|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
"To Say Nothing of the Dog..." Goulston Street and Dogs
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
"To Say Nothing of the Dog..." Goulston Street and Dogs
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 01:56 pm |        | Thief's Notice: I nicked the title of this thread from a Connie Willis novel.
There seems to be some interest on the Casebook to talk about the letters/messages. I also see the blessed trinity (I jest, but not without great respect for this triumvirate) of Begg/Skinner/Fido on board who were my original source for the dog theory.
Who want to discuss the Goulston Street graffito and how Eddowes' apron piece got there?
First, let me explain a new methodology I like to use: on the weight given to sources of information.
I think/believe that our first, primary source in any matter regarding JtR is anything that we know or might suspect was touched by JtR. The obvious examples, and the most important of course, are the bodies of his victims. If we believe JtR killed one of the women, her condition would present first-hand clues to who or, better, what JtR was.
You can compile your own list -- and defend it, remember! -- but official, contemporary police/doctor/coroner reports are next in my list.
Third would be the press.
Distant fourth/fifth/etc. would be reminiscences/memoirs/modern extemporizations based on the first three sources.
Taking this methodology, let me use it regarding Eddowes' apron piece, Goulston Street, and JtR...to say nothing of the dog!
If you accept JtR killed Eddowes' (I do), then anything related to Eddowes' condition or possessions is first a reflection of something JtR did.
Among other actions perpetrated on Eddowes that night, her apron was cut. Along with body parts taken, the piece of apron was also taken by JtR. Why? JtR was the cause of Eddowes' death and was the first to mistreat her body and steal from her. If anything is missing from known Eddowes' possessions, the first suspect in the theft must be JtR.
But why, you ask, did he steal a piece of apron? There's no precedent for this, you might add. Most of you know that there is precedence for JtR stealing items from his victims. If you accept Chapman as a JtR victim, he stole at least one ring. There may be other examples I don't recall at this time (please add them if you would).
I've long held that the abscence of any evidence that the victims were found with money on their persons (no, I'm not reviving the gold farthings) is suspicious in that it is probable that some money would be found on women who were out working their trade. This is especially true of Stride (if you accept her as a JtR victim). Therefore I think it possible, even probable, that JtR stole money as well as organs. (Here, the A-Z authors disagree and mention the vanishing, reappearing, vanishing brass farthings perportedly found near Chapman's feet. Is this undisputed fact or still questionable? What also interests me is that in Chapman's murder money was a {puzzling] inventoried item for objects found with the body. I haven't found other references to money found in the other canonical murders, but Chapman's case says it would be mentioned IF found.)
So our prime suspect in the theft of the apron piece must be JtR -- he was the cause of death; he was there first; he had an interest in such obscure thievery. I need to hear some sound reasoning why he/she/them should be exonerated from this charge.
Next, how did the apron piece get from the murder site (mitre Square) to Goulston street?
Until reasons or proof are provided why JtR could not be in possession of the apron piece, the logical conclusion is that he took it there.
Next, the apron piece was deposited on a doorstep. Speculation enters the scene. Why did JtR dispose of the apron piece at all? And, in light of factors involved in its later discovery, why precisely there?
A complication: when the apron piece is found that night, it lies beneath a piece of graffitto that I've read described as being very low on the wall, almost directly above the apron piece.
Who wrote the graffito? When was it written? More speculation: JtR wrote the graffito. JtR saw the graffito and thought it a suitable resting place for the apron piece. There was no knowledge of the graffito on JtR's part but he wanted the apron piece found, blind chance put the two together. He simply threw away what he either decided was no longer valuable or didn't realize he had.
Of the above speculations only the last two can be examined in relation to JtR's previous and subsequent actions. Had he ever taken something from a victim and then simply disposed of it, threw it away? Not to our (or my) knowledge. This speculation appears contradictory to JtR's methods then and, in all probability could be discarded. Had he ever returned an object he took from a victim, intending it to be found -- with whatever intent. Here enters the much disputed Lusk kidney and letter. If accepted as from JtR, we have a post-Goulston Street incident where JtR returned something from the victim with some special intent implied in its return.
The authorship of the graffito can never be satisfactorily determined -- probably not even in 1888. But if you don't believe in blind chance, or that JtR did something that he never did before or after (to our knowledge, admittedly; but I don't thrive on unnecessary, unprovable speculation along the lines of 'he could have done so, therefore he must have') you're left with the other two choices: he wrote the message and meant to connect it with Eddowes' murder; he opportunistically used a pre-existing message to connect the two.
