|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 620
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:52 pm: | 
|
"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!"
I don't want to put words in your mouth, Leanne, but the way I read what you're saying is something along the lines of "He's crazy enough to run around slicing up women with an army of police after him, but stopping to write the graffiti, well, that's just too much."
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 560
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:09 pm: |
|
Too bad there wasn't a smear of blood on the wall or a drop on the floor under it, then we'd know for sure. It certainly could have been written by Jack but I lean slightly away from that.
Stan |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
G'day,
No Sir Robert: what I'm saying is that he was crazy enough to go around slicing up woman with an army of police after him, but the lesser crime of writing graffiti, (and having a piece of chalk in his pocket and remembering to perform that lesser crime), is a bit much to believe.
LEANNE |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1874
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:42 pm: |
|
G'day,
But it's easier to believe that he made it home in that hour, washed at a sink, then went back to deposit the apron piece in an neighbourhood popular with Jewish residents.
LEANNE |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 621
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 10:24 pm: |
|
" 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. "
I suppose that the problem is one has the notion that to do the sort of things Jack did, he'd have been a wild-eyed madman. Perhaps we should be working backwards: what does the GSG tell us about what Jack might have been like ? Cool and collected in the heat of battle, perhaps ? Pitiless ? Detached ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
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. |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 624
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:05 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. "
I wrote the first sentence, not the second.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1116
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 8:57 am: |
|
Just a brief comment here...regarding where the Ripper may have obtained the chalk...
Its not impossible that the Ripper obtained the piece of chalk from Mrs. Eddowes.
She was found with numerous articles that indicated she may have been a self-sufficient, sew-it-yourself woman. |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 622
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 9:09 am: |
|
Hi All,
I can appreciate that Jack could have been controlled enough to write in a small hand on the door jamb....... but in almost total darkness and presumably in a hurry?
I know he obviously had pretty good eyesight to have been able to mutilate in the dark as he did, but he must have been eating an awful lot of carrots to be able to write on a black door jamb, crouching on his hunches in something akin to the black hole of Calcutta.
Not only that but all the time keeping a look out that he wasn't spotted. Writing that small just suggests to me an introvert that felt he wanted to make a social statement but didn't have to guts to go around throwing Molotov cocktails through windows.
A Jew that was sick of being attacked by Gentiles, a Gentile that was sick of Jews? Take your pick. It just seems more likely.
I know it was a small door jamb so he couldn't write any bigger, I know he could have written it earlier in the day when it was light and gone back later and dropped the apron there, but it just doesn't feel right somehow and I can't shake that feeling.
But I think AIP hit the nail on the head in their post. You just go with what you think is more likely, based on your own reasoning and learn to live with it!
Janie
xxxx |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 625
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
"Writing that small just suggests to me an introvert that felt he wanted to make a social statement but didn't have to guts to go around throwing Molotov cocktails through windows."
In other words, a coward.
Which is precisely what he was, IMHO.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 206
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Jane Coram
Hi Jane
The Goulston Street written message is as mysterious as Jack himself. And I do agree with you that it is very possible that Jack did not write the message, it is also very possible that he did, however I too have a problem accepting Jack as the writer, for a different reason though.
Let's suppose that he did kill Stride. He was, in my opinion interrupted by Diem., on he went to Eddowes who he mutilated horribly, worse than his previous victims. Why would he than take the time to write this message? He was working against the clock as it was. It just doesn't make sense for him to risk being caught wring a message on a door/wall so close to his latest victim.
Let's suppose that there was actually a witness. This person did not want to get involved either in fear of Jack or maybe even the police. This person may have recognized Jack as a Jew, and wrote this message as a hint to the police in order to cause an uproar against Jews in the well populated Jewish area.
OR
There was a witness who was antisemetic who purposely blamed the crime on the Jews, again to cause a stir.
There are many ways to interrupret this message, not only because of the wording, but also because of the times where being Jewish was not in one's favour.
Personally I feel that the person or persons who wrote this message did so in order to point their fingers at the Jews whether or not they wittnessed the actual crime, or just happened by after the fact before police were summoned.
regards
Julie
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 623
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
I think there are quite a few problems attached to the premise that the graffito was written after the apron was dropped by someone other than Jack.
The first would be that any witness to Jack actually dropping that piece of apron there would in fact be an accessory after the fact if they failed to report it to the police. I'm not quite sure if that is the correct legal term, but I think everyone knows what I mean. To conceal a crime would then have been a very serious
act, especially in crimes such as these.
I think it rather unlikely that anyone would want to get involved or implicated in the crimes of JtR except under the direst circumstances, which is tantamount to what would happen if they were caught in the act of writing that graffito.
