|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:52 pm: | 
|
"The thing that dissuades me from believing that Jack wrote the GSG, is believing that he had a piece of chalk in his pocket at the time, remembered it's presence and thought that it was important enough to hesitate his escape long enough to write it!"
I don't want to put words in your mouth, Leanne, but the way I read what you're saying is something along the lines of "He's crazy enough to run around slicing up women with an army of police after him, but stopping to write the graffiti, well, that's just too much."
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 560
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Too bad there wasn't a smear of blood on the wall or a drop on the floor under it, then we'd know for sure. It certainly could have been written by Jack but I lean slightly away from that.
Stan |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
G'day,
No Sir Robert: what I'm saying is that he was crazy enough to go around slicing up woman with an army of police after him, but the lesser crime of writing graffiti, (and having a piece of chalk in his pocket and remembering to perform that lesser crime), is a bit much to believe.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
G'day,
But it's easier to believe that he made it home in that hour, washed at a sink, then went back to deposit the apron piece in an neighbourhood popular with Jewish residents.
LEANNE |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:24 pm: |
|
" Now I cannot buy into a man who had just butchered one or two women as Jack had, crouching in the darkness and being able to write so neatly in such small letters. "
I suppose that the problem is one has the notion that to do the sort of things Jack did, he'd have been a wild-eyed madman. Perhaps we should be working backwards: what does the GSG tell us about what Jack might have been like ? Cool and collected in the heat of battle, perhaps ? Pitiless ? Detached ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Jane,
People who are not used to writing on blackboards write in a small hand not dreaming that the rest of the class can't see it.
Then there is the amount of space in which to write which was a small door jamb facing the street.
Also, if working with another this man may have written the writing before the murder and waited for Jack to throw the piece of apron in the doorway and then scarper. Indeed there was time for Jack to write the message first and sling the apron in there later, just about.
Regards, N. Beresford. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:05 pm: |
|
"Hello Sir Robert,
You wrote:
It is very very difficult, IMHO, to come up with cogent arguments against the GSG that successfully work around your statement, Caz.
If Jack had been an ordinary criminal I would agree with you. "
I wrote the first sentence, not the second.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
Just a brief comment here...regarding where the Ripper may have obtained the chalk...
Its not impossible that the Ripper obtained the piece of chalk from Mrs. Eddowes.
She was found with numerous articles that indicated she may have been a self-sufficient, sew-it-yourself woman. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 622
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Hi All,
I can appreciate that Jack could have been controlled enough to write in a small hand on the door jamb....... but in almost total darkness and presumably in a hurry?
I know he obviously had pretty good eyesight to have been able to mutilate in the dark as he did, but he must have been eating an awful lot of carrots to be able to write on a black door jamb, crouching on his hunches in something akin to the black hole of Calcutta.
Not only that but all the time keeping a look out that he wasn't spotted. Writing that small just suggests to me an introvert that felt he wanted to make a social statement but didn't have to guts to go around throwing Molotov cocktails through windows.
A Jew that was sick of being attacked by Gentiles, a Gentile that was sick of Jews? Take your pick. It just seems more likely.
I know it was a small door jamb so he couldn't write any bigger, I know he could have written it earlier in the day when it was light and gone back later and dropped the apron there, but it just doesn't feel right somehow and I can't shake that feeling.
But I think AIP hit the nail on the head in their post. You just go with what you think is more likely, based on your own reasoning and learn to live with it!
Janie
xxxx |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
"Writing that small just suggests to me an introvert that felt he wanted to make a social statement but didn't have to guts to go around throwing Molotov cocktails through windows."
In other words, a coward.
Which is precisely what he was, IMHO.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Jane Coram
Hi Jane
The Goulston Street written message is as mysterious as Jack himself. And I do agree with you that it is very possible that Jack did not write the message, it is also very possible that he did, however I too have a problem accepting Jack as the writer, for a different reason though.
