The Police Vs. The People: Discussion

[How Brown]

Forum for discussing the relationship between the Police and the people during the Autumn of Terror.
I expect A.P. to come over shortly. We disagree in several areas regarding the interaction of the community and constabulary and hope that all parties with any interest at all will participate.

My position is that the police performed well under the circumstances and had there been the level of tension between any of the ethnic communities and the Police, then newspapers geared to the special interests of those communities would have mentioned it.

I leave the floor to A.P. who I imagine would like to express his views before we engage.

[How Brown]

All articles which anyone may find and wish to contribute to the thread should be from 1888 and up to 1894 ( Or if it relates to the WM, the people and the police... and is after 1894, put it up). I wanted to mention this before irrelevant articles were put up for discussion.

[How Brown]

One issue for discussion, if anyone cared to...

That the police, who A.P. has accused on several occasions recently of being less than civil to the foreign community, prevented serious problems in the East End from occurring with tact.... and that people may be inclined to believe the opposite if they read the lurid misrepresentations of police-community relations as supplied by our colleague Mr. Wolf....who sees anti-Semites and police bullies around every nook and cranny of Whitechapel.

[How Brown]

If anyone can provide the following....... ( I do not have access to several newspapers of the day...and in the last discussion A.P. and I had, I relied on the ones I do have access to and within those papers, I found nothing on the issue of blood libel. A.P. kindly and satisfactorily proved by providing a handful of articles on the issue of blood libel that some made it into print) for discussion here:

*** Evidence of an event where the police acted outside normal protocol and procedure to anyone of foreign birth. Setting aside the Berner Street brouhaha and dustup, where some of those involved may have been native-born as well as foreigners and which was clearly not caused by the police, but rather by citizen vs. citizen.

*** Evidence within police documents or other documentation that clearly show examples of anti-foreigner activities being tolerated and acceptable....such as knocking down doors to query suspects or other parties of foreign birth.

*** Evidence of police mistreatment of anyone involved in the WM investigation as either a witness, bystander, or potential suspect. Be mindful I said "police mistreatment"...and not what the papers stated about Pizer or Leather Apron.

*** Evidence of foreigners being hospitalized, beaten, had their rights suspended or any other serious incident which was a direct result of the person involved being of foreign birth.

This should be fun .....

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho

I see that we have Politicians vs people and Police Vs people....

What we need is Press Vs People.......for it could be contended that no more than pig flu, mobile phone radiation, Satanic child abuse, bird flu, asteroid collisions etc etc etc..........the people were more a victim of the press than either the aforementioned "P's".

I dont see the politicians or police milking the fear of the people to any greater extent than was required whereas the press were.

And, I still contend that the people, and one in particular, were the direct victims of the press and their machinations in that Kelly can be argued as having reaped the whirlwind of the presses hysteric and inaccurate descriptions of the crimes......... that should stir up SamF if nothing else.

p

[A.P. Wolf]

How, my off-the-wall opinion is that this thing is bigger than both of us; and that you cannot view the newly arrived East End Jew of the 1880's in the splendid isolation that you seem to enjoy; for he was not but just a Jew, the powers that be, including the Metropolitan Police saw him as a dangerous and menacing anarchist, as this summary of an article demonstrates:

'
In the decades before the First World War, London worried about anarchist outrages, and particularly, about Jews said to instigate them. Jewish anarchists were rumoured to have been responsible for the 'ripper' murders in Whitechapel (1888), an attempt to blow up the Royal Observatory at Greenwich Park (1894), and the Houndsditsch murders/Sidney Street affray (1911). Jews were a visible population in the East End, and editors, MPs, and police authorities offered Jewishness to explain the 'who' and 'why' of anarchist violence. Jews were also thought to have the capacity to become invisible, 'outsiders' who could pass for 'insiders'. In the radical press, and fictionalised accounts such as Conrad's The Secret Agent, the image of the Jewish anarchist became that of the agent provocateur paid by police to infiltrate and undermine the movement. Jews were said to operate behind-the-scenes, manipulating the economy and political structure.'

I will post the link to the article shortly.

[A.P. Wolf]

'ere we go:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p205051_index.html

[Currerbell]

Sorry to go slightly off topic, but I imagine it was the same as it is now, the police in England do a good job and try help everyone regardless of colour, race, religion etc, is not their job to discrimate on who they help or arrest, its based on the crime or situation...BUT, there are still people who are very paranoid and racist and you hear some citizens say along the lines of 'its only cause Im black etc etc' as to the reason they are being arrested...or if a foreign persons house has been broken into...'oh you would have been quicker if I was white'....works both ways and sometimes the police cannot win.

Now, Im not being racist and its hard to explain something that you see happening and read about in the papers without looking racist yourself, Yorkshire is a very multi racial/ethnic etc which is great, but when it comes to the police there is a minority that use the race card to get off crime and or be seen as the 'victim'...this is public knowledge, not my opinion.

I do wonder if that happened in the East End in 1888, some may have seen the police has only helping 'their own' and just have been paranoid or against the police as people are now...its like an 'us versus them' situation.

I do believe there was the GSG episode where the grafitti was removed, to prevent any anger/hostility etc etc, by the police which in my opinion, if thats why they removed it, then seems a positive one. It shows tact as How mentions earlier...


So what Im saying is it was the people not the police that had the problem...I agree with How, from what I have read the police in 1888 did all they can under extremly difficult circumstances to try catch the killer.

[How Brown]

Lars we have a new Forum for that...the Press vs. the Police.

A.P.

We can sit here all year like we did on the libel thread....you pointing out how beleagured Jews were supposed be in 1888 and me repeating the same tired line..."Well if it was so bad in Blighty, why did the Jews flock to that new Moscow ?"

I'd prefer to see tangible material with references to actions not thoughts on the subject...at least that was the intention of the thread,

[How Brown]

A.P.

Where is reference material on the authorities being concerned with anarchists in 1888 relative to the WM as in the police theorized that anarchists may have been behind those murders ? Please supply them...

I can bring up material such as this from Winnie in 1920 :

The Illustrated Sunday Herald
February 8th 1920
ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM
A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE
By the Re. Hon. WINSTON S. CHURCHILL

International Jews.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
Terrorist Jews.
There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin*** the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek -- all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.


*** Lenin, A.P., in the years following this commentary by Churchill, has been found to have been 1/4 Tatar, 1/4 Russian, 1/4 German and 1/4 Jewish.
__________________________________________________ ___

...and yet that is not the point of the thread.

Lets stick to police actions germane to 1888 and refrain from going on our individual tangents....

Start by providing any available references in Jewish papers such as the Chronicle or even continental papers on police treatment of foreigners....ANY groups of foreigners....not just those who happen to be Jews.

[How Brown]

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=88292#post88292

There you go Lars...

[How Brown]

A.P.:

I'll save you the effort.

Without fail, ANY reference you find in the immediate future will not mention Jews specifically being "mistreated" by the police....but anarchist Jews....two entirely different matters altogether...

.....unless you contend that all Jews were anarchists.

[Roy Corduroy]

My position is that the police performed well under the circumstances...

And I agree.

Copy and paste :typing:

The police in 1888 did everything in their power to tamp down the prejudicial aspects of the crime spree. They stepped in to stop a riot against Jews. They encouraged Jews to move along at crimes scenes lest they become targets of abuse. They erased the graffito which contained the word Juwes. They did not have Israel Schwartz testify, with his account of the cry of "Lipski." And the centerpiece of their effort was to publicly clear John Pizer.

Forum members, the ball is in your court.

Roy :pop2:

[A.P. Wolf]

I don't think I ever questioned the 'performance' of the Metropolitan Police Force in regard to their investigations into the Whitechapel Murders... but what I did do was to question their sentiment and judgement in regard to the recetly arrived Jewish population of Whitechapel; and those recently arrived Jews relationship and connection to the Whitechapel Murders.
In that at the time of the crimes it was a popular expression of sentiment on the part of the police, press and local populace to lay the blame for the terrible murders on that recently arrived Jewish population.
Whether this transferred itself to actual incidents of racial or religious intolerance from the police to the recently arrived Jewish population is I think incidental to the argument we tire ourselves with here; for it is patently self evident that such deep rooted prejudice and animosity was inherent in the Metropolitan Police Force from the plethora of statements made long after the events of which we speak by the most senior police officers of that force where they all - with one brave exception who blamed a homosexual for no other good reason than the man was a homosexual - blamed a recently arrived Jewish immigrant for the murders, when there was not a shred of evidence to indicate that this was the case. They looked no further than a long nose.

[Scott Nelson]

Pizer was cleared because he had an air-tight alibi. Some police officials expressed regrets after the GSG was erased. There is no documented reason why Schwartz didn't testify at the Stride inquest. There are no surviving police reports that say that the Jews, in particular, were encouraged to leave crime scenes.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Scott,

Pizer was cleared because he had an air-tight alibi. True, but they could have done that at the police station. Instead a public show was made.
Some police officials expressed regrets after the GSG was erased.
True again, but their interest was evidentiary. Those officers who objected weren't out to target a group with it, that I know of.

There is no documented reason why Schwartz didn't testify at the Stride inquest.
True again, I just tossed in my own interpetation.

