Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

[Pcdunn]

Thanks for the intro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulstonian_Lecture

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Osler

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_hemorrhagic_telangiectasia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gawen_Sutton

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=34&pos=4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astringent

When is your book due, Dave? Or are you still set on a documentary film? Maybe we can crowd-fund it.

[curious]

http://listverse.com/2015/10/31/10-s...haul-truckers/

curious

Hi,
I've noticed that my link to the graffiti-writing serial killer was bad.

His name was Keith Hunter Jesperson, and he communicated to correct a wrong assumption.

Interestingly, he turned himself in after murdering his long time girlfriend (shades of William Henry Bury?).

This (pus much, much more) from http://murderpedia.org/male.J/j/jesperson.htm

"On March 10, 1995, in Washougal, Washington, Jesperson strangled her. She was the only victim he had a link to, which ultimately led police to his trail.

Jesperson was arrested on March 30, 1995, for the murder of Winningham. He had been questioned by police a week before, but they had no grounds to arrest him after he refused to talk. In the days following, Jesperson decided that he was certainly going to be arrested, and after two failed suicide attempts, he turned himself in hoping it would result in leniency during his sentencing. While in custody, Jesperson began revealing details of his killings and making claims of many others, most of which he later recanted. Also, a few days before his arrest, he wrote a letter to his brother."

curious

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed you were, Herlock
Apologies, I misread your post.
I must remember not to touch my crack pipe until after I`ve been on the boards.

Hi Jon,

No problems. I've done it myself.

As for pipes, I'll stick to my trusty Meerschaum and some tobacco from the toe of the Persian slipper

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426655]

Hi John,

there are a lot of people being sure of many things in this case. I am just one of those.

The 1st October was the day after the apron and the writing. If the apron and the writing had been on that day, they would not have happened. And they weren´t. And historians do not ask questions about "if" and "would have". At least not good historians.

I have taken a vaccine against the "if:s" and the Wouldhaves when thinking about the sources and trying to understand the past. To me these concepts are like a discease.

And very often simplicity is sufficient. Actually, when it is not, that is when then "if:s" and the Wouldhaves come in.

So the 1st October was not the day of the apron and the writing.

And Stride was not mutilated.

And Eddowes was. But not because of the failure with Stride. The killer was not interrupted. If he had been (vaccine here!) there would not have (vaccine!) been the apron and the writing.

But there was. Simplicity is sufficient to understand the past.

Pierre

Hullo Pierre,

You cannot know that the graffiti was written by a serial killer. Stride wasn't mutilated and Eddowes was; that's the limit of our knowledge, I'm afraid.

Simplicity isn't sufficient to understand the past.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;426650]

How can you be sure Stride was murdered by the same killer who, say, murdered Eddowes? 1st October?

Hi John,

there are a lot of people being sure of many things in this case. I am just one of those.

The 1st October was the day after the apron and the writing. If the apron and the writing had been on that day, they would not have happened. And they weren´t. And historians do not ask questions about "if" and "would have". At least not good historians.

I have taken a vaccine against the "if:s" and the Wouldhaves when thinking about the sources and trying to understand the past. To me these concepts are like a discease.

And very often simplicity is sufficient. Actually, when it is not, that is when then "if:s" and the Wouldhaves come in.

So the 1st October was not the day of the apron and the writing.

And Stride was not mutilated.

And Eddowes was. But not because of the failure with Stride. The killer was not interrupted. If he had been (vaccine here!) there would not have (vaccine!) been the apron and the writing.

But there was. Simplicity is sufficient to understand the past.

Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426649]

He had the need to do it since Stride was a very serious failure.



It had to be found.



Because the next day was too late. It was the 1st October.

Cheers, Pierre

How can you be sure Stride was murdered by the same killer who, say, murdered Eddowes? 1st October?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;426627]

Why did he then go back out to 'discard' the apron when he had no need to?

He had the need to do it since Stride was a very serious failure.

Why right into the heart of the police investigation area?

It had to be found.

Why didn't he just go out the next day and discard it?

Because the next day was too late. It was the 1st October.

Cheers, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

That's what I was trying to do Jon.

Indeed you were, Herlock
Apologies, I misread your post.
I must remember not to touch my crack pipe until after I`ve been on the boards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock


You see, you`re actually making a good case for it being deliberately left by the killer under the GSG ;-)

That's what I was trying to do Jon.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Herlock

Why did he then go back out to 'discard' the apron when he had no need to? ?

You are assuming that he went "in"

Why right into the heart of the police investigation area?

He was moving away from both the Eddowes and Stride murder scenes

Why didn't he just burn it in his fire?

His fire ?
His own house?
His own room ?
A common lodging house kitchen ?
Would it even burn easily ?

Why didn't he just go out the next day and discard it?

You see, you`re actually making a good case for it being deliberately left by the killer under the GSG ;-)

[Harry D]

Did he really fail spectacularly?

Yes he did, Abby.

He didn't give us the slightest insight into his mind and his motivations. We can't even establish if he wrote it or not because there's nothing idiosyncratic about it or anything concrete that connects it to the murderer.

The graffiti could've said anything about the Jews and it would've sent the police into a tizzy. There was nothing exceptional about the killer's choice of language. It all came out in the wash anyway. There were no riots, no pogroms, nothing. It was just certain individuals overreacting due to the political sensitivities at the time.

[curious]

Hi Curious

If the GSG was written by the killer he may have been inspired by either the rumour running around Spitalfields, or this article in the Star, the evening edition of 8th Sept:
The people, and even the police, were so excited that all sorts of rumours were flying about. The woman living next door declared that this morning there was written on the door of No. 29, "This is the fourth, I will murder sixteen more and then give myself up." There was no basis for this story, however, there being no chalk mark on the door except "29."

Interesting, Jon.

The killer does seem to have "kept up" with things, and who can tell how his mind would have worked.

curious

[curious]

Why did he then go back out to 'discard' the apron when he had no need to? Why right into the heart of the police investigation area? Why didn't he just burn it in his fire? Why didn't he just go out the next day and discard it?

He was furious and insulted -- how dare the authorities not recognize HIS work! In addition to people becoming completely irrational in both cases. Plus, JtR was not "normal,' there's no reason to believe he would behave rationally if insulted. Read about Tommy Lynn Sells who killed when insulted.

[Jon Guy]

Consider a modern day serial killer who did not communicate with police until someone else took credit for his work. He started with graffiti. When that did not work, he sent letters to the media (not the police). I find this an interesting parallel and wonder . . .

Hi Curious

If the GSG was written by the killer he may have been inspired by either the rumour running around Spitalfields, or this article in the Star, the evening edition of 8th Sept:
The people, and even the police, were so excited that all sorts of rumours were flying about. The woman living next door declared that this morning there was written on the door of No. 29, "This is the fourth, I will murder sixteen more and then give myself up." There was no basis for this story, however, there being no chalk mark on the door except "29."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe the time lapse was his getting back to whereever he came from, cleaning himself up, hearing the man had struck twice when he knew he had not.

curious

Why did he then go back out to 'discard' the apron when he had no need to? Why right into the heart of the police investigation area? Why didn't he just burn it in his fire? Why didn't he just go out the next day and discard it?