Archive through May 3, 1999

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through May 3, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: The Goulston Street Graffito: Archive through May 3, 1999

Author: Joseph Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 04:12 pm
Hello Caz, Whats a "wind-up merchant? Best Regards Joseph
Author: Caz Monday, 26 April 1999 - 12:03 pm
Hey Joe! Have you never seen Only Fools and Horses among those Brit tv shows? You 'aven't lived mate! A wind-up merchant in this context is a character who posts an idea on the message boards, hoping for a particular response, due to the deliberately controversial nature of that post. Strangely enough, most of the regular posters here seem to have been thus 'wound up' at one time or another. It is all most baffling. There is either a whole heap of such wind-up merchants appearing on the Casebook, or a rather sad individual who never leaves their computer except to relieve themselves (wide grin). Wonder which is closer to the truth? Love, Caz PS Diving in the tub shortly to prove I'm not glued to this place!
Author: Joseph Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 12:22 am
Hello Caz, Thank you for the definition. We have a few similar witticisms here in the U.S., all of which escape me at the moment.:-) By the way, how is your little girl? Earlier this evening my eldest son told me I'm going to be a grandfather again, he already has a daughter, about the same age as yours',and I imagine they can be a hand full at that age. Thanks again. Best Regards Joseph
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 08:52 am
Well, we have our wind-up-merchants, but we also have our air-headed dilletantes too. You know the type, plenty of wind and little substance. Incompetent suspects. Pre-critical thought. Endless discussion of matters unrelated to the case, such as 1950s television puppets. Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Ho-hum, how we get used to things here. David
Author: Joseph Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 11:27 am
We also seem to have our share of wind-bags. Joseph
Author: Caz Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 03:14 pm
Wasn't that a Will Hay film? Wind-bag The Sailor? My daughter has never been a handful, yet, that is. Thanks for enquiring after Little Caz. She will be twelve in September, so I've got her teenage years coming up soon. Oh Gawd, how can I tell her not to do all the things I did, like smoking, and drinking rum and coke at fourteen while gettin' on down to James Brown's Sex Machine at the local tennis club disco? (Groan at the memory!) She gave me one of her maths problems to solve earlier. She had already done it correctly in class. It was: Find the value of T where 3T = 3+T. I took longer to work it out than she did. Answers on a postcard please.... Sorry about the pre-pubescent rambling, at least I wasn't being pre-critical (I don't think I was at any rate, what does it mean exactly?) Shouldn't we be getting back to Goulston Street shortly folks? Don't want to upset the apple-cart. Love, Caz
Author: RED DEMON Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 12:12 am
Hello, everyone! It doesn't seem at all weird to me that the Ripper had chalk on him. Why? because he'd planned to leave a message, only he'd planned to leave it near her body. What happened? He was chased away, scared. Why did he take part of the apron? He'd planned to send it to the police as proof. How do I know this? I don't. But it is exactly what the Zodiac Killer of California (who I think is The Ripper reincarnated) did. He would leave messages on or near a murder scene, and he cut part of the shirt from one of his victims and sent it to the police. Unfortunately, for the Ripper, his time had run short, and either he had been interrupted, or feared interruption, either way, he wiped the blood and faeces from his hands onto the piece of apron, scrawled the message in Goulston Street, and left the apron as his calling card. It's very much like the Mary Kelly death scene. Her body was laid out, and an obscure message, 'FM', was scribbled over her on the wall. The only difference in Goulston Street is the apron symbolized Eddowes body. It's interesting to note how people will say that the Ripper would have left a more grandious, to the point message. That's not his style. He wanted to play with the police, and what better way than a riddle that seemed to have no meaning, as 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing'. It is certainly NO WHERE NEAR AS ABSTRACT as the 'FM' on Mary Kelly's wall, which we can't doubt was from the Ripper since it is in plain view in the crime scene photograph, and no one had entered her room until AFTER the photo had been taken. If there was anyone out there who doubted if the 'graffito' was from the Ripper, I hope you're satisfied. IT WAS. Yours Truly, RED DEMON
