|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
David O'Flaherty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 1105
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 05, 2005 - 9:56 pm: | 
|
Hi Steve,
There is a contemporary reference to prostitutes using Mitre Square as a resort and that the police were aware of it, sometimes varying their beat and using little tricks to ferret unfortunates out. Of course, the source is unnamed (apparently the source was a local inhabitant), but since the information isn't particularly sensational, there is no reason to discount it.
Daily News, 2 October 1888:
It seems that the particular corner of Mitre-square in which the body of the woman was found has long had an evil reputation. Said a man whose occupation for many years has thoroughly familiarized him with the locality and all that has gone on in it, “I have often heard the policeman who went this beat regularly for sixteen years say that that was a well-known resort, and from my own knowledge it is so. The place is well patrolled,” he continued in reply to queries. “Yes, there’s no doubt about that. The constable on the beat now is as regular as clockwork. You may tell to a minute when he’ll be round.” “May not that have rather assisted in this business? Is it not possible that his movements were well known and reckoned on?” “Very likely indeed. These women know all about the police and how they go about. Still, this constable would sometimes vary his patrol a bit. Instead of going right round I have known him sometimes go to the corner there and back again. But however he might go, the beat is as well patrolled as it is possible for it to be. The distance is very short, and I have sometimes heard the men wish their rounds were longer. They would get more variety, and would be better able to keep themselves warm.” The speaker went on to describe what he referred to as a regular system the City police sergeants had for testing the close scrutiny given by their men to the property along their beats. On this particular ground, at all events, according to this witness, it has long been the practice for constables to slip into the cracks of doors or the crevices of windows little bits of bent whalebone in such a manner that the opening of the door or window lets the whalebone fall and reveals the fact of disturbances to the officer on his next turn. This enables the sergeant to test the vigilance of his men, by here and there removing the tell-tale and then waiting to see whether the removal will be detected. It is generally allowed in this locality that the police are exceedingly vigilant as a rule, and that the safeguarding of this square has been all that could reasonably be expected seems undeniable. Nevertheless, the police seem certainly to have been caught napping in a manner which yesterday morning appeared to afford very general amusement to the crowds assembling in and about Duke-street.
To be sure, evidence that Kate Eddowes was a prostitute is totally circumstantial. However, given the nearness of St. Botolph's and the fact that she had retreated into the Square's darkest corner with a man, it is reasonable to suggest that she was trying to earn some money that night.
We might ask, why, given that the deputy lodger at Cooney's had apparently extended credit to John Kelly in the past and was ready to do so again (and as a long-term resident of the lodging house, Eddowes would have known this), why she should resort to the workhouse at all. My own personal opinion is that the reason she didn't simply return to 35 Flower & Dean immediately after being set loose from Bishopsgate station was because she intended to earn enough money to redeem one of her pawntickets, the one for the shirt, given to her by "Emily Burrill", dated August 31, and I suspect redeemable until Sept. 30. But that's just speculation.
Dave |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4207
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:54 am: |
|
Although Steve is right in pointing out that there are no true evidence of or statements saying that Eddowes was a prostitute, it is not unreasonable to assume that she like many others used this method in getting some extra money in situations of crisis. Let's all remember that we generally are not talking about full-time professional prostitutes here, but ordinary poor women using this as a last resort, regardless if they were alone or lived together with a man.
In Eddowes' case there are indications pointing at that she might have used this last resort at times - maybe especially in combination with being in a drunken state. The fact that she was seen outside Mitre Square, a known hang-out for prostitutes, with an unknown man - and didn't go home directly to Kelly - makes such speculations justified. Her comment regarding 'getting a good hiding when she get home' was probably referring to he fact that she had lost the pawn money for his boots to drink - in my opinion. So I agree with Dave here.
All the best
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 603
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
"Let's all remember that we generally are not talking about full-time professional prostitutes here, but ordinary poor women using this as a last resort...'
Hi Glenn - let's not forget the substance abuse angle, either. I'm not trying to demean the dead by saying these were the LVP equivalent of crack whores, but they were. They NEEDED to drink, and therefore those 'last resorts' came up frequently.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
Hi Steve.
"THE YORKSHIRE RIPPER HAD A CAR".
There were such things as trains and cabs. The Ripper did not have to confine himself to the East-End.
"BEING SEEN WITH A WOMAN BEFORE SHE WAS KILLED DOES NOT MAKE YOU THE KILLER".
You're joking. Just 15 minutes before her body was found ?? And what was she doing with this man in Church Passage, and then in Mitre Square at that hour, if she wasn't soliciting ??
"WELL IT CERTAINLY WAS NOT THE MAN SCHWARTZ SAW ASSAULTING HER "AFTER" PC SMITH SAW HER".
It's a fact that times were vague and never established accurately on the night of Stride's murder. You can't possibly say for certain that PC Smith's sighting was BEFORE Schwartz's. Any one of these sightings could have been a few minutes out, and that could have made all the difference.
