |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 08:24 pm | |
He took the uterus in order to get control over his mother, who, as is true with many sexual serial murderers, intimidated him as a child. He eschewed taking Mary Jane's, leaving it underneath her head, because she wasn't a maternal-looking type like the others were.
This is also, incidentally, a rather circuitous endorsement of Marth Tabram's candidacy as a victim; she was perhaps the most maternal-looking of all the victims.
David |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 11 March 2001 - 08:35 pm | |
| Might the fact that none of the victims was Jewish point in a twisted way to anti-semitism on Jack's part? He might not have wanted to have anything to do with Jewish people. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 06:24 am | |
Hi Diana and David,
Don't you think Jack might have chosen his victims simply because they were the most readily available and vulnerable, for the obvious reasons? They were all either drunk, weak, or had an immediate need of cash to secure, or keep, some form of shelter. They were also in the area Jack chose because he felt most comfortable and at home there.
Would he have made his night-time task that much harder for himself, by using a selection process that excluded specific types, such as those not of his own race or nationality, or non-maternal-looking women?
On a related note, there is an obvious tendency, because the series of four, five or six victims is so small, to look at Kelly's murder as something different and special, on the basis of her youth, and her position at the end of the series. When you look at all of Peter Sutcliffe's victims, there were a number who fell into one category - the clapped-out older prostitute, for want of a better description. But there were others who were younger and had never been on the game. These days, women can be found out on city streets after dark for all sorts of reasons other than homelessness or prostitution. Might this account for the fact that Jack's series looks less like random selection than Sutcliffe's? But actually, we may be looking at victims in both cases who were simply picked from whichever women happened to be out walking the streets alone when the ripper was there waiting to strike. Jack may have seen Kelly out on the streets, perhaps returning to her own room, then struck when the opportunity presented itself.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 08:40 am | |
Diana,
In strong support of Caz's general point, I note Roy Hazelwood's five questions to put to anyone who suggests that a serial killer picks prostitutes because of some dark psychological or religio-maniac drive: 'Who will a prostitute go with? Anyone. When? Any time. Where? Anywhere. For what purpose? Anything. Who cares? No one.'
Then add to that the fact that there were hardly any Jewish prostitutes in the East Enbd in 1888. I have no idea whether this was because of superior Jewish moral teaching, family cohesion, or dedicated distribution of charitable aid to the Jewish poor. But the fact remains that when creeds and occupations are listed, you almost never find 'unforunate' teamed with 'Hebrew' (just as there are virtually no Jews included among the simple pauper residents of workhouses).
So I don't think there was any selectivity in the Ripper's finding Gentile victims.
Martin F |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 09:50 am | |
| Actually, Martin, there were Jewish prostitutes in and after 1888 and it appears to have been a problem of growing concern to many people. The Jewish Chronicle on 20th July 1888 complained about Jewish men who procured newly arrived and unprotected Jewish girls for prostitution and again on 12th October a correspondent complained about Jewish prostitutes opening soliciting in the area of Liverpool Street, saying ‘the amount of immorality daily growing among the women is a blot upon our community at large’. For an insight into the problems of Jewish prostitutes in London see Edward J. Bristow’s “Prostitution and Prejudice” Oxford University Press, 1982. For all of which I am indebted to Prof. Fishman |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 10:08 am | |
Paul,
Sure, the Jewish community was concerned. Hence the enormous under-representation of Jewish women in all the institutional records identifying prostitutes. I'm sure there were some Jewish paupers, too. But the community was concerned and they just don't show up in demographic proportional numbers in the workhouses.
Bill Fishman is likely to jump at examining anything which gives him some Jewish history, without necessarily wanting to put it in the context of a lengthy examination of the surrounding Gentile comparisons. Are you in touch with Bill? Or taking a reference from his book?
