Biggest mistake

[Patches]

Hello Don,


Other than that, however, I believe that the authorities did all that they could do. As you stated, serial killers, even now, are hard to catch. The Boston Strangler gave himself up and people are still uncertain if they got the right person.

My thoughts exactly. If the killer were a stark raving nut job, I'm sure it would have been easy to catch him. It seems he was very good at keeping his cool and laying well below the radar. I don't know what goes into a really good police investigation, but it seems from what I've read that it was at least competent. The police it seems were up against terrible odds.

I don't know if they did, but did the police look into the criminal records of London for crimes in the past year or so of the killings that may have had links? Assaults, arson, ect., in an attempt to maybe bring to light a name that had not been previously looked into.

[Hunter]

Hi Don,

Your supposition about the Kelly inquest may be the reason for its quick termination. We should never underestimate what political rivals are capable of doing to each other.

Although inquest are conducted primarily to determine cause of death, it was apparent after the Chapman murder that they were dealing with a unique set of circumstances, hence the use of more medicos in the autopsies. They wouldn't have called various witnesses, other than the doctors, if they weren't at least trying to put the evidence together in some kind of cohesion to help the investigation. They may have received more information that could have been helpful if the inquest had been allowed to continue- i.e.- Hutchinson. Whether MacDonald was concerned about his jury or trying to make a point with Baxter, the end result was less than satisfactory.

[Supe]

Hunter,

Fair enough, though I still doubt a photo of the writing would have helped much.

it seems illogical to terminate the hearing in one day.

Not, perhaps, illogical so much as unusual and then only if we base our judgment on the inquests of Nichols through Eddowes, which were conducted by Wynne Baxter. The Kelly inquest was conducted by Roderick MacDonald and there was a "history" between the two.

To begin with, they were bitter political rivals: Baxter was a Conservative and MacDonald a radical. Also, when they had run against each other for the office of coronor for East London and the Towerof London MacDonald charged that Baxter's victory was tainted by underhanded camapign tactics.

Moreover, Baxter had come in for considerable criticism for his flamboyant, over-reaching and overly long inquests into the deaths of the first four of the Canonic Five. Thus, while we are all disappointed in the short inquest into Kelly's death (and some see all sorts of conspiracies at work), MacDonald may simply have been making a point to his despised rival.

As it is, the purpose of an inquest was solely to determine cause of death, and that the Kelly inquest did do, however much we may lament its seeming brevity.

Don.

[Hunter]

Hunter,
An interesting list, but I'm not sure any were real mistakes.

...In the end, I think we must once more ask how much more successful the police are today--with the benefit of all the modern techniques--in tracking down serial killers. Not very, I would say.
Don.

Hello Don,

I threw those things out there because they are often discussed. Most of the questions I raised were probably not mistakes in my opinion either.

The City police, however, did want the graffito photographed as evidence. They probably thought it would help in comparing handwriting of possible suspects. Whether it was written by the killer or not, its a mute point once it is erased.

I believe the Kelly inquest wasn't properly handled as well. After all of the other murders had taken place, and they already knew what they were up against, it seems illogical to terminate the hearing in one day. Continuing the inquest may have avoided the whole complication with Hutchinson. The coroner's decision to halt proceedings seemed to stem from a mutinous jury without regard to the possibility of more information yet to come forth.

Other than that, however, I believe that the authorities did all that they could do. As you stated, serial killers, even now, are hard to catch. The Boston Strangler gave himself up and people are still uncertain if they got the right person.

[DVV]

Anyways, I wish they had a photograph of it.

There is.
We'll see it in 2013.

"The Juwes
are the men
that will not be blamed
for nothing.
Best regards,
James Evans."

[corey123]

Phil,

Nice to see you. Just saying some of the theories surrounding the GSG. Not that I accept any of them.

Yours truly

[doris]

Ah.

Thanks again Corey old boy.

doris

[Phil Carter]

Corey,

If what you say about "nothing" is true, it indicates does it not that a policeman wrote it... as she gave that name to a policeman?

best wishes

Phil

[doris]

Ah, it would appear that I have believed an exaggerating rozzer again, one that said he saw claret gurgling down a sink.

But even if one takes the sink away, the whole GSG scenario makes no sense. It was night time, blood would not be immediately apparent. If suspicion was aroused surely having a ruddy great knife and organs would be a problem?

Would throwing away CE's aprons really help?

And as I said, if the large peeler presence was the problem why take time scrawling the graffito?

doris

[corey123]

Doris,

It was in the door jamb in Wentworth Dwellings.

The GSG doesn't necissarily mean it was written by him. He could have left the apron there for numerous reasons.

The majority reason is that he didn't or did write it and left the apron there to push away suspicion.

It could have been symbolic of something important to the killer.

Also, when Kate Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and disorderily, she gave her name as 'Nothing', remember "The Juwes are the men that will/will not be blamed for nothing"

Also, Jack WOULDN'T discard the innards. They were his trophies. His prized possesions. I personally think he might have lived near Goulston street and felt comfortable enough to discard the apron in that doorway.

Anyways, I wish they had a photograph of it. Truly annoying that S.C. Warren neglected that very important aspect of the investigation.

[DVV]

Doris, there was no sink there.

Amitiés,
David

edit : you must be confused with Major Smith delusions....

[doris]

Whilst we are talking about the GSG I have some problems in my understanding of it.

If one assumes that the graffito and apron part are both left by JtR, why?

I can imagine that JtR is freaked by peelers being everywhere so decides to clean himself up and lose evidence (the apron), so he wipes his hands and ditches the apron fragment. But he retains Eddowes kidney and then takes time to write the graffito?

I also seem to recall that the graffito was left near a sink, so why not just wash his hands?

If he wanted to rid himself of physical evidence why not chuck the lot (apron and innards) away?
If he wanted to clean himself up because after the double event police are everywhere, why not just use the sink?
If he was scared because of the peelers being everywhere why take the time to write the graffito?

The whole GSG thing confuses me greatly.

Sorry if I have posted my bafflement in the wrong place.(again)

doris

[DVV]

Never tested arsenic.
Is that good ?

[corey123]

Doris,

I ment drugs like acid, LSD, and(in their day) opium and arsenic.

In the US(Where I am from) if you are caught under the influence of LSD you get charged with manslaughter, it has been like that since the Manson killings.

Yours truly

[DVV]

Hence Marriott's theory...