Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape Route?

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

  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post

    And before you complain, which you will because it’s your hobby, it’s not against Forum rules to respond to posts that weren’t originally aimed at you. So I’ll respond.

    You also alleged that I 'piled assumption upon assumption' but, as I responded, in some detail, I had in fact made reasonable deductions and explained how I arrived at them.

    And I’ve pointed out numerous times that there is no issue with anyone making deductions/interpretations. The issues arise when a single poster assumes that they are infallible and throws a fit every time someone disagrees and posits an alternative deduction/interpretation. Most things in this case have more than one possible interpretation and you shouldn’t expect every other poster to accept yours as some kind of benchmark.

    You claimed there are 'multiple possible explanations' for the murderer's cutting of the apron in two, other than the one I gave, but when I asked you whether you could provide a more plausible explanation than mine, you made no reply.

    Its not a case of being ‘more plausible.’ Again it’s a case of possible alternatives. The suggestion that the killer, acknowledging that he wouldn’t have time for any clean up in Mitre Square, took away a piece of cloth so that he could check himself over and then clean up away from the crime scene, is both plausible and possible. No less plausible than your preferred explanation. It’s also possible that he might have cut himself in Mitre Square and used the cloth to wrap a wound. Maybe he took it as some kind of souvenir, intending to give it so some woman as a handkerchief so that he could gain some kind of thrill. But when he got near to a light he saw that it was covered in blood and faeces so he threw it away. Who knows. There are alternatives but none can be verified.

    Any outside observer reading our exchange would doubtless conclude that a strange game is being played on this forum.

    And it’s only started since you began posting.

    In addition to being accused routinely of making assumptions instead of deductions from the evidence, I am being accused of making statements for which I have no evidence and - by implication - for which there is no evidence.

    Correct. You have no evidence about the coat and yet rather than admit this you continue to wriggle.

    Yet, time and again, I am proven right.

    Perhaps you should try and get control of that ego?

    You weren’t right about the coat. You weren’t right when you accused me of saying 8 things that were said by someone else.


    Any such observer would rightly conclude that all the assumptions are being made by my critics - and that those assumptions are demonstrably unfounded, as your silence confirmed.

    And of course this is why you have so many people rushing to agree with you…….don’t you? Oh….no you don’t. Not a single person.


    As for your comments above:

    Joseph Lawende was considered by the police to be an important and reliable witness and royally treated by them.

    And that’s why the Police began looking for a sailor. Oh…..hold on…..no they didn’t did they?

    His description of the suspect was evidently considered valuable, or else it would not have been withheld at the inquest.

    Of course it was valued. It was hardly cctv footage though. We all know that witnesses can be fallible on identification, especially at night under a gas lamp by a man who was paying little attention.

    I suggest your point about poor lighting is not valid: Lawende could judge the colour of the man's moustache, the colour and pattern of his jacket, the colour of his neckerchief, and the colour of his cap.

    This is woeful reasoning. He ‘judged’ the colour but we have no way of verifying if he was correct or not. Think about it. And, despite your refusal to accept the fact, lighting affects our perception of colour.

    It is hardly believable that the man was bathed in light while the woman, who had her hand on his chest, was enveloped in gloom.

    You do realise that this was 1888 don’t you. Have you ever stood near a gas lamp. It’s hardly a lighthouse.

    There was not a big enough time gap for someone else to have murdered Eddowes.

    This is simply untrue. The man could have moved on at 1.35 and Eddowes could have entered Church Passage to pass through Mitre Square where she meets her killer coming from the opposite direction.

    We had Trevor Marriott yesterday questioning whether the murderer had time to excise Eddowes' kidney, so how could Eddowes have parted from the man she was so obviously interested in, found another man, and that man still have had time to excise her kidney - and yes, I do believe that all the excisions were done by the murderer.

    See above. She could still have met her killer at 1.35 or 1.36. If the man walked away as soon as Lawende passed Kate could have met her killer 20 seconds later. We simply don’t know despite your assumptions and leaps of faith.