Author: Caz Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 04:28 am
No mate, you've got the reincarnation bit all out of kilter. My understanding is that our Jacky would probably come back as one of his own red herrings, ready to be hooked by the great and the good for their supper. Strewth, didn't he do enough damage last time round? If he had come back as another killer, he would have learnt bugger all on his journey to the top of the food chain, surely? No, this is the ultimate delusion and paradox. IF you believe in reincarnation you surely also have to believe in the reason for it. Anyone who can explain further? I'm not really into all this but I'm pretty sure I'm right about people not just coming back as the same old loser each time. What would be the point?? Love, Caz
Author: RED DEMON Thursday, 29 April 1999 - 11:47 am
Hey CAZ, I believe you took me a little too literally. I was just making my point that Zodiac and The Ripper share many similarities. But I think you know that. Ha ha. Here's one for you: What's a reincarnationist's motto?... Life's a B**ch, and then you die, and then you die, and then you die, and then you die! Funny-HA-HA! signed Catch me when you can MISS CAZ
Author: Caz Friday, 30 April 1999 - 04:51 am
Hey RED! Q. What were the dalai lama's first words? A. "As I was saying...." Love, Caz
Author: RED DEMON Friday, 30 April 1999 - 04:10 pm
CAZ! Cute, sweetie, real cute. No, seriously, what did you think of what I had to say on the graffito subject? Oh yeah, and do you want to go out sometime. :) Yours truly, RED DEMON
Author: Christopher-Michael Friday, 30 April 1999 - 08:56 pm
Red Demon - Perhaps the Goulston Street writing was from the Ripper. Perhaps. I don't think so, but it's a subject honest people can disagree over. However. . ."we can't doubt" the 'FM' on Kelly's wall was from the Ripper? No, I can't go along with that. The 'FM' doesn't exist, and never did. There were no cryptic initials left in plain sight, or carved on the sideboard or anywhere to be seen before Simon Wood discovered them in 1988. I don't mean to be brusque, but there are some things that ought to be dismissed out of hand. Christopher-Michael
Author: D. Radka Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 08:34 pm
I agree with Christopher-Michael 100%, and would like to add the recommendation that we all get ourselves to our mosques, synagogues and churches if we wish to have something to believe that is GOOD FOR US to believe. The Diary was written to exploit that element of the human psyche that believes. While we all as human beings believe, we ought to critically apprise whether what we are believing does us good to believe it. In religion, we find something to believe that forgives us, raises us up, and points us in the direction of becoming better than we are. In the Diary, we find something to believe that panders to our slothfulness and greed, by turning the object of our earnestness into a mere given. Friends, please let us all throw down the Diary, and apply our faculty of belief to higher and better purposes, including mastering the subject material of the case! David
Author: D. Radka Saturday, 01 May 1999 - 08:37 pm
Now that you've read that, consider what was said to you. Did you get tricked? See what I mean about belief? Maybe the Diary IS the real thing, and believing that it isn't is the belief that doesn't do you any good. A point to be pondered by every Ripperologist. David
Author: RED DEMON Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 06:42 pm
Hello, friends, Christopher-Michael, I understand your point about the 'FM'. If the police, inquest jury, and even the photographer of the famous photo didn't see it, then how could it be there? That is a mystery. But the fact is, it is there. In both the photo recovered by Donald Rumbelow, and the photo returned to Scotland Yard in 1987. In other words, the photo wasn't tampered with. All I can say is, imagine if your were in that small 12x12 room with Mary's corpse, which was unquestionably the most atrocious murder sight ever witnessed by anyone who DID see it in person, and tell me that your eyes would have searched the walls for any words written in blood. No, of course not. And why, after a million eyes had searched the photograph, did nobody notice the letters on the wall (real or not) until 1988? Because we were focused on the horribly mutilated body of Mary Kelly. The person who would have spent the most time in the room with the corpse would have been the doctor who attended her, and his eyes wouldn't have left the body. The jury, disgusted by the sight and stench of the room, would have taken no more than a glance, as would the majority of the police and professionals who visited the sight. The fact is, you are discounting credible