|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1488
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:55 pm: |       |
Monty,
tut at you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
E-mail me and I'll send you a list of people i really do hate!!
Jenni
ps back to the pioint of the thread here....
Adam,
yes sorry my mistake i misunderestimated what the point was!
Happy Xmas,
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 210
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 12:58 pm: | |
Here's to you Monty!
Mr. Daniels and I have been buddies for many years now.
Mags |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 373
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Adam,
Sorry if my answer seemed curt, but it was late and I, at least, was looking ahead to a very busy morning. In all honesty, though, I'm not sure what more I really could say.
Your enthusiasm is laudable and you are obviously full of ideas, but I have a sense all that often gets in the way of your taking the time to understand what someone else is trying to say. Just one minor case in point: I mentioned the missing rings as an example of the willingness of the police to follow up on "clues." Immediately they determined rings were missing, the police checked with pawn shops (and I would also guess with publicans, who at the time informally let patrons "pledge" items for safe keeping) in the hope of picking up the murderer's trail. It was a dead end, but is an example of how they operated.
You, however, seemed only to consider the matter in the context of the murderer dropping one of the rings. That is not what I said and completely missed the point.
And again, I urge you to do a little reading of police investigations in the pre-forensic science era to gain appreciation for what they might have done if Jack had been careless.
Finally, I must admit to being a bit at sea about everyone's philosophizing about time. Unless we drag in some bizarre notions, whether 10 minutes seems an eternity or an instant, Jack did all that he did with Eddowes within that time frame. And that's as close to a fact as we are likely to get with this case.
Don. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 71
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 2:11 am: | |
Hi all,
Maria, you wrote:
"I think you can be a little more generous in your timeline. It shouldn't have taken 2 minutes for Lawende to leave/the victim and killer to get into the square. If the couple he saw was them, they could have gone right after he saw them (and I firmly subscribe to the idea that the victims led the killer to the venues)."
I think 2 minutes would just about be the perfect time amount, actually. Let's analyse it a little deeper.
Lawende said the couple were standing together, talking. Now, let's bring in a little bit of our own experience. When you are talking to someone, especially on a street, when you are about to leave, you tend to seperate a bit and turn to get ready to go. You don't really stand there staring at each other saying "Bye" and all the rest, do you? You would normally start walking your seperate ways, and then wave and/or say "Bye!". So if we use that in the context of Cathy, we can say that they weren't about to part. So they must have stood there for a minimum of another 30 seconds before they went their seperate ways. Remember, Cathy had been arrested for being drunk and impersonating a fire engine on the street earlier that night, so she may still have been somewhat tipsy. Not completely sober anyway. So by the time she guided herself into the square and to the 'dark corner', that's an easy 2 minutes.
That is, of course, assuming that the man she was talking to was NOT the Ripper. If it was the Ripper, well, it would only make 30 secs - 1 minute difference to the timeline anyway.
"Also, just to muddy the waters a little bit more,what if the couple that was seen WASN'T Edowes and the killer? If Mitre Square was a popular spot for trysts maybe the couple was someone else and Eddowes and her killer were already in the square when Lawende came on the scene. Just throwing that in for a jolly-wouldn't you?"
HAHA...I probably wouldn't actually, but still..
Well that is still a possibility, though it is generally accepted that it was Eddowes. If it wasn't Eddowes and Lawende was wrong, well, the killer could have found Cathy and killed her any time between when she was let out of the lock up and when she was found. That certainly widens the field quite a bit. We probably shouldn't have allowed that thought to enter our minds....
"I don't think Jack was a deliberate clue leaver or publicity seeker.The taking of trophies is usually to enable the murderer to relive the experience later on so I don't think he's want to give them up."
Yet he was readily willing to get rid of Cathy Eddowes' bloody apron in Goulston Street, the same night that he cut it. That proves that he had no problem with giving that 'trophy' away, so why not another one 2 weeks later?
Monty, you wrote:
"Ps I love you mate....no I really do......burp I love you all....even Kitty....mail me Kitty....I love you mate.....your my bestest mate....three bucks??? Kiss my arse !!!!!!!!! Jenni Why do you hate me ????!!!!!"