There are no surviving police reports that say that the Jews, in particular, were encouraged to leave crime scenes

Okay, I'll accept that. I don't know if the press reported it or not. It's something I read in James Tully's book, and he didn't use footnotes.

Roy

[A.P. Wolf]

Doing well with the urban myths there Roy, that must have been at least four you created there. Well done old bean.
And well done Scott for scottching 'em.

[How Brown]

I don't think I ever questioned the 'performance' of the Metropolitan Police Force in regard to their investigations into the Whitechapel Murders... but what I did do was to question their sentiment and judgement in regard to the recetly arrived Jewish population of Whitechapel; and those recently arrived Jews relationship and connection to the Whitechapel Murders.


In that at the time of the crimes it was a popular expression of sentiment on the part of the police, press and local populace to lay the blame for the terrible murders on that recently arrived Jewish population.
Whether this transferred itself to actual incidents of racial or religious intolerance from the police to the recently arrived Jewish population is I think incidental to the argument we tire ourselves with here...

... for it is patently self evident that such deep rooted prejudice and animosity was inherent in the Metropolitan Police Force from the plethora of statements made long after the events of which we speak by the most senior police officers of that force where they all - with one brave exception who blamed a homosexual for no other good reason than the man was a homosexual - blamed a recently arrived Jewish immigrant for the murders, when there was not a shred of evidence to indicate that this was the case. They looked no further than a long nose.
**********************************

If you're tired, then bail out. I'm going to take you to task every day until we get this sorted out, since your take on the issue requires us to assume concepts which are your ideological views, not born of the facts....

....and the facts are that no one...especially someone who has been saying this for years now.... can pinpoint one incident that demonstrates that the Met Police or The City Police conducted themselves in the way you want them to appear....that being in league to randomly and without provocation, select a Jew for these crimes. Of the hundreds of men who were suspected and detained, there's no doubt that many were not Jewish....



You are oversimplifying the situation A.P.

Anderson and just who else are in this "plethora" that exuded anti-foreigner sentiments in their post-police writings ? Even Anderson cannot be considered an anti-Semite. I say he was an elitist, in that he appears to have been comfortable in the company of assimilated and non-prole Jews. Yet, I'll admit that that is just a personal view.

Pinning the blame on Kosminski was anti-Semitic ? Where "they all" pinned the blame on Kosminski ? For God's sakes A.P..... what about Abberline,Moore,Monro,Macnaghten,Littlechild,Arnol d,....none opted for the Polish Jew.

WHO are the "they all" A.P. ?

On second thought... it is tiring having to go back and point this remedial stuff out. Are we talking about the Whitechapel Murders ?

[How Brown]

A.P.

Old bean, instead of concentrating on new points of view, try answering me when I show you your "mistakes", unless you're saying what you do to try and make me go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth.....its the decent thing to do. Thank you...

So far, you've now brought up the idea that the Press AND the Police departments both were desirous of fingering a Jewish man for these crimes. Thats one hell of a conspiracy since the Press were in the Police's ass for the most part, not their pocket.

So far, you're on record as saying that the "Old Jews", the momsers from way back, were in Parliament supporting the Warren led police, which you state was anti-Semitic.

So far, you've brought up fistfights and made pogroms outta them. Lets be real man.

You've got every police official except Littlechild ( In all honesty, are we certain that Tumblety was pinched for being a poof or perhaps for some other reason ? Again...another idea, not concrete fact, on your part....) opting for the Polish Jew. Who are "they all" ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

It seems you've really got a wasp up your arse about the LVP cops NOT being anti-Semitic.

Why?

Anti-Semitism was [and still is] institutionalized. It's a subtle [and sometimes not so subtle] thing. Sixty years after JtR my experience in growing up during the 1950s with an "uncle" who was a high-ranking Scotland Yard detective was that the cops were in the vanguard of anti-Semitism. I grew up with "Jew-boys", "Yids", the "Kosher Nostra", Jaguar cars being the "Jew-boy's Rolls Royce" etc etc . . .

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

What is rather interesting is that so many "outsiders" seem to have ended up as suspects, whether official or otherwise, by the police or the public at large - Americans, Eastern European immigrants (or descendant thereof), or visitors to the East End of the middle and upper classes. In stark contrast, one could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of working-class Englishmen (especially Cockneys) that regularly get talked about on these boards, in the literature, and indeed in what remains of the contemporary records.

Why on earth should this be?

[Simon Wood]

A stellar observation, Sam.

[How Brown]

Simon:

No bee up this WASP's ass...just that police conduct and police thought....are two different things.
You can help A.P. out in the search if you care to. He needs the help.

Happy hunting

Good point Sam...I almost forgot to thank you for that myself....

Many of those weren't Jews either....and please point that out to A.P.

[How Brown]

Simon:

I also forgot to say, since you apparently didn't read the post I made elsewhere on a goal I would like see on the boards if at all possible.

I dig A.P. and he knows this isn't personal. Its about accountability. If A.P. thinks otherwise, I owe him a pie in the face:caked:

When he or anyone else make sweeping generalizations...like I did Simon about the absence of written articles on blood libel in which I was shown to be in error... when it comes to the street scene in 1888, its a goal to remove those misconceptions and so far, A.P. is batting 2 for 2.

First he claims the police were anti-Semitic. I'm sure many Jews were anti-Semitic too. Thats not the issue. It never was and never will be.

The issue is whether the police mistreated individuals who happened to be foreigners simply because they were foreign...and lets be frank, it would have mentioned it in their newspapers and ....but mysteriously no trace of that has been found yet.

I consider it a victory if someone DOES find mention of a reference to some mistreatment based on ethnicity. I likewise consider it a victory if no one does. I'm not competing against A.P.....but just doing my share in working towards a more accurate representation of what was and what wasn't back in the day....and essentially combating A.P.'s way of thinking that everyone had it in for the Jews or foreigners....

I'm also going to bring up a thread later on discussing "who had it roughest" in the East End. It should be a good 'un since A.P. makes Spitalfields sound like Sobibor.

As Sammy mentioned the inordinate amount of suspects from outside the area, I want to touch on the lodging house situation and try to gauge which ethnic groups seemed to depend on them more....in other words, is it possible that Jews had it a little better than their non-Jewish neighbors....I think there are lists of people who lived in those facilities available, if not here then elsewhere....

In addition....there are few references to Jewish prostitutes in the area, despite the fact that the majority of people were Jews. Jews, according to the Pall Mall Gazette ( I'll go find that article...it was in the time period of 1888-1890), were the most prominent ( read: pimps...like our boy Joe Lis) in continental prostitution. Yet, we come up with bupkis when the East End's Jewish prosses are looked for in the WM literature.....


We've only just started Simon and thanks for tossing your hat in the ring.

[How Brown]

Bump Up

Where ya at A.P. ?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

I have no particular axe to grind on this subject, but I found the following book illuminating, especially Chapter 15. It's title is "The Alien Immigrant" and was written around 1902 following a Royal Commission into the subject of the title.

Throughout the book one gets glimpses of an underlying xenophobia in LVP London.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9fFIAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22The+Alien+Immigrant%22&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=s2anLqHUaE&sig=3LZ3K4BGrlDU8Zv7M-beAg6I0F0&hl=en&ei=zV4FS6OMGJLSMum86cEK&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Regards,

Simon

[Chris G.]

What is rather interesting is that so many "outsiders" seem to have ended up as suspects, whether official or otherwise, by the police or the public at large - Americans, Eastern European immigrants (or descendant thereof), or visitors to the East End of the middle and upper classes. In stark contrast, one could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of working-class Englishmen (especially Cockneys) that regularly get talked about on these boards, in the literature, and indeed in what remains of the contemporary records.

Why on earth should this be?

Hello Sam

Frankly, I think we notice these geezers more because they are outsiders. But then the East End was full of immigrants and other visitors from outside, so for some of them to be suspects is not surprising. Sorry, quite the converse of your statement, I do think though that there are loads of "white bread" suspects that are talked about, e.g., Joe Barnett, George Hutchinson, Michael Kidney, sailor John Anderson, Dick Austin, Thomas James Sadler, James Kelly, Frederick Bailey Deeming, William Bury, Robert Mann, John McCarthy, Charles Cross, James Hardiman, unknown slaughterer, unknown sailor, etc., etc. Check out the named suspects in Christopher J. Morley's fine Jack the Ripper: A Suspect Guide (http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/index.html).

C

[A.P. Wolf]

How, you'll find that there were a good number of Jewish prostitutes in the East End of London; and this was commented on at the time, with a nod and wink you'll understand, that no Jewish prostitutes were slaughtered.
Ergo, the killer must have been a Jew.
Actually the situation was far simpler than that, for the Jewish prostitutes were far more highly organised than their Christian counterparts, and certainly less addicted to alcohol, and they rapidly moved from the lodging houses of the East End to the more expensive and lavish brothels of the West End.
And, as we think we know, Jack was an East End boy.