photographic evidence taken from a crime scene that had not been entered since Jack the Ripper left on the feeble ground that because no one noticed it at the time, it must not exist now. Who knows? Maybe the 'FM' WAS noticed and erased immediately, like the graffito, but I doubt it. Most probably, it was simply overlooked. Those marks on the wall could not have been made by arterial spray, which, as it's name suggests, sprays outward. Put your thumb over the nozle of a hose when it's turned full blast and spraying everywhere. Do you think it could cause such full, shaped strokes? No. The letters where deliberately placed there, and it's a shame that they are being dismissed by so many on such loose grounds. Perhaps, if 'the Diary' had not come along, more serious researchers would be able to believe in the letters, and that could open a whole new line of research, seeing as how they are, I believe, the only unquestionable writings of Jack the Ripper. Unfortunately, in order to discredit the diary, they argue that the letters aren't real, but a figment of our imagination, and therefore, the diary is a hoax because it mentions them so prevelently. This helps to keep the suspect they prefer (at least, somewhat) credible. I say all this NOT to support the diary (I'm not convinced, yet), but simply to show that this very credible piece of evidence is being dismissed without much logical thought, and often, for the wrong reasons. I am very interested to know what everybody thinks about what I have to say. But, please, if you are to tell me that I am delusional, and that the letters are not acceptable as evidence, then at least build a case for your side, as I have done for mine. Until then... Yours truly, RED DEMON
Author: Jon Smyth Sunday, 02 May 1999 - 07:29 pm
By RED DEMON on Sunday, May 2, 1999 - 06:42 pm: Hello, friends, Christopher-Michael, I understand your point about the 'FM'. If the police, inquest jury, and even the photographer of the famous photo didn't see it, then how could it be there? That is a mystery. But the fact is, it is there. ---------------------- Wrong, the fact is we have vertical blood smears half hidden by the bed, which are suggested to be a letter 'M' and some partial horizontal smears that are suggested as part of a possibly a letter 'F' That is the fact. ************ All I can say is, imagine if your were in that small 12x12 room with Mary's corpse, which was unquestionably the most atrocious murder sight ever witnessed by anyone who DID see it in person, and tell me that your eyes would have searched the walls for any words written in blood. No, of course not. ------------------------------ There was plenty of open wall to scrawl letters on if that had been the point, certainly not a hard to reach portion half obscured by the bed. ************************** And why, after a million eyes had searched the photograph, did nobody notice the letters on the wall (real or not) until 1988? Because we were focused on the horribly mutilated body of Mary Kelly. -------------------------------- Everyone noticed blood smears, only one person suggested that they form a letter 'M' and once suggested thats what people see 'autosuggestion'. **************************** The person who would have spent the most time in the room with the corpse would have been the doctor who attended her, and his eyes wouldn't have left the body. -------------------------------- Wrong, 4 doctors were in attendance and they appear to have pulled the bed away from the wall and walked around the bed on both sides quit possibly brushing against the wall creating smears out of splashes. *************************** The jury, disgusted by the sight and stench of the room, would have taken no more than a glance, as would the majority of the police and professionals who visited the sight. -------------------------------- Too much assumption there. *********************** The fact is, you are discounting credible photographic evidence taken from a crime scene that had not been entered since Jack the Ripper left on the feeble ground that because no one noticed it at the time, it must not exist now. ------------------------------ But what that evidence shows is blood smears, nothing more, it is your (and others) presumption that these are letters and not 'obviously' random smearing of blood that is the creating something out of nothing. ************************* The letters where deliberately placed there, and it's a shame that they are being dismissed by so many on such loose grounds. ----------------------------- Too much assumption, again. ************************ seeing as how they are, I believe, the only unquestionable writings of Jack the Ripper. ----------------------------- UNQUESTIONABLE !!!!! This is preposterous. ***************** Unfortunately, in order to discredit the diary, they argue that the