I agree. Let us not give Jack more credit for cleverness than he deserves…which is not a whole lot to begin with. 
Meanwhile - Jack, take it from somebody who’s read real, scholarly books on the subject - the chances of ‘Prince Eddy’ being the Ripper (based on real, scholarly evidence) are slim to none.
Besides which, given that the practice of circumcision, which you consider so harmful, has been in place for - oh, a thousand years or so now - why should the ‘first sexual serial killer’ suddenly appear in 1888?!
Welcome to the SDMB, easyreader! Glad to have a new member aboard.
I want to remind EVERYONE in this thread of the ground rules in this forum - No personal attacks please.
e.g.[list=A][li]«Arnold Winkelried, I think you have an imperfect understanding of the principles behind string theory» - acceptable statement.[/li][li]«Arnold Winkelried, you’re an idiot and you have as much chance of grasping the concepts of string theory with your puny intellect as a chimpanzee would» - unacceptable statement.[/list][/li]If ever you are in doubt about a particular sentence you have typed in, why not follow the safe course and eliminate or rephrase that statement? The preferred etiquette of posting is to add in each sentence expressions of the genre “o wise and benevolent moderator”, “as the great A.W. mentioned in another thread”, etc…
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-14-2000 at 06:32 PM]
No, I don’t believe I am. Saying that circumcision actually causes “psychological trauma” which leads to becoming a “sexual - serial killer” sounds pretty anti-Semitic to me. Now, as a Jewish person, I believe the “trauma” reported does not come from the circumcision, but rather the environment in which the child inevitably grows up in (especially if his family is orthodox Jewish; there’s a reason my mother eventually became atheist). Now, for the “sexual - serial killer” part, I think you’ll have to consult Freud (another traumitized Jew).
An interesting theory, Jack, marred only by the fact that Price Albert wasn’t even in London when the murders were committed.
From http://www.casebook.org/suspects/eddy.html :
But don’t let the facts get in your way.
The detail which Jack Dean Tyler omitted to mention is that there is some evidence that ‘Jack the Ripper’ was anti-Semitic, although that evidence is ambiguous and open to very different interpretations. The Jewish factor has been a recurring feature of the literature on the subject from the very beginning, sometimes for questionable reasons. The circumcision theory however seems very far-fetched. That there is a ‘tradition’ that the sons of the British Royal Family are circumcised is one of those stories which is often retold without any evidence ever being cited.
The crucial problem with the theory that the killer was the Duke of Clarence (a.k.a. Prince Albert Victor) has always been that he is known to have been staying with his grandmother at Balmoral at the time of one of the murders. The lesson of this is that if one is going to invent a crackpot theory, pick someone sufficiently obscure that their movements won’t have been recorded in great detail.
RealityChuck,
> An interesting theory, Jack, marred only by the fact that Price Albert wasn’t even in London when the murders were committed. <
I don't know much about the White Chapel murders. I know that there have been a couple of prominent books written that claim that Prince Albert Victor was the Ripper. I know that Victor has alibis that all come from the Royal Family. I know that such alibis can easily be created and almost certainly the Royal Family would not be above doing this to avoid the scandal.
The thing that I am most sure of, though, is that the Ripper was a victim of neonatal circumcision. No man who can receive proper pleasure from his penis would carry out such sex crimes. This isn't to say that an intact man won't commit mass murder. But, become a mutilating, sexual, serial killer? No way. Where's the motivation?
Only Prince Albert Victor is known to have been neonatally circumcised. He's the prime suspect. Even though Victor is alleged to have an alibi, others have still built a very good case against him from what I understand. Unless someone can show that one of the other suspects was neonatally circumcised or was at least circumcised early in life, we may actually be on the verge of solving the White Chapel murders after all.And the saddest thing is, he’s completely serious. All those women would be alive, but for lack of a foreskin.
How can you then come up with an answer for something you don’t know much about? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to take a look at what happened before coming up with explanations about the causes?
All quite thorougly debunked. Try doing some research on the subject. A good start is http://www.casebook.org.
I’m reminded of that Terry Pratchett quote, which says, in effect, when someone says “certainly” in an argument, he’s just making things up.
