Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 10:20 am |        |
Hi Guy (& Everyone) !
I think there is enough evidence out there for me to conclude that our man was very clever. Please accept that this is purely my own opinion, and based upon my own understanding from what I have read of the case. Whether really clever or not, I believe our man was very experienced at killing. If we are to consider that Polly Nichols was his first victim (which I don't think she was), the manner of her murder indicates someone who knew very well what he was doing.
The victims were killed right out in the street, and I think the mutilation and display of the corpse, was part of his motive. There were even partly open windows, in some cases, with very light sleepers just the other side, yet noone heard any kind of struggle or noise at all. Even Cadoche wasn't alarmed when he heard a faint 'No' and thump against the fence. I find this aspect of the murders quite fascinating. How could a crazed, blood-thirsty killer, murder and mutilate so swiftly and silently. If you compare the Nichols murder to say, losing your virginity for example, I've heard that most people (myself excluded) fumble and bungle their way through it, make an absolute mess, and rarely enjoy the experience.
I think the killer of Polly Nichols knew exactly what he was doing, and was experienced enough not to raise any kind of alarm. (MHO-Only) He took enormous risks, such as the backyard at Hanbury Street, again with open windows and no other form of egress. The killer didn't waste any time. As soon as he was alone with the victim, she was subdued very quickly and quietly, so as not to have the chance to emit even the slightest of murmers. The strangulation, then viscious slashing of the throat was very purposeful, and as I said, done by someone who was very experienced. There are actually quite a number of paradoxes surrounding the entire series, many people feel he was a sort of slash 'n' grab, but I personally feel that the one man we call the Ripper, was a clever individual indeed. Maybe even to feel he could actually taunt the police and public in some way.
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 10:48 am | |
| Its only MHO Guy but I think by the end Sutcliffe was deliberately trying to get caught , he wanted the police to stop him. He planted the hammer and chisel behind the bush for the police to find. Thats not really relevant here though. I must say that I think Jeffrey is right here , I think our killer was experienced in killing , very cool , very daring and very smart ; he was more a Ted Bundy sort of killer rather than a Peter Sutcliffe. I know you believe that Annie Chapman was killed at 5.30am - consider what that says about our man if that is true. He undertook the murder of a tough little woman who probably fought for her life , and completed it in almost complete silence. He mutilated the corpse in daylight in the yard of a crammed lodging house when at least one resident ( John Davis ) was probably awake , and all this under the gaze of several windows. Then he calmly arranged the woman's possessions around her body. He was probably NOT covered in blood as theres no evidence he used the washtap in the yard to clean himself : despite this he commited the crime in the knowledge that things could have gone wrong and he would have had to walk out of the place , again in daylight , covered in blood and guts into a street filled with people and wagons , as well as workers going to work in the brewery. In the Mitre Square murder he commited the mutilation and murder of Kate Eddowes in under 10 minutes yet the watchman George Morris was less than 100yds away and heard nothing : he was suprised because he always used to listen to the constable pounding the beat but he didn't hear the killing take place or the Ripper fleeing. What sort of man was this ? An extremely remarkable one in any case I think. |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 10:48 am | |
Surely the apron falling below some pre-existing writing is too great a coincidence.
Further to Stewart's comment could I suggest that a Jewish resident might have found the apron , realised what it was & written the message as a denial of Jewish guilt rather than hand it in (in case it implicated him). I had not thought of this possiblity before although this is clearly the intended meaning of any number of Authors who suggest the writing is not by JtR. Don't you wish they would say what they think sometimes. ( & take it on the chin when they are wrong.) No offense intended (especially to Stewart!)
There are any number of books which discuss the links between the Masons & Templars (K.Laidler "The Head of God" chapter 16 is not the best but is succinct) for those interested. But the crux of this matter is that I doubt anyone would have known the connection then. Also remember this only explains the source of the 3 Masonic murders not its JtR relevance.