I have already quoted my source for Mitre Square being a prostitutes spot in my post to Caz, and Dave O'Flaherty has just named yet another source.
As for Kelly, she had already been seen taking one man home that night. It's reasonable to assume that she wouldn't have been averse to taking home another.
Regarding Eddowes, c'mon Steve, do you really think that her relatives and friends were going to admit that she indulged at all in prostitution, either to press or police ??
I'm not looking to have an argument with you Steve. We all have our own opinions, but unfortunately it's highly unlikely that any of us will ever be proved right or wrong.
Best wishes.
DAVID C. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 449
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 11:32 am: |
|
Jenni,
(sorry for the delay, I'm not online here every day)
"If JTR didn't write the GSG, then doesn't that put a stop to any Jewish link that it may or may not represent?"
No, I think I made that clear that as far as I'm concerned the "other" most probable scenario (as I see it) also most likely represent anti-Semitism.
But of course, if it was not written by Jack, then there are no link to the case either... But this alterantive was in my head when I wrote about a "clear" Jewish connection.
I have never ever stated that it is certain this is connected with the case. And I know it's confusing when I don't take an adamant stand either way 
Anyway,
Monty, your point is taken, and there ARE alternatives. I just don't see them as viable.
But, of course, that is opinion.
And yes, it could very well be that the GSG is a non-clue. But I do not agree for the reasons you cite. If it was not written by Jack, then clearly it is a red herring, but if it WAS written by Jack then he clearly had a strong reason for writing what he did, and this gives us some very powerful insight into what he was thinking about at the time.
If he mentioned the Jews, then clearly it was an issue for him! It's as simple as that.
And considering that there are an abundancy of "Jewish links" it just might be possible that these are not coincidences at all.
I fail to see why this is so controversial. So far no one have been able to prove that the GSG was NOT written by Jack, so it is a valid option to think it might have been. Believe me, I have no personal axe to grind in saying that I think it was written by Jack. This is simply my interpretation after studying this for some time.
But if it WAS written by Jack, my point is that then it seems very reasonable to me that Jack for some reason or other had indeed some issues with Jews.
In my point of view this is connected to the goings on at the BSC, but there is no point in me trying to convince anyone about this at this point.
I have always said this theory is so far based on flimsy evidence, and I have always maintained that there is a possibility that the GSG was NOT written by Jack.
I still think it is pretty obvious that the writer of the GSG had anti-Semitic intentions, but anyone is free to dispute that.
And yes, Monty, I did read yours and Howard's dissertation. "Ages ago", actually.
And yet I have my opinion. Damned stubborn of me, eh?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 605
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 12:23 pm: |
|
" If it was not written by Jack, then clearly it is a red herring, but if it WAS written by Jack then he clearly had a strong reason for writing what he did, and this gives us some very powerful insight into what he was thinking about at the time. "
There is of course one more possibility: Jack chose to drop the apron piece below some anti Semitic graffitti that was already there.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 450
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Obviously you are correct!
And in this scenario, my basic premise holds, because if Jack chose to drop the apron there (as opposed to drop it there by chance) then it must have meant something to him!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 1:37 pm: |
|
Robert,
only if he could see it.
Jenni
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
i think we misunderstand each other slightly.
I'm not saying if JtR didn't write the graffito it wasn't anti jewish. i'm saying if he didnt write it its a non connection between jack and the jews. Since jack didnt write it.
Is this making sense yet?
"Things are getting strange, I'm starting to worry, This could be a case for Mulder and Scully"
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 534
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Hi all,
The biggest question is why drop the apron at all, thus leaving a trail, that is, unless it's a false trail? Maybe Jack was just stupid but I'm not so sure of that.
Stan |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 201
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Steve Swift
If you truly believe that all your posts are courteous and without sarcasm etc, than that is all in your head.
I tried to get across to you that we have different opinions, rightly or wrongly, but they are our opinions individually . These boards accomodate those who wish to voice their opinions without trying to shove them down anyone else's throat. Debate is fine, however let's just agree to disagree if you wish, but that will only serve to create heated debates. I am not into that, I can debate with the highest or lowest authority on Jack but I won't argue about him, we are all still learning about Jack and I thought the purpose of posts was to assist each other in learning that much more. Can't you keep it friendly? I can.
I do not intend to comment on your posts in the future, so why not leave it at that.
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 202
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
David O'Flaherty
Glenn Andersson
Hi gents,
I have many times before stated that Eddowes and in some cases the other victims were not necessarily full time prostitutes. Only when financial situations got desperate. This was the only point I was trying to make. To say that Eddowes did not ever use prostitution as a means to get by, for whatever the emergency, is hard for me to accept, considering where she was found, the reputation of Mitre Square and many other reasons that you both noted.
Thank you both for your imput.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 203
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:11 pm: |
|
David Cartwright
Good Post, however the comment re not being the killer necessarily if you are seen talking to the victim needs some explaining on my part.