If anyone were seen writing the message on the wall, it would immediately be assumed that he was Jack.....and quite reasonably so, especially if he were doing it before the police were summoned. How was he to know that he was the only witness and that someone else hadn't already gone to get the police.
I honestly don't think that someone would risk writing that message just to implicate the Jews in the crimes of JtR. If he wanted to drop a hint to the police that Jack was a Jew, there were far better ways of doing it. Like dropping a note to the Central News Agency, if they didn't want to actually go to the police.
I am certainly not discounting that the message was written by Jack, as Sir Robert said (our Sir Robert) Jack may well have been a coward that wanted to make a statement and this seemed to him like a good way to get his message across, without unreasonable risk to himself.
Perhaps he didn't have time at Mitre Square to do it because he heard someone approaching and took the first opportunity he could after the event. I just feel that there are things about it that niggle me, enough for me to sit very firmly on the fence over it.
I sincerely doubt though, that it was written by someone after Jack had dropped the apron. Just too much risk.
Love Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 12, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1117
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 6:48 pm: |
|
Dear Julie:
"Why would he than take the time to write this message? He was working against the clock as it was. It just doesn't make sense for him to risk being caught writing a message on a door/wall so close to his latest victim..."
Actually Julie...the message isn't close to where the victim was found. The Wentworth is a few minutes away from Mitre Square, which is like saying a million miles,since its removed from the actual crime scene.
If the Ripper was the author of the GSG, he only
needed around a minute [ or less in reality...] to write a legible message. He would have had a "bubble" of approx. 135 feet in all three directions [ New Goulston St. behind
him...Wentworth to his left...Whitechapel H.S. to his right..]to write the message. This does not take into account anyone coming out from other buildings on Goulston Street.
Of course,you are correct that there was a risk involved. The murder was however,to me, more risky than the message writing. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 211
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Howard
You certainly made some good points.
I obviously was wrong when I assumed that the writing was very close to the murder of Eddowes.
I just have a real problem understanding why Jack would take time out on his escape route to write this message. One thing that this tells us, assuming that Jack wrote the message, is that he could read, print and spell, with the exception of Jewes .
PS: How are those pretty princesses of yours?
regards
Julie
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 246
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 8:14 pm: |
|
Y'know, If Jack wrote it, it is more probable that he wrote it earlier, during the daytime, or he saw it that day. Then, perhaps while walking quickly away from the scene with a piece of torn apron clenched in his mitt (unwittingly at first), he thought it would be great fun to drop the apron by the grafitti; this after the adrenaline rush was over and he was thinking clearly. I don't think he wrote it after Eddowes death. It just doesn't feel right to me.
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:24 am: |
|
Hey Mike ! :
"Y'know, If Jack wrote it, it is more probable that he wrote it earlier, during the daytime, or he saw it that day...
No offense,but the problem with this scenario is that the Ripper would have had to be certain he would meet a woman to victimize that night,as well as being able to get to that area [ the Wentworth ] unmolested. Otherwise the message and apron connection ,if thats what was intended ,may not have materialized. The rain that occurred that evening hours before the Stride murder might have made the graffiti less likely to be classified as "fresh" as Halse described it. Just a thought.
In addition,writing the graffiti during the day would also be more risky than at night. He couldn't be sure that at least one pair of snooping eyes weren't observing him from a building or that this act wouldn't be remembered subsequent to the message being discovered by the police.
I'd tend to think that the message was already there,Mike, before I'd think he had written it in broad daylight. But its still good to consider everything like you are doing,old man....
They're doing well Julie. Gettin' better looking too...I may have to get Cornwell to run a DNA test on them to make sure I'm the dad. They be two fine mamas..... |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 463
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
If Jack wrote the GSG, we may wonder where he got the idea from.
First of all, remember the leather apron found in Hanbury Street? It caused a lot of anti-Semitism, and sent the police further on the Leather Apron wild goose chase, and made them spend a lot of time on the Pizer and Pigott cases.
Now, that particular apron was actually owned by someone living at number 29, and was totally unconnected to the case...but the find made a lot of ruckus at the time.
One newspaper reported “A touch would fire the whole district in the mood in which it is now”, and The Jewish Chronicle warned that “There may soon be murders from panic to add to murders from a lust for blood.”
Did Jacky get an idea? I guess we may assume that he may have been following the impact of his crimes with some interest.
What if he intended to write the graffito at the Berner Street Club? For obvious reasons (Diemschutz) he could not. So he had to rethink. But he probably thought best on his feet anyway...
He needed another victim. Which explains the double event and the curious cutting of the apron and subsequent graffito at Goulston Street.