Martin |
Author: Paul Begg
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 10:44 am | |
| The citations were from one of his books. I don't dispute that demographically Jewish prostitutes don't show up in the various institutional records, but as you point out Jews as a whole don't make much of an appearance in the records because they were taken care of by other groups. Jewish prostitutes probably don't show up for the same reason. But they certainly existed and appear to have existed in sufficient numbers for concern to be expressed in the Jewish press. Comparisons were made at the time with the surrounding Gentile population, of course, and the numbers were hugely disproportionate. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 04:05 pm | |
Paul
- 'Jewish prostitutes probably don't show up... because they were taken care of by other groups.' Which special Jewish agency have you in mind that could replace magistrates courts?
I'm not sure what the statistical point is you're making in your last sentence. Are you simply saying that there were hugely disproportionately more Gentiles than Jews in England? Or confirming my asserion that Jews were disproportionately under-represented in the numbers of known prostitutes? Or actually assertingthe reverse, that a disproportionately high number of Jewish girls were on the streets?
Martin |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 05:41 pm | |
The Yorkshire Ripper case is distinctly different I feel to the Jack the Ripper case in that there was ( IMHO ) a different motive to Sutcliffe's crimes. Sutcliffe called himself 'the Streetcleaner ' and his mission was to remove prostitutes from the street , thus it didn't matter whether they were old or young , black or white , Gentile or Jew. A few of the victims might have been said to have resembled his wife Sonia , with whom he seems to have had a troubled sexual relationship , but others ( eg Helen Rytka ) were completely different. Sutcliffe also didn't keep bodyparts from his victims as trophies.
In contrast the Ripper seems to have picked a particular type of victim , in a small circumscribed area ( Sutcliffe roamed from Manchester to Sheffield ) of a single city , and while there are no signs of connexion the mutilations to the corpses become greater and greater. Its easy to see why the Ripper crimes were ascribed to a foreigner , there is nothing quite like them in the annals of English crime ! |
Author: Paul Begg
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 12:36 am | |
Hi Martin
I guess what I am trying to say is that whilst you may be absolutely correct in saying that Jewish prostitutes don't show up in the institutional records, contemporary sources as cited by Bill Fishman and others indicate that there were Jewish prostitutes in the East End and that whilst there were far more gentile prostitutes than Jewish ones, Jewish prostitutes were nevertheless in sufficient number to be causing concern, even unto the creation in 1885 by Claude Montefiore of the Jewish Association for the Protection of Women and Girls. I therefore imagine that Jewish prostitutes do not show up in institutional records for the same reason that Jews in general don't appear in the institutional records, namely due to the other groups available to look after them.
Or it may be that the problem wasn't as great as the contemporary sources indicate, as we have already discovered to be the case with so-called white slavery, and that analysis of the institutional records provides a more accurate picture than other sources. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 07:01 am | |
Hi Simon,
We only know what Sutcliffe wants to tell us regarding his supposed motives. Considering that a serial killer might not even know himself all the reasons why he does what he does, it's bound to be an extremely hit and miss affair. We have to stick to the facts, which are that, if his mission was to clear the streets of prostitutes, he wasn't too fussed about sticking to his own rule book, was he?
Also, you wrote In contrast the Ripper seems to have picked a particular type of victim , in a small circumscribed area ( Sutcliffe roamed from Manchester to Sheffield ) of a single city...
This is the point I was making - the small sample of ripper victims, and small area (whatever transport Jack may have had access to, it wasn't a lorry :-)), by comparison, might only make it seem like he was picking a particular victim type. We just don't know, because the type of non-prostitute victim who could be walking unwarily into Sutcliffe's path in the late 1970s, would not have been walking down Jack's in the late 1880s.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Matthew Brannigan
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:10 am | |
Caz,
Jack's victims were prostitutes because a "respectable" woman would be unlikely to lead a stranger to a secluded, shadowy urban area between midnight and 4am and obligingly stand with her back to him using both hands to hitch up her skirt!
Martin & Paul
This question formed independently in my mind a few days ago, as to why no Jewish Ripper victims were found.
I had thought that the Jewish community had looked after its womenfolk well enough to avoid the wholesale descent into desperation witnessed by the Gentile women of the East End.
