PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Michael W Richards]

I agree with the killer not wanting to be seen wiping his hands as he leaves the scene, but who said he need wait 1 minute to do that? He could have wiped them right then and there as the shite transfer occurs, pocketing the cloth he used to do so. Why must he leave that square with either shite and or blood visible on his person?

Cheers

[Wickerman]

I agree with the killer not wanting to be seen wiping his hands as he leaves the scene, but who said he need wait 1 minute to do that? He could have wiped them right then and there as the shite transfer occurs, pocketing the cloth he used to do so. Why must he leave that square with either shite and or blood visible on his person?

Cheers

The St. James Place exit was covered, he could have finished wiping his hands and dumped the rag there.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor



It's possible, as are many things...however my personal belief. (and it is only that), is currently that the balance of probabilities suggests he was, no matter how fleetingly or otherwise...

All the best

Dave

Personal beliefs and the evidential facts are sometimes worlds apart.

Has anyone ever been convicted on someones personal belief ?

[GUT]

Personal beliefs and the evidential facts are sometimes worlds apart.

Has anyone ever been convicted on someones personal belief ?

Yes Trevor

The Juries personal belief.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Trevor

The Juries personal belief.

Beyond a reasonable doubt ? But not in this case my friend and I was referring to actual evidence

You like many others have a personal belief which everyone is entitled to have. But beliefs are formed and based on what you and others have read since the first day you picked up a book on the ripper or saw the first documentary

If what you read or saw was not correct then you have a belief which becomes hard to erase, as the longer you continue to believe in that the more immersed in that false belief you become and the harder it is to accept anything new that goes against that belief.

[GUT]

G'day Trevor

You asked has anyone ever been convicted on personal belief and in all honesty I stand by the proposition that any person ever convicted is convicted on personal belief.

Just as you say a person's belief is based on what they see and hear and read so is a jury member's.

[Jon Guy]

Exactly HOW, pray tell me, IF the Goulston Street Graffiti was written by the killer, (as was supposed by the police at the time), can anyone from this intrepid bunch identify said graffiti and compare it, by REMEMBERING it please note.... with the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack handwriting.. that was posted all over the place in large posters promoting said killer's handwriting... and say it was by the same hand?....without a photograph? and without a solid memory (which by the above 7 variations shows was non-existant anyway)???... and what type of hand was the description of the GSG???? It certainly wasn't the same type of hand that wrote Dear Boss and Saucy Jack!!

You see... it is impossible to have one load of policemen saying that the killer was the writer of the Goulston St graffiti and another lot saying that the writer of Dear Boss and Saucy Jack was the killer. So all had to say that all three bits of scribble were from the same hand... but it isn't brain surgery....

...it is seriously impossible to say that!!..... given there was no definitive record of the GSG!.... and the types of writing, by description.... don't match at all!

Phil

Phil

Warren copied the GSG himself for the record, all 5 lines of neat schoolboy hand. Copy attached.

Also, in November 88 Swanson sent a report to the Home Office to answer their question of whether the GSG resembled the handwriting of the "Jack the Ripper" letters. Swanson told them that all the officers who saw the GSG confirmed it was not the same handwriting as the GSG.

Hope this helps.

[Michael W Richards]

Beyond a reasonable doubt ? But not in this case my friend and I was referring to actual evidence

You like many others have a personal belief which everyone is entitled to have. But beliefs are formed and based on what you and others have read since the first day you picked up a book on the ripper or saw the first documentary

If what you read or saw was not correct then you have a belief which becomes hard to erase, as the longer you continue to believe in that the more immersed in that false belief you become and the harder it is to accept anything new that goes against that belief.

One positive thing I can say for you Trevor is that you are not blind to the current state of affairs with respect to this study. Many cannot stand to have "belief" put under a microscope, or have it stressed tested, to determine what factual basis exists for the belief. In fact most of what is assumed to be fact in these cases is actually opinion or conjecture, beginning with the Canonical Group idea itself.

I know what its like to take a bit around here, thought you might like a positive observation for a change.

[Wickerman]

Personal beliefs and the evidential facts are sometimes worlds apart.

Has anyone ever been convicted on someones personal belief ?

Surely Trevor, you of all people are aware that juries for the most part arrive at their conclusions from circumstantial evidence. This is 12 impartial people expressing their personal belief as a consensus.

If you are talking about a single person's belief, then a Magistrate can pass sentence of a limited nature, based on his personal belief.

[GUT]

Surely Trevor, you of all people are aware that juries for the most part arrive at their conclusions from circumstantial evidence. This is 12 impartial people expressing their personal belief as a consensus.

If you are talking about a single person's belief, then a Magistrate can pass sentence of a limited nature, based on his personal belief.

And some countries, in certain circumstances, have Judge only trials.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Trevor

Personal beliefs and the evidential facts are sometimes worlds apart.

Very true, which is why I hastened to add that it was only my personal belief - but it is backed by the balance of probabilities...if you wish to support a contrary view, then that too is just a personal belief, but mayhap not so well backed by probability, unless it was a very literate dog who happened to have it's false teeth out that night...

Has anyone ever been convicted on someones personal belief?

As per the learned answers above...any case where the evidence was largely circumstantial has to have been decided on the personal beliefs of twelve jury members...

All the best

Dave

[Sam Flynn]

The St. James Place exit was covered, he could have finished wiping his hands and dumped the rag there.

Yards away from a freshly-discovered eviscerated corpse? Besides, it takes more than a mere quick scrub to get that stuff off your hands.

[Carol]

I'd like to know just why the Ripper didn't wipe his hands on the victim's clothes that she was wearing. Why did he go to the trouble of cutting off a piece of her apron in order just to wipe his hands? Seems a bit too 'fussy' to me.

I think it possible that the Ripper had nothing to do with that bit of cloth. If he had intended to take away body parts then I'm sure he would have had some sort of container on his person.

Carol

[Fisherman]

Yards away from a freshly-discovered eviscerated corpse? Besides, it takes more than a mere quick scrub to get that stuff off your hands.

Actually, scrubbing won´t do the trick. You need warm soapwater to rinse it off. So the best you can do is to quickly rub down your hands as you go along and then throw the rag away - yards away from a corpse that has not even been discovered yet.

Then you simply trot on, hands sticky with blood and smelling with feces. Rubbing away for another five minutes would not have gotten rid of it anyway - but it WOULD have taken you into the period of time when the corpse WAS discovered and when the rag subsequently could get you hanged.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I'd like to know just why the Ripper didn't wipe his hands on the victim's clothes that she was wearing. Why did he go to the trouble of cutting off a piece of her apron in order just to wipe his hands? Seems a bit too 'fussy' to me.

I think it possible that the Ripper had nothing to do with that bit of cloth. If he had intended to take away body parts then I'm sure he would have had some sort of container on his person.

Carol

What if he cut himself, Carol - would he have anticipated that too?

The best,
Fisherman