|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4038
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:15 am: | 
|
Helge,
"Yes, but even if you do run away, it is fully possible to wipe your hands as you go along!"
It is possible, yes, but probably not your first priority in such a situation. Getting away would be the most important. And as I said, no need to take for granted that his hands would be that bloody or messy. I believe it was the knife that was wiped off, not the hands.
"And as you might have noticed, I don't think Jack COMMUNICATED at all. He played the "blaming game". The reason is obvious, to perpetuate the misconception in the media and among people that a "leather apron" type of person was the culprit."
Doesn't matter; any kind of message is a form of communication, regardless of its purpose. We don't see any such intentions in connections with the other murders anyway.
"I write the GSG in less than fifteen seconds (yes, fifteen seconds, and I'm not rushing it!), "
Yes, my Norwegian friend, but you had not just left a crime scene and with the police soon on your tail. Clearly, you were not in the same psychological situation he was. Doing an experiment in theory is one thing - doing the same thing under real circumstances another.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 364
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:26 am: |
|
Glenn,
But then we agree! I also think he wiped his knife clean, not his hands.
And to wipe a knife takes even less time! Even a five minute brisk walk is excessive if all you want is to wipe off a knife!
A message is a communication, but of course it matters what the purpose of the communication is. Even serial killers are not that black and white that they are either communicators or not.
Well, In Jacks situation I would probably do the GSG in less than ten seconds, that's what I do, rushing it...
In some situations, ten seconds happen to be an awful lot of time.
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)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1445
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:32 am: |
|
Helge
I base my estimate on what was said at the inquest. I don't live in London, so I have no other way of dealing with that.
The time taken to walk from Berner Street to Mitre Square was given as 12 minutes at the inquest, not from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, which is a much smaller distance.
Chris Phillips
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4040
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:52 am: |
|
Helge,
I have never disagreed with you on the wiping part - that is, the knife. There I'll agree with you entirely.
As for the rest, I am not so sure it makes sense from a psychological point of view to stop to write a message on the wall. Logically, he would be under a lot of stress.
Killers who leave messages do so on the actual crime scene. The crime scene is all about shock value and it would be more more effective if he had written it on the wall above Eddowes' body. If you think it took such little time to produce, then the fact that he didn't do this above the body in Mitre Square - and you believe he wrote the message - then that DOES actually indicate that he was disturbed. Because why would he write the message in Goulston Street and not on the crime scene if he wasn't disturbed?
That is, if he DID write the message (which I am absolutely convinced of that he didn't)...
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 365
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
Chris,
Thanks for pointing that out! I guess I misread that.
Still, the distance is considerable. Especially if only wiping a knife!
Its about 1\3rd of a mile, as far as I can tell, and gently jogging speed is considered ca 16 minutes per mile, so that gives approximately five minutes. Exactly as you claim. Goodie!
(I should have calculated that before, but trusted what I figured was "good" information)
Ok, I stand corrected. Thanks!
Glenn,
Why, if he was blaming the Jews primarily through leaving the apron as a "clue", he could not have left the apron at the murder scene, could he?
And, in my scenario, the graffito is just an add on, maybe even just an afterthought for all we know.
That is why your points are invalid in my scenario.
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)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Helge
You're welcome. I've heard several people say they were surprised by how close Mitre Square is to Goulston Street on their first visit. That was certainly true of me.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 367
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:08 am: |
|
Chris,
I need to take a look myself sooner or later. Staring at maps occasionally gets too theoretical!
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)
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 23
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Just a thought here -
Unless I have made an embarrssing oversight, is it not an irrefutable fact that certain organs were conspicuously absent from the corpse of Kate Eddowes upon it's discovery?
The above being the case, why would the ripper bother to remove her bodily organs if his intention was merely to discard them immediately afterwards? To me at least, this defies logicality.
If one is posessed of depravity enough to extract the viscera of his victim(s), he would surely make a comparable effort to retain the organs.
If the organs were missing, it is reasonable to infer that he departed Mitre Sq. with them. But he could not have departed with human organs and be wiping his hands on a piece of apron at the same time. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 926
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Too much of this discussion is now based on surmise - to which it is impossible to respond except by saying "if you think so, but I don't agree".
Take Helge's long post above (I have extracted and bolded the parts that are simply belief):
I just try to look at the most likely scenario.
Actually, most people would do that...
So far so good. Now he has a piece of cloth full of blood an faeces. }} [But it wasn't full of either - it was "smeared".]
You (and others) seem to think it was natural to do that in Goulston Street. [No - the apron-fragment was FOUND there, so that is actually a FACT, not a surmise!! Only whether it was absent mindedly discarded or deliberately left is open to question.]
Except there is that darned coincidence with the graffito. [If the graffito had read, "Billy Jones stole my marbles!!" i doubt there would be any perceived coincidence. Only Knight and Co tried to make an issue of this with the still unproven link to masonry. No one has yet shown a credible connection to Jack.]
If your hands are smeared with blood, and especially faeces, I would think the instinct would be, not to walk several blocks carrying a piece of rag that you INTEND to wipe yourself with, but actually start the cleaning process on the fly. [Entirely unprovable and pure surmise. We don't know what Jack's state of mind was, so we cannot build on what it might have been.]
IF you clean yourself on the move, then it is unreasonable to think you'd spend that much time doing that. [I don't quite follow this - a distracted man might take longer than a calm one, for instance. The fact is you take as long as is necessary to clean yourself to your satisfaction, surely?]
...my point is that we cannot dismiss the POSSIBILITY that Jack had other things in mind (the GSG) based on distance or wiping of hands.
[He may have been thinking about what he'd have for tea when he got home - kidney's?? But since no connection to the graffito is proven, this is hardly wiorth spending time on.]
The reason we see it differently, is probably that I interpret the GSG to be Jack's, while you do not.[ Which unfortunately undermines all you say, since the connection remains unproven.]