On a more general note, as I'm sure I've already said, it is difficult to find records of minor crimes and misdemeanours in the LVP, simply because many of them would never have reached court, and or the press. Back then in the LVP, racially motivated incidents in which a serious assault was not involved would not have had a mention... as they certainly would today. But I think it fair to say that there is a very well recorded academic and historical perspective to such racial intolerance and discrimination in the Metropolitan Police Force, reaching from the inception of the force - throughout the entire LVP - and travelling right up to today.
And much of that was directed against the newly arrived Jewish population, sometimes in a subtle fashion, and then obviously it remains unrecorded, but then sometimes as in the incident we saw in Berner Street where, to me anyway, the police went in just to knock a few Jewish heads around... and you may say that the police were beating the heads of anarchists firstly, and only secondly Jews, but my dear chap there are other raids on other anarchist clubs in London from the same years, and in those raids the police knock on the doors and announce 'sorry chaps we have come to arrest the lot of you, line up here chaps and we'll ferry you to the station in a fleet of hansoms, nice cup of tea waiting for you when you arrive'... why did they not go in as in Berner Street, kicking down doors, battering folks and kicking folks, folks that included women who they later intentionally kept out of court as they knew the magistrate would not look kindly on a woman being beaten, whether she was Jewish or not... why? What was the difference?
The difference was that those anarchists were not Jews.

And come, come, How, we know that more than one senior officer fingered a Jew as the killer.

[Roy Corduroy]

Forum for discussing the relationship between the Police and the people during the Autumn of Terror.

Face it Howie, nobody wants to discuss that. :smash:

They want to discuss anything BUT that.

Roy

[Chris G.]

Forum for discussing the relationship between the Police and the people during the Autumn of Terror.

My London Conference talk, shortly to appear in Ripperologist 109A (December), while not as such wholly on the Bloody Autumn of 1888, touches on the relationship between the Metropolitan Police and the people earlier before MJK and up to MacKenzie, in the expanded paper, "From Kelly to MacKenzie: Police Activity in late 1888 and the First Seven Months of 1889."

Chris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

You're spot-on. And for a very good reason. Namely that there was no relationship between the police and public during the Autumn of Terror. You only have to read the newspapers to realise that.

The Star, 10th September 1888—

"They [the police] treat the reporters of the newspapers, who are simply news-gatherers for the great mass of the people, with a snobbery that would be beneath contempt were it not senseless to an almost criminal degree. On Saturday they shut the reporters out of the mortuary; they shut them out of the house where the murder was done; the constable at the mortuary door lied to them; some of the inspectors at the offices seemed to wilfully mislead them; they denied information which would have done no harm to make public, and the withholding of which only tended to increase the public uneasiness over the affair."

The police told the public via the press [the LVP's only media outlet] exactly what they wanted them to hear. And that included a BS story of the GSG being about Juwes, and a DBS story about someone called George Hutchinson.

But I digress . . .

Regards,

Simon

[Chris G.]

"On Saturday they shut the reporters out of the mortuary; they shut them out of the house where the murder was done; the constable at the mortuary door lied to them; . . ."

Mann, oh, Mann! :playball:

C

[How Brown]

Thanks for the information Simon...I'll check that out.

Your snippet in your last post is appreciated. However....this thread is not focusing on the relationship between the police and press...there will be a thread on that thanks to your influence....

I would be very hesitant to accept the Star's version of events ( Coming on the heels of the Chapman murder and following the buildup of the Leather Apron scare encouraged and exacerbated by the press ) since the police have the option of what to reveal and what not to reveal...and considering the trouble that emerged from the press exacerbated Leather Apron story, its no wonder they "shut out" newspaper reporters on occasion or often.

This, while obviously not settling well with the Star, in this instance as you have provided, would naturally give the newspapers the option & opportunity to explain to the readership why the murders ( up to that point ) were not being fully disclosed. I can't blame the police. I understand the reaction of the press.

A.P...

There's no correlation whatsover with Jewish or non Jewish prostitutes who were working out of the still open bordellos....at least the ones that Charrington hadn't yet been instrumental in getting closed down....and the street prostitutes...none of whom were Jewesses.

Needless to say but I'll say it anyway....at the time of the murders, no one knew for certain what class of woman would inevitably be the only sort that the Ripper murdered.....no one. No one had a clue as to who was going to get it next if indeed any women were going to get it next....and that obviously extends to ethnicity and age.

Therefore the "ergo, Jack was a Jew" comment you offered is not applicable to 1888. Its your preconcieved notion that people would think that way at the time because you think that way now. Flawed logic my man....flawed logic.

I asked you to name ( Swanson is another, besides the obvious SRA ) that group you refer to as "they all"....which you mentioned a while back that believed in the Polish Jew theory. Please do so now.

It is also obvious that the difference between the skirmish on Berner Street and any other police/anarchist meetings was that in the Berner Street incident....Jews fought with Jews....The police went to enter the IWEMC....got resistance....and the matter was taken to court. You make it look like the Alamo or something buddy....it wasn't.

If the street non-socialist Jews had not gone to Berner Street, the police would not have gone to break up the fracas. This obviously is the difference.

[Natalie Severn]

Well How,one thing is a recorded fact and that is that "Major" later "Sir" Henry Smith, Acting City Chief Commissioner of Police at the time,and more significantly was actually" there at the time"----,indeed in Mitre Square on the night of the double event answering the call of duty at 3 am! Yes he did all this while Anderson was "convalescing "in Paris.........


Anyway Sir Major Smith most definitely and for certain sure believed Anderson 'had it in for"---- "low class Jews",-----and with no shadow of proof or justification for thinking so whatsoever! Moreover,he said so loud and clear in his autobiography of 1910 which came out exactly the same year as Sir Robert Anderson"s autobiography.

George Sims,Macnaghten"s buddy, made a very similar point in one of his essays.

[How Brown]

Dear Nats :

Thats the reason why I wanted A.P. to provide the " they all except one official " I maintain A.P. has it backwards.

Anderson and Swanson did. Other than those two, who else opted for the Polish Jewish suspect ?

Thanks for pointing out what you did Nats.

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry, quite the converse of your statement, I do think though that there are loads of "white bread" suspects that are talked about, e.g., Joe Barnett, George Hutchinson, Michael Kidney, sailor John Anderson, Dick Austin, Thomas James Sadler, James Kelly, Frederick Bailey Deeming, William Bury, Robert Mann, John McCarthy, Charles Cross, James Hardiman, unknown slaughterer, unknown sailor, etc., etc. Check out the named suspects in Christopher J. Morley's fine Jack the Ripper: A Suspect Guide (http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/cjmorley/index.html).
I did, Chris, and by looking at only about half of the table of contents, eliminating the self-confessed drunks/mentally ill, the spuriously accused/fit-ups and the frankly ridiculous (i.e. the "ape"), we're left with a ratio of 80 outsiders* to 20 local men of the English working-class. This remarkable 80/20 split in favour of "outsiders" is an almost complete reversal of what one might expect from even a cursory consideration of criminal history, and it represents one heck of a bias towards the exotic over the mundane, if you ask me.


* NOTE: For the purpose of this exercise, I defined "outsiders" as those living well outside London itself, those of the middle/upper classes, American/European immigrants, Jews (whether London born or immigrant) and women.

I could have included James Kelly, William Bury and Londoners from outside the Ripper's immediate "catchment area" as "outsiders" for various reasons, but chose not to. Not least because I'm a kindly sort, and frankly the "local English working-class males" list needed all the help it could get.

[Chris G.]

I did, Chris, and by looking at only about half of the table of contents, eliminating the self-confessed drunks/mentally ill, the spuriously accused/fit-ups and the frankly ridiculous (i.e. the "ape"), we're left with a ratio of 80 outsiders* to 20 local men of the English working-class. This remarkable 80/20 split in favour of "outsiders" is an almost complete reversal of what one might expect from even a cursory consideration of criminal history, and it represents one heck of a bias towards the exotic over the mundane, if you ask me.

Aye, Gareth, even if there are tens of thousands of eligible Jewish males in the East End at the time? And thousands of other assorted non-British elements?

C

[Pilgrim]

...Serial killers who travel long distances tend to carry out consecutive crimes closer together than alternate crimes, but for those who travel shorter distances, it is the alternate crimes that tend to be closer than the consecutive crimes. (Lundigan, Canter. 2001) This implies that when travelling larger distances there is more of a tendency to focus intensely on a given area, as a commuter does, rather than spread out over a particular area, as appears to be more typical of marauders.

David Canter, Donna Youngs; Principles of geographical offender profiling, pp. 9, 11. (http://books.google.no/books?id=_nniXUch94MC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=david+canter+commuters&source=bl&ots=rEqFwvDQt0&sig=aRCzWcEoSxf8IoEyC-avCZYCDhw&hl=no&ei=pXPkSb-lJ8HC-Aawk9iPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA9,M1) (2008)


The offenders who are travelling offenders, operating over different sorts of structures and routes from the marauders, are the ones that we need to explore much further, and indeed one of the big research questions at the moment is whether there is anything we can tell from the pattern of the crimes that will allow us to know whether or not the offender is a commuter or a marauder. We are still studying various possibilities of how we may be able to tell that, and part of that we are doing by exploring the various strategies that different offenders use.

Ibid., p.212.


As Gabor and Gottheil (1984) report for Ottawa, quite different crimes, such as sex offences, robbery, or even auto theft are quite often carried out within the same overall range of distances that are found for burglary. The only crimes that typically appear to be carried out at much longer distances from home are serial murders and serial stranger rapes. Canter et al. (2000) report a mean distance of 46 kilometres for US serial killers, for example. Similarly, Warren et al. (2001) give a mean of 23 kilometres for US serial rapists.

