Paul Begg in his 'the facts' book mentioned tongue in cheek that Anderson went on holiday or was on holiday during each of the murders. Warren was also on holiday for the first week of September.
Anderson's appointment occurred extremely close to the murder of Nichols within a matter of hours.
Warren quit within a matter of hours before Mary Kelly's murder.
It is easy to portray JtR as a lust murderer up to his own private business with modern 'forensic profiling'. However then we must conceed the above are just 'coincidences' that play no part in the murders.
Yet look at how simple some answers are to the JtR case if we say “The murders ended because Warren quit” or “The murders started because of Anderson's appointment”. Maybe we shouldn't say “started” there but use the word 'reaction'.
JtR reacted to Anderson's appointment with a murder.
JtR reacted to Warren's quiting by stopping.
Then we have the Goulston Street graffito with its political religious race agenda.
Do we not find an 'initator' for JtR's crimes in relation to political appointments or the actions of said appointments taking a 'holiday' prior to a murder?
I am not saying that JtR isn't a lust murderer. What I am saying though is that if JtR was reacting to politics (and even Shaw pointed out how JtR himself had taken political matters of poverty in hand with his notorious slayings) then this changes the complexion of the killings completely.
Warren himself realized the significance of the graffito in terms of its political/social statement and the problems it could cause if connected to JtR.
Do we just say coincidence? Or was JtR politically motivated?
I think its generally accepted that JtR didn't write any letters. Yet in the above context it seems odd that he wouldn't taunt them directly in writing.
Any comments?
Anderson's appointment occurred extremely close to the murder of Nichols within a matter of hours.
Warren quit within a matter of hours before Mary Kelly's murder.
It is easy to portray JtR as a lust murderer up to his own private business with modern 'forensic profiling'. However then we must conceed the above are just 'coincidences' that play no part in the murders.
Yet look at how simple some answers are to the JtR case if we say “The murders ended because Warren quit” or “The murders started because of Anderson's appointment”. Maybe we shouldn't say “started” there but use the word 'reaction'.
JtR reacted to Anderson's appointment with a murder.
JtR reacted to Warren's quiting by stopping.
Then we have the Goulston Street graffito with its political religious race agenda.
Do we not find an 'initator' for JtR's crimes in relation to political appointments or the actions of said appointments taking a 'holiday' prior to a murder?
I am not saying that JtR isn't a lust murderer. What I am saying though is that if JtR was reacting to politics (and even Shaw pointed out how JtR himself had taken political matters of poverty in hand with his notorious slayings) then this changes the complexion of the killings completely.
Warren himself realized the significance of the graffito in terms of its political/social statement and the problems it could cause if connected to JtR.
Do we just say coincidence? Or was JtR politically motivated?
I think its generally accepted that JtR didn't write any letters. Yet in the above context it seems odd that he wouldn't taunt them directly in writing.
Any comments?
Comment