But even WITHOUTH the GSG we still have the possibility of the "blaming game" being played by Jack. ... Not so much because of the Wenthworth buildings, perhaps, but because the street was a place for Jewish vendors. It would be known as such. [Where is the evidence it was?]
It was not just one randomly picked Jewish residence! [It may easily have been. I have seen it suggested - by Rumbelow? - that the doorway was the first opening one came to on one of the routes from the Square.]
It is possible I am suffering from some kind of "fact-pareidolia", seeing patterns that are not really there, but there you go, that is my take on it. [Well that's honest - and why we disagree, I think.]
[To save space, I'll move on.]
He could, IMO, have gone through St James Place, through Duke Street (Possibly through Church's passage directly to Duke street), cross Houndsditch, up Gravel Lane, through Stoney Lane, cross Middlesex Street, New Goulston Street (Petticoat Lane), and cross over Goulston Street to the Wenthworth dwellings. From there he probably escaped through Wentworth Street or Bell Lane. (again IMO) [Well you state it plainly - all your opinion. Unarguable on that basis, but wholly unsubstantiated except at the single point of the Dwellings.]
I think it most likely he stayed out of the High Streets. [Again simply your view - he may have taken a risk, or simply seen that there was no one about at that point.]
So either he cleaned the worst off with something else, or he wore gloves that he tucked away in his little shiny bag... [WHAT shiny little bag exactly - have we reinvented "Dr Stanley" now??]
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 760
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Hi Helge,
The distance from the square to Goulston Street was 1550 to 1600 feet, which is 472 to 487 m. Walking that distance today at a normal speed, it would take 5 and a half to 6 minutes.
Not that this point matters that much, but are you sure you didn't write that message in shorthand? Because when I wrote it (a couple of times) with a pencil and on a smooth surface, I didn't succeed in doing it under 24 seconds, even though I tried hard. And the faster I wrote, the less neat and schoolboy round the writing got. In fact, it turned out plain sloppy in the end.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4043
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
Ben,
No one have disputed that organs were taken away from Eddowes. What on Earth are you on about?
Maybe he stuffed the body parts in his pockets or brought something with him to carry them in?
The fact that organs were missing from Eddowes doesn't have to indicate at all that the apron were used to carry them. After all, he didn't tear off any piece of clothing from Chapman to carry her organs in.
Frank and Phil,
Good points as usual.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4045
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 10:12 am: |
|
Helge,
"Why, if he was blaming the Jews primarily through leaving the apron as a "clue", he could not have left the apron at the murder scene, could he?"
Well firstly:
1) that is based on your belief that he meant to implicate the Jews deliberately and that this was a part of his plan. There is no evidence or even indication of this. What if it wasn't? And what if he himself was Jewish and not antisemitic?
Then everything falls apart, as you yourself admit.
2) I personally can't see why leaving a message in direct connection with the crime scene would make it harder for him to implicate the Jews. That really beats me.
On the contrary, if it was done directly above Eddowes' body, it would certainly have made an even stronger and clearer impact than if taking a piece of apron with him to another street nearby and there leave a message. Sure, Goulston Street was in the centre of the Jewish market, but certainly a message directly over the body would have made an even greater impact, and after all the word Jews (if we disregard the spelling) is mentioned in there already. No need to go to Goulston Street in order to make the implication stronger.
I really don't see your point here. Sorry.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 24
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 11:02 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"No one have disputed that organs were taken away from Eddowes. What on Earth are you on about?"
The adversarial tone and tenor implicit in your post is a little misplaced here. I have never accsued anyone of "disputing" the reality of the visceral extraction. I was merely clarifying the facts - apologies if my doing so "aloud" was off-putting.
To summarise the accepted facts surrounding the immediate aftermath of the Eddowes murder:
1) The ripper departed Mitre Square with bloody, exposed viscera.
2) The ripper departed Mitre Square with a portion of apron.
Now, if 2) offers a hugely convenient means for concealment of 1), why on earth would he sully his pockets. He's got an amzingly useful apron - why ruin his pockets?
"Maybe he...brought something with him to carry them in?"
But wouldn't a empty container arouse suspicion on the part of Eddows? And again, would it have been a simple expedient to hold a container full of viscera AND wipe his hands on the return journey? I would suggest not.
"After all, he didn't tear off any piece of clothing from Chapman to carry her organs in."}
That's true, but perhaps he perfected his grisly craft as he progressed? Perhaps his decision to avail himself of Eddowes' apron was engendered by previous mistakes and oversights on his part?
Best Regards,
Ben |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4047
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
Hi Ben,
"The adversarial tone and tenor implicit in your post is a little misplaced here. I have never accsued anyone of "disputing" the reality of the visceral extraction. I was merely clarifying the facts - apologies if my doing so "aloud" was off-putting."
Because I get irritated when people are stating the obvious. We all know that the Ripper went off with a piece of Eddowes' apron.
"1) The ripper departed Mitre Square with bloody, exposed viscera."
We have no evidence saying that it was particularly bloody.
"Now, if 2) offers a hugely convenient means for concealment of 1), why on earth would he sully his pockets. He's got an amzingly useful apron - why ruin his pockets?"
Well, for one thing, carrying something extra around with him would probably create more attention than if he put the stuff in his pocket or concealed inside his coat or jacket.
Secondly, if he did carry the organs in the piece of apron, why drop it in Goulston Street (unless he lived there)? Why throw it away before it had fulfilled its purpose?
And thirdly:
Fact remains -- I can only repeat, that sources clearly state that the material on the piece of apron looked like it had been 'smeared' and like something had been wiped off. Therefore saying that it wasn't used for this purpose is a very strange reasoning when we actually have that in black and white.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 927
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 11:50 am: |
|
The most intetresting thing about the graffito is that is actually MAKES MORE SENSE if it were NOT written by Jack!!!
As a piece of routine would-be-inflammatory, anti-Jewish rhetoric, written by a semi-literate East Ender with no connection to the murders it has some logic.
