Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

    In the case of Colin Ireland, who killed five gay men in 1993, he became frustrated with the police when they failed to link his victims, putting their deaths down to domestic abuse or sex games gone wrong.

    I could see JtR setting out that night to do another 'ripping' murder [even more so if he had just promised as much in a letter to Central News, using 'the trade name'] and not wanting anyone else to get the recognition for Stride's murder because she wasn't ripped. His ego made him blame this on the Jews, while taking the credit for both murders and leaving his calling card in the form of the apron piece.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Why did you pinch that post of mine, FISHY, without explanation, and use it as your own response to Trevor's post, which was not my intention for it?

    I swear this place gets weirder by the day.

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


    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by caz View Post

      Why did you pinch that post of mine, FISHY, without explanation, and use it as your own response to Trevor's post, which was not my intention for it?

      I swear this place gets weirder by the day.
      Sorry Caz was a mistake on my part , please accept my Apologies , wasnt ment to sent that post of yours but the time to ''edit'' had elasped to remove it . again sorry.
      '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


      • #78
        No worries FISHY. We all make mistakes.

        Love,

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


        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by erobitha View Post

          Having something from the crime scene would help make that graffiti seems so less meaningless.

          But the graffiti was meaningless other than to who wrote it

          The location of the clue was not meaningless either - it was written to be seen and connected to the apron.

          Under an archway on a back street- I dont think so

          The writer knew this was on the police beat, most likely from having passed one previously at the same spot.

          That doesnt stand up Pc Watkins who found the apron was his first night on that beat

          He just needed people to connect it to him. I doubt he expected people to debate it so heavily as they have done so in history. It's pretty obvious.

          Then why not put the apron piece in an envelope and send it to the police the the police would know it came from the killer insyaed of dumping it where it may never have been found

          The bit he made deliberately obtuse was the message, but I have always read it differently to most. He is openly claiming credit - most likely for frustration at the police keep on blaming Jews and that would not be any less so after Stride's murder.

          Well you are seeing something no one else is

          In the From Hell and Openshaw Letters the writer is better educated than the wording would suggest on the face of it.

          There is no evidence to show that any of the letters were written by the killer

          I have written more about it here.

          This is the same behaviour.
          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            This is a notion that I've thought about too. I think it comes down to what the intention of the final product was. Conceivably, the idea of the writing + apron was to lead investigators into believing that an interrupted mutilation had occurred in Dutfield's Yard, when actually there had been no interruption. The theory being that this was an attempt to obscure the plan behind the premeditated double event. That plan being; murder but not mutilate a woman close to home - close enough that the ensuing commotion could be heard from inside the Ripper's residence - then inform the household that he is "going outside to investigate". Returns inside about three-quarters of an hour later.

            There is one bit of evidence that the Coram knife was left behind in the yard, but otherwise there is no evidence for interruption. Perhaps that knife was part of the plan - in the sense that it may be supposed that he dropped it in his haste to leave - along with the writing and apron piece. Other than the lack of evidence for interruption, the apparent skill of Stride's killer - both with the knife and in managing to keep her quiet - suggests that this was a Ripper killing. It does not look at all like something that the man described by Schwartz would seem to be capable of.

            By the way, have you read this report?
            I should say that I'm not entirely convinced Elizabeth Stride was attacked by the same individual who murdered Catherine Eddowes so I don't necessarily go with the idea the graffiti is referencing anything to do with what happened at Dutfield's Yard.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Curious Cat View Post

              I should say that I'm not entirely convinced Elizabeth Stride was attacked by the same individual who murdered Catherine Eddowes so I don't necessarily go with the idea the graffiti is referencing anything to do with what happened at Dutfield's Yard.
              I see. So what purpose do you suppose it was meant to serve?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                I see. So what purpose do you suppose it was meant to serve?
                There is no evidence to show that the graffiti was written by the killer, or that it had any connection to any of the murders to suggest otherwise is pure conjecture by researchesrs.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  There is no evidence to show that the graffiti was written by the killer, or that it had any connection to any of the murders to suggest otherwise is pure conjecture by researchesrs.
                  I'm not sure when marches following this route first occurred, but my hunch is that the killer chose the double event locations with some sort of purpose in mind. I also suspect the graffiti was related to that purpose.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    I see. So what purpose do you suppose it was meant to serve?
                    I don't know. No-one does. It's all ifs and guesswork.

                    If the killer of Catherine Eddowes wrote the graffiti then it makes more sense that it was written with the intention of being in conjunction with a murder rather than an afterthought. Write it, kill and then take a token of the victim back to the same spot. Written in chalk, it would be easy to return and wipe away the message if a murder didn't materialise. One did so, for them, job done. If the graffiti just happened to be written earlier that day/evening by someone else then the dropping of the apron piece at that spot is still significant on its own. The graffiti just remains an open question.