Because, you know, it was too wet to write any message in Mitre Square. And it was pretty dangerous as well.
A few streets from the crime scene he was relatively safe. And the apron would tie the graffito and the crime nicely together. (well, he probably thought it would, anyway...)
Clever Jacky...?
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: 464
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 12:30 pm: |
|
Just one or two opinions.
If the writing on the wall was so small and it was so dark, I guess we may rule out Jack just passing along, seeing the message and deciding that this might be a good joke...
Either we are talking about a coincidence, or Jack wrote it.
And...there is NOTHING to indicate that there would be other messages (coincidental graffiti) in the other entrances, or indeed in the same street.
No one at the time commented "but the streets are so littered with graffiti that..."
No one said "in the next entrance there was a message saying..."
To say there was other graffiti is pure speculation and is not supported by the evidence we have.
So the "coincidence" is really statistically hard to explain.
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)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 624
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Actually that's an interesting point about the weather that night, which had eluded me until now.
Hyperthetically, if Jack did kill Liz, which I have to say I do have reservations about, it is possible that he intended to write on the wall of the IWEC, which would in fact be very fitting when one considers that the talk that night in the club was about Jewish Socialism.....
The phrase scrawled there in that context would actually be most applicable and would have made a great deal of sense. If he was disturbed though, or even if the weather was too damp to make it possible to write on the wall of the club, he might well have theoretically wanted to do it at Mitre Square but found he couldn't do it there either either because the wall was too wet, or he was disturbed.
The difference between both of those sites and the doorway in Goulston Street is that the door jamb was under cover and therefore shielded from the rain. Whether Jack wrote it or not, I suspect that spot was chosen because it was weatherproof and an ideal place for graffito.
I still am very undecided one way or the other, but your post did provoke my grey matter into action, which makes a nice change these days.
Hugs
Jane
xxxx |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
Hi Helge and Jane.
A very intresting observation , you are correct in the rain that night, infact I would suggest that it was raining on and off most of the night as a man was questioned near Mitre square after the murder of eddowes carrying a unbrella.
Now this man is strange he was heard to have said 'They think i did the murder but I did not' speaking aloud under a window alone and witnessed .
A bit like the character seen exiting a shed during the whitechapel murders saying to himself[ dressed in white overalls] 'I think I have a clue foxes hunt Geese but they dont always catch them'
Just thought I mention that for no apparent reason.
Richard. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 568
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Hmm! I wonder why they were so sure the apron at #29 was unconnected to the case. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 465
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 6:46 pm: |
|
Jane,
The Jewish Socialism is a cornerstone in my "Jack as anti-Semitic Radical Socialist" theory.
But why did he choose that place for the graffito? There were other spots. Was he planning to frame someone in particular? (Someone in the IWEC)
Well... Personally I'm working on that hypothesis.
Richard,
If umbrella man was questioned, maybe he was thinking about that when he said what he said. Most people would think they were under suspicion if questioned in a murder case, even if it was just routine from the viewpoint of the police. I know I probably would!
I have been thinking about the foxes and geese thing myself, but alas, no revelation yet.
Stan,
Amelia Richardson, a resident of no 29, testified at the Chapman inquest that the apron belonged to her son, and that she had washed it on Thursday. Saturday it was found under the tap, where it according to the witness had been put, presumably to dry.
Allthough it would make a heck of a story if Jack might have tried to frame Leather Apron at that time, it seems like the apron in question is fully accounted for.
Allthough leaving it almost directly under a tap of water, on stone slabs, is not the way I would have gone about leaving it to dry, I see no reason to question the testimony here.
Not unless we believe in a conspiracy to cover up an early Jewish link..
(And I don't see any such conspiracy)
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)
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 569
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Helge,
Maybe Jack found the apron handy and made good use of it; that would give it some connection. It always sounded a little funny that anyone would walk around the streets with a leather apron on anyway. Wouldn't it be a little like wearing your McDonald's uniform to the mall?
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 466
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:11 am: |
|
Stan,
There were lots of people wearing leather aprons back then. Actually it was a kind of a trade mark of certain types of jobs. And it was often connected symbolically to the Jews in the district, as they often did just those jobs.
Thus "Leather Apron" has an eerie, almost synchronistic air of anti-Semitism about it. It was not just Pizer, it was almost as if he represented some ghoulish fantasy of the "Jewish menace" as people often saw things back then.
But back to facts. People did not change clothes as often as we do today. Neither did they always change into uniforms for work the way people sometimes do today.
A lot of things were different. Hygiene for one thing. Seeing a butcher with bloodstained apron walking on the streets, for instance, was no uncommon occurrence back then. Today it would turn a few heads.