Yet no one has yet shown - despite many brave attempts - the slightest meaning that makes any sense if written by the ripper himself.
Would a Kosminski-type think of this sort of message? And if he did, does the syntax make any sense as of Eastern European origin, or of a Yiddish-based recently learned English? I think not. We are told a Jew from that area would have used the word Yidden, not Juwes (which, if the latter has any meaning, is best read as a simple mis-spelling of Jews).
A Druitt-type would have surely been more "clever" in seeking to cover-up his education; and clearer in making a point?
A Tumblety would presumably have shown some sort of Americanism in his language ("Dear Boss"). While a Maybrick-type would surely have made complex references to other things - played games? (At least, as a non-Diahorrearist - sorry Diaryist! - that's how I read his style.)
Where does it leave assorted Fenians, Doctors, Royals and masons? Precisely nowhere - despite much effort - is the answer.
Now, I know that all this is rather helge-like supposition, but I think it demonstrates that the graffito is best seen as coincidental to the rag, not associated with it.
One we know had been in the Ripper's hands, albeit briefly. For the other - please show now the linkage in terms of the words, or forever hold your peace.
Phil |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 25
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"Because I get irritated when people are stating the obvious."
Reflection will no doubt inform you that it would have been better to have surpressed your feelings of "irritation" for the sake of courtesy, but never mind.
In this instance, I have had occasion to repeat the seemingly obvious because I believe it impacts significantly on the issue of the apron and the ripper's departure from Mitre Square.
"We have no evidence saying that it was particularly bloody."
I'm a little astonished here. We need evidence to prove that freshly extracted viscera would be "particularly bloody"?
"Well, for one thing, carrying something extra around with him would probably create more attention than if he put the stuff in his pocket or concealed inside his coat or jacket."
Yes, but we know he DID carry something away with him in addition to the organs - namely the apron portion. And surely a man observed wiping his bloody hands on a apron would attract considerably more suspicion that a wrapped bundle?
Additionally, how can we satisfactorily discern a "smear" from any other manner of stain? Incidentally, if anyone could direct me to the germane piece of evidence concerning the nature of the stains, I would be most appreciative.
"Secondly, if he did carry the organs in the piece of apron, why drop it in Goulston Street (unless he lived there)? Why throw it away before it had fulfilled its purpose?"
Well, you make a very reasonable suggestion yourself: "unless he lived there"...or nearby. I eagerly await the inevitable counter-argument: "Oh, he wouldn't have been THAT stupid or incautious". Well, how far from Goulston St. did the police carry out house-to-house inquiries?
Best wishes,
Ben |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 368
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Ok, I really can't (or actually wont!) answer all questions and/or comments here.
If it is not clear to everyone here that we simply have so many holes in what we know that a great deal will probably always stay unknown, and that that leaves several possible scenarios, then it is utterly futile to attempt any debate whatsoever.
Phil, for example, once you prove your scenario beyond doubt, why not forever hold your peace yourself?
Can't prove it? Erhmmm.... Why then ask more of other people's "suppositions".
Actually, Phil, much of this discussion is now based on surmise. And if you paid attention in class (that goes for everyone) that is because we simply don't know. You have your theory, I have mine. You can't prove I am wrong, and I have never even claimed I can prove your are wrong.
Too many people here seem to consider their take as gospel thruth (except every time confronted with that no one ever does that, do they?) Of course my scenario is based on a great deal of surmise and supposition. And if you can't see that yours are, then fine with me.
What about "...a distracted man might take longer than a calm one, for instance."
Yes, he might. Are you saying you KNOW JACK WAS DISTRACTED? Is not that a supposition?
We all do the same thing here, the only difference is that we have different interpretations of what actually happened.
About the shiny bag. Well, I'm not saying he had one, and that was said tongue in cheek actually. But why not? I can't prove he had none, can you? So you see, unless we keep an open mind here, we will simply dig into our trenches...
I find it preposterous that a man should wipe a knife for five minutes.
Some of you don't. But do you see that actually saying the things you say are no different from what I am doing? Maybe he was startled. Maybe he was distracted. Maybe he was scared. Maybe he stopped and chatted with old miss Oakenshaw down the road...
Get my point?
Glenn, half of the time I wonder what you mean as well. You go on about me not understanding what I clearly have pointed out that I do understand more than twenty (or so) times at every junction. It's ok, I really don't mind, but come on, is it not partly that people search for ways to attack a PERSON rather than a theory to say such things?
Not necessarily with malice, I'm not saying that. Actually I know you would never do that.
Frank, as I have stated I am pretty good at writing with chalk. (Well, I have to be good at something!) Maybe Jack positively sucked! I don't know, do you? I never said he (or anyone) did it that fast, I merely say it is possible.
Ok, I simply don't have the time to answer much more on this topic right now, just so anyone does not think I am sulking or whatever if I fail to respond to anything.
And when I say: "It is possible I am suffering from some kind of "fact-pareidolia", do anyone think that was meant as an admission that I actually think I am? We can all suffer from that, and people who are ABSOLUTELY sure they are not, are possibly the people who do.
Deconstruct my posts as much as you will, but anyone who claim to know the thruth better prove it. If not, I'll shrug it off and have a good laugh...
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)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4048
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:11 pm: |
|
Hi Ben,
"I'm a little astonished here. We need evidence to prove that freshly extracted viscera would be "particularly bloody"?"
Sorry you missed it, but this has actually been a widely debated issue lately. Several people, among those with experience in gutting, has actually stated that removed organs actually don't bleed or necessarily leave bloody marks to a greater extent. Especially since the blood was cut off prior to death, thus decreasing the amount of blood during the actual mutilations.
"Additionally, how can we satisfactorily discern a "smear" from any other manner of stain? Incidentally, if anyone could direct me to the germane piece of evidence concerning the nature of the stains, I would be most appreciative."
