|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1682
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 6:46 am: | 
|
Helge,
You forgot to add that white chalk would have stood out in the gloom.....damn, just shot myself in the foot ! Yes, I agree, your average Victorians night vision would have been pretty acute. Much better than ours today I suspect.
I concede that writing in very dark conditions is possible, its just the style that I dispute.
The PCs would have used the stealth shield (to avoid being sighted from a distance) in their lamps at night and only activated them when looking into really gloomy spots.
Gathering information regarding specific lamps is a big ask. My calculations, just like yours, should not be taken as read. Its possible that the spot (on the jamb) was lit, albeit poorly. That said, inside the passageway? Due to the angles I dont think so.
Regards,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 7:12 am: |
|
Cludgy and Monty
Thanks. So the bricks on the door jamb were glazed - and sepia coloured?
An obvious question would be whether the door jambs have these coloured bricks at the bottom only, with white (glazed?) bricks above - as described in the inquest testimony - or whether the coloured bricks go all the way up.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 88
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 8:55 am: |
|
Monty,
I knew I did not have to state the obvious!
I am aware that the angle must be taken into consideration. But at least "not possible" should be ruled out for now and replaced with "possible after all".
PS: Thanks for the info on the PC's lanterns. I did not know that.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 08, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. The problem for me is that if we can't even be 100% certain what the writer was trying to communicate (apart from the probability that Juwes meant Jews, and the blame for something was being associated with them somehow), I don't see how anyone can be certain who did or didn't write it.
The fact is that without any more evidence to go on, the only person we know was in a position to have chalked the message is the one who dropped the apron piece at the same location.
It may be hard to imagine a motive for Jack to have done it, but then everything we know he did lacked any rational motive, so I can't bring myself to eliminate him as a likely suspect, on the basis that it was an odd and risky thing to do - odd and risky was Jack's bag!
I can understand why those who discount Stride as a ripper victim might more easily discount Jack as the graffiti artist. But those who consider it at least possible that Jack called out "Lipski!" in Berner Street, earlier that night, must be able to see a likely association with the 'Juwes...blamed' message, the murders that night, and the victim's discarded pinny.
If you are happy to eliminate Jack from your enquiries into the graffito, that's fine. I'm happy to keep him in the frame for now - suspected but not quite convicted.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 08, 2005) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1684
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
Helge,
Not possible to do what?
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
But those who consider it at least possible that Jack called out "Lipski!" in Berner Street, earlier that night, must be able to see a likely association with the 'Juwes...blamed' message, the murders that night, and the victim's discarded pinny.
I'm still struggling to understand the nature of this "likely association".
If it falls into the same category as shouting "Lipski" at a Jewish passer-by, does that mean you're thinking the writing on the wall was just a random bit of anti-semitism on the killer's part, directed at the Jewish tenants of the block? Not part of some subtle plan to associate the murder with the Jews?
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 90
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:30 am: |
|
Monty,
To read.
In semi-darkness.
Or should I say 0.07 lux. (best bet yet)
Don't tell me I HAVE to state the obvious!
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 91
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Caz,
I have a brilliant (ehrm..) theory that links just the Lipski! and the rest of the Jewish connection on the simplicity or complexity thread.
(well, if no one will discuss it, I have to advertise)
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1685
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:14 am: |
|
Helge,
Long found the apron 1st then the writing....with the aid of his lamp....so....
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 93
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 10:25 am: |
|
Uhmmm..
Damned, Monty!
Why did you have to say that!
Actually, with that kind of light (or lack thereof) you would not see much from a distance.
And perhaps Long did not have proper night vision.. Using his lantern, everything outside the light cone would appear pitch black.
Ok, I'm shooting from the hip here.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2499
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi,
I will now attempt to post something in this thread which doesn't confuse everyone.
(doubtful i know on my record!)
If Long only saw the writing because he found the apron and then searched the area. i just wonder how well he could see the apron.
no that didnt make much sense but are you getting my point, i mean since he (long) didnt see it (the apron) before?
Jenni
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 597
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Jen,
Good question and all the more because I recall reading at least one newspaper report that described the "white" apron as being quite soiled (apart from the blood and fecal matter) and a rather dingy gray. But trying to make consistent sense out of PC Long's testimony is a task quite beyond me anyway -- and Lord knows I've tried.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2500
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
i mean I dont think Long was lying,
i dont suppose long had done anything wrong.
he probably felt quite stupid. |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 94
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Jenni,
You got me more confused than ever
Or maybe not?
Long saw the apron well enough to notice it. Perhaps he did not see it the first time, because it was in semi-darkness, and only a rag. The second time, maybe he used his lamp in a different way. Maybe he simply passed closer to the apron?
Maybe he simply did not look into the staircase the first time at all?
Or maybe the apron was not there the first time? But that cannot be ascertained!
What I find most interesting is the possible connection to the graffito. Sir Charles Warren reported:
"I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost.."
