The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

Coming very belatedly to this discussion. I voted "No"...

Agreed!

He cleaned himself as he walked away from the murder scene, and discarded the cloth fragment (if its size will allow that word to be used) in a convenient entryway as he passed.

That would be acceptable if the cloth had been discarded a few doorsteps away, or just around the corner, however:

If Jack left Mitre Square by St James Place, he would be crossing the square about 100 ft, to the northern passage exit, then up the passage, 55 ft, (still wiping his hands) then diagonally across St James Place, passing the all night manned mobile Fire station and the nightwatchman at the roadworks, about 120 ft, then eastward along little Duke Street passing several houses, (still wiping his hands) crossing Hounsditch then along Stoney lane passing about 40+ houses (still wiping his hands) to Middlesex street, about another 850 ft, still carrying the rag presumably not finished wiping his hands. Turning right running down Middlesex street for about 100 ft passing another 6 houses, then left, eastward again along New Goulston street until the end, another 250 ft. At this point he crosses the road and presumably discards the rag in the doorway of 108-119 Goulston street.

Quite the distance considering he was only 'supposedly' wiping his hands.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

The further he carries a bloodstained cloth away from the scene of the crime, the more chance he stands of being seen cleaning himself.
So, I don't see the 'cleaning hands' as a viable argument.

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

That's assuming he wiped as he walked Jon, or alternatively he found what he deemed a quite safe spot and wiped there.

And he would have had to pass houses (Stoney Lane/Kings Block also had closed shops along them, residences were above) after every murder, I'm afraid I don't follow.

Monty


PS Just re read your post and see that was your point, apologies for misunderstanding.

[Phil H]

On a point like wiping his hands, we have to mke up our own minds - what is "realistic" for us in terms of our own frame of reference or personal experience.

I can only say "it works for me"!

I am happy to differ from you on that.

I would just point out that the cloth was smeared with blood and other stuff and the descriptions, or what happened after Chapman, have never brought me to believe that the apron-fragment was used to carry anything. Hand wiping seems the most likely explanation.

I don't think someone wiping his hands as he walked would necessarily attract attention - nervous body language would probably stand out more.

I fully accept, however, that those who's personal "Jack" requires him to leave messages, have a deeper, darker "conspiracy" or puzzles around the crimes, involve anti-Jewish slogans, NEED the GSG. Their personal piecing together of the enigmas would not work otherwise. Hence I would never attempt to convince anyone that I was right, they were wrong, on this aspect of the case.

For me, that stuff belongs with Agatha Christie. I look for the pragmatic as far as possible.

In this case Jack's hands were soiled, he needed to wipe them, hence the apron-piece and where it was discarded. Simple. It fits the facts, job done.

I'm sorry if that cuts acrss the agendas of others, but it does not stop you believing what you wish.

Phil

[lynn cates]

tempus et locus

Hello Phil.

"In this case Jack's hands were soiled, he needed to wipe them, hence the apron-piece and where it was discarded. Simple. It fits the facts, job done."

I think you have hit it with the first part, ie, the motivation. Whoever killed Kate slipped up and made a poor cut and got faecal material on his hands. That, and the blood, needed to be wiped off. (By the way, this invites comparison with the, admittedly, very similar Chapman killing. There, the killer was deft in his cuts and knew what he was about.)

However, I'm not so sure this explanation covers the chronology and geography of the apron. Why did the assailant wait so long to discard it and why there?

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Lynn,

I think it more a case of why so long before it was discovered rather than discarded.

Monty

[Phil H]

Monty,

Spot on.

So far as I know we have no evidence as to when the cloth was left/dropped.

Given that there has to be high probability of human eoor (i.e. the policeman had missed the apron earlier) we cannot know how long or short a time it had been there.

[lynn cates]

KK

Hello Neil, Phil. I think I understand what you are saying. You are suggesting that both Halse and Long missed the piece of apron. Could be.

I have always had a high regard for both SY and the City of London police as regards their investigative powers. This hypothesis, however, seems more apropos of the Keystone Kops.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Keystone cops - smacks of incompetence.

Incompetence depends on the task given - would they have been looking for an apron scrap?

