Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

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

  • #31
    It's nearly happy anniversary time again...

    In case anyone is still in doubt, this one's from 22nd August 2018:

    Originally posted by Admin View Post
    Dave Orsam will not be returning to Casebook. If anyone believes he has returned under an assumed name, please immediately inform the Admin.

    People who threaten to sue us don't get posting privileges on our boards.
    Love,

    Caz
    X




    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

      Juwes. That rules out James. And all the Maybrick family connections. So if Sir Jim wasn't behind the GSG, then........

      Dyslexia Rules,KO!
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Or that of Stride




        Why, because Druitt couldn't have made the mistake of writing Jewes instead of jews or the double negative, or do you have some other reason in mind?!


        The Baron

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by caz View Post

          I very much doubt that whoever killed Eddowes would have wanted to get close enough to anyone afterwards to pick up news of someone else's murder in Dutfield's Yard, less than an hour earlier. I assume he'd have had more on his mind - and more on his hands at the time - than a cunning plan to direct attention to the club there.

          On the other hand, if he had to do a quick hit and run on Stride because she refused to budge from the relative safety of the busy club and go with him somewhere quieter, and he was mad as hell about it, everything else that night fits like a glove to my mind.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          By the evidence it seems that Kates killer returned to the streets to dispose of the apron section, because its difficult to believe he would spend an hour walking around with bits and pieces on him, and Long was adamant about when he saw it. Which is also why the GSG can be logically linked to the section beneath it. If he dropped it there specifically.....( I believe at least one Club member resided in those Model dwellings), and considering the proximity of one to the other, it makes sense he wrote the message too.

          I dont think there is anything in that entranceway that suggests the murderer of Liz Stride was there. I do see evidence that Kates killer was.

          Further along those lines, I happen to think that the package and letter Lusk gets is probably from Kates killer, so funny that he wouldnt address this frustration he must have felt being foiled in Berner St if he had done both. That supposed anger and angst that leads him to go further with the next victim....isnt that the basic storyline? Well, I dont believe Liz Strides killer lost any sleep over the murder. It was quick, brutal and final. A man who could do that is likely one with a pre-existing pattern of violent acts. I think he was shuffled off by the club members first aware of this murder and he just walked away into the night as members ran out the gates in search of help. He may well have been seen later on cleaning his knife in the alley.
          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-14-2020, 10:52 AM.
          Michael Richards

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            By the evidence it seems that Kates killer returned to the streets to dispose of the apron section, because its difficult to believe he would spend an hour walking around with bits and pieces on him, and Long was adamant about when he saw it. Which is also why the GSG can be logically linked to the section beneath it. If he dropped it there specifically.....( I believe at least one Club member resided in those Model dwellings), and considering the proximity of one to the other, it makes sense he wrote the message too.
            Yep, I can go that far with you, Michael.

            I dont think there is anything in that entranceway that suggests the murderer of Liz Stride was there. I do see evidence that Kates killer was.
            There may be no evidence in that entranceway, but there is more than enough circumstantial evidence surrounding the two murders for me to believe Eddowes's killer was also Stride's. It looks like the classic double event that can be found in 20th century murder series. Once you have a very violent, risk-taking and determined repeat offender on your hands, you have someone who will strike twice in one night if the conditions were not right first time. Is it a coincidence that the repeat offender who was the Whitechapel Murderer changed tack for one night only, to kill in the City police area?

            Further along those lines, I happen to think that the package and letter Lusk gets is probably from Kates killer, so funny that he wouldnt address this frustration he must have felt being foiled in Berner St if he had done both. That supposed anger and angst that leads him to go further with the next victim....isnt that the basic storyline? Well, I dont believe Liz Strides killer lost any sleep over the murder. It was quick, brutal and final. A man who could do that is likely one with a pre-existing pattern of violent acts. I think he was shuffled off by the club members first aware of this murder and he just walked away into the night as members ran out the gates in search of help. He may well have been seen later on cleaning his knife in the alley.
            ...and you've lost me. Sorry, Michael.

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by The Baron View Post



              Why, because Druitt couldn't have made the mistake of writing Jewes instead of jews or the double negative, or do you have some other reason in mind?!


              The Baron
              As I said before, in my view the scribble has nothing to do with the murders.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                As I said before, in my view the scribble has nothing to do with the murders.

                Actually it has everything to do with the murders.


                The Baron

                Comment


                • #38
                  The GSG is not coincidental. Jack never left a clue of a bloodied apron or such like before, why wait until the 4th victim? He left the clue because he knew it would be picked up and connected to the writing on the wall. It could nbot be any more deliberate. He wanted that message to be read.

                  If it was old graffiti and as anti-semitic as Charles Warren believed, why did no locals clean it? It was just chalk after all. Charlie understood the message. He also oversaw the official report that was submitted by PC Long. There is a chance Long's transcription may not be 100% accurate and potentially for a reason that only old Charlie would know at that time.
                  "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                  - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Hi Caz,

                    Originally posted by caz View Post

                    Yep, I can go that far with you, Michael.

                    I think that may be one of the very few times youve allowed yourself to agree with me Ms Caz.

                    There may be no evidence in that entranceway, but there is more than enough circumstantial evidence surrounding the two murders for me to believe Eddowes's killer was also Stride's. It looks like the classic double event that can be found in 20th century murder series. Once you have a very violent, risk-taking and determined repeat offender on your hands, you have someone who will strike twice in one night if the conditions were not right first time. Is it a coincidence that the repeat offender who was the Whitechapel Murderer changed tack for one night only, to kill in the City police area?

