The word JUWES

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

Perhaps he did start out with something already to carry organs in but because of the aborted stride murder had to use that to wipe his hands, and then discard that before looking for another victim (church st sighting).

In any case I don't think he would have used strides apron to carry organs in only to discard the apron on the way home. and longs account corroborates that.

Given that the wounds to Stride were minor, compared to the rest of the murders. It is highly probable there was very little to clean after Stride.

all the best

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Given that the wounds to Stride were minor, compared to the rest of the murders. It is highly probable there was very little to clean after Stride.

all the best

Steve

maybe. maybe not. her throat is cut, theres a struggle in close proximity, she has blood on her hand. its reasonable to conclude he may have gotten blood on his hands.

It was a peripheral scenario any way that I posited in response to your suggestion he may have already had something to carry organs in before he went out.

[Elamarna]

maybe. maybe not. her throat is cut, theres a struggle in close proximity, she has blood on her hand. its reasonable to conclude he may have gotten blood on his hands.

It was a peripheral scenario any way that I posited in response to your suggestion he may have already had something to carry organs in before he went out.

Abby

while we both can see both points of view, I think that without something new we will not agree on this one.
There is just not enough evidence to push it one way or the other.
Sometimes in these circumstances one has to accept that, and agree to disagree.

you never know one person we both know is sure he can prove the GSG was by the killer, so we may not have to wait long.



Steve

[Pierre]

As far as anti semitic graffiti goes, it's pretty mild,...

Hi,

that is a very intelligent remark.

Would the killer express himself mildly if "the juwes" were his enemies?

Regards, Pierre

[Harry D]

Hi Steve
Yes I agree-very good debate.
As you know I keep an open mind-but this how I see it:

after being interrupted by Schwartz, a man with an apparently obvious jewish appearance, hes angered by it, shouting a jewish slur at him.

After Eddowes, he uses her apron to carry her organs, heads home, gets cleaned up, drop off his organs/knife. Now hes got her apron piece and hes still stewing about the interruption by the jew(s). gets the idea to blame the jews and throw off the police by using the apron. Grabs some chalk heads back out and writes the graffiti signing it with the apron.
Giggles to himself all the way home and into the next days seeing how much confusion he caused and how smarter he is than everyone else.

Perhaps he did start out with something already to carry organs in but because of the aborted stride murder had to use that to wipe his hands, and then discard that before looking for another victim (church st sighting).

In any case I don't think he would have used strides apron to carry organs in only to discard the apron on the way home. and longs account corroborates that.

Hello, Abby.

Why would the killer still be seething over the Schwartz interruption if he's just satiated his bloodlust with Eddowes?

[Pierre]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayWryXD5J5E

Everybody sees just the ideal type of this person. He was "Jack the Ripper".

But there were other dimensions of his life. He had a history and he could never forget that history.

He thought he had been wronged, treated unfairly, unjustly.

It had nothing to do with religion.

People here who are smart may start to see other aspects of this person. Then they may find the killer.

[GUT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayWryXD5J5E

Everybody sees just the ideal type of this person. He was "Jack the Ripper".

But there were other dimensions of his life. He had a history and he could never forget that history.

He thought he had been wronged, treated unfairly, unjustly.

It had nothing to do with religion.

People here who are smart may start to see other aspects of this person. Then they may find the killer.

Someone needs to, because not an ounce if evidence you have.

[Errata]

Hello Errata,

But we can't say for certain that it is anti semitic. It could be pro Jewish as in "The Jews are tired of being blamed for things they didn't do." Because if anti semitic graffiti were rampant then you can bet some Jewish person somewhere took it upon himself to fire back. It's only human nature.

c.d.

And I agree. But then the spelling makes little sense. And the syntax is a little odd for a defense, but I'm picturing a New York Depression era street urchin kind of speak, where they say things like "mudder" and "oughtta" and "cracking wise" so I can see it, but only by putting it in a context it clearly did not come from. Unless some poor New York Jewish kid is roaming London. But your argument is certainly not invalid because of the vagaries of my imagination.