Let's suppose that he did kill Stride. He was, in my opinion interrupted by Diem., on he went to Eddowes who he mutilated horribly, worse than his previous victims. Why would he than take the time to write this message? He was working against the clock as it was. It just doesn't make sense for him to risk being caught wring a message on a door/wall so close to his latest victim.
Let's suppose that there was actually a witness. This person did not want to get involved either in fear of Jack or maybe even the police. This person may have recognized Jack as a Jew, and wrote this message as a hint to the police in order to cause an uproar against Jews in the well populated Jewish area.
OR
There was a witness who was antisemetic who purposely blamed the crime on the Jews, again to cause a stir.
There are many ways to interrupret this message, not only because of the wording, but also because of the times where being Jewish was not in one's favour.
Personally I feel that the person or persons who wrote this message did so in order to point their fingers at the Jews whether or not they wittnessed the actual crime, or just happened by after the fact before police were summoned.
regards
Julie
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 623
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
I think there are quite a few problems attached to the premise that the graffito was written after the apron was dropped by someone other than Jack.
The first would be that any witness to Jack actually dropping that piece of apron there would in fact be an accessory after the fact if they failed to report it to the police. I'm not quite sure if that is the correct legal term, but I think everyone knows what I mean. To conceal a crime would then have been a very serious
act, especially in crimes such as these.
I think it rather unlikely that anyone would want to get involved or implicated in the crimes of JtR except under the direst circumstances, which is tantamount to what would happen if they were caught in the act of writing that graffito.
If anyone were seen writing the message on the wall, it would immediately be assumed that he was Jack.....and quite reasonably so, especially if he were doing it before the police were summoned. How was he to know that he was the only witness and that someone else hadn't already gone to get the police.
I honestly don't think that someone would risk writing that message just to implicate the Jews in the crimes of JtR. If he wanted to drop a hint to the police that Jack was a Jew, there were far better ways of doing it. Like dropping a note to the Central News Agency, if they didn't want to actually go to the police.
I am certainly not discounting that the message was written by Jack, as Sir Robert said (our Sir Robert) Jack may well have been a coward that wanted to make a statement and this seemed to him like a good way to get his message across, without unreasonable risk to himself.
Perhaps he didn't have time at Mitre Square to do it because he heard someone approaching and took the first opportunity he could after the event. I just feel that there are things about it that niggle me, enough for me to sit very firmly on the fence over it.
I sincerely doubt though, that it was written by someone after Jack had dropped the apron. Just too much risk.
Love Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 12, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Dear Julie:
"Why would he than take the time to write this message? He was working against the clock as it was. It just doesn't make sense for him to risk being caught writing a message on a door/wall so close to his latest victim..."
Actually Julie...the message isn't close to where the victim was found. The Wentworth is a few minutes away from Mitre Square, which is like saying a million miles,since its removed from the actual crime scene.
If the Ripper was the author of the GSG, he only
needed around a minute [ or less in reality...] to write a legible message. He would have had a "bubble" of approx. 135 feet in all three directions [ New Goulston St. behind
him...Wentworth to his left...Whitechapel H.S. to his right..]to write the message. This does not take into account anyone coming out from other buildings on Goulston Street.
Of course,you are correct that there was a risk involved. The murder was however,to me, more risky than the message writing. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Howard
You certainly made some good points.
I obviously was wrong when I assumed that the writing was very close to the murder of Eddowes.
I just have a real problem understanding why Jack would take time out on his escape route to write this message. One thing that this tells us, assuming that Jack wrote the message, is that he could read, print and spell, with the exception of Jewes .
PS: How are those pretty princesses of yours?
regards
Julie
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 246
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Y'know, If Jack wrote it, it is more probable that he wrote it earlier, during the daytime, or he saw it that day. Then, perhaps while walking quickly away from the scene with a piece of torn apron clenched in his mitt (unwittingly at first), he thought it would be great fun to drop the apron by the grafitti; this after the adrenaline rush was over and he was thinking clearly. I don't think he wrote it after Eddowes death. It just doesn't feel right to me.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Hey Mike ! :
"Y'know, If Jack wrote it, it is more probable that he wrote it earlier, during the daytime, or he saw it that day...
