Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GSG Conclusion

    Hi all,
    probably going over a lot of old ground here, but after giving a lot of thought about the GSG.
    Over the years I have wavered between all opinions, changing my mind back and forth, but now have come to a very strong conclusion that it WAS written by whoever dropped the rag and or killer of at least Eddowes.

    I have never understood the argument that it was unlikely written by the killer because of the size of the characters and how low down it was written and could easily have been missed, but surely that argument can be used for suggesting it was written by a disgruntled punter.
    The fact is, it was a statement / message meant to be read....whoever wrote it.

    I would argue it was possibly written low down to be close to eye level with the bloody rag, assuming of course it was to be found.

    The size of the message can be explained by the width of the wall it was written on, otherwise to make it really visible, the author would have to make each line with one or two words only, thus breaking up the rhythm.
    I would also think that if the chalk used was just a rough piece of street chalk, this would make it slightly more difficult, the larger it was written, as well as taking longer to complete.

    Just as a foot note , I was looking at some street tagging today ( not art graffiti ) and it was noticable that it was all written low on the whole length of the wall , the whole wall above waist height was left untouched.

    Regards.

  • #2
    Completely agree.

    A piece of apron here and a piece of kidney with the From Hell letter.


    The Baron

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi spy. Yes I'm with you on this one , who ever left that part of Eddowes apron with her blood on it most certainly was responsible for her murder imo . GSG Conclusion indeed.
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #4
        Like so many issues in this case we can all have a point of view. The bit I struggle with is how many are adamant that their opinion MUST be right.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • #5
          Do you know why that is in this case gut? , ill tell you, because in this case we have a murder confirmed at between 1.30 /1.45am , a blood stain piece of apron left below the bottom of a wall where the writing was found just over an hour or so later , where countless witnesses testified wasnt there before . Thats it in a nutshell .Theses are the facts

          What we dont have is a dog carrying the blood stain arpron to goulston st which he somehow picked up some few blocks away , writings that could have been there days befor, and a dozen or so other made up possibilities that have been posted regarding this point, where not a single shred of evidence exist to suggest anything other than the above is what actullally happen that night.

          Unfortunally, all to often this is the case when discussing Chapman , Nichols ,Kelly and Stride as well.

          Evidence of what we know about the case where one makes his?her opinion from, far out weigh an opinion based on no evidence at all. i.e the dog and the apron .


          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
            Do you know why that is in this case gut? , ill tell you, because in this case we have a murder confirmed at between 1.30 /1.45am , a blood stain piece of apron left below the bottom of a wall where the writing was found just over an hour or so later , where countless witnesses testified wasnt there before . Thats it in a nutshell .Theses are the facts

            What we dont have is a dog carrying the blood stain arpron to goulston st which he somehow picked up some few blocks away , writings that could have been there days befor, and a dozen or so other made up possibilities that have been posted regarding this point, where not a single shred of evidence exist to suggest anything other than the above is what actullally happen that night.

            Unfortunally, all to often this is the case when discussing Chapman , Nichols ,Kelly and Stride as well.

            Evidence of what we know about the case where one makes his?her opinion from, far out weigh an opinion based on no evidence at all. i.e the dog and the apron .

            I don’t rule out an animal taking it there, but think the killer dropping it is the most likely. The graffiti on the other hand I have a bit of trouble believing a fleeing killer stopping to write a little message that is at best ambiguous, but again don’t rule it out, killers do strange things.
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by GUT View Post

              I don’t rule out an animal taking it there, but think the killer dropping it is the most likely. The graffiti on the other hand I have a bit of trouble believing a fleeing killer stopping to write a little message that is at best ambiguous, but again don’t rule it out, killers do strange things.
              hi gut
              but was he actually in process of fleeing? given the hour time frame it wasnt there, i would suggest the killer might have fled immediately to his bolt hole after the murder, cleaned up, drop off goodies and knife grabbed some chalk and headed back out to place the apron and write the graffiti. and considering that the ripper was seen/interupted that night by a several jewish men, there is a connection between the events of that night and the contents of the GSG.
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • #8
                Or he was deflecting attention away from his bolt hole on the way to Mary Ann Kelly's residence.
                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by GUT View Post

                  I don’t rule out an animal taking it there, but think the killer dropping it is the most likely. The graffiti on the other hand I have a bit of trouble believing a fleeing killer stopping to write a little message that is at best ambiguous, but again don’t rule it out, killers do strange things.
                  Hi GUT!

