A Job For Jack ?

[Howard Brown]

I just saw a post made by Magpie on Casebook regarding the possibility or plausibility that the Ripper may have gained employment during October ( remembering it was another 41 days before the Nov. 9th massacre ) and because of this possible employment....a job that satiated the Ripper,like maybe as an assistant shochet...it worked like methadone on a heroin addict.

What does anyone else think about this idea?

:thumbsupbud: Good idea Magpie..

[Magpie]

I just saw a post made by Magpie on Casebook regarding the possibility or plausibility that the Ripper may have gained employment during October ( remembering it was another 41 days before the Nov. 9th massacre ) and because of this possible employment....a job that satiated the Ripper,like maybe as an assistant shochet...it worked like methadone on a heroin addict.

What does anyone else think about this idea?

:thumbsupbud: Good idea Magpie..

Hi How:)

I actually meant it as a possible reason for him stopping after Kelly, but yes, it would also be a valid hypothesis for the absence of attacks in October, with the loss of that outlet resulting in Kelly's murder.

[tel]

I'm not fully convinced, but it is possible. After all, Christie quit his job before he went into his final, frenzied spiral - presumably because work would have interferred.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Magpie:

Thanks for the correction. Sorry to misinterpret your words.

Both scenarios could be possible....

Good idea by the way :thumbsupbud:

[Magpie]

Dear Magpie:

Thanks for the correction. Sorry to misinterpret your words.

Both scenarios could be possible....

Good idea by the way :thumbsupbud:

Thanks How:)

And you didn't really misinterpret my words, you extrapolated them into a new situation, and they fit this fine.

Personally though I think that Jack was active in October--just not successful. I think that police and press activity, combined with heightened awareness among the public and increased caution by the prostitutes he hunted led to a dearth of victims willing to take a risk with him.

But it's still possible that he was honing (no pun intended) his throat slicing skills in a local abattoir or knackers yard.

:)

[Howard Brown]

Thats a disturbing thought,ain't it Magpie?

Jack finds employment with Uncle Shlomo O'Flaherty...working 6 AM to 6 PM chopping up kosher chicken and settling down. Oy vey !!

His lust for blood satiated enough for him to not do it to women again.

He fades away into oblivion....and we sit here like a couple of schtupkopfs....

It ain't right somehow,no how,isn't it?:cry:

[Magpie]

Thats a disturbing thought,ain't it Magpie?

Jack finds employment with Uncle Shlomo O'Flaherty...working 6 AM to 6 PM chopping up kosher chicken and settling down. Oy vey !!

His lust for blood satiated enough for him to not do it to women again.

He fades away into oblivion....and we sit here like a couple of schtupkopfs....

It ain't right somehow,no how,isn't it?:cry:

Could be worse--he coulda been a moyle!

Oy Vey!!!

:eek:

[Howard Brown]

Magpie:

Oy vey is right,my man....:thumbsupbud:

Out of curiosity....how much thought have you given the idea of a practicing shochet or one who trained as a shochet...possibly having something to do with the crimes?

I talked with Robin Odell,who for the record, leans toward the idea of a shochet being the murderer, at the Baltimore convention. A more approachable guy ( especially when you schmooze him with a free beer...:rolleyes: ) you never met.

He makes no soapbox speeches for his idea and is rather subdued in the way he elaborates on the notion of a shochet.

You know,Magpie....some people...maybe a lot of people....have stood behind Robert Anderson's comments about someone "hiding one of their own from Gentile justice" and constructed theories about the identity of the Ripper based on an ethnic group/immediate family being the harborers of the Ripper. In this case,its the newly arrived Jews although a lot of Irish may have been reluctant to do the same.

Moving along....has anyone ever contemplated that a business/profession harbored one of their own ? In this case,a shochet with connections...not necessarily known to the head Rabbi but with the concomitant hoopla that would explode over one of the local shochets being involved,subordinate shochets keeping it under wraps.

To me,it makes as much,if not more,sense for an already established and profitable business to indulge in a cover up than a poor,prole family to do so. Life was hard enough for the struggling prole family....and in their case,they could not lose what they never had.

In the case of a profitable,functioning business....there definitely was more to lose.

What do you ( or anyone else ) think ?

[Magpie]

Out of curiosity....how much thought have you given the idea of a practicing shochet or one who trained as a shochet...possibly having something to do with the crimes?