Now that was the importance of the combined effect of the blood stained apron and the graffito, according to Warren. (Sugden p.185)
Coincidence? Perhaps. Or part of some "funny little games"? Some people have dismissed the possibility of anti semitism in this case. I am not so sure.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Guys,
Why would Long be looking for a piece of rag (which is what the apron piece essentially is) ?
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2501
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Monty,
good point! I guess you are right as usual. he should have been looking per se though no?
Helge,
don't worry I have that effect on people!
Jenni |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 97
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
Monty,
My best guess is that he noticed the blood. Thus a piece of rag that he normally would never have given a second look suddenly became suspicious.
The piece of apron is described as "wet with blood" (Sugden p. 183), and that would have caught Longs attention! Long did search for other signs of blood, most likely using his lantern, but found none.
Help me out here, Sugden writes "he immediately began to cast about for other signs of blood". My English may be imperfect, but I know "cast about" may also mean "project", and I interpret this as Long projecting his light (lantern) looking for signs of blood.
This indicates he at this point uses his lantern, and everything outside the cone of light, IMO, would be pitch black. He would not have noticed the graffito until he actually directed his light onto it.
Seconds later he takes a closer look at the actual stairs, looking for traces of blood, or footmarks. This being a wet night, looking for footmarks made sense. If the staircases were dry, any recent footmarks would have shown up.
The question is perhaps why he noticed the apron and not the graffito first. But that also makes sense. The letters were small, probable unreadable from a distance. Long must have (IMO) used his lantern to light up the entrance to the staircase in a routine inspection, not really expecting to find anything. His attention might reasonably have been on the ground to begin with. Blood, especially wet, would stand out in the light, and that was what caught his attention.
Well, it must have. (Thanks Maria..Hugs for helping me with my emoticons!)
I wonder if, given the anti-Jewish sentiments around those days, Long would have rubbed out the graffito, if he had seen only that.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1039
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Helge
Sugden's "cast about" is just an idiom meaning "look around".
But no doubt, in the circumstances, it must have involved doing what you describe.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 98
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Thanks Chris,
At any rate rate, Longs statement was that he in fact was using his lantern.
So I think that is reasonably settled.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1688
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 8:48 am: |
|
Helge,
You O works for me...apart from..
..Long must have (IMO) used his lantern to light up the entrance to the staircase in a routine inspection, not really expecting to find anything.
Sorry to be picky, and I know I am, but Long actually thought that a murder had been committed in the dwellings and half expected to find a body.
Cheers,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 100
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Oh, yes Monty!
Methinks I am not making myself clear. How could he expect to find a body BEFORE he saw the apron?
Surely he was not THAT jumpy?
The first time he looked (on that round), he could not have expected to see anything. Why should he?
When he saw the apron, THEN he really suspected something was going on. And I agree, he must have believed somebody was hurt or killed in the dwellings. That is when he started looking in earnest, and found the grafitto.
But it could not have been THAT hard to find, as he (according to my Sugden) found it BEFORE checking the actual stairs, which should have been a priority.
What amazes me, is that "he made no inquiries of the tenants in the building" (still quoting Sugden). What if someone was lying bleeding somewhere?
I expect he must have been pretty sure nobody could have entered the rooms recently, because of the lack of footprints. But how could he be so sure that the apron had been put there that recently? Surely damp footprints may not necessarily have lasted forever (rhetorical question)
Was he actually SURE the piece of apron\graffito was not there on his previous round?
It is almost as if he immediately concluded that the apron\graffito was put there as a false lead!
And that must count for something. He was there, and, according to his statements, seems reasonably trustworthy!
Ok, just musing..
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Hi Chris, Monty
I'll have to try and look that photo up and post it.
As far as I can remember, the bricks were black(faded) and they ran up the entire side of the door jamb (opposite side of road) If I remember rightly they were also rounded on one edge, i.e. the edge facing the observer.
Regards Cludgy |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 602
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Helge,
[Long] was there, and, according to his statements, seems reasonably trustworthy!
I am, I suppose, something of a suspicion-minded, cynic but I have always seen problems with PC Long and his testimony. It may have nothing to do with the events that night, but he was sacked seven months later for drunkeness and I have always wondered if one reason A Division transferred him to H was to free itself of a screw-up or simply a witling.
Read his testimony carefully and what there is reads all right, but it leaves many questions (ones that we keep asking) unanswered and when he is questioned by the jury he becomes confused and contradicts himself in places. At this far remove in time and place my opinion is hardly informed, but overall his testimony sounds like something that was deliberately vague so as to hide something. Not anything crminal (except possibly nonfeasance), but more that the events didn't really unfold as he said.
One example is the way PC190H just happened to show up in the doorway on Long's beat. Now it is entirely possible he used his whistle to summon aid, but why didn't he say so? When this happened at other times in Ripper investigations it was always mentioned.
Again, he seemed at pains to make it understood he had not heard of either the Stride or Eddowes murders, yet later when asked by a juryman: "Having heard of the murder, and having afterward found the piece of apron with the blood on it. . . ." Long asnwered the question as if the assertion that he heard of a murder before finding the apron was accurate.