letters aren't real, but a figment of our imagination, and therefore, the diary is a hoax because it mentions them so prevelently. --------------------------- This is not why the 'diary' is a hoax, you have not read or understood the issues that show it to be the fraud that it is. ************************** I say all this NOT to support the diary (I'm not convinced, yet), but simply to show that this very credible piece of evidence is being dismissed without much logical thought, and often, for the wrong reasons. ------------------------------- Many who argue for the 'diary' claim not to believe it either, wonder why ? ***************************** I am very interested to know what everybody thinks about what I have to say. But, please, if you are to tell me that I am delusional, and that the letters are not acceptable as evidence, then at least build a case for your side, as I have done for mine. Until then... Yours truly, --------------------------------- I'm not sure you'll get too many responses, over the past 18 months the issues you raise have been discussed many, many times over and well and truely buried. Regards, Jon. RED DEMON
Author: Caz Monday, 03 May 1999 - 04:06 am
Hi RED, Thanks for the offer mate, but sorry, not a chance. I'm well and truly spoken for. But I love it when you talk 'Goulston Street'. Love, Caz
Author: RED DEMON Monday, 03 May 1999 - 07:42 am
Hello, Jon, Caz, and All Others, Jon, you tore me up!!! But, if I'm to be dissected, I'm glad it is to be by somebody as well-informed as you, even if we disagree. I apologize that I am not fully aware of all the discussions that have occured prior to my joining this site. I hope I haven't offended too many others, as I have Jon, with my ignorance. But, allow me to digress... TOO MUCH ASSUMPTION!!! I believe those were your words. Right, Jon?..Hmmmm...Let's see... Wrong, 4 doctors were in attendance and they appear to have pulled the bed away from the wall and walked around the bed on both sides quit (sic) possibly brushing against the wall and creating smears out of splashes. ------------------------- Were you not aware of the fact that the photo was taken from outside the window before anyone entered the room? Hence, the bed is still against the wall. Oh, wait a minute... Didn't I mention that in my bulletin? Why, yes I did! And, Lo and Behold, you even quoted me in your rebuttle...tsk,tsk,tsk, Jon. Weren't you paying attention? And, even if the doctors HAD examined Mary prior to the taking of the photo, wouldn't your suggestion of the 'letters' having been caused by splashes of blood from the doctors' feet be considered an act of (could it be?) assumption? I don't know... let me consult Webster's... ASSUME: 1. Suppose without knowing. 2. Take upon oneself. Yep! That's what you did alright. Let's face it, you're the pot, I'm the kettle, and we're both as black as the darkest night. But Wait! There's more... ********************** Everyone noticed blood smears... Only one person suggested that they form a letter 'M', and once suggested, that's what people see...'auto-suggestion'. ------------------------ (I hope you don't mind, Jon, but I touched up your puncuation just a bit.) By suggesting that I and all people who believe the 'FM' to be authentic only believe so because it was suggested by one man, you are ASSUMING that we are ALL victims of auto-suggestion. Quite a weighty claim. Now, what was that you said about 'TOO MUCH ASSUMPTION', Jon? ********************* There was plenty of open wall to scrawl letters on, if that were the point. Certainly, not a hard to reach portion half-obscured by the bed. ------------------------- It just so happens that that portion was in good reach of anyone who happened to be on the bed with the corpse. Half-obscured by the bed? Well, it wasn't obscured from the cameraman outside her window...And I enjoyed your use of the word 'certainly'. I'm glad to know that you're so certain that because the letters appeared on THAT portion of the wall, they couldn't have come from her killer (refer back to definition of ASSUME). ******************** But what the evidence shows is blood smears, nothing more. it is your (and others) presumption that these are letters and not 'obviously' random smearing (sic) of blood. That is the creating something out of nothing. ---------------------------- "Obviously random smearings of blood". Obvious? Not to me, and many others (refer back to definition of ASSUME). Were the 'Helter Skelter' and 'Death to Pigs' on Sharon Tate's walls 'obvious' smearings of blood, too? Manson's lawyers should have had you on their side. ************************* This is not why the 'diary' is a hoax. You have not read or understood the issues that show it to be the fraud that it is. ------------------------------ I re-read my bulletin and didn't find anywhere that I suggested the 