Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Hi all,

    I'd like to add a few comments on the GSG graffito and apron, if I may.

    There is evidence that one of the murderer's objectives was to get in possession of certain organs of the victims, starting with Annie Chapman, so he most probably made come preparations to conceal them on his person and safely carry them away from the crime scene. I do not think that the piece of apron was used to carry his trophies.

    There are three possible reasons why he cut the piece from Kate's apron:

    - He wanted to clean his hands
    - He used the piece to carry organs away
    - He used it as a bandage because he cut himself

    Given the severity of Kate's injuries, the murderer's hands must have been soaked in blood and feces, both substances were found on the apron. However, I think there would have been way more of those on it if the killer would have used it to clean his hands and possibly his knife. Wiping hands and a knife on a piece of cloth also leaves disctinct marks behind which the LVP police probably would have been able to detect as they did before in connection with another case.

    Same with the apron piece for carrying organs, this would not have led to distinct marks but a lot more blood on it than the "there was some blood on it" comment of one of the police officials suggests.

    Lastly, there is the possibility that the apron piece was used as a bandage, and I think this is what happened. The killer had provisionally cleaned his hands on some rags or Kate's clothing and then took a piece of the apron to bandage a self-inflicted slash wound. The murder was done in the dark and in a hurry so it's quite likely that he cut himself in the process. The piece of apron got discarded on the way back to his dwellings when the wound had stopped bleeding. Given the fact that there also was fecal matter found on the piece, the killer may have suffered from a severe sepsis or at least inflammation/delayed wound healing due to the depth of the cut, which would explain the comparatively long pause between Eddowes and Kelly. Of course the highly increased police presence in the East End also added to that.

    In this context, I do not believe that the killer wrote the GSG graffito, a hunted man who is injured does not stop to chalk a message and give the police a clue where they could find him.

    Gre,

    Boris
    ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Interesting, it's long been my view that Stride was in the gateway talking to parcel-man (the PC Smith suspect), Schwartz just didn't see who she was with, he only saw the BS-man accost Stride. I'm pretty sure she wasn't stood there by herself, she was with someone. BS-man, as he passed may have heard some illicit exchange and naturally, blaming the woman, called her a prostitute as he cast her down, like "we don't want your sort around here". We can't know for sure of course, but there had to be more to the incident than was reported by Schwartz, his attention was focused on the physical encounter. He just didn't notice a third person stood back in the shadows.
      I can buy that, Jon. Any scenario that doesn't involve a convoluted and unworkable cover-up plot by club members is fine by me.

      The threatening letter could still have been written by the ripper if he was not BS-man, but this third person standing back in the shadows. Reading Schwartz's account in the Star, the ripper could have sent the letter pretending to be the man seen throwing Stride down, to keep the police on the wrong track. That could have applied even if Stride was not a ripper victim. The letters were mostly written out of pure mischief, but if the ripper did write one or more, he'd have had every reason to confuse the investigation.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by bolo View Post
        Hi all,

        I'd like to add a few comments on the GSG graffito and apron, if I may.

        There is evidence that one of the murderer's objectives was to get in possession of certain organs of the victims, starting with Annie Chapman, so he most probably made come preparations to conceal them on his person and safely carry them away from the crime scene. I do not think that the piece of apron was used to carry his trophies.

        There are three possible reasons why he cut the piece from Kate's apron:

        - He wanted to clean his hands
        - He used the piece to carry organs away
        - He used it as a bandage because he cut himself

        Given the severity of Kate's injuries, the murderer's hands must have been soaked in blood and feces, both substances were found on the apron. However, I think there would have been way more of those on it if the killer would have used it to clean his hands and possibly his knife. Wiping hands and a knife on a piece of cloth also leaves disctinct marks behind which the LVP police probably would have been able to detect as they did before in connection with another case.

        Same with the apron piece for carrying organs, this would not have led to distinct marks but a lot more blood on it than the "there was some blood on it" comment of one of the police officials suggests.

        Lastly, there is the possibility that the apron piece was used as a bandage, and I think this is what happened. The killer had provisionally cleaned his hands on some rags or Kate's clothing and then took a piece of the apron to bandage a self-inflicted slash wound. The murder was done in the dark and in a hurry so it's quite likely that he cut himself in the process. The piece of apron got discarded on the way back to his dwellings when the wound had stopped bleeding. Given the fact that there also was fecal matter found on the piece, the killer may have suffered from a severe sepsis or at least inflammation/delayed wound healing due to the depth of the cut, which would explain the comparatively long pause between Eddowes and Kelly. Of course the highly increased police presence in the East End also added to that.

        In this context, I do not believe that the killer wrote the GSG graffito, a hunted man who is injured does not stop to chalk a message and give the police a clue where they could find him.

