| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 517
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 3:23 am: |       |
For the attention of Bullwinkle:
for some reason the information I have posted about Kosminski"s literacy skills has been posted on the wrong thread.You"ll find it under
Suspects:Fogelma[sorry about that!]Its quite lengthy and since I dont yet know how to transfer from one thread to another I left it there.Natalie |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 965
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 4:29 am: | |
Monty, David,
Ok, when my house my robbed last year most of my jewellery was taken. Some of it I hadn't worn for ages though and when we came to claim for it the insurance company needed receipts but we hadn't kept some receipts and some of the stuff was years and years old. Luckily they paid up anyway when we made a rough estimate, but that's not the point. Where was my proof that I had them once? Some of them I hadn't worn for ages so people couldn't even remember I had had them. There was no proof of me ever having them but I still did.
They looked at Kate's body and dealt with it before they even found the chalk message, so they may have missed any tiny bit of evidence that she had had chalk on here (and I mean tiny) and so would not have linked it at all anyway.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 919
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:23 pm: | |
Sarah,
Your jewellery was taken from where ?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 910
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 1:28 pm: | |
Hi Mark,
I believe the Sir Jim of diary infamy (and the diaryphobes have really got it infamy, so one more related post can't hurt  ) claims to have taken some chalk with him for the very purpose of writing a message. He also says they have him down as a Jew, so a Jew he will be.
Whoever wrote the diary seems to have theorised that the night of the double event was an exercise in reinforcing the suspicion of a Jewish Jack - that worked like a charm and seduced the top cops whose fixed beliefs appeared to be confirmed before their very eyes. I can't help but feel it makes a lot more sense than some other theories.
Love,
Caz
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 523
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 1:40 pm: | |
If thats so Caz and he planned it then I think he would have written something that clearly did implicate Jews.As it stands noone is quite sure whether he is saying that the Jews are to be blamed or aren"t to be blamed!
The book is fascinating and I love the fast detailed style! Terrific Caz!
Best Nats |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:30 am: | |
The killer had the chalk with him as he planned to leave the message. He planned to leave further messages but 'forgot the chalk' on at least one occasion. He tells us all we need to know in his journal including some clues he was intending to leave. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 980
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:25 am: | |
Monty,
Your jewellery was taken from where?
From my bedroom. Does that matter?
Tiddley,
You can't give evidence from something that hasn't been proved as genuine yet.
Sarah |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:45 pm: | |
Natalie,
Thank you very much for your kind citation from Aaron's committal records concering his ability to read and write. This apparently proves that he had the ability to write the graffitus, and should always be kept in mind.
Bullwinkle |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 7:13 pm: | |
Dear Mr Boyar,
All we can safely conclude from the available evidence, is a tentative connection between a murder and a bloody section of garment worn by the victim. There is no...I repeat...no reason to conclude that the killer was actually involved in the placement of said section of garment OR the graffito on the wall.
"Probable". "Possible". A long way from "certainty"?
Rosey :-) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 916
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Hi Nat,
Thanks for the kind words.
What Jack did was good enough, if he did it with the intention of helping along suspicions of a Jewish killer. I'm not sure what sort of message would have 'clearly' implicated Jews (or cleared them) and led the police to take the author's words seriously. If he had written 'A Jew killed [or didn't kill] the wearer of this apron' and drawn an arrow down to it, the implication would have been crystal clear, but no conclusion could have been arrived at. Similarly, if he had written 'I killed the wearer of this apron, and I'm a Jew [not a Jew]'.
So I'm not sure how the killer, if he wrote the message (and after the night he'd just had), could have reasonably thought up anything that would have worked more positively in favour of whatever meaning he wished to convey, Jewish or not.
No message at all might have been better, if he could have been sure that the apron piece would be found exactly where he dropped it, and thereby be connected to the murders as well as a building occupied by Jews.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 925
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 11:00 am: | |
Sarah,
In a draw, cupboard ?
Yes it does.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:58 am: | |
Notice how Caz is trying to tie various elements together, instead of analyzing them disjointedly, as other posters do.
Bullwinkle
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 981
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Monty,
Ok then, all over my room, in draws and cupboards and even under my bed.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 930
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:27 pm: | |
Sarah,
Loose ? Not in anything ??
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:32 pm: | |
Whatho Caz,
Thanks for reminding me the diary writer claims he/she took the chalk with him/her. It's been some time since I've read the diary. By the way, does the writer mention anything about a torch so he/she could see what he/she was doing in that dark doorway?