Actually, a Jack wearing a bloodstained apron would cause little concern, if he otherwise looked like a butcher. They could not even discern between human and animal blood in the laboratory at the time, and certainly not on the streets!
However, that Jack used an apron is speculation. And improbable, in my opinion, because it would stand out if he was wearing that while looking up prostitutes.
Anyway. What is "odd" about the Chapman incident is that there was a tap of water, and yet no traces of blood whatsoever around it. In other words, Jack could have washed up, but he probably did not.
So he may not have needed to. That might indicate he was wearing gloves?
Again, just a little speculation.
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: 1999
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Guys,
Just one or two opinions.
...there is NOTHING to indicate that there would be other messages (coincidental graffiti) in the other entrances, or indeed in the same street. However, we do have information, from a contemporary Officer that the area did have various forms of graffiti.
No one at the time commented "but the streets are so littered with graffiti that..." and no one commented that the Goulston wall writing "was the only piece of writing in that street".
No one said "in the next entrance there was a message saying...". Nor did anyone say that the message in the entrance, with the apron, mentions murder, Eddowes or Jews...but hey. And nor was an apron from a murder victim found in those other entrances.
To say there was other graffiti is pure speculation and is not supported by the evidence we have. However, there is this piece of writing that is not directly linked to Jack, which is termed as ‘graffiti’, on a wall in the area…..and we are told graffiti evidence for the area does not exist. There is no mention that graffiti was uncommon to the area. There is no evidence to support this claim that graffiti (which has been around since prehistoric times, and daubed on every continent), in a run down area, is a rare and unknown in September 1888.
So the "coincidence" is really statistically hard to explain. That said, the 'coincidence' is there. After all, it’s the coincidence that cements the idea the Jack wrote it.
Coincidence is the ONLY evidence for that argument.
Regards
Helge
It begins.....
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2000
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:39 am: |
|
Julie,
No, you are not wrong at all.
The 15 pound lighter, steely eyed, good looking one is deceiving you.
Whilst he is correct in stating Goulston street is not on the doorstep of Mitre Square it is however only around three to four minutes walking distance, if you are around 5ft 8 and walk briskly.
The entrance to the dwellings are not that far away. You are correct.
Have belief in you views.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 467
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Monty,
That was some strange logic, as far as I'm concerned.
You can't use the "coincidence" as evidence that it was coincidence!
Anyway, there might have been other graffiti around. My point is that no one EVER mentioned that there was a lot of graffiti on that street that night, and because of that it is conjecture to say there was.
You can't escape from that. If there was that much graffiti around, would you not expect even a rather slow police officer to at one point say..blimey, there were so much writing on those walls that it just might be a coincidence...
Well. It would be easy to say so. And no one did.
As I said, no one did.
And thus to say today that there were other graffiti on that particular street on that particular night is blatant conjecture.
Now, I'm not saying that I myself never guess, infer or speculate..hmmm. Well, you get my point.
But there is one fact here. No one said there was any other graffiti around. Given the circumstances I think it might have been mentioned.
(You see, I cant repeat this often enough; no one mentioned that other graffiti!)
I think it is reasonable to say that there was only one graffito in that entrance. And probably none at all in the other ones.
So a coincidence IS rather hard to explain statistically! Of course, strange things do happen. But let us not behave as if they happen all the time. The odds of this particular piece of apron ending up beneath ANY random graffito was pretty slim. And yet it happened to end up where it did.
Now, if the tosser and the writer were one and the same we escape this unlikely coincidence.
One more thing, a few minutes of brisk walk from a murder site would be more than enough to make Jack feel comfortable. Come on, he was comfortable with cutting up women on the streets! His concern was NOT to be caught writing graffito!
A swipe with his sleeve would have eradicated that small piece of writing in two seconds flat anyway. Scared? Not Jacky.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 14, 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)
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1121
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Julie:
Of course Montgolfier is correct....it isn't that far removed from Mitre Square.
...but far enough.
Skinny |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 212
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Baron Von Zipper
I am also inclined to agree that Jack did not write the graffeti, however, if this message was there earlier in the day, I would have thought that someone would have erased it. Jack was also accused of writing many letters that only two or three maybe credited to him, though not confirmed as an actual fact.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 213
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
Howard Brown
Glad to hear that Howard. I am certainly sure they are yours though HAHA.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 215
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Monty
Thank you for verifying my post, since most people walked miles in those days, the distance from Eddowes murder site to Goulston St. would not have been much of a challenge.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 216
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Skinny
It isn't so far though that Jack would have had a problem walking there, especially if it were on his way home.
regards
Julie
|
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, November 13, 2005 - 3:08 am: |
|
Dear Mike,
The one certainty concerning the location and the various configurations of the GSG statement is that it was written in chalk.
