The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Jon Guy]

Indeed, CD. He had all the time in the world to leave a message there. Could've even scrawled it in blood for added effect. It is strange that a killer who decided to communicate under those circumstances would not leave another message. And the one message he leave did had no apparent bearing on the murders. As Abby Normal has said, I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with his encounters with Jews that night that brought his antisemitism to the fore, and he needed to get it out his system.

How do you know he had all the time in the world ?

[Harry D]

How do you know he had all the time in the world ?

Figure of speech. Writing a message would've taken all of five seconds. I'm sure he had time to squeeze that in amidst all the butchery.

[Jon Guy]

Figure of speech. Writing a message would've taken all of five seconds. I'm sure he had time to squeeze that in amidst all the butchery.

OK. So you would have scribbled something at the crime scene.
The Ripper didn`t, which is probably one of the reasons he was never caught.

[Harry D]

OK. So you would have scribbled something at the crime scene.
The Ripper didn`t, which is probably one of the reasons he was never caught.

It was riskier to write a message on the streets straight after the Eddowes murder, than it would be to write something in the relative safety of Miller's Court. Obviously, the killer had nothing to say that day, or we must re-evaluate the significance of the GSG.

I don't see how writing a message then would've been the killer's downfall.

[Jon Guy]

It was riskier to write a message on the streets straight after the Eddowes murder, than it would be to write something in the relative safety of Miller's Court.

The relative safety of Miller Court !!
Okay

[Harry D]

The relative safety of Miller Court !!
Okay

Compared to Goulston Street straight after the murder? Yes indeed.

[mpriestnall]

I voted Yes. I consider the GSG to be no more than an early example of a product or a service review.

[Abby Normal]

I voted Yes. I consider the GSG to be no more than an early example of a product or a service review.

Well this an interesting take. The ripper wrote it but not connected to the murders that night? He’s pissed off at a Jew for bad service or product??? But signs it with eddowes bloody apron? Kind of like ” the ripper doesn’t like Hyam Cohens meat”?!!

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, CD. He had all the time in the world to leave a message there. Could've even scrawled it in blood for added effect. It is strange that a killer who decided to communicate under those circumstances would not leave another message. And the one message he leave did had no apparent bearing on the murders. As Abby Normal has said, I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with his encounters with Jews that night that brought his antisemitism to the fore, and he needed to get it out his system.

Yes yes and yes!

[FISHY1118]

There has never been any doubt that the portion of apron came from Catherine Eddowes. Dr Frederick Brown, the City Police Surgeon stated on the first day of the Inquest, held on Thursday October 4th, that "......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"

The graffiti was not written by the killer, neither was the apron piece dropped there by the killer.


ill respectfully disagree with you Trevor ,and stick with DR Frederick Brown,. but i do agrree with your chapter on ''medical evidents ''

[Trevor Marriott]

There has never been any doubt that the portion of apron came from Catherine Eddowes. Dr Frederick Brown, the City Police Surgeon stated on the first day of the Inquest, held on Thursday October 4th, that "......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"

The graffiti was not written by the killer, neither was the apron piece dropped there by the killer.


ill respectfully disagree with you Trevor ,and stick with DR Frederick Brown,. but i do agrree with your chapter on ''medical evidents ''

It all come down to timings, and trying to prove a plausible motive for the killer cutting or tearing a piece of apron and taking it away with him

Carrying away the organs, the description of the apron piece is not consistent with that happening.

Wiping his hands or knife, well the apron piece was only stained on one side, you would have expected the killer to have blood on both hands and therefore any stains should have been on both sides of the apron piece. And besides why the need to walk the distance from Miter Sq to Goulston Street to dispose of it at a location where it might not have been found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Well thats the million dollar question isnt it . ''why''.. and im sure a lot of people have there own reason why the killer cut her apron and carried it off . i have my own. but i still think the apron and graffiti was from the killer . if i had was to ask a question it would be why not leave them at mitre square ? buts thats a whole other topic.

[Harry D]

It all come down to timings, and trying to prove a plausible motive for the killer cutting or tearing a piece of apron and taking it away with him

Carrying away the organs, the description of the apron piece is not consistent with that happening.

Wiping his hands or knife, well the apron piece was only stained on one side, you would have expected the killer to have blood on both hands and therefore any stains should have been on both sides of the apron piece. And besides why the need to walk the distance from Miter Sq to Goulston Street to dispose of it at a location where it might not have been found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, let's look at what's more plausible, shall we?

That the victim's apron rag was soiled in blood & faeces after her murderer had moments ago mutilated her stomach.

...or the victim had torn her own apron to use it as a makeshift sanitary rag earlier that night?

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, let's look at what's more plausible, shall we?

That the victim's apron rag was soiled in blood & faeces after her murderer had moments ago mutilated her stomach.

...or the victim had torn her own apron to use it as a makeshift sanitary rag earlier that night?

Well the first one you cited does not stand up to close scrutiny for the reasons I have pointed out, there were stains only on one side, and if the killer had dome all he was supposed to have done his hands would be bloody and there would be traces of blood and possible faeces staining on both sides of the piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Well the first one you cited does not stand up to close scrutiny for the reasons I have pointed out, there were stains only on one side, and if the killer had dome all he was supposed to have done his hands would be bloody and there would be traces of blood and possible faeces staining on both sides of the piece.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

then whats the alternative?