        Gre,

        Boris
        hi Bolo
        possibly. but my issue with he cut his hand and used the apron as a bandage theory has a few problems. Big problems. First of all if he cut his hand bad enough to have to use an apron piece as a bandage-I doubt the bleeding would have stopped so soon that he didnt need it any more in the short amount of time he would have got to goulston street from mitre square. secondly, by the time of Eddowes, the ripper had become pretty adept at incapacitating his victims before he used the knife. Most times when a knife killer injures himself while murdering his victims its because there is violent struggle while he is in the process of stabbing the victim and in the chaos accidently cuts himself-and there is usually indications of this in the form of defensive wounds on the victim. There was no defensive wounds on Eddowes. Thirdly, if he got sepsis, he would probably be out of commision for a lot longer. Fourth, all indications are he intentionally used the apron to sign the graffiti-which points to he specifically cut the apron for that purpose.

        so I find it highly unlikely he used the apron to bandage himself-its possible but I doubt it.
        Last edited by Abby Normal; 05-11-2022, 01:05 PM.
        "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


        • Originally posted by bolo View Post
          Hi all,

          I'd like to add a few comments on the GSG graffito and apron, if I may.

          There is evidence that one of the murderer's objectives was to get in possession of certain organs of the victims, starting with Annie Chapman, so he most probably made come preparations to conceal them on his person and safely carry them away from the crime scene. I do not think that the piece of apron was used to carry his trophies.

          There are three possible reasons why he cut the piece from Kate's apron:

          - He wanted to clean his hands
          - He used the piece to carry organs away
          - He used it as a bandage because he cut himself

          Given the severity of Kate's injuries, the murderer's hands must have been soaked in blood and feces, both substances were found on the apron. However, I think there would have been way more of those on it if the killer would have used it to clean his hands and possibly his knife. Wiping hands and a knife on a piece of cloth also leaves disctinct marks behind which the LVP police probably would have been able to detect as they did before in connection with another case.

          Same with the apron piece for carrying organs, this would not have led to distinct marks but a lot more blood on it than the "there was some blood on it" comment of one of the police officials suggests.

          Lastly, there is the possibility that the apron piece was used as a bandage, and I think this is what happened. The killer had provisionally cleaned his hands on some rags or Kate's clothing and then took a piece of the apron to bandage a self-inflicted slash wound. The murder was done in the dark and in a hurry so it's quite likely that he cut himself in the process. The piece of apron got discarded on the way back to his dwellings when the wound had stopped bleeding. Given the fact that there also was fecal matter found on the piece, the killer may have suffered from a severe sepsis or at least inflammation/delayed wound healing due to the depth of the cut, which would explain the comparatively long pause between Eddowes and Kelly. Of course the highly increased police presence in the East End also added to that.

          In this context, I do not believe that the killer wrote the GSG graffito, a hunted man who is injured does not stop to chalk a message and give the police a clue where they could find him.

          Gre,

          Boris
          I think it's more likely that after Schwartz-Stride the ripper planned to leave an anti-Jewish message and took the apron for that purpose. If he'd cut himself with a sharp knife it would have been soaked in blood. There is an article in the press reports stating that anyone seen wearing so much as a wide awake hat was being stopped and questioned after Stride - i think there is your reason for the October gap - the place was swarming with police. If you believe the Openshaw letter there is also a reference there to the ripper about to kill a woman but couldn't because of them 'cusses of coppers'. Also makes me think Kelly was no chance occurrence and he'd got to know her a bit and planned it in some way to be off the street for his next outing.

          Comment


          • I think Abby's scenario is probably not far from the truth. It could be that the killer was still miffed after his botched attempt at Berner Street, and his possible encounter with Schwartz, that he decided to vent his frustration at the Jews or try to implicate them. After all, it does appear as if the killer was almost overcompensating with Eddowes' mutilations. He could've still been brewin' even after his bloodlust was sated. As for why the killer never did anything like this before or after the event, perhaps he wasn't that much of a virulent anti-Semite. Just an average Londoner who was disgruntled by the influx of Jewish immigration. And then when one foiled his plans that night he decided to give a little payback. Then again, we're trying to rationalise the thought process of a man who got his rocks off collecting women's innards
            Last edited by Harry D; 05-12-2022, 08:50 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by bolo View Post
              Hi all,

              There are three possible reasons why he cut the piece from Kate's apron:

              - He wanted to clean his hands
              - He used the piece to carry organs away
              - He used it as a bandage because he cut himself

              Gre,

              Boris
              Hi Boris,

              Whilst I’m not promoting any particular version of what happened I’d suggest that we have to add one more potential reason however unlikely it might sound.