Well, at least we have a source - someone who actually saw the apron - saying that it looked smeared and like someone had been wiping something off. It is of course your priviligue to dispute the nature of that source, but at least it extists. If you have the Ultimate Companion, you'll find it among one of the witness statements. I can't remember if it was the PC who found it or a doctor, but at least we have it in black and white, in comparison the 'beliefs' you deliver out of the blue. The source definitely says 'smeared' and 'wiped' - not stained. You are free to dismiss it, though.
"Well, you make a very reasonable suggestion yourself: "unless he lived there"...or nearby. I eagerly await the inevitable counter-argument: "Oh, he wouldn't have been THAT stupid or incautious"."
No, my main objection is, that if he lived where, why on Earth did he not bring it inside with him? Why drop it outside and leave such an important clue practically on his own doorstep? He may have been disorganised, he might have been a risk-taker - maybe even insane - but certainly not that stupid.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4049
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Helge,
You have been quite clear on this thread so I can't say you have been difficult to follow here, so I have no idea why you bring such stuff up here.
What about the two questions I asked you in my last post to you above? Wouldn't it have been more constructive to actually answer them?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 761
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:17 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
"Why throw it away before it had fulfilled its purpose?"
Although I'm far (really far) from sure the Ripper did carry the organs in the piece of cloth, he might have used it as such as long as he possibly could, but wouldn't have wanted to bring it too close to his doorstep.
If he was staying at one of the many lodging houses in the area, such a bloody parcel would unlikely have gone unnoticed by the deputy, night watchman or anybody else still awake in that house seeing him enter. So, he might have wanted to get rid of the rag before reaching the lodging house, but he wouldn't have wanted to leave the incriminating piece too close to his doorstep at the same time.
All he could do was hope that the rag had fulfilled its purpose by the time he might have felt he needed to get rid of it; he could only hope that the organs had stopped leaking by then - because that's the only purpose I can see for the 'rag as a bag'.
Furthermore, I think there's just too little information about the piece of apron to form any firm opinions on it - as I know you'll agree. We don't know the exact size - in fact, we can't even be really sure of the approximate size - and we don't know the pattern of the stains on it either.
I would think, but I don't want to stress this point, that the mark of a wiped knife on a piece of cloth would be more distinct than the mark of a wiped hand. Since Dr. Brown doesn't seem to have been able to make out what it was that was wiped, one might be pushed in the direction of thinking that it was a hand rather than a knife (although Helge's reason for thinking it was the knife rather than a hand makes sense, too).
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 370
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Oh, sorry Glenn, actually that part was from the other thread, I though you might realize that.
"Ok, I really can't (or actually wont!) answer all questions and/or comments here."
See, I chose not to answer them, because there is simply so much in the air right now. Those answers will have to wait. Actually I think we (at least I) have pretty much come to the end of any useful debate right now, and we are now on the whole not really debating the case, but the debate itself. I like to stop there, if it is ok, lest we keep on forever.
No disrespect intended.
(Besides, if you read my posts carefully, you will see what I think about those issues anyway)
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 25, 2005)
(Message edited by helge on September 25, 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)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 762
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
"Frank, as I have stated I am pretty good at writing with chalk. (Well, I have to be good at something!) Maybe Jack positively sucked! I don't know, do you? I never said he (or anyone) did it that fast, I merely say it is possible."
You must be good at it! I don't think I would be, not if I had to write quickly anyway. Plus I think I might just be a slow writer. But, like I said, it wasn't a major point - I guess I was just amazed at your speed and felt like a turtle...
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 371
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Frank,
One point I think Phil raised earlier (I think I might have done that ages ago as well), was that people back then was way more proficient with writing with chalk than most people are today. Many professional people used it daily, they learned it at school, etc.
It was the pencil or even powerpoint of the day!
So, perhaps it is no mystery at all. Besides, I'm glad you think it is a minor point, because I'm sure Jack would have taken whatever time he needed if his mind was really set on it!
If he could spend five minutes or more mutilating a woman on the streets, then surely he would spend that little extra time. Especially if it gave him another rush. And I think it did.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 25, 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)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 930
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 4:44 pm: |
|
Helge - thank you for citing me in aid: a compliment indeed!!
As for supposition, I take your point(s), but let me make it clear I have NO (repeat NO) take, theory or opinion on rag or graffito beyond this:
In the absense of any proof of connection, commonsense suggests that they should be treated as separate unless or until persuasive evidence or arguments/logic emerges to link them. This, so far, it has IMHO signally failed to do.
You won't find me ever making a link or suggesting a theory that does so. I did, I admit, suggest a few questions around particular suspect "types" above, but that was simply to show that none of the prevalent theories hold water (or should that be visceral blood?).
I write this simply to make it clear that I have no single theory about Jack at the moment. I thought that had been made overly clear in recent exchanges with Caz and others, but evidently it has not!!
Ben, prolonged exposure to this site will (I am certain) make you realise that criticising Glenn for bad manners is akin to saying that Father Christmas in ungenerous. Patently absurd. As the (at least now residently English) gentleman he is, Glenn has quietly apologised to you. But let me defend him by saying that Glenn is consistently among the most civilised, helpful, generous, polite and kind posters on Casebook. I just want to say, I think you have him wrong.
On the other hand had it been me you told was rude, impolite and a stain on existence, you would have found many to agree with you. Maybe we'll cross swords in the future - I hate pomposity!!
Phil |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 26
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Glenn is consistently among the most civilised, helpful, generous, polite and kind posters on Casebook.
Indeed, this was the very impression I formed of Glenn from the most cursory of perusals through the casebook. I admit, I was somewhat taken aback by the somewhat ungallant: "What on Earth are you on about?" as it ran contrary to the previous impression I had formed of him.
But anyway, I had rather moved on from all that.
I remain to be convinced that JTR did not avail himself of Eddowes' apron for the concealment of untold horrors, but that is not to say that I have formed a dim view of my fellow interlocuters who are of a different opinion.
On the other hand had it been me you told was rude, impolite and a stain on existence, you would have found many to agree with you.
I'm very sorry to hear this, Phil. Why is that?
