writing on the wall

[Fleetwood Mac]

narrow minded view of the situation. to be expected based on previous..

The last thread was clogged up with nonsense posts, ad hominem arguments. And here you are, you want to bring this to another thread.

It's clear that a few of you are intent on having an argument, are not constructive in your posts and the posts lack any reference to the source material.

Furthermore, it's noticeable that many of the posters who used to post on here don't bother anymore. They post on JTR Forums instead. It's pretty obvious why.

At this point the mods really should be getting a grip on a few of you, but it seems they have abandoned a sinking ship and the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

The mods won't tell you so I will: stop being a child, post something constructive, in the event you're here to have a fight with someone then go back to the Richardson thread, you have willing takers on there.

[Aethelwulf]

Well, there are only two bits of experience we have:

1) The Whitechapel Murderer: there is no evidence of him writing on walls at any other crime scene.

2) Other serial killers: they don't tend to scrawl on walls.

I can't think of any other experience to draw upon.

Based on that, I doubt he was the author of the GSG.

narrow minded view of the situation. to be expected based on previous..

[Fleetwood Mac]

The theory is the killer has a beef with Jews that night which he simply had to get off his chest. First with Schwartz/"Lipski", then secondly with Lawende & co. However, despite being spotted by Jews twice that night it didn't deter the killer from murder both times. Whatever frustration he felt should've been extinguished after he butchered Eddowes. But still, the killer felt compelled to go back on the street and risk getting caught?

Well, there are only two bits of experience we have:

1) The Whitechapel Murderer: there is no evidence of him writing on walls at any other crime scene.

2) Other serial killers: they don't tend to scrawl on walls.

I can't think of any other experience to draw upon.

Based on that, I doubt he was the author of the GSG.

[Wickerman]

Realize that what we are seeing is the writing of a court reporter- 2nd-hand at best, and if the newspaper's reporter, more likely 3rd or 4th.

- "There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing.'" (Meaning that her response was to literally say "Nothing".)
- "There she was asked her name, and she replied Nothing." (Meaning that she didn't say anything to the question.)

Two different interpretations, either of which could be correct, by Someone who probably wasn't actually there at the time- which one is true?

Fair enough, except, assuming both the reporter & editor understood English, the use of "quotation marks" implies her words - verbatim. I don't know what the press were taught in the US.

[Harry D]

Harry,

in the event the murderer was intent on leaving garbled messages on a wall for whatever reason he thought it expedient, then it would have happened at other murder sites, particularly Mark Kelly's lodging when there was ample opportunity.

The theory is the killer has a beef with Jews that night which he simply had to get off his chest. First with Schwartz/"Lipski", then secondly with Lawende & co. However, despite being spotted by Jews twice that night it didn't deter the killer from murder both times. Whatever frustration he felt should've been extinguished after he butchered Eddowes. But still, the killer felt compelled to go back on the street and risk getting caught?

[DJA]

[Fleetwood Mac]

Realize that what we are seeing is the writing of a court reporter- 2nd-hand at best, and if the newspaper's reporter, more likely 3rd or 4th.

- "There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing.'" (Meaning that her response was to literally say "Nothing".)
- "There she was asked her name, and she replied Nothing." (Meaning that she didn't say anything to the question.)

Two different interpretations, either of which could be correct, by Someone who probably wasn't actually there at the time- which one is true?

'Pretty obvious that the former statement is the sensible interpretation. In the event Catherine kept her mouth shut, then she didn't reply.

[DJA]

Day 2, Thursday, October 11, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888, Page 2)

Yesterday [11 Oct], at the City Coroner's Court, Golden-lane, Mr. S. F. Langham resumed the inquest respecting the death of Catherine Eddowes, who was found murdered and mutilated in Mitre-square, Aldgate, early on the morning of Sunday, Sept. 30.

[C. F. Leon]

City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. 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.

Realize that what we are seeing is the writing of a court reporter- 2nd-hand at best, and if the newspaper's reporter, more likely 3rd or 4th.

- "There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing.'" (Meaning that her response was to literally say "Nothing".)
- "There she was asked her name, and she replied Nothing." (Meaning that she didn't say anything to the question.)

Two different interpretations, either of which could be correct, by Someone who probably wasn't actually there at the time- which one is true?

[C. F. Leon]

Hi Trever, so are your saying that Catherine wasn't wearing her apron but was carrying a single bisected apron in her possesions that JTR took from her belongings used and then dumped?

Helen x

Now, that is a possibility- even likely. I used to have a shirt that I really liked and long after it was past the point of being usable as a shirt, I kept the pieces and used them as handkerchiefs.

Nowadays, people that aren't poor have no concept of the term "reuse". And these people were the poster images for "poorer than 'dirt'" (thus "dirt poor").

[C. F. Leon]

Reckon Mr Blotchy drugged Kelly and left the door unlocked for Sutton.

The first part of that is certainly a possibility- especially if by "drugged", you mean "got (her) drunk as a skunk". (Or whatever term the Brits use- I don't recall if skunks are native to the British Isles.)

[Fleetwood Mac]

If the graffito and apron piece were not missed the first time around, then the killer lingered in the area for up to an hour before writing it. The killer's movements suggest he headed back into the heart of Ripperland rather than seek safety elsewhere. After the killer's bloodlust was sated, and his survival instincts kicked in, why would he go out to Goulston Street to write the graffito and drop the apron at the risk of getting caught? If this is true, he clearly wanted his message to be known. And what message was it? A vague anti-semitic comment or a vague message of Jewish solidarity? Depending on your interpretation.

"The graffito was bad enough for the police to censor it" That's debatable. It could be argued they were being overcautious, particularly as the GSG came out in the wash anyway and caused nary a whimper.

The other argument would be "he's a crazed serial killer, it made sense to him" This is a little more convincing. While messages left by killers are rare, some are more cryptic than others. However, the majority of them speak to the killer's murders and motivations. The GSG offers no insight into either.

Harry,

in the event the murderer was intent on leaving garbled messages on a wall for whatever reason he thought it expedient, then it would have happened at other murder sites, particularly Mark Kelly's lodging when there was ample opportunity.

[Harry D]

If the graffito and apron piece were not missed the first time around, then the killer lingered in the area for up to an hour before writing it. The killer's movements suggest he headed back into the heart of Ripperland rather than seek safety elsewhere. After the killer's bloodlust was sated, and his survival instincts kicked in, why would he go out to Goulston Street to write the graffito and drop the apron at the risk of getting caught? If this is true, he clearly wanted his message to be known. And what message was it? A vague anti-semitic comment or a vague message of Jewish solidarity? Depending on your interpretation.

"The graffito was bad enough for the police to censor it" That's debatable. It could be argued they were being overcautious, particularly as the GSG came out in the wash anyway and caused nary a whimper.

The other argument would be "he's a crazed serial killer, it made sense to him" This is a little more convincing. While messages left by killers are rare, some are more cryptic than others. However, the majority of them speak to the killer's murders and motivations. The GSG offers no insight into either.

[DJA]

Prolly could have limited your coffee intake

[milchmanuk]

again there was no photograph !
was this intentionally done to see if there would be correspondences from the killer, trying to keep a lid on it as such so the police could then work leads if the killer was actually corresponding to the police.

oops this morning perhaps i should of wrote the diary