I do think any discussion of the writing's relevance presupposes the unprovable suggestion that it was written by JtR. So lets simply leave that question aside. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 11:04 am | |
| I think John that if a Jewish resident found the apron he would have no idea of its significance , sadly. The crime scene had been closed off and it was only afterwards the police reassembled the apron , proving it belonged to Eddowes. He could have suspected its significance from the police patrols but he wouldn't know for certain that it had any relevance to a serious murder investigation. Surely if he HAD found the apron he would have taken it and hidden it , or flung it away into the street away from the building ; if he had written something surely it would have been along the lines of ' Nothing to do with us ' or ' The Juwes didn't do it '. |
Author: John Dixon
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 11:32 am | |
Simon,
Perhaps what you suggest is exactly what "he" did.
He took it out of the building stairwell ( where it would not be seen till after light) & wrote a message as best he could indicating he & his people were not responsible. (He may have walked to either of the murders after seeing the rag & then returned fix things ).
I'm with you ... I think the probability is that the murderer wrote it & it is a taunt by "superior" person. But I'm a long way from proof. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 11:35 am | |
| Jeff , do you have ' The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper ' or ' The Secret of Prisoner 1167 ' ? The suspect is James Kelly , an escaped lunatic , and there is an essay in the Mammoth book in which it is alleged the police orchestrated a cover up , because they realised Kelly had been on the loose all through the Whitechapel murders and they had known about it , yet not made any effort to apprehend him. This doesn't mean Kelly did the crimes , but a section of the police thought he did and wanted to avoid a scandal. Because of your earlier comments on the police I think you might find this interesting. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 11:40 am | |
| I think thats what the essay is about anyway ! |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 12:48 pm | |
Hi Simon !
From what I have read, I think James Kelly is a very credible suspect, and I'm surprised that a lot more research hasn't been done on him. I've seen cases constructed against men on much flimsier grounds. Another suspect, and I know there are people here that would dismiss him straight away, (as did MM) is Thomas Cutbush. He is one name mentioned in the MM/Memoranda, who doesn't even rate a second thought, yet I think he's worthy of at least some consideration. Many people have discussed the 3-other names, there are multiple theories and many books on all 3, yet simply because he went around pricking ladies on the bottom with a knife, he is dismissed as being a harmless lunatic. Certainly the Sun newspaper put forward a number of questions that to this day remain unanswered, except for reply in the MM.
I wonder why McNaughten felt he even had to respond to such an outlandish claim, if Cutbush was so insignificant. With regard to this line of reasoning, could anyone out there tell me who lived at 29 Aldgate High Street in Sept. 1888 he he !?!?!? I'm not promoting Cutbush, only saying that he is as worthy a suspect as many who've been put forward in the past. Those who believe in police cover ups or conspiracies would do well to consider Cutbush. His uncle was a senior policeman, and here we have a genuine reason why the police might wish to avoid going public. I'm going out on a limb now which I don't wish to do, I just think he should be on the list of suspects and I would like to know more about Cutbush that's all.
I don't necessarily believe in a cover up by the police, only the witholding of vital information to aid in the investigation. I've actually been meaning to post the question for open discussion. Would it have been common practice, as it is today, for the police to withold certain facts pertaining to the murder scene that only the killer would know? Do we have any evidence today that the police practised this as part of their investigation techniques ?
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 01:50 pm | |
Hello
Stewart--thanks for taking the trouble of posting the map of Goulston Street last Sunday. It refreshed my memory. (I'm looking forward to reading your book)
I personally find it hard to believe the message had anything to do with Jack the Ripper. If he had dropped the apron three doorways further down we'd probably all be pondering the meaning of "Kilroy was Here"!
If the message was meant to be a clue, a warning, propaganda, etc. etc. it was a damn poor one, since it is so vague and ungrammatical that hardly any of us can agree on even the fundamentals of its meaning. Some have suggested it is anti-semitic; others suggest it is written by a defiant Jew, possibly Kosminski! I've seen it cleverly twisted into an anagram for J.M. Druitt; we've all seen it made out to be various enigmatic Masonic statements.
I personally think the message is just a meaningless coincidence, and about the only other theory that I would be willing to accept is that Jack the Ripper was living in the area, was already aware of the graffiti, and, in passing hurriedly by, tossed it beneath it as an afterthought...maybe a gesture of irony or some private joke that we cannot now unravel.