Maybe we'll cross swords in the future - I hate pomposity!!
Woah, exclamatory stuff, Phil! How disappointing that you should think I have been so. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2566
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
I think I went to the greatest lengths possible - many threads ago - to show that the killing of Eddowes in Mitre Square was perhaps connected to the fact that the very first place of worship for the fledgling Jewish population of England was located right there.
He already killed someone there, so why should he take an apron away from there if it was supposed to reflect on the Juwes?
I find myself confused.
For when Jack killed Eddowes in Mitre Square he was already standing by the wailing wall, why make a statement elsewhere?
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4052
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 7:50 pm: |
|
Well, I do tend to be a bit grumpy at times, I admit. Gentleman might be a slight exaggeration, but thanks anyway, Phil. It is indeed appreciated.
I admit that I was puzzled by Ben's - as I felt - rather strange input earlier about things we already know and wondered what that on earth that had to do with it. As I said, we all know he took organs away from Eddowes, and I am still trying to figure out how that would help us further on this particular issue, since what we were discussing here was why and how. Might have been an implication in there that I failed to notice, though. In any case, sorry about that, Ben. After having been on these Boards for some years now one can sometimes get rather tired and impatient.
My main point remains; the witness whom himself saw the apron stated that it looks like things had been smeared and wiped off the piece of cloth and I can't see any reason to dismiss that - just because people seem to have their own ideas - when we have no evidence indicating otherwise.
Again - it is all there in black and white. No need to reconstruct or interpret it into something else.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 376
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
Phil,
I don't give you enough compliments, I know!
Seriously, I mean it.
Your cautious approach about the connection is actually commendable, and one that I myself used to have, until, on balance, I made up my mind to accept that there most likely was a connection.
But I'm very much aware that I might be wrong, and I will change back to being neutral (or even go for the zero connection) if I find good reason to do so.
When I am arguing for a specific scenario, I am of course honest in that what I say is what I think was most likely to be what happened, but also I'm simply trying to show that that alternative is at least feasible.
Your post about "suspect types" was also good, and it might please you to hear that I personally think all those suspects are off, my (very speculative) suspect (that has no name) fits much more into my favored scenario, indeed that is why I still think it is viable.
AP,
Sometimes your gold is not appreciated for what it is!
Unfortunately, I admit, I am unable to follow all the threads here. I simply do not have the time! Could you please point me in the direction of this gold mine of yours?
What you say is manna for my ears.
But I respectfully disagree about your conclusion.
If Jack killed someone by London's "wailing wall", it was certainly not picked up as a monumental feat by anyone at the time.
This was not what spurred public opinion. This was not what almost caused a riot.
Now, I agree that had Jack written the GSG there (In which case it would be the MSG haha), he would have played on the fact that he was killing Eddowes by the "wailing wall", as you call it.
But what if Jack was not so clever as to make that astute connection? What if he was operating on a far less symbolic level? What if he quite simply just wanted to make a fake clue and throw suspicion once again towards the Jews?
Could just as easily have happened as him killing anyone on some "sacred ground" or whatever for who knows what sinister or conspiratorial reason.
Glenn,
Grumpy? Nawww.. I'm the grumpy one! You are a perfect gentleman up until the point where you start discussing semantics
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: 1895
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:14 am: |
|
Helge
Within the context of my point, the spelling of the word Jews is irrelevant, it wasn’t what I was getting at.
My point is that there is NO mention of the crime (or any within the series) within the wall writing.
I ask why? Why is there no mention of Eddowes, Stride, Mitre Square, Nichols, Chapman, Watkins, Morris, Uncle Tom Cobley…..anyone or anything with connection to these crimes?
Heaven forbid that there is no connection…… other than it was in the same location as a piece of apron. And if that’s a valid reason to connect the two then why do we discard Burrells pawn tickets? why wasn’t every hairdresser in the area investigated after Chapmans murder? Or every muslin maker or importer. Why aren’t we making these connections?
As for Juwes….Ive always seen it as a cockney phonetic spelling.
Monty
:0
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4053
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
I totally concur with Monty's thougts here. I guess some would say that the piece from Eddowes' apron would be an enough link to the murders, but I find that hard to accept. We still have to face, that the message doesn't mention anything about the murders and in the context of the murders it remains a rather cryptic one.
Take the phony Ripper letters, for example. Their intention are all very clear, very concise, they are mocking, sordid. And the same can be said for real letters from other killers.
I just don't see the GSM as a credible piece of information from a killer of this nature.
Helge,
"But what if Jack was not so clever as to make that astute connection? What if he was operating on a far less symbolic level? What if he quite simply just wanted to make a fake clue and throw suspicion once again towards the Jews?"
But wouldn't such a decision actually point at someone more intelligent? Surely that is more complicated than the more direct and inituitive approach of leaving the message directly at the crime scene, for example.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 26, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 378
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:33 am: |
|
Monty,
Ok, I just had to brief our general readers about the learning process behind spelling
The killer probably had no special relationship to the names, not as we do today!
But yes, I do get your point. That is why I don't think Jack was really COMMUNICATING at all. See one of my previous posts. He was just playing the blaming game. Besides, if he wanted the police to think the apron was a clue, and that the murderer lived in Wentworth Dwellings, what on earth would have made him think the police would be stupid enough to think the killer actually wrote a message on the wall in front of his own home admitting guilt?
It was ambiguous because that fits the setting. He wanted to make sure there was a hint about the Jews.
Now, the police did not fall for it. And neither do you! That obvious. You are too clever, Montgomery.
It does not make that much sense, because it was not that clever to begin with.
But if we disregard "cleverness". If we look at what that thing almost did, in the context of the times, anti-Semitism growing like a cancer through society..well, perhaps it was not "clever", but perhaps it made good sense in context of the period.
If you see Juwes as a cockney phonetic spelling, I'm more than willing to go along with that!
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: 379
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
Glenn,
See my reply to Monty.