'FM' was the sole debunking factor used to discredit the diary. And yes, I have read most or all of the arguments pro and con of the diary, and have understood all that my pee-sized brain would allow. You only ASSUMED I hadn't... Also, last I checked, the 'diary' hadn't been proven a hoax beyond a doubt. Quite the opposite, actually, according to Colin Wilson and Melvyn Fairclough (THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF JACK THE RIPPER). Are you holding back on us, Jon? Do you know something they don't?..Hmmmm. ************************ I had said that the 'FM' letters were being dismissed, too often, for the wrong reasons. I want to thank Jon for helping me prove my point. It must be pointed out that MANY serial killers have used utencils or the victim's blood to scrawl messages, often unintelligible, on or near the crime scene. Isn't it possible that Jack the Ripper may not be so different than them? I appreciate Jon's sincere reply. It shows that some people are giving at least SOME thought to the matter before deciding what to believe. I, myself, try to keep an open mind and judge new facts and theories fairly as they come to me. Can you say the same, Jon? And as far as the 'assuming' goes, I think your suggestion of the invisible doctors entering the closed crime scene and splashing the letters on the wall with their feet make for a far less credible theory than it having been written by Mary Kelly's killer...Take it from this kettle, Jon, your pot is burning ever blacker... I shall return... Until then... Yours truly, RED DEMON
Author: Bob_c Monday, 03 May 1999 - 08:33 am
Hi Red Demon, Although I won't comment to your post maybe as deftly as Jon has, the 'FM' story does seem to be pretty improbable. I would love to have been able to take a look at the original plates (which I suppose are long since gone) and even if they existed today, the images would have faded to nothing over the years. The 'McDonalds' M, as it appears, has the lower part hidden by the bed. We therefore don't know what the mark looks like deeper. The room was searched by a large number of people looking for clues. Were such a mark so obviously writing, it would have been noticed. Indeed, the police stood under such pressure at the time, they'd have jumped for joy to have found such a clue. The Victorian police were, to our sight, old-fashioned and a bit primitive. Compared to our modern day practices, they perhaps were, but they weren't fools. If a suspicious mark had been there, they would have seen and inspected it. That no mention of such marks are recorded anywhere, we can safely accept that either the marks had such an obvious source that no inspection were necessary or, having inspected the marks, they could be proved to be of no consequence to the case. The only other alternative is that no marks visible to the naked eye existed, thus also disproving the handwriting theory. The Graffiti may be rather more worth while consideration. Although it has not survived, it may well have been Jack's work. I do wonder the real reasons why Warren let all be rubbed out and not just the first line, until photographed. That was, I believe, a blunder. Not having lived in the times, however, it is difficult for me to understand just how explosive the situation may have been then, maybe Warren was right. It would have been at least interesting to have compared the graffiti with, say, the Lusk letter. Knowing that Jack himself almost certainly threw the piece of apron directly under the graffiti, that the double event took place in each case in the near of Jewish clubs, that Schwartz testified to the 'Lipsky' taunt and the obvious anti-Jewish graffiti itself which would not have survived for long in the doorway of a block inhabited mainly by Jews, I tend now to begin to believe there may be something in the anti-Jewish theory and to consider that Jack may have written the graffiti. If so, then we can narrow Jack down a little. We can assume that he was not Jewish and that he either wanted to put the blame on them or, what I believe more possible, just wanted to **** on their doorstep, so to speak. We can also assume that he was literate to some degree, the spelling 'Juewes' not being completely foreign to the cockney and the rest being correctly spelt. That he would have had to write it in the dark adds to the skills I would attribute to him. Best regards Bob
Author: Jon Smyth Monday, 03 May 1999 - 09:47 am