Perhaps he was not very bright and missed that implication in the question, but it just reinforces my feeling Long had been coached to say as little as possible and when he got off-script was easily confused. As it was, Long came under some criticism from the jury and one member finally told him "I feel sure you did your best." There were no emoticons to accompany that, but I at least detect a hint of sarcasm or condescension.
I remain uneasy about PC Long and his testimony. It just doesn't ring true in too many particulars.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 101
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
Donald,
You are of course right. After looking into this more closely, I see your points.
However, I think Long really did his best. He did eventually find the piece of apron, although the timescale involved might indicate that he may have missed it on a previous round. He also did not search the apartments, which I personally find strange, as someone injured, or perhaps the killer might have been there.
If Jack WAS inside (highly unlikely), he might have escaped through backdoors or windows, or at least, if he lived there (again, higly unlikely), have washed up, gotten rid of evidence, etc. Someone injured (or dead) might also have been there.
Somehow I don't see a negative search for footmarks to be enough to ascertain that no one had entered recently!
As you say, another PC arrived at the scene, and a discreet search might have been possible.
However, I do think Long did what he said he did, after finding the apron. There might very well have been irregularities before that. One possible scenario (totally unproven, and submitted only as an example) would be that Long and the other officer actually had been talking. Perhaps about the murders that night.
Not that unlikely, they were on adjacent beats, and I would expect the news of the murders would have been of great interest.
On the other hand, although perhaps against regulations, can we blame them? Actually these things happen, and would not an informed PC do a better job than an uninformed one? Maybe that was why Long found the apron in the first place? He HAD heard about the murders, and was extra careful.
Maybe that was also why he did NOT conduct a thorough search. He was actually afraid the Ripper might be there. Well. Those guys were human too.
Ok, speculative scenario. But apart from that last bit perhaps, not really more speculative than any notion that Long was in on some cover up or what have you.
On the other hand, I would not necessarily put too much import into the report failing to mention whether he whistled or not. It might have been an oversight.
Trick questions also easily..well, trick nervous people. Long was probably not that used to give evidence in court. Might have happened to any of us.
I buy the proposition that Long was coached to say as little as possible, though. The entire situation was very volative for the police. You had the very real fear of riots, plus the pressure to catch Jack. The double event did nothing to alleviate that pressure!
Anyway. Maybe the jurors did suspect Long had been neglecting his duty on previous rounds, but could not prove it, or would not go into that. These things happened!
Ok, mostly speculation here, but these are my thoughts.
Again, thanks for you comment, Don, it was really constructive and highlighted some aspects that I downplayed far too much initially!
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1689
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 3:06 am: |
|
Don,
"Perhaps he was not very bright and missed that implication in the question, but it just reinforces my feeling Long had been coached to say as little as possible and when he got off-script was easily confused".
Experience tells me that I wouldnt be surprised if Long was coached at some stage. He would have certainly been sat down and talked to.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
I'm still struggling to understand the nature of this "likely association".
So am I, Chris. But we can't deny that there are several possibilities, if Jack was in Berner Street as well as Mitre Square that night.
We have a Jewish witness, Schwartz, being called "Lipski!" after a Jewish man who was convicted the year before of murdering a woman; Schwartz running off, shortly before another woman is murdered; three Jewish men possibly witnessing yet another woman with her murderer in Mitre Square; and finally part of this last woman's apron is left at the entrance to the Jewish Dwellings, underneath a statement about Jews not being blamed for nothing. And the non-Jewish public still fear that a Jew is going round murdering women, aware that Leather Apron has recently been cleared of all blame.
Just imagine if witnesses had seen Schwartz running away from Berner Street, and been unaware of what had gone before; this Jew could have been in very hot water when news of the Stride murder reached their ears.
We have a limited number of possibilities here:
1) A Jewish Jack wrote the message. Why?
2) A non-Jewish (and anti-Semitic?) Jack wrote the message. Again, why?
3) A Jewish Jack discarded the apron piece, unaware that there was a message above it, coincidentally about Jews and blame.
4) A non-Jewish (and possibly anti-Semitic) Jack coincidentally discarded the apron piece beneath someone else's message about Jews and blame.
Take your pick and have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
We have a limited number of possibilities here:
Yes, I'd agree that any of those is possible.
But I think you have a very limited amount of evidence that the killer was anti-semitic, if the graffito is set aside. It boils down to "Lipski", doesn't it? (Logically, being witnessed by three Jews can hardly imply anti-semitism.)
As has been said earlier, how difficult you find it to accept the "coincidence" must depend on how common graffiti were, for which we don't have much evidence. If there had been a piece of anti-semitic graffiti in every doorway, the coincidence wouldn't have been at all remarkable...
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 100
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Now there is no mention in the writing of murders.The murders that had taken place in the preeceeding months,Tabran,Nicholls and Chapman,had been widely reported in the press,and as far as I am aware,there had been no racial motive expressed.
As to the number of persons reportedly arrested or questioned,there seems to be no indication that Jews greatly exceeded other nationalities.In fact it might be that,because the victims were of Anglo Saxon origin,more attention had been directed at friends,relatives,and members of the same race.