No offense,but the problem with this scenario is that the Ripper would have had to be certain he would meet a woman to victimize that night,as well as being able to get to that area [ the Wentworth ] unmolested. Otherwise the message and apron connection ,if thats what was intended ,may not have materialized. The rain that occurred that evening hours before the Stride murder might have made the graffiti less likely to be classified as "fresh" as Halse described it. Just a thought.
In addition,writing the graffiti during the day would also be more risky than at night. He couldn't be sure that at least one pair of snooping eyes weren't observing him from a building or that this act wouldn't be remembered subsequent to the message being discovered by the police.
I'd tend to think that the message was already there,Mike, before I'd think he had written it in broad daylight. But its still good to consider everything like you are doing,old man....
They're doing well Julie. Gettin' better looking too...I may have to get Cornwell to run a DNA test on them to make sure I'm the dad. They be two fine mamas..... |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 463
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
If Jack wrote the GSG, we may wonder where he got the idea from.
First of all, remember the leather apron found in Hanbury Street? It caused a lot of anti-Semitism, and sent the police further on the Leather Apron wild goose chase, and made them spend a lot of time on the Pizer and Pigott cases.
Now, that particular apron was actually owned by someone living at number 29, and was totally unconnected to the case...but the find made a lot of ruckus at the time.
One newspaper reported “A touch would fire the whole district in the mood in which it is now”, and The Jewish Chronicle warned that “There may soon be murders from panic to add to murders from a lust for blood.”
Did Jacky get an idea? I guess we may assume that he may have been following the impact of his crimes with some interest.
What if he intended to write the graffito at the Berner Street Club? For obvious reasons (Diemschutz) he could not. So he had to rethink. But he probably thought best on his feet anyway...
He needed another victim. Which explains the double event and the curious cutting of the apron and subsequent graffito at Goulston Street.
Because, you know, it was too wet to write any message in Mitre Square. And it was pretty dangerous as well.
A few streets from the crime scene he was relatively safe. And the apron would tie the graffito and the crime nicely together. (well, he probably thought it would, anyway...)
Clever Jacky...?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 464
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Just one or two opinions.
If the writing on the wall was so small and it was so dark, I guess we may rule out Jack just passing along, seeing the message and deciding that this might be a good joke...
Either we are talking about a coincidence, or Jack wrote it.
And...there is NOTHING to indicate that there would be other messages (coincidental graffiti) in the other entrances, or indeed in the same street.
No one at the time commented "but the streets are so littered with graffiti that..."
No one said "in the next entrance there was a message saying..."
To say there was other graffiti is pure speculation and is not supported by the evidence we have.
So the "coincidence" is really statistically hard to explain.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 624
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Actually that's an interesting point about the weather that night, which had eluded me until now.
Hyperthetically, if Jack did kill Liz, which I have to say I do have reservations about, it is possible that he intended to write on the wall of the IWEC, which would in fact be very fitting when one considers that the talk that night in the club was about Jewish Socialism.....
The phrase scrawled there in that context would actually be most applicable and would have made a great deal of sense. If he was disturbed though, or even if the weather was too damp to make it possible to write on the wall of the club, he might well have theoretically wanted to do it at Mitre Square but found he couldn't do it there either either because the wall was too wet, or he was disturbed.
The difference between both of those sites and the doorway in Goulston Street is that the door jamb was under cover and therefore shielded from the rain. Whether Jack wrote it or not, I suspect that spot was chosen because it was weatherproof and an ideal place for graffito.
I still am very undecided one way or the other, but your post did provoke my grey matter into action, which makes a nice change these days.
