'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[caz]

Personally, I keep thinking of the word "Nothing", as in the the name Eddowes gave at the police station. To me, and this is purely a personal point of view, if that "Nothing" on the wall was a reference to Eddowes, then it would answer very many questions, possibly including the decision to erase the writing.

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but how in the early morning of 30th September could the author of the GSG have known that Eddowes said "nothing" when asked her name at Bishopsgate police station on the evening of 29th September? This piece of information wasn't public knowledge until Eddowes' inquest.

City Constable 931, Lewis Robinson, 11th October 1888—

"With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing'. She was then put into a cell."

Hello Simon,

Yes sir, indeed..it wasn't public knowledge. That is what intruiges me.
If the "Nothing" referred to was Eddowes....then a policeman is involved.

Ah, but that doesn’t follow at all, old coq.

Consider the scene just outside Mitre Square at about 1.30 am:

Jack, feigning congeniality: “And what’s your name then, missus?”

Kate, with her hand on Jack’s chest: “Nuffing - like I told ’em at the cop shop earlier.”

Jack: "Right then, here goes Nothing. Whack."

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Logically.....you'd have to undergo a series bout of mental acrobatics to form the conclusion that JTR in his moment of lust....took it up himself to appeal to Jews or Jew haters. Doubtful. Unless of course you think the murders were politically motivated.

In 'his moment of lust', FM? Surely it would have been in the moment a deranged killer was choosing to get rid of his victim's mucky pinny in an entrance predominantly used by Jewish residents. Was he feeling lust in that moment, or was he engaged in clearing himself of his bloody deed and hoping that the blame would be shifted elsewhere?

This man was, in that moment, wrapped up in his own tiny world of highly risky behaviour, all connected with the highly irrational stuff of murder, mutilation and organ removal. That was all he would be thinking about, and arguably all he could perceive that anyone else would be thinking about. There was nothing else from his narrow point of view.

It always puzzles me how people readily accept this night's hideous, mindless violence as something that just happened, despite being highly irrational, highly risky behaviour with no clear motivation or purpose behind it, yet they can't get their head round a bit of antisocial, illogical and ambiguous writing on a wall being the possible product of the same twisted, unfathomable mind. One thing the killer and graffiti artist had in common was the fact that their work was more for themselves than for anyone else, and as such impossible for the observer to interpret or explain.

Why didn't the killer leave messages elsewhere, eg at any of his crime scenes? Well why should he? Just because he could? No doubt he could have done a lot of things in his life that he didn't choose to do. Why didn't he steer clear of women on the street instead of risking his neck repeatedly? Why did he spend time nicking Kate's eyelids when he could have been nicking her tea and sugar instead? It's a 'nothing' argument. He did what suited him at the time with the chances he got. Not one of his known actions could be said to be working towards any logical end.

Mental acrobatics might be required to reach any firm conclusions around here, but surely not for merely speculating that graffiti artist and killer could have been cut from the same cloth.

Love,

Caz
X

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

I didn't know about the Divisional Surgeons meeting up just prior to the Millers Court murder. It's very interesting. Where did you find this nugget?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

The British Medical Journal 10th November 1888 held the report about the meeting which was held on the evening of Wednesday 7th November 1888....about the same time Bowyer states he clocked Kelly talking to a man near Millers court.

Ive outlined the relevant bits.

PS Enjoyed the podcast.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Many thanks for that. Interesting that Bond wasn't amongst their number. I thought he didn't resign until around 14th November.

Thanks, too, for your PS.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

I assumed Bond was there Simon.

See the red cropping.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Thanks Monty,

Whoops! I need an appointment with the optician.

Sir Robert Anderson was right. It does make you go blind.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Simon,

I'll ask you this, though its not covered in the piece however what do you think the chances are that the murders were discussed, at some stage...even off record?

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

They must have discussed details and opinions on the four murders. Maybe their meeting explains the presence of so many doctors at Millers Court.

Just a thought.

Regards,

Simon

[tnb]

I would agree with that Simon - that they must have discussed the murders; in fact, I would be so bold as to suggest it may well have been a large part of the reason for the meeting, to not only pool info but perhaps try to avoid any further embarassment from doctors disagreeing ala Phillips and Bond. Plus similarly, and as Monty has already suggested, ironing out any future Met/City co-operation issues.

Do we know anything about the other doctors listed, other than the familiar names?

[Simon Wood]

Hi TNB,

I've got a pile of stuff on the Millers Court doctors which I'll post after I've finished loading files onto my new computer.

Regards,

Simon

[tnb]

Sounds good Simon. Breath well and truly baited.

[Barnaby]

One answer to the original question depends upon how one defines "blunder." If it means a mistake that the police made that potentially would have led to the capture of JTR, then it probably is not a big blunder for the reasons already given. If it simply refers to shoddy police work, then it most certainly is one. Even if it wasn't common to take pictures of crime scenes, at least the message could have been accurately recorded.

[Busy Beaver]

such the "importance" of the GSG placed on the murder of Katerine Eddows probably freaked out the person who wrote the graffitti. But then due to it's high profile, you would think that the writer would want his or her fifteen minutes of fame and would come forward to confess. After all how many people came forward to say they knew the victim, they sold the victim her last meal etc etc.

Going back to other comments made on the boards, it would not have been a stupid decision to photograph the message and use it to compare handwriting.
Could the GSG have been the start of the Dear Boss Letters?
If the writing was pretty straight and neat, I doubt a hurrying killer would have wrote it. Can we conclude that it was a school boy prank that got caught up in a slice of history?

Busy Beaver

[Hunter]

We can't conclude anything... though a lot of people try.
Welcome to the boards.