I had pointed out that each witness who had a description of the man seen talking with the victims varied so much, that either the witnesses were wrong or a different killer for each victim. This I doubt. I still do have a difficult time accepting Jack being so careless as to be seen with the victims yet so cunning and quick to not be seen commiting the crime nor leaving the crime scene.
Best regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 204
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
David C.
Thanks David, I totally agree with your post.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 205
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 06, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Sir Robert Anderson,
You've made a point that I do not remember reading before. It is indeed very possible that the graffeti was already there. Great possiblity.
regards
Julie
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1982
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 3:43 am: |
|
Helge,
Relax, have a cup of tea.
Your entiled to your opinion and a damn fine opinion it is.
However, there seems to be quite a few 'ifs' 'buts' and a "possibility that the GSG was NOT written by Jack" in that there opinion.
I was merely clarifying my own opinion, that is I feel the only link between the apron and therefore the murder/s is the location the two were found in.
However, I do accept that there may be other alternative opinions.
Thats the end of the opinions....now stuborness.
As for stubborness, well Ive seen a few people fall flat over stubborness.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 451
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 7:40 am: |
|
Jenni,
Yes, obviously if Jack did not write the GSG, then there is no link to any "Jewish connection" in that particular instance, and this also diminishes the probability that there should exist such a link at all.
I think I allready said that "If it was not written by Jack, then clearly it is a red herring"
On this I think we agree perfectly
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 07, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 452
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 9:58 am: |
|
Monty,
Just had that cuppa...
Ok, now I'm relaxed. No, honestly I am...!
Actually I have been all the time I hope.
There IS some IF's and BUT's here.. Yes. But isn't there always
Actually I do see your point. The main thing (if not the only thing) that really connects the GSG to the apron is indeed the location.
But that is, IMO, a pretty strong link.
If Jack threw away this piece of bloody apron randomly, it is a pretty amazing coincidence. Not that such coincidences can't happen, but still...
Had this "random" graffito said "Kilroy was here" (yes, I know that was not in use then, but imagine something similar), then this discussion would never have happened. We would know it was a coincidence.
And yet, the wording fits very neatly indeed into the general feeling of the times...that Leather Apron and the Jews were to blame. Any killer not a Jew would have liked these sentiments to continue.
And so we have yet another coincidence to consider. It actually fits very well into the "Jack wrote it" scenario.
Also, it was the general feeling by people familiar with the milieu that such a writing would not last long. So it most probably was written the same evening as the murders.
Yet one coincidence.
Stride was killed in the yard of a Jewish establishment.
Yet one coincidence.
At one point we must stop and consider just how many coincidences we can accept until we at least must consider that there is indeed a link!
In my opinion, the circumstances surrounding the GSG is such that those that believe it was NOT written by Jack must substantiate why they think so.
Jack (if he wrote it) did not allude to the murders directly. He did not sign it.
But would he? I am of the opinion that Jack did not consider himself as "Jack the Ripper" at all. And he was not likely to sign a real name, was he?
Would he allude to the murders? Why should he? In his mind the very placement of the apron probably was enough to connect the two. And lets face it, he probably felt he had little time, and may not have planned it properly at all.
On the other hand, was it not rather convenient to leave a bit of ambiguity here? Certainly no sane person would write "I am a Jew and I just killed someone". Far too transparent. No way the police would buy that one.
Then there is the problem of explaining why Jack this time, and this time only, cut off a piece of apron from his victim.
This time, and this time only, that very piece of bloody cloth was left in proximity of a written message...
Another thing. Much have been said about the ambiguity of the message. Actually, the text as it stands (regardless of the spelling) is perfect! Actually, it is what I would have written in similar circumstances if I had a plan to deceive the police! (see above reasoning about transparent messages versus ambiguous ones)
Soo.. My point is that no real argument other than "coincidence" can be found to support the notion that this was not written by Jack, while a lot of stuff actually does fit with the "Jack did it" theory.
And I say theory, because I mean it. Clearly it is not proven. But IMO more can be said in favour of this scenario than the opposite one!
And I called my stance stubbornness tongue in cheek. But I think you figured that one...
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 07, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1984
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Helge,
Earl Grey I hope...nothing else will do.
Actually I do see your point. The main thing (if not the only thing) that really connects the GSG to the apron is indeed the location.
But that is, IMO, a pretty strong link.
Its the only link for. OK, a link nevertheless, but it could have been effortlessly stronger.
And yet, the wording fits very neatly indeed into the general feeling of the times...that Leather Apron and the Jews were to blame. Any killer not a Jew would have liked these sentiments to continue.
Now, you know what Im going to say, you ALL know what Im going to say. The actual wording fits neatly into nothing. This simply because the actual writing is ambiguos. However, if we are to interpret 'Juwes' as 'Jews' (in whichever shape or form) then what we have is a statement with relation to the Jews (duh!), be it anti-semitic or not. Jewish graffiti in a Jewish area? I do not think that is unusual nor unique.