David Canter, Donna Youngs; Applications of Geographical Offender Profiling, p.4. (http://books.google.no/books?id=F3Ha4Lk_zF4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Canter#PPT19,M1) (2008)

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/BrowserInsight202.jpg~~~

[Sam Flynn]

Aye, Gareth, even if there are tens of thousands of eligible Jewish males in the East End at the time? And thousands of other assorted non-British elements?
A fair number of the 80 "suspects" I looked at were nowhere near the East End at the time, Chris, and only 7 out of 100 were Jewish. The biggest group by far comprised doctors and what one might loosely call "toffs" (celebrities, royalty, clergy).

As I say, a bias towards the exotic over the mundane.

[Sam Flynn]

Canter et al. (2000) report a mean distance of 46 kilometres for US serial killers, for example.Show me a Late Victorian serial killer who worked over a mean distance of 46 kilometres, and I'll show you a Late Victorian man with paper-thin leather on the soles of his boots.

It's always dangerous to apply modern-day "profiling" to the slums of 1880s London without taking into account 120+ years of social and technological change.

[How Brown]

7 % of the named suspects were Jewish,eh Sam ? Thanks for that.

What have ye to say about those numbers A.P.?

Because I know sure as heck that had those numbers said 77 percent, I'd have already read something from someone on that ratio.

Looks like contemporary Jews are underrepresented to me....anyone else?

[How Brown]

Sammy:

Give me a hand on this if you would since I have to go do some Photbucketing......

A list of those who were Jews that were suspected by the authorities...either in 1888 up until 1895...or just before the 20th century.

1. Kosminski...
2. Pizer....only until after the Chapman murder.
3. Ostrog... For reason or reasons unknown.
4. Joe Isaacs...but not for long...






Hmmm...Hyams wasn't considered a contemporary suspect . Cohen wasn't mentioned until Martin Fido. Lis may have been a vile bastard and pimp, but he hasn't been placed in the East End in 1888 yet.

[Sam Flynn]

7 % of the named suspects were Jewish,eh Sam ?
7% of that sample, How... which includes later, and non-police suspects, I should point out. The Jews still seem to form a minority of contemporary or near-contemporary suspects, though, as you suggest in your post immediately above this one.

[How Brown]

I also forgot to mention that despite the fact that there was a majority Jewish population living in the area...we have as many U.K. born suspects as we do Jewish....Tumblety,Bury,Deeming, Sadler....and the tie breaker...drumroll...is Pizer, who was born in Blighty. A rather not nice Jewish boy at any rate.

Christ, I'll have the Limeys and Micks on my back now...:tape2:...

Ready to accept that you're wrong A.P. ? Or do you want to continue pushing the idea that the police had it in for the Jews ?

So far....nothing to demonstrate that the Police violated the rights of Jewish Britons or singled them out....and I wish someone would find that damned reference in SPE/Begg's work on the decision Warren made not to search homes in the district in a shady sort of manner to stay within the boundaries of English law. Thats more evidence that under Warren, they had to follow the guidelines, not their likes or dislikes of Jews or foreigners.

Now on to the second sweeping generalization that I see has been made, old bean....that of your position that the Press was desirous of a Jewish Ripper.

Back to you A.P.

[Pilgrim]

Canter et al. (2000) report a mean distance of 46 kilometres for US serial killers, for example.

Show me a Late Victorian serial killer who worked over a mean distance of 46 kilometres, and I'll show you a Late Victorian man with paper-thin leather on the soles of his boots.

It's always dangerous to apply modern-day "profiling" to the slums of 1880s London without taking into account 120+ years of social and technological change.Contextomy

Contextomy refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as "quoting out of context". The problem here is not the removal of a quote from its original context (as all quotes are) per se, but to the quoter's decision to exclude from the excerpt certain nearby phrases or sentences (which become "context" by virtue of the exclusion) that serve to clarify the intentions behind the selected words. Comparing this practice to surgical excision, historian Milton Mayer coined the term "contextomy" to describe its use by Julius Streicher, editor of the infamous Nazi broadsheet Der Stürmer in Weimar-era Germany. To arouse anti-semitic sentiments among the weekly’s working class Christian readership, Streicher regularly published truncated quotations from Talmudic texts that, in their shortened form, appear to advocate greed, slavery, and ritualistic murder. Although rarely employed to this malicious extreme, contextomy is a common method of misrepresentation in contemporary mass media, and studies have demonstrated that the effects of this misrepresentation can linger even after the audience is exposed to the original, in context, quote.As Gabor and Gottheil (1984) report for Ottawa, quite different crimes, such as sex offences, robbery, or even auto theft are quite often carried out within the same overall range of distances that are found for burglary. The only crimes that typically appear to be carried out at much longer distances from home are serial murders and serial stranger rapes. Canter et al. (2000) report a mean distance of 46 kilometres for US serial killers, for example. Similarly, Warren et al. (2001) give a mean of 23 kilometres for US serial rapists.

David Canter, Donna Youngs; Applications of Geographical Offender Profiling, p.4. (http://books.google.no/books?id=F3Ha4Lk_zF4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Canter#PPT19,M1) (2008)~~~

Brief History of Walking

4 million years BC or thereabouts (subject to scientific and philosophical debate): Australopithecus afarensis begins the fad of two-legged walking, the defining trait of family Hominidae. Two-legged walking frees up the hands to use for making tools, tying shoes, etc.

8,000 - 10,000 years ago: North American natives make and wear sandals. Sling backs and slip-ons are the most popular styles.

100 AD: Emperor Hadrian tours his whole empire on foot, marching 21 miles a day in full armor. The measurement Mile = 1000 military paces, paces being two steps.

1589: Sir Robert Carey walks 300 miles from London to Berwick on a wager.

1600's: King Charles II of England racewalked from Whitehall to Hampton Court.

1762: John Hague walked 100 miles in 23 hours, 15 minutes.

1801 - 1803: Johann Gottfried Seume walks from Germany to Sicily and back, then from Germany to Russia, Finland and Sweden 1805-1807.

1809: Captain Robert Barclay walks 1000 miles in 1000 hours. The walk was done on a measured mile at Newmarket Heath, and was the subject of an estimated 100,000 wagers and before large crowds. He was the last Laird of Urie and noted for his many walks in the Scottish hills.

1864: Black Forest Wanderverein formed - now world's oldest surviving walking club.

1860-1903: the Pedestrian Age - walking is the leading sport in Europe and America. Big money comes to walking as long distance walkers earn more per race than today's basketball players, the equivalent of 100 years of salary of the day.

1861: Edward Payson Weston's, "the father of modern pedestrianism" has his first major walk. It occurred because he bet that President Lincoln would lose the 1860 election. Upon Lincon's win and Weston's loss, Weston walked from Boston to the inauguration in Washington DC.

1867: Weston walks from Portland, Maine to Chicago, Illinois (1326 miles) in 25 days, earning $10,000, the equivalent of a million dollars today.

1874: Weston walks 500 miles in six consecutive days. Daniel O'Leary breaks his record and becomes "Champion Pedestrian of the World." From these competitions, the Astley Belt Races are developed.

1877: Mary Marshall walks 50 miles in 12 hours.

1879: Charles Rowell earns $50,000 in two 6-day Astley Belt Races.

1879: First women's 6-day race is won by Bertha Von Berg, with a distance of 372 miles and $1000 purse.

http://www.drillpad.net/Photos/Trench%20Boot2.jpg (http://www.atthefront.com/g_boots_irons.htm)