You are all assuming I think Jack had an intention to communicate. I don't think he had, and I certainly don't think it is likely he wrote any letters to the police.
The communication bit here was IMO part of a deception, and that deception was imperative, not the communication in itself.
Also, I could mention (again) that I respect that many people downplay the connection based on proximity alone. I don't. I think it is extremely important. Had the graffito been only a few metres furter away, the connection would have been compromised.
"But wouldn't such a decision actually point at someone more intelligent?"
Not at all. Even modern two bit crooks know a thing or two about deceiving the police. That points only to average intelligence. To kill someone in Mitre Square with the express desire to invoke some kind of symbolic significance point in the direction of someone beyond average intelligence, and also one that thinks in symbolic terms.
Not the average East Ender!
(No offence intended whatsoever towards all the fine residents of the present day East End!!!)
Dang! I said I did not have time for this this week, and it's true, but I can't help myself haha.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 26, 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)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4055
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Helge,
Hmmm... I see what you mean. Still, I must say it is a rather complicated idea and it feels a bit like a construction. Just doesn't ring true to me.
You see... one problem I have with the 'blame the Jews'-scenario, is this: he didn't have to!
Fact is, that the Jews were already blamed enough in the papers and mobs on the street were pointing at the Jews.
The antisemitic feelings against Jewish immigrants was already explosive enough (just look at Warren's reactions to anything that could further inflame the situation) and to me it feels like putting Kit Kats on top of a huge birthday cake, to take risks and go even even further to implicate them in connection with the murders. He already had other people and media channels doing that for him. It just feels a bit redundant, if you ask me.
And yes, even leaving a clue to deceive the police is a form of communication. And the Ripper didn't, from what we know so far, had any need to communicate. The shock value of the victims were probably enough. That was his impact.
Dang!
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 26, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 380
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Glenn,
Good points!
Actually that is the cornerstone of my working hypothesis, if you remember? I think Jack WANTED the Jews to get hell.
And so he though, a little nudge...
I actually agree that things seem a bit contrived. But my problem is the apron. Had it been tossed away a hundred meters or so from the Square, everything would have been much easier to interpret!
But then it ends up in a (from an anti-Semitic point of view) "strategic" location in Goulston Street with some smears that possibly would take just a few seconds to make!
THAT makes me think. It does not ring true. Unless, of course, Jack had a plan. And as we find the graffito as well, I'm inclined to think it might have been part of his plan.
And shock value of the murders given a (false) CONTEXT of it having been committed by a Jew, would be just what Jack might have been after.
That is not just random speculation, I try to interpret what the heck Jackie Boy had in mind with the apron in the first place!
(Did you beam me up, hahah?)
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)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4056
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Helge,
Bing! (Thanks, Scotty)
I agree. The apron is a weird coincidence, I'll buy you that one. However, as I said, I have looked into hundreds of murder cases and blimey the strange coincidences that sometimes can occurre. Such things do happen. And if we for a moment just take in consideration that there might have been more scribblings on the walls of Whitechapel in an antisemitic climate (which would be quite reasonable to assume - just look at the graffiti on the walls in Belfast, Northern Ireland, when the situation was as most problematic there), then it could just be a coincidence that the apron happened to be left underneath one of them.
Let's not forget, that the main reason for why Warren found the message so incriminating, was because of the apron. If the apron hadn't been found underneath it, and thus dragging the writing into the Ripper case, would he really have found it that serious? Would it really stand out that much from the rest of the writings on the walls of Whitechapel?
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Helge, Glenn,
Anti Semitism was rife. To promote it as a point or cover is unecessary. Papers loosely hinted at the anti semitic angle, the police investigated along these lines as par the course so for a killer to push this as a view or as cover is an pointless act if indeed this was his intention.
Of course, and as you have stated, he may have his own private personal reason for writing it (IF he did write it), and if this is true then I see no reason why it shouldn’t have been placed at the scene of crime or include some relevant information. The Zodiac placed his communications at the scene (on a victims car door, not the murder site granted) or included trophy pieces within his letters. He also gave information that only he knew. Heirens wrote at the scene, as did The Manson Family. If Jack really did want to link this writing to himself then all he had to do was post a letter. Virtually untraceable and guarantees the link.
And as for those who state that the Police believed the writing was linked because they investigated it. Well, they investigated it because they had to. It was routine. This act is no indication that the Police linked the writing with the murder or murderer. They were doing their job.
And finally Helge, this deception. Why the need to deceive? Why take such a risk?
Cheers
Monty
PS Thanks Helge for the info re spelling. Whoever wrote the writing certainly threw in a brahmer……..intentionally or not.
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4057
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Monty,
I absolutely agree with every word in your post.
Couldn't have said it better myself (although I never seem to be able to put things the way you do).
Cheers.
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 381
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
Glenn,
(Gotta give me more power, Scotty!!)
Again we agree on everything (well, more or less), except the actual interpretation. BECAUSE the GSG does not make for anything that spectacular EXCEPT in correlation with the apron I think Jack MIGHT have thought it would have the effect it had if he "connected" it to the apron.
So he did not need to make any explicit statement. Such a thing would make it too clear it was a "planted" clue, IMO. (Hey, Mr police, I'm a killer, and I'm a Jew, do believe me!)
Again Monty, you make sense. I almost want to agree!
But not quite. I'm a stubborn one, you know
Let me start with your last point first. Jack might have thrived on risk! He killed the women and probably got a thrill out of the risk as well as the actual killing.
But it need not have been that risky. If he was going in that direction anyway (and we have no reason to believe he did not intend to), then his biggest risk would have been the few hundred meters closest to the murder site. After that he would only have to worry about random encounters with PC's.
With the relative safety of a dark staircase to hide in, he would probably have felt safer there than on the streets, IMO. And the entire tossing of apron/writing of graffito would take less than half a minute. Even if he was a slow writer.
And, the fact that the police would routinely investigate the GSG anyway, as long as there was a possible connection to the apron, you will notice that Jack (according to my scenario) got it just as he wished. Attention to the "Jewish thing".