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Hi Helge and Jane.
A very intresting observation , you are correct in the rain that night, infact I would suggest that it was raining on and off most of the night as a man was questioned near Mitre square after the murder of eddowes carrying a unbrella.
Now this man is strange he was heard to have said 'They think i did the murder but I did not' speaking aloud under a window alone and witnessed .
A bit like the character seen exiting a shed during the whitechapel murders saying to himself[ dressed in white overalls] 'I think I have a clue foxes hunt Geese but they dont always catch them'
Just thought I mention that for no apparent reason.
Richard. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 568
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Hmm! I wonder why they were so sure the apron at #29 was unconnected to the case. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 465
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Jane,
The Jewish Socialism is a cornerstone in my "Jack as anti-Semitic Radical Socialist" theory.
But why did he choose that place for the graffito? There were other spots. Was he planning to frame someone in particular? (Someone in the IWEC)
Well... Personally I'm working on that hypothesis.
Richard,
If umbrella man was questioned, maybe he was thinking about that when he said what he said. Most people would think they were under suspicion if questioned in a murder case, even if it was just routine from the viewpoint of the police. I know I probably would!
I have been thinking about the foxes and geese thing myself, but alas, no revelation yet.
Stan,
Amelia Richardson, a resident of no 29, testified at the Chapman inquest that the apron belonged to her son, and that she had washed it on Thursday. Saturday it was found under the tap, where it according to the witness had been put, presumably to dry.
Allthough it would make a heck of a story if Jack might have tried to frame Leather Apron at that time, it seems like the apron in question is fully accounted for.
Allthough leaving it almost directly under a tap of water, on stone slabs, is not the way I would have gone about leaving it to dry, I see no reason to question the testimony here.
Not unless we believe in a conspiracy to cover up an early Jewish link..
(And I don't see any such conspiracy)
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 569
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Helge,
Maybe Jack found the apron handy and made good use of it; that would give it some connection. It always sounded a little funny that anyone would walk around the streets with a leather apron on anyway. Wouldn't it be a little like wearing your McDonald's uniform to the mall?
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 466
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:11 am: |
|
Stan,
There were lots of people wearing leather aprons back then. Actually it was a kind of a trade mark of certain types of jobs. And it was often connected symbolically to the Jews in the district, as they often did just those jobs.
Thus "Leather Apron" has an eerie, almost synchronistic air of anti-Semitism about it. It was not just Pizer, it was almost as if he represented some ghoulish fantasy of the "Jewish menace" as people often saw things back then.
But back to facts. People did not change clothes as often as we do today. Neither did they always change into uniforms for work the way people sometimes do today.
A lot of things were different. Hygiene for one thing. Seeing a butcher with bloodstained apron walking on the streets, for instance, was no uncommon occurrence back then. Today it would turn a few heads.
Actually, a Jack wearing a bloodstained apron would cause little concern, if he otherwise looked like a butcher. They could not even discern between human and animal blood in the laboratory at the time, and certainly not on the streets!
However, that Jack used an apron is speculation. And improbable, in my opinion, because it would stand out if he was wearing that while looking up prostitutes.
Anyway. What is "odd" about the Chapman incident is that there was a tap of water, and yet no traces of blood whatsoever around it. In other words, Jack could have washed up, but he probably did not.
So he may not have needed to. That might indicate he was wearing gloves?
Again, just a little speculation.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1999
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Guys,
Just one or two opinions.
...there is NOTHING to indicate that there would be other messages (coincidental graffiti) in the other entrances, or indeed in the same street. However, we do have information, from a contemporary Officer that the area did have various forms of graffiti.
No one at the time commented "but the streets are so littered with graffiti that..." and no one commented that the Goulston wall writing "was the only piece of writing in that street".
No one said "in the next entrance there was a message saying...". Nor did anyone say that the message in the entrance, with the apron, mentions murder, Eddowes or Jews...but hey. And nor was an apron from a murder victim found in those other entrances.
