The Press Vs. The People : Discussion

[How Brown]

Here's an area of the case that I think many will be encouraged to engage in.

To me there's no doubt that the Press* heightened the tensions between the peoples of the East End ( Staying within that geographic region....) with the presentation of the murders. I'd be curious as to whether anyone doesn't see it that way and if not, please share your views.

Thank you.
*********************************

* Not Jewish or Irish papers, but mainstream papers.

[How Brown]

A.P.....and perhaps some others....feel that the Press were guilty of promoting the idea that the Ripper was a Jew intentionally.

Anyone else ? Anyone believe that the numerous competitive newspaper publishers were in somehow in league to get themselves a Jew as Ripper ?

[admin tim]

From http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=5095

Even before the technology of movies made savagery so vivid, middle-class uplifters in America and England have been variously enthralled and disgusted by media violence and blamed it for inciting working-class youth. In his study of the 1888 Jack the Ripper phenomenon, cultural historian Christopher Frayling notes that London's penny comic weekly Illustrated Police News regaled readers with detailed accounts and artists' renditions of the Ripper crime scenes, compiling 184 cover pictures during the four years after the last murder. The high-minded were quick to link the Ripper crimes to the excesses of popular culture. Punch magazine asked rhetorically:
Is it not within the bounds of probability that to the highly-coloured pictorial advertisements to be seen on almost all the hoardings [billboards] in London, vividly representing sensational scenes of murder exhibited as "the great attractions" of certain dramas, the public may be to a certain extent indebted for the horrible crimes in Whitechapel? We say it most seriously--imagine the effect of gigantic pictures of violence and assassination by knife and pistol on the morbid imagination of an unbalanced mind. In his excellent new history of American entertainment, Going Out: The Rise and Fall of Public Amusements, David Nasaw tells us that comparable fears about the impact of moving pictures on children's impressionable minds cropped up in the movies' first decade. Of the 250 films it screened in 1910, the Ohio Humane Society found 40 percent to be "unfit for children's eyes," identifying working-class and immigrant children as particularly vulnerable to the message that crime paid. "In 1907," Nasaw writes, "Chicago passed a censorship ordinance requiring police permits for films shown in nickel and dime theaters." When Jane Addams' Hull House opened a theater to show wholesome alternatives--Cinderella and travelogues--very few children showed up, and one of them, a 12-year-old, explained to the reformers: "Things has got ter have some hustle. I don't say it's right, but people likes to see fights, 'n' fellows getting hurt, 'n' love makin', 'n' robbers, and all that stuff."

[How Brown]

Of the 250 films it screened in 1910, the Ohio Humane Society found 40 percent to be "unfit for children's eyes," identifying working-class and immigrant children as particularly vulnerable to the message that crime paid.

I'd be a little more concerned with the Idle Rich and how they were affected.
Just as with drug use, these nosey social do-gooders worried more about workers being affected then those with money or artists. Gotta have sober workers in the factories.

Pass the mescaline and mug the rich.

[How Brown]

Tim:

You unintentionally brought up a good point to discuss here.

Its worth batting around here if the murders from the 1890's were influenced by the newspapers.

I'm just wondering why murders of the nature of the WM didn't occur that we find in 1888....from Smith to Kelly. Might it be the absence of lurid headlines?

I'd say no.....

No need to mention that throat cuttings, the Torso murders, and child murders occurred within the 1880's....but did the papers tone down the front page descriptions of any murders in London/Britain in the early 1890's ? I might check out some of the papers tomorrow to see.

Anyway....where's A.P. ?

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho

Regarding the press...

It is entirely possible to argue that "people" were the victims of the press in the ripper case.

And by people I do not mean prositutes. because, aside from possibly Kelly, the presses coverage of the ripper doesnt seem to have impacted them adversely at all.

The ripper was only killing whores and a very specific bunch of whores at that. The "people" were at no risk from the ripper at all. Yet it is within the "people" demographic that the most panic seems to have occurred. There is no evidence really of any generalised panic among whores who in many cases did not either modify their behaviour or just had a fatalistic view of the whole thing ("the bridge or the ripper for me".

It should also be remembered that it is unlikely that huge swathes of the whore demographic could even read plus what influence would the press' fear mongering have on them when the kitchen table whisper was probably the major opinion former among this bunch of people?

The general populace however were eating up this press nonsense and were not as cynical and worldly wise as modern people in relation to press drivell.
And it is the "Peoples" lives and behaviours which were arguably more impacted by the press than the whores. It was them who were swooning and staying home and not going out at night.

AS for Kelly......I still maintain, and also contend that no one has managed to convincingly argue the opposite, that the injuried inflicted upon her are more similar to the extravagances written in the press than anything else.

And in that case I reckon Kelly, and possibly a number of other possible later Ripper victims, were direct victims of the press.....in that they were killed in a manner dictated by the press or they were killed because the press's blanket and fairly lunatic coverage gave someone the notion to kill someone else.

p

[How Brown]

Lars:

Nice post. Food for thought.

"The "people" were at no risk from the ripper at all."

There's more to masticate on as well.

I would disagree since .... and I just gently reminded A.P. of that elsewhere on the Forums.... that at the time, no one could be sure that women from any strata of East End life...and even, possibly, in the West End....might feel the edge of El Saucito's knife at some point in time.

[How Brown]

What areas did the press work at cross purposes for the population in general ?

What areas did the press work at cross purposes for specific groups or ethnicities ?

Did the Press "desire" a Ripper to be from a specific ethnic group ?

Did the Press seem to focus more on a specific type more than others and what were the reasons for that ?

Did the Press seem to switch gears after the Double Event or perhaps maintain their presentation of the murders ?

Is there a noticable difference that appears after November 9th's murder and what would you attribute it to ?

[Caroline Morris]

AS for Kelly......I still maintain, and also contend that no one has managed to convincingly argue the opposite, that the injuried inflicted upon her are more similar to the extravagances written in the press than anything else.

And in that case I reckon Kelly, and possibly a number of other possible later Ripper victims, were direct victims of the press.....in that they were killed in a manner dictated by the press or they were killed because the press's blanket and fairly lunatic coverage gave someone the notion to kill someone else.


Hi Mr P,

My view would be that the most likely deranged brain to be influenced by the press at that time was the Saucy One himself. And he was overdue another killing anyway by the November. But I take your point that the press could well have dictated the nature of subsesquent murders.

I don't buy the idea that newspapers have ever caused non-violent people to become violent, any more than cave drawings, books or films. So I'd find it easier to believe that an already violent person would take the latest gossip as his permission to get cracking again.

The only problem with this is that we have no way of knowing how such a man might have reacted to no news at all about his crimes. A cloak of silence over the murders could have similarly provoked him into upping his game so much that they had to take notice. If Miller's Court had anything to do with getting more press attention, it would have happened anyway.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho Caz

I don't buy the idea that newspapers have ever caused non-violent people to become violent, any more than cave drawings, books or films. So I'd find it easier to believe that an already violent person would take the latest gossip as his permission to get cracking again.

I see your point and are in agreement in essence. But I dont think a violent person is just those who commit acts of violence. I think a violent person can exist as a vioelnt person before he tops his first person.

In that context I have no problem with a latently violent person deciding that, according to the press, the entire east end was in a state of virtual chaos with demons and gut strewing devil men on the loose and that such as a state of pendemonium would provide the perfect opportunity to do someone in and have the crime ascribed to the press devil person.


The only problem with this is that we have no way of knowing how such a man might have reacted to no news at all about his crimes.

This is an interesting point. Because the only "evidence" we have that such violent people are focussed on media attention to any extent or in any way at all, is from:

1. modern studies,

2. profiling gimp idiots.

There is nothing at all to suggest our man gave two figs about the press. None of the letters have ever been definitively ascribed to our man. Nothing has ever suggested he like the attention he was getting. I have never seen anything to suggest a robust statistical link between a woman being killed and coverage in the press.

I could argue that "modern" killers focus on their presentation in the press (in so far as it exists at all) is not some kind of charactristic of killers.

And is more a characteristic of modern mans (in general) narcissim. The sense of "self" has only come to the fore as a driver in recent years as we have stopped having to worry about getting food or shelter or living past 22.

Indeed our masturbatorial relationship with the press was hardly as well developed in the LVP. Gutter papers were only appearing, instant gratification a la the Internet hardly existed, many people didnt read, many more used papers as blankets than read them and people had a completely different set of drivers.

If you had to spend your time selling yourself for coppers or working in some filthy job for a crust......then how the papers portrayed you was hardly a priority.