In any case,for blame to be a motive in the series of killings,it would have had to existed before the first murder,unless it is suggested the killer changed motives before Eddowes was killed.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 107
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:10 am: |
|
First of all, if Jack did write the graffito, then he was probably still high from the murder(s). Secondly, he was still, de facto, on the run. The apron was there. He might have been bloody to some extent. He was probably still carrying his knife. He was yet not safe.
I don't think we should expect that he necessarily came up with a brilliant masterpiece of writing. I would expect that the wording was in fact extremely connected to his psyche at the time.
And to his dialect. The phrasing that so baffles us is actually quite logical for a Cockney. And would have been for Jack.
So what was he thinking? We will never know. But this is one scenario that is perfectly logical:
Keeping in mind that Jack at this point probably was suffering heavily from Narcissist Personality Disorder in some form, he must have been completely self centered. He was Jack, he was the one everyone was talking about.
But was he? People was in fact still talking about a Jewish murderer. This was an insult to Jack. Hence the wording and the GSG. Suffering from NPD, he would have trouble seeing things from other people's perspective,anyway. He left the bloody piece of apron there. He left the graffito. Surely people would see the connection?
And they did. The police clearly saw the connection at the time. They did not say "this area is so rife with graffiti that we cannot see a clear connection". They made the connection. And Jack knew they would.
It is only in hindsight that we can afford the luxury to speculate about the connection. For Jack it would have been clear. For the police at the time it would have been clear. Long reported both the apron and the graffito. He did not report a piece of bloody apron that just happened to be found below a piece of graffito.
He did not for an instant claim that the graffito probably was disconnected from the apron. He would have if it had seemed to be disconnected. It did not.
This is an indication that there was in fact NO other graffito present in close proximity. If there was, it would probably have been duly noted.
This is no proof. But certainly an indication. To claim that there must have been lots of graffito around is pure speculation. To claim that there is no connection between the apron and graffito is pure speculation.
The connection is that both clues was found in the same place. Common perception of the time was that there was a connection.
So far all attempts to disprove this connection has been pure speculation. Maybe it was pure chance. Maybe the grafitto was written the day before, etc.
Yes, it is possible, but what indicates this? Nothing but speculation.
On the other hand, what indicates a connection? Location, both in time and place. If we assume an anti-semitic killer, and there are indications that this is possible, then this also fits. Both in location and in actual behaviour.
We cannot prove that there is a connection, since the text does not directly refer to the murder(s). But what are the indications that the opposite is true? None.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1694
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Helge,
So to connect the writing he left the apron?
And what if someone else had taken the apron instead of Long?
No connection.
To claim that there must have been lots of graffito around is pure speculation.
And to claim that there was no other writing is what then?
Anti - semetic writing in a Jewish neighbouhood? That just simply does not happen, is that the general concensus?
Common perception of the time was that there was a connection.
I presuming you are referring to the idea that the Police thought the graffito as a clue? This may have been investigated as part of procedure. Police rarely think this is a clue and this is not a clue. They check out everything thats at the crime scene, the envelope piece at Chapmans murder site for example. It is not an indication that the police felt it was a strong lead. To think otherwise is erronous and misleading.
To claim that there is no connection between the apron and graffito is pure speculation.
This is true. However, seeing as the writer made no reference to the murders in this piece of scrawl, this favours the idea that the murderer did not write this particular message. To suggest other wise....well THATS speculation.
Keeping in mind that Jack at this point probably was suffering heavily from Narcissist Personality Disorder in some form, he must have been completely self centered. He was Jack, he was the one everyone was talking about.
Still no note taking credit, this self centred NPD sufferer missed out big time to set the record straight.
The evidence is strongly against rather than strongly for.
Regards
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1044
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:11 am: |
|
Helge
People was in fact still talking about a Jewish murderer. This was an insult to Jack. Hence the wording and the GSG.
So you see the killer as a Gentile, straightforwardly (not not very articulately) trying to convey that the murderer wasn't Jewish, even though many people thought so.
I agree it's a double negative, and that's not particularly strange, but even so that doesn't seem a natural interpretation of the words.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 108
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Ouch, Monty..
If anyone back then wrote "I am Jack, and I just killed me two whores", with no apron connected, we would still be arguing if it was in fact Jack who wrote it, or if possibly it was written days ago by a hoaxer.
Actually, I would personally probably think so, because I would not believe "Jack" would consider himself as "Jack".
To answer your question. If someone had wiped out the graffito, or someone had taken the apron. No connection. Yes, actually, I agree. We would never have known about the connection.
How likely would you say that Jack would have considered this? Maybe (probably) he knew the area was patrolled. And who would find the apron and graffito late at night if not the police? Even if a tenant of the Dwellings found it, don't you think that someone would have reported the bloody piece of apron with accompanying graffito?
I do not claim that there was no other graffito around! I say there are no indications from contemporary sources that there were that day. Surely this would have had an impact on the view of the police? Yet no mention of it. Thus to say there was, is speculation.