But if you think the alibis are false, you need some evidence to prove your case. Do you have any cites to prove Albert was in London at the times involved?
Really? Where in the crime reports on the case is the fact revealed?
What about impotence? Or if the guy was just plain ugly?
RealityChuck,
> How can you then come up with an answer for something you don’t know much about? <
I know that Victor is the only suspect that was a victim of RIC. That's all I really need to know given that we're looking for a mutilating, sexual, serial killer. It is my position that no intact man would carry out such a crime. An intact man might carry out a mass murder or even be a serial killer, but you won't find the sexually-mutilating factor involved.
> Wouldn’t it be a good idea to take a look at what happened before coming up with explanations about the causes? <
I'm no authority, but I know the essential elements of the White Chapel murders.
> All quite thorougly debunked. Try doing some research on the subject. A good start is http://www.casebook.org. <
Oh, it's time to take a second look, I would say.
> But if you think the alibis are false, you need some evidence to prove your case. Do you have any cites to prove Albert was in London at the times involved? <
No, actually, you need to prove that the alibis are true. Given how rare it was to have an adult RIC victim walking around England at that time, I'd say that the alibis are probably false.
> Really? Where in the crime reports on the case is the fact revealed? <
They don't keep stats like that, of course. To do so would be anti-Semitic.SpinneZiege,
>What about impotence? <
That's an interesting idea. If a man had life long impotence that could be a problem. If this was a problem for one of the suspects, we'd definitely want to take a look at him. Frankly, I've never heard of impotence in a young person. It's probably so rare that it shouldn't be considered a factor.
Some, maybe all, intact men can stimulate themselves without an erection. I would have to assume that even if a man had life long impotence that he could still stimulate himself as long as he is intact. There would be some way. I don't think that there would be any problem from a man with this problem. This is another thing that would be interesting to research.
> Or if the guy was just plain ugly? <
Well, even if he's the ugliest man that ever lived, if he's intact, he can stimulate himself just fine. Hmm. Can I say something that's going to upset a lot of people? Thanks, OK, I will. A circumcised man uses a woman's vagina like it's a foreskin. Only a vagina is a lousy substitute for a foreskin because it's too loose. An anus or sucking with a mouth is a much better substitute. Statistics show that circumcised men have figured this out. Anyway, no intact man is chained to finding a woman for sex just to experience those erotic sensations. He doesn't need any kind of substitute since he has the real thing. He can think more in terms of who he wants to have a relationship with. Bottom line: an ugly, intact man is no more a suspect that an attractive intact man in the White Chapel murders.Sighhhhh…This really shouldn’t be necessary, but…
Jack, there are a WHOLE LOT of perfectly sane, happy, non-serial-killing men out there who also happen to be circumcised. There have been for many, many hundreds of years. There were, in fact, a large number right there in London in 1888 - the city had a sizable Jewish population!
Incidentally, one really good reason to do some research on the Whitechapel murders: There was more than one circumcised suspect! Indeed, at one time the police had a pretty good case against a Jewish man nicknamed ‘Leather Apron’ - but his alibi held. Various other Jewish suspects were considered over the course of the investigation, as well.
Another reason: The weight of real evidence - not vague psychological speculation - against Prince Eddy is solid and overwhelming. Even those books that accuse him never suggest that he was sexually abnormal - rather that he was quite the playboy. It’s also generally accepted that he was a slow-witted, weak man - not the cunning, resourceful plotter Jack would necessarily be. In short, until you can come up with a good, solid physical piece of evidence that he was in the vicinity of the crime at the time of the murders (and no, simply disproving his alibi won’t work - London’s a big city. How do you know he didn’t just sneak off to the corner grocery?) your chances of getting anybody to reopen the case are slim to none.
Therefore, I most respectfully suggest you do a bit more research…or perhaps open a thread elsewhere that’s more suited to your particular interests.
Well, in my judgment this thread is becoming far enough removed from the topic of the original Straight Dope Column that it doesn’t really belong in this forum. I’m going to close the discussion and invite the interested parties to continue this in the Great Debates forum if they have an overwhelming desire to do so.
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»