Yet one coincidence.
Stride was killed in the yard of a Jewish establishment
In a Jewish neighbourhood
Also, it was the general feeling by people familiar with the milieu that such a writing would not last long. So it most probably was written the same evening as the murders.
Yet one coincidence.
A false presumption. I know of graffiti in that area that stood for weeks. However, this point still does not alter the fact that there was racist graffiti in that area no matter how recent or old and apathy was just as much a human trait as it is today.
Besides, who says that the locals understood english or, if they did, even understood what the hell that piece of writing meant? Even we today cannot state for certain the context.
You say coincidence, I say assumption.
Would he allude to the murders? Why should he? In his mind the very placement of the apron probably was enough to connect the two. And lets face it, he probably felt he had little time, and may not have planned it properly at all.
Why should he? To make the link. Name me one known serial killer that communicated with the authorities who did not leave the said authorities a certain cast iron link between his communication and the crime.
If he was going to talk he would.
As for timing. How long would it take to write a linking line or word. 'Mitre' or 'apron' would suffice. Even an arrow towards the apron.
Actually, it is what I would have written in similar circumstances if I had a plan to deceive the police!
Why the need to deceive the Police?
The Police were going to investigate anything within that passage. That was their job. Im baffled as to how this 'clue' would deceive them. Waste a little time? Throw them off the scent? What scent??
Soo.. My point is that no real argument other than "coincidence" can be found to support the notion that this was not written by Jack, while a lot of stuff actually does fit with the "Jack did it" theory
OK Helge, your belief is based of presumption and interpretation. As you admit yourself there are lots of 'ifs' and 'buts' in your arguement.
And no, its not coincidence that supports the notion Jack did not write it. Fact supports that. Fact that the writing does not mention anything to do with the apron or the crime or any crime.
Now, Ive showed you mine, show me your supporting factual evidence for.
I dare ya.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 608
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 07, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
"Fact that the writing does not mention anything to do with the apron or the crime or any crime."
THE crime, the apron - fair enough. But blame does connote wrong doing. Perhaps not serial murder, perhaps only littering. But one is blamed when one does wrong....
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 453
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 10:46 am: |
|
Monty,
You showed me nothing that I did not know before. And still it ends up with the conclusion that a writing on a wall found in close proximity to a clue from a murder site COULD be circumstantial.
Because that is all you are saying, because I saw no definite proof in your last post, and I know there never ever will be one.
Just as I have allready stated that I have no definitive proof to support my take on this. I only list what I think is circumstantial evidence.
So anyone still waiting for definite proof is in for a long wait. And, yes, Earl Grey could help you (and me) prepare for this endless silence but only up to a point.
Maybe we could join AP for some stronger stuff...
On me, of course!
;)
Once again. To ASK for that the Ripper should have mentioned the crime in that message simply helps no one. Maybe he did not wish to. Maybe it simply did not cross his mind that he had to. Maybe he did not care one bit. Or maybe he was, after all, quite dim-witted... Who knows?
Fact is...there is nothing in that piece of writing that proves Jack did NOT write it, no matter how much one whines and groans about lack of "signature" (and I say this with the greatest respect, Mr Bell, just one attempt at humour, nothing else...)
Point is, several arguments for dismissing the GSG are pretty lame IMO. What is it with this "maybe it isn't Jews" thing...? What else would it be? Explain alternatives... And the likelihood thereof... As I laborously explained earlier we can't just assume other alternatives without at least trying to put forth what those are and why they should be more probable than what I think is the most reasonable and simple interpretation.
WHAT would it be other than Jews? To this day I have never heard any alternative that does not make me want to laugh out loud.
Come on! What is this alternative. James? hahahah! (did not kid you with that laughter) As I'm writing I cannot come up with any other alternative that is not simply an other spelling for Jews. (except IWES, which is fraught with difficulties IMO)
And what about "all those alternatives"? As far as I'm concerned there are only two! The two written down by the police at the spot. One of these alternatives is to me the most interesting because PC Long Stated:
"...I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews, there was a difference between the spelling..."
So the Inspector actually amended Long's version. It seems safe to say that this (amended) version seems pretty likely to be correct. One was AWARE of a mistake and amended it. What more can one ask for? It is not a presumption to say that when an error is spotted, then one actually did a comparison!
And it's not like Long went, "well..I guess I could have been wrong..."
What people spelled at the inquest or in the newspapers are non-issues except they show that people were not that keen on spelling back then!
Newsflash. That was how it was! (I know you know this Monty, old Pal!)
And still certain people seem to feel the need to state that the wording is highly disputed. Not in my book! Not by far.
There are IF's and BUT's in my version, yes. But there are even bigger IF's and BUT's in the opposing version the way I see it. And I have never claimed that "my" take on this is anything but an interpretation of events. Anyone claiming otherwise on their take better put some real watertight evidence on the table!