                    Ive never said that the fellow called Jack the Ripper, the one I personally hold responsible for 2 or perhaps 3 of the Canonical Group, wouldnt kill twice in a night. Who knows, the opportunity presents itself for mutilation, he might be tempted back into the game. But.., as suggested in your last sentence above, I dont see any evidence The Whitechapel Murderer...aluding to the murders of Polly and Annie, changed any prior behaviors that we know of that night. Someone slit his wifes throat, likely the only murder he commits, someone slits a throat on the property of an active Mens Club after a meeting, he may or may not have killed before but I think we can say he was violent, and someone...perhaps the Whitechapel Murderer, kills and mutilates, revealing similar motives to the killings of Polly adn Annie, and fulfilling warped objectives beyond merely ending life.

                    ...and you've lost me. Sorry, Michael.

                    What I was attempting to convey is that IF Jack the Ripper killed 2 women that night, why do we only see evidence of him claiming a single victim. In the entranceway in Goulston there is no indication or representation of any personal culpability in the Berner Street murder, yet we do have confirmation of a claimed kill in the form of the apron section. If hes claiming Kates murder, why is he suggesting the Jews are to be blamed for something? And with good reason. Why isnt he showing us he was pissed after being foiled in Berner? Why does the Lusk letter and package contain only references to a single murder, and a specific action taken.?

                    Liz Strides killer was a brute, he roughly grabbed her scarf, twisted it to control her and to choke her, and then slid a knife across her throat while releasing his hold on her scarf. He most obviously...based on the act and the overall time needed, just wanted to mortally wound Liz. Jack the Ripper, based on Polly and Annie..and perhaps Kate, killed so he could mutilate. Murder was not the primary goal, nor the only goal. It was just a step in his process.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Hope that explains a bit better what I intended.
                    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 08-15-2020, 12:36 PM.
                    Michael Richards

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                      The GSG is not coincidental. Jack never left a clue of a bloodied apron or such like before, why wait until the 4th victim? He left the clue because he knew it would be picked up and connected to the writing on the wall. It could nbot be any more deliberate. He wanted that message to be read.

                      If it was old graffiti and as anti-semitic as Charles Warren believed, why did no locals clean it? It was just chalk after all. Charlie understood the message. He also oversaw the official report that was submitted by PC Long. There is a chance Long's transcription may not be 100% accurate and potentially for a reason that only old Charlie would know at that time.
                      Why would the killer walk that distance carrying a blood stained knife, and evidence that could connect him to the crime, and then deposit the apron piece in a location where it might not have ever been found, and then write graffiti on the wall above, when the graffiti also may never have been found, and which has absolutely no connection to the murder of Eddowes or any of the other murders.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Two police witnesses in Goulston Street at approximately the same moment. Yet neither reported seeing the other, the piece of apron, or the chalked message. Yet, within the hour, one of them would discover the GSG and piece of apron and the other would be the first to notice the piece of apron was missing from the deceased.
                        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Why would the killer walk that distance carrying a blood stained knife, and evidence that could connect him to the crime, and then deposit the apron piece in a location where it might not have ever been found, and then write graffiti on the wall above, when the graffiti also may never have been found, and which has absolutely no connection to the murder of Eddowes or any of the other murders.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          On the 4th murder he suddenly gets sloppy and starts leaving random evidence? He carried and concealed a blood stained knife for 3 murders prior to this. He left the apron to be found he wrote the graffiti to be read.

                          I read you believed it was a sanitary towel. How could that even be when the apron was clearly from the same apron cloth Eddowes was wearing?
                          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                            On the 4th murder he suddenly gets sloppy and starts leaving random evidence? He carried and concealed a blood stained knife for 3 murders prior to this. He left the apron to be found he wrote the graffiti to be read.

                            I read you believed it was a sanitary towel. How could that even be when the apron was clearly from the same apron cloth Eddowes was wearing?
                            Yes, but with the Eddowes murder, he was probably disturbed by a police officer, so if that were the case he would have left in haste, no time to cut a piece of her apron if she had in fact been wearing one, which is a contentious issue. but I am not going to muddy the waters here I simply wanted to show the flaws in your theory.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Two police witnesses in Goulston Street at approximately the same moment. Yet neither reported seeing the other, the piece of apron, or the chalked message. Yet, within the hour, one of them would discover the GSG and piece of apron and the other would be the first to notice the piece of apron was missing from the deceased.
                              and one even walked past the GS archway on his way back to Mitre Square! and not forgetting that officer at the mortuary who conveniently noticed a piece missing did so even before the GS piece had been found amazing powers of perception

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 08-15-2020, 09:53 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Yes, but with the Eddowes murder, he was probably disturbed by a police officer, so if that were the case he would have left in haste, no time to cut a piece of her apron if she had in fact been wearing one, which is a contentious issue. but I am not going to muddy the waters here I simply wanted to show the flaws in your theory.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                For someone who was disturbed by police he got quite a bit done to Eddowes. I don’t think cutting a piece of her apron was anymore time consuming than carving Vs in her face or the top of her nose off.
                                One of the few things I think Patrick Cornwell got right was with Eddowes he seemed to rip through the many layers of clothing with his knife much quicker by slashing away through them to get to as much of her abdomen and genitalia exposed and as quickly as possible. On Chapman and Nichols he lifted up their skirts which he probably learned took too much time.
                                I find it difficult to believe he wouldn’t have had time to have taken a piece of her apron there and then as a means to identify himself as the killer so the police will believe the graffiti was his. He most likely changed clothes and washed in a safe house nearby and waited for the opportune moment to place the evidence at Goulston Street.
                                Last edited by erobitha; 08-15-2020, 10:42 PM.
                                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X