JtR moves on, disappears. The apron piece has, one way or another, left his hand.
Without repeating what I've already outlined, or what you probably already know in much more detail, I now introduce the police. To our knowledge, excluding the original or=wner (Eddowes), the apron piece falls into the hands of its second owner.
The 1888 police were bothered, as are we, about the proximity of the apron piece to the message. Are the two related? (Too bad JtR didn't see fit to sign the darned thing if he wrote it, or at least draw and arrow from it pointing down to the apron piece...but never mind.) We enter enter into the realm of possibility/probability again. I feel, based on the previous reasoning, that JtR meant to relate the two -- whether he wrote the message or not.
Enter the bane of JtR research: the hideous hydra called Meaning. Whatever does that message mean? And what, if JtR linked the two, does the murder and the message mean? Here, the hydra monster devours us all because no one can conclusively read a sane person's mind, let alone a murderer/deviant. Here, through various ratiocinations, the message, the apron piece, the linkage, the meaning...everything is sooner or later pitched aside. Nothing can be done with this event. In some (or in many) minds, the event I've described is so meaningless it requires a meaningless origination.
Enter our furry friends, the dogs.
The dog done did it...maybe...er, well, probably...um, I suppose it's possible.
I hear that 'experts' tested this thesis. How does one take an irrational animal and test whether or not it can perform such an irrational, but potentially relevant, action? How did the 'experts' prevent themselves, the dog(s), or the experiment from being consciously or unconsciously manipulated? What were the controls or even the nature of the test?
Finally, to take you back to the beginning, where and when does the dog assume primacy of possession of that apron piece over JtR? We know JtR was at Eddowes' side? We know he took many things from her? How do we KNOW there ever was a dog (or any other mammal or act of nature -- the wind has also been proposed) near Eddowes or the Goulston Street doorstep? How can we prove animal or nature supercedes the volition of JtR?
Why do we even need to have enter, stage left, the dog (or nature) at all?
I suspect it is because JtR's actions are totally idiosyncratic (drastic understatement) -- we'll never know what that monster thought or what motivated him to do anything, let alone this. Faced with an irrational event, rational people naturally gravitate towards either an equally irrational (read: non-human, non-volitional) agency...
Or worse, they just stop thinking about it all together and say it has nothing to do with JtR.
You pays you money and you makes your choices. But I propose there is sufficient information to make the best, most well-informed decision that's possible: JtR did it and meant it and nothing more can be drawn from the information (that is, no meaning; no insight into his reasoning).
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 04:40 pm | | Yaz - I admit I've only skimmed the above.
From my earliest work on the Ripper I assumed we had only 2 actual surviving clues: the position of the piece of apron and the date when the murders stopped.
The unanimous view of the modern Scotland Yard officers considering the case was that a dog MIGHT have picked the apron up and carried it about 100 yards. I.e., not from the position where the body would have held its attention. Their unanimity strongly suggested to me that they were speaking from experience of dogs doing such things, and it therefore behoves us to make the Goulston St doorway OR anywhere within a 100-yard radius of it a 'grey area'.
I've explained elsewhere why the farthings are a grey area, with persuasive arguments for and against their being under Annie Chapman's body. I'd forgotten how our entry in A-Z ran, but personally I have always thought that there pretty certainly were farthings there. But thoroughly reputable people like Stewart Evans and Philip Sugden, with no axe to grind - no case to base on it - disagree.
It also militates rather against my own feeling, shared with you, that the Ripper pretty certainly did steal any loose change he found on his victims, as well as Annie Chapman's rings.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 05:49 pm | | Hey Martin:
I have no quarrel about the farthings; but some folks are tetchy if you don't account for as many details as you can. I'm pretty pleased that someone on this board actually agrees with me that JtR robbed most (allowing, as always, for Chapman's farthings) if not all of his victims.
I have no quarrel with the possibility that a dog COULD move a scrap of cloth 100 yards in any direction.
I am a mite contentious when we therefore feel we have to let the dog in when there are better and (here's the rub...to my mind) more plausible explanations for its travels from Mitre Square. I feel rather silly trying to figure out why a dog would bother doing such a thing if the gruesome reality for why it would be around Eddowes' body points towards it being hungry. That would be one dumb, dumb, dumb dog to walk away from 'food' for a scrap of apron.