    The police themselves did acknowledge at the time the lack of time for someone other than the man seen by Lawende to have committed the murder.

    If they did (and I can’t recall this fact being stated explicitly - though it might have been) it doesn’t mean that they can’t have been wrong unless they took the same ‘infallibility pills’ that you do.

    As I stated previously, I believe the murderer was living in accommodation in Spitalfields throughout the period in which the murders occurred and did not take his trophies back to a family, wife, relatives, friends or colleagues.

    And you might be correct but it’s not correct just because you’ve said it. He might not have lived in Spitalfields. Any suggestion that this isn’t possible is simply wrong.

    My reading of the arrival and departure dates of ships convinced me beyond any doubt that the murderer could not have been coming and going on any ships.
    Thats fine, because there’s no evidence that he was a sailor.

    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes

    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      Thats fine, because there’s no evidence that he was a sailor.
      But that suggestion cannot be dismissed!

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        But that suggestion cannot be dismissed!

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Agreed.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Even though I’ve mostly slightly favoured that the writing was written by the killer I think it’s worth us remembering the obvious. That the writing in no way mentions or even hints at being linked to the murders. Only the positioning of the apron provides a possible link. We know that anti-semitism was rife at the time and, if I recall correctly, someone posted on here a while ago that graffiti was fairly commonplace at the time. So it’s reasonable to assume that some of that graffiti might have been anti-Semitic. So it has to be a possibility that the graffito was already there.

          Now the question could (and no doubt will) be asked “why did no one rub it off, especially in a building with Jewish occupants?” A fair question. But here are 4 points/questions that I think are worth considering. Apologies to all for stating the obvious.

          Firstly, I grew up in the seventies. Racist words and insults were sadly commonplace. I recall seeing racist graffiti on walls, bus stops, written into the grime on vans and lorries and even in the school playground (floor and walls). I can’t recall black people going around wiping it off to any real extent. All that I’m saying is that perhaps no one bothered rubbing out a small piece of graffiti which, when all said and done, is hardly the worst example of its kind. Maybe it was a case of people thinking “someone else will rub it off,” but no one actually did. Perhaps because of this it had been there for two or three days and if the murder hadn’t occurred ‘Mrs Cohen’ would have decided that she might as well be the one to rub it off? We don’t know.

          Secondly, and this won’t appeal to those who don’t believe in coincidences (you might as well say that you don’t believe in trees) it could have been the case that it was written that night by some drunk bloke coming home from the pub.

          Thirdly, it has to be asked why, if he did write the message, didn’t the killer write something obviously about the murder; with the cloth confirming it as genuine? Why didn’t he mention the murder itself? With this ambiguous message he risked the police thinking that he’d just by chance dumped the cloth near to a piece of anti-Semitic graffiti. Surely he’d have realised that the police would have asked the same questions that we do today? How much simpler and more effective to do an “I’m Jack - type message?”

          Fourthly, and very obviously, why did he write a message after Eddowes but not after the other murders? He could easily have written one in the backyard of number 29 or in Mary Kelly’s room (FM controversy aside of course) Yet he chooses to stop and do one on the very night when the police are looking for the killer of two women, especially if it wasn’t there when Long passed at 2.00. Why the risk?

          Surely we all have to admit to having doubts on whether it was written by the killer or not? Like many on here I’ve been interested in this case and have been reading about it and thinking about it for over 35 years and I still can’t make my mind up on this issue (and others) So it beats me how anyone can be confident on this. On what basis? We have so little to go on.

          So when someone asks - was the graffito written by the ripper, my answer’s the same. I haven’t a clue. Maybe….maybe not.
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 12-01-2022, 09:28 PM.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • We know that anti-semitism was rife at the time and, if I recall correctly, someone posted on here a while ago that graffiti was fairly commonplace at the time. So it’s reasonable to assume that some of that graffiti might have been anti-Semitic. So it has to be a possibility that the graffito was already there.

