Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Goulstan Street Graffito.

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    "It was not there". Nothing vague about that answer to a direct question. Not, I might have missed it....like for example Eagle claims about a body lying there when he returns at 12:40, not could be sure, not I dont think so,...all of which could avoid him appearing seemingly inattentive.

    He was sure. If you arent, then thats another matter.
    I’m well aware, as is everyone, of your tendency toward over-confidence Michael but at least with you we realise the agenda behind it. Should we be 100% certain that Long was correct just because he sounded confident? Wouldn't life be simpler?

    Prosecutor:

    “Did you kill x?”

    Defendant:

    ”No I didn’t.”

    Prosecutor:

    ”He sounds absolutely certain Judge.”

    Judge:

    ”I agree. He has to be innocent. The Defendant is free to go.”

    ......

    Ill point out, because experience tells me that you’ll come up with your own version of reality, that I’m not saying that it was there and he missed it. It might not have been there. We have no way of being sure either way.

    But can we be certain that Long was diligent in checking? A man who was sacked 9 months later for being drunk on duty?

    Im certain that we should certainly abstain from too much certainty in this case. Of that I am quite........sure.



    Regards

    Herlock




    “...A yellow fog swirls past the window-pane
    As night descends upon this fabled street:
    A lonely hansom splashes through the rain,
    The ghostly gas lamps fail at twenty feet.
    Here, though the world explode, these two survive,
    And it is always eighteen ninety-five.”

    Comment


    • #92
      I would add that Long was diligent enough to check that same entrance when he found the piece of bloodstained cloth there, followed by the writing on the wall, and rightly took action. What made him do that if he had not bothered to check properly on his earlier round? He didn't know about the Mitre Square murder and wasn't actively looking for evidence from a crime scene.

      I challenged Trev some years ago on his 'sanitary protection' theory, at a meeting of the Whitechapel Society, during the question and answer session after his talk. A photo of us together taken at the event appeared in the following WS magazine. I pointed out that the twelve pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained, which Eddowes had in her possession, were as good as the evidence gets that she had no need to cut up her only apron, even assuming she was still having regular periods. She carried all her possessions around with her, and my instincts tell me the dozen rags would have been washed and used again - like nappies used to be - explaining the slight bloodstaining on some of them, and would have served her perfectly well, pinned as needed to the inside waistband of her petticoat, back and front. The menopause is not instant for most women, so she'd have wanted some protection for at least a few months after her last period. Her possessions also included a piece of flannel and six pieces of soap, suggesting she took as much care of her personal hygiene as her circumstances allowed.

      The idea that Eddowes would have used a portion of her apron to clean herself up and discarded it just where the occupants of the Model Dwellings had to tread, is not only implausible, but adds insult to injury concerning the poor woman's habits.

      But Trev wasn't listening then, and he ain't about to listen now.

      Love,

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


      Comment


      • #93
        Question?

        What would have happened to to the rag and indeed all of the victims possessions? Would they have just been thrown away at some some point?

        Tristan
        Best Regards,

        Tristan

        Comment


        • #94
          I think in many ways the GSG has been responsible for the development of a lot of the conspiracy theories relating to the case. I just don't buy it, that it was written by the murderer. Did he have some chalk in his pocket? Why was there no other graffiti or messages later on? Surely the murder of MJK would have been the perfect opportunity to write something else?

          Tristan
          Best Regards,

          Tristan

          Comment


          • #95
            Am I right in assuming there are not any examples of copy cat graffiti recorded, purporting to be messages from the killer? If no, seems strange considering the number of copy cat letters received after the dear boss letter. I wonder why this was?

            Tristan

            Best Regards,

            Tristan

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
              Am I right in assuming there are not any examples of copy cat graffiti recorded, purporting to be messages from the killer? If no, seems strange considering the number of copy cat letters received after the dear boss letter. I wonder why this was?

              Tristan
              https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...llwriting.html
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
                I think in many ways the GSG has been responsible for the development of a lot of the conspiracy theories relating to the case. I just don't buy it, that it was written by the murderer. Did he have some chalk in his pocket? Why was there no other graffiti or messages later on? Surely the murder of MJK would have been the perfect opportunity to write something else?

                Tristan
                Hi Tristan,

                If the message was a tongue-in-cheek comment relating to the recent Leather Apron kerfuffle, it could simply be that by November the killer had moved on, as had the papers, and it was no longer a burning issue. If the killer wrote it, he clearly did have some chalk in his pocket and intended to use it on that occasion. He may have considered the scene he left in Kelly's room was message enough for anyone.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by caz View Post

                  Hi Tristan,

                  If the message was a tongue-in-cheek comment relating to the recent Leather Apron kerfuffle, it could simply be that by November the killer had moved on, as had the papers, and it was no longer a burning issue. If the killer wrote it, he clearly did have some chalk in his pocket and intended to use it on that occasion. He may have considered the scene he left in Kelly's room was message enough for anyone.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  Very true. I suppose that we will just never know.