Back then, our man was probably less the preening, cock-tucking, cross dressing, self-indulgent, media slave we like to think our serial killers are (thanks to a bunch profiling gimps!) and was perhaps an altogether more feral/impulsive creature.....killing less out of the "complex" compunctions that we assign to killers (and then pride ourselves on being so smart) and more out of more basic or uncontrollable needs or reactions to circumstance.

I am still of the opinion that the killings display no evidence of hunting or anything else and could easily have arisen out of random interactions between a whore and some poor chap who was just below his boiling point and then "boiled over".

Such a man was definitely not preening himself in the papers. Most probably was reading in appalled horror and sh!tting himself at what he had done.

The public were not victims of the press due to its having spurred on a killer....but were victims in the same way we are....heightened, unnecessary, panic, disruption, being lied to etc.

Except for Kelly. Who was probably killed according to a recipe provided by the gutter press.

Whether or not the crime was impelled by the press in motive as opposed to execution is more difficult to hazard a guess at...

p

PS: One last point: maybe our man was indeed killing depending on his perception of how he was being portrayed in th epress or how often or whatever. For that to be true....one has to accept the following:

1. He could read,

2. He had access to a range of papers, regularly,

3. He didnt have to worry so much about food or anything else and could indulge his search of the papers for mentions of himself,

4. he could do it in private where no one would notice his obsessing,

5. he was complex enough to measure his sense of self worth in relation to an abstract medium. As opposed to his self worth being defined by his position in the rigid class structure and his immediate surroundings (i.e. his mates).

and so on. They are hardly traits of the flat cap low class ranks we are usually expected to beleive that our man will be ultimately drawn from.

[Caroline Morris]

I am still of the opinion that the killings display no evidence of hunting or anything else and could easily have arisen out of random interactions between a whore and some poor chap who was just below his boiling point and then "boiled over".

Such a man was definitely not preening himself in the papers. Most probably was reading in appalled horror and sh!tting himself at what he had done.

Except that he didn't sh!t himself to the extent that he didn't want to go through the whole thing again and again: boiling over, mutilating whichever 'whore' had made him boil over, then sh!tting himself afterwards. So I tend to think that while some unexpected annoyance could well have triggered the first ever attack, he must have got something unexpected from the experience, that made him go out and want, or need, to repeat it, despite all the risks and the horror of what he was doing. If he hadn't been fully aware of what he was doing I don't think his timing would have been so damned perfect and he would likely have been caught in the act or as he was fleeing the scene.

I take the other points you make, but if you are applying them to Jack (re whether he could read; whether he did read the papers; and whether he would have allowed himself to be influenced by them anyway and so on and so forth) I think you have to apply them equally to your hypothetical ‘latently violent person’, who gets the idea from those same papers that the entire east end is ‘in a state of virtual chaos with demons and gut strewing devil men on the loose’, providing him with the perfect opportunity to commit murder for the first time and let the illiterate, unaware brute get the blame.

I do actually believe that even if Jack could not read the papers, he didn’t have to worry about where his next meal, drink or bed rest was coming from. Serial murder in your spare time - and more to the point getting away with it - is not something you can easily launch yourself into if all your waking hours are usually spent struggling just to survive. It’s a comparative luxury, and one which Jack reckoned he could afford. He was successful in keeping his little extravagances secret, even after he gave them up.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Caz and Mr P,

This is fascinating stuff. I'm intrigued by the fact that not only have you personified JtR in different ways but also managed to fit him up with sets of hypothetical characteristics.

I'd like to pick up on something if I may. Mr P states that "None of the letters have ever been definitively ascribed to our man". All well and good. It ties in neatly with DB and SJ being the work of an "enterprising journalist". Mr P also wrote that "our man" could "read" and "had access to a range of newspapers, regularly".

So how do you feel "our man" reacted when he opened his newspaper on 1st October 1888 and read that someone called Jack the Ripper had taken credit for his handiwork? What made "our man" cease operations for six weeks? Was it a fit of pique?

Regards,

Simon

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Caz

[QUOTE=Caroline Morris;89123]Except that he didn't sh!t himself to the extent that he didn't want to go through the whole thing again and again: boiling over, mutilating whichever 'whore' had made him boil over, then sh!tting himself afterwards.

OK

So I tend to think that while some unexpected annoyance could well have triggered the first ever attack, he must have got something unexpected from the experience, that made him go out and want, or need, to repeat it, despite all the risks and the horror of what he was doing. If he hadn't been fully aware of what he was doing I don't think his timing would have been so damned perfect and he would likely have been caught in the act or as he was fleeing the scene.

There we disagree. In fact the notion that he could do the acts, not being fully in control, in a specific catathymic state would facilitate his getting away as he would not even be perturbed by what he did. In the abscence of blood, crazy eyes and blatant attempts to sprint up Whitechapel main street....he could just walk away. And I dont see his timing as being perfect. It was piss poor actually. Otherwise he wouldnt have come so close to being nabbed each time.

I take the other points you make, but if you are applying them to Jack (re whether he could read; whether he did read the papers; and whether he would have allowed himself to be influenced by them anyway and so on and so forth) I think you have to apply them equally to your hypothetical ‘latently violent person’, who gets the idea from those same papers that the entire east end is ‘in a state of virtual chaos with demons and gut strewing devil men on the loose’, providing him with the perfect opportunity to commit murder for the first time and let the illiterate, unaware brute get the blame.

Thats correct. But I dont actually support the notion of violent people or latently violent people. I support the notion that he was a fundamentally misadjusted person for whom crossing the threshold was a matter of a blink of an eye and who would return to his normal pre act state as easily and suddenly as he was propelled into his not so pleasant state. And in that notion I am fully backed up by a lot of literature.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho SImon Wood

I'm intrigued by the fact that not only have you personified JtR in different ways but also managed to fit him up with sets of hypothetical characteristics.

Hang on a sec.....I havent done that. My JtR needs no characteristics bar one well documented, fully researched problem that happens to accord quite well with our mans activities.

Mr P states that "None of the letters have ever been definitively ascribed to our man". All well and good. It ties in neatly with DB and SJ being the work of an "enterprising journalist". Mr P also wrote that "our man" could "read" and "had access to a range of newspapers, regularly".

Thats not true. I said he could read in teh context of developing a counter argument against a point Caz raised.

His literacy is neither here nor there in the greater scheme of my contentions.

So how do you feel "our man" reacted when he opened his newspaper on 1st October 1888 and read that someone called Jack the Ripper had taken credit for his handiwork? What made "our man" cease operations for six weeks? Was it a fit of pique?

If he could read......and I'm not saying he could....I would imagine he didn't really care as I doubt he experienced his murderous activities in anything approaching the way a a normal man would and therefore they could not engender any of the emotions one would need for him to care either way.

And thats not giving you a short answer. A man who wallows in gore does not necessarily give a fig what others think nor necessarily posess the wherewithal or the inclination to even recognise himself or his actions in what appeared in the press.

Except for Kelly.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Apologies Simon Wood

But for once I can actually prove my point....

Lets assume he could read and write.

And he wasnt the author of DB or SJ.

And was concerned about his image.

And miffed reading other peoples assertions to being him.

Then all it would take is one letter to the press saying the next victim will have a big J carved on her or something confirmatory.

And he never did. Not once. Nothing.

Th enotion that he, as a killer, would care about his image or how the press viewed him or that anyone pretended to be him....its a product of todays world and what we think killers do based on what we hear about them now..from the telly or whatever.

p

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mr P,

You're right. "Our man" never did write to the press or cops "saying the next victim will have a big J carved on her".

So did he fool the press and cops into thinking that Millers Court was the handiwork of a non-existent Jack the Ripper?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris G.]

The notion that he, as a killer, would care about his image or how the press viewed him or that anyone pretended to be him....its a product of todays world and what we think killers do based on what we hear about them now..from the telly or whatever.

p

Actually the notion comes to a large extent from this very case in that the letters themselves and as portrayed later in literature, theatrical presentations, and films, seemed to show that Jack wrote letters and enjoyed provoking the authorities. None of that need have been true but it's the image that has come down to us and to the world at large.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Simon Wood

You're right. "Our man" never did write to the press or cops "saying the next victim will have a big J carved on her".

I understand this bit (I'm glad ear clipping was not mentioned).

So did he fool the press and cops into thinking that Millers Court was the handiwork of a non-existent Jack the Ripper?

I don't understand this bit.

If we assume Millers Court wasn't ripper...then I don't think the Ripper fooled the press into thinking it was a Ripper crime. I think the Millers Killer fooled the press (and some of the cops) into thinking it was a ripper crime.

I'm presuming "he" in the above sentence refers to the Ripper?

p

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mr P,

Let me rephrase the question. Did "our man" fool the press and cops into thinking that Millers Court was the handiwork of a non-existent Jack the Ripper?