Of course, Warren was far too clever to fall for that. And the riot never happened.
Actually Jack may not have depended on a riot as his reason for doing what he did either. I think he just wanted to give the Jews Hell. But that said, the more, the better. A riot would have really bolstered his ego!
Then there is the thing about the rain. Maybe Jack found that Mitre Square simply was not suited to write any message at all?
Or maybe he only got the idea to write something after he sucessfully "planted" the apron.
There are several possibilities that includes the known facts.
In any case, I place more importance on the apron than the graffiti, and I think Jack did too, if indeed he had the idea I think he did.
If you see what I mean.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on September 26, 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)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4058
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:41 am: |
|
Helge,
"Again we agree on everything (well, more or less), except the actual interpretation. BECAUSE the GSG does not make for anything that spectacular EXCEPT in correlation with the apron I think Jack MIGHT have thought it would have the effect it had if he "connected" it to the apron. "
Well, my point was, that if the writing without the apron underneath it, would have been more or less representative for those might have have been scribbled on the walls in an anti-semitic climate, then
1) we can assume, that there would have been several other writings on the walls in the area,
which in turn means that
b) it simply was a lucky coincidence that the apron happened to be placed underneath that particular one.
In short, if several other writings appeared on the walls, then that decreases the importance of the apron as an important link to the message. If there existed several messages like this (and it was the apron that made it more explosive than usual), then it might not be such a strange coincidence after all that the apron happened to be dropped just underneath such a message. Because one of the points we are discussing here is the coincidence of the two of them appearing together. But if more scribblings like this existed, then the importance of the connection between the two really gets weaker.
Personally (and this is only my personal opinion), I don't see Jack the Ripper as a guy who walked around with this kind of ideas in his head. He was a compulsive killer, in my view - like many other killers of similar character - and not someone who indulged in schemes of this sort. I seriously doubt that he belonged to the category of serial killers with an 'ego' like the Zodiac, for example. If he was, then we should see other similar schemes and neat plans on his part (not to mention real communications), but all we see in the Ripper's case is chaotic crime scenes (although some organised and rational elements in his ability to get away and take the murder weapon with him when leaving). I don't buy it.
As Monty says, if he really wanted to implicate the Jews, it would have been more effective to send a letter implicating the Jews, together with the piece of apron. Now, there he could have been sure of creating a real impact.
Still, Helge, some good points and good arguments in that post (I liked that one about the rain and Mitre Square), although I don't agree per ce.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 26, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1897
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Glenn, Helge,
Glenn - You are too kind……and you are one of the more lucid and clear contributors. Speaking of whom, Helge,
Helge,
I see what you mean however I cannot help thinking that there was a simpler and clearer way of achieving this anti semitic mission.
There are indeed several possibilities but also several opportunities. No one plants a Jewish connection to Nichols murder nor Chapmans. Stride is connected via the club at her SOC and her tea making duties but Stride is a disputed victim. We have no concerned communication at these sites or within the area from the killer. Those that we know of tell of scores and intentions, not social and racial situations.
Why didn’t he drop a Jewish hint at all of these sites?
The apron is indeed the crux, that is true. The rest is conjecture and assumption.
Cheers,
Monty
PS There is nothing to indicate that there wasnt other writings in the area.
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1898
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Frank
The distance from the square to Goulston Street was 1550 to 1600 feet, which is 472 to 487 m. Walking that distance today at a normal speed, it would take 5 and a half to 6 minutes
Tsk, tsk, tsk,
What height and gait distance you basing this on?
Also there is a longer route which obviously takes longer to complete.
Monty walked the short route briskly at 4 mins 48 seconds......so you're roughly correct.
Just teasing old chap....Im bored !
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2568
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Here is just one small post from the thread, Helge:
'Basically I was just thinking aloud that if someone found out that the word Jews was spelled ‘Juwes’ way back in the 1600’s, and then someone else found out that the very first Great Synagogue for the Ashkenazi community of London was actually in Mitre Square in the 1600’s, then it might prove possible to provide some linkage between the killing of a whore in Mitre Square in 1888 and the word ‘Juwes’ that was written nearby and soon after.
Daft thought I suppose.'
The thread is located at 'Mitre Square' under victims 'Eddowes', but Robert has much to say elsewhere as well.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 383
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Glenn,
Actually, I don't assume there was other graffiti in the general area, for the very reason that I have not seen any reference to that at all!
Surely this is a crucial point, and one that the investigators must have considered. But no one said anything remotely like that. No one disregarded the graffito, or even doubted its authenticity because the place was littered with graffiti! At least no one we know of.
Of course, I see the possibility that there might have been other graffito, but I will invoke Phil's reasoning here (Hi, Phil!) and say that if none were mentioned we must be careful to assume there was.
But yes, we actually agree more than you think on the Rippers psychology. I don't think this was part of a premeditated grand scheme. And that is why we find nothing in the other murders. It was probably not in his mind at all in the first murders. Jack was IMO impulsive enough to pull this one off as a one nighter!
I hardly think this was the driving force for his killing spree!
And there is no "anti-semitic mission" as I see it. Just an idea to cause a bit more havoc.
Jack must have read the newspapers, he must have sensed the anti-Semitism all around him. Maybe he picked up on that and got an idea?
Yes, it is speculation, but hardly an impossible scenario. And, I am not as comfortable with the coincidence in time and space that you are, so my scenario is trying to make sense of that. Of course, in the end Jack's thoughts may have made no sense at all! But if that is the case, he could just as easily have written the GSG, since you find no sense in it!
And yes, I agree that Jackie could have done better. He could have sent a letter. But would that have swayed the police? What could he say? "I am a Jew"? Was there any reason to think that ploy would have worked?
As you know, I think he counted on public opinion. The police would not have instigated a riot, the masses would. In case he sent a letter, the police could just as easily withold it from the public, if they deemed it dangerous.