See also:
Golden Age of Trains (http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=6335&highlight=golden+trains)
River Thames (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/NASA_NorthSea1.jpg)

~~~

[How Brown]

A.P.

Let me give you the defense's summation on the trial of the Foreign People vs The Police.

I beg to demonstrate ;

1. That Mr. Wolf, my buddy and the plaintiff, has not provided one example of police impropriety towards the foreign element of Whitechapel between the years 1888 to 1895 which can be corroborated by contemporary newspaper documentation or by not for publication materials such as official documents.

2. That despite Mr. Wolf's claims that the police, as well as the press, wanted a Jewish Ripper:

A. Less than a handful of men were known to have been detained or suspected ( Three, since Ostrog was in a foreign hoosegow himself at the time ) who we know of that were Jews for complicity in the WM.

B. The police Commissioner Charles Warren refused the suggestion to inspect houses in such a manner that would violate English law and which would have violated the rights of the immigrants or native born had it been attempted.

3. That Mr. Wolf has stated erroneously that the majority of police officials favored the concept of the Polish Jewish suspect. He can only name 2. The majority of police officials opted for an unnamed or unknown individual or individuals.

4. That Mr. Wolf assumes that beliefs and desires are not distinguishable from performance. Obviously he has never been too drunk and incapable of having sexual congress with a woman.

The fact is, is that they are. One can harbor thoughts which do not necessarily have to be implemented in the work environment.

5. That Mr. Wolf, if uncontested in his presentation of his worldview on the contemporary scene in 1888....would have us believe that Jews lived in a constant state of fear and that the area was so rife with animosity towards Jews, who he would have us believe were too timid to fight back or do anything about the minority Gentile "oppressors" or the scourge at large, The Saucy One. Thats doodoo A.P.

A. There were as many, probably the majority if my deductions are correct, Jewish members of the MEVC who were putting their own security in jeopardy by perambulating the streets at ungodly hours in service to the community. None had sisters or daughters on the streets selling sexual services, but there they were... like a bunch of goodniks, doing their civic duty above and beyond the call. As if the average Gentile would be oblivious to this fact, Mr. Wolf..... Balderdash !

B. That several of the leading lights of the area were in fact Jews, who were unfazed by this Hollywood based, constant state of near-pogrom as Mr. Wolf would have us believe, such as the admirable Samuel Montagu, MP of Whitechapel... the half Jewish Thomas Bernardo, and the anonymous individuals who conducted their gescheft in the normal fashion. No Kristallnacht in Commercial Road, Mr. Wolf.


6. That the assumption that Sir Robert Anderson was anti-Semitic is merely that...an assumption. Evidence to the contrary exists in that he appears to have favored the company of those....of any stripe...of a certain "caliber" or class.

7. Had anyone employed any unnecessary force against foreigners, we would have had ample documentation in regard to that according to the presentation Mr. Wolf has supplied. The opposite is true. There is none to date which demonstrates misbehavior on the part of the Police during the critical time...in mainstream or "ethnic" papers.

I rest my case A.P.

The Police did not employ a different set of guidelines when it came to foreigners.

[A.P. Wolf]

Sam is being very naughty here, in that he is taking 'suspects' to mean anyone we care to mention today whom some of us might vaguely consider to have been the Whitechapel Murderer. Now that aint cricket.
If we look carefully at the men who were actually named by the police in 1888 as genuine suspects in the case, and were taken into custody to be questioned as suspects... not witnesses as this is a vital distinction, in other words it was and is normal police procedure and practise to question the partner of a murder victim, but this in no manner or form implies that the partner was or is a 'supect'. Let's get that right, at least eh?
Now subtract the drunks and loons who marched into police stations and confessed to one or two of the murders, none of whom were ever charged with anything but wasting police time, and that leaves us with what?
Just about all Jewish suspects. That's what.

[How Brown]

Sammy may appear to be naughty, but you're avoiding the issue intentionally.

"Just about all Jewish suspects. That's what."---A.P.

Then name them.

Ludwig,Benelius, Isenschmidt weren't Jews. There was good reason to suspect Pizer. Eventually the Gestapo, er, Met Police, released him...

Isaacs and who else on the Jewish "list" ?

I'll wait.

[How Brown]

A.P.

Whenever someone presents concrete facts, they're not being naughty....they're just pointing out that the illusion of the police being against the foreigners is simply that: An illusion.

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Sam,

So when do you think it first dawned on a serial offender that there were certain advantages to offending away from his home ground, in a place where his face would be just one in a sea of thousands, equally anonymous and unremarkable? The 1960s maybe? The comings and goings of World War Two? As far back as the early years of the motor car perhaps?

Or 50 years after the dawn of the railways, and 25 years after the first London Underground Line opened for business?

Sometimes I think we are discussing the Middle Ages. As I said over on casebook, my grandparents were ten in 1888. Transport to and from London was easy, quick, cheap and cheerful, and arguably more reliable than it is today.

Name one serial killer in history who did not have the cunning to earn, beg, steal or borrow whatever creature comforts would provide the will and the energy to go out and kill in his spare time, again and again.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Sam is being very naughty here, in that he is taking 'suspects' to mean anyone we care to mention today whom some of us might vaguely consider to have been the Whitechapel Murderer. Now that aint cricket.
I was merely responding to Chris George's excellent suggestion that all one had to do was to read Morley's Suspect Guide to see that the majority of suspects weren't "exotic". A good suggestion (I sincerely mean that), even if what one ends up with clearly shows that the majority, in fact, were "exotic" - at least the ones that have stuck.

Perhaps that reveals as much, if not more about us than it does about the people on the ground at the time.

[Chris G.]

I was merely responding to Chris George's excellent suggestion that all one had to do was to read Morley's Suspect Guide to see that the majority of suspects weren't "exotic". A good suggestion (I sincerely mean that), even if what one ends up with clearly shows that the majority, in fact, were
"exotic" - at least the ones that have stuck.

Perhaps that reveals as much, if not more about us than it does about the people on the ground at the time.

Hello Gareth

I thought you meant exotic as in Poor Polish Jew who eats out of the Gutter not Monty from Blackheath at Silly Mid On.

C

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Caz,Sometimes I think we are discussing the Middle Ages. As I said over on casebook, my grandparents were ten in 1888. Transport to and from London was easy, quick, cheap and cheerful, and arguably more reliable than it is today.
I am entirely at a loss to explain why people can possibly think that to be true. It is surely beyond dispute that efficient, round-the-clock private transportation was far less accessible to the average late Victorian citizen - even the comparatively well-off ones - than it was to become from the mid/late 20th Century onwards, to offenders of even the lowliest social status. With that in mind, it's clear that one cannot apply anything approaching Canter's average 46 kilometres "killing range" to the average 19th Century serial killer... or even one from the first half of the 20th Century for that matter.

[Sam Flynn]

I thought you meant exotic as in Poor Polish Jew who eats out of the Gutter not Monty from Blackheath at Silly Mid On.
I classified both types as "exotic", Chris - purely for the sake of that exercise.

[Chris G.]

Hello Gareth

I thought you meant exotic as in Poor Polish Jew who eats out of the Gutter not Monty from Blackheath at Silly Mid On.

C

I classified both types as "exotic", Chris - purely for the sake of that exercise.

Hi Gareth

Frankly I think you want it both ways, unreasonably so. Why should Dorset-born Montague John Druitt be viewed as "exotic" any more than Inspector Abberline, another Dorset man, would be?

Chris

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Gareth

Frankly I think you want it both ways, unreasonably so.I made it clear that I was distinguishing between local English working-class males, to which population one might expect the Ripper was most likely to have belonged, and the rest; "the rest" including foreigners and middle/upper-class males. What on earth is unreasonable about that?

I was only drawing a line in the sand, Chris, and I defined and communicated my criteria up front. I thought those criteria were perfectly reasonable ones, by the way, and I still do.Why should Dorset-born Montague John Druitt be viewed as "exotic" any more than Inspector Abberline, another Dorset man, would be?Had I got as far as Abberline on the list, I can assure you that said celebrated lower middle-class detective would have been classified as an "exotic suspect" also.

[Chris G.]

Hi Gareth

Frankly I think you want it both ways, unreasonably so. Why should Dorset-born Montague John Druitt be viewed as "exotic" any more than Inspector Abberline, another Dorset man, would be?

Chris


I made it clear that I was distinguishing between local English working-class males, to which population one might expect the Ripper was most likely to have belonged, and the rest; "the rest" including foreigners and middle/upper-class males. What on earth is unreasonable about that?

I was only drawing a line in the sand, Chris, and I defined and communicated my criteria up front. I thought those criteria were perfectly reasonable ones, by the way, and I still do.Had I got as far as Abberline on the list, I can assure you that said celebrated lower middle-class detective would have been classified as an "exotic suspect" also.

Hi Gareth

I am not saying Abberline was in anyway a suspect, rather I am just bringing up the matter of his background. Not trying to give you a hard time either but just trying to point out that there is nothing especially exotic about the English suspects but there is an exoticness about the Polish Jews and others such as Malay sailors, etc. Abberline and, say, Inpector Reid or P.C. Thick, would have fitted right in to the East End milieu. Nobody would have thought them strange or exotic. They were English. Druitt wasn't from that neighborhood but language-wise and in terms of cultural stock he was one with the native East Enders. So I suppose what I am saying is, I am not sure about the usefulness of your "line in the sand".

Chris

[Sam Flynn]

Not trying to give you a hard time either but just trying to point out that there is nothing especially exotic about the English suspects
They are exotic in the terms I described, Chris - namely that they are of a certain class. They were certainly "exotic" when compared to the "mundane" suspects - the ordinary, local, working-class Englishmen represented by the Barnetts, Burys and Flemmings of this world.

Inspector Reid and Sgt Thick might well have fitted in to the East End milieu, but they were nonetheless in positions of authority, and possessed a certain status that made them far from "mundane". Such people were arguably as "exotic" as an immigrant, when seen from the perspective of those most instrumental in fuelling the Ripper rumour mill on the streets of Whitechapel - namely, the Anglo/Irish slum-dwellers, and the press that fed/fed off them.