We assume the chalk was a white chalk; we further assume it was a stick-like chalk and not a tailor's chalk.
The proposition that the GSG was in place prior to the murders furnish us with an 'epistemological center' based on the asymetrical thought/actions of the author and or killer. Hmm...
Rosey :-) |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 3:18 am: |
|
Hello Sir Robert,
I wrote the first sentence, not the second.
You are quite right, my apologies.
Kindest regards,
Martin |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 573
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
In my view, taking off an apron would not be characterized a changing clothes and I knew that human vs. animal blood was not used in a conviction until about Tessnov in 1901.
Was Richardson Jewish? Perhaps so; the Governor of New Mexico is named Richardson and he claims that he's Hispanic.
Best wishes,
Stan |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 250
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 11:17 pm: |
|
What if someone already wrote "The Jews are not the men they think they are." and someone (Jack, being Jewish) erased the last part and wrote in good, standard schoolboy printing "to be blamed for nothing."?
Put that in your pipes and smoke 'em!
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 468
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:03 am: |
|
Hi Stan,
Well, I agree, taking off an apron would not be akin to changing clothes. But I'm not quite following you on this one. The apron in the yard of no 29 was accounted for, and there is nothing whatsoever to link it to Jack.
I don't know if Richardson, who owned the leather apron in the yard, ever wore it on the streets anyway, because he used it when he worked in the cellar of no 29, and that explains why it was kept there in the first place.
I dont know if Richardson was Jewish, but I don't see any significance in that either way. Could you elaborate? There is some slight confusion in the statement of his mother, but nothing incriminating as far as I see it.
Mike,
It was Eddowes who wrote that! About Jack! And he got so infuriated when she alluded to his..deficiency as a man..(you all know what I mean), that he just HAD to kill her!
(no I'm not being serious)
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: 469
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:26 am: |
|
One comment on the coincidental "qualities" of the apron/graffito;
Imagine this thought experiment: East End London 1888, when most graffiti was written in chalk and did not last for long. When graffiti actually said something, and was not part of a popular culture to draw cool name tags and stuff...so it was not quite as common to be in the hundreds on particular walls..neither did it last long in exposed areas, and was easy to clean off compared to modern spray paint.
In other words, there were at any given time a lot less of it then than there are today.
Have one guy run around in an area of a few blocks, tossing aprons. Let us say that within this area there are five or six actual graffiti. In this thought experiment they are written in invisible ink, so that the tosser can't know where they are.
(It does not need to be a thought experiment for those with more time on their hands than they should have had...)
How many aprons would our tosser toss before accidentally getting one close to any graffito?
Lots. Lots and lots of aprons.
This is what we are dealing with here, statistically wise. So the numbers favours a link, no matter if it is theoretically possible that none exist.
And even if Jack "wrote it earlier" (pretty unlikely IMO), or "saw it and kind of liked it" (also pretty unlikely IMO), it still says he had Jews on his mind...
And this links the murder of Eddowes to that of Stride because Stride was killed outside a place heavily involved in the discussing and policy making of..the Jews in Whitechapel.
I know it is not a watertight link. But it is there.
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: 2001
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 3:46 am: |
|
Helge,
Ive just re-joined this thread and not fully read its content.
However, I have read 'tosser' a few times. Do you realise Jane Coram faints every time she reads that word.
Its just not British !
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 470
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Monty,
Hahah, thanks for that comment! Actually I know it is not British. And that is why I love it...not because I love everything American, but because it becomes such a wonderful play on words in my (admittedly weird) opinion!
A tosser is, according to my AMERICAN English dictionary; "person or thing that tosses, person or thing that throws"
While in Australia it is; stupid or annoying person; jerk; wanker"
Which pretty much sums up Jack..hahah
In Ireland "tosser" is simply a; "wanker"
While my English advanced dictionary tells me this; \toss"er\ , n. one who tosses. fletcher.
tosser
n
1. terms of abuse for a masturbator [syn: jerk-off, wanker]
2. someone who throws lightly (as with the palm upward)
Since Jack probably was the latter (palm upward,...no, you know I'm pulling your leg on this one!)..technically I am correct, but get to satisfy my weird sense of humour at the same time!
Anyway, my most sincere apologies to Jane! If I ever made you faint, it was not by design or purpose!
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: 2003
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hi Helge, Juile,
Helge,
I was teasing.