RJP |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 03:36 pm | |
| Concerning the obliteration of the writing by the police: they were compelled to thoroughly search the Wentworth Model Buildings and vininity from the clue of the dropped apron. As this would have involved considerable time and crowds would quickly gather with impending daylight, it was deemed necessary to remove the writing so they could continue their investigation unimpaired. No Masonic conspiracy, but a police "coverup" for a very practical reason. |
Author: Scott Nelson
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 12:18 am | |
| Readers of this segment may be reminded of the excellent article by Jon Smyth entitled "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk and a Lost Hour" on the Dissertations part of this Board. The article ties up (and I think answers many questions) concerning the origin of the graffito and the relation to the piece of apron dropped by the killer and the timing re: its discovery. Check it out. Well done Jon (I read it a while back, but I'm not sure other Casebooker's frequent that sector). |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 04:51 am | |
| From Jon's essay it seems clear that the piece of apron was quite large indeed , and thus it seems impossible that the police could have missed it if it had been in the arch at 2.20am. But it also seems unlikely they could have missed the grafitti as it was visible fom the street. Although Long could have been plodding his beat dutifully and may have missed the message at 2.20 it is unlikely Detective Halse would have done. Halse had just come from a murder site and was hunting the killer. He would have shone his lantern into every dark alleyway and passage indiscriminatingly and if there had been writing he would have noticed it. Remember the writing was visible from the road. What we are left with then is a message that most probably appeared at the same time as the apron ; the most likely conclusion is that it was written by Jack. |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 10 March 2000 - 05:02 am | |
RJP , can I quote your post : " If the message was meant to be a clue , a warning , propaganda etc etc. , it was a damn poor one since it is so vague and ungrammatical that hardly any of us can agree on the fundamentals of its meaning. This is why I would argue it is not traditional grafitti , which tends to be clear , direct and to the point. For instance ' Kilroy was here ' tells us that Mr Kilroy had indeed been there. There is no crypticness and the meaning is entirely obvious. The Goulston Street message is not obvious. There I humbly submit it was intended to be cryptic , and taunting. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 09:28 am | |
Maybe not intending to be cryptic Simon. Maybe it's just how a serial killer's message would always come across - unfathomable to the 'normal' mind. It makes some kind of sense if JtR did write it, the fact that it makes no sense at all to those of us who can't get inside Jack's head.
So perhaps we should be afraid, very afraid, of anyone who thinks he has cracked the code??
Love,
Caz |
Author: David M. Radka
Saturday, 11 March 2000 - 12:49 pm | |
Then you fear me, Caz.
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 04:52 am | |
Hi David,
I only fear the number of times I will have to consult my dictionary when I try to grapple with your published theory :-) I just hope there will be lots of pictures too....
Love,
Caz |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 12:45 pm | |
Caz,
I do have pictures, although they are the familiar ones. I'm scanning them right out of the published texts to include in my paper. Hope I can get away with this. Does anyone know what the copyright laws are like for scanned materials? Thanks!
Dave |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 12 March 2000 - 09:11 pm | |
G'day Dave,
I believe its alright to scan pictures from published texts, for non-profit purposes.
When I scan pictures to illustrate my papers, I mention the copyright owner or the name of the book that I scanned from, at the end of my article or under the heading.
LEANNE! |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 04:41 am | |
The big problem I find in accepting the graffiti
as being the rippers work,is why stop after the one effort,which in itself explained nothing.
Just one word such as 'jack'his by then well known
nickname would have got him all the attention he so desired.Such a small thing to add at the end of the message but something that would identify
without arguement.
As to the apron part's presence,had there been a water tap at the Goulston St building,one might be inclined to the idea that Eddowes kidney which
had been carried in the apron part,could have been washed,and then be clean enough to be placed in a pocket.The cloth would then not be needed and
could be discarded.Anyone place a tap there?.
H.M. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 14 March 2000 - 07:26 am | |
| David , your theory about the Goulston Street writing was disproved ages ago on this board ; don't publish it ! Don't publish it Dave , don't ! Don't ! We're all begging ya , don't do it Dave ! Don't jump ! You've got a full life ahead of ya Dave , DON'T DO IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