There is only ONE graffito that we know was there!
Anti semitic writings in a Jewish neighbourhood would obviously happen given the political\racial sentiments at the time. But, written in chalk, would not last for very long. Another thing. If you write graffiti to taunt someone, is it not usual to put it somewhere where it can actually be seen properly?
(The mentality can be likened to the nazis writing "Juden" on the windows or fronts of shops and housing. They did not write it in neat little letters in entrances)
About clues. I actually think the science of collecting clues was far from modern standards in 1888. All I said was that it does appear as if they thought it should be considered a clue. That cannot be taken to mean that it actually was not! Honestly!
Considering that we have no way of knowing how Jack thought in that situation, one must speculate. But again, the fact that the graffito actually DID exist seems to be taken as evidence that it was NOT written by Jack. This is not only illogical, but also..you guessed, speculative.
What I said was that there are in fact indications that there might (NOT IRONCLAD EVIDENCE, mind you) be a connection, while the belief that there are none rests solely on opinion and speculation.
So far I still hold that view.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 109
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Chris,
I base my thought on a posting by Peter J. Tabord (on the simplicity\complexity thread). As I understand it, he grew up in the East End, and speaks Cockney.
I am no expert (hardly, as English is not even my second language), but just for that reason I take his statement very seriously. According to Pete, the meaning should be "Don't blame the Jews, it was ME!"
In my mind this might very well fit into the psychology of a person with Narcissist Personality Disorder (many serial killers suffer from this). Invariably they are utterly self centered, and cannot see things as others would. In effect, Jack would not think "what will others think about this", he would believe everyone would see things exactly as he did.
With that view, no wonder the communication looks a bit "weird".
This is of course, only a hypothesis, but, as far as I see it, it fits wery well with the facts (or should I say "indications")
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 714
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Actually, if graffiti mentioned the name "Jack" before the publicizing of the Dear Boss letter and Saucy Jacky card introduced the name Jack the Ripper to the world, I think there'd be far less arguing over the topic. If it had happened that way few people would doubt the authenticity of any of the three, as it'd be unlikely to be coincidence.
But then since those communications are routinely considered to be hoaxes these days and the real killer thus would never have heard of the name on the night of the Double Event, the lack of the use of that term doesn't really make a case either way for the killer having written it.
And, further, there apparently were some cases of other writing claiming to be from the killer that are basically ignored for various reasons, not the least of which is the lack of anything like the apron piece next to them.
Thus I agree with your point but not the specific use of "Jack" in your example.
I also agree that "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" could very easily be interpreted to mean "The Jews should not be blamed" for whatever it was referring to, with the apron, if connected, suggesting the killing. That seems like a natural use of double negative.
The only questionable part there to me is that the "will not" seems like it can also mean "won't let themselves be," which is where the other major possible explanation ("Jews refuse to take blame for anything they do") comes into play.
I go back and forth on whether I think the Goulston Street Graffito was by the killer or not. In my mind there's no solid evidence either way. One thing I do know, though, is that overanalyzing a short piece of writing can lead you nowhere, as people can mean one thing but end up saying something that actually means something else entirely. The chances of that happening are even more likely when the person in question is not as well educated to the precise meaning of words, spelling, and so forth. The "Juwes" (or Jewes or whatever) part leads me to believe that the individual who wrote that could have meant all sorts of things but simply wasn't very good at expressing himself in writing. Say, "In the end I won't be caught so nobody will be able to blame the Jews" or "Hang in there fellow believers, we will prevail and be vindicated in our righteousness" (could be unrelated) or even "It's not Jewish people. It's all the whores' fault. Who can blame anyone for something that shouldn't really be a crime?"
We can look for meaning in all sorts of things, but the more ambiguous something is the more likely the meaning is really just in our head and not inherent in whatever it is we are looking at.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 111
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
Dan,
I agree on everything you say.
And point taken about the name Jack. I was thinking more (as in 100%) in principle here than actual reality. I used the name "Jack" to identify this unknown killer that we nowadays refer to by this name. I have elsewhere stated that I do not believe the real killer would have thought about himself as "Jack". (at least not until the newspaper hysteria, maybe not even then)
The real signature is, IMO, the apron.
But because I agree with you, not in spite of that, I see no way of knowing if the graffito was written by Jack or not.
Thus I go with the only known facts, and that is proximity to a validated clue from a crime scene. Plus the far weaker link to the possible anti-semitism involved (Lipski!, location)
Also, and perhaps more important, is the fact that the police at the time did see a possible connection. To question this is slightly naive in my mind. (Did not call anyone naive, mind you!) Thus I still think it is more probable that there was a link than not.
That is just me, I guess.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 11, 2005)
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3558
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 8:56 am: |
|
I agree, Dan. A very good post indeed.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 11:07 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
But I think you have a very limited amount of evidence that the killer was anti-semitic, if the graffito is set aside. It boils down to "Lipski", doesn't it?