Hi Chris,

You're absolutely spot on. We have been so schmoozed by the fiction that we are steadily losing our grasp on the facts. Which is just how it was meant to be.

Regards,

Simon

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G.

Actually the notion comes to a large extent from this very case in that the letters themselves and as portrayed later in literature, theatrical presentations, and films, seemed to show that Jack wrote letters and enjoyed provoking the authorities.

I disagree. Very few accept or accepted the letters as real (unless JtR was more prolific than Mills and Boones).

None of that need have been true but it's the image that has come down to us and to the world at large.

The image of serial killers playing with the media or been influenced by the media only popped up once TV appeared and Zodica killers, and "cool" nicknames and tiwts who wrote books on "profiling" and TV shows dealing with serial killers and so on.

There is no evidence JtR indulged in media games. cery few beelive he did.

If as you contend it all started with him, then it was a fitful start indeed in that it hardly entered the public consiousness between then and the 1960's that killers ought media attention or were worried about their image in the manner (and this is important) or context within which my discussion with Caz was proceeding.

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Simon Wood

Did "our man" fool the press and cops into thinking that Millers Court was the handiwork of a non-existent Jack the Ripper?

Thats still no clear as you do not define "our man": is it JtR or the MIller Killer?

But I will be clear.

The guy who did Millers Court fooled press and some cops to thinking that it was comitted by the gut who had done the five from Tabram onwards and stoppiong at Eddowes and who we now call JtR.

JtR did not fool the press. he didnt give a rats ass who they thought did Millers Court.

JtR fooled no one. Th eguy who did Millers court fooled the press and some cops.

Thats pretty clear to me.

p

[Simon Wood]

Hi Mr P,

"Our man" was your invention [post #10], so he needs no introduction from me. If you don't know who he is then there's no hope for any of us.

Regards,

Simon

[Chris G.]

Hi Chris G.

I disagree. Very few accept or accepted the letters as real (unless JtR was more prolific than Mills and Boones).


Are we talking about the same case here? The general conception among the public then and today is that Jack wrote letters. The jury is out among those who have studied the case but that isn't the perception that most have.

C

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G

Are we talking about the same thread here?

I was discussing with Caz, who I imagine is quite realistic in her expectations of what the letters were.

What the general populace then thought is hardly relevant. What th epolice thought is most likely indicated by the most promising of the letters having been written by our erstwhile "enterprising journalist".

And even in light of that I will repeat for your benefit: the notion that serial killers spend their time communicating with the media for the benefits of their ego or anything else and give a toss what the media writes did not "come down" from JtR unless you are happy that it skipped a quick 70 years without happening, and is largely a product of TV, profiling and general purpose nonsense.

Like most profiling crap, the vast majority of killers DO NOT communicate with press or media, DO NOT give a feck about what the press thinks, DO NOT guide their actions based on what is in the media and there is NO REASON at all to think JtR could read, let alone avidly follow the papers.

The only reason people think that typical serial kilers do this sort of stuff is due to the TV, profiling idiots and general crap.

It did not start with JtR and come down from him (unless a break of 70 years and a reappearance coincidentally with TV and profiling is some kind of continuity).

Its amazing the things people like to assign to JtR: urban renewal, street lighting, police reform, serial killing myths.......

It'll be recto-genital surgery next. Anything to try and heighten his relevance and thereby legitamise peoples interest in him. So instead of just being interested in some whore gutting murderer they can say "But no, he was a figure of significance and worthy or study" or whatever, all the while whinging about "respect the women".


Hi Simon Wood

"our man" existed within the context of the text of that post. Taking him out of that context and presenting him in an unclear ambiguous context is hardly a recipe for universal clarity now is it?

What would have been is a statement like "our man (as defined in post 10)...." where it is cross referenced to a point such that "our man" could not mean either JtR, Miller Killer or indeed both.

At any rate its irrelevant. My statement following left no doubt as to my meaning.

p

[Simon Wood]

:yield:

[Chris G.]

Hey Mr P

I don't think the killer wrote letters either.

All I am talking about is what was and is the prevailing feeling out there among people who don't know much about the case. Not people who have studied the case like you.

And by the way, I seriously contest your claim that the police knew immediately that Dear Boss was not written by the killer. Why else would they publish Dear Boss and Saucy Jack on a broadside asking if people recognized the handwriting? They did that because they were taken in like everyone else. The idea that they knew all along that it was an enterprising journalist is the view spread around years later by know-it-all police officials like Macnaghten and Anderson telling it like it "really" was, when neither was on the job at the time... Sir Robert was having a Swiss holiday and Macnaghten was not yet appointed.

C

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G.

All I am talking about is what was and is the prevailing feeling out there among people who don't know much about the case.

Fair enough. And with that I would have no problem generally. However, the issue to hand is this: was JtR affected in any way by the press coverage, people pretending to be him by letterwriting, etc etc.

YOu engaged in this issue in response to my statement that:

The notion that he, as a killer, would care about his image or how the press viewed him or that anyone pretended to be him....its a product of todays world and what we think killers do based on what we hear about them now..from the telly or whatever.

by countering with:

Actually the notion comes to a large extent from this very case in that the letters themselves and as portrayed later in literature, theatrical presentations, and films, seemed to show that Jack wrote letters and enjoyed provoking the authorities. None of that need have been true but it's the image that has come down to us and to the world at large.

which I disagree with. And have countered.

And by the way, I seriously contest your claim that the police knew immediately that Dear Boss was not written by the killer. Why else would they publish Dear Boss and Saucy Jack on a broadside asking if people recognized the handwriting? They did that because they were taken in like everyone else. The idea that they knew all along that it was an enterprising journalist is the view spread around years later by know-it-all police officials like Macnaghten and Anderson telling it like it "really" was, when neither was on the job at the time... Sir Robert was having a Swiss holiday and Macnaghten was not yet appointed.

You can disagree with that all you want. But despite the number of attempts to drag this thread screaming and kicking into the bushes, I am sticking to the path of JtR being affected by the press.

If you want to start a thread on did the police really beleive.....fire ahead.

If you want to defend your contention that "the notion [that serial killlers play with the press] comes to a large extent from this very case " then this is the place for it and lets have at it.

p

[Chris G.]

Hi P

Once again I am not saying Jack played with the press although the perception at the time was that he did, perhaps colluded with by the press themselves to keep the story going. There is no evidence one way or the other to show that the killer was affected by the press.

C

[Scott Nelson]

There is no evidence one way or the other to show that the killer was affected by the press.C

Yes, Chris. Agree. However, I can't help thinking that Jack may been absorbed in his own little world, oblivious to the reactions of the press or public.

[Pilgrim]