To say there was other graffiti is pure speculation and is not supported by the evidence we have. However, there is this piece of writing that is not directly linked to Jack, which is termed as ‘graffiti’, on a wall in the area…..and we are told graffiti evidence for the area does not exist. There is no mention that graffiti was uncommon to the area. There is no evidence to support this claim that graffiti (which has been around since prehistoric times, and daubed on every continent), in a run down area, is a rare and unknown in September 1888.
So the "coincidence" is really statistically hard to explain. That said, the 'coincidence' is there. After all, it’s the coincidence that cements the idea the Jack wrote it.
Coincidence is the ONLY evidence for that argument.
Regards
Helge
It begins.....
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2000
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Julie,
No, you are not wrong at all.
The 15 pound lighter, steely eyed, good looking one is deceiving you.
Whilst he is correct in stating Goulston street is not on the doorstep of Mitre Square it is however only around three to four minutes walking distance, if you are around 5ft 8 and walk briskly.
The entrance to the dwellings are not that far away. You are correct.
Have belief in you views.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 467
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Monty,
That was some strange logic, as far as I'm concerned.
You can't use the "coincidence" as evidence that it was coincidence!
Anyway, there might have been other graffiti around. My point is that no one EVER mentioned that there was a lot of graffiti on that street that night, and because of that it is conjecture to say there was.
You can't escape from that. If there was that much graffiti around, would you not expect even a rather slow police officer to at one point say..blimey, there were so much writing on those walls that it just might be a coincidence...
Well. It would be easy to say so. And no one did.
As I said, no one did.
And thus to say today that there were other graffiti on that particular street on that particular night is blatant conjecture.
Now, I'm not saying that I myself never guess, infer or speculate..hmmm. Well, you get my point.
But there is one fact here. No one said there was any other graffiti around. Given the circumstances I think it might have been mentioned.
(You see, I cant repeat this often enough; no one mentioned that other graffiti!)
I think it is reasonable to say that there was only one graffito in that entrance. And probably none at all in the other ones.
So a coincidence IS rather hard to explain statistically! Of course, strange things do happen. But let us not behave as if they happen all the time. The odds of this particular piece of apron ending up beneath ANY random graffito was pretty slim. And yet it happened to end up where it did.
Now, if the tosser and the writer were one and the same we escape this unlikely coincidence.
One more thing, a few minutes of brisk walk from a murder site would be more than enough to make Jack feel comfortable. Come on, he was comfortable with cutting up women on the streets! His concern was NOT to be caught writing graffito!
A swipe with his sleeve would have eradicated that small piece of writing in two seconds flat anyway. Scared? Not Jacky.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 14, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Julie:
Of course Montgolfier is correct....it isn't that far removed from Mitre Square.
...but far enough.
Skinny |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Baron Von Zipper
I am also inclined to agree that Jack did not write the graffeti, however, if this message was there earlier in the day, I would have thought that someone would have erased it. Jack was also accused of writing many letters that only two or three maybe credited to him, though not confirmed as an actual fact.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Howard Brown
Glad to hear that Howard. I am certainly sure they are yours though HAHA.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Monty
Thank you for verifying my post, since most people walked miles in those days, the distance from Eddowes murder site to Goulston St. would not have been much of a challenge.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Skinny
It isn't so far though that Jack would have had a problem walking there, especially if it were on his way home.
regards
Julie
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
Dear Mike,
The one certainty concerning the location and the various configurations of the GSG statement is that it was written in chalk.
We assume the chalk was a white chalk; we further assume it was a stick-like chalk and not a tailor's chalk.
The proposition that the GSG was in place prior to the murders furnish us with an 'epistemological center' based on the asymetrical thought/actions of the author and or killer. Hmm...
Rosey :-) |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
Hello Sir Robert,
I wrote the first sentence, not the second.
You are quite right, my apologies.