            If this is true (and it most likely is) then sure as shooting the other side (the Jews) fired back and and there was pro Jewish sentiment expressed as well in the graffiti in Whitechapel. That is just human nature.

            c.d.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
              Even though I’ve mostly slightly favoured that the writing was written by the killer I think it’s worth us remembering the obvious. That the writing in no way mentions or even hints at being linked to the murders. Only the positioning of the apron provides a possible link. We know that anti-semitism was rife at the time and, if I recall correctly, someone posted on here a while ago that graffiti was fairly commonplace at the time. So it’s reasonable to assume that some of that graffiti might have been anti-Semitic. So it has to be a possibility that the graffito was already there.

              Now the question could (and no doubt will) be asked “why did no one rub it off, especially in a building with Jewish occupants?” A fair question. But here are 4 points/questions that I think are worth considering. Apologies to all for stating the obvious.

              Firstly, I grew up in the seventies. Racist words and insults were sadly commonplace. I recall seeing racist graffiti on walls, bus stops, written into the grime on vans and lorries and even in the school playground (floor and walls). I can’t recall black people going around wiping it off to any real extent. All that I’m saying is that perhaps no one bothered rubbing out a small piece of graffiti which, when all said and done, is hardly the worst example of its kind. Maybe it was a case of people thinking “someone else will rub it off,” but no one actually did. Perhaps because of this it had been there for two or three days and if the murder hadn’t occurred ‘Mrs Cohen’ would have decided that she might as well be the one to rub it off? We don’t know.

              Secondly, and this won’t appeal to those who don’t believe in coincidences (you might as well say that you don’t believe in trees) it could have been the case that it was written that night by some drunk bloke coming home from the pub.

              Thirdly, it has to be asked why, if he did write the message, didn’t the killer write something obviously about the murder; with the cloth confirming it as genuine? Why didn’t he mention the murder itself? With this ambiguous message he risked the police thinking that he’d just by chance dumped the cloth near to a piece of anti-Semitic graffiti. Surely he’d have realised that the police would have asked the same questions that we do today? How much simpler and more effective to do an “I’m Jack - type message?”

              Fourthly, and very obviously, why did he write a message after Eddowes but not after the other murders? He could easily have written one in the backyard of number 29 or in Mary Kelly’s room (FM controversy aside of course) Yet he chooses to stop and do one on the very night when the police are looking for the killer of two women, especially if it wasn’t there when Long passed at 2.00. Why the risk?

              Surely we all have to admit to having doubts on whether it was written by the killer or not? Like many on here I’ve been interested in this case and have been reading about it and thinking about it for over 35 years and I still can’t make my mind up on this issue (and others) So it beats me how anyone can be confident on this. On what basis? We have so little to go on.

              So when someone asks - was the graffito written by the ripper, my answer’s the same. I haven’t a clue. Maybe….maybe not.
              Hi Herlock
              Pretty much agree with everything you say but to me the GSG was probably written by the killer, especially considering the circs of the night of the double event. The ripper was interupted by an apparently jewish looking person in schwartz, that angererd him to the point of shouting a jewish slur at him. And that the GSG disparaged jews pretty much seals the deal for me.
              "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


              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post


                You started the argument and anyone viewing our exchanges can see that all the infantile remarks were made by you and that none was made by me.
                Just as anyone can also see through these exchanges what a ridiculous statement you made regarding the man seen with lawende.

                That you have been shown to be the case by another poster backs up my original reply

                I guess the good night sleep didn't help.