Furthermore, whilst there might be instances of policemen/judges/barristers who were serial killers (not that I can think of one - unless one counts erstwhile "special constable" Christie), history seems to indicate that they were few and far between. On that basis, anyone brave - or stupid - enough to suggest that the Ripper was someone of that ilk is assuredly promoting a suspect who was "exotic" in the extreme.

[How Brown]

Sam:

Just to add on to those who committed serial murder and disgraced their badges....Schaefer ( policeman) in Florida and Bianchi (as a security guard in Washington State ) were s.k.'s...and this colored prick in Florida mentioned in this month's Rip, the serial rapist, was a security guard.

I know a lotta stuff Sammy...I got your back:thumb:

I agree that the exotic suspects would be those...actually anyone....of nondescript or uninfluential status. Exotic could also mean non-Brit men, specifically continental Europeans...

[Pilgrim]

Perhaps sensing an oncoming crash like the one that occured after his disastrous romance with Stephanie, Bundy turned to politics once more for refuge. It was an election year in 1972 and Bundy went to work for the incumbent governor, Dan Evans. Sometimes he was sent out to reconnoiter the opposition's rallies. Bundy wore disguises such as wigs and false moustaches on these jobs. He began to display a remarkably chameleon-like ability to radically change his features by getting a hair-cut, growing a beard, or even parting his hair differently. Several people commented that Bundy was a true changeling (http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=78561#post78561). Once again, Bundy seemed to have regained equilibrium despite his failure at his first job after graduation and rejection from law school. After the election was over, he was rewarded for his good work on the governor's campaign. Bundy's curriculum vitae for 1972-1973 reads as follows:



Crime Commission Assistant Director: October 1972 to January 1973. As assistant to the director of the Seattle Crime Prevention Commission, suggested and did the preliminary investigation into assaults against women and "white collar" (economic) crime. Wrote press releases, speeches and newspaper articles for the commission. Participated extensively in the planning of the commission's activities for 1973.




Criminal Corrections Consultant: January 1973. Currently retained by the King County Office of Law and Justice Planning to identify recidivism rates for offenders who have been found guilty of misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors in the twelve county Districts Courts. The purpose of the study is to determine the nature and number of offenses committed subsequent to a conviction in District Court.

In May 1973 Bundy was hired as a consultant by the state Republican Party central committee to analyse cost overruns in government spending. He worked for the committee chairman, Ross Davis, and was often a guest at his home. Davis remembers Bundy as "smart, aggressive, exceptionally so, and a believer in the system." His wife Lisa recalls, "He didn't talk much about himself, but I didn't feel he was trying to hide anything. He spoke of his mother and family in loving terms." Occasionally Bundy babysat the couple's children, and he ate dinner at their house at least once a week.

Bundy also reapplied to law school and with some aggressive lobbying he was accepted at the Utah College of Law in Salt Lake City - he was scheduled to begin classes there in September. Somewhere in this period, Ted Bundy also bought a car - a bronze-colored Volkswagen Beetle. It was the second time he had bought that model. Bundy apparently liked the auto for its classless status; it was an inexpensive vehicle, but sometimes preferred by the wealthy as a stylish second car for errands in the city.

That summer Bundy was sent to California for a Republican Party conference, and while there he decided to look up his lost love, Stephanie. Bundy was no longer a "loser". He projected now the aura of a "take charge" man: A college graduate with political ambitions, outspoken, confident and about to enter law school. Stephanie liked what she saw and they rekindled their romance. By October 1973 Bundy had truly surpassed some formidable setbacks and obstacles. He had achieved much: From a disappointed and failed college-boy reject, Bundy built himself into a psychological counselor, a respected political hand, an often-invited dinner guest, a rescuer of lives, a student of law; somebody who, some said, might very well be a future state governor. And now he reconquered his first and true love, the woman he had lost five years ago. True, there were a few rough spots along the way, such as his burglaries and window peeping; and true, there was a cloud on the horizon - he was now deeply involved with two women and he would have to deal with that. Otherwise, though, Bundy appeared to be healed. Who would have thought that six months from now he would begin brutally raping and murdering women.

Serial Killers: The Method and Madness of Monsters, pp. 116-118. (http://books.google.no/books?id=vB2G-9lgvCEC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=serial+killers+white+collar&source=bl&ots=pSGBw4y8uR&sig=rHKuBx34IgcuZsUf9vnn0vtq8PY&hl=no&ei=9PkHS4vKNozT-QbHj7nGDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=&f=false)
By Peter Vronsky

[Sam Flynn]

Just to add on to those who committed serial murder and disgraced their badges....Schaefer ( policeman) in Florida and Bianchi (as a security guard in Washington State ) were s.k.'s...and this colored prick in Florida mentioned in this month's Rip, the serial rapist, was a security guard.Thanks, How - so, as I anticipated, still pretty much in the minority.

I'd have to think twice about classifying security guards as "exotic", though. No offence to the good ones out there, of which there are plenty, but I've known some real head-bangers get jobs with security firms. But I digress... the fact remains that serial killing policemen are not very common.

[Pilgrim]

If the singling out of any particular group were to be of much practical use at all one would have to compare the number of serial killers in the chosen group - be that class, social status, ethnicity or any particular job - with the size of that group relative to the general population adjusted for other parameters of possible importance. For all we know, a descriptor such as 'jobs allowing for flexibility and free time' could be the more relevant.

[How Brown]

Pilgrim:

Again and possibly unintentionally ,you've pointed out another hole in my buddy A.P.'s version of reality...that the police without any hesitation...had a Jew fit up for the crimes based on some sort of preconcieved notion that Jews were most likely to commit these sort of crimes.

The facts are that no one, which also means the police, gave the blood libel, black magic ritual, "organ harvesting" motives or reasons enough ink or coverage or enthusiatic support that captivated the community anymore than the next unknown reason or motive....this is manifestly obvious in the literature.... No specific motive stood out that much to augment one to such a point that the other ones were naturally overlooked and/or diminished contemporaneously.

Arnold mentions Jews...in July of 1888....in the parliamentary papers thread that I placed on the site last night...in a generally positive light ( with the comment made about their cleanliness the one negative impression he had to offer)...and this is before the murder skein started, an example free of influence from the murders. In fact, Arnold mentions Jews misusing other Jews when they arrived in London.

Nowhere in the literature do we find the POLICE claiming that any ethnic group would be more likely to have committed these crimes and in fact the one time that anyone had mentioned likelihood ,in this case, one group being less likely to have been involved in committing such atrocities, was "Mentor" who said those crimes were not the sort which someone who happened to be Jewish would be likely to commit. That being some sort of fact is neither here or there for now.

I believe that had the Ripper had a job on a regular basis...not just aimlessly drifting from one brief gig to the next...then your idea of the type of job he had in order to determine what profession he worked in, if not necessarily giving him a name, would be good. I think it is a good idea.

[Chris G.]

Hi Howard

Both Inspector Edmund Reid and City Police Constable George Hutt put in print that they held positive views of the Jewish population of the East End.

I think in the beginning of September, the police were blindsided by the idea that a specific Jew named "Leather Apron" had done the crimes. The notion may indeed have arisen independently on the streets, or else been helped along by the press.

But in any case, it doesn't seem as if "Leather Apron" was a police attempt to "fit up" the Jews for the crimes as AP Wolf and Simon Wood appear to be implying for the George Hutchinson description. If there was indeed a police attempt to blame the Jews one would suspect "Leather Apron" would have been part of the plot as well. Well just look what happened about that.

Yes, as we know, that idea of Leather Apron the Jew being responsible fell apart almost as soon as the story of Leather Apron being the killer was generally known because the police couldn't make the charge against Pizer stick. There may never have been a "Leather Apron" who carried out the crimes as had been alleged, either by rumor or by means of press meddling, and in any case it wasn't Pizer. Some plot! A plot as substantial as custard. :rolleyes:

Chris

[Sam Flynn]

If the singling out of any particular group were to be of much practical use at all one would have to compare the number of serial killers in the chosen group - be that class, social status, ethnicity or any particular job - with the size of that group relative to the general population adjusted for other parameters of possible importance. For all we know, a descriptor such as 'jobs allowing for flexibility and free time' could be the more relevant.
Can I just point out that I wasn't seeking to claim any greater or lesser relevance, especially in such a quick and dirty survey as the one I conducted using Chris Morley's book. However, if the history of serial crime is anything to go by, one would expect the killer of certain types of people to be in roughly the same socio-economic and ethnic bracket as his victims. Therefore, in taking as my categories the local, lower-class Englishmen versus "the rest", I was being as fair and objective as I possibly could, given the corpus of data that have been amassed about SKs over time.

One could select other categories, but how representative would they be of the demographics of serial killers at the end of the day? One could go on slicing and dicing the suspect list into ever finer-grained categories, but one must always be aware, in doing so, of the risk of partiality and diminishing returns.

That's not to say that Jack was not the sort of person represented by "the rest", only that - if he were - he would be somewhat of an "exotic" suspect by definition. He would also be in a minority - except, it seems, in the context of the Ripper case, where the "exotic" suspect has featured disproportionately frequently over the years.

[Pilgrim]

A typical male user of street girls is white, often middle class, in his 30s or 40s, frequently married with children, and in search of anonymous and untraceable encounters, according to a study by researchers at Sunderland university. The punters come from all walks of life. "You get factory workers and labourers but also doctors, judges, policemen — and they can all be violent," says Ms Shepherd.

The Daily Telegraph, 17 December 2006 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537133/The-sordid-society.html)

