Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

writing on the wall

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

  • #76
    sorry couldn't resist

    Comment


    • #77
      The killer had to bring attention to the rag, hence the Graffiti.
      I cant amagin a passer by or even an average policeman taking any notice of just a bit more rubbish laying around.
      and although my memory escapes me at this moment, I think I'm right in saying Halse hadn't been alerted about the Mitre Sq murder at this point ( I stand to be corrected on that )

      And I'm pretty certain that dark red/blood wouldnt be that noticeable in the dark.....I tried that experiment years back.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by spyglass View Post
        The killer had to bring attention to the rag, hence the Graffiti.
        I cant amagin a passer by or even an average policeman taking any notice of just a bit more rubbish laying around.
        and although my memory escapes me at this moment, I think I'm right in saying Halse hadn't been alerted about the Mitre Sq murder at this point ( I stand to be corrected on that )

        And I'm pretty certain that dark red/blood wouldnt be that noticeable in the dark.....I tried that experiment years back.
        If he had wanted to bring attention to the apron piece he could have just sent it to the police with a note attached, Disposing of it where it was found might have resulted in it not being found, and simply treated as an old screwed up piece of rag thereby attracting no attention. The writing cannot be connected to any of the murders and has no significance to any of the murders. So on that basis I conclude that the killer did not write it.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

          The Star reported it differently meaning we cannot take the Evening News account at face value:
          It is true that the Evening News was the paper that identified the hatless woman by name, all the rest merely described her as hatless & poorly clad, which doesn't mean it wasn't Kelly, that is how she appeared.
          Kelly was certainly hatless, Cox specifically said so on the night in question. It was a prostitutes calling-card to not wear a hat in the evening hours. So all the accounts can be used to identify the same woman, and that woman was named, it was Kelly.


          I think it safe to say Mrs. Kennedy was Sarah Lewis using a pseudonym. Lewis told the Inquest;
          Sure, it all depends on how much stated evidence you choose to ignore.

          - Lewis lived at No.24 Great Pearl Street.
          - Kennedy lived at No.2 Millers Court.

          - Lewis passed the Britannia, and arrived at Millers Court at, or before 2:30 am.
          - Kennedy arrived at the Britannia at 3:00 am.

          - Lewis saw one woman with one man outside the Britannia.
          - Kennedy saw two women with one man outside the Britannia.

          - Lewis saw a man in Dorset St. standing opposite Millers Court.
          - Kennedy made no mention of seeing anyone in Dorset St.

          Conversely, perhaps you can list at least 4 pieces of evidence which demonstrate Lewis & Kennedy were the same person?

          If Lewis had seen Kelly she most certainly would have said so at the Inquest.
          She did, I gave the quote above - the hatless woman entering Millers Court.
          Lewis didn't live at Millers Court, in her police statement to Abberline on 9th Nov. Lewis said, "I did not know the deceased". Clearly then Lewis couldn't identify Kelly by name.

          In relation to timings Hutchinson fixed his time seeing Kelly at around 2am. The whole incident involving Hutchinson, Kelly and A.K man took most likely 10-15 minutes absolute maximum. Probably slightly less. The latest Hutchinson set up vigil at Crossinghams was 2:15am. Lewis fixed the time as 2;30am on her way to Mrs. Keyler's. Again Lewis here is rather vague and frustratingly it is difficult to decipher what she meant. She told the Inquest:

          "When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake. There was no one talking to him. He was a stout-looking man, and not very tall. The hat was black. I did not take any notice of his clothes. The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. (This has to be Hutchinson). Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court. I dozed in a chair at Mrs. Keyler's, and woke at about half- past three. I heard the clock strike."

          I think though she just muddled the events. She sees Hutchinson standing as if waiting for someone. Further on from him she sees a man and a woman the latter in drink. Then entering the court no one was there.
          Lewis did not say when she arrived at Millers Court, she said she was there at 2:30 am, that is when the church chimes the half-hour. We know this because she also said she heard the same clock chime 3:30, so we know it chimed at 2:30, and in her testimony she told the court she was AT Millers Court at 2:30, not that she ARRIVED at 2:30.
          She also says she knew the time because she looked up at the clock as she passed, but she doesn't say what that time was. It could have been 2:05, 2:10, or 2:15, but she just doesn't say.
          Yet you are trying to insist it must have been 2:30, when by your own estimation it couldn't have been 2:30 because Hutchinson had to be watching the Court by 2:15, which was when Lewis arrived, give or take a minute or two.

          Bowyer was asked when he last saw Kelly alive at the Inquest:

          By the Jury: When did you see her last alive ? - On Wednesday afternoon, in the court, when I spoke to her. McCarthy's shop is at the corner of Miller's-court.
          Yes, and he told the truth, but the coroner did not pursue the questioning, that is the issue.


          What your reply shows is that you are confused over the sequence of events because of your choice to ignore meaningful evidence (re Kennedy & Lewis), in preference to guesswork. And for some reason a refusal to accept Hutchinson was telling the truth.
          If you just accept what is written it all falls into place much easier.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

            Bowyer at the Inquest did not mention the Wednesday night incident but said he had last seen her on Wednesday afternoon when he had spoken to her in the Court. I think we can dismiss the press report.
            Just incase you are making a distinction between 'afternoon' and 'evening', in the late 19th century afternoon & evening meant the same thing.

            Read the first line here:


            Read the last lines here:


            Read the times on the right side:


            Today, we make a distinction between afternoon and evening, not so in the 19th century.
            You're not the only one who has tripped up over this little known fact.



            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by spyglass View Post
              The killer had to bring attention to the rag, hence the Graffiti.
              ???
              Shouldn't that be the other way around?
              The rag was dropped to bring attention to the graffiti, or so the conventional interpretation goes. Though, I doubt they were related.