By RED DEMON on Monday, May 3, 1999 - 07:42 am: Were you not aware of the fact that the photo was taken from outside the window before anyone entered the room? ------------------------------ Wrong,......it was reported in the press that the City police were able to take photo's through the window from outside. No-one know's what became of those photo's, the second smaller photo was obviously taken from within the room (surly you agree to that) and the proximity and angle of the 'body on the bed' photo would make it too close to be a outside shot from thru a window. The Illustarated Police News for Nov 17th 1888 shows an illustration of the tripod set-up INSIDE Kelly's room. Looks to me as though the scene or photographic plate was in reverse when the sketch for the article was done. But Photo's were taken from inside and outside if we believe all the reports, so which group does the 'body on the bed' photo belong to? you decide. ********************************** By suggesting that I and all people who believe the 'FM' to be authentic only believe so because it was suggested by one man, you are ASSUMING that we are ALL victims of auto-suggestion. Quite a weighty claim. Now, what was that you said about 'TOO MUCH ASSUMPTION', Jon? ----------------------------- Simon Wood suggested it in 1988 and he was the first, and since then thats what some prefer to see. Thats autosuggestion. (just a minute ...you said you believe the F.M.??) I thought you said in your previous post that you wern't convinced by the 'diary' HHmmmmm) **************************** It just so happens that that portion was in good reach of anyone who happened to be on the bed with the corpse. Half-obscured by the bed? Well, it wasn't obscured from the cameraman outside her window... -------------------------------- Where is it stated that the shot was taken from outside, the photo was brought to light by Rumbelow and even he doesn't know the answer to that. **************************** And I enjoyed your use of the word 'certainly'. I'm glad to know that you're so certain that because the letters appeared on THAT portion of the wall, they couldn't have come from her killer (refer back to definition of ASSUME). --------------------------------- What I said was, it was far easier to scrawl letters across an open wall than to reach over and smear an 'M' so low down at the side of the matress near to the corner of the room, give me a break .......this is getting stupid. :-) ****************************** "Obviously random smearings of blood". Obvious? Not to me, and many others ------------------------------ Thats what I mean by autosuggestion... And you are not one of 'many' (although even one is too many) in fact we are hearing repeatadly from the U.K. that this 'diary' subject died long ago and is only kept 'on its last legs' here on this message board. Barrett confessed under oath, retracted it privatly after discussions with his 'advisers' and by all accounts the 'diabolical diary duo' has much to loose in the way of finances if they ever let it be legitimatly tested. ************************* Also, last I checked, the 'diary' hadn't been proven a hoax beyond a doubt. Quite the opposite, actually, according to Colin Wilson and Melvyn Fairclough (THE MAMMOTH BOOK OF JACK THE RIPPER). Are you holding back on us, Jon? Do you know something they don't?..Hmmmm. ----------------------------- Listen, Fairclough & Wilson are not by any stretch of the imagination a good choice to back up a theory. No-one needs to prove the 'diary' a hoax, it hasn't been established that its genuine yet, so why bother. The 'diary' is just a story until proven otherwise. You can't accuse a man (Maybrick) of serial murder without proof, and the 'diary' is not proof. If it is to be regarded as such, then it has to be proven as genuine. Surely you can see the logic in that.... - If you have read all you claim to have read then you'll know where the leading Ripper authors stand on this 'diary' issue...thats its a fraud. - You'll also know where the legal issues stand and what the Times had to do, and the outcome of that ........that its a fraud. - You'll also know what stands to be gained & lost thru this 'diary' fiasco by certain individuals who can't let it be legitimalty tested because......its a fraud. - And why Barret is 'presented' the way he is, because if it were to be seen that he had the abitily, then their cause is sunk and it will cost 'them' $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Is there any point in going on ????? ************************** I appreciate Jon's sincere reply. It shows that some people are giving at least SOME thought to the matter before deciding what to believe. I, myself, try to keep an open mind and judge new facts and theories fairly as they come to me. Can you say the same, Jon? ---------------------------- Absolutly, ...so why do you believe Simon Wood ? and all those failed pseudo tests ? And assume Barret is lying under oath ? And assume the police & jury & doctors were blind or otherwise distracted ? ******************************* Yours truly, RED DEMON Its been a laugh Red :-) (like your sense of humor) Read a little (alot) more and use sound judgement you'll see the light. :-) Have a good one, Jon