Besides that bit of animal logic (ugh!), wouldn't there be some trace left behind from the mutt...teeth marks, hair? I forget the name of the forensic law that states whenever something comes into contact with something else, both objects (including living beings) leave behind traces on each other.
By the by, do you still believe we only have 2 surviving clues about JtR?
Yaz |
Author: John Omlor
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:07 pm | | Hi Yaz and Martin,
Simple question. Wasn't it reported by one of the attending policemen that the apron piece seemed folded over or folded in some way? I don't remember this very well and I'm at work and don't have my Evans and Skinner here to carefully read the testimonies.
A dog might carry, but I've yet to see a dog trained to fold. 
Thanks for any answers.
I agree, of course, with Yaz about the uncertainties and multiplicity of possible meanings that remain in the readings of the scrawled and erased words. Perhaps the same difficulties remain concerning the identity of the writer and the particulars that made up the scene of writing.
--John |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 06:45 pm | | Yaz,
I'd like to comment on your questions and observations. I think JtR was a working class man,--hard-up like all working class men at that time. He took anything of value off all his victims,-if they had anything, including Annie's rings, I don't think he would have known they were only brass. I don't see the part apron as stealing, it was a part of the murder, a part of Kate he was using. I think if he had had the time he would have dropped the apron piece by the body,--- or perhaps not cut a piece at all,--but maybe as he was finishing off, he heard P.C.Watkins footsteps approaching in the distance.
In my view it was then he cut the apron and took off wiping his hands as he went!. I believe he went out of the Square via Mitre St entrance, before Watkins could have spotted him. He made his way up to Aldgate, then walked with both hands in his pockets at a normal pace to Goulston
St turn. Only the knees of his trousers need have shown any signs of blood, and who would have noticed that? He would have pushed up his sleeves to mutilate the body. Goulston St gives me the impression that it was a dark street, so he carried on wiping his hands as he made his way up that street, then folding the cloth, he took out his knife and wiped that, then he skimmed the folded cloth away from him into the doorway of the tenement building. I think it was pure chance the cloth landed under that grafitti, I don't think he knew it was there.
Rick |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 08:03 pm | | Hey All:
John, I can't say in what condition the apron was found but the folding would certainly further exonerate the poor dog, wouldn't it?
But the inclusion of the POSSIBILITY of the dog opens to the door to ALL possibilities. It's not just the miserable mutt I'd like to exclude, it's the reasoning behind having or needing any or all other POSSIBILITIES behind the moving apron piece.
If a dog could pick the apron piece up, why not a child, or a nitwit, or a callous SOB, or a person who did not see the body in the darkness...on and on if the door is left open to what is simply POSSIBLE.
Warwick, you may be absolutely right in your description. I can't say 'yea' or 'nay.' But as to the use of a piece of the victim's clothing to cleanse either or both himself or his weapon, wouldn't we see evidence of this in the other murders if Eddowes' killer is JtR? No one specifically mentions, to my recollection, that any victims' clothing looked as if someone had wiped their bloody hands on them, maybe for the simple reason that none of the clothing was clean enough after the killing. Also, no mention of cut and removed pieces of clothing.
Your thesis is certainly as valid as mine. But the anomolous characteristic of cutting away a piece of Eddowes' apron, carrying it down the street, and then disposing of it where it would likely be found worries me. In any case of serial murder there is the fear of attributing the wrong victims to the murderer (or failing to add one) because of some one thing we misunderstand. Many serial killings aren't recognized as such because of something as simple as skin color, when everything else about the victimology are identical. The opposite fear is the 'copy-cat' killer who may try to hide his crimes within a more publicized series of killings.
Last, even if you and I agree that your description is the right one, how would we prove it? We have what amounts to a killer's viewpoint description of what happened that night.
Objectively, we have no idea if the cutting of the apron was accidental or purposeful; the same goes with why he might have kept it or then disposed of it, and in that particular place. We can only deal in what is fact (the apron was cut; the apron piece ended up in the Goulston Street doorway; a piece of graffito existed in suspiciously close relation to the apron piece); what is POSSIBLE (your scenario, the scenario of an animal moving it, another where the wind carries it); and what is PROBABLE (that of all the possibilities there was a person in the best position, with the best motives, to have cut, removed, and disposed of the garment scrap, and we know him as JtR).
Of course, I may be prejudiced about the PROBABLE example I offered...nudge, nudge, wink, wink!