Kindest regards,
Martin |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 573
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
In my view, taking off an apron would not be characterized a changing clothes and I knew that human vs. animal blood was not used in a conviction until about Tessnov in 1901.
Was Richardson Jewish? Perhaps so; the Governor of New Mexico is named Richardson and he claims that he's Hispanic.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 250
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
What if someone already wrote "The Jews are not the men they think they are." and someone (Jack, being Jewish) erased the last part and wrote in good, standard schoolboy printing "to be blamed for nothing."?
Put that in your pipes and smoke 'em!
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 468
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:03 am: |
|
Hi Stan,
Well, I agree, taking off an apron would not be akin to changing clothes. But I'm not quite following you on this one. The apron in the yard of no 29 was accounted for, and there is nothing whatsoever to link it to Jack.
I don't know if Richardson, who owned the leather apron in the yard, ever wore it on the streets anyway, because he used it when he worked in the cellar of no 29, and that explains why it was kept there in the first place.
I dont know if Richardson was Jewish, but I don't see any significance in that either way. Could you elaborate? There is some slight confusion in the statement of his mother, but nothing incriminating as far as I see it.
Mike,
It was Eddowes who wrote that! About Jack! And he got so infuriated when she alluded to his..deficiency as a man..(you all know what I mean), that he just HAD to kill her!
(no I'm not being serious)
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 469
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
One comment on the coincidental "qualities" of the apron/graffito;
Imagine this thought experiment: East End London 1888, when most graffiti was written in chalk and did not last for long. When graffiti actually said something, and was not part of a popular culture to draw cool name tags and stuff...so it was not quite as common to be in the hundreds on particular walls..neither did it last long in exposed areas, and was easy to clean off compared to modern spray paint.
In other words, there were at any given time a lot less of it then than there are today.
Have one guy run around in an area of a few blocks, tossing aprons. Let us say that within this area there are five or six actual graffiti. In this thought experiment they are written in invisible ink, so that the tosser can't know where they are.
(It does not need to be a thought experiment for those with more time on their hands than they should have had...)
How many aprons would our tosser toss before accidentally getting one close to any graffito?
Lots. Lots and lots of aprons.
This is what we are dealing with here, statistically wise. So the numbers favours a link, no matter if it is theoretically possible that none exist.
And even if Jack "wrote it earlier" (pretty unlikely IMO), or "saw it and kind of liked it" (also pretty unlikely IMO), it still says he had Jews on his mind...
And this links the murder of Eddowes to that of Stride because Stride was killed outside a place heavily involved in the discussing and policy making of..the Jews in Whitechapel.
I know it is not a watertight link. But it is there.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2001
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:46 am: |
|
Helge,
Ive just re-joined this thread and not fully read its content.
However, I have read 'tosser' a few times. Do you realise Jane Coram faints every time she reads that word.
Its just not British !
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 470
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Monty,
Hahah, thanks for that comment! Actually I know it is not British. And that is why I love it...not because I love everything American, but because it becomes such a wonderful play on words in my (admittedly weird) opinion!
A tosser is, according to my AMERICAN English dictionary; "person or thing that tosses, person or thing that throws"
While in Australia it is; stupid or annoying person; jerk; wanker"
Which pretty much sums up Jack..hahah
In Ireland "tosser" is simply a; "wanker"
While my English advanced dictionary tells me this; \toss"er\ , n. one who tosses. fletcher.
tosser
n
1. terms of abuse for a masturbator [syn: jerk-off, wanker]
2. someone who throws lightly (as with the palm upward)
Since Jack probably was the latter (palm upward,...no, you know I'm pulling your leg on this one!)..technically I am correct, but get to satisfy my weird sense of humour at the same time!
Anyway, my most sincere apologies to Jane! If I ever made you faint, it was not by design or purpose!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2003
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hi Helge, Juile,
Helge,
I was teasing.