                  That's pretty much how I see it.

                  There's a possibility that the bloody rag got there some other way, but for me the probability is indeed that it was dropped by the killer.

                  I'm about 60 / 40 in favour of the GSG being a mere coincidence and not written by the murderer though.

                  Killers do indeed do strange things, but most of them are pretty mundane characters who don't go in for these flamboyant touches.

                  If we were certain that some of the letters came from the killer, I would be more inclined to consider the GSG as a message from Jack, as it would indicate that he had a thing about communicating.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                    Hi GUT!

                    That's pretty much how I see it.

                    There's a possibility that the bloody rag got there some other way, but for me the probability is indeed that it was dropped by the killer.

                    I'm about 60 / 40 in favour of the GSG being a mere coincidence and not written by the murderer though.

                    Killers do indeed do strange things, but most of them are pretty mundane characters who don't go in for these flamboyant touches.

                    If we were certain that some of the letters came from the killer, I would be more inclined to consider the GSG as a message from Jack, as it would indicate that he had a thing about communicating.
                    and why would the killer bother to carry the incriminating blood stained apron piece which some say contained the organs all that way from mitre Sq before despositing it. when bewteen the square and Goulston Street there were countless opportunities for him to discard/dsipose of it, doesnt make any sense!!!!!!!!!!!

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      and why would the killer bother to carry the incriminating blood stained apron piece which some say contained the organs all that way from mitre Sq before despositing it. when bewteen the square and Goulston Street there were countless opportunities for him to discard/dsipose of it, doesnt make any sense!!!!!!!!!!!

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      One possible explanation would be that he got caught up in the heat of the moment and wanted the apron as a trophy. At some point, more rational thought takes over and he decides that having the apron on him is a really bad idea and discards it.

                      Just a thought.

                      c.d.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Or he absent-mindedly wiped the knife on it and stuck it in his pocket, later realising what he had done and discarding it.

                        Or he carried the organs away in it and then found a better receptacle, so discarded it.

                        Or he had cut himself during the attack so used it to staunch the blood flow, and discarded it once the blood had stopped flowing from the wound.

                        I'm sure there are plenty of other possible explanations.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                          One possible explanation would be that he got caught up in the heat of the moment and wanted the apron as a trophy. At some point, more rational thought takes over and he decides that having the apron on him is a really bad idea and discards it.

                          Just a thought.

                          c.d.
                          But why take so long before discarding it? it was blood stained and therefore had he been stopped and checked by the police he would have been in great difficulty so why would he wait so long before discarding it, or perhaps he didnt discard it, and it got there by another means?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            But why take so long before discarding it? it was blood stained and therefore had he been stopped and checked by the police he would have been in great difficulty so why would he wait so long before discarding it, or perhaps he didnt discard it, and it got there by another means?

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            The risk associated with carrying a piece of apron with him pales in comparison to how he obtained it in the first place. We're not dealing with someone who is unwilling to take some risks or perform actions that we all, hopefully, find to be incomprehensible as choices.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              The risk associated with carrying a piece of apron with him pales in comparison to how he obtained it in the first place. We're not dealing with someone who is unwilling to take some risks or perform actions that we all, hopefully, find to be incomprehensible as choices.

                              - Jeff
                              No you are wrong they are all equal if he gets stopped and searched then he becomes a prime suspect, If he is found in Mitre Square he becomes a prime suspect, if he is found leaning over the body he becomes a prime suspect unless of course he gives his name as Charles Cross !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                              And no one has todate come up with a plausible explantion as to why he would allegedly cut a piece of her apron and take it away with him and then having done so discards it 10 mins later because we know by the decsription of the apron piece he could not have taken the organs away in it. Cutting his hand and using it to stem the blood flow is again disproven by the condition of the apron piece.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X