My point is just because no one said (as far as we know, though Dew does indicate there was a lot of graffiti around) there was a lot of it about is no indication. That is just as much conjecture as your valid point.
As I say, Dew reports the area did have a lot of graffiti. There were also news reports of graffiti at the Hanbury street scene and I believe something near Coles scene (Sugden I think). It was about.
And I say someone did.
“One more thing, a few minutes of brisk walk from a murder site would be more than enough to make Jack feel comfortable. Come on, he was comfortable with cutting up women on the streets! His concern was NOT to be caught writing graffito! “
I disagree. His concern is not to be caught with incriminating evidence. That is one said apron. As the writing is non-incriminating (on his part) I see no reason to worry on that issue.
Julie,
No worries.
How is correct in what he stated in terms that Goulston Street is not on the doorstep of Mitre Square.
I suspect it was the closest area to the scene that he felt comfortable in. It seems an ideal spot to take stock in.
Regards,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hi N. Beresford,
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.
I think Helge covered this when he said that a non-Jewish Jack wanting to write the sort of message that would implicate another Jew would have his work cut out. Anything like "I am a Jewish murderer and the apron below is the proof" would be laughable.
The fact remains that the original Sir Robert was certain the killer was a Jew, either partly because of the message, or in spite of it.
Hi AIP,
If it was a message from the murderer then he would probably have made it clearer that it was.
But your 'probably' is someone else's 'possibly' or 'not necessarily'.
If Jack wrote it, his intention may have been to make it look like someone else wrote it as a political comment about the group the killer was likely to come from, and therefore where the blame 'probably' lay, ie with "the Jewes" around these parts.
And the discarded apron piece would be grinning up at the message, as if to say, "He's got a point there".
Hi Jane,
But I just can't accept Jack being so anally retentive about his writing in those circumstances.
It's strange how we can all see Jack so differently. I think he may have been so anally retentive that he persuaded himself that each of his victims had done him a very personal wrong, and that mutilating them was only fair.
If he did do any arranging of articles and organs, and if he did have a piece of chalk on him so he could leave a message somewhere that night, I can see why his writing would be neat - all part of an important ritual, if for one night only. The location could have dictated its size, or perhaps he didn't want to make it so big that it would be seen (followed by the apron piece) before he could put some distance between himself and the dwellings.
If Jack didn't do it, I can't see it being by a Jew 'that was sick of being attacked by Gentiles'. Almost all graffiti is done to deface and offend; to show the utmost disrespect for authority and for the property on which it is scrawled and the owners or inhabitants.
I think it's a cracking idea of yours that Jack may have planned to write the message in Berner St. If he killed Stride, we may assume that he was so desperate to complete his work that he sought and found a second victim within a short time and walking distance of the first.
If that work included a cunning plan for a stick of chalk in his pocket, then it's quite reasonable to think that this particular plan was as altered as his other one - to mutilate - when the whole Stride business caught him off-stride.
Love,
Caz
X |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2318
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:57 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
His concern is not to be caught with incriminating evidence. That is one said apron.
So why didn't he discard it sooner? Could the copper really have missed half of one of those large pinnies first time round? If not, Jack presumably had that large, utterly incriminating piece of evidence for some time.
I suspect it was the closest area to the scene that he felt comfortable in. It seems an ideal spot to take stock in.
To add to your view on where Jack would feel 'comfortable', carrying knife and organs and about to toss the bloody apron away, and why it was an 'ideal' spot, he could have considered the entrance to the Jewish dwellings to be an ideal spot (or at least second best) to leave such a message.
Comfortable for him and ideal to take stock there? You're making my arguments for me.
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2005
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Caz,
Why would a copper be concerned with a large pinnie first time around? Just a rag. Do you mosey on up to every piece of cloth you see in the street and have a good look at it?
Halse states clearly that if the apron were there (in the dwelling entrance) at 2.20am he “would not necessarily have seen it”. So it wasn’t clear from the street.
Long states that is was not there at 2.20am yet Long gets the spelling of ‘Juwes’ wrong. How reliable is the man? Also, he indicates the apron was inside the entrance…..inside a dark unlit entrance. A filthy dark apron inside a filthy dark entrance. Sticks out like a beacon. Cos he was looking for aprons wasn’t he?
So the assumption is that he KNEW the dwelling was a Jewish dwelling? A Jewish dwelling next to a Jewish market? A Jewish market in a predominant Jewish area. A Jewish area mainly occupied by Jews?
Donkey….tail…..argument.
Love
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 471
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
All,
My point is that Jack, apron and graffito would not be very conspicuous at the time of writing anyway, so why should he feel anything but safe?
