The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[c.d.]

And the message got erased. So why not send another?

c.d.

[GUT]

And the message got erased. So why not send another?

c.d.

Devil's Advocate now

Maybe he did "From Hell"

[The Cenci]

I agree with that Harry. The killer ducks into the doorway to clean his hands, his face, his weapon, or to swap the organs over, or whatever, and he just discards the apron and moves on. There just happens to be some antisemitic graffiti written in the doorway, which must have been not that uncommon in that area. I don't think it's unreasonable to see it as a coincidence.

I'm in two minds about this. He's walking away to Dorset Street/Flower and Dean St with a filthy rag and just throws it to one side, not seeing a chalk inscription on a wall or he wants to heighten the sensations of the night for one last time by thumbing his nose at the police.

I suspect the former is more likely.

[Dane_F]

He wanted to put as much distance as possible between himself and the crime scene before he cleaned up?



That's the thing, I don't believe PC Long. We aren't given any reason why he was so certain that the apron wasn't there originally. It would've been easily missed first time around. Not so much after the murder, when the police were on high alert.

But wasn't the entire first reply based around the idea that he wanted to get the blood and feces off asap as to not be detected? So now we have him walking nearly a mile first before stopping to clean up.


Don't you see how many leaps we have to make to continue down this chain of events?

Now we have JTR covered in filth WITH organs on him traveling a considerable distance before stopping and cleaning himself up, while PCs are on high alert from the previous murder and possibly this one already, him choosing at random a doorway finally and it just so happens to have the GSG, we have him either not noticing the GSG, not caring, or agreeing with it and leaving the apron.

We have to also now accuse a PC of not performing his job and lying under oath about not seeing it even though he could have just as easily said he wasn't sure. . .which he does say about other things - instead he definitively says it wasn't there. This is also after he had already heard of the 1st murder and should have been alert to details anyway.

All to try and fit the timeframe of JTR cleaning his hands while fleeing (but not too early in flight).

I'm sorry, to me, that's quite a few too many leaps to make when a much simpler solution is the Apron was left there on purpose, without having to try and explain away all these other things.

Is it possible all these chains of events happened? Sure it is. But I stick with following the easier, more logical path whenever I possibly can. Otherwise we end up with pentagrams, free masons, and family men walking to work as prime suspects.

Please take it as no offense. It is clearly just a matter of difference of how we view things and discussion is what the forums are for.

[Wickerman]

That's the thing, I don't believe PC Long. We aren't given any reason why he was so certain that the apron wasn't there originally. It would've been easily missed first time around.

The Inquest were not given a reason either, perhaps the Coroner knew a reason was not necessary?

A beat constables duties are to check the common areas, the public areas, while doing his rounds. Do you think the Coroner, who must deal with evidence given by beat constables on a regular basis, would already know this?

Inside the common entrance to Goulston St. buildings there was a door.
Duties of the beat constable are defined in the Police Code.
"...To see that doors, windows, gratings, cellar-flaps, fanlights, and places through which a thief might enter, or obtain access, are not left open."

The piece of apron was quite large, and if we follow Warren's description then it was in the archway as you step inside the entry. Which makes me wonder why you think it would have been easy to miss it the first time around.

Even if the apron was further inside, as some have proposed, the constable was required to check within the entryway regardless, and as part of his duties, to check that door was secure.

[GUT]

The Inquest were not given a reason either, perhaps the Coroner knew a reason was not necessary?

A beat constables duties are to check the common areas, the public areas, while doing his rounds. Do you think the Coroner, who must deal with evidence given by beat constables on a regular basis, would already know this?

Inside the common entrance to Goulston St. buildings there was a door.
Duties of the beat constable are defined in the Police Code.
"...To see that doors, windows, gratings, cellar-flaps, fanlights, and places through which a thief might enter, or obtain access, are not left open."

The piece of apron was quite large, and if we follow Warren's description then it was in the archway as you step inside the entry. Which makes me wonder why you think it would have been easy to miss it the first time around.

Even if the apron was further inside, as some have proposed, the constable was required to check within the entryway regardless, and as part of his duties, to check that door was secure.

Was he required to check EVERY door every time around his beat?

I thought it was more a case of making sure he got them all done during his shift. I'd have thought that would be impossible to do every entry every round in the time allowed.

[Wickerman]

Was he required to check EVERY door every time around his beat?

I thought it was more a case of making sure he got them all done during his shift. I'd have thought that would be impossible to do every entry every round in the time allowed.

If he checked the door the first time around, and found it locked, how would he know if it had not been unlocked, or forced, while he was out of sight doing his rounds, unless he checks the door again?
All we can say is we know he was required to check, so we have our reason for him being certain the apron was not there before.

We cannot say that he "for certain" checked the door.
What we can say is that we have a viable reason for him being "certain" it was not there before.
He was required to check the door.

[Harry D]

But wasn't the entire first reply based around the idea that he wanted to get the blood and feces off asap as to not be detected? So now we have him walking nearly a mile first before stopping to clean up.

Isn't it more like one-third of a mile? Would take about ten minutes tops to walk. I don't think the killer would remain in the immediate vicinity of the area to clean up.

Wasn't PC Long dismissed from the force for being drunk on duty in July 1889? I'm not implying he'd been drinking that night, but here we have a policeman of questionable character. What if he had seen the apron on his first round but dismissed it as a random piece of litter? It's not like he was searching the area for clues at that point. He didn't want to admit that he basically ignored a vital piece of evidence, so he lied about its absence?

[lynn cates]

leaps

Hello Dane.