..."There is no doubt that Warren himself viewed the 'Dear Boss' correspondence as a hoax. Writing to Lushington at the Home Office on 10 October, he said: 'At present I think the whole thing is a hoax but of course we are bound to try & ascertain the writer in any case.'" Evans & Rumbelow, Jack the Ripper - Scotland Yard investigates., p. 140.
~~~

[Chris G.]

"There is no doubt that Warren himself viewed the 'Dear Boss' correspondence as a hoax. Writing to Lushington at the Home Office on 10 October, he said: 'At present I think the whole thing is a hoax but of course we are bound to try & ascertain the writer in any case.'" Evans & Rumbelow, Jack the Ripper - Scotland Yard investigates., p. 140.

Hello Pilgrim

No doubt the police went back and forth in trying to decide whether the Dear Boss correspondence was really from the killer, just as then and now people go back and forth on the Lusk letter and whether the half a kidney could really have been from Eddowes. But the point is as I wrote earlier in the thread, the Met evidently thought there was sufficient possibility that the letter and postcard could have been from the killer to have put them on a broadside for people to see if they could recognize the writing. If they were convinced the missives were a hoax they would not have done that.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G

There is no evidence one way or the other to show that the killer was affected by the press.

This is true perhaps. However, one can argue that there is evidence that he was not very concerned at all.

If he was concerned, there are two possible options for discusion:

1. He was concerned and did not write any letters

2. He was concerned and did write some of the letters

He obviously could not write them all. In case 1, he obviously was not concerned enough to addres the fact that other people were pretending to be him. Even though, had he not thought of it himself, the precedent was set for him regarding letter writing. Yet he didnt. Not one letter confirming he was the author (by describing something only th eripper could know) even though that was entirely ithin his grasp.

For case two, lets assume he did write some of them. Again. none of the letters are indictive of specific aaction or information only he could know. So if he was concerned enough to put pen to paper its hardly likely he would have ignored the opportunity to comfirm it was him. And yett he didnt.

So its virtually impossible to think he was concerned with either the press or the letters . The abscence of any action on his part is surely indicative of his not giving a fig about what appeared in either press or missive?

p

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G

In your analysis of what the police did ... you are forgetting that they were so desperate they were trying everything.

Clutching at straws when thats all thats left to clutch at is not indicative of ones actually beleiving with any seriousness that the straw will support your weight.

Desperate men do desperate things an inferring what they beleived by their aactions in those desperate times is a misleading path.

p

[Chris G.]

Hi Mr P

Both of your replies are speculative.

So its virtually impossible to think he was concerned with either the press or the letters . The abscence of any action on his part is surely indicative of his not giving a fig about what appeared in either press or missive?"

No. We just don't know if he was concerned with either the press or the letters, just as you say in your first sentence. Maybe he didn't speak English and didn't know what was in the newspapers, didn't know either about the letters. We certainly do not know if he gave a fig or not.



In your analysis of what the police did ... you are forgetting that they were so desperate they were trying everything.

Clutching at straws when thats all thats left to clutch at is not indicative of ones actually beleiving with any seriousness that the straw will support your weight.

Desperate men do desperate things an inferring what they beleived by their aactions in those desperate times is a misleading path.

p

Mmmmm. We're talking about a professional police force, one of the world's leading police organizations of the day if not the leading force of the time internationally. Moreover a part of the bureaucracy of England, answerable to the Home Office for any expenses incurred, including the expense of putting out a police broadside to ask if anyone knew the writing in Dear Boss and Saucy Jack. Certainly they made the decision to put out the broadside because they thought it might bring results. And not catch a hoaxer either.

On the other hand. . . .

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3919128708_330bf531cb.jpg

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

HI Chris G

We're talking about a professional police force, one of the world's leading police organizations of the day if not the leading force of the time internationally.

True. We are also talking about a police force that was very subject to th epolitical will of the day. Thats why they used to go around breaking Jewish anarhcist heads and so on.....

Moreover a part of the bureaucracy of England, answerable to the Home Office for any expenses incurred, including the expense of putting out a police broadside to ask if anyone knew the writing in Dear Boss and Saucy Jack.

Exactly. Answerable to the home office and the politicians for why they didnt follow up whatever leads turned up to sate the demand on the establishment to be seen to do something. Irrespective or not of whether the police thought a clue was valuable, it woudld not bode well to be seen to be NOT pursuing something despite their own misgivings about the use of it.

Probably in a similar manner to their engaging in activities such as tracking down cowboys and every crazed eyed git who turned up. No doubt they also knew these were going nowhere but could not afford to be seen not attending to every possible lead however daft.

As to the cost of the broadside....small change relative to the political cost if it got out they hadnt bothered their arses.

Certainly they made the decision to put out the broadside because they thought it might bring results. And not catch a hoaxer either.

Nope. They put it out because the fallout from not putting it out would have been biblical.

p

[How Brown]

True. We are also talking about a police force that was very subject to th epolitical will of the day. Thats why they used to go around breaking Jewish anarchist heads and so on.....



Lars, old friend...why is there this propensity on people's part...you in this particular instance... to automatically say "Jewish anarchist" instead of plain old anarchist ? What difference did it make what ethnicity an anarchist was ? Look at Trafalgar Square. Look at all the non Jews who got their heads smacked in as well as Jewish heads. Its as if it was a requisite for an anarchist to be Jewish.

I am simply baffled at this tendency to distinguish non Jewish and Jewish anarchist...and even more so when I see people overlook the heads of non Jews that were bashed.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi How. Its all A.P.Wolfs fault.
P

[How Brown]

Lars...

I figured that.

All kidding aside, I only mentioned that to you because we have been focusing on several aspects of the Case that revolve around immigrants lately and particularly those who happened to be Jewish and in an effort to be as balanced and above board as possible I just wanted it known that no one is being singled out despite a lot of the discussion revolving around Jewish people. A.P., for example, is perfectly within his right to believe what he wants....but at the same time he unintentionally paints a picture of the events that are not necessarily objective and do not correspond with available facts.

Had we been talking about a large group of Welshmen or Norwegians...or even the humdrum Hungarians, I wouldn't hesitate a second to say the same thing.

[A.P. Wolf]

It is indeed my fault, proud of it, some here intend to split hairs with an axe, I'll just use a small knife to pare.

[How Brown]

Hardly an achievement to gloat over since each point you've raised, I've razed with my battleaxe.

Get a chance to see those new charts yet?:wave:

[Mr. Poster]

Hi How

I get the feeling we are beginning to talk more about Jews in the wider sense as opposed to 1880's London so I'll bow out gracefully.

But I will say that an "anarchist" in 1880's Britain was probably less the Kropotkin-esque bomb chucker and more anyone who disagreed with the establishment and its Fascism.

So tagging Jewish and anarchist together in the context of JtR and 1880's London.....its not exactly disparaging to my mind?

At any rate....I don't do Jewish discussions if at all possible so I'll leave this one alone.

p

[Chris G.]

But I will say that an "anarchist" in 1880's Britain was probably less the Kropotkin-esque bomb chucker and more anyone who disagreed with the establishment and its Fascism.



No. I don't think so. I think the Kropotkin-esque bomb chucker of 1900 was the same Kropotkin-esque bomb chucker of the 1880's. Maybe we need another thread.

C

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G

We probably do. It would be interesting to see what kind of ctivities these "jewish anarchists" were actually getting up to in 1888.

Aside from heated idealistic debates and firey speeches about liberty...... I have never been struck by a deluge of press reports about Jewish anarchist bomb factories, Jewish anarchist assassinations, Jewish anarchist bomb plots, Jewish anarchists attempting to bring down the state.

Indeed they seem more concerened with working mens clubs and fairly tame social activities.

Not exactly the image of anarchist that the word normally conjures up.

Then again, it was probably a handy label (with all the conveniently violent but untrue conotations) to hang on a bunch who disagreed with the establishment and required suppression.

Much like "terrorist" with its Mad Mullah conotatiions is a handy label to hang on "freedom fighters" against some oppressive regime.

Once again....the press against the people.

p

[Mr. Poster]

And as an aside ..... just in case you start bilking...I know that Kropotkin wasn't particularly violent or prone to bomb chucking.

But I like the phrase Kropotkin-esque bomb chucker. And the image it conjures up.

p

[Chris G.]

Hello Lars

I like the term "Kropotkin-esque bomb chucker" as well, even if the designation might be somewhat misapplied. While saying that I thought the bomb-chucking anarchists of the 1880's were the same as in 1900, I am aware that while the activist club on Berner Street, besides which Liz Stride was murdered, was known as a "socialist" organization in 1888, by the time they moved further south in St. George's-in-the-East to Prince's Square they were known as "anarchists" so there does seem to have been a material change at least in how East End activists viewed themselves or were viewed, so there were may have been more of a nihilistic trend as time went on.

Chris

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G.

there does seem to have been a material change at least in how East End activists viewed themselves or were viewed