                    What I will say is that if the apron piece was placed there intentionally then that makes the graffiti more likely to have been written by Catherine Eddowes's killer. If the apron piece was dropped there accidently then the graffiti becomes less likely to have been written by the killer of Elizabeth Stride.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                      I'm not sure when marches following this route first occurred, but my hunch is that the killer chose the double event locations with some sort of purpose in mind. I also suspect the graffiti was related to that purpose.
                      Framing Charles - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums (post #137) This march started at Bucks Row, by the way.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I don't believe that the GSG was written by the killer. For me it would be quite incredible after two murders and an escape from quite close by and with a piece of Eddowes apron in his possession- that the killer would pause to scrawl a riddle. No it doesn't make sense. Not to mention did he just happen to carry chalk with him? Then considered sprawling something on a wall beside the apron.

                        For me the killer made his escape and discarded the apron in Goulston Street speedily hurrying on to his home. The graffitti is a red herring- the key piece of evidence we have is that the killer was heading back into the heart of Whitechapel. He was local. This is a reason I find Hutchinson claiming he though he saw AK man at the market on the Sunday after killing Mary Kelly intriguing. A local man at the local market spotted by a witness.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Self-injury seems the most plausible explanation for the killer taking the apron piece. The killer had never previously taken any of the victim's garments after removing their organs. He must have carried his trophies away in something else. The darkness in Mitre Square and time pressure could've easily resulted in the killer cutting himself by accident.

                          The mystery remains what the killer was doing for over an hour after fleeing the murder scene. Apparently, the apron rag wasn't there at 2:20AM when Halse and Long passed Goulston Street. Presumably the killer ducked into a nearby bolthole and reappeared to drop the rag/write the graffito, but why take the risk at a time when the police were blowing their whistles and beginning a manhunt?

                          Furthermore, the killer was not known to be a communicator. No messages were left before or after this, and authenticity of the Ripper letters is questionable.

                          You would think that after the GSG got scrubbed out, he might double-down on the next murder. He had all the time in the world to leave a message in 13 Miller's Court. If the killer had such a beef with the Jews that he risked going out to vent his anti-semitism or whatever, why did he never bother again?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
                            I don't believe that the GSG was written by the killer. For me it would be quite incredible after two murders and an escape from quite close by and with a piece of Eddowes apron in his possession- that the killer would pause to scrawl a riddle. No it doesn't make sense. Not to mention did he just happen to carry chalk with him? Then considered sprawling something on a wall beside the apron.

                            For me the killer made his escape and discarded the apron in Goulston Street speedily hurrying on to his home. The graffitti is a red herring- the key piece of evidence we have is that the killer was heading back into the heart of Whitechapel. He was local. This is a reason I find Hutchinson claiming he though he saw AK man at the market on the Sunday after killing Mary Kelly intriguing. A local man at the local market spotted by a witness.
                            But why would the killer wait so long before discarding it that doesnt make sense the longer he is in possession of incrimnating evidence the longer he faces detection!!!!!!!

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                              Self-injury seems the most plausible explanation for the killer taking the apron piece. The killer had never previously taken any of the victim's garments after removing their organs. He must have carried his trophies away in something else. The darkness in Mitre Square and time pressure could've easily resulted in the killer cutting himself by accident.

                              The mystery remains what the killer was doing for over an hour after fleeing the murder scene. Apparently, the apron rag wasn't there at 2:20AM when Halse and Long passed Goulston Street. Presumably the killer ducked into a nearby bolthole and reappeared to drop the rag/write the graffito, but why take the risk at a time when the police were blowing their whistles and beginning a manhunt?

                              Furthermore, the killer was not known to be a communicator. No messages were left before or after this, and authenticity of the Ripper letters is questionable.

                              You would think that after the GSG got scrubbed out, he might double-down on the next murder. He had all the time in the world to leave a message in 13 Miller's Court. If the killer had such a beef with the Jews that he risked going out to vent his anti-semitism or whatever, why did he never bother again?
                              But for that to have happened he would have needed to do that before he attacked and mutilated the abdomen because he left the body with all the clothes up above her waist and therefore the apron would have been the furthest item of clothing away and the most difficult to be able to get hold of and cut a peice.

                              I am sorry i dont subsribe to this theory!!!!!!!!!!!

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                But for that to have happened he would have needed to do that before he attacked and mutilated the abdomen because he left the body with all the clothes up above her waist and therefore the apron would have been the furthest item of clothing away and the most difficult to be able to get hold of and cut a peice.

                                I am sorry i dont subsribe to this theory!!!!!!!!!!!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                What if he had cut himself when inflicting the facial mutilations before taking to the abdomen?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X