Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    No, Im suggesting the author used the apron section to declare himself the Mitre Square killer, and the GSG content thus differentiating himself from the Berner Street murderer(s).
    There is nothing to connect the writing to any of the murders or the apron piece !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • I think because he wasn't writing about the crime as much as he was venting his animosity towards Jews, concerning their claims about the crime.

      Its apparent that the City Police believed the writing was also connected to their investigation, the apron section was obviously so. And their concern about preserving that evidence is here, Pall Mall Gazette, Oct 11...

      "It is now stated that the erasure was made by the express orders of Sir Charles Warren, who personally superintended the operation! The City police attached the greatest value to this clue, and decided to have the inscription photographed in order that it might be compared with "Jack the Ripper's" letters. Of course there is no proof that the inscription was written by the assassin. But it was not there the previous evening, and the probability is great that it was written by him... In any case the City police were only taking the most obvious of precautions by arranging to have it photographed at once. Pending the arrival of the photographic camera, they stationed one of their own officers in Goulston-street, although it was outside their district, to see that no one tampered with the inscription. Unfortunately they reckoned without Sir Charles Warren. The Chief Commissioner himself visited the spot. He saw the inscription and at once gave orders for its removal. It was in vain for the City officer to protest. He had no jurisdiction in the Metropolitan Police District. Sir Charles Warren, with the natural instinct not of a detective, but of a soldier responsible for maintaining order in the streets, decided that if the inscription remained it might cause crowds to assemble, and it might besides excite bad feeling against the Jews. He therefore insisted upon the immediate erasure o the inscription, and it was erased accordingly.

      The City police are said to be very indignant at this destruction of the only clue by which they had to trace the murderer; and it is roundly asserted that they intend to show up Sir Charles at the inquest to-day. If the facts are stated, the jury will probably formally censure the Chief Commissioner for using his authority to destroy a clue to the murderer, and for subordinating his first duty as detector of crime to the secondary duty of preventing a crowd to assemble. It is pointed out that he could easily have covered up the inscription with a sheet of newspaper, until the arrival of the photographer. That, however, is not Sir Charles Warren's way
      ."

      It would seem that I agree with them, it was likely a part of their City murder investigation, not the Mets investigation of Berner Street. The only reference that I see to Berner Street is the fact the message contains a disparaging tone about Jews, and since the Berner men were socialist anarchists not well thought of by the locals or the police, it seems he wasn't alone in his dislikes.
      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post

        Going with this scenario, it occurred to me that Stride`s killer may not have even know it was Berner Street. It may have just have been the Jewish club south of Commercial Road to him.
        This specific scenario is that the graffiti writer wasn't Stride's killer, in which case even he might not have known that AN Other had committed a murder in Berner Street specifically, only that another murder had happened that evening "somewhere" in the East End.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

          please feel free to give me some kind of scenario as to the how and why the killer did this I think he may have dropped off the apron sections contents first, not too far from Gouslton.
          [/QUOTE]

          Because I believe the killer did live in the East End, not West of the City limits, and he likely had someplace he could drop off something with privacy. That something may be the something Lusk gets mid month. Goulston did have almost 100% Jewish occupancy, would someone who didn't leave near those Model homes know that?
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • There is nothing to connect the writing to any of the murders or the apron piece !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
            There is more than enough evidence to connect the gsg to the Eddowes murder in my opinion

            Comment


            • Because I believe the killer did live in the East End, not West of the City limits, and he likely had someplace he could drop off something with privacy. That something may be the something Lusk gets mid month. Goulston did have almost 100% Jewish occupancy, would someone who didn't leave near those Model homes know that?
              So the killer goes to some place in private and drops off the organs then goes back out to the streets where two police forces are by now probably all over the place looking for strides and eddowes killer and then heads to goulston st , writes the message in a doorway where at any times he could be spotted leaving the apron and message ? is that about right , just trying to think like the killer in this instance.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                So the killer goes to some place in private and drops off the organs then goes back out to the streets where two police forces are by now probably all over the place looking for strides and eddowes killer and then heads to goulston st , writes the message in a doorway where at any times he could be spotted leaving the apron and message ? is that about right , just trying to think like the killer in this instance.
                Considering the brief timespans and public scenario of his crimes, daring the constables seems to be an aspect of his nature. He could have been spotted murdering Stride earlier that night but that didn't stop him from murdering Eddowes round about an hour later; don't see why he'd be much concerned about being spotted by a constable scribbling on a wall after Kate's murder.
                there,s nothing new, only the unexplored

                Comment


                • Just seems weird thats THE KILLER is in his lair with the organs in his possession, why the need to go out to dispose of the bloody apron in the street when he could have got rid of it the next day .

                  Comment


                  • Probably one of the main reason he was never caught ,yes he took risks, but he certainly wasn't stupid.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                      Probably one of the main reason he was never caught ,yes he took risks, but he certainly wasn't stupid.
                      Agreed. Canny enough not to hang around Mitre Square wiping his hands or writing on walls.
                      Just being seen walking on Duke Street wiping his hands could have been trouble.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                        What reason did Eddowes killer have for leaving the apron at Goulston st ? . Was it to carry the organs away in it ? [what then did he carry the organs in from there ?] or when he finished wiping his hands all the way from mitre square and decided to dispose it there and then,when he could have wiped them clean also at mitre square .
                        Could have been chased from the square by PC Watkins and had to wipe as he fled.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          There is nothing to connect the writing to any of the murders or the apron piece !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          There is only the very suspicious proximity to the cloth, and the content which refers to Jews evading blame...which is happening on that same night. The cloth and message were found at the same time, and the cloth was left no later than 70 minutes after the murder, hence, they may well have been left by the same source.

                          There are circumstances Trevor...surprised I have to point that out to a police person.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by APerno View Post

                            Could have been chased from the square by PC Watkins and had to wipe as he fled.
                            Then the cloth would have been dropped before Longs 2:20 pass, and he would have seen it. Because "it was not there" at 2:20...this doesn't work.
                            Michael Richards

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Robert St Devil View Post

                              Considering the brief timespans and public scenario of his crimes, daring the constables seems to be an aspect of his nature. He could have been spotted murdering Stride earlier that night but that didn't stop him from murdering Eddowes round about an hour later; don't see why he'd be much concerned about being spotted by a constable scribbling on a wall after Kate's murder.
                              Its almost a certainty that Liz Strides killer was not Kates killer, the lack of any mutilations and any interruption evidence says so.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                                Then the cloth would have been dropped before Longs 2:20 pass, and he would have seen it. Because "it was not there" at 2:20...this doesn't work.
                                That's just your cognitive bias talking, there are so many possibilities brewing:

                                PC Long was an incompetent drunk, who left his post to see all the hub-bub in the Square an never made his 2:20 round.

                                D Halse's supportive claim was just him covering for a fellow officer; the cops do that.

                                The Ripper actually walked around with the apron on him until 2:25 AM and then dropped it.

                                The Ripper took the kidney home with him and then went back out and dumped the apron fearing a possible house to house search.

                                But actually I am not supporting any of these arguments, and was only trying to reply to the question 'why didn't he just wipe his hands in the Square.' Why? because he was chased out. That's all I think I said. I don't remember making any argument as to when or where he dropped the rag.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X