Thats a valid point. I do however find it hard to imagine that they thought (i.e. the members) that it was a good plan to start calling themselves an "anarchists" club so one must surely assume that the designation or description was applied to them by external people (i.e. th epolice, the press, the public, the politicians, whoevere...).

Which does not in itself mean that their activities (or lack of them) had changed one iota.

Rather the perception of them had possibly changed. Or that the press/police/whoever had decided that their aims would be better served by beginning to associate the word "anarchist" with them.

I still maintain that there is little if any evidence of anarchist activities being committed in an organised manner by Jews or of any activity that could lend credence to the term "Jewish anarchists" within the context of how we, or most people, then or now, understand or imagine the term "anarchist".

This in itself is of course a useful demonstration that the people were the victims of the press (and probably police) more than they were a victim of JtR.

JtR killed a few prostitutes. If one added up the social and economic consequences of that (ignoring the obvious consequences for the victims themselves)...it appears to me that the people were more impacted upon by the press .... both with respect to th epresses resporting of JtR and its generalised reporting in relation to groups such as Jewish social club members ( or "Jewish anarchists" to adopt the press parlance of the time).

p

[How Brown]

Then again, it was probably a handy label (with all the conveniently violent but untrue conotations) to hang on a bunch who disagreed with the establishment and required suppression...Lars

Asked for it is more like it in my view. I do not have time now to set up a thread on what exactly the anarchists ( lets take the boychiks on Berner Street for an example) were anarkin' about:)....but I would be surprised if it didn't include discussing what to do with the sweating that fellow Jews were doing to other Jews...and the apathy from the Orthodox and already assimilated Jewish communities towards their attempts to make inroads among the newly arrived Jews.

Its like anything else. You have 2 percent of the community on one side of the larger 96 percent...pushing them in one direction...and the remaining 2 percent on the other side pushing their agenda .

Its also why it was Jew versus Jew on Berner Street in 1889...with the Police intervening on behalf of one of the "sides" of the issue...intervening by performing their duties in dismantling the perpetuation of the pitched battle and seemingly siding with the assimilated Jews who were struck first.

Of course, AHEM...some folks around here seem to believe that it was strictly a case of the police being indifferent or oblivious to the differences in ideologies between conservative and inflexible mainstream Jews and these anti-Talmudic Jews...and that to them, a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Thats simply an example of arrested thinking in practice in terms of how we observe the events of the time...to me.

I opt for the proper word being "asked for it", Lars, with no disrespect to your view...because anarchists of every stripe demand attention.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho How

I genuinely don't know.....I'm not a big follower of the Jewish side of the whole JtR story at all and think its overplayed.

But I still think "anarchists" were not as malevolent as they sound. We relate "anarchist" and "violence" way too often.

When what we should associate with "anarchist" is "idiotic bearded hippy socialist".

Who are of course worth beating just because they are socialists.

I wish this thread would get back on topic ..... where is SamF when you need him.

p

[Caroline Morris]

...the notion that he could do the acts, not being fully in control, in a specific catathymic state would facilitate his getting away as he would not even be perturbed by what he did. In the abscence of blood, crazy eyes and blatant attempts to sprint up Whitechapel main street....he could just walk away. And I dont see his timing as being perfect. It was piss poor actually. Otherwise he wouldnt have come so close to being nabbed each time.

Hi Mr P,

Well I have to disagree here. What I meant by perfect timing is that he seemed to know when he dared not hang around a second longer. Was that instinctive, or were his senses acutely aware while he was wallowing in the gore, enabling him to leg it the instant he heard or sensed approaching danger? How could he have reacted in time to any alarm signals if he had been totally unperturbed by what he was doing, where he was doing it, and how long for? Yes, he could 'just walk away', but it had to be at the right time and no later, considering how quickly the crimes were often discovered.


A man who wallows in gore does not necessarily give a fig what others think nor necessarily posess the wherewithal or the inclination to even recognise himself or his actions in what appeared in the press.

Except for Kelly.

And there's the rub, Mr P.

Except for the man who wallowed in gore more than ever before - in Miller's Court.

I'm very surprised to find you in "Mary was no ripper victim" territory. Was she too young and pretty for him?


...it was a fitful start indeed in that it hardly entered the public consiousness between then and the 1960's that killers ought media attention or were worried about their image in the manner (and this is important) or context within which my discussion with Caz was proceeding.


Eh? All I'm saying is that you want it both ways. You want the ripper to have not cared less what the papers might be saying about him (which might well be true - I wasn't arguing for or against), but you argue that the Miller's Court ripper was directly influenced by the press into wallowing in his blood bath there, ergo he has to be a different individual with a different character, who presumably went off the edge just the once, due to the recent sensational news stories, and took it to extremes of horror that the press could only have imagined in their wildest dreams.

I prefer the economical view: either the mutilation murders escalated naturally, due to the inner workings of the killer's mind alone, or the newspapers played their part in helping along that escalation - but the result was down to one uncommonly murderous mind, not two. I don't do coincidences that big. And I do not think the press has ever been powerful enough to conjure up its own real life mutilating murderer from the readership, and I suspect that the C5 would have happened regardless (especially if you are right about wallowers in gore not giving a fig etc).

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Caz

Yes, he could 'just walk away', but it had to be at the right time and no later, considering how quickly the crimes were often discovered.

I doubt he did just walk away at some selected time. I reckon, in the same manner that he "boiled over", he went "off the boil" and just left as if nothing happened or he had a lucid second, found himself up to the tonsils in gore and then legged it in horror. Serendipity perhaps that he wasnt caught....?

Except for the man who wallowed in gore more than ever before - in Miller's Court.

I'm very surprised to find you in "Mary was no ripper victim" territory. Was she too young and pretty for him?

Thats presupposes that he was after some particular type. I doubt he was. Mary wasnt a ripper victim (i.e. killed by the hand of ripper) because she wasnt killed by the ripper. Not because he didnt choose her or something.. Most likely their paths never crossed and even if they had, there may only have been a certain probability that she would perhaps engage him or engage in the activities that were likely to trigger him off.

However, if we define Ripper victims by how they were killed (which is what we actually do), then she was a ripper victim. It just wasnt the ripper who killed her.

You want the ripper to have not cared less what the papers might be saying about him (which might well be true - I wasn't arguing for or against), but you argue that the Miller's Court ripper was directly influenced by the press into wallowing in his blood bath there, ergo he has to be a different individual with a different character, who presumably went off the edge just the once, due to the recent sensational news stories, and took it to extremes of horror that the press could only have imagined in their wildest dreams.

Nope. Th eRipper who killed Eddowes et al (but not Kelly) didnt give a fig about the papers.

The guy who killed Kelly in Millers court was probably not the same guy.

And he wasnt playing games with the papers either. he was using the papers as a handy means of killing someone and ascribing the event to someone else.

Not the same at all as the paper reading serial killer who is focused on how they are portraying him. Which only "appeared" with the advent of profiling.

So there are no contradictions at all in my scheme of things.

The Tabram thruogh to Eddowes Ripper was not concerned with the papers.

The "Ripper" who killed Kelly didnt care about appearing in the papers but rather used them as a convenient blueprint for doing in Kelly in such a way that it looked like the Tabram Through Eddowes killer.

but the result was down to one uncommonly murderous mind, not two.

Thats incorrect-....... my version has just one uncommonly murderous mind - that being Tabram Through Eddowes Killer.

Its not uncommon at all to just want to kill one person, especially one you have been shagging and are in a personal relationship with. So the guy who did Kelly had a very common murderous mind, like many before and after.

Th eonly difference was he was presented with an ideal opportunity, by th epress, in which to execute his common murderous intent without th eone restraining factor which prevents many of us from topping someone....that of being caught.

I don't do coincidences that big.

No coincdiences. Just one crazy guy superimposed upon upon a background of normal people with normal urges and relationships.

The only difference being that that background was slightly warped (by th epress) such that a deviation was facilitated that resulted in something that could have resulted in any "background" of people....the opportunity to kill someone and have someone else blamed for it.

And I do not think the press has ever been powerful enough to conjure up its own real life mutilating murderer from the readership

neither do I. But I dont think they conjured him up. They just facilitated, via overly lunatic descriptions, a normal person to indulge in a normal desire.

Especially one who was being cuckolded in a commercial sense by someone.

Crimes of Passion. Hardly unique.

Indulging those Crimes of Passion desires. Hardly unique.

Desiring to Commit a Crime of Passion and get away with it. Hardly unique.

Seeking to defelct attention onto someone else in order to get away with it. Hardly unique.

taking advantage of the circumstances provided by a third party to do so. Hardly unique.

p

[Mr. Poster]

And I will make an addendum in relation Kelly.

Kelly is, by all definitions, an outlier in the set defined by Tabram through to Eddowes and possibly out to Coles.

The normal thing to do is check that outlier to ensure it is actually one. And seeing as we have not misread the doctors reports, we know she was indoors, etc. we know she is not an outlier because of our misreading or whatever.