Yaz |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 09:41 pm | | Dear Yazoo,
Is a Yazoo something you play a toon on?O.K. Let me run this by you.
The Goulston St grafitti is described as the of a rounded school-boyish handwriting. The semi-literate folk I have known tend to use mainly capitals, or print the letters seperately using a mix of capitals and lower-case. If JtR wrote this text in the manner that he did...was it a means to hide a text within a text? Or is that too subtle for Jack?
We know he used a face as a surface...to convey a
'message' utilising some obscure symbolic code...
perhaps he was just doodling to while away the time, but time was his greatest enemy in that situation.Any thoughts, Yaz? |
Author: Yazoo
Monday, 09 April 2001 - 10:14 pm | | Hey Rosemary:
Yazoo is from the Mississippi Delta blues region; Yaz was also the nickname of a great American Baseball player; both are used by me because my real name (Mark Warren) is too common to get email addresses, IDs, and the like.
You make two points:
1) As to the authorship of the graffito, I'd prefer not to go near that subject with a barge pole for the moment. Not out of snootiness, just because no one can prove he wrote it (and I assert it doesn't matter if he didn't, he used it nonetheless). Since the original wording/spelling/handwriting/etc. hasn't survived except in several variants from different police sources, it's perilous to try to deal with the meaning/intent of the message just on that grounds too.
2) I completely agree that murder and mutilation (the victim's body as medium and message...God help us, I mutter) also constituted a message, even if JtR was unconscious of it at any given time. But I think if you read very closely about how he left Kelly's body, you'll see your point about leaving messages in the mutilations (and especially the placement of the body and its parts) amply demonstrated. Kelly is the better example of your point, IMHO. I agree that JtR did not have the time to leave the message that he wanted next to Eddowes' body because of the time and Mitre Square's layout. However, I do believe JtR was planning on leaving a written message that night; not the kind of message he left in Kelly's chamber of horrors.
Curious, isn't it, that when he had the time in Kelly's room he chose, again IMHO, to leave his message graphically by arranging Kelly's body and organs. But when he knew he didn't have the time, he chose words.
You should also be forewarned that I believe JtR also killed Stride and that he intended his message to be left near her and the Jewish-Socialist club, but was foiled by Schwartz, by time, and by over-reaching himself in where he chose to commit that night's first murder. Eddowes was an unlucky second choice (especially for her, but for him as well).
I hope that helps spur some more of your thoughts. I thought I'd be blasted to Hell for raising this spectre again.
Thanks to all who've responded and added to this discussion.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 06:39 am | | Rick - I agree entirely with your reconstruction of the Ripper's probable movements as far as we can deduce them from the limited evidence.
Yaz - Since the apron was smeared with faeces as well as blood, I doubt whether a child would have picked it up to play with. Nor do I thinbk Barnardo's accounts suggest that the homeless children of the East End were likely to be actively moving around the pitch-dark streets at 1.45am. And - yes - if by 'clue' one means 'piece of material evidence relating directly to the murders from which one can draw reliable conclusions' and not 'historically supportable contemporary statement indicating genuine knowledge now lost to us', then I still think the apron and the date of the murders ending are the only clues we have to work from in the first instance. They tell us definitely, 'He went this-away!' and 'Something made him stop!' We have to make our own deductions to establish anything else as acually being a clue. (Of course we can say with certainty, 'He used a knife!' But apart from eliminating anybody who had an extraordinary phobia about ever touching naked steel, that isn't a very helpful pointer to anything or anyone).
Rosemary - You're thinking of a Kazoo. The thrifty get an equally melodious effect from a comb and paper.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 08:32 am | | Hey Martin:
Methinks you have an overly rigorous standard regarding 'Clues.' The five bodies alone are five clues; everything about them, on them, missing from them are also clues. On and on. What any of these things/facts/whatever-you-might-call-them MEANS are NOT clues -- they are subjective interpretations, open to analysis and argument. If this is the distinction you are making, I would agree.
If we are in the realm of POSSIBILITIES, no possible scenario can be discarded, especially based on opinion, expert or otherwise. In this case, if Barnardo suggests that East End children were not active around 1.45 am, we'd have to ask if B weren't stating what might be generally true but which could also not be true in individual, specific -- i.e., unique, in Barnardo's formulation -- children. There is nothing IMpossible about a child picking up the apron piece, as there is nothing IMpossible about a dog doing the same.