Having had it confirmed that there was a significany number of Jewish prostitutes in the area I wondered if it point to Jack's ethnicity.
Sexual serial killers (and yes, I am aware of the debate the use of that term could draw me into) tend to stick to their "type." To use an example that Martin is fond of for other reasons, Jeffrey Dahmer hunted young male victims, predominantly of races other than his own, since that was his sexual preference.
Could the fact that none of the canonical Ripper victims (or indeed the debated McKenzie and Coles cases) were Jewish, suggest that Jack was more likely to have been Gentile, since he never bothered looking for a Jewish victim?
Matt |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:35 am | |
Matt -
The young male victims represented Dahmer's sexual preference. The races, I think, simply reflected the demographical composition of the Milwaukee gay bar population, and (in the case of the two Simphasone boys) Dahmer's neighbourhood.
The absence of Jewish prostitutes in the Ripper's victims, I think, (pace Counsellor Begg and Professor Fishman), also represents the low proportion of Jewish women on the streets of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. I noted with interest the suggestion that the Jewish beat was Liverpool Street (actually in the City). The Ripper consistently struck a quarter of a mile or more to the south, and more within reach of the well-known beat around the church at Aldgate.
Martin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 10:47 am | |
Dear Caroline,
You are of course quite right, Peter could'nt rationalise his motive. He did'nt know a Polish Catholic from a Polish Jew! Even when he finally
'confessed' he needed a guiding hand, as it were.
No wonder they decided a trial was'nt going to convince anyone...quite, quite mad.(Cohensidence?)
(Incidentally, in Megalopolis, one is permitted to
scale accordingly.)
Roman Rosy Year ! |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 12:33 pm | |
| Most of the reading I've done indicates a large immigrant Jewish population in Whitechapel. Unless you want to suggest that the Jewish community did a better job of keeping their women off the streets (and this is always possible, some ethnic groups are very good at this), then one has to question why there were no Jewish victims. Of course if the Lusk Letter is to be taken literally then Jack was Irish?/Cockney? This would tie in with his actual selection of victims. |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:11 pm | |
Hi Diana,
Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting: that the immigrant Jewish groups (already fleeing pogroms and possible rapes) did an oustanding job of keeping their young women off the streets, and this explains their ethnic press anxiety about there being demonstrable Jewish hookers in Liverpool St (and presumably points elsewhere). I don't suggest there were none: human nature is what it is, and so is povery and need, and I don't believe there's a race or class on earth which could claim to have no prostitution at all among its females. But I do think that the disproportionately low incidence of Jewish prostitution in the East End explpains why no Jewish victims showed up among a random 3/8 (from a possible 1500) picked up, despite the very high density of Jewish immigrant families in the Ripper territory.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 01:12 pm | |
Hi Diana,
Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting: that the immigrant Jewish groups (already fleeing pogroms and possible rapes) did an oustanding job of keeping their young women off the streets, and this explains their ethnic press anxiety about there being demonstrable Jewish hookers in Liverpool St (and presumably points elsewhere). I don't suggest there were none: human nature is what it is, and so is poverty and need, and I don't believe there's a race or class on earth which could claim to have no prostitution at all among its females. But I do think that the disproportionately low incidence of Jewish prostitution in the East End explains why no Jewish victims showed up among a random 3 to 8 (from a possible 1500) picked up, despite the very high density of Jewish immigrant families in the Ripper territory.
All the best,
Martin F |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:12 pm | |
Jade, Chris,
when I spoke about finding clay pipes and green marbles in the garden,-- the house date being 1898, I have two other items to mention that you may care to comment on. During one of my occasional renovations, I was sorting and cleaning bricks from an interior wall I'd knocked down, when I came across a brick that I thought was quite interesting. A perfect footprint in the brick, the brick measuring 9"x4"1/2x 3"ins, the footprint indented the brick by about a 1/8 to an 1/4in. It was a perfect print of a hobnailed boot complete with steel heel plate. The strange thing to me was the print measured 6"1/2ins long x 2"1/2ins wide!!. I also have numerous unused 5" nails that look as though they were stamped out of 3/16 sheet steel, (left over after they had finished building. Any comments?---please.