Well obviously, if we forget the graffito, we have less evidence that Jack was possibly anti-Semitic. We could forget "Lipski!" too, and speculate that Kidney may have shouted this insult. (No wonder the relationship failed, in that case, if Liz cleaned for Jews and sold sex to Jews!)
My point was that if Jack shouted it, he was anti-Semitic enough to have chalked the message about Jews and blame while the night's events were bubbling and brewing in his post-mutilation mind.
As you say yourself, we just don't know how much graffiti adorned the area, how long it usually took to be removed, or how similar the other examples were to this one.
So we are all speculating here.
Hi Helge,
The mentality can be likened to the nazis writing "Juden" on the windows or fronts of shops and housing. They did not write it in neat little letters in entrances
I could not agree more.
And you have said in your last two or three posts more or less everything that I have been thinking.
Imagine the state of Jack's mind, immediately after Mitre Square, having risked capture to carve neat little marks on Kate's face, for reasons only he could possibly appreciate (and for the first time. We don't know, if graffiti was common, that the message would have been Jack's first and only, do we?). The facial mutilation had no obvious interpretation, and it was left for very personal reasons, for others to see when he was well away from the scene.
I can't help thinking that the chalked message could easily have been some sort of comment on the news that a Jew had been arrested for the recent murders but cleared.
'Jews never get/take the blame for anything. Well, we'll soon see about that.'
It would then be even easier to see why a naive, self-absorbed and anti-Semitic ripper might have dropped the apron piece by the entrance to the Dwellings, assuming that suspicion would immediately fall on one of the residents there.
How about:
'Leather Apron might have escaped the blame. But the Jews who live here won't be blamed for nothing.'
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 11, 2005) |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 112
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Caroline,
Always nice to see someone that actually agrees.
Chris,
"But I think you have a very limited amount of evidence that the killer was anti-semitic, if the graffito is set aside. It boils down to "Lipski", doesn't it?"
Well, it boils down to Lipski, the vicinity of the Berner street Arbeiter Fraint (Jewish socialism), and the grafitto. But also that the witness that heard Lipski! was definitely Jewish looking.
I agree, if we take all this away, there are no links at all.
But then again, if we take away the actual killings, we have no case at all!
We can't choose which facts we may ignore. We can, however, disagree on interpretation.
To dismiss these indications and speculate that at best they are coincidental, is..speculation.
We should be able to agree on that.
Lets speculate about a hypothetical scenario.
A graffito talking about Italians (randomly picked) is found outside predominantly Italian dwellings. A clue from a murder site is found beneath this graffito. Another murder was committed outside a newspaper run by Italian immigrants the same day. Someone heard an anti-Italian phrase shouted close to the time of that murder, while the victim was ruffed up by an assailant. The witness was an Italian.
Would it be too much to at least open up the possibility that somehow this would not all be coincidence?
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Caroline Morris
Well obviously, if we forget the graffito, we have less evidence that Jack was possibly anti-Semitic. We could forget "Lipski!" too, and speculate that Kidney may have shouted this insult. (No wonder the relationship failed, in that case, if Liz cleaned for Jews and sold sex to Jews!)
My point was that if Jack shouted it, he was anti-Semitic enough to have chalked the message about Jews and blame while the night's events were bubbling and brewing in his post-mutilation mind.
No, the point I was answering was this one in your previous post:
4) A non-Jewish (and possibly anti-Semitic) Jack coincidentally discarded the apron piece beneath someone else's message about Jews and blame.
The Jewish aspect is not a coincidence unless we know from other evidence that the Ripper is anti-semitic to start with. It's obviously circular to use the graffito as a piece of evidence in order to do this. (Why can't I help suspecting that you realised this all along?)
Helge
Well, it boils down to Lipski, the vicinity of the Berner street Arbeiter Fraint (Jewish socialism), and the grafitto. But also that the witness that heard Lipski! was definitely Jewish looking.
I agree, if we take all this away, there are no links at all.
Sorry, but to my way of thinking the fact that a murder was committed near a Jewish club doesn't show the killer was anti-semitic.
If the man who shouted "Lipski!" was the killer, I agree he was an anti-semite, but apart from the graffito I don't see what other evidence there is to that effect.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 118
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:17 pm: |
|
Chris,
No one (at least not me) are talking about evidence. It is all just accepting or not accepting indications.
Personally I think it is unreasonable that Stride was attacked twice that night. Thus I find it most likely (not proved) that it was in fact the Ripper that shouted Lipski! I may be wrong. But I also find it most probable that there was in fact a connection between the graffito and the apron and the fact that both were placed near a Jewish dwelling. I may be wrong. But both these "coincidences", in my mind strenghtens each other statistically. That the Berner Street location also can be connected to Jews is just one more such indication.
To add to this, I also find the psychology of the Ripper to most likely have been drawn towards extremism. Was it in fact coincidence that he loitered around Berner Street that night?
Pure speculation, I know. Some of these links are weak when seen individually, but put together they form a stronger case!
Not in any way ironclad, but neither are the alternatives, or we would not have this discussion!