              I cant amagin a passer by or even an average policeman taking any notice of just a bit more rubbish laying around.
              If you study old street photo's you may notice it was not usual to see rubbish in the streets, not like today's throw-away society.
              You might like to read Mayhew's, London Labour and the London Poor. Absolutely everything had a value; paper, string, bits of wood, even horse dung. The streets were relatively clean compared with today.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                Just incase you are making a distinction between 'afternoon' and 'evening', in the late 19th century afternoon & evening meant the same thing.

                Read the first line here:


                Read the last lines here:


                Read the times on the right side:


                Today, we make a distinction between afternoon and evening, not so in the 19th century.
                You're not the only one who has tripped up over this little known fact.


                To be fair this is way off topic. Is there anywhere we can continue this where it is more appropriate?

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Jon,

                  Then there is the man reported by Daily telegraph 6 Oct:
                  ..... but having a small moustache and wearing a black deerstalker felt hat, instead of a soft one, has been made by the police in Whitechapel ever since Saturday, Sept. 1, the day following the Buck's-row tragedy....... and the brim of his hard felt hat struck the dairyman, who is therefore sure of the kind that he was wearing......

                  Here are reports of a hard felt deerstalker hat as described by PC Smith, the staring eyes and the black shiny bag. I wonder what Leon Goldstein looked like?

                  Best regards, George
                  Thankyou George.

                  I still look when time permits, but I have never managed to find a hard-felt deerstalker hat.
                  Are you subscribed to the BNA (Newspaper Archive), it may be possible to find an advertisement for one of those hats.
                  Even though you have what appears to be a description of one (above), I wonder if it only describes a hard brim to the soft deerstalker? I've held deerstalker hats in the past but I cannot recall if the brims were soft or hard. I know the cap was made of soft cloth so it could be folded, but what about the brim?

                  I'll be renewing my subscription to BNA in October, must save every penny for a 3 week trip to Egypt later this year. In the meantime I have sent an email to a distinguished Hat manufacturer in London, UK. to see if they can verify this type of hat did exist in Victorian times.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    if jack did write "the writing on the wall "
                    he could be saying i am a jew and God will not blame us,
                    i believe the Torah is five books behind a veil .
                    like conical five ?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post

                      To be fair this is way off topic. Is there anywhere we can continue this where it is more appropriate?
                      Of course, the post that went off-topic was #58 where you commented on my use of Sarah Lewis as a witness. We could fire-up an old thread about Sarah Lewis, or is Bowyer's use of "afternoon" instead of "evening" that you are referring to?
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        One of the old RipperCast episodes talked about handwriting (?the one on the Ripper Letters) and it was mentioned that in this period, the pupils were encouraged to copy the template as closely as they could- the intent being almost as close to a Xerox as possible. So a distinct lettering style, such as a "D" with a particular looping, is more likely to be more "Prof. Higgins' style", rather than Master Druitt's or Master Hutchinson's own. And some of these teachers might have influenced 20 or 30 years of little calligraphers practicing their resumes or letters to The Times claiming to be JtR.
                        Last edited by C. F. Leon; 06-30-2022, 10:52 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          i was just reading and a author wrote why did he not write next to a body,.
                          perhaps he was also carrying he,s shoes !
                          a local lad would grow up bear footed .
                          and a kit with organs in the other hand.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            If he had wanted to bring attention to the apron piece he could have just sent it to the police with a note attached, Disposing of it where it was found might have resulted in it not being found, and simply treated as an old screwed up piece of rag thereby attracting no attention. The writing cannot be connected to any of the murders and has no significance to any of the murders. So on that basis I conclude that the killer did not write it.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            But it works the other way too Trevor.
                            Right next to the entry was an open pit, surrounded by iron railings.
                            The railings can be seen here.


                            We had the same in our first house. As you can see in the photo the lower window at ground level is bricked up, so was ours. But my point here is that the pit is something like 4-5 ft deep, and likely collects whatever rubbish blows around. The organs may have been down in that pit, we have no mention of the police searching it. At the time the police theory seems to have been that the rag was only used to wipe his hands, so no police bothered to look for spilled organs.

                            If, the killer was carrying the organs in the piece of apron, as I always believed, and threw the bundle at the doorway as he ran passed, they may have spilled out as the bundle hit the wall/archway and ended up down in that hole.
                            It was not planted, it wasn't intentional, the bundle was thrown away into the doorway, in desperation as he may have seen an officer coming up the street. The fact there was some graffiti close by was irrelevant.
                            Last edited by Wickerman; 07-01-2022, 12:33 PM.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              If he had wanted to bring attention to the apron piece he could have just sent it to the police with a note attached, Disposing of it where it was found might have resulted in it not being found, and simply treated as an old screwed up piece of rag thereby attracting no attention. The writing cannot be connected to any of the murders and has no significance to any of the murders. So on that basis I conclude that the killer did not write it.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              The GSG has always struck me a something written by a local (and what I mean by that is English/first language English) not a foreigner, even one that knew the language well. I wonder if Trevor's desire to discredit the GSG and its apparent (non)connection to the crazy apron/sanitary towel theory is because it is very unlikely a German sailor wrote it. Ditto from hell/kidney and his rogue mortician theory.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                                The GSG has always struck me a something written by a local (and what I mean by that is English/first language English) not a foreigner, even one that knew the language well. I wonder if Trevor's desire to discredit the GSG and its apparent (non)connection to the crazy apron/sanitary towel theory is because it is very unlikely a German sailor wrote it. Ditto from hell/kidney and his rogue mortician theory.
                                yeah i cant seem to put together trevors feiganbaums the ripper, there was no ripper, there was a ripper but he didnt take away internal organs, and rogue mortician theories.
                                "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

                                Working...
                                X