If our choices were only between a child and a dog, which would be more PROBABLE -- reintroducing Barnardo and the dog experts -- that 1) a dog moved the scrap or 2) a child moved it? Our answer, again, is not a 'clue,' it is an interpretation.
As to drawing reliable conclusions from these 'clues,' well that too is subjectively too rigorous. If these murders happened today, and someone were to be prosecuted for them, but were declared not guilty -- would the verdict demonstrate that there were no or insufficient reliable clues, or that the prosecution failed to make its case and defend it against the suspect's lawyer's counterarguments arguments.
All of which, having been said, may be taking us far afield from the starting point of this thread. I hope we can agree on what is an objective 'clue' and the distinctions between clues, possibilities/probablities/certainties regarding interpretation of those 'clues.'
Philosphically yours,
Yaz |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 12:12 am | | | We need to hear from dog owners. I alas own, or rather am owned by a cat. If asked to guess what the cat would do if it came upon Eddowes remains, I suspect there would be a lot of sniffing and circling, possibly licking. After that he would probably walk away with his tail in the air. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:55 am | | Hi Yaz -
Yup. I'm really rigorous about what can be called a clue which points in an unchallengeable direction and might lead us toward the killer. This is essential if one is postulating a theory: otherwise one os quickly building a house of cards with deductions resting on conjectures, and the flimsy factual basis disguised by a lot of assertion.
But in your different work of testing all theories, it is of course pefectly right that you should come at them from every possibly angle with every single fact set against the proposal to see whether it fits, and so becoming from your point of view a 'clue' which may not point toward anything specific, but may firmly point away from something that has been proposed.
All the best
Martin |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 03:45 pm | | Speaking as a doggy owner , I'd say that the police at the time were right and , while a dog might grab something from the corpse it wouldn't go all that far with its new found trophy. I've noticed that my dogs tend to indulge in ' sneaky ' behaviour , ie they will grab something if they think nobody is looking and disappear with it. Then again , they have been known to make a rapid attack and grab food off a plate , using speed to avoid being caught. Again though they will not go all that far before stopping with their purloined acquisition.
If a dog had grabbed the apron , its possible it could have been driven off from several sites before retreating to the security of the Goulston Street archway. But not very likely. Besides , if a dog had got the apron it would have chewed it and ripped it as dogs tend to do with toys. It would probably have been in a terrible state when found , not neatly folded ! |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:43 pm | | Hey All:
Before I answer some of these issues, does anybody really think a dog moved the apron piece just because a dog, any dog -- not a trained dog or one in the hands of 'experts,' mind -- COULD HAVE moved it 100 yards in any given direction (regardless of whether that includes crossing streets, meeting people, meeting all the other 'wonderful' things a dog might fancy in an East End 1888 street, finally to rest from its weary labors and deposit said faeces-stained scrap politely in a doorway -- doubtless being also too polite to knock or ring the bell to alert the residents of his thoughtful deposit [but I jest])?
Also, is it a fact that the scrap was folded? Would that matter if it was -- the hypothetical dog (it's becoming like the JtR version of Schroedinger's Cat...and don't read what Stephen Hawking wants to do with S's poor cat -- quick, somebody ask Paul Begg what was the name of the cat owned by that poor, petrified woman who lived above Mary Kelly; see if his awesome memory is still in evidence) being just as capable of carrying a folded scrap as an unfolded one, I'd think -- unless the mongrel is fastidious above his proper station in life [but I jest again, dammee!!]?
Yaz |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 11:32 pm | | Yaz,
Diddles.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 11:49 pm | | David:
Did you have to look that up or did Mr. Begg slip you a hint?
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 07:05 am | | Now don't let the Councillor steal my thunder again, Yaz! In 1987 when we first met, his great parlour trick of Ripper trivia memory was Laura Sickings. Diddles was mine!
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 07:54 am | | I remember the Councillor -- where did he get that moniker -- saying the only person with as much JtR trivia in his brain was you.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 07:59 am | | Hi Yaz - No cheap monicker. For several years now our very own Paul Begg, once proudly vaunting the swinging disinction of being the youngest of the Three Wise Space Monkeys of A-Z, has genuinely been a parish councillor. Had not health intervened, he might well have risen to higher things in local government. (Seriously. He is very popular with his electorate.) And I believe he is now in fact Chairman of his parish council, and initiator of the major reform whereby any meeting that takes an unduly long time to complete its business is transferred, without adjourning, from private to public house as ad hoc council chambers.