If you are not convinced, That is OK with me. I fully respect that. We'll disagree in peace then, until factual evidence can be found to support one of these competing views!
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of succesfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Helge
If you are not convinced, That is OK with me. I fully respect that. We'll disagree in peace then, until factual evidence can be found to support one of these competing views!
Oh, certainly. As I've said, I don't think there's any firm evidence either way. It's always interesting to discuss things, and I hope it's possible to have "robust" discussions about things without offence being taken on either side.
I'm sceptical of a connection, because I haven't yet seen a suggestion of what the killer may have meant by the writing, that seems natural to me.
On the other hand, I agree that it's a point in favour of a connection, that the police obviously took the possibility of a connection seriously (and at least the police knew - or could have found out - how common graffiti were in Goulston Street, which we are in the dark about).
But back on the first hand, you must admit that some senior police officers believed the killer was Jewish, and others took this possibility seriously. I think we have to assume, on this basis, that Anderson discounted the graffito, and that Swanson and Macnaghten were at least doubtful about it.
So to make statements like "The police clearly saw the connection at the time" is going a bit too far. I think it would be fairer to say "The police clearly saw the possibility of a connection at the time (but kept in mind the possibility that there was no connection)".
Chris Phillips
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:49 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
Why can't I help suspecting that you realised this all along?
I didn't realise you were specifically addressing possibility 4), but I see that now and take your point about it being circular.
I'll take out the 'coincidentally' to make it:
4) A non-Jewish (and possibly anti-Semitic) Jack discarded the apron piece beneath someone else's message about Jews and blame.
However, along with Helge, I think it's far more likely than not that a non-Jewish serial killer, active in that area at that time, would find some reason not to take to the Jews. Serial killers are not the most sociable people are they?
Here are my four possibilities again:
1) A Jewish Jack wrote the message.
2) A non-Jewish Jack wrote the message.
3) A Jewish Jack discarded the apron piece, unaware that there was a message above it about Jews and blame.
4) A non-Jewish Jack discarded the apron piece, unaware that there was a message above it about Jews and blame.
Now to me, the least likely proposition would be number 3). But obviously we will all have different opinions about this.
And since I feel it's likely that a non-Jewish Jack would not have cared for Jews, that much more than he cared for unfortunates (and would have been quite content to see a Jew blamed for his crimes), I do think number 4) is still a bit of a coincidence.
That's my argument - do your worst. I can cope with "robust", as you know by now. 
Love,
Caz
X |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 126
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
Chris,
We are kind of going in circles here, but anyway.
(And, just for the record, I am in no way taking offence!)
"So to make statements like "The police clearly saw the connection at the time" is going a bit too far. I think it would be fairer to say "The police clearly saw the possibility of a connection at the time (but kept in mind the possibility that there was no connection)".
To me it seems clear that at least Long saw the connection immediately, whether he was right or wrong. It was also decided initially to photograph the graffito, etc.
But let us not quibble over semantics. I understand what you mean. Neither the police, nor anyone else at the time, could prove it was related. What is interesting is that it was not as an afterthought they saw a (possible, yeah, I grant you that) connection.
That says a bit about the scenario at the time. Had there been lots of graffiti around, had the location been only tenuously connected to the apron, had the graffito's meaning been considered absolutely in contradiction of being related to any foul play, it would have been likely they had not been that focused on the graffito.
But they were..
A thousand words cant change that.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 12, 2005)
The possibility of succesfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 127
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
And now someone is going to say that even so they had to regard the graffito as possible evidence as per standard procedure.
Yes, but that is not what I am talking about..
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 12, 2005)
The possibility of succesfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:22 am: |
|
Helge
But let us not quibble over semantics. I understand what you mean. Neither the police, nor anyone else at the time, could prove it was related. What is interesting is that it was not as an afterthought they saw a (possible, yeah, I grant you that) connection.
All I can say is it's not quibbling over semantics. There's a big difference between the police thinking it had been written by the killer, and thinking it might have been written by the killer. Some of them may have done, but as I've pointed out, some of them obviously thought it hadn't been written by the killer.
Caroline Morris
And since I feel it's likely that a non-Jewish Jack would not have cared for Jews, that much more than he cared for unfortunates (and would have been quite content to see a Jew blamed for his crimes), I do think number 4) is still a bit of a coincidence.
So really, what you're saying now is something like:
Jack was a serial killer. Serial killers are nasty people. Nasty people are quite likely to be anti-semitic.
I think the "Lipski" argument was a better one.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 130
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Chris,
Ok, so we are maybe not quibbling over semantics then, in your opinion.
But, as boring as it may seem, I have to quote myself here:
"Neither the police, nor anyone else at the time, could prove it was related. What is interesting is that it was not as an afterthought they saw a (possible, yeah, I grant you that) connection."
Ok, so I'm NOT saying the police PROVED a connection.
Taking another quote of mine "The police clearly saw the connection at the time", and say that they only saw a "possible" connection, is correct, but still twisting my meaning, as I clearly also have stated that no ironclad proof for a connection exist.