"But wasn't the entire first reply based around the idea that he wanted to get the blood and feces off asap as to not be detected? So now we have him walking nearly a mile first before stopping to clean up.


Don't you see how many leaps we have to make to continue down this chain of events?"

Quite. Well reasoned.

Now extrapolate for the entire case . . .

Cheers.
LC

[c.d.]

Isn't it more like one-third of a mile? Would take about ten minutes tops to walk. I don't think the killer would remain in the immediate vicinity of the area to clean up.

Wasn't PC Long dismissed from the force for being drunk on duty in July 1889? I'm not implying he'd been drinking that night, but here we have a policeman of questionable character. What if he had seen the apron on his first round but dismissed it as a random piece of litter? It's not like he was searching the area for clues at that point. He didn't want to admit that he basically ignored a vital piece of evidence, so he lied about its absence?

That's a good point, Harry. It's not like the PCs had been instructed to specifically look for an apron so I think it would have been quite easy to overlook.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the killer wrote the GSG what exactly does it mean and what does it tell us about the killer?

c.d.

[Harry D]

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the killer wrote the GSG what exactly does it mean and what does it tell us about the killer?

That's the thing, c.d., it doesn't really tell us anything. It might read like a piece of anti-semitic graffito, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual murder itself. This was the killer's chance to make himself heard and that was the best he could come up with?

There was a report in the press after the Chapman murder of graffiti that read: 'Five; 15 more then I give myself up'. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see if the Ripper was the kind of serial killer to communicate. Not some vague, racist insult.

[c.d.]

Right, Harry. That's why I have never been able to get too worked up as to whether or not the killer wrote it. Even if we can prove that he did it really doesn't tell us anything.

If it was meant as an insult, it is not a particularly good one.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

That's the thing, c.d., it doesn't really tell us anything. It might read like a piece of anti-semitic graffito, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual murder itself. This was the killer's chance to make himself heard and that was the best he could come up with?

There was a report in the press after the Chapman murder of graffiti that read: 'Five; 15 more then I give myself up'. That's the kind of thing I'd expect to see if the Ripper was the kind of serial killer to communicate. Not some vague, racist insult.

What you have been ignoring Harry is that the apron section, if Long is to be believed, didn't show up at its destination until over 70 minutes had passed since the moment of the murder. And its not just Long, we have 2 men that track along that route before its finally discovered. In addition, you seem to assume that if it left by "a" killer that night that it would be from the Mitre Square murderer claiming that kill, when its equally possible that it was from him only he was blaming Jews for the earlier murder or both,..or that it was from an anti-Semite gentile who killed Liz Stride and he intended to cast suspicion on Jews living in the Model Homes, who I believe included at least 1 Berner Street club member. Maybe the writing blames "Juwes" for Strides murder because the author knew a Jew had done the deed and all the while the Jewish club members had propagated their own theory that the "ripper" killed "another woman".

The suggestion is only "vague" if you limit the possibilities from the outset. The only relevant facts here are that; we don't know if the apron was left at the same time as the writing was, we don't know if the message was written by the killer that night, one of the killers that night, or someone who merely intended to raise an issue of Jews and blame in general...., but we do have good reason to believe that the apron at least was not left on someones route directly home. Someone either stayed on the streets while carrying the cloth and some internal organs, or they got off the streets and came back out with, at least, the cloth.

Walking around with that cloth was like carrying the evidence that would re-open the arguments for public hangings,... and since there is no indication that he, or they, had any organs on them when the cloth was left, and that the delay and the matter of feces and blood on the cloth seem to indicate that the killer or killers would like to have the organs and the cloth off their person as soon as possible, a trip indoors to drop the organs off in preservatives, wash up a bit and grab some chalk and the cloth and head back out a bit later seems perfectly sensible to me.

Cheers

[Dane_F]

Isn't it more like one-third of a mile? Would take about ten minutes tops to walk. I don't think the killer would remain in the immediate vicinity of the area to clean up.

Wasn't PC Long dismissed from the force for being drunk on duty in July 1889? I'm not implying he'd been drinking that night, but here we have a policeman of questionable character. What if he had seen the apron on his first round but dismissed it as a random piece of litter? It's not like he was searching the area for clues at that point. He didn't want to admit that he basically ignored a vital piece of evidence, so he lied about its absence?

There's no distance scale on the map so I'm not certain on that point. I thought I read somewhere it was in the 3/4th to 1 mile range but I can't remember where. The point however still stands that there was any number of spots that he could have cleaned up at much sooner, some of which would have been more concealed than where he chose.

Keep in mind, he had pieces of organs with him. Every step he took while covered in filth and carrying that apron brings him more risk of being caught. It would have taken him, what, maybe 10 seconds to wipe his hands and toss the apron? Even if we go off of your distance that's still 10 minutes covered in filth he chose to walk and put himself at more risk instead of 10 seconds of hand wiping.

And that's only true IF we completely ignore the PC that said it wasn't there when he passed earlier that night.


On the subject of the PC, if I'm not mistaken he was dismissed in 1889 for being drunk on duty. But this was the previous year, on his first night of a new track. If you are on your very first day in a new track wouldn't you want to pay even more attention to it as you learned your route? He was in contact with multiple other officers that night, there is no record that they did not believe his account of not finding it on his first pass, no record of anyone thinking he was drunk that night, and in other instances where he was not sure of something he admitted he was not sure. We have him stating definitively he did not see it on his earlier pass.

At the end we are still left with the fact that you have to accuse a PC of not doing his job and lying under oath simply to get anywhere near a timeframe of JTR dropping it while fleeing. Even if we do that still makes it a highly unlikely occurrence at best.