Because neither the apron nor graffito stood out too much as seen by anyone passing, only a thorough search would have incriminated him, and that could just as reasonably have happened in a routine search anyway. The writing cost Jack almost nothing in terms of extra danger.
No one was looking for an apron. No one was looking for graffiti. All Jack needed to do was to leave if he was disturbed. As he probably did on several other occasions anyway.
As to the Graffiti in the street. Yes, Monty, I see your point. Lack of evidence of such (other than the one) does not prove there was no other, but I can live with quite a lot of graffiti being around (re my thought experiment), and still think the "coincidence" was pretty unlikely in the first place.
My main point is that no one said "Gosh, golly!, there was another one in the other doorway, it must have been a coincidence"...
Therefore I think it is unlikely there was any other graffito in the near vicinity. Because someone would most likely (as opposed to certainly) have mentioned 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)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:50 am: |
|
Helge
No one was looking for an apron. No one was looking for graffiti. All Jack needed to do was to leave if he was disturbed. As he probably did on several other occasions anyway.
This is very true. However, the fact that Halse and his cronies were stop searching very soon after they found out about Eddowes murder (around 1.50 ish wasnt it?) indicates that time was optimum.
And anyone found with a bloodstained apron, knife whatever would have been arrested on the spot.
Cheers,
Monty
(Message edited by monty on November 15, 2005)
It begins.....
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 625
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Helge and Monty (what a double act)
I have to confess, that as soon as I saw the word tosser I burst out laughing and wondered if Helge did know what it meant to us East Enders. I have called quite a few people it in my time and it had nothing to do with throwing aprons......
HI Caz,
Actually I really liked the idea that Jack might have wanted to write the graffito on the Berner Street wall or even in Mitre Square which also had Jewish connotations. I am going to put my tongue firmly in my cheek when I say that a certain diary mentions a certain cotton merchants dislike of the Jews.......but of course that never entered a certain posters head.........
The point about Jack being anally retentive enough to have written the graffito was a good one.....really. I hadn't thought about the arrangement of items and other indicators that he did have a need to put certain things in order...which would tie in with a neat schoolboy hand....so good point.
I still don't think he did it, but good point!
I just feel that because of the unrest in the area and the tension that there was at that time that there would have been graffito littering the whole area and this was just one of many.
Okay it's not mentioned specially that there was by anyone, but it wouldn't seem to me that would come into the conversation anyway in the natural course of events. Surely if it was a common day occurrence that was accepted by everyone, then there would have been no need to bring attention to it?
There have always been standard propoganda weapons used to show utter disdain for what was going in urban communities....the standard methods have always been leaflets and pamphlets, and graffito showing people's true feelings. It has been the same in most urban areas throughout history....but in the context of Jews showing their feelings in the East End at that time......the same held true.
I have to say that I think that the whole area would have been rife with graffito showing the feelings of both Jews and Gentiles, just as there was when I was a kid going down into Petticoat and Brick Lane.
Not to be offensive to anyone, because I am predominantly Jewish, but the standard slogans were extremely offensive to Jews and in a similar vein to the ones scrawled on Jewish shops in Germany pre WW2. They covered practically every wall.
I really have to say that even though it is not mentioned specifically that it would have been the same then, when the intrinsic gentle population would have been even less tolerant than in the 50's. It was just a standard way of showing feelings. This is especially true when one considers that the Jews were starting to fight back and organising themselves into resistance groups, as evidenced by the IWEC and the activities there.
I can see why Helge thinks that there could be a Jewish connection.....there is a thread which runs through the case which does give the feeling that there might be something there, and it will be interesting to see if anything can be unearthed, but I'm not sure it will take us any further into the case.
I just think that the area was a hotbed of unrest...that the police on the beat would have been on the lookout for any graffiti and probably told by their superiors to remove any offensive graffiti as it was found to avoid inflaming the situation....that seems just to be common sense to me. The speedy removal of the GSG was just par for the course and I have to think that it was removed because it wasn't considered to be a clue but just a piece of inflamatory graffito that should be dealt with as all the other graffiti was.
I am not discounting the possibility that Jack did write it, not at all, but I do feel that on balance there are lots of compelling reasons to be cautious about accepting it too readily.
I also think the earth is still flat, which is why I want stray too far from home in case I fall off.
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 472
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Monty,
Totally agree with what you say in your last post. But I think Jack must have been a risk taker. Besides, there are lots of things we know nothing about at all. What if Jack lived almost next door to Goulston Street? What if he thought doing the writing was so important that he simply was compelled to do it?
Right. I know this is no evidence that he did write it. But we are kind of stuck with the fact that nothing proves he did not, either.
