Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Letter dated 14th October 1896.

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Fair question for sure, but I believe the apron was taken to either wipe his hands or carry some bits away. I think its also possible that a hanky might have already been used to wipe shite from his hands. There isn't much transfer on the clothes or the body though the colon section was substantial and likely sloppy to handle.
    Why not just wipe hands at the scene?
    Saves times cutting the apron in half, which would also be awkward to do, with a knife.
    The answer is very simple; he wants the apron halves to be matched together, later - after the half he takes is used to 'sign' the chalked message.
    Taking half the apron has no other necessary purpose.
    Can you really see Jack waiting until he is in the streets to wipe his hands properly?
    Also, any bag would do for the innards - such as a used paper bag, that had contained grapes from Matthew Packer's fruit and veg shop
    What if the woman doesn't conveniently have an apron? Surely Jack goes out prepared?

    There is over an hour before the apron section will be discovered, and I dont believe any real reason why the killer might not have had someplace in the east end to dump the kidney in spirits. Yes, I think the Lusk sample was from Kate.
    That's enough time to fry himself up a little treat!

    Its not inconceivable that by 2am the adjacent streets in that part of the East End were abuzz with the news. He could have heard of it pretty easily I feel.
    Jack heard it on the grapevine

    He goes into where he dumps the organ, cleans up a bit, takes a piece of chalk and the dirtied section of apron with him and heads out to one of the highest concentration of immigrant Jews in the area, the Model Homes off Goulston. I think he is a killer, at least of Kate, but also someone interested in propaganda. Likely Anti-Semitic. That political angle seems to me to take him out of a simple madman wandering the streets, to someone cognizant of the anti immigrant climate in England and in particular that part of it and wanting to take a side in the issue. To vocalize it. Spread the word, as it were.
    So why is the meaning of the message so unclear?
    Also, are you saying this man is definitely not Jewish?

    My point for that tangent is that I believe the placement of the apron and the writing combined suggest someone politically motivated, and anarchistic. To incite rebellion, chaos, retribution with the GSG was dangerous. Not just some local Jew hater...the message would have been much clearer if it was...Blame the Jews, for example.
    Well there were quite a few Anarchists at 40 Berner St, most of them Jewish though anti-orthodox, and you seem to suppose that Jack is antisemitic - so why not put 2 and 2 together, and realize that a club member is the obvious candidate?
    Answer; because you've already decided 'it was the bouncer what done it!'
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • #47
      The letter is simply just a composition using phrases (some incorrect) from the 1888 communications.
      ĎThere is nothing more deceptive than an obvious factí Sherlock Holmes

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Spider View Post
        The letter is simply just a composition using phrases (some incorrect) from the 1888 communications.
        lol sounds familiar
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #49
          Just curious, how many of the letters that were possibly referenced were common knowledge in 1896?
          dustymiller
          aka drstrange

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
            Just curious, how many of the letters that were possibly referenced were common knowledge in 1896?
            Hi Dr,
            If the letters(s) were written by the same hand, public knowledge wouldn't matter but it would certainly help prove sole authorship. As is, it appears to draw heavily on the 'Dear Boss' letter, which was widely distributed and made into handbills in an attempt to have the handwriting identified. Also, the GSG was given in detail at the inquest of Eddowes which was published in The Telegraph. So if not from the actual killer, anyone with an archive of material could compose it potentially. So to answer your question, I'd say more than enough.
            Them's the vagaries.

            Comment


            • #51
              I have laughed when they look so clever and talk about being on the right track.

              Lucky guess?
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                Why not just wipe hands at the scene?
                Saves times cutting the apron in half, which would also be awkward to do, with a knife.
                The answer is very simple; he wants the apron halves to be matched together, later - after the half he takes is used to 'sign' the chalked message.
                Taking half the apron has no other necessary purpose.
                Can you really see Jack waiting until he is in the streets to wipe his hands properly?
                Also, any bag would do for the innards - such as a used paper bag, that had contained grapes from Matthew Packer's fruit and veg shop
                What if the woman doesn't conveniently have an apron? Surely Jack goes out prepared?



                That's enough time to fry himself up a little treat!



                Jack heard it on the grapevine



                So why is the meaning of the message so unclear?
                Also, are you saying this man is definitely not Jewish?



                Well there were quite a few Anarchists at 40 Berner St, most of them Jewish though anti-orthodox, and you seem to suppose that Jack is antisemitic - so why not put 2 and 2 together, and realize that a club member is the obvious candidate?
                Answer; because you've already decided 'it was the bouncer what done it!'
                To the last point, I havent decided anything about these murders other than Polly and Annie were definitely killed by the same person. So lets not jump past that in terms of my "decision".
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                  Just curious, how many of the letters that were possibly referenced were common knowledge in 1896?
                  hi strange
                  well dear boss/saucy jack were well known but the GSG I beleive was not. certainly not as well known. so i find it interesting that the writer of the 1896 letter, some eight years later, would remember it and even be able to quote it.
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Regarding both Nichols and Chapman, Dr Phillips believed the murderer had displayed at least some anatomical knowledge.

                    Baxter: Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
                    Phillips: I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.
                    So at the point Dear Boss was penned, we could be dealing with a doctor.

                    Wasnt good enough to post this before I got all the red ink off my hands curse it. No luck yet. They say I'm a doctor now. ha ha

                    Lucky Jacky
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      6 October 1888
                      You though your-self very clever I reckon when you informed the police. But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you. Now I known you know me and I see your little game, and I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you. It no use your trying to get out of my way. Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up. Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

                      You see I know your address



                      Is this why Israel Schwartz didn't appear at the Stride inquest?
                      Had he and his wife gone into hiding, for fear of Israel losing his ears and being ripped up?
                      No, it can't have been the reason, because by Oct 6, the inquest was pretty much over.
                      So what was the reason for the non-appearance, and more generally, what became of Israel Schwartz?

                      It's funny how people build up theories based on the characters we only know about due to Schwartz, and yet, after the Star interview Oct 1, Schwartz himself seems to become a non-entity.
                      Where do you think he went?
                      Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        “The Jewes are people that are blamed for nothing”

                        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        Thatís a great question. I donít know.

                        But the fact that the writer didnít spell it with the u shows to me that he wasnít writing the letter with press reports as I think a hoaxer would more than likely do.
                        The letter wasn't written by a hoaxer.
                        The writer appears not to understand the meaning of the chalked message.
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X