Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

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

  • Originally posted by GUT View Post
    I have read literally 100s of transcripts of trials and if you read nothing but the answers you will as often as not get a radically different view of the case than if you read the lot.

    Many times I think, re JtR, if only I had the full transcript it would make a lot more sense.

    also get the feeling that many of the news reports are nowhere near transcripts of the words witnesses used but the reporters interpretation of the Q and A.
    Ah yes, another curve to contend with, the various press versions given in paraphrase
    All these problems make it essential, in my view, to collate the various press versions, along with the original, to gain a better insight into what was actually said in court.
    A common error is that some will adopt one source as their preference - this is wrong.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Now the question which you say is omitted from the records can magically become what you want it to be and can never be "Did you see the apron or graffiti when you inspected the spot before its discovery?"

      Right? Because the following couldn't possibly flow from it...
      By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

      Anyhow it all becomes moot when the MET says it was done to cast suspicion away from a gentile and onto Jews. Certainly explains their behaviour there and then.
      Last edited by Batman; 03-15-2015, 04:20 PM.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
        Ah yes, another curve to contend with, the various press versions given in paraphrase
        All these problems make it essential, in my view, to collate the various press versions, along with the original, to gain a better insight into what was actually said in court.
        A common error is that some will adopt one source as their preference - this is wrong.

        Agreed.
        G U T

        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Batman View Post

          Anyhow it all becomes moot when they MET says it was done to cast suspicion away from a gentile and onto Jews. Certainly explains their behaviour there and then.
          The graffiti was a slant against Jews regardless who wrote it, or when, or what the true meaning was.
          Just as likely written by a disgruntled gentile over some business dealings with Jews.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            The graffiti was a slant against Jews regardless who wrote it, or when, or what the true meaning was.
            Just as likely written by a disgruntled gentile over some business dealings with Jews.
            No because the investigators ruled the latter out for several reasons from its freshness to the neighbours would have rubbed it out to the rain the night before to the neighbours not being able to account for it, the old Jewry there even saying such a thing would have been there to cast suspicion on them.

            Then we have the antisemitic connection with other murders and Warren himself saying a gentile did all this to cast suspicion on Jews. We have a strong clue that rejects Jewish suspects.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Ok, well, I don't remember you establishing what "fresh" meant.
              - I don't slide along walls when I walk through passages, do you?
              - The rain couldn't get to it (was the wall wet?).
              - No neighbours commented on it, one way or the other.

              So there is nothing to contest the possibility that the graffiti was there the night before. And that, was the problem then, just as it is today.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Rubbed out deliberately not 'brushed off' accidentally.
                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                  Rubbed out deliberately not 'brushed off' accidentally.
                  Deliberately?, ok so now we are back with the assumption that these Jews could read English. Compounded with the second assumption that they would be bothered to read it, being so small.

                  Compare this with graffiti today, most of it is large and emblazoned across the walls, but in modern toilets it is generally small, how much of it do we bother to read?

                  So put yourself in their shoes.
                  You see some small graffiti (in a toilet, or anywhere), that is a slant against your race, you will either:
                  - rub it off, or
                  - ignore it.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • If the Old Jewry there agreed with the MET on these points and also concluded it was done to cast suspicion on them, your guess about their inabilities seems unfounded.

                    The modern argument is that graffiti blaming Jews existed elsewhere in Whitechapel, not specifically at that location. That hasn't been shown and basically is calling investigators incompetent to know the difference.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Nope.
                      Hi Wick
                      Can you at least agree that it COULD have been a clue?
                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Cenci View Post
                        Hello. I'm new here so go easy.

                        I don't see how it could be the murderer. The most obvious point is the opportunity to speak his mind in Millers Court but chose not to take it. I also think it might be odd to write on a wall when not one but two police forces were out looking for him. I'm no expert but I'd guess two murders in one night might be both physically and mentally exhausting.

                        That said, he could have been 'prolonging the high' as he clearly found killing to be an exhilarating pastime.

                        Anyway, that's my view. A no here.

                        Hello again.
                        Hi Cenci
                        Re Millers court: If you believe like I do and many others that George Hutchinson may have been the ripper then he did speak his mind-by directly implicating a jew in his description of his suspect Aman.
                        "Is all that we see or seem
                        but a dream within a dream?"

                        -Edgar Allan Poe


                        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                        -Frederick G. Abberline

                        Comment


                        • "The graffiti was a slant against Jews regardless who wrote it, or when, or what the true meaning was."

                          Apologies for disagreeing, but that's not entirely the case.

                          Monty
                          Monty

                          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                            Hi Wick
                            Can you at least agree that it COULD have been a clue?
                            Hi Abby.
                            I think I did already.
                            This is the basis for this never ending banter with Batman, the acceptance of "could", rather than "was".

                            The graffiti was not a "clue/evidence" because its provenance was never established, but it could have been a clue, if the police had known when it was written, or by whom.

                            So, "could" have been a clue is not the issue, not as I am aware anyway.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              Hi Cenci
                              Re Millers court: If you believe like I do and many others that George Hutchinson may have been the ripper then he did speak his mind-by directly implicating a jew in his description of his suspect Aman.
                              That's the way to play the game, "This is mt suspect so how can I twist the evidence around to fit him".

                              Well it's the most common method.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                Hi Abby.
                                I think I did already.
                                This is the basis for this never ending banter with Batman, the acceptance of "could", rather than "was".

                                The graffiti was not a "clue/evidence" because its provenance was never established, but it could have been a clue, if the police had known when it was written, or by whom.

                                So, "could" have been a clue is not the issue, not as I am aware anyway.
                                OK-I'll take it! we agree. It could have been a clue.
                                "Is all that we see or seem
                                but a dream within a dream?"

                                -Edgar Allan Poe


                                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                                -Frederick G. Abberline

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X