The correct treatments of outliers is not to try and juggle the statistics for the well behaved set members so that we can shoehorn Kelly into it.

The correct treatment of such outliers is to assume they represent a non-member of the set and treat them as such.

Why we spend so much time doing contortions to make Kelly fit is beyond me.

Time better spent would be upon figuring out why she is an outlier.
p

[Chris G.]

And I will make an addendum in relation Kelly.

Kelly is, by all definitions, an outlier in the set defined by Tabram through to Eddowes and possibly out to Coles. . . .

How does Tabram fit with the C5? I just don't see it. Different type of murder and wounds entirely. Surely Kelly fits more than Tabram ever could.

C

[Mr. Poster]

HI Chris G.

Personal belief on my part...the only criteria she (Tabram) has to fulfill are the ones I set for my acceptance).

And she fits nicely within criteria set according to my belief that JtR was a catathymic killer.

That that doesn't tick the boxes of anyone else is of little or no concern to me.

She was the right age bracket. She was probably as desperate (in all senses of the word) as Eddowes, Nichols, Chapman and Stride. She was stabbed the way she was with no apparent rhyme or reason. There was no evidence of any particular "objective"....and I beleive that lack of "objective" to be a characteristic of Ripper killings (the differences say more than the "similarities"), she was apparently fairly drunk and so on.

All the women bar Kelly (and Im taking GH's word for it) were in a position where they might go over some "passive" interaction with a client:

Tabram was drunk
Nichols was sick
Stride was physically imposing
Eddowes was in all liklihood fairly pissed even when released
Chapman was a bit of a sick old bowsy.

These factors could have made these women a bit "pushy" ...perhaps not willing to take no for an answer.

Kelly on th eother hand (and we have no reason to doubt GH's word on this piece) was apparently still quite polite and together.

IF the other bunch met JtR I could easily see them going to far or just being a bit over eager. Which is perhaps all it took to push our chap over the edge.

Kelly seems quite polite and took no for an asnwer from GH. According to his description of her (for which he has no real reason to lie) is a little more accepting of a negative. Therefore I see her as being less likely to pursue or harangue or shout insults or whatever.

There is no evidence of objective with the others. They get cut up, bit of slashing, cutting, gutting, random rummaging. Kelly on the other hand displays something else. Plus she had regular lovers. One of whom was pissed of at her. The same guy having already evinced interest in telling her what the ripper was doing in the papers. And we all know that th emost likely killer of people is someone they know.

There is no real evidence of ripper reading boyfriends with the others.

Kelly took too long. All the others were killed and after killing, at least for some, the killer just left before he was sighted. There is no evidence he was spotted or moved along due to people arriving. He left when he had enough or came to his senses.

he could have stayed with Eddowes untill interrupted properly. Same with Nichols. Same with Chapman. Same with Tabram. But he just apparently left.

Kelly on the other hand displays evidence of someone setting out to a job of work and leaving when finished or couldnt do no more. Which isnt the same.

At any rate, my personal beliefs as to Tabram bear no reflection on Kelly.

She is by most accounts an outlier from Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes and why we try and squeeze whats left of her into the same category is odd.

When her on-off boyfriend (cuckolded) who displays a weird tendency to read aloud tales of Ripper derring do to her is lurking in the shadows.

p

[Chris G.]

She [Tabram] was the right age bracket. She was probably as desperate (in all senses of the word) as Eddowes, Nichols, Chapman and Stride. She was stabbed the way she was with no apparent rhyme or reason. There was no evidence of any particular "objective"....and I beleive that lack of "objective" to be a characteristic of Ripper killings (the differences say more than the "similarities"), she was apparently fairly drunk and so on.



I agree with this part, the similarity of the women in characteristics



Kelly took too long. All the others were killed and after killing, at least for some, the killer just left before he was sighted. There is no evidence he was spotted or moved along due to people arriving. He left when he had enough or came to his senses.

Don't agree with this because in such a short murder series how can you make such a judgement?

C

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Chris G.

Don't agree with this because in such a short murder series how can you make such a judgement?

I cannot. But I am in no worse a position than anyone else deciding anything.

But what I will say is that Kellys doing was characetrised by removal of flesh. It was all over the place. Big slabs of it.

Yet none of the others had any evidence of flesh removal. Even though its as quick to whip a lump off a thigh or a buttock as it is to carve an eyelid or two or even heave out slippery guts. And yet none of that happened with the others. Even though there was enough time.

Indeed the only place people were being cut up like Kelly in relation to Ripper killings was...... in the papers.

The very papers Kellys lover was relishing in reading out to her.

As the Americans say.....go figure!

p

[Chris G.]

Indeed the only place people were being cut up like Kelly in relation to Ripper killings was...... in the papers.

The very papers Kellys lover was relishing in reading out to her.

As the Americans say.....go figure!

p

Mmmmm, yes, by his own admission. Giving the police a bit of evidence. . .

Now to me, at Miller's Court, the killer had more time, with the crime being indoors. He had the luxury of being able to remove slabs of flesh. A murder on the street would not have left him enough time, particularly since such widescale mutilation would have been bloodier.

To me, Barnett as the killer of Kelly and Kidney as the killer of Stride make for convenient suspects for those who do not wish to admit that Kelly or Stride could be Ripper victims. But that's personal belief on my part... as you say.

C

[Mr. Poster]

HI Chris G

I reckon he had plenty of time to be doing flesh removal on the street.

Especially with Eddowes. He had time to engage in two activities with her (little facial cuts and disembowelling)....and neither of them were the flesh removal so prominent in Kelly.

One wonders why.

Barnett for Kelly is more than just convenient. Its backed up by a gaziliion cases where someone romantically involved with the victim did it. Even more so when she had just dumped him. Even more so when she was somehow involved with someone else. Even more so when our stammering fish porter may have had a very low self esteem (queit spoken at court). Even more so when he seems to be a very gentle soul to be involved with a slattern like Kelly (giving her money and so on). Even more so when one finds out that he spent time reading ripper tales to her from the papers.

Barnett isnt a convenient suspect for Kelly. He's the absolute most logical one.

And removing the cheek of an arse or a thigh is no bloodier than cutting someones throat.

p

[Chris G.]

Barnett isnt a convenient suspect for Kelly. He's the absolute most logical one.



You'll be pleased to know that Stewart Evans agrees with you. Not that I agree with him, mind you.

C

[Mr. Poster]

Well in the abscence of any other information, the simplest solution is probably best.

p

[Sam Flynn]

I wish this thread would get back on topic ..... where is SamF when you need him.
Here I am, MrP... albeit a bit late. That said, I'm please to see that folks are no longer talking about the Jewish Antichrists.

[Caroline Morris]

I doubt he did just walk away at some selected time. I reckon, in the same manner that he "boiled over", he went "off the boil" and just left as if nothing happened or he had a lucid second, found himself up to the tonsils in gore and then legged it in horror. Serendipity perhaps that he wasnt caught....?

Serendipity indeed then, Mr P, that his “off the boil” point or lucid second always happened in good time for him to leave unseen or heard.

Same with whoever killed MJK - because if it was Joe, he knew that Mary had regular visitors to that room, including friends who stayed overnight, and if that very fact pissed him off it would presumably have been part of his motivation for doing her in. Of all potential killers, he would have known that he could be interrupted at any time, by some unwelcome caller moving the curtain to one side through the broken window to peer in, after knocking and getting no answer. In the darkness outside, a caller's face would not be visible to Joe, but any light inside and he could be recognised instantly. The caller would only have to run for it and tell the tale for Joe to hang.


....... my version has just one uncommonly murderous mind - that being Tabram Through Eddowes Killer.

Its not uncommon at all to just want to kill one person, especially one you have been shagging and are in a personal relationship with. So the guy who did Kelly had a very common murderous mind, like many before and after.

But remember, you don’t buy the idea that the police were morons in the case of GH, so the same surely applies to Joe Barnett, who was duly investigated as a potential suspect and eliminated from police enquiries - forever apparently. That’s fairly unusual with significant others in unsolved murder cases.

And how commonplace was the Miller's Court murder, in the whole history of crime? Would it not have been simpler, safer and more effective for Joe to have spent a bit less time fannying about at the scene (if he really had to attack her in her own bed, as opposed to surprising her outdoors), and just taking away with him one or two of the more easily obtained organs reportedly taken previously by the genuine ghoul? No paper was suggesting that the heart was taken in every case, or breasts cut off, yet Mary’s killer went to considerable unnecessary risk and effort to do both, in addition to removing her womb and kidneys, which he unaccountably left with the body. What on earth was he thinking? That wasn’t like the ghoul from the papers, was it? And what if the womb theory had been correct and gaining ground? He'd have bungled his copycat act for the seconds it would have taken to stuff that very organ into his pocket.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Caz

Serendipity indeed then, Mr P, that his “off the boil” point or lucid second always happened in good time for him to leave unseen or heard.

Im not so sure about that.......if his crazy moments only lasted two or there minutes....there is a reasonable chance that late at night in a back yard or wherever that one could reasonably expect a few minutes with no one walking by.