And we all know that will never happen.
I could say a lot more, but I just want to adress one more point. I mentioned that the GSG was exactly what I would have written if I wished to deceive the police, and was asked why the need to deceive the police.
There is no need. But remember my theory goes in that direction, so I guess it is allowed that I make this remark. I never claimed it was proven. All I'm saying is that the way I interpret things EVERYTHING in that scenario fits my take on it.
I admit I use the word "interpret", but I have tried to the best of my abilities to show why I interpret things this way.
What you see is what you get.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 454
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 12:19 pm: |
|
Actually Monty, I need to make a few other comments...
Stride was indeed killed in a Jewish neighbourhood.
But it was by no means exclusively Jewish was it?
But that is not the point.
The Yard was the yard of the BSC, not technically a Jewish establishment, but one that had more or less been made so recently. And the premises also housed the offices to the Arbeiter Fraint. And that newspaper was in fact VERY Jewish. And VERY radically so.
Its not like it was just any place in a Jewish neighbourhood.
No Sir.
The street outside the Wenthworth buildings (Goulston) was in fact not just one street outside Jewish dwellings in a Jewish neighbourhood.
No Sir.
It was the place of a well known Jewish marked.
And, just out of curiosity... Was the graffiti you knew was there (Goulston Street) for several weeks there in modern times, and not written in chalk?
That comparison you made is not particularly valid, if this is the case.
And if you have read my theory it has nothing to do about throwing the police off the scent, but everything to do about blaming those cursed Jews (BIG CAVEAT: In Jacks head that is, NOT mine!!!) by playing on the allready existing public opinion.
Just for clarification
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 455
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 12:35 pm: |
|
And... Oh.. I'm too busy drinking my tea here (Earl Grey, one lump, hot).. so I'm not thinking straight.
(a lot of people would say I seldom do, anyway)
So I forgot this one:
When would anyone sane put a clue from a crime scene next to some writing and put an arrow there?
In real life, I mean...outside movies.
Jack was probably high as a kite by then, but not THAT high...
1)
No reason to allude to the murder, the apron did that job.
2)
He could hardly write:
"I killed that woman in Mitre Square and the other one, and by the way I am a Jew and I would like you to blame the Jews. Signed Yours Truly Jack the Ripper.
PS follow that arrow and you will find a clue that I left you stupid police so you can believe I am actually the killer and, no, I'm not saying I'm a Jew just to blame the Jews, believe me, I'm telling the thruth...
PPS Catch me when you can
PPPS Do make a ruckus when going about searching these Jewish neighbourhoods so that the good people of this City may believe they did it all, and are responsible for the evils of the world and so that they can justify a riot against them.
PPPPS I'm not making this up, I'm really, really a Jew and I can't write more because I just ran out of space and chalk.
hahah
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 456
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
And I know truth is not written thruth..but that was to include one spelling error, and even a freudian slip type of spelling error...see, I'm trying to make it plausible here...
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1988
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
Blimey Helge,
4 posts on the bounce. A sign of desperation ?? 
These four posts change nothing Helge. It seems you are protesting too much.
I have set my stall out and you see it as contrived. Which is ironic as I see your views in the same light.
We both except that the others view are valid (even if our own are favoured more). For the sake of saving the sanity and boredom of other readers I feel adding more would be regurgitating past debates. For the last time, the facts are there for all to see, the rest (as you admit) is interpretation and supposition.
The fact still remains that the writing does not mention the Jews with any degree of certainty, does not mention Eddowes murder, any murder or any crime whatsoever. And it’s that fact which questions the viability of the writing as a communication from the killer. Association via location is indeed circumstantial but that’s all it is. If we had to go into court and prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the writings credentials then Id sooner take my evidence in than yours.
I will leave you with this though. The word ‘Juwes’ has been debated between ourselves for some days now however the word I feel is the ‘most important’ is ‘blame’.
What is that blame? The reasons are endless, unemployment, social conditions, disease etc. I could go on.
Its not the Juwes we should be looking at……it’s the blame.
Regards
Monty
PS Ill let you off thurth. Also allready, laborously, adress, Wenthworth and allready again. As I assume English is not your first language.
PPS Ill also let you off the sarcasm, as that is also a sign of desperation.
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 457
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 7:45 am: |
|
Monty,
No sarcasm was intended on my part whatsoever.
However, I do interpret your "kindness" in "letting me off" as slighly sarcastic. Maybe I am wrong. And anyway I am not offended. But insofar as we both know it would be wrong to claim absolute proof either way, and since I have always maintained that...out of pure honesty, mind you...I cannot see why that should be used against my position. As if I can't deliver absolute proof, and therefore my entire position is questioned...
That is not fair...and you know it. Because your own reasoning suffer from the same deficiency.
Anyway. I could counter with the quip remark that perhaps since the "Jews" question is lost (?), another angle needs to be found, and the "blame" seems rather handy...