                  Tristan
                  Best Regards,

                  Tristan

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re 'Juwes'

                    Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                    I love overthinking things, Abby!
                    Recently I've been overthinking the misspelling of 'Jews'.
                    It occurred to me that the misspelling may have been due to a lack of mastery of English, so that the not fully inhibited first language of the writer is hinted at.
                    More specifically - the misspelling is due to a sort of 'neural interference' effect - the writer is not yet fluent in English, and ends up writing words that blend their English with their first language.
                    graffito: Juwes (DC Halse)
                    Polish: Żydzi
                    German: Juden (masculine)
                    Hungarian: Zsidók
                    Russian: Евреи
                    Russian: Yevrei (anglicised)
                    The German 'Juden' seems a good candidate for the hypothesis, especially given that this is the masculine version of 'Jews' in that language, because it would seem to fit nicely with the men of the graffito...

                    The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing
                    The Juden are not the men that will be blamed for nothing


                    The anglicised Russian version works fairly well against the Home Office spelling...

                    The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing
                    The Yevrei are the men that will not be blamed for nothing


                    An extra letter, but one can imagine the 'vr' being mistaken for a 'w' ... Jevres
                    No wonder the spelling couldn't be agreed on.

                    Note that the pronunciation of 'Jews' in each of these languages is with two syllables - as one might pronounce 'Juwes'.
                    Anna beats Andy...

                    https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...uwes#post27097

                    The next step is to realize who wrote the message; it was not JtR - it was The Lodger.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post
                      I think in many ways the GSG has been responsible for the development of a lot of the conspiracy theories relating to the case. I just don't buy it, that it was written by the murderer. Did he have some chalk in his pocket? Why was there no other graffiti or messages later on? Surely the murder of MJK would have been the perfect opportunity to write something else?

                      Tristan
                      Im always amazed how many people wish away evidence when it doesnt fit their own theories. Over an hour passed before the cloth was left there, it WASNT there at Longs earlier pass as he emphasized, so to imagine that both appeared at that time solves your problems. He went back out after dropping off his loot somewhere. He went to a specific place to place the cloth. He didnt drop it while fleeing, he placed it after more than an hour had passed. Easy to acquire chalk then. And your assumption that the same man that left the cloth also killed Mary is just speculating for the hell of it. No evidence links those 2 murders at all. Just supposition, myth, and people who like a spooky story. If the same man wrote the message, which seems very likely considering the deliberate placement of the cloth, then he killed Kate. Thats all he claimed...by virtue of that cloth. And he spoke negatively about Jews, who were the hosts of another murder that night. Which they attempted to evade blame for.

                      People make this evidence so hard to suss out...and it really isnt.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        Im always amazed how many people wish away evidence when it doesnt fit their own theories. Over an hour passed before the cloth was left there, it WASNT there at Longs earlier pass as he emphasized, so to imagine that both appeared at that time solves your problems. He went back out after dropping off his loot somewhere. He went to a specific place to place the cloth. He didnt drop it while fleeing, he placed it after more than an hour had passed. Easy to acquire chalk then. And your assumption that the same man that left the cloth also killed Mary is just speculating for the hell of it. No evidence links those 2 murders at all. Just supposition, myth, and people who like a spooky story. If the same man wrote the message, which seems very likely considering the deliberate placement of the cloth, then he killed Kate. Thats all he claimed...by virtue of that cloth. And he spoke negatively about Jews, who were the hosts of another murder that night. Which they attempted to evade blame for.

                        People make this evidence so hard to suss out...and it really isnt.
                        Can we be definitively sure that the cloth wasn't there on Long's first pass? I am not sure that we can.Personally I don't have any theories, I prefer to stick to the what is known, question where there is potential doubt and avoid filling in the gaps with supposition. Its amazing how one missing piece of evidence or information can open up a door to so many wild conspiracy theories. I totally get the urge to turn something so mundane and straightforward in to something fantastical; that surely there must have been more than meets the eye, that it can be that simple. But unfortunately nine times out of ten it is and in all likelihood there is a simple, mundane, straightforward explanation for these murders. A deeply psychologically damaged man killed five, possibly more socially and economically vulnerable women and due to the limitations of the police at the time, he was able to avoid apprehension.

                        Unfortunately as it is 132 years later and we don't have access to all the facts and key information, everything relating to the case is open to speculation and always will be.