You love me?
Kitty is your best friend?
Jenni hates you?
Yep, you're damn 'pesched' alright!! 
Well, you'll have to be put into the lock up like Cathy then. Once you've sobered up, you can be released back onto the boards!
Donald, you wrote:
"Just one minor case in point: I mentioned the missing rings as an example of the willingness of the police to follow up on "clues." Immediately they determined rings were missing, the police checked with pawn shops (and I would also guess with publicans, who at the time informally let patrons "pledge" items for safe keeping) in the hope of picking up the murderer's trail. It was a dead end, but is an example of how they operated.
You, however, seemed only to consider the matter in the context of the murderer dropping one of the rings. That is not what I said and completely missed the point."
Well like you, I really don't know what else I could have added to that point. Pawn shops and what and how they traded isn't exactly one of my focused on points, and therefore I don't know very much about that kind of thing. So, I just made mention of the possibility that she could have dropped one of her rings. If the ring did go to a pawn shop, then it's almost impossible to trace it back now. So, no doubt, that will remain as just as a theory, unless something can be found.
"Finally, I must admit to being a bit at sea about everyone's philosophizing about time. Unless we drag in some bizarre notions, whether 10 minutes seems an eternity or an instant, Jack did all that he did with Eddowes within that time frame. And that's as close to a fact as we are likely to get with this case."
That point is unfortunately the truth. It would be so much more interesting if we could pinpoint the exact times, but we can only theorize. Actually, another policeman peered into the entrance of Mitre Square at around 1:42 AM, 2 minutes before she was found. Those 2 minutes may have been vital. He could have been walked in on if that policeman had entered right in. But he didn't. For me atleast, I believe the timeline runs overall like this:
1:33 AM - Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris leave the pub. They see Catherine Eddowes and a man talking, then leave.
1:34 AM - Cathy is lead into the square.
1:35 AM - Cathy is at the dark corner of the square, with the Ripper.
1:36-1:37 AM - The Ripper strangles Cathy and sliced her throat.
1:38 - 1:42 AM - Cathy is mutilated, facial damage done, and her belongings checked.
1:43 AM - The Ripper flees the scene.
1:44 AM - Cathy's body is found.
But of course that's just pure guessing, it may be completely wrong. That's my estimate though.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 629
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:12 pm: | |
Hi Phil,
Although I agree that the graffiti might not be related to the apron, I disagree with your idea that Warren did not believe it was evidence. If he had believed that, he would have said so in his 6 Nov 1888 letter to the Home Office, in which he justified removing the graffiti. Warren also states that it was "desirable that I should decide this matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility [my emphasis] whether any action was taken or not." Warren clearly felt the graffiti was important, but less important than the violence he anticipated in Goulston Street. So faced between a homicide investigation and the public safety, Warren, the good soldier, chose the public safety. It's interesting that he claims that, had the mobs seen the graffiti, they might have torn down the model dwellings and that he also cites the appreciative comments of a Rabbi; he might be making a bit of a stretch there in the interest of self-defense, so you'd think he would have mentioned that the writing was a non-starter, if he had believed that to be true. But he doesn't.
Cheers,
Dave |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 172
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:45 pm: | |
Dear Phil...It was Inspector Arnold who first decided to send someone with a sponge and bucket for this graffiti and Warren who followed through with the decision to eradicate it.
Much ado over nothing,wouldn't you say?
Precisely - the implication is that he did NOT believe the writing was evidence, but saw the juxtaposition with the cloth as potentially inflammatory.---From Phil
Why make it important then? All the subsequent hoopla over this graffiti seems out of place,considering the two murders that had just transpired...If,as some say,there were other graffiti around,then just take the apron and move on.
But that's the rub. It may well have been that there were no other graffiti around. This would make the extraordinary effort to remove the GSG seem logical....just an opinion. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
Howard - It was the juxtaposition that was the key.
Other graffiti in the area need not have been anti-semitic and was certainly not associated with an item linked to one of the murders.