                Don't let your opinions get mixed up with the facts. Rookie mistake.
                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                  Hi Herlock
                  Pretty much agree with everything you say but to me the GSG was probably written by the killer, especially considering the circs of the night of the double event. The ripper was interupted by an apparently jewish looking person in schwartz, that angererd him to the point of shouting a jewish slur at him. And that the GSG disparaged jews pretty much seals the deal for me.
                  Hi Abby,

                  You certainly could be right and I’ve mostly favoured that it was written by the killer but whenever I sit and think about it doubts come up. What if’s and maybe’s everywhere. I just can’t help wondering why he didn’t just write a more obvious message mentioning the murder itself or prostitutes? I’m getting splinters from spending 35+ years on the fence.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    What if’s and maybe’s everywhere. I just can’t help wondering why he didn’t just write a more obvious message mentioning the murder itself or prostitutes?
                    Hi Herlock,

                    Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them (unless they are school masters ) and, to take the time to write it he must have wanted it to be seen, so why so small? What is the difficulty factor of writing in chalk on a brick wall in cursive in the dark with the capitals only 3/4" high. Sounds more like a daylight task which wasn't washed off because it was too small for most people to notice?

                    Cheers, George
                    Last edited by GBinOz; 12-01-2022, 11:54 PM.
                    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                    “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                    Comment


                    • [QUOTE=GBinOz;n800991]


                      Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them, unless they are a lecturer at the London Hospital preparing for the Michaelmass Term.

                      QUOTE]

                      FIFY
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Hi Abby,

                        You certainly could be right and I’ve mostly favoured that it was written by the killer but whenever I sit and think about it doubts come up. What if’s and maybe’s everywhere. I just can’t help wondering why he didn’t just write a more obvious message mentioning the murder itself or prostitutes? I’m getting splinters from spending 35+ years on the fence.
                        Well, let me help to try to remove those splinters I hate to see a grown man suffer.

                        There are a number of points to raise and questions to be asked not only with the graffiti but with the depositing of the apron piece. dealing first with the graffiti

                        There is no evidence of any graffiti being left at any of the other crime scenes

                        The Graffiti has no logical reference to any of the murders

                        Why would the killer write a message in such an out-of-the-way, location if he wanted it to be seen and found and connected to the murders?

                        The same goes for the apron piece why deposit it at that location when it might not have ever been found this leads me to be suspicious as to exactly how the Pc came to find it and decide it was of evidential value because at the time of discovery I don't believe he was aware of the Mitre Square murder

                        If the apron was deposited by the killer why did he wait so long before depositing it, when there would have been innumerable more public locations between Mitre Square and Goulston Street again it might never have been found, Why would the killer have taken such a risk of being stopped by police and found with a bloody knife and a bloody apron piece? and if he did take the organs away in the apron piece what happened to the organs ? I don't buy the suggestion that he went home and then came back out again to deposit the apron piece that would have been fraught with danger for him.

                        As the apron piece was found minus the organs and there is no plausible explanation as to what happened to the organs we must rightly assume that the organs were never taken away in the apron piece, modern-day medical tests have proved this to be correct, so there has to be alternative explanations, the obvious one is as I have continuously postulated that being the killer did not deposit it

                        If the same killer and that killer was responsible for one or more of the letters sent to the police surely if he had taken the apron piece he could have sent it to the police with a note attached that would have proved its authenticity

                        I am sorry to have to keep saying this but in my opinion, the killer did not write the graffiti nor did he deposit the apron piece, the old accepted theory surrounding this part of the Eddowes murder does clearly not stand up to close scrutiny

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                          Hi Herlock,

                          Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them (unless they are school masters ) and, to take the time to write it he must have wanted it to be seen, so why so small? What is the difficulty factor of writing in chalk on a brick wall in cursive in the dark with the capitals only 3/4" high. Sounds more like a daylight task which wasn't washed off because it was too small for most people to notice?

                          Cheers, George

                          Hi George,

                          "Writing "nothing" being the name she gave to police", implies that JtR was a policeman. Is this a serious proposal for any of us?

                          I don't see the carrying of chalk as a problem - an experienced butcher/slaughterer working in the daytime as a butcher, would be quite likely to carry chalk in his pocket, for marking up meat prices on a board. He would be thoroughly used to writing in capitals about 3/4 inches high. These were a body of men, highly skilled with the use of a knife, who were always high on the list of potential suspects for the police.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            Hi Herlock,

                            Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them (unless they are school masters ) and, to take the time to write it he must have wanted it to be seen, so why so small? What is the difficulty factor of writing in chalk on a brick wall in cursive in the dark with the capitals only 3/4" high. Sounds more like a daylight task which wasn't washed off because it was too small for most people to notice?