Wasn't one ofthe PC's involved later dismissed?

All considerations to factor in, surely?

Phil

[lynn cates]

seek, and ye shall find

Hello Phil.

". . . would they have been looking for an apron scrap?"

Well, Halse must have been looking for SOMETHING. How else explain his presence on SY turf?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil H]

Now there's a question?

[Monty]

Long is the only Policeman who was adamant the apron wasn't there. He had good reason to state that.

Halse stated he may not have seen it had it been there. Now there is good reason for this. In 1888 you could not have walked flush against the dwellings entrance, as there were recesses. Therefore you were a few feet away. Halse, at that time, had no reason to enter the stairwell. So I can understand why Halse stated he couldnt be sure it was or wasn't there.

As for Halse being on Mets patch. Every Policeman has a duty to prevent and detect crime. If Halse felt a crime had or was about to take place, or he felt he could apprehend the perp, then he had every right to venture into Mets territory. I uncovered an article during research for Rob and my piece in Ripperologist on Marriott. Marrioot was patroling on the City boundary when he observed a Met PC struggling with an arrest. I crossed over from his City patch and assisted. Not only that, he escorted the prisoner to Commercial Street Police station.

Now whilst there were political issues regarding the top brass of City and Met policing, the actual groundforce, whilst recognising the boundaries, did assist each other....albeit through gritted teeth.

Don Rumbelow told me once that a collar was a collar and it wasn't unheard of for a City or Met bobby to venture over a boundary to make and arrest.

Halse was doing his job, geography and 'manors' wouldn't have been his priority.

Monty

.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Phil.

"In this case Jack's hands were soiled, he needed to wipe them, hence the apron-piece and where it was discarded. Simple. It fits the facts, job done."

I think you have hit it with the first part, ie, the motivation. Whoever killed Kate slipped up and made a poor cut and got faecal material on his hands. That, and the blood, needed to be wiped off. (By the way, this invites comparison with the, admittedly, very similar Chapman killing. There, the killer was deft in his cuts and knew what he was about.)

However, I'm not so sure this explanation covers the chronology and geography of the apron. Why did the assailant wait so long to discard it and why there?

Cheers.
LC

Hi LC

However, I'm not so sure this explanation covers the chronology and geography of the apron. Why did the assailant wait so long to discard it and why there?

Because he had to take the organs and knife back to drop off at his place and grab a piece of chalk.

if he needed to wipe his hands he would have just done it at the crime scene on her clothes-no need to take the time and cut off a piece.


He had been seen well by several jews that night(probably the first time he knew he had) and wanted to blame them(angry for being spotted/interupted), blame jews in general and obsfucate his identity.

The cops did not miss it the first time around-neither was there yet.
and they made the connection at the time between the two-I'll take there word on this one.

[Phil H]

Abby - I cannot let such HUGE and baseless assumptions pass by without comment. I assume you are being whimsical or humourous?

Because he had to take the organs and knife back to drop off at his place and grab a piece of chalk.

Absolutely no evidence for this.

if he needed to wipe his hands he would have just done it at the crime scene on her clothes-no need to take the time and cut off a piece.

Not if he heard someone approaching or felt it was time to move on.

He had been seen well by several jews that night(probably the first time he knew he had) and wanted to blame them(angry for being spotted/interupted), blame jews in general and obsfucate his identity.

Totally without foundation. We do not know for certain Lawende saw "Jack" or Eddowes.

the rest of the allegation is pure supposition as we do not know the GSG was written by "Jack" or even known to him.

My proffered solution (only one of many possibles, I'll agree) has at least the benefit of simplicity.

Phil
The cops did not miss it the first time around-neither was there yet.
and they made the connection at the time between the two-I'll take there word on this one.

[lynn cates]

how else

Hello Neil.

"If Halse felt a crime had or was about to take place, or he felt he could apprehend the perp, then he had every right to venture into Mets territory."

As I say, unless he were looking for something, how else could his presence be explained?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

organs

Hello Abby. Perhaps, but IF there was one killer throughout, how did he transport the organs in those other cases?

Cheers.
LC