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 08:33 am | | The biographical details of you JtR authors never ceases to amaze -- and I don't know and don't wanna know where and when you all became "Space Monkies," wise or otherwise!
If this American hasn't misread your British choice of vocabulary, how fitting that government business should go from a private space (I hope that doesn't mean the electorate can't sit in to view/hear the proceedings...if it does mean that, and our Councillor in JtR is involved, I suggest the sans-cullottes start stockpiling materiel for the barricades immediately!) to the American form of 'public house,' namely the bar. I've made some of my better Life-decisions (also some of my worst, but I don't wish to contradict meself) with a few bottles of barleyed brains in my belly.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 11:09 am | | I'm not sure where Councillor Begg's legislative assemblies open their proceedings, but I suspect it's in somebody's private sitting-room before they proceed merrily to The Windmill or The Sugar Loaf. (It was not the presence of two such splendid traditional hostelries that originally lured Mr B from industrial Leeds to rural Kent, but he has never denied that they are a gratifying addition to his bucolic surroundings. And I believe he captains or question sets for the quiz team at one of them. I may say that opening up the hidden treasure chest of the councillor's interests and achievements never fails to surprise and delight. He has fine and well-informed taste in both classical and jazz music; is a far better Latinist than I, though self-taught; is very widely read; deeply familiar with the whole history of popular enterainment; a known expert on disappearances; an unknown expert on the real Arthur. And never underrate his encyclopaedic knowledge of professional wrestling. You should try a few falls with him at one of the conferences.)
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 01:23 pm | | Wrestle the Begg-Monster? Not for all the beer from Belgium to Bali, thankee so much anyway for the suggestion.
Yaz |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 09:18 pm | | To all posters,
This has been a very interesting (and amusing) thread, and I enjoyed reading it.
I am recently returned to this board after being gone quite some time for health reasons, so I have been out of the mainstream a bit. I have not read of the Dog Theory, and since I have most books by the learned authors in this thread, I was wondering if this was a new theory recently acquired by some fresh evidence.
From what I've read, I don't feel it is likely a dog deposited the grisly fabric where it had been left. Too much of a coincidence for me!
I perfectly agree with Yaz's assertion that whether he wrote the graffiti or not, JTR used the apron and message to strike a chord.
I remember someone either on these boards or on a television program saying that if JTR indeed wrote the message, the only apparent clue is the direction he took after the Double Event. It seems Jacky went back to Whitechapel and left The City, and the obvious implication is that JTR was a local man.
However, this action seems puzzling to me. According to Sugden, there is a gap of time between 30-70 minutes between the murder and the discovery of the writing. What was Jack doing in those minutes? How had he so easily slipped back into the area after the police were actively pursuing him?
Curioser and curioser ... :-) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 12:28 am | | Michael,
I haven't read this thread for the simple reason that there's absolutely nothing other than the speculation of possibility to back the theory that a dog moved the apron. It must also be remembered that the apron was found folded, so if a dog did move it he didn't disturb it much, which would be surprising as it would have smelt of blood. As to the time lapse there's only two explanations...The Ripper hung around somewhere out of sight or the officer simply didn't notice the apron the first time around. I believe the Ripper quite likely wrote the graffito, but if he didn't then I seriously doubt he planned the graffito to represent a message. I could get into why I believe the graffito was most likely from the Ripper, but that would take too long and be on the wrong thread.
Incidentally, I don't believe we've met on here before, but I hope your condition is better and it will be nice seeing more of you on these boards.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 09:39 am | | Tom,
Thank you very much for the well-thought reply, and the warm welcome. I whole-heartedly agree that it seems very speculative that a dog had anything to do with this evidence. The missing 30-70 minutes intrigues me almost as much as the message. I am not inclined to think that the two investigators interviewed about the apron were wrong in their assertion that it was not there, and were simply too pre-occupied in finding their man. Rather, I take your view that the message and apron were left by the Ripper.
And yes, my condition is better, and I am continually getting stronger. I had a bout with cancer a while back, and am relieved to say I was lucky and won. Thanks again for the welcome. |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 06:48 am | | Hello Michael,
wellcome to the club.
Whatever you need....do not hesitate.
You know, the thing that does not kill you....makes you stronger.
Bye. Graziano. Like you and exactly at your age, a winner against the beast. |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Wednesday, 22 August 2001 - 12:36 pm | | Thanks, Graziano! Your support and empathy are most appreciated.
And I liked that quote from Nietzsche, one of my favorites! |
|
|
|
|