~~~

[Sam Flynn]

A typical male user of street girls is white, often middle class, in his 30s or 40s, frequently married with children, and in search of anonymous and untraceable encounters, according to a study by researchers at Sunderland university. The punters come from all walks of life. "You get factory workers and labourers but also doctors, judges, policemen — and they can all be violent," says Ms Shepherd.

The Daily Telegraph, 17 December 2006 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1537133/The-sordid-society.html)

~~~Indeed, the Daily Telegraph, 17th December 2006. Some things to note, apart from the date:

1. A survey of users of streetwalkers is not a survey of serial killers;

2. Serial killers don't always attack streetwalkers anyway;

3. Innumerable cases show that most serial killers attack those in the same social class as themselves;

4. Wherever this University of Sunderland survey was carried out, it was not in a Late Victorian slum district;

5. Whenever this University of Sunderland survey was carried out, the duration of the study is not indicated in the above snippet, neither is it written in which year it was actually undertaken. Both factors could well have a bearing on the outcome, and implications, of any such survey.


Finally, having given my rationale quite clearly, several times over, I wish people would please STOP MAKING SUCH A BIG DEAL ABOUT THIS. I conducted a quick survey, prompted by a suggestion from ChrisG to look at the suspects in Chris Morley's book - and that's all I did. From that - and whichever way one wants to cut it - it is quite evident that the "exotic" suspect has a completely unwarranted pre-eminence in the field of Ripper studies, and that's a fact.

[How Brown]

I agree with you Sam...the most likely culprit considering that it was the Age of Perambulii..perimeriza....pimples.....ah balls !!!...people walked a lot...is someone from the general vicinity...regardless of all the theorizations to the contrary.

Dudes stuck inside hospitals, wearing uniforms ( other than aprons), police officers, top hats, fags, etc...to me are "exotic suspects". I understand your point. Even Druitt...to me...would be an exotic suspect in a sense, since he didn't live there. Thompson, the poet, to me is also an exotic. He didn't weigh much more than Nina does now...and he did live in the area.

Non-exotics would be the local men, your average working class man or even those that were in between jobs...even James Kelly or Bury, who we aren't certain were in the vicinity, but were of that strata.

I got your back buddy...you can be dam sure of that.:eyebrows:

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Sam,

But with all due respect, if others are getting their examples from more modern times, and you are criticising them for so doing, where are you getting yours from? How do you know any more than we do about late Victorian serial mutilators who operated in urban areas? I mean, how many are you using in your comparisons with Jack, in order to suggest his likely origins, work record, movements and whereabouts?

Hi Caz,
I am entirely at a loss to explain why people can possibly think that to be true. It is surely beyond dispute that efficient, round-the-clock private transportation was far less accessible to the average late Victorian citizen - even the comparatively well-off ones - than it was to become from the mid/late 20th Century onwards, to offenders of even the lowliest social status. With that in mind, it's clear that one cannot apply anything approaching Canter's average 46 kilometres "killing range" to the average 19th Century serial killer... or even one from the first half of the 20th Century for that matter.

[The London and Greenwich] was London's first railway. It received approval in 1833, reached Deptford in 1836 and Greenwich in 1838. It also demonstrated a number of important lessons: firstly, it was only just under four miles long yet it saved up to fifty minutes over turnpike traffic using a parallel route; secondly, it showed how many people a railway could move in and out of a crowded city. In its first year of operation it carried nearly one and a half million passengers, not including season-ticket holders, and as many as twenty-five thousand in one day.

From Early Railway Prints - A Social History of the Railways from 1825 to 1850, by Gareth Rees.

I suppose none of those passengers were dock workers, or any other type of manual labourer, and they all carried briefcases containing cucumber sandwiches and did The Times crossword on the journey.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

[The London and Greenwich] [I]was London's first railway. It received approval in 1833, reached Deptford in 1836 and Greenwich in 1838. It also demonstrated a number of important lessons: firstly, it was only just under four miles long yet it saved up to fifty minutes over turnpike traffic using a parallel route; secondly, it showed how many people a railway could move in and out of a crowded city. In its first year of operation it carried nearly one and a half million passengers, not including season-ticket holders, and as many as twenty-five thousand in one day.
So much for railways... how about private cars?

[Pilgrim]

It is possible, I guess, that someone might have come into this area by 'private car', much as Diemschutz did when he returned to Dutfield's Yard (http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Dutfield%27s_Yard). It would probably have needed to be stationed somewhere. Statistically, it may not seem a very likely case. But considered as a possible, individual case, there surely cannot be anything too strange about it.

Still, possibly the more likely alternative, that the murderer did not have a private car(t), would perhaps make a comparison with more recent killers not owning a car represent the statistically more probable. Neither Dennis Nielsen nor Colin Ireland owned a car; and I doubt Gordon Cummins, the Blackout Ripper, did. And so, they would have been using public transport and/or they would be walking. Ireland, living in Southend, picked up his chosen victims at the Coleherne pub in Brompton Road, as did Nielsen with some of his. The latter brought them back to his home, Ireland followed them to their own homes. Killing the victims at the pub would hardly have been an option. Cummins picked up and killed his victims in an area stretching from Paddington to Pickadilly Circus, but he was stationed at St. John's Wood, about 1.5-2.5 miles to the north.

And so, it is most certainly possible that in Victorian times a serial killer might have been travelling by train, from someplace outside or inside of London, to some station in the vicinity of the chosen ground. He may then have visited one or more pubs and/or a music hall, and/or he may (simply) have wandered about seeking out his chosen victims. Back then, travelling by boat, into or down the Thames, would of course also have been a fairly much more common occurence.

http://www.wynnstaylets.co.uk/images/mapofsoutheastessex.gif (http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/6217/NorthSea.A2003352.1220.250m.jpg)Serial killers who travel long distances tend to carry out consecutive crimes closer together than alternate crimes, but for those who travel shorter distances, it is the alternate crimes that tend to be closer than the consecutive crimes. (Lundigan, Canter. 2001) This implies that when travelling larger distances there is more of a tendency to focus intensely on a given area, as a commuter does, rather than spread out over a particular area, as appears to be more typical of marauders.

David Canter, Donna Youngs; (http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/6217/NorthSea.A2003352.1220.250m.jpg)Principles of geographical offender profiling, pp. 9, 11. (http://books.google.no/books?id=_nniXUch94MC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=david+canter+commuters&source=bl&ots=rEqFwvDQt0&sig=aRCzWcEoSxf8IoEyC-avCZYCDhw&hl=no&ei=pXPkSb-lJ8HC-Aawk9iPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA9,M1) (2008)~~~

[Sam Flynn]

It is possible, I guess, that someone might have come into this area by 'private car', much as Diemschutz did when he returned to Dutfield's Yard (http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Dutfield%27s_Yard). It would probably have needed to be stationed somewhere. S[I]tatistically, it may not seem a very likely case.
Indeed, Pilgrim - for every Diemschutz there must have been two hundred or more other men (a conservative guess) in Whitechapel who had no access to anything resembling private transport at all. Contrast that with today's society, where in the UK alone there are over 30 million vehicles in a population of some 60 million people - not all of whom (of course) are eligible, or able, to drive. The situation in the Victorian East End, indeed in working-class Victorian London as a whole, could scarcely have been more different to what the "modern" serial killer enjoys.

[Caroline Morris]

Diemschutz is a good example, Pilgrim, if only to nail the myth that no working men in Whitechapel would have had the wherewithal to venture far beyond it, if at all, to seek work. He was selling cheap jewellery in Westow Hill, south of the river near Dulwich, on Saturday September 29th, stopping for a pint in the Grove Tavern on his way back to Berner Street, which he didn't reach until 1am on the Sunday morning. Obviously something drew him a fair old distance from all the markets on his doorstep.

And if George Hutchinson told the truth about going down to Romford to look for work, one didn't need a pony and cart either - just the will.

Colin Ireland, incidentally, was very hard up for money at the time he was commuting up to Fulham by train from Southend, purely for the purpose of picking up gay men to murder. But where there's a will there's most certainly a way. So he simply robbed one victim to pay for his next murderous journey. Serial offenders traditionally have no problem whatsoever lying, cheating or thieving their way into whatever funds they lack, in order to indulge their even baser habits in their own uniquely driven manner.

Love,

Caz
X

[Caroline Morris]

- for every Diemschutz there must have been two hundred or more other men (a conservative guess) in Whitechapel who had no access to anything resembling private transport at all.

Hi Sam,

But Jack wasn't one in 200, was he? He had 'special' needs that almost nobody else had. There is no cause to make comparisons with how much easier it is these days for the budding serial killer to get around. The determined serial killer manages to adapt to whatever the conditions are at the time and to make the most of them. Jack would have made his options work overtime in order to get his own way. He didn't know or care what leaps would be made in the future to give his ilk an easier ride. His options would have been good enough, and a sight more flexible than you seem to think.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

But Jack wasn't one in 200, was he?
Not in terms of his pathology, Caz, but his access to private transport is an entirely different matter, and constrained (as for Everyman) by the epoch in which he lived. Jesus, they say, could work miracles - yet, being as he was a poor man living in 1st Century Palestine, the best he could manage was a donkey.Jack would have made his options work overtime in order to get his own way.You assume much there, and you're making too much of the genuine flexibility available to people back then. What options did he really have - catch the 02:43 from Liverpool Street, if it existed, and if nobody was around to notice him? Wrap his horse's hooves in cotton-wool and muffle his cartwheels? Walk 46 kilometres, as Canter's (modern) data suggest is the average commuting distance for a (modern) serial killer?