Actually I agree on that to some extent. But more along the lines of thought that Sir Robert exhibited recently.
Anyway. Let's leave it there shall we? All in good fun, and thanks for a good argument?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1991
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Helge,
However, I do interpret your "kindness" in "letting me off" as slighly sarcastic. Maybe I am wrong. And anyway I am not offended. But insofar as we both know it would be wrong to claim absolute proof either way, and since I have always maintained that...out of pure honesty, mind you...I cannot see why that should be used against my position. As if I can't deliver absolute proof, and therefore my entire position is questioned...
Im not using it to question your position. Its just that thems is the facts.
Jews question is lost?
Where does the Jews question come into it?
Now, the Juwes question is not proven. My point has been laboured and it seems still misunderstood.
With the context of the 'blame' word now also in question, we have two angles of which the writings validity (as a communication from the killer) is challenged.
And yes, Sir Roberts suggestion that the 'blame' was for littering is as plausible as any.
Cheers
Monty
PS You werent being sarcastic??
PPS When you wrote those PS??
PPPS And the PPS??
PPPPS And the PPPS??
PPPPPS In that case, my apologies.
It begins.....
|
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 08, 2005 - 2:48 pm: |
|
You'd think the writer would have written 'The Jews did it' or 'The Jews didn't do it'. 'Blame' is an important word. It could be the keyword. While it does express wrong-doing, people are also blamed for things they haven't done. It is the only verb in the sentence, 'The Jews' and 'The Men' being the same object of the non-existent blame. ''The evidence (existent or non-existent) does not blame The Jews''. Whether it should or shouldn't is the question we are left with. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2302
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 12:31 pm: |
|
How about:
"The Jews will be blamed, as usual, but this time it won't be for nothing."
As in, Leather Apron was blamed before, but it turned out that it was for nothing.
Let's see the Jews get out of it this time, when I leave this piece of apron right by their dwellings.
Prophetic and accurate, if the message writer had this in mind.
Sir Robert Anderson blamed a Jew.
Love,
Caz
X |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 549
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 7:54 pm: |
|
Really, every word should be looked at. The use of the word "that" rather than who could mean that 'men' isn't really men. And, we could all be meandering through millions of potential permutations for something a 10-year-old kid chalked up on his way home from play time.
Stan |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 09, 2005 - 2:56 pm: |
|
Caz,
What you say makes sense. But a Jew and a Jew - you blame one you don't blame them both unless the 'new Jew', the writer of the message, works on behalf of all Jews - did people at the time tar all Jews with John Pizer's apron - I don't know. But as you say a Jew is fingered, as usual,so we still don't know if the writer was working on behalf of the Jews or against them.
Truly. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 3:24 am: |
|
Caz,
Helge and I were referring to our own wonderful Sir Robert, hence Helge typing 'recently'.
The other Sir Bob is not so recent. And what did the other Sir Bob blame a Jew for?
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 458
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 3:30 am: |
|
Monty,
Ummm... Well, what you call facts may not necessarily be facts IMO. The point is we see this differently. I try to explain why I see it my way, and you try to explain to me why you see it your way. Fair enough. We'll probably never agree, but maybe we'll stumble over something in the process?
Regarding the Blame word I have allready stated how I interpret it, so I guess there is no need to delve too much into that. Your interpretation is also possible, my point is that it does not in any way diminish the possibility that Jack wrote the stuff. At least in my opinion. As a matter of fact my take on it is based on what was there, I have never tried to twist anything to fit a preconceived notion.
And I know that neither have you.
PS
I was just trying to lighten the tone with the multiple posts and PS's
PPS
I have a weird sense of humour
PPPS
None of the PS'S were directed at any person, was they?
PPPPS
No offence was, or has ever been taken, so no need to apologize
PPPPPS
That said, apology accepted anyway
By the way, could you elaborate on the Wenthworth thing? Always eager to learn, you know. And you are right, English is actually only my third language. So that particular second last sentence in your post #1988 actually made very little sense to me!
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1995
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 4:28 am: |
|
Helge,
Sunshine,
Your interpretation is also possible, my point is that it does not in any way diminish the possibility that Jack wrote the stuff. At least in my opinion
Thats fair enough.
As a matter of fact my take on it is based on what was there, I have never tried to twist anything to fit a preconceived notion.
With 'ifs' and 'buts' you are doing exactly that.
Anyway, time to move on.
Regards
Monty
PS I know you were
PPS Not that weird
PPPS Noy at anyone personally, no.
PPPPS Jolly good.
PPPPPS Most gracious.
Being the sad b'stard I am, I was picking up on the spelling mistakes you made. You mentioned only 'thruth' as an error. There were more and I pointed them out. That said, considering English is you third language I commend you on your posts. Coherent to the end.