Jane, Caz
Did Caz come up with the idea that Jack might have wanted to write the graffito on the wall in Berner Street before me? I thought that was my original idea!
(I have so few I must take credit for them all... heheh)
Anyway. As I said earlier I give myself a five percent chance to be half right on my special take on the "Jewish connection". So it is just to pursue one line of thought.
Jane, your post was great, giving some insight into London life, which I, for obvious reasons, have little direct knowledge about.
But I still maintain that even if there were quite a bit of graffiti on Jacks path from Mitre Square (and the Great Synagogue!) to Goulston Street, then odds are pretty slim that any random TOSS would have put the piece of apron beneath one.
Especially since most exposed graffiti would have been washed away by the rain...and yet this bloody apron ends up beneath one graffito that even looks fresh!
So when Jack tossed (palm upward, girlish style) the apron into that entrance, what was he thinking?
Why not toss it on the street? After all, it was just a rag. And in the rain it might even never have been identified as bloody. But then again, why not toss it behind a fence or whatever, if the point was to get rid of it?
Why did the tosser toss it in an entrance? (Ok, this joke is probably overused by now)
It would be the perfect place to plant a false clue. Thus, if he was thinking about that, it is reasonable to think that he MIGHT also have thought about implicating the Jews by writing something incriminating.
I can see him thinking that the police would create one heck of a ruckus while searching those Jewish buildings. Coupled with the wording of the message, and the general anti-Semitism, the word on the street would soon be that the Jews was to blame, and Jack would probably think it was a job well done.
Of course, the police never fell for that. Because, even if Jack THOUGHT he was clever, he was not really THAT clever. But, even so, with a little bit of luck things might still have evolved in a totally different way.
So he was not particularly stupid, either.
Ok, that was a hypothesis.
I'm still waiting to hear what you good people think about the bolted loft door, though.
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)
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 626
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 4:26 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Actually I just followed your lead that Jack might have thought of writing the message on the wall at Berner Street and I just took it a step further.......so yes it was your idea Helge.....not mine, I just tied it together with Goulston Street being undercover......... so you it was your idea..........unless someone else got there first.........
Now the bolted loft door is interesting. If Jack was responsible for that, and let's just assume for a moment that he was, then he had reconnoitered the yard and made provisions to escape.....which means of course that he planned to kill and mutilate one of his victims there.
We have to ask ourselves a few questions here. If Jack did plan this kill in advance firstly we need to ask:
Was Liz was his intended victim?
How often did Liz go to the IWEC, was it a regular place to pick up clients?
Did she have a date that was a member of the IWEC?
Did her date know someone that was at the IWEC that night and she went there with him?
Was Jack a member of the IWEC?
If Liz was just an accidental victim, how did he know that he would be able to find a victim there?....as far as I know that area was not known as a place to pick up prostitutes. There are a huge number of questions that spring from any scenario which revolves around Jack setting up the IWEC as a murder spot.
The first one that really springs to mind apart from the obvious ones above, is that if Dutfield's Yard was a predesignated murder spot, then why did he kill Liz right at the front of the yard in just about the most dangerous spot in that yard, other than actually in the gateway itself.
He found the loft door in the lovely dark, deserted stable, full of spots shielded from prying eyes, where he could have killed Liz (or any victim) without any fear of disturbance, and yet he didn't kill her there.
The obvious answer is that he wanted her to go into the stable with him, but she resisted and he killed her out of pure rage.
But then we are faced with the problem of the cachous and that she was facing in the wrong direction.
Let's assume that Jack had Liz by the wrist or right hand or arm and was trying to coax her to go with him to the stable.......she resisted and pulled away to turn and go back to the gate.....he grabbed her by the scarf to pull her back, strangled her and cut her throat.......quite a plausible option, which would fit in with the known facts. But what was she doing with the cachous in her hand and why did she go into the yard with him in the first place?
I suppose she could have just forgotten to put them back in her pocket, but it just doesn't feel right somehow. She had just been assaulted by Mr Broadshoulders and would be annoyed and or nervous and certainly not in the mood for another punter. There is enough evidence to suggest that she had already turned down at least one client that night.
Why would she then even go as far as the kitchen door with another John so soon after? I can buy that she would accept some consolation from a good Samaritan Jack, but I can't buy that she would then condescend to go into the yard with him for any reason, especially not with a handful of cachous.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible that somehow Jack got Liz to go that far into the yard and that the above scenario couldn't have taken place. I just think that there are enough troublesome sticking points for me to have serious reservations.
Over to you Helge, convince me........
Jane
xxxxx |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 577
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
A tosser could also be one who is vomiting i.e. tossing your cookies. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
