Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

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

  • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
    And I read that as a significant pointer that the killer smeared over the piece of apron with feculent matter and blood to show the police that:

    1. The apron was from the murder site
    2. He had written the messeage on the dado
    The two points are logically separate. The person who dropped the apron needn't have written the message.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • [QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;429564]
      Originally posted by Pierre View Post

      Pierre,

      Sorry but I can't resist saying this:

      What are your sources for the above assertions?
      Hi Herlock,

      many of the sources are from the case in 1888-89. If you start searching theses sources some sources will be important, since they will lead you to new sources. The new set of sources will function as a key to the murders in 1888-1889. The new sources are available in normal archives and many of them are digitized. They are produced in a few different countries and over decades.

      Cheers, Pierre

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
        many of the sources are from the case in 1888-89. If you start searching theses sources some sources will be important, since they will lead you to new sources. The new set of sources will function as a key to the murders in 1888-1889. The new sources are available in normal archives and many of them are digitized. They are produced in a few different countries and over decades.
        Say sources more.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          The two points are logically separate. The person who dropped the apron needn't have written the message.
          You use logic but the social world is not ruled by logic. The social world is ruled by social laws. Therefore logic is not relevant.

          So we have to use sociology instead. Sociology is about analyzing crime, classes, gender, ethnicity and so on and so forth.

          The reason why the killer needed to write the message was Stride. She was a terrible mistake.

          And the mistake of Stride led to the mistake of the writing, which they did not understand and which they did not publish in the papers until later.

          I agree with the word "needed". There was a need, not just a will, not just a motive, but a need, to write. Even though there was also a will and a motive.

          The night of the triple event (the police building) was planned to be the perfect event.

          But it became a fiasco.

          Cheers, Pierre

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
            You use logic but the social world is not ruled by logic. The social world is ruled by social laws. Therefore logic is not relevant.
            I'm not using logic to rule anything in or out; I'm saying that, just because the killer dropped the apron in the doorway, it does not follow that he also wrote the GSG. Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't, but there are no "laws" (logical, social or otherwise) that can give us a decisive answer.
            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Sam Flynn;429603]

              I'm not using logic to rule anything in or out;
              But you said:

              The two points are logically separate
              I'm saying that, just because the killer dropped the apron in the doorway, it does not follow that he also wrote the GSG.
              Indeed, it does not follow "just because".

              There has to be a set of evidence for it.

              Perhaps he did, perhaps he didn't, but there are no "laws" (logical, social or otherwise) that can give us a decisive answer.
              But the sources are produced by social individuals and not by logic. So when we want to understand these sources we can not use logic.

              Cheers, Pierre

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=Pierre;429604]
                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post



                But you said:




                Indeed, it does not follow "just because".

                There has to be a set of evidence for it.



                But the sources are produced by social individuals and not by logic. So when we want to understand these sources we can not use logic.

                Cheers, Pierre
                I'm sorry Pierre but I have to disagree that logic should not be employed in trying to come to a determination on the evidence. In this case there is insufficient information for solely using logic to arrive at a definitive answer, but it has its place in the process.

                Logic is employed to suggest the possibility that the graffito was written by the murderer, insomuch as the juxtaposition of the apron piece to the graffito would be a logical approach to authenticating the message as written by the murderer. However, logic prevents us from stating that the two are definitely connected. For that we need either further physical evidence (which is not currently available) or a body of evidence based reasoning that leads us to confidently state that the balance of probabilities is overwhelmingly in favour of one interpretation over all others. Indeed, I think that is what you were actually saying, logic alone is insufficient given the data we have and if we are ever to come to a definitive conclusion we need to employ other evidence, which may include reference to expected behaviours either of the time (eg prevalence of anti semetic graffiti) or of serial killers (as far as our current knowledge allows us to confidently extrapolate), as well as a range of other possible sources of evidence.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  ...

                  And why was the mortuary piece described as "A piece of old white apron" as against "An old white apron with piece missing?" or simply "An old white apron"?
                  It wasn't. The mortuary piece was identified as a handkerchief. It being a shapeless piece of rag.

                  You mention the mortuary piece as being a piece of rag, if it was the apron then it was a big piece of rag was it not?
                  It would be, yes.
                  Whether this rag had originally been a piece of vest, or apron, or shirt, is beside the point. The constable making the list decided it's 'use' could be nothing more than a handkerchief.
                  According to the Times reporter, this piece was removed from around the neck, along with the red ribbon.

                  If you recall, Stride's scarf was also described as a handkerchief in some accounts.
                  There is a reason for this. A large handkerchief was often used by women as a headcovering (that is what 'kerchief' originally meant).
                  Wearing a headcovering (aka; kerchief/neckerchief/scarf), around your neck, where it can be readily pulled up over the head was very normal in these times.