                        I really respect your passion Michael and your knowledge on the topic is second to none but I am sorry but respectively, I cannot bring myself to buy into some of your theories that really push the bounds of probability.

                        Best Regards,

                        Tristan

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                          Im always amazed how many people wish away evidence when it doesnt fit their own theories. Over an hour passed before the cloth was left there, it WASNT there at Longs earlier pass as he emphasized, so to imagine that both appeared at that time solves your problems. He went back out after dropping off his loot somewhere. He went to a specific place to place the cloth. He didnt drop it while fleeing, he placed it after more than an hour had passed. Easy to acquire chalk then. And your assumption that the same man that left the cloth also killed Mary is just speculating for the hell of it. No evidence links those 2 murders at all. Just supposition, myth, and people who like a spooky story. If the same man wrote the message, which seems very likely considering the deliberate placement of the cloth, then he killed Kate. Thats all he claimed...by virtue of that cloth. And he spoke negatively about Jews, who were the hosts of another murder that night. Which they attempted to evade blame for.

                          People make this evidence so hard to suss out...and it really isnt.
                          I agree with the bold-ed statement.Too long to be carrying it around,he could have thrown it in any building crevice.But if he had a bolt hole/hiding place near it would be too close.My speculation is he did not want to escape to Spitalfields/Whitechapel immediately,hid for awhile,so he waited.I believe he was headed to the Spitalfields market as trade started at 3:00 AM in the summer-as testified to by the market lease holder,and by habit,perhaps,autumn too.
                          Last edited by Varqm; 02-12-2021, 03:24 PM.
                          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                          M. Pacana

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                            Can we be definitively sure that the cloth wasn't there on Long's first pass? I am not sure that we can.Personally I don't have any theories, I prefer to stick to the what is known, question where there is potential doubt and avoid filling in the gaps with supposition. Its amazing how one missing piece of evidence or information can open up a door to so many wild conspiracy theories. I totally get the urge to turn something so mundane and straightforward in to something fantastical; that surely there must have been more than meets the eye, that it can be that simple. But unfortunately nine times out of ten it is and in all likelihood there is a simple, mundane, straightforward explanation for these murders. A deeply psychologically damaged man killed five, possibly more socially and economically vulnerable women and due to the limitations of the police at the time, he was able to avoid apprehension.

                            Unfortunately as it is 132 years later and we don't have access to all the facts and key information, everything relating to the case is open to speculation and always will be.

                            I really respect your passion Michael and your knowledge on the topic is second to none but I am sorry but respectively, I cannot bring myself to buy into some of your theories that really push the bounds of probability.
                            from The Inquest,..

                            "Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
                            [Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
                            [Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
                            Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
                            [Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
                            [Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
                            [Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
                            [Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
                            [Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion.
                            [Coroner] Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling-house? - I went into the staircases.

                            He doesnt profess to be sure how Jews was spelled, nor does he protest when a suggestion is made that he may have placed the word "not" in a different order than the actual message..but "It was not there" is definitive. Its up to you really. Does he sound ambiguous?
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                              Can we be definitively sure that the cloth wasn't there on Long's first pass? I am not sure that we can.Personally I don't have any theories, I prefer to stick to the what is known, question where there is potential doubt and avoid filling in the gaps with supposition. Its amazing how one missing piece of evidence or information can open up a door to so many wild conspiracy theories. I totally get the urge to turn something so mundane and straightforward in to something fantastical; that surely there must have been more than meets the eye, that it can be that simple. But unfortunately nine times out of ten it is and in all likelihood there is a simple, mundane, straightforward explanation for these murders. A deeply psychologically damaged man killed five, possibly more socially and economically vulnerable women and due to the limitations of the police at the time, he was able to avoid apprehension.

                              Unfortunately as it is 132 years later and we don't have access to all the facts and key information, everything relating to the case is open to speculation and always will be.

                              I really respect your passion Michael and your knowledge on the topic is second to none but I am sorry but respectively, I cannot bring myself to buy into some of your theories that really push the bounds of probability.
                              I appreciate your kind words at the end of that quote Losmandris, and take no offense in the last line. The thing about solving any of these murders is that there must be a reason determined for the kill. In Jacks murders..whichever they actually are... the founding reason is his madness...its not a rational act. Its impulsive, its reactive. Can you say with certainty that the motivation or driver for all of the Canonical murders seems to be based on his, or their, uncontrolled madness? Do we have enough evidence to rule out conventional motives...greed, hatred, anger, profit, passion,...remembering with that last point that no less than 3 women seem somewhat estranged from their longtime beaus just before their murders? And 1 Canonical bears no injuries one would consider as Ripperesque.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X