Actually I see something of the same in the Millers Court murder. He's given up the anti-Semitism, because it did not work, but still try to get attention. The night chosen may not have been random. Maybe he deliberately choose the night before the parade?
Still, only speculation, of course. But the point is we cannot really know.
I think he fed on his publicity.
Monty,
Perhaps you now see I do not necessarily believe in any anti-jewish mission? The Jews were the ones suspected, and they were easy to blame (always has been, unfortunately) They were all over the news, on everyones lips. Surely Jack knew this, and maybe it influenced him.
Of course it is speculation, but I base it on the placement of the apron plus the graffito. Had there not been any graffito, I would have thought the same, but the graffito seems just too convenient in reinforcing this scenario.
If only Jack had tossed the apron sooner, or at least stuffed it behind some old barrels or whatever to hide it, then I would have seen no mystery at all. The way he did it, it is simply a case where it eventually HAD to be found, and people would more likely than not think "those ####### Jews are at it again!"
But, hey, I see where you guys are coming from, and basically it is all subjective opinions.
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: 384
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
AP,
Thanks very much for taking the time to enlighten me!
I find the scenario you proposed unlikely, but extremely intriguing. I will have to catch up on some reading, then!
Again, thanks a lot! Saved me from a lot of searching.
If Jack was indeed aware of this fact, actually I see more, not less, reason to consider him anti-Semitic. But this gets too "mission oriented" for even my taste. Maybe a strange out-of-time synchronicity?
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)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4060
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 2:43 pm: |
|
Helge,
I definitely believe there were other graffito in the area, considering it was a poor working class environment (I have never come across or heard of an area like that that wasn't littered with graffito) and that antisemitism was blooming. I think that is pure logic.
"No one disregarded the graffito, or even doubted its authenticity because the place was littered with graffiti! At least no one we know of."
No, but the reason they took the message seriously (although not all officers considered it a vital clue) was because the apron was found underneath. That was my point. Without the apron, no one probably would have cared about it.
"He could have sent a letter. But would that have swayed the police? What could he say? "I am a Jew"? Was there any reason to think that ploy would have worked?"
Well, not in itself, but as I said -- together with the apron!
The apron would clearly prove to the police that the package came from the killer, since they managed to match the piece with the apron remaining on Eddowes' body.
You have a point, though, that the police most certainly would have tried to suppress a letter implicating the Jews, but what the Ripper would have done would be to mail the stuff to one of the papers and not the police.
"Jack must have read the newspapers, he must have sensed the anti-Semitism all around him. Maybe he picked up on that and got an idea?"
Well, who knows, but frankly -- I don't think he cared or had any interests in those matters. His concerns were probably personal, nothing else. Personally, I don't think he cared a single bit about antisemitism, not even to the degree of blaming them for any of the murders, but that is of course speculation on my part.
But as Monty says, we don't see any such tendencies in the other murders - unless one believes Stride was a Ripper victim and that the location had antisemitic meaning (a theory I personally think is rubbish).
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:17 am: |
|
Helge,
"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it"
Now consider this, Brown says a hand or a knife..."
I'm sorry to dig this up again, but it is by no means clear that Brown says anything of the sort. My reading of most of the newspaper reports at this juncture is that those were the words of the journalist(s) describing what they saw.
Unless everyone in the courtroom was blind, why on earth would Dr Brown, standing in the dock, actually say the words "On the piece of apron brought in there were smears ..."? It was an inquest after all, not an opera or Greek drama that needed a "chorus" (in the form of Dr Brown) to comment on the action.
A far more likely explanation for these words is that the journalist was describing the proceedings for the benefit of his readers. That the journo's words have become confused with those of Dr Brown is exacerbated by the style of typesetting in those days - e.g. inconsistent use of paragraphs, quotation marks etc - but to me what constitutes reportage and what constitutes direct quotations is relatively easy to distinguish.
The only scenario I can think of that would necessitate Brown actually uttering the words "On the piece ... there were" would be if the apron had been washed prior to its appearance at court, and he was explaining to the courtroom that the stains were once there. Of course (as far as we know) that was not the case and what the court saw was the apron fragment as found, albeit with its messy contaminants dried onto it by now.
I don't want to make a big deal of this, but we should be very careful in attributing any statements to individual witnesses in these circumstances. I'm not arguing for or against the "wiping" scenario, but I am saying that in this particular instance we must guard against a possibly false impression that hand/knife wiping is directly confirmed by Dr Brown's own words.
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Join the club AP, because I'm confused too.
Reasons for NOT taking that piece of Apron.
1.The killer searched Eddowes,among her belongings were numerous rags and cloths any one of which would have served perfectly well as a wipe.
2. The time wasted cutting away half of her apron.
3. He could wipe his hands on her clothes.
4. A knife, contrary to popular belief,does not actually retain very much blood other than around the handle.No blood testing in 1888,no need to wipe his knife.
Reasons FOR taking the piece of apron.
Ermmmm, anyone?
Now, IF the killer wrote that message why are we assuming he did not do it BEFORE he killed that night, and if he didnt write it maybe he had seen it prior to the nights events?
Leather Apron was all over the papers,Piser appears at Chapmans inquest and is completely exonerated,in effect, he had been blamed for nothing.
The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.
*drops piece of victims apron in Jewish dwelling*
Makes perfect sense to me. |
ohnjay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:56 am: |
|
question: is it possible that jack wrote the message before the murder and then dropped the apron on his way from the murder. |
ohnjay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 25, 2005 - 6:58 am: |
|
on the question of who carries chalk, The answer is tailors, |
Uriah Hexam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, September 24, 2005 - 3:01 am: |
|
"The posters
are not the men (and women)
who will be blamed for
writing on nothing"
I am in an ecstatic convulsion at the thought of ripperologists from all over the world defacing every wall they come across in the name of criminalogical truth! As Tiny Tim said: "God bless us, everyone.
Just so that no one gets their knickers in a twist, I say this with affection and respect, because I know the question matters. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