My point is just because no one said (as far as we know, though Dew does indicate there was a lot of graffiti around) there was a lot of it about is no indication. That is just as much conjecture as your valid point.
As I say, Dew reports the area did have a lot of graffiti. There were also news reports of graffiti at the Hanbury street scene and I believe something near Coles scene (Sugden I think). It was about.
And I say someone did.
“One more thing, a few minutes of brisk walk from a murder site would be more than enough to make Jack feel comfortable. Come on, he was comfortable with cutting up women on the streets! His concern was NOT to be caught writing graffito! “
I disagree. His concern is not to be caught with incriminating evidence. That is one said apron. As the writing is non-incriminating (on his part) I see no reason to worry on that issue.
Julie,
No worries.
How is correct in what he stated in terms that Goulston Street is not on the doorstep of Mitre Square.
I suspect it was the closest area to the scene that he felt comfortable in. It seems an ideal spot to take stock in.
Regards,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hi N. Beresford,
I agree that to write the word Jews immediately implicates the Jews but infact it does not because why would a Jew implicate his own kind unless he thought what he was doing was on behalf of the Jews or if written by a Gentile then it's a pretty obvious ruse which just throws suspicion back on the Gentiles or a double bluff written by a Jew to throw suspicion on a Gentile or the other way around.
I think Helge covered this when he said that a non-Jewish Jack wanting to write the sort of message that would implicate another Jew would have his work cut out. Anything like "I am a Jewish murderer and the apron below is the proof" would be laughable.
The fact remains that the original Sir Robert was certain the killer was a Jew, either partly because of the message, or in spite of it.
Hi AIP,
If it was a message from the murderer then he would probably have made it clearer that it was.
But your 'probably' is someone else's 'possibly' or 'not necessarily'.
If Jack wrote it, his intention may have been to make it look like someone else wrote it as a political comment about the group the killer was likely to come from, and therefore where the blame 'probably' lay, ie with "the Jewes" around these parts.
And the discarded apron piece would be grinning up at the message, as if to say, "He's got a point there".
Hi Jane,
But I just can't accept Jack being so anally retentive about his writing in those circumstances.
It's strange how we can all see Jack so differently. I think he may have been so anally retentive that he persuaded himself that each of his victims had done him a very personal wrong, and that mutilating them was only fair.
If he did do any arranging of articles and organs, and if he did have a piece of chalk on him so he could leave a message somewhere that night, I can see why his writing would be neat - all part of an important ritual, if for one night only. The location could have dictated its size, or perhaps he didn't want to make it so big that it would be seen (followed by the apron piece) before he could put some distance between himself and the dwellings.
If Jack didn't do it, I can't see it being by a Jew 'that was sick of being attacked by Gentiles'. Almost all graffiti is done to deface and offend; to show the utmost disrespect for authority and for the property on which it is scrawled and the owners or inhabitants.
I think it's a cracking idea of yours that Jack may have planned to write the message in Berner St. If he killed Stride, we may assume that he was so desperate to complete his work that he sought and found a second victim within a short time and walking distance of the first.
If that work included a cunning plan for a stick of chalk in his pocket, then it's quite reasonable to think that this particular plan was as altered as his other one - to mutilate - when the whole Stride business caught him off-stride.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
His concern is not to be caught with incriminating evidence. That is one said apron.
So why didn't he discard it sooner? Could the copper really have missed half of one of those large pinnies first time round? If not, Jack presumably had that large, utterly incriminating piece of evidence for some time.
I suspect it was the closest area to the scene that he felt comfortable in. It seems an ideal spot to take stock in.
To add to your view on where Jack would feel 'comfortable', carrying knife and organs and about to toss the bloody apron away, and why it was an 'ideal' spot, he could have considered the entrance to the Jewish dwellings to be an ideal spot (or at least second best) to leave such a message.
Comfortable for him and ideal to take stock there? You're making my arguments for me.
Love,
Caz
X |
| | | | |