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 459
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 12:51 pm: |
|
Monty,
Re spelling mistakes. Ah... And I was afraid I got Goulston Street as a well known Jewish marked wrong. I HAVE done a lot of research on that one actually, but realize you know tons about London that I don't.
And still re spelling. I guess when I don't have my Earl Grey at hand I don't bother with proofreading!
Have a nice day, and thanks for that last compliment!
Beresford,
Why on earth would anyone write "the Jews did it or did not do it?" or things to that effect...
We have two alternatives, either Jack wrote it, or someone else did. If someone else did, then there is no connection to the murders at all, and if Jack did it..well, we will never know why he wrote exactly what he did.
But... I reiterate, IF Jack would blame the Jews, then it would be a childish attempt to simply write that the Jews did it. No one, not even the most dim-witted police constable would have believed that. Simply because no one will ever write something like that.
A Jewish writer (and killer) writing "the Jews did it"??? No way. Seems higly unlikely to me. There is no real statement here. However, the same Jew writing something to the effect of "we, the Jews, are always blamed, now we will not be blamed for nothing". Much more probable.
A killer wanting to blame the Jews writing things to that effect, even more probable IMO.
Of course the meaning of the GSG can be interpreted differently.
But Stan, there are hardly a million likely permutations! I know you probably did not mean that literally, but still.
It is often said that the possibilities are endless here, but in fact we are only left with three or four likely interpretations, all of them possible, but depending on one key issue: Was the proximity to the piece of apron coincidental or not?
THAT is unfortunately impossible to prove through hard evidence, because none exist.
Caz,
Was it not Begg that called Sir Anderson's belief that the writer of the GSG was a Jew inexplicable?
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 617
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
"But... I reiterate, IF Jack would blame the Jews, then it would be a childish attempt to simply write that the Jews did it. No one, not even the most dim-witted police constable would have believed that. Simply because no one will ever write something like that. "
I tend to agree with much of what you have say, Helge. I can see a way to put one more spin on the GSG, though, that would still fit with Jack having written it.
Let's say Stride angers Jack by virtue of working outside the IWEC; he's down on whores to start with but the idea of someone servicing Jews...well, that's unacceptable. So he does Stride in, gets interrupted, and then takes out his frustration on Eddowes.
So the GSG could read along the lines of "This was all the Jews' fault, because they drove me to it." Or some such....
Just speculation...
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3172
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Yo Helge,
your third language?
ugh! you so put me to shame.
yo
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 460
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Sir Robert,
Interesting scenario. And certainly possible.
Obviously it depends on how we interpret the GSG. But it shows that there are at least two feasible interpretations that include the possibility that Jack wrote it. And that means that this issue cannot even be settled by properly understanding the meaning of the sentence!
So both options Jack/no Jack will be open anyway.
And that is pretty interesting.
As you say, it is speculation. But that must be allowed from time to time. And I will venture to speculate even further.
What if Jack did not hang out around IWEC just coincidentally? What if he really HAD issues with those men? That would explain why he used the word Jews (whatever he meant) in the GSG. Clearly it must have been of great importance to him if that was what he choose to write about.
Blaming them for killing that night might have felt "right" with him, if those issues were deep felt.
Wanting to blame them (frame them) might also have felt "right".
But both scenarios (and particularly the latter) seem to me to propose that this was no ordinary anti-Semitism as that which permeated certain parts of society back then.
To me it points in the direction of this being a central focus in Jack's reasoning.
I'm aware that I'm out on a limb here. But if this is true, then the "Jewish coincidences" suddenly begins to look less coincidental (which is the basis of me believing they are not in the first place)
I will also mention something I have referred to earlier, but with little response. What if we could find a clue that tied Jack to the Berner Street premises? What if he was actually familiar with the place? What would be the consequences?
Well, we would know he might have an issue with particular Jews. And killing a woman almost literally on their doorstep also fits in with trying to "frame" them.
So what is this link? Well, no one need to tell me that this is speculative, because I know it is, but it's a working theory. I don't say this is how it was. I'm just saying we might look into it.
From the inquest of Stride we know that a strange thing must have happened at the premises. It did not necessarily happen that night, and there might have been another explanation for it, but nevertheless... It is an anomaly. And an anomaly that is discovered in close proximity to a murder site just after that murder is interesting.
It was reported that a loft door (probably in the stall?) was bolted from the inside. The police seemed to half expect the killer to have hidden there, but found the loft to be empty.
A killer familiar with the premises may not have attempted an escape through the gates and possible exposure at the street. He may have known that an escape was possible over the roofs and down into the yards behind Dutfields'.
A killer unfamiliar with the buildings would probably never even consider such a possibility.
Ok. Speculation. But why not speculate at times and see where it leads us?
(Yes, I know I have mentioned this before. Maybe I think I can make people believe it by simply repeating it..hahah. Or maybe I think some people out there can make something out of this?)
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 461
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 5:02 pm: |
|
Yo, Jenni
It might be of some solace that my fourth language, French, sucks...