Sarah,
If your jewellery goes missing again, I think we can all guess who took this time.
Cheers, Mark  .
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 534
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:35 pm: | |
Rosey,I do agree that there is nothing conclusive but would argue that since this week I have had a much better picture of how this graffito looked;
It was found inside the Wentworth dwelling in a passage about 1metre 1.30 metre highapprox shoulder height
directly underneath was the piece of apron
The graffito was visible from the street
The letters were about 1 inch high
There was no other graffiti in the builing at any rate according to the police who searched the entire building looking for clues
The police who saw it thought the chalk looked fresh
I think there is as the police thought then a fairly strong chance the killer arranged it that way.
Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 535
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 12:41 pm: | |
Caz,there is that possibility but you seemed to imply that the diary writer "pre-planned" it.If so he must have intended it to be ambiguous and capable of blaming either Jew or Gentile -strange
maybe he was hedging his bets!
Nats
Bullwinkle:glad you found it helpful
Natalie |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 757
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
Hi,
I passed through Mitre square on tuesday, and I had a private giggle to myself for , it reminded me of the conversation recently, when it was suggested that a dog may have ran of with the bloody apron, and happened to release it from his jaws, on the spot it was found in Goulston street. for I noticed that on the exact spot of Eddowes departure, there was a displacement of dogs mess.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 539
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 6:11 pm: | |
Now Richard I hope you haven"t just made this up for the hell of it! |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 189
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
Does anyone think Richard's post about his recent trip to Mitre Square should be moved to the "symbolic communication" thread? 
Don. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 982
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 4:23 am: | |
Monty,
I know what you're getting at. A couple of rings were just out loose and some were still in their boxes (though no many) and most of the old stuff was all in one big plastic box, which was not specifically a jewellery box.
Just thought of something else that was taken which was really sad but certainly left no evidence of it ever being there. My mum had a letter taken which was at the bottom of a jewellery box (which they took) which was written to her from her dad when he was dying in hospital when she was only 7. That was heartbreaking for her, but as I say, there was no evidence that it was ever there.
Mark,
I know. Don't worry, we've just had an alarm installed. He's not getting in that easy. Not that there would be much to take now. 
Richard,
Wow, 116 years later and still they haven't cleaned it up. 
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on March 25, 2004) |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 932
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:09 am: | |
Sarah,
Ring box ? Evidence that there was jewellery.
OK it was basic but you see my point. Yeah, no evidence it was there, it shouldnt be dismissed and I never said the idea that Jack took chalk from his victims should be.
But the evidence supports he didnt.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 346
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 8:37 am: | |
"the night of the double event was an exercise in reinforcing the suspicion of a Jewish Jack - that worked like a charm and seduced the top cops whose fixed beliefs appeared to be confirmed before their very eyes."
Which top cops had 'fixed beliefs' prior to when?
Caz--aren't you opening yourself up to the accusation of anachronistic, retrospective thinking here? What documented evidence suggests to you that any of 'the top cops' had 'fixed beliefs' about a Jewish supsect prior to the night of September 30th? There was, of course, Pizer (who was exonerated) but it seems to me the contemporary suspicion against the Jews is only a matter of 20th Century exaggeration based on the later revelations of Anderson & Co. Many cops (see Walter Dew and Major Smith) wrote highly of the Jewish population of the East End--- and evidently never had any suspicion whatsoever against any of them.
(Message edited by rjpalmer on March 25, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 985
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 9:33 am: | |
Monty,
What about all the jewellery that was taken that weren't in their boxes? Does that mean that because the "evidence" supports the fact that I never had them, I obviously just imagined I ever owned them?
And what about my mum's letter? There was no evidence that that ever existed but it did.
Sarah
(Message edited by sarah on March 25, 2004) |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 2:06 am: | |
Can I ask a simple question here?
What is fresh looking chalk? I mean, if you left a message chalked on a board in a closed room, I can't imagine it would change much in, say, two months, unless somebody erased it.
Granted the chalk we are talking about was outside, but still, fresh chalk is not as definite as saying something along the lines of fresh paint, tar, or bloodstains.
Chalk would be slightly easier to establish as fresh than would be fresh ink from a ball point pen on paper. After like 1 minute, how can you possibly tell how fresh chalk or ink is within a reasonably short period of time (ie. one week)?
Tim |
