The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Pierre]

Who votes in the debate, a handful of naysayers from here, against the general public who have no hidden agendas.


Yes those who do not have knowledge on a subject and beleive the biggest lies ( not saying you btw) such as 350million to NHS.

That is a real guide to the truth in some parts of USA and Africa they beleive the world is less than 10 000 years old. Knowledge is everything, belief proves nothing.

Steve

Knowledge is everything. Yes, interesting point of view. I tend to agree. The problem is that knowledge often is based on some sort of belief. Belief in the methods for example.

Cheers, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Trevor is doing the best he can, I think. He has no training in history. What can you expect. This is the case with many ripperologist.

I think Trevor is enjoying himself and I don´t believe he believes his own ideas.

One who does believe his own ideas is Fisherman. He believes them a lot I think.

We agree there. He does genuinely believe.
However let's not forget he once believed just as strongly it was someone else.

Steve

[Wickerman]

... If someone wanted to remove a kidney the modern day method is to enter the body from the back. Entering from the front makes it a more difficult procedure.

Rubbish!
The body is already on it's back, the abdomen sliced open, and you "think" the best way to get at the kidney at this time, is to roll the body over, and spill all her innards all over his shoes, then try cut your way through the back of the jacket, dresses, underwear, etc....or, pull all her clothing up again to expose her back?
That's ridiculous Trevor, she's on her back, the abdomen is already open, the kidney is just inches away.

The left kidney is also the more difficult of the two kidneys to remove because of what organs are located around it.

A killer sending a message to authorities will remove the most difficult organ "with care" - he's basically saying, "I'm no lunatic". Contesting what had been suggested in the press.
There was no obvious reason to remove that kidney, except to make a statement of his true medial abilities.

[GUT]

Trevor is doing the best he can, I think. He has no training in history. What can you expect. This is the case with many ripperologist.

I think Trevor is enjoying himself and I don´t believe he believes his own ideas.

One who does believe his own ideas is Fisherman. He believes them a lot I think.

But then I've seen those who claim to be historians get it all wrong about Primary and Secondary sources.

[Abby Normal]

We agree there. He does genuinely believe.
However let's not forget he once believed just as strongly it was someone else.

Steve

hi El
I may be wrong but I believe before Lech, Fish didn't have any other candidate he felt strongly about.

[Elamarna]

hi El
I may be wrong but I believe before Lech, Fish didn't have any other candidate he felt strongly about.

I think you are wrong there Abby, did he not prefer Hutchinson?
However I am happy to be corrected. And if wrong will happily withdraw the comment.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

"And the left kidney carefeully taken out"

So we have a killer who kills Eddowes in a frenzied attack, and then in the heat of the moment composes himself to be able to remove a kidney carefully

Let's put Dr Brown's words in context:

"The gall bladder contained bile. The pancreas was cut, but not through, on the left side of the spinal column. Three and a half inches of the lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to the peritoneum. The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed."

So, after perpetrating utter carnage on the surrounding tissues, he carefully takes out the kidney. Well done that man

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe that the intestines are physically unable to "recoil" any further than shown due to the messentery, which tethers them to the rear abdominal wall.

Dr Brown
"The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

No, for me.

I think the simplest explanation is that the killer tossed the apron aside and the GSG was already there.

There were many other, perhaps easier methods to leave a message, MJK's room for one.

I'm about 80% No ~ 20% Yes.

It may simply have been discarded, but if so why did he cut the apron, take away a piece and discard it there?

Goulston street is a fair distance from Mitre Square, so he'd be carrying it for a while. I assume he had a reason to take the apron portion in the first place. There are three (and perhaps more) plausible reasons
1. to clean up - but he'd never done that before
2. to carry away the organs - but why then choose a different carrying method at Goulston street?
3. to authenticate a message - possibly but requires a belief that the link between the graffito and apron would be made - as indeed it was - but the juxtaposition would need to be carefully organised.

I agree leaving the apron segment next to a wall written message is convoluted and the message may have been missed, but the alternatives also raise questions which are difficult to understand.

[Sam Flynn]

Goulston street is a fair distance from Mitre Square, so he'd be carrying it for a while.

It's only about a 6 minute walk away, 3-4 minutes at jogging/running pace.

[Sam Flynn]

1. to clean up - but he'd never done that before

He'd never cut out a length of colon and smeared faeces over a woman's intestines before, but he did this time.

[etenguy]

It's only about a 6 minute walk away, 3-4 minutes at jogging/running pace.

Still a bit of a distance if he was covered in gunk - he'd have passed side streets sooner to quickly clean up. But maybe he didn't feel safe to stop sooner.

[etenguy]

He'd never cut out a length of colon and smeared faeces over a woman's intestines before, but he did this time.

Point taken, but he must have got blood over himself at the earlier murders. Maybe he was less happy with faeces.

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Brown
"The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery"

Precisely. That doesn't happen by accident, or even a few random stabs. The killer had to lift the intestines and deliberately cut through perhaps 15ft of messentary to free them.

[DirectorDave]

It may simply have been discarded, but if so why did he cut the apron, take away a piece and discard it there?

Goulston street is a fair distance from Mitre Square, so he'd be carrying it for a while. I assume he had a reason to take the apron portion in the first place. There are three (and perhaps more) plausible reasons
1. to clean up - but he'd never done that before
2. to carry away the organs - but why then choose a different carrying method at Goulston street?
3. to authenticate a message - possibly but requires a belief that the link between the graffito and apron would be made - as indeed it was - but the juxtaposition would need to be carefully organised.

I agree leaving the apron segment next to a wall written message is convoluted and the message may have been missed, but the alternatives also raise questions which are difficult to understand.

Hi Etenguy.

Leaving aside the distance from Mitre Square as i don't think it's particularly relevant to your points...

I think it is logical to assume that there was some "clean up" involved after all the murders, but the apron is the only evidence that we have of them

I ask myself what was different on that night that made him cut a piece of apron, for whatever reason?

He had killed before on that night.

Perhaps the handkerchief he usually used was already bloodied or perhaps even discarded knowing the Stride killing was the closest yet he had come to getting caught in the act?

Caught with a knife is one thing, caught with a knife and the bloody rag it has been cleaned with...slightly more troublesome.

I don't think the "difficult questions" you mention are "difficult" in the slightest, just that there are many plausible explanations so we will never really know why on that night he cut a piece of apron and discarded it.