Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

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

  • #76
    the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the GSG is that the killer wrote it. He had been interrupted/seen by several jews that night and was probably pissed off by it and threw some shade their way. the grafitti was written on a building mostly inhabited by jews. Its directly above eddowes bloody apron piece.many of the police thought it was written by the killer.
    its a no brainer really.
    "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


    • #77
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
      the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the GSG is that the killer wrote it. He had been interrupted/seen by several jews that night and was probably pissed off by it and threw some shade their way. the grafitti was written on a building mostly inhabited by jews. Its directly above eddowes bloody apron piece.many of the police thought it was written by the killer.
      its a no brainer really.
      It's a strange feeling seeing someone who more often than not disagrees with your theories, suddenly agrees with you on something. I feel slightly unsettled.
      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by erobitha View Post

        So the PC Long transcript which was part of the report submitted by Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office was not in effect his final approved Met Police version?
        Warren does not 'approve' evidence.

        All officials submit reports up their own chain of command, so nothing unusual about that.

        Every Met. officer, when including evidence as part of their report, is submitting the current information in possession of Scotland Yard.
        Warren is not concerned with evidence offered by a City detective at the inquest, the city police are pursuing their own investigation. The Eddowes inquest was part of the city investigation, not Scotland Yard.

        The graffiti version taken down by Halse belonged to the City Detective Dept., under McWilliam, not Scotland Yard under Warren.
        City police records were all destroyed in the blitz, otherwise we might have found Halse's version in McWilliams own report to the Home Office.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by erobitha View Post

          It's a strange feeling seeing someone who more often than not disagrees with your theories, suddenly agrees with you on something. I feel slightly unsettled.
          well it certainly wasnt written by Maybrick thats for sure. there.. feel better? lol
          "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


          • #80
            Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            well it certainly wasnt written by Maybrick thats for sure. there.. feel better? lol
            Normal service resumed
            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              Warren does not 'approve' evidence.

              All officials submit reports up their own chain of command, so nothing unusual about that.

              Every Met. officer, when including evidence as part of their report, is submitting the current information in possession of Scotland Yard.
              Warren is not concerned with evidence offered by a City detective at the inquest, the city police are pursuing their own investigation. The Eddowes inquest was part of the city investigation, not Scotland Yard.

              The graffiti version taken down by Halse belonged to the City Detective Dept., under McWilliam, not Scotland Yard under Warren.
              City police records were all destroyed in the blitz, otherwise we might have found Halse's version in McWilliams own report to the Home Office.
              All of that is perfectly reasonable. If Warren himself was not at the scene, if Warren himself had not wiped the graffiti from the wall and if wasn't Warren's name on the met report submitted to the Home Office.

              He has tampered every step of the way at this scene.

              As I have said through this thread, we will never know what it is was Charlie did not want the rest of us to see. But there was something. Either the transcription Long submitted was off slightly or there was something more unknown.
              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                the simplest and most reasonable explanation for the GSG is that the killer wrote it. He had been interrupted/seen by several jews that night and was probably pissed off by it and threw some shade their way. the grafitti was written on a building mostly inhabited by jews. Its directly above eddowes bloody apron piece.many of the police thought it was written by the killer.
                its a no brainer really.
                I think the opposite. I think saying the killer wrote it is LESS simple than saying the following:

                anti-Semitic graffiti was likely common in those areas and it just happened to already be there when the killer dropped the apron.

                Just my opinion, which of course, could be entirely wrong.

                I wonder if having a strongly favoured suspect can influence somebody's opinion on the graffiti? Like if you think the killer was Jewish, you'll be tempted to say the graffiti was incidental, and if you think he was a gentile, you'll be tempted to say the killer wrote it...?
                Last edited by J6123; 08-17-2020, 03:46 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by J6123 View Post

                  I think the opposite. I think saying the killer wrote it is LESS simple than saying the following:

                  anti-Semitic graffiti was likely common in those areas and it just happened to already be there when the killer dropped the apron.