You might also have noted that I also wrote (June 11):"Also, and perhaps more important, is the fact that the police at the time did see a possible connection"
Since there really are not much more to say, I need to quote myself again:
"Had there been lots of graffiti around, had the location been only tenuously connected to the apron, had the graffito's meaning been considered absolutely in contradiction of being related to any foul play, it would have been likely they had not been that focused on the graffito."
But they were.. "
Instead of trying to demolish my logic here, I would love to hear some evidence to the contrary.
And if none exist, I would love to at least hear arguments in favor of the case for no connection at all.
To quote you, Chris (for a change!)
"I'm sceptical of a connection, because I haven't yet seen a suggestion of what the killer may have meant by the writing, that seems natural to me."
Well, I personally have seen such suggestions of meaning, and we are clearly discussing personal opinions then, that cannot be proven either way.
However, I cannot see that your logic is flawless here. If a serial killer write something that we cannot understand, then clearly this is not evidence per se that he did not write it!
It might still be your opinion, and I'm not challenging that.
I will rephrase my previous statement slightly, and still stand by it.
"Neither the police, nor anyone else at the time, could prove it was related. What is interesting is that it was not as an afterthought they saw a possible connection."
So clearly (in my mind) a connection is possible. I choose to think there are more indications in favour of a connection, at least until I see more real arguments to the contrary.
Sincerely Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 12, 2005)
The possibility of succesfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 716
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:40 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
The problem once again is that saying something is "obvious" does not mean that it is obvious to everyone nor even necessarily right.
I do not understand at all why you seem to think that the idea that some police strongly considered the idea (and Anderson convinced himself) that the killer was a Jew means that they thought the he didn't write the Goulston Street Graffiti. That is not a logical conclusion.
You seem to be saying that writing that (in one possible interpretation) is an anti-Jewish slur couldn't have been placed there by a Jew. Considering that they thought the killer shouted out the "Lipski!" slur and was still possibly (or with Anderson "a definitely ascertained fact") a Jew -- and not forgetting that there is more than one possible interpretation for the graffiti, several of which are not antisemitic -- I don't think you can make that claim.
I mean, that is unless you just discount all other possible meanings for the graffiti as well as the concept that the killer could have written something to try to mislead investigators away from his own ethnicity. I wouldn't call either one of those obvious.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 645
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
Well, as a communicator, Jack certainly failed, if you read the posts above.
Far better to de-couple the two things and just say that a link is potential but unproven.
That does not make a claim that is unsubstatiable, nor does it lead into false logic.
It also still leaves it open to those with a particular theory to grind to use a link and the explanation that comes out of their theory, as they think fit. Others can then judge the result.
But if this thread proves anything it is that neither "side" will ever convince the other. the pro-linkers are blind to the weakness of their case (entirely circumstantial) to see what a shakey foundation they work on; and the agnostics (such as me) and the aetheists, are too clear about the weakness of the evidence to be persuaded by special pleading and circuitous logic.
So why not just de-couple (I say again) while retaining (if you wish) a view that there may be more to it than meets the eye?
Phil |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1049
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
Helge
What I said was "I haven't yet seen a suggestion of what the killer may have meant by the writing, that seems natural to me"
[emphasis added, as you evidently missed the phrase when you read it, and quoted it back to me, previously]
And I still haven't. Every suggestion that's made apparently has to be accompanied with a caveat that we can't expect the words actually to convey the suggested meaning, because the killer would have been in such an excited state.
On the other hand, there's a perfectly understandable interpretation that has nothing to do with the murder.
This is where I came in, I think...
Dan
I do not understand at all why you seem to think that the idea that some police strongly considered the idea (and Anderson convinced himself) that the killer was a Jew means that they thought the he didn't write the Goulston Street Graffiti. That is not a logical conclusion.
Do you really not understand at all why I think that?
Just to explain, it's because I don't think for a moment that the police believed the graffito was written by a Jew - because I find the interpretations that would allow it to be written by a Jew even more forced and unnatural than those that would allow it to be written by the killer.
You may be able to find a logical loophole, by supposing the graffito wasn't antisemitic, but I really don't believe you couldn't understand my argument.
And where on earth is your evidence that Anderson believed that the man who shouted Lipski was the killer? People have argued endlessly about who Anderson's witness was, and if it's been conclusively shown that it was Israel Schwartz, it's certainly news to me!
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on June 12, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1050
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
I wrote:
Just to explain, it's because I don't think for a moment that the police believed the graffito was written by a Jew - because I find the interpretations that would allow it to be written by a Jew even more forced and unnatural than those that would allow it to be written by the killer.
But there again, perhaps I'm wrong about that after all. Though I don't remember Anderson referring to the writing in anything I've read, apparently he did say he believed it had been written by the killer, in a "letter ... April 1910, to a daily paper, quoted by Richardson, From the City to Fleet Street, p. 217" [Sugden, p. 507].
I wonder if the original has been tracked down since Sugden wrote. It would be interesting to know what Anderson said, and how he reconciled it with his declared belief that the killer was Jewish.
Chris Phillips
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