                  Given it's size, and the placement around her neck, plus the fact the piece had no other obvious use, it is quite reasonable the constable will describe it as he did.
                  The 'list of possessions' was presumably made before the GS piece was brought to the mortuary. At which time this GS piece was realised to have been removed from that 'handkechief' already listed, and subsequently added to the bottom of the list as: "1 Piece of old White Apron".

                  The doctors did not remove an apron, or portion of apron, from her body. What was fastened around her neck was assumed to be an accessory (a rag used as a headcovering?), just like the red ribbon, so was listed as such, not as a piece of clothing.
                  Last edited by Wickerman; 09-17-2017, 08:07 AM.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                    I think everything else, at the moment, is speculative. For instance, you could argue (in answer to the question you pose in your last post) that the murderer took the apron piece for a purpose (carry organs, clean up etc...) and only later decided to leave it to authenticate his message. Not a fact, but a reasonable potential explanation.
                    Given the apparent size of this GS piece, c/w the distance it was carried, it had to be sliced off for something more than to wipe the hands.
                    If the killer realised he needed something substantial to absorb the blood, then this may account for the size. Plus indirectly, that may also indicate the intended use.

                    Taken in isolation this will always be a debatable point but, knowing Chapman's scarf was missing from her body, and an organ was also removed from that crime scene, it adds more credibility to the intended use of that GS piece of apron as a 'carry-all'.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Given the apparent size of this GS piece, c/w the distance it was carried, it had to be sliced off for something more than to wipe the hands.
                      A kidney and a uterus take up next to no space at all, so he certainly wasn't going to need a large sheet of apron to carry them in. Besides, whatever the purpose, I don't think he was going to be too worried about precisely how much cloth he cut. He just needed a piece of cloth quick, and he had to get out of there.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                        Given the apparent size of this GS piece, c/w the distance it was carried, it had to be sliced off for something more than to wipe the hands.
                        If the killer realised he needed something substantial to absorb the blood, then this may account for the size. Plus indirectly, that may also indicate the intended use.

                        Taken in isolation this will always be a debatable point but, knowing Chapman's scarf was missing from her body, and an organ was also removed from that crime scene, it adds more credibility to the intended use of that GS piece of apron as a 'carry-all'.
                        I tend to agree, and with Sam Flynn when he says he just sliced or tore some cloth without too much thought - as long as it was big enough for his purpose.

                        I think it would be interesting to consider why he discarded it so quickly. If it was a carry all, then why risk going back on the police covered streets so close to the time of the murder (assuming he used it all the way home), admittedly some distance away. He could discard it at a safer time later, or burn it even. Unless he had a specific purpose in mind (authenticating the GSG for instance - pure speculation). It does add to the reasons we might consider the GSG was left by the murderer.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                          I tend to agree, and with Sam Flynn when he says he just sliced or tore some cloth without too much thought - as long as it was big enough for his purpose.

                          I think it would be interesting to consider why he discarded it so quickly. If it was a carry all, then why risk going back on the police covered streets so close to the time of the murder (assuming he used it all the way home), admittedly some distance away. He could discard it at a safer time later, or burn it even. Unless he had a specific purpose in mind (authenticating the GSG for instance - pure speculation). It does add to the reasons we might consider the GSG was left by the murderer.
                          That's a question that intrigues me. If the scenario is correct, and it appears plausible, why did he go back out to discard the apron. He had absolutely no need to. I know that many disagree but I think that this is the biggest pointer to the fact that Jack might have written the graffito.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            That's a question that intrigues me. If the scenario is correct, and it appears plausible, why did he go back out to discard the apron. He had absolutely no need to. I know that many disagree but I think that this is the biggest pointer to the fact that Jack might have written the graffito.
                            And it is consistent with the Lusk letter, where a half a kidney accompanied the letter for the purpose of authenticating the letter. I know it is not proven that it was authentic, but it is probably the letter that is most likely written by the murderer.

                            Comment


                            • Personally,reckon this is curious on a few levels.

                              "The same may be said of yet another series of comments on the kidney, these found in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

                              I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it. 9

                              As with Dr Openshaw's supposed findings, this is a stunning paragraph which would seem to put the provenance of the Lusk Kidney beyond question."
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                                Personally,reckon this is curious on a few levels.

                                "The same may be said of yet another series of comments on the kidney, these found in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

                                I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it. 9

                                As with Dr Openshaw's supposed findings, this is a stunning paragraph which would seem to put the provenance of the Lusk Kidney beyond question."
                                I am given to understand that there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the information provided in that paragraph. Potentially over stating conclusions, and particularly in light of more modern knowledge.

                                However, I remember an interview/documentary featuring Martin Fido during which, if memory serves me well, he alluded to a re-evaluation of the medical reports of the time which did suggest the kidney section came from Eddowes. Lost the reference unfortunately.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X