                  Just my opinion, which of course, could be entirely wrong.
                  hi J
                  of course you could be right. but how long to you think a disparaging grafitti about jews would have lasted in the doorway of a predominantly jewish inhabited building? not very long-methinks that it never saw the light of day.
                  "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


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                    hi J
                    of course you could be right. but how long to you think a disparaging grafitti about jews would have lasted in the doorway of a predominantly jewish inhabited building? not very long-methinks that it never saw the light of day.
                    This is assuming that the grafitti is in fact anti-Semitic which might not be the case. A pro-Jewish interpretation certainly seems reasonable as in the Jews are tired of being blamed for things they didn't do. All things considered it probably is anti-Semitic but that can't be stated as an established fact.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                      hi J
                      of course you could be right. but how long to you think a disparaging grafitti about jews would have lasted in the doorway of a predominantly jewish inhabited building? not very long-methinks that it never saw the light of day.
                      Always assuming the Jewish residents could read English, or even noticed it, as it was so small.
                      Don't we see racist graffiti in coloured neighbourhoods today? does anyone bother to rub if out?

                      As J6123 said, the simplest explanation is it was already there, now we don't need to jump through hoops & twist ourselves in knots trying to agree on a meaning. It's just a complaint that Jews won't accept responsibility for anything.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        Always assuming the Jewish residents could read English, or even noticed it, as it was so small.
                        Don't we see racist graffiti in coloured neighbourhoods today? does anyone bother to rub if out?

                        As J6123 said, the simplest explanation is it was already there, now we don't need to jump through hoops & twist ourselves in knots trying to agree on a meaning. It's just a complaint that Jews won't accept responsibility for anything.
                        ...and Jack who has never left such a clue previously randomly leaves one here, where there is also random graffiti, in a random street where randomly the locals most likley can't read English or even see the graffiti. All very random.

                        It definitely is in the realms of simple, but what is even simpler is Abby's description which I share.
                        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                          ...and Jack who has never left such a clue previously randomly leaves one here, where there is also random graffiti, in a random street where randomly the locals most likley can't read English or even see the graffiti. All very random.

                          It definitely is in the realms of simple, but what is even simpler is Abby's description which I share.
                          The fact that the killer never left any other written clue in combination with any of his other murders is indicative of him not having written the GSG either. It is not as if it would somehow be the other way around.

                          All we know is that he brought a piece of Eddowes´ apron along with himself as he left the murder scene, and that he dropped it in Goulston Street. Those are the facts, the rest is speculation. Simple, complicated, random or not.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                            ...and Jack who has never left such a clue previously randomly leaves one here, where there is also random graffiti, in a random street where randomly the locals most likley can't read English or even see the graffiti. All very random.
                            A clue has never been found before, that is true, not that he never left any, that is different.

                            In this case the killer might have carried that portion of apron away, and thrown it in a doorway as he passed on seeing the lamp of an approaching policeman. That sounds like the simplest solution for the apron being there, given the proliferation of foreign families in the East End it's not unlikely that it landed in a Jewish tenement.
                            If it wasn't random, then it was planed, and he couldn't plan for his victim to be wearing an apron.

                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              A clue has never been found before, that is true, not that he never left any, that is different.

                              In this case the killer might have carried that portion of apron away, and thrown it in a doorway as he passed on seeing the lamp of an approaching policeman. That sounds like the simplest solution for the apron being there, given the proliferation of foreign families in the East End it's not unlikely that it landed in a Jewish tenement.
                              If it wasn't random, then it was planed, and he couldn't plan for his victim to be wearing an apron.
                              Like he wouldn’t have used another piece of clothing instead?
                              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                If it wasn't random, then it was planed, and he couldn't plan for his victim to be wearing an apron.

                                It is rare to read such a weak argument.

                                I think I will give it a like! some support wouldn't hurt.



                                The Baron

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X