              That he took it to leave as a pointer to authenticate the graffito as being written by him.

              edit….apologies to Wulf who I’ve just noticed has mentioned this too in his last post.
              Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 05-12-2022, 09:35 AM.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                I think Abby's scenario is probably not far from the truth. It could be that the killer was still miffed after his botched attempt at Berner Street, and his possible encounter with Schwartz, that he decided to vent his frustration at the Jews or try to implicate them. After all, it does appear as if the killer was almost overcompensating with Eddowes' mutilations. He could've still been brewin' even after his bloodlust was sated. As for why the killer never did anything like this before or after the event, perhaps he wasn't that much of a virulent anti-Semite. Just an average Londoner who was disgruntled by the influx of Jewish immigration. And then when one foiled his plans that night he decided to give a little payback. Then again, we're trying to rationalise the thought process of a man who got his rocks off collecting women's innards
                And despite the fact that he had the opportunity to as you say "collect innards" out of all of the suggested victims from Emma Smith to Frances Coles he only managed to take "innards" from two victims. Now in my book that is not a course of conduct to suggest taking innards was part of his MO.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  And despite the fact that he had the opportunity to as you say "collect innards" out of all of the suggested victims from Emma Smith to Frances Coles he only managed to take "innards" from two victims. Now in my book that is not a course of conduct to suggest taking innards was part of his MO.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Were Emma Smith and Frances Coles established as Ripper victims, Trevor? Should we wish to factor in Coles, there is still the possibility of interruption. PC Thompson was not far behind the killer according to legend.

                  We have a cluster of murders where the killer targeted the abdominal area, escalating to organ removal in THREE consecutive cases. That's enough for me to surmise that the organ removal was a form of trophy-collecting. I actually think the fact the killer didn't deposit part of Eddowes' uterus or kidney to sign off the GSG, instead of the apron piece, would emphasize the importance to him for whatever reason.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    Were Emma Smith and Frances Coles established as Ripper victims, Trevor? Should we wish to factor in Coles, there is still the possibility of interruption. PC Thompson was not far behind the killer according to legend.

                    We have a cluster of murders where the killer targeted the abdominal area, escalating to organ removal in THREE consecutive cases. That's enough for me to surmise that the organ removal was a form of trophy-collecting. I actually think the fact the killer didn't deposit part of Eddowes' uterus or kidney to sign off the GSG, instead of the apron piece, would emphasize the importance to him for whatever reason.
                    We have a series of murders where the victims all had their throats cut and their abdomens mutilated those are the only common denominators to link them.

                    Interruption maybe in one case, but not all those who never had any attempts made on their bodies to remove organs.

                    As to trophy taking why would he take a uterus from Eddowes when he allegedly took one from Chapman doesnt make sense?

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      We have a series of murders where the victims all had their throats cut and their abdomens mutilated those are the only common denominators to link them.

                      Interruption maybe in one case, but not all those who never had any attempts made on their bodies to remove organs.

                      As to trophy taking why would he take a uterus from Eddowes when he allegedly took one from Chapman doesnt make sense?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Since when have serial killers acted logically?
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Since when have serial killers acted logically?
                        Bingo!

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          We have a series of murders where the victims all had their throats cut and their abdomens mutilated those are the only common denominators to link them.

                          Interruption maybe in one case, but not all those who never had any attempts made on their bodies to remove organs.

                          As to trophy taking why would he take a uterus from Eddowes when he allegedly took one from Chapman doesnt make sense?

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          So is Mary Kelly in this series
                          '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


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            I think Abby's scenario is probably not far from the truth. It could be that the killer was still miffed after his botched attempt at Berner Street, and his possible encounter with Schwartz, that he decided to vent his frustration at the Jews or try to implicate them. After all, it does appear as if the killer was almost overcompensating with Eddowes' mutilations. He could've still been brewin' even after his bloodlust was sated. As for why the killer never did anything like this before or after the event, perhaps he wasn't that much of a virulent anti-Semite. Just an average Londoner who was disgruntled by the influx of Jewish immigration. And then when one foiled his plans that night he decided to give a little payback. Then again, we're trying to rationalise the thought process of a man who got his rocks off collecting women's innards
                            bingo-were on the same page
                            "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


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Hi Boris,

                              Whilst I’m not promoting any particular version of what happened I’d suggest that we have to add one more potential reason however unlikely it might sound.

                              That he took it to leave as a pointer to authenticate the graffito as being written by him.

                              edit….apologies to Wulf who I’ve just noticed has mentioned this too in his last post.
                              hey! I said it first. well at least on this thread. : )
                              "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


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                hey! I said it first. well at least on this thread. : )
                                Sorry Abby, I’d demoted myself to second person to have mentioned it but I’m now demoting myself to third.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X