[Pilgrim]

What matters, surely, is the principle of 'transport allowing a needed distance', not this average number of "46 kilometers". That is, what matters is the principle mentioned by Canter & Youngs: "The only crimes that typically appear to be carried out at much longer distances from home are serial murders and serial stranger rapes." The question, then, is how this principle might apply in a late nineteenth century setting. The use of public transport would, quite obviously, represent an answer. Arguing against it would mean arguing against the principle that access to long distance transport tends, typically, to be a prerequisite for certain kinds of crime.Serial killers who travel long distances tend to carry out consecutive crimes closer together than alternate crimes, but for those who travel shorter distances, it is the alternate crimes that tend to be closer than the consecutive crimes. (Lundigan, Canter. 2001) This implies that when travelling larger distances there is more of a tendency to focus intensely on a given area, as a commuter does, rather than spread out over a particular area, as appears to be more typical of marauders.

David Canter, Donna Youngs; Principles of geographical offender profiling, pp. 9, 11. (http://books.google.no/books?id=_nniXUch94MC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=david+canter+commuters&source=bl&ots=rEqFwvDQt0&sig=aRCzWcEoSxf8IoEyC-avCZYCDhw&hl=no&ei=pXPkSb-lJ8HC-Aawk9iPCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA9,M1) (2008)


The offenders who are travelling offenders, operating over different sorts of structures and routes from the marauders, are the ones that we need to explore much further, and indeed one of the big research questions at the moment is whether there is anything we can tell from the pattern of the crimes that will allow us to know whether or not the offender is a commuter or a marauder. We are still studying various possibilities of how we may be able to tell that, and part of that we are doing by exploring the various strategies that different offenders use.

Ibid., p.212.


As Gabor and Gottheil (1984) report for Ottawa, quite different crimes, such as sex offences, robbery, or even auto theft are quite often carried out within the same overall range of distances that are found for burglary. The only crimes that typically appear to be carried out at much longer distances from home are serial murders and serial stranger rapes. Canter et al. (2000) report a mean distance of 46 kilometres for US serial killers, for example. Similarly, Warren et al. (2001) give a mean of 23 kilometres for US serial rapists.

David Canter, Donna Youngs; Applications of Geographical Offender Profiling, p.4. (http://books.google.no/books?id=F3Ha4Lk_zF4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=David+Canter#PPT19,M1) (2008)

http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/BrowserInsight202.jpg~~~

[Caroline Morris]

...when travelling larger distances there is more of a tendency to focus intensely on a given area, as a commuter does, rather than spread out over a particular area, as appears to be more typical of marauders.

Hi Pilgrim,

In the last couple of weeks, a suspected serial rapist and burglar who has committed more than a hundred offences in South London since the early 1990s, has finally been arrested. He is 52, and suspected of sexually assaulting both men and women, all aged from about 68 upwards. The majority of the offences were committed here in sleepy Shirley, which is where they arrested him, and nearby Addiscombe. But he actually lived a fair distance away, in Brockley. If guilty he would have travelled quite a distance through other, equally quiet residential areas to get here, all with their fair share of retired folk living alone.

The point is, it's not how many options a particular offender has but which ones he goes for and why. This man obviously had travel options, as he offended in several different areas apart from Shirley, including Brockley. But more often than not he chose to return to the one that gave him the longest journey from Brockley (where the suspect was looking after a disabled wife and their seven children). If his luck has finally run out, he certainly had a long innings, despite his penchant for Shirley.

At the very least this indicates that a serial mutilator, in whatever era, might share this natural inclination to keep his offences at a distance from his everyday affairs, without at the same time worrying that he is returning again and again to one small hunting ground where the police will be correspondingly vigilant.

However limited Jack's options were, he probably had at least three: to offend virtually where he slept or worked (assuming there were plenty of suitably vulnerable women wherever that was - there may not have been); to walk (or beg, borrow, steal or earn himself a ride) further afield, where his face would blend in with the crowd; or to stop offending for a while, if doing it in a particular location, by choice or necessity, was just too risky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minstead_Rapist

It's a foul but fascinating case.

Love,

Caz
X

[How Brown]

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=89467#post89467

When you get a chance....:couch2:

[SirRobertAnderson]

However limited Jack's options were, he probably had at least three: to offend virtually where he slept or worked (assuming there were plenty of suitably vulnerable women wherever that was - there may not have been); to walk (or beg, borrow, steal or earn himself a ride) further afield, where his face would blend in with the crowd; or to stop offending for a while, if doing it in a particular location, by choice or necessity, was just too risky.

I assure everyone that I am not going to start interjecting Maybrick into various threads, but I think it important that we recognize a fourth option, which is the commuter. He works and lives in one city, and has an office in Whitechapel.

I say office rather than bolthole, not just because that's indeed the arrangement Maybrick had, but because I have been thinking more and more about the Torso murders, and wondering IF Jack committed one or more of these, storage becomes an issue.

[Sam Flynn]

At the very least this indicates that a serial mutilator, in whatever era, might share this natural inclination to keep his offences at a distance from his everyday affairs
How do you come to slip in "in whatever era" there, Caz? The Minstead case is from the 1990s, when there was already more than one private vehicle for every driver in Britain, and when private accommodation was far more available to the poor than it was in 1888.

Furthermore, what constitutes "distance"? And how does modern vs Victorian population density affect the equation? A murderer who kills within (say) a 500 yard radius of his home today would have little chance of anonymity; whereas in 1880s Spitalfields it would entail a "cushion" of many thousands of strangers between the offender and potential identification. Under such conditions, why bother "commuting" at all?


Edit: Just realised that we're way O/T here. Another thread, perhaps?

[Natalie Severn]

Not in terms of his pathology, Caz, but his access to private transport is an entirely different matter, and constrained (as for Everyman) by the epoch in which he lived. Jesus, they say, could work miracles - yet, being as he was a poor man living in 1st Century Palestine, the best he could manage was a donkey.You assume much there, and you're making too much of the genuine flexibility available to people back then. What options did he really have - catch the 02:43 from Liverpool Street, if it existed, and if nobody was around to notice him? Wrap his horse's hooves in cotton-wool and muffle his cartwheels? Walk 46 kilometres, as Canter's (modern) data suggest is the average commuting distance for a (modern) serial killer?


Oh Sam---there were many more train services all over London than now in 1888----not the tube but the train was everywhere.And on top of that they had the wonderful steam boat system flying up and down the Thames all day long with the steam pleasure boats at night.Read Ackroyd for further info.
Norma
pst...they had also just started to bicycle everywhere...

[Caroline Morris]

How do you come to slip in "in whatever era" there, Caz? The Minstead case is from the 1990s, when there was already more than one private vehicle for every driver in Britain, and when private accommodation was far more available to the poor than it was in 1888.

Furthermore, what constitutes "distance"? And how does modern vs Victorian population density affect the equation? A murderer who kills within (say) a 500 yard radius of his home today would have little chance of anonymity; whereas in 1880s Spitalfields it would entail a "cushion" of many thousands of strangers between the offender and potential identification. Under such conditions, why bother "commuting" at all?


Edit: Just realised that we're way O/T here. Another thread, perhaps?

Hi Sam,

Before I hop over to Howie's new thread...

Well he’d have had to commute if he didn’t already happen to be in Spitalfields at the time, cushioned by those many thousands of strangers. You’re assuming that’s where he was to begin with, which kind of ends any debate right there. I grant you that if he was already there he evidently saw no point in commuting elsewhere - or he was physically incapable of doing so.

If you notice, I only slipped in “whatever era” in the context of a 'natural inclination' to keep one's dirty secret life well away from one's home life, which, as a personality trait that need have nothing to do with transport facilities, 'might' be shared (I didn’t put it any stronger than that) with other similar offenders at any time in history. There’s a reason for sayings like “You don’t sh*t on your own doorstep”, and I don’t suppose the sentiment is a modern one either.

In the Minstead case, as I was careful to point out, the man in custody would have been spoilt for choice, as there are many square miles of victim-rich territory between his home in Brockley and here in Shirley and he had a car. Yet more often than not, when setting out at night to look for likely homes of poor old souls living alone, a man from Brockley would have chosen to spend much more time and petrol money than he needed to over all the years he was offending, to drive all the way through equally rich pickings each time to reach Shirley, where the suspect was eventually arrested.

Despite the risks of returning time and again to the same small area, miles from home, when there were many, many other residential areas to the north and east that would have been closer and easier to get to, but still at a safely anonymous distance from Brockley, there was apparently something about Shirley that suited him so well that he made it his favourite, if remote, port of call.

Transport options wouldn’t come into it if the vast majority of serial offenders tended to do their thing close to home regardless of other options. But if the reasoning is that they would soon shift themselves to offend away from their home territory if only they had the means, then we have to allow for the very real possibility that Jack was the kind of offender who did shift himself to a certain extent in order to offend in Whitechapel, perhaps because the anonymity suited him and he could. I’m not saying how far he’d have travelled, or by what means, but so many working men did travel around at the time, on a regular basis, and by various means, that I think it would be foolish to exclude them all in favour of a dirt poor man who was stuck mutilating in the same streets where he ate and slept or not at all.

Love,

Caz
X