                            Cheers, George
                            Hello George,

                            I’m just about to head out so I don’t have time to check but can you (or anyone else) remember there being mention of the height above the ground that the message was situated? Maybe I’m mis-remembering but something is telling me that it was unusually low down?
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              Well, let me help to try to remove those splinters I hate to see a grown man suffer.

                              There are a number of points to raise and questions to be asked not only with the graffiti but with the depositing of the apron piece. dealing first with the graffiti

                              There is no evidence of any graffiti being left at any of the other crime scenes

                              The Graffiti has no logical reference to any of the murders

                              Why would the killer write a message in such an out-of-the-way, location if he wanted it to be seen and found and connected to the murders?

                              The same goes for the apron piece why deposit it at that location when it might not have ever been found this leads me to be suspicious as to exactly how the Pc came to find it and decide it was of evidential value because at the time of discovery I don't believe he was aware of the Mitre Square murder

                              If the apron was deposited by the killer why did he wait so long before depositing it, when there would have been innumerable more public locations between Mitre Square and Goulston Street again it might never have been found, Why would the killer have taken such a risk of being stopped by police and found with a bloody knife and a bloody apron piece? and if he did take the organs away in the apron piece what happened to the organs ? I don't buy the suggestion that he went home and then came back out again to deposit the apron piece that would have been fraught with danger for him.

                              As the apron piece was found minus the organs and there is no plausible explanation as to what happened to the organs we must rightly assume that the organs were never taken away in the apron piece, modern-day medical tests have proved this to be correct, so there has to be alternative explanations, the obvious one is as I have continuously postulated that being the killer did not deposit it

                              If the same killer and that killer was responsible for one or more of the letters sent to the police surely if he had taken the apron piece he could have sent it to the police with a note attached that would have proved its authenticity

                              I am sorry to have to keep saying this but in my opinion, the killer did not write the graffiti nor did he deposit the apron piece, the old accepted theory surrounding this part of the Eddowes murder does clearly not stand up to close scrutiny

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              This is just pure speculation and susposition on your behalf trevor , all those things you mentioned could just as easily been done by the killer. We have been through this befor over and over again .

                              ''O​​​​​​ld accepted theories'' and things ''Not standing up to scrutiny'' are just your opinions ''Not proven'', ''Not fact'', ''Not authenticated'' . You should also pay heed to this from Jeff.



                              ''That is the thing with JtR, so much of our "conclusions" are determined in how we deal with information we really don't know; and with each guess we make we head down a different path, sometimes not realizing just how many other roads there were to travel.''​
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                Well, let me help to try to remove those splinters I hate to see a grown man suffer.

                                There are a number of points to raise and questions to be asked not only with the graffiti but with the depositing of the apron piece. dealing first with the graffiti

                                There is no evidence of any graffiti being left at any of the other crime scenes.

                                Agreed.

                                The Graffiti has no logical reference to any of the murders

                                Agreed.

                                Why would the killer write a message in such an out-of-the-way, location if he wanted it to be seen and found and connected to the murders?

                                Fair point.

                                The same goes for the apron piece why deposit it at that location when it might not have ever been found this leads me to be suspicious as to exactly how the Pc came to find it and decide it was of evidential value because at the time of discovery I don't believe he was aware of the Mitre Square murder.

                                Im unsure if Long was aware of the murder when he found the apron. To be honest, I’d assumed that he was but I have no evidence for that (if evidence exists)

                                If the apron was deposited by the killer why did he wait so long before depositing it, when there would have been innumerable more public locations between Mitre Square and Goulston Street again it might never have been found, Why would the killer have taken such a risk of being stopped by police and found with a bloody knife and a bloody apron piece? and if he did take the organs away in the