because if it was Joe, he knew that Mary had regular visitors to that room, including friends who stayed overnight, and if that very fact pissed him off it would presumably have been part of his motivation for doing her in. Of all potential killers, he would have known that he could be interrupted at any time,

Just how many visitors would be calling to her at two or three in th emorning? He was staying there himself often enough. Its fair to assume that anyone she knew could expect him to be there and why would they then call?

Even if they called so what? Just do not answer the door. They couldnt camp outside it. Or just break in for no reason. Of all people, Barnett knew he couldnt be disturbed and even if he was, if he shouted out to piss off, that solves the problem. Th enotion of being interrupted in relation to Barnett in Kellys room is very weak indeed.

moving the curtain to one side through the broken window to peer in, after knocking and getting no answer.

and seeing what? And why would they open the curtain? If they knocked and got no answer...why would they open the curtain? If they saw light inside...and got no answer...why would they open the curtain?


But remember, you don’t buy the idea that the police were morons in the case of GH, so the same surely applies to Joe Barnett, who was duly investigated as a potential suspect and eliminated from police enquiries - forever apparently.

1. Th epolice were at the time possibly unaware of the influence of the press.

2. Most of them had ascribed Kelly to Jack (Tabram thru Eddowes).

3. If Barnett had alibis for all the others then that leans towards him not being th eman they considered to have killed all. Ergo...hes free.

No paper was suggesting that the heart was taken in every case, or breasts cut off, yet Mary’s killer went to considerable unnecessary risk and effort to do both, in addition to removing her womb and kidneys, which he unaccountably left with the body. What on earth was he thinking? That wasn’t like the ghoul from the papers, was it? And what if the womb theory had been correct and gaining ground? He'd have bungled his copycat act for the seconds it would have taken to stuff that very organ into his pocket.

On another site at another time I provided full elaboration upon what th epress were saying was being done. Its hardly a leap to suggest that Barnett went overboard with kelly in order to make sure there was no mistaking Kelly as a "Ripper" victim.

Add to that fact that he's probably fairly pissed off with her as well as the fact that her injuries (facial) seem to be fairly personal in addition to th eoverhyped nonsense in the papers and ...voila..... Ripperified Kelly!

As to why not any specificity....there was none in the press....the easiest way to ensure he was covering all bases was just to go to town on her.

Lets not forget that "demons", "devils", "monsters" and so on were being bandied about. Heads were being removed, guts cast to the four winds, blood and guts over everything. Organs being left here and there, eyes gouged, general mayhem.

You are viewing Barnetts possible view of Ripper crimes through your better informed eyes. he was viewing it through the eyes of the gutter press combined with his own rage. I doubt very much that he sat there weighing up whether it was better or not to take a kidney or a uterus and trying to remember exactly what the Star had said had been done.

p

[Caroline Morris]

Well, Mr P, you seem to be very sure of Joe's guilt, so maybe I shouldn't encourage you to put the knife in him even more. :)

But I'd just remind you that Bowyer got no answer so he moved the curtain aside and looked upon hell itself.

Any light in that room at all, while your man was creating merry hell in there, would have enabled an unsuccessful caller (who might have been hoping for business, pleasure, gossip or just a bit of floor space after an evening's light whoring) to see more than a mortal should ever see, with a simple twitch of that curtain. I doubt they'd have hung around waiting for Joe to realise he was being watched. He would have had no idea until it was too late.

I just don't see Joe - a familiar face - risking any more time in that room than necessary, when a cut throat and a slash or two outdoors would have done the trick. Not much point making sure there would be 'no mistaking Kelly as a "Ripper" victim' if he risked being seen doing just that.

Love,

Caz
X

[SirRobertAnderson]

and seeing what? And why would they open the curtain? If they knocked and got no answer...why would they open the curtain? If they saw light inside...and got no answer...why would they open the curtain?

Well, if they were an acquaintance/friend of Mary's, they might have been promised a place to crash on any given night. And they might know that Joe had moved out.

So Joe's voice + no Mary = potential trouble.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Organs being left here and there, eyes gouged, general mayhem.



Oooohhh.....we can use that on a Maybrick thread......

[Sam Flynn]

I just don't see Joe - a familiar face - risking any more time in that room than necessary, when a cut throat and a slash or two outdoors would have done the trick.
"Slash or two outdoors"? Cadoche! :)

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Caz

Well, Mr P, you seem to be very sure of Joe's guilt, so maybe I shouldn't encourage you to put the knife in him even more. :)

I m not buit I would be a fool not to have him high on the list for Kelly.

But I'd just remind you that Bowyer got no answer so he moved the curtain aside and looked upon hell itself.

Ah yes.....but:

1. Bowyer was calling at a much more sociable hour.

2. Bowyer had a chance of seeing something given daylight.

3. Bowyer had a right to probably enter as he was representing th eland lord of a tenant in a lot of arrears.

4. Bowyer was probably afraid of McCarthy and would tjherefore go to greater lengths than a social caller.

So its not quite the same.

Any light in that room at all, while your man was creating merry hell in there, would have enabled an unsuccessful caller (who might have been hoping for business, pleasure, gossip or just a bit of floor space after an evening's light whoring) to see more than a mortal should ever see, with a simple twitch of that curtain.

What sort of person, in Whitechapel, at night, calling to the door of a notoriuosly rowdy whore, who may be "busy", would, in his right mind, stick his head through the window?

Its hardly good sense.

I doubt they'd have hung around waiting for Joe to realise he was being watched. He would have had no idea until it was too late.

What sort of berk would stick his head in?

I just don't see Joe - a familiar face - risking any more time in that room than necessary, when a cut throat and a slash or two outdoors would have done the trick. Not much point making sure there would be 'no mistaking Kelly as a "Ripper" victim' if he risked being seen doing just that.

If he slashed her outside......and it didnt look like what he thought, via the press, like a Ripper klilling...then he's in the frame.

Plus its a bit risky. Better to do her indoors and make sure it loooked like what he thouight a riopper killing looked like with less chance of disturbance.

p

[Caroline Morris]

Hi Mr P,

Who said anything about a caller (male or female) sticking their head through the window?

Arguably it would have been easier for a caller outside in the pitch black night to see Jack slashing about (steady Sam :)) in that room (assuming he worked by candlelight or firelight), than it was for Bowyer, standing outside in the daylight, peering into the gloomy unlit interior at 10.45am.

The same action would have been involved in either case, ie a quick twitch of the curtain with a hand inside the broken pane, for the glimpse into hell. And if it was Joe taking his time in there, chances are that anyone looking for Mary would know him and recognise him, while Joe would have no chance of seeing the face outside the window.

I really don't see how Joe could have been remotely confident that this just wouldn't happen while he was slashing away to his heart's content, stripping off flesh and flaps and all sorts, especially as he claimed to have left Mary because she let friends stay over in the room! He must also have guessed that she would be straight on the game for booze and rent money, using her room for business now that he was no longer an obstacle and winter was fast approaching.

Imagine the scenario - friend of Mary's comes back to the room with a customer, hoping Mary is still out and about so they can do the business out of the cold and damp. They try the door but it's locked and there's no singing or any other signs of Mary being home. So friend goes to the window to see if Mary's out and if they can get in that way, and it's all over for Joe.

What sort of berk would Joe have to be to have risked it, knowing what he did?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Imagine the scenario - friend of Mary's comes back to the room with a customer
Well, one would have to imagine the scenario, Caz - for we have no evidence that Mary regularly used the room for the purposes of prostitution, still less let it out to friends who might have decided to use it at 4 in the morning (or thereabouts).

Compared to the other murder scenes, the room at 13 Miller's Court was as safe as houses. It would have been significantly easier for the killer to have been caught in the act at any of the other sites, as the only necessary condition for discovery was someone happening past. In Kelly's case, there is at least the complication of the room being a private dwelling - and that's only one among several conditions of varying degrees of likelihood that would have to have been met before Mary's killer could be observed in the act.

All it needed in the other cases was for someone to stroll by - or visit the lav for an early morning pee - as, indeed, transpired on each and every occasion, and not long after the event. In contrast, Mary seems to have lain undiscovered for hours. It's worth reflecting that, had not Bowyer been tasked to "knock her up", Mary's body would probably not have been found until very much later in the day - perhaps even as late as 7PM, if that was Barnett's customary visiting-time.

[SirRobertAnderson]

Compared to the other murder scenes, the room at 13 Miller's Court was as safe as houses. It would have been infinitely easier for the killer to have been caught in the act at any of the other sites, as the only necessary condition for discovery was someone happening past.

Ooh ooh ooh.....I don't agree there. The killer had no way of knowing who might be coming by. (He's going to take a whore's word that they will be undisturbed for the entire night?) We do know Mary had friends stay on occasion.

More importantly, once "discovered", he's trapped. How does he get out, not only of the room itself, but Miller's Court itself ?

[Mr. Poster]

Hi sir bob. A gore covered man, a butchered woman, a knife, at night, in whitechapel. I doubt any interlopers would be trying to be heroes.
I dont see the killer having a problem. P

[How Brown]

I agree Sir Bob....it wasn't that safe in my view either. Certainly somewhat safer than a few guys traipsing into the backyard of Hanbury or sneaking up behind him on Bucks Row....

If someone had knocked on the door even without actually entering the flat, it might have led to the killer to react in such a way that the visitor would become suspicious...and go seek a second opinion.