Regards Rick |
Author: Jade
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 04:59 pm | |
Hi Rick
I can tell you that besides the sweatshops (factories) women and children worked in brick yards, children were often employed as nailers also. As one contemporary writer says: 'I have seen females of all ages, nineteen or twenty together, undistinguishable from the men, excepting by the occasional peeping out of an earing, sparsley clad, up to their bare knees in clay splashes...'
Hope this helps Rick
regards, jade |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Tuesday, 13 March 2001 - 07:39 pm | |
Hi Jade,
thank you for your time, whenever I look at that print I always wonder to myself, "what did he/she look like, and what sort of life did the poor little soul have, if it was a boy, the approaching WW.1 could have claimed him. Ah well, thanks again,
Best regards Rick. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 22 March 2001 - 02:31 pm | |
Jack (leather apron),
are you still reading Jack, can I E.mail you please?.
Your buddy Rick, |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 07:54 pm | |
I concur conceptually with David, Caz, Martin & Diana (although seeming to be mutually exclusive propositions), and Matthew.
David's assertion that Jack's motive to take the uterus of his mother, or some older significant other woman in his life, seems logical.
Caz's assertion that Jack's victims were prostitutes because they were readily, and unwittingly, available is sensible.
Diana's suspicion that Jack consciously selected gentile victims is plausible.
Martin's counter that Jewish prostitutes were, relatively speaking, not as abundant as gentile pros is equally plausible; thus there was no meditated non-semetic selection process.
Matthew's assertion that no "respectable" women would be readily available between midnight and 5:30AMish, thus prostitutes were the only victims (a.k.a. proxies for Jack's fetish pervisions) is entirely logical.
My inclination is Jack's obsessive behavior (anti-semetic, or not) was motivated (catalyzed) by the spectre of a woman of a generalized physical look who was lured (a.k.a. controlled)into a vulnerable position which ignited his heinous act of killing, mutilating, and then stealing away (coveting) precious treasures (uteri, and other private organs.
In a general perspective, it can be argued that Mary Ann, Annie, Liz, and Kate were relatively similar in physical appeal to Jack. Mary Jane was significantly physically different; younger, taller, hair color, and more-or-less attractive. She was also, it seems, most likely the last victim.
Rick, I presume the Jack you are trying to get in touch with is our friend that goes by the Casebook Name 'LeatherApron'; correct?
JDK |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 23 March 2001 - 09:28 pm | |
Dear JDK,
Whatever Jack's Oedipus hang-up he did'nt let it interfere with his 'fun' side, invisibility, thumbing his nose, etc. Can we seperate Jack from the party-animal aspect, so easily? I don't think we can fit Jack to any murderous prototype...he is the ORIGINAL PROTOTYPE!Jack...invented himself.
And WHO coined the name Jack THE RIPPER!? Genial Jack, I bet.
Just a thought,
Rosemary |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 04:19 am | |
So, Rosy, did our joker Jack have a POINT? If so it was nise and sharp...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 24 March 2001 - 06:17 am | |
Dear Caroline,
I think he had a few points meself..........all
leading to one point ! (Tris is reverse order:-)
And you are >.
Poingnantly speaking, of course.:-)
Rosemary |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Monday, 26 March 2001 - 08:17 pm | |
Dear Rosemary,
Jolly good show on the "fun-side" aspect to the possibility of Jack's personna.
Methinks however, Jack did not enjoy much of a 'fun-side'. He most likey was merely 'feeding' a compulsive urge which he could not resist. Much as an alcoholic quitting to drink can not resist picking up a glass of spirits he perchances to meet within his grasp....and regret (or revulse against) afterwards.
A Prototype; perhaps. But in hindsight looking backwards some 112 years later, he is as it were, a-dime-a-dozen.
Caz, a point he had. Nice? - No. Sharp? - Yes.
Cheerio,
JDK |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 04:52 am | |
Dear Jack,
A prototype. Period.
What then follows is but mere imitation.