I talked with Robin Odell,who for the record, leans toward the idea of a shochet being the murderer, at the Baltimore convention. A more approachable guy ( especially when you schmooze him with a free beer...:rolleyes: ) you never met.

I read Mr Odell's book years and years ago, and I like his style, and I like the philosophy behind his approach. I'm not sure what new research he has backing up his theory, but I'm not convinced for 3 major reasons (and 1 minor one):

1) Any argument toward skill that applies to a schochet can also be applied to a slaughterman, knackerman, or butcher. There's no need to add that extra dimension to Jack's profession--there's certainly nothing about the crimes themselves that points to a schochet.

2) A schochet is more than just job of work, as I understand it. It's a religious undertaking. Jews take blood very seriously--the blood of a murdered prostitute would render him unclean. There is no possible way that the Jewish community would allow him to continue to perform his duties if they'd known what he did, and it is inconceivable that rumours and gossip would not spread if a schochet was suddenly forbidden to practice his duty at that time.

3) It's based too much on Anderson. Anderson, for all his "I'm not an antisemite" posturing, displays an obvious prejudice (if not necessarily hatred) for the Jews. His comments are based on the then-common belief that the Jews did not see themselves as bound by the laws of the country in which they reside.

and the minor one (which came to me recently): Part of the schochet's job was to ensure a slit an animals throat with a single, perfect stroke severing everything down to the bone and causing instant, painless death. Jack however, took two cuts with all by Stride, and failed to consistently severe both arteries and windpipe. That makes him a pretty sloppy schochet by any standard.



To me,it makes as much,if not more,sense for an already established and profitable business to indulge in a cover up than a poor,prole family to do so. Life was hard enough for the struggling prole family....and in their case,they could not lose what they never had.

In the case of a profitable,functioning business....there definitely was more to lose.

What do you ( or anyone else ) think ?

I think this is a very intriguing idea that is worth exploring more, How.

[Howard Brown]

Magpie:

Its funny because the other thread under "Motives" that you recently inaugarated ( Jack The Wannabe )sort of sums up my current opinion on the subject of a shochet-as-Ripper.....

While your arguments about Anderson get zero argument from me....the possibility of a failed or prospective shochet come to mind. A wannabe in the chicken-killing world whose work wasn't kosher.

Just because its desired that the throat is cut only once and cleanly,doesn't really mean that those attempts that may have taken just a little extra slicing by a new shochet didn't occur. It might be true to say that a new or budding shochet would avoid getting an old hand to inspect his work,since it may bear weight on his future in that field.

But nevertheless,you're right about the shochet....the day to day and experienced shochet with years behind him.....dispatching animals with one swift stroke.

So...maybe your "wannabe" thread might overlap here and take into consideration someone who wanted to be a shochet...but for one reason or the other...didn't.

[Magpie]

[QUOTE=How Brown]Magpie:

Its funny because the other thread under "Motives" that you recently inaugarated ( Jack The Wannabe )sort of sums up my current opinion on the subject of a shochet-as-Ripper.....

While your arguments about Anderson get zero argument from me....the possibility of a failed or prospective shochet come to mind. A wannabe in the chicken-killing world whose work wasn't kosher.

QUOTE]

Hi How.

Maybe the Ripper was a unbalanced Jew for whom the schochet was a role model. Someone who, from a relatively young age, had seen schochets at work and come to meld the two aspects of the schochet(a man who was at once a holy man and a killer) in a perverse way.

It's not uncommon for the feeble-minded to act out on religious themes in horrifyingly literal ways, after all (a trait common to all religions)

[Howard Brown]

Exactly,Magpie....

In fact the appearance of ritual in the crimes may be the manifestation of this imbalanced mind who was inspired/influenced by those who did it for a living,not mayhem. Shechita is definitely ritual based....and a disturbed apprentice may have applied some of it while carving up the victims.

Of course,we could add your "failed doctor" or "slaughterman" to this list of types.

[Magpie]

True How.

I'd agree that the greatest benefit of the schochet/pseudoshochet --aside from the fact that it satisfied Victorian London's desire for the murderer to be a "foreigner"-- is that it provides a killer for whom the obvious ritualism of the crimes would be a natural.

[Howard Brown]

Yes sir...

The fact that the killer could utilize a discipline that he otherwise lacked in real life....and here,only in murder....may have been at work.

Such disciplines would include the drills of a prospective doctor,shochet,or surgeon.