But then again...and this is just my personal view....I don't think the killer ( Assuming that he also killed Kelly) was the sort to run if he had been confronted with a third party. I think he'd take out anyone in his way if need be.

[Sam Flynn]

Ooh ooh ooh.....I don't agree there. The killer had no way of knowing who might be coming by.Someone who'd saunter past at sometime past 3 or 4 in the morning, and who would have had an interest in Kelly's room sufficient to want to look through the pilot-coat curtain? Can't imagine why anyone would do that. Now, someone wandering down Buck's Row, strolling into Mitre Square, or taking a leak in a back-yard privy in Hanbury Street (at getting-up-for-work-time, already!) are different propositions entirely.

I just don't see that Miller's Court was risky at all - certainly not in comparison with every single one of the other murder sites, canonical or otherwise.

[SirRobertAnderson]

I think he'd take out anyone in his way if need be.

I picture JtR as a complete coward. I wouldn't bet he'd stand and deliver.

[How Brown]

Bob:

Being a coward without a knife is one thing....and in fact, as you know from growing up in New York, most people who use weapons rather than their hands are cowards from the get go. If he was murdering simply by strangling, yes...I'm sure he'd bolt at the drop of a pin. But our boy had a blade.

Nah...he'd slice and dice his way out of a potential jam in my view.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Caz

Arguably it would have been easier for a caller outside in the pitch black night to see Jack slashing about (steady Sam ) in that room (assuming he worked by candlelight or firelight), than it was for Bowyer, standing outside in the daylight, peering into the gloomy unlit interior at 10.45am.

Im assuming there was a curtain....and if so, if the light source was between Jack on the bed and the window, as it must have been, there is no reason to think he would be visible at all. He would only be visible had the light been behind him , which it could not be. So light or not.... neither he nor his actions could be visible.

The same action would have been involved in either case, ie a quick twitch of the curtain with a hand inside the broken pane, for the glimpse into hell. And if it was Joe taking his time in there, chances are that anyone looking for Mary would know him and recognise him, while Joe would have no chance of seeing the face outside the window.

All I know is that when I call to a whores room and she doesnt answer in the middle of the night in a rough part of town and that whore has a reputation for being a bit of a bowsy....I do not (repeat: NOT), feel the need to go twitching at curtains or sticking my hand anywhere. Why do people lfeel the need to think that people called at her door? At night? And then might take a peek?

I really don't see how Joe could have been remotely confident that this just wouldn't happen while he was slashing away to his heart's content, stripping off flesh and flaps and all sorts,

because he was Joe and he knew (knew!) that no one called to Kellys in the middle of the night and even if they did he just didnt have to answer and then if they stuck their hands through the window for a peek ..... You know what I mean.

especially as he claimed to have left Mary because she let friends stay over in the room!

Thats his story. Plus.....letting friends stay over is a lot different from said friends sauntering by at two in the morning and taking an unnaounced peek.

He must also have guessed that she would be straight on the game for booze and rent money, using her room for business now that he was no longer an obstacle and winter was fast approaching.

Ah Caz...thats a stretch and you know it! "Using her room for business....." ... thats assuming a lot plus...how could she use the room for business if, as you contend earlier, she was often having friends around?

Imagine the scenario - friend of Mary's comes back to the room with a customer, hoping Mary is still out and about so they can do the business out of the cold and damp.

Why do you think Kellys was some kind of communla brothel?

Why would you think that other whores were using Kellys room for whoring?

That has never been mentioned anywhere.

They try the door but it's locked and there's no singing or any other signs of Mary being home. So friend goes to the window to see if Mary's out and if they can get in that way, and it's all over for Joe.

Thats a lot of presuming.........

What sort of berk would Joe have to be to have risked it, knowing what he did?

Knowing what he did....he probably knew he was safe as houses.

What you are doing is conjuring up a scenario, then saying that Joe would have known this scenario and therefore would not have done it.

Whilst skipping over the fact that that is your scenario, which is arguably improbable and at any rate, Joe was likley to have known more than you about what was the situation.

p

[SirRobertAnderson]

Nah...he'd slice and dice his way out of a potential jam in my view.

I've been mulling this over, and of course it is all speculation either way.

But a few points:

1) Someone like McCarthy had to have been tough as nails. Not packin' heat, but I bet he was familiar with knifes and the like. Very familiar. He's the landlord of Miller's Court, for goodness' sake. He'd react to a shout of "It's the Ripper" or the likes IMHO.

2) All of the denizens of Miller's Court would have thought the act of catching the Ripper the equivalent of hitting the lottery. (Let alone ridding themselves of the Whitechapel Fiend.) And it's not as if the men folk have to travel a few blocks to get to Kelly's door.

3) Not only would Jack have to fight his way out of the room, he still has to exit the cul-de-sac.

4) One word : Squibby

[Caroline Morris]

Ah Caz...thats a stretch and you know it! "Using her room for business....." ... thats assuming a lot plus...how could she use the room for business if, as you contend earlier, she was often having friends around?


Why do you think Kellys was some kind of communla brothel?

Why would you think that other whores were using Kellys room for whoring?

That has never been mentioned anywhere.

Er, I thought Joe himself implied it when he said he left because he didn't like having to share the room with Mary's disreputable friends. Unless he was lying through his teeth (and you can't presume he was lying, just because you think he was a murderer - that's one thing you hate about the whole GH theory) he was surely not naïve enough to think that once he was out of the way, and still with no money coming in, his precious Mary (who was on the game when they met) and her pals would be good girls and only do laundry and stuff for their gin tokens, and if they did have to resort to whoring, they'd do it out on the streets and be back in their respective beds, alone and at a decent hour.

Look at the late hours that Martha, Polly and Annie were keeping. They were still out with company, or looking for money or shelter, the latter two way past 2am. Why couldn't any unfortunates known to Mary have been doing much the same and remembered that now Joe had left there'd be a floor, if not a bed, they could scrounge? It was November too, so more important to find shelter wherever possible.

Obviously we know that it didn't happen, at least not while the killer was in situ. But the point remains that Joe, of all people, would have been taking a risk to spend so long mutilating his ex in the home he had recently vacated, leaving spare space for others to fill.

Whatever else, Joe was likely to have known more than either of us what the situation was in that court, and what his chances would be of getting away with that murder in that room - either when questioned afterwards about his movements, life and relationship, or while in the process of committing such a crime.

Put yourself in his position - no previous experience, just the newspaper reports and street gossip about the recent mutilation murders to inspire you and - God willing - cover your back. Wouldn't you have to have a serial killer's screw loose to even think about giving it a go?

I know I would.

Love,

Caz
X

[Mr. Poster]

Hi Caz

Er, I thought Joe himself implied it when he said he left because he didn't like having to share the room with Mary's disreputable friends.

My reading of it was not that they were doing business there but were staying over. IT must have been cramped with him there, marys friend and her client! Unless he meant staying there but not doing business,.


Unless he was lying through his teeth (and you can't presume he was lying, just because you think he was a murderer - that's one thing you hate about the whole GH theory) he was surely not naïve enough to think that once he was out of the way, and still with no money coming in, his precious Mary (who was on the game when they met) and her pals would be good girls and only do laundry and stuff for their gin tokens, and if they did have to resort to whoring, they'd do it out on the streets and be back in their respective beds, alone and at a decent hour.

I have yet to see evidence that there was business being done by anyone in MIllers court. Surely running a brothel there would have gotten her fecked out by McCarthy?

Look at the late hours that Martha, Polly and Annie were keeping. They were still out with company, or looking for money or shelter, the latter two way past 2am. Why couldn't any unfortunates known to Mary have been doing much the same and remembered that now Joe had left there'd be a floor, if not a bed, they could scrounge?

Possible.....but thats a far cry from knocking, getting no answer and still trying to get a look in the window or whatever.

Obviously we know that it didn't happen, at least not while the killer was in situ. But the point remains that Joe, of all people, would have been taking a risk to spend so long mutilating his ex in the home he had recently vacated, leaving spare space for others to fill.

I disagree on that...... its probably less of a risk to Joes mind than trying to perform what he thought a ripper killing looked like out on the street.,

Put yourself in his position - no previous experience, just the newspaper reports and street gossip about the recent mutilation murders to inspire you and - God willing - cover your back. Wouldn't you have to have a serial killer's screw loose to even think about giving it a go?

Normally yes....but not in 1880 Whitechapel, with no forensics, no lie detectors, a widespread concern about a fiend killing whores, who Joe could prove he wasnt, and with pretty much step by step instructions being provided in a raft of newspapers.

p

[Sam Flynn]

Er, I thought Joe himself implied it when he said he left because he didn't like having to share the room with Mary's disreputable friends.Friend, singular, Caz - and there's no implication that the room was being used by Kelly and Harvey as a place of work... assuming (of course) that the latter was a prostitute. All that aside, having one extra person in that tiny room was always likely to impinge on Barnett's position as notional head of the household. If so, that alone would be sufficient reason for Barnett's departure, without also speculating that he was somehow "morally outraged" by the situation.