But why would the killer defend the Jews generally and not specifically? It goes with the whole tendency towards manifestos thing. Something set him off. Something specific. Why write in the general and not the specific? Why not say we or I? He's clearly taking it so personally he is risking getting caught. And if he wasn't Jewish, why not reference the specific incident? People usually do. "A Jew did not kill the woman earlier tonight" for example. Or "Jews are victims of the Russian government, not spies" to borrow one from the McCarthy era. Even attack the opposition. "Christians who will not welcome Jews are traitors". But the graffiti is completely without context. Defensive script usually has context. Even in something so base as "Julie is not a whore!" on a bathroom stall.

I honestly don't know what to make of it. Except it reads like a kid who doesn't know the specifics of why he is supposed to hate a group of people, and keeps his little rebellion brief so he doesn't get caught. And maybe that's exactly what happened. But it still doesn't make a ton of sense. I don't think it's defense because it's vague as hell. I don't think it's offensive because it's exceptionally mild. It's almost like prophecy, but nothing about these crimes has anything to do with Jews, so if the the guy is crazy and prophesying some Jewish uprising or something, it's completely separate from his killing. And a guy with two completely unrelated crazy obsessions is exceptionally rare or a disorganized schizophrenic. He's not a disorganized schizophrenic, and if it's in fact completely unrelated, then it tells us nothing about the case. Except that he had this one wild hair up his butt that had nothing to do with the murders.

Irritating.

[Abby Normal]

Abby

while we both can see both points of view, I think that without something new we will not agree on this one.
There is just not enough evidence to push it one way or the other.
Sometimes in these circumstances one has to accept that, and agree to disagree.

you never know one person we both know is sure he can prove the GSG was by the killer, so we may not have to wait long.



Steve

you got it-although I keep an open mind as you-and see the possibilities-so in this case we shall agree to (somewhat) disagree.LOL!

BTW-re that one person and his suspect-yaaaaawwwnnn

[Elamarna]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayWryXD5J5E

Everybody sees just the ideal type of this person. He was "Jack the Ripper".

But there were other dimensions of his life. He had a history and he could never forget that history.

He thought he had been wronged, treated unfairly, unjustly.

It had nothing to do with religion.

People here who are smart may start to see other aspects of this person. Then they may find the killer.

1. We are given a religious text from a prophet, obviously this is important!

2. We are given a line which is poorly constructed in English.

3. The 3rd sentence just states what is true of everybody, we all have a history.

4. Another sentence which talks in generalisations, at some stage we all feel wronged.

5. Having started with a religious text, now we are told it has nothing to do with religion.

6. A line which says if we are smart we will understand, if we do not we are obviously not smart


This could be from a horoscope, its the trick they use: generalise, say something which can seem important to anyone or about anyone.


I do wonder looking at the above:
Does Pierre feels wronged? or does he see himself in the role of the prophet? Delivering us from the evil of the VAMPIRE as he taken to calling the killer.

The post is without true purpose other than to serve the writers ever increasing need.


Fortunatly both Lewis Carroll and C S Lewis wrote better.

[Abby Normal]

1. We are given a religious text from a prophet, obviously this is important!

2. We are given a line which is poorly constructed in English.

3. The 3rd sentence just states what is true of everybody, we all have a history.

4. Another sentence which talks in generalisations, at some stage we all feel wronged.

5. Having started with a religious text, now we are told it has nothing to do with religion.

6. A line which says if we are smart we will understand, if we do not we are obviously not smart


This could be from a horoscope, its the trick they use: generalise, say something which can seem important to anyone or about anyone.


I do wonder looking at the above:
Does Pierre feels wronged? or does he see himself in the role of the prophet? Delivering us from the evil of the VAMPIRE as he taken to calling the killer.

The post is without true purpose other than to serve the writers ever increasing need.


Fortunatly both Lewis Carroll and C S Lewis wrote better.

as did J M Barrie-but Pierre wouldn't know about that.

[Elamarna]

as did J M Barrie-but Pierre wouldn't know about that.

well he has made it clear he does not know who that is, so of course I agree

[Abby Normal]

well he has made it clear he does not know who that is, so of course I agree

wonder if he knows who Lewis Carroll and CS Lewis are?

[DJA]

the young lad who wrote the graffito lived "close" to the Wentworth Buildings.

Jack the Nipper

[Scott Nelson]

15-year old Simon DeLafuente wrote it.