Myth...
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 04:38 pm | |
Dear Jim Bloomfield,
Did you say "HAM"? Pork...Ham & Shem?!Now the Jews
claim descent from Shem...but some claim descent from Ham. Has Rosemary gone completely barmy?
Rosemary |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Tuesday, 27 March 2001 - 08:06 pm | |
Dear Rosemary
I'd say you did. First, I never mentioned Ham.
Then I don't recall talking about Hamitic and
Semitic races. Finally my first name is Jeff,
not Jim.
Jeff Bloomfield |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 04:46 am | |
Dear JEFF,
Sorry, a case of foot & mouth! However, it must be
pretty contagious..."disappearances in West Ham"?
Is there a East Ham? So, Where is HAM?
I am who I am...
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 01:20 pm | |
Dear Jeff,
Perhaps you are not quite catching my meaning, here. Are there two peoples called Jews/Juwes?
One Hamitic...the other Semitic. I know the biblical 'historical' account has the later Semite
invaders carry out the first....(genocide!)against the Hamitic peoples of Cannaan/Juhda. It was a root and branch job apparently with the Semites adopting the title "Juhdi"...but the Rabbinical ideology having so many contradictions.
I wonder if this has occurred to Ed Carter?
Mystery of History...
Rosemary |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 08:05 pm | |
Dear Jeff,
Could the Hams and the Shems have been fighting a 'turf-war' in HAM? This would explain the wall-writing as the 'hand of God'? Or does it sound too much like football hooliganism?(The antisemites must be turning in their graves!):-)
Perplexed of Middlesexed...
Rosemary |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Wednesday, 28 March 2001 - 09:07 pm | |
Dear Rosemary,
Re: the West Ham disappearances. I believe it is
in London, but I am not sure where. Nor do
I know if there is an East Egg. There is an
West Egg in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby,
but that is in Long Island, which is another
figment of our imagination (both West Egg
and Long Island).
If they got together, they might have had
West Ham and Egg, which would have been a
breakfast of another color.
Re: The Biblical warfare between the Semitic Jews
and the Canaanites
I seem to have recalled reading about this
when I studied the book of Joshua in religious
school Certainly their were massacres by the
Jews of Canaanites, including the citizens of
Canaanite cities like Ai and Jericho. But
Jericho Turnpike still exists on Long Island.
Unfortunately, that is in the state of
New York, or imagination. As such it has
no bearing on the Northwest Passage or any
other exploration problem.
Does this help you in any way?
Best wishes,
Jeff |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 04:47 am | |
Dear Jeff,
History repeats itself, Jeff. The first time as Ham and the second time as Shem! You snook an egg in when I was'nt looking.
So, there's no place like HAM? Damn.
Rosemary |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Thursday, 29 March 2001 - 07:56 pm | |
Dear Rosemary,
Just recall, there is no place like Ham with
the holandaise.
Jeff |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 04 April 2001 - 08:27 pm | |
Rosemary - I think you put a serious question somewhere back among the badinage; to wit, could 'Juwes' be the Hamitic peoples and Jews the Semitic. According to my encyclopaedia, 'Hamitic' refers to language groups found east of the Nile and across North Africa - thus I'd have thought ruling out the Canaanites. This concurs with my own impression that the term Hamitic derives from the old myth - legend - tradition - call it what you will - that Noah's son Ham was the ancestor of black races (who were thus condemned to slavery as 'hewers of wood and drawers of water' because of Ham's sin in laughing at his father's drunken nakedness). I don't think there is any recorded use of 'Juwes' to mean an ethnic or language group at all, except that the Goulston Street graffito writer may be assumed to have meant 'Jews'.
But maybe I'm just being completely obtuse again, and have misunderstood another of your jokes. In which case, just have a good laugh at the silly old fossil, and get back to Jeff's discussion of Eggs Benedict.
Martin Fido |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 05 April 2001 - 06:31 am | |
Dear Martin,
Hm...N Cyclopeadi Panoptis. Another likely suspect
from Babylon?
Rosemary:-) |