While rumour might have got around about the graffito later, there would have been no evidence of the wording to fuel agitation. There were no riots, so one could claim Warren was proved right by events - but I wouldn't claim that for obvious reasons!!
I cannot believe that there was NO other graffiti around at the time - there were walls, there were people...
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | |
...I disagree with your idea that Warren did not believe it was evidence. If he had believed that, he would have said so in his 6 Nov 1888 letter to the Home Office..."
David, I think Warren ignores the point, PRECISELY because the graffito was NOT evidence - and clearly so!!
Think about it.
Had he anticipated any argument from senior colleagues or from the police ranks, even from the press, he would surely have made exactly the point you mention. He would want to get his point in first and drive it home to the politicians and administrators. But he does NOT.
He ignores the whole subject - simply implying that it was a decision to be taken and HE took it.
My own view is that Warren, who's earlier explorations on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem demonstrate that he was a master of detail and a considerable archaeologist and draftsman would quickly have drawn up his own record of the precise words, their placement and size etc HAD HE FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO SO.
He did not - to me this reinforces his judgement that the graffito was NOT evidence.
Phil
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 26, 2004 - 7:31 pm: | |
Mr. Went wrote:
"Perhaps he did see Lusk as a threat. Perhaps he thought he would try and scare this 'threat' away - a kidney possibly from a murder victim wouldn't exactly be the nicest thing to receive in the post, I wouldn't imagine."
>>As of the time the Lusk letter was sent, how was Lusk a threat to the murderer? Lusk may have been a threat to him beforehand, but was no longer at the time. Matthews had indicated that Lusk had become a persona non gratia, had he not?
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
Hi Phil,
"My own view is that Warren, who's earlier explorations on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem demonstrate that he was a master of detail and a considerable archaeologist and draftsman would quickly have drawn up his own record of the precise words, their placement and size etc HAD HE FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO SO."
But he did, via Long and Halse, who took transcriptions, apparently in Warren's presence--"I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate." Warren provides a copy with his letter.
Also, see Sugden quoting Warren, pg. 255 from minutes of 13 Oct 1888 (I can't find this in Ultimate): "the last murders were evidently done by someone desiring to bring discredit on the Jews & Socialists or Jewish socialists." I think it's clear that Warren has made a connection between the Double Event, The International Working Man's Assn. in Berner Street, and the Goultson Street Graffiti.
It's a difficult position even for a soldier; Warren's got the City Police on one side, dawn and the markets on the other; somewhere he knows, the Press is trying to flank him and there's always a chance Cunninghame Graham might dart from the shadows and attempt to rush his position  Personally, in light of the Anti-Jewish sentiment shown in Hanbury Street, I think I might have done the same thing. Of course, it would be preferable for us especially to have a photograph of the GSG but really, what would it tell us? Ah-ha! There's the handwriting of M.J. Druitt? I doubt it.
Now on the other hand, perhaps Warren really did prevent a riot which might have resulted in loss of life. Why, there could be a few extra people walking around today of Warren's decision.
Cheers,
Dave |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 175
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 4:50 pm: | |
Dear Phil..
"I cannot believe that there was NO other graffiti around at the time - there were walls, there were people..."--Phil,above.
I hear that,Phil. Thats one of the two reasons I believe it [ the GSG] was left by the Ripper.
If,as you have opined above,that there were other graffiti, then why make a big deal out of such a small graffiti? Just picking up the apron and moving along would have been effortless. It wouldn't have been conspicuous among its "fellow" graffiti.
The other reason,and my burden to prove,I guess,is that I don't think it said,"Juwes" or any of the other 4 interpretations of the word,Jews....I think it said "Juives". However,thats for another thread,sir.
While I understand your position, I still have a hard time with all the effort and wringing of hands over this small scribbling on a wall during a manhunt for 1 or 2 killers of two women murdered within the time frame. Can you see what I mean or rather what I am driving at ?
Thanks for your reply,Phil !
How |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 5:40 pm: | |
Howard
It's all down to the juxtaposition - and the specific wording of the otherwise unassociated graffito. Separately, neither any particular problem - together - DYNAMITE!!
Phil |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page