Its on the level of: Alors! Excusez moi, ou est la route de la gare, s'il vous plait...
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 618
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 10:48 pm: |
|
" But it shows that there are at least two feasible interpretations that include the possibility that Jack wrote it."
Jack wrote it.
There are few things in the Case as certain as this. Anyone wanting to theorize otherwise is certainly free to, but must explain Eddowes' apron residing below it.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3181
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
Robert - yo,
check it out!
yes but its interesting you should say that since i am probably leaning the other way as a certainty!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2310
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Helge and I were referring to our own wonderful Sir Robert, hence Helge typing 'recently'.
The other Sir Bob is not so recent. And what did the other Sir Bob blame a Jew for?
Huh? I wasn't referring to Helge's 'recently' post or yours. I was just offering a possible interpretation of the message.
All I'm saying is that the original Sir Robert was dead certain that the ripper was a Jew, and if he also believed the graffito was a good clue that should have been photographed before being erased, then the message writer, if not Jack, did a non-Jewish Jack's work for him purely by accident, aided by Jack himself, who discarded the only definite physical clue of the series - the apron piece - right at that particular spot, also purely by accident, presumably.
I say presumably because I just don't buy that in mid-flight (and probably more than half way home) he would have seen the message, read it and thought what a good place to drop the incriminating cloth.
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 619
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:26 pm: |
|
"aided by Jack himself, who discarded the only definite physical clue of the series - the apron piece - right at that particular spot,"
It is very very difficult, IMHO, to come up with cogent arguments against the GSG that successfully work around your statement, Caz.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hello Sir Robert.
Quite right too.
The proximity of the piece of apron to the message on the wall, makes for a very big coincidence. The onus is on the people who doubt that the Ripper wrote it, to prove otherwise, and not the other way around.
Regards
ROD |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Helge,
I agree that if someone else wrote it he was probably nothing to do with the killer but due to the timing of it and the prescence of the apron then he would have to have been known to the killer - a ludicrous scenario but the only one that fits with two seperate hands at work.
I agree that to write the word Jews immediately implicates the Jews but infact it does not because why would a Jew implicate his own kind unless he thought what he was doing was on behalf of the Jews or if written by a Gentile then it's a pretty obvious ruse which just throws suspicion back on the Gentiles or a double bluff written by a Jew to throw suspicion on a Gentile or the other way around.
Regards, N. Beresford. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 620
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Hi All,
There is just one thing that really dissuades me from thinking that it was written by Jack....and it may seem insignificant, but it grates on my nerves too much to ignore it.
The writing was tiny.......less than an inch high, in neat school boy handwriting. Now I cannot buy into a man who had just butchered one or two women as Jack had, crouching in the darkness and being able to write so neatly in such small letters.
Other than that I do think that there is some reasonably circumstantial evidence to suggest that it was written by him. But I just can't accept Jack being so anally retentive about his writing in those circumstances.
I know - I can see you aiming the buns in my direction as I type.
Love Jane
xxxx |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
G'day,
The thing that dissuades me from believing that Jack wrote the GSG, is believing that he had a piece of chalk in his pocket at the time, remembered it's presence and thought that it was important enough to hesitate his escape long enough to write it!
Unless he felt it was important enough to aquire the chalk after the murder and sneak to Goulston Street to leave the apron and implicate the Jews. He had the time between the discovery of the body and the discovery of the apron/grafiti!
Eddowes was found at 1:44 a.m. The GSG was found at 2:55 a.m.
LEANNE |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Hello Sir Robert,
You wrote:
It is very very difficult, IMHO, to come up with cogent arguments against the GSG that successfully work around your statement, Caz.
If Jack had been an ordinary criminal I would agree with you.
But anyone who extensively mutilates women in the open streets must have had a very different risk assessment than most of us.
So what if our killer have dared this, what couldn't he have dared?
Perhaps he was a very cool customer, perhaps he was a psychopath.
Or perhaps he was stark, raving mad.
Or, to quote Edmund Blackadder: "He's mad. He's madder than Mad Jack McMad, the winner of this year's Mr Madman competition."
Kindest regards,
Martin |
AIP
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
How ridiculous, there is no onus on anyone to prove anything either way with the message on the wall. The simple fact is that nothing can be proved either way. You just decide what you want to believe (usually for some reason or other) and go with it.
If it was a message from the murderer then he would probably have made it clearer that it was. If such writing on the walls was common, then if he threw the piece of apron in the next doroway we would all be arguing about some other 'message'. |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Jane,
People who are not used to writing on blackboards write in a small hand not dreaming that the rest of the class can't see it.
Then there is the amount of space in which to write which was a small door jamb facing the street.
Also, if working with another this man may have written the writing before the murder and waited for Jack to throw the piece of apron in the doorway and then scarper. Indeed there was time for Jack to write the message first and sling the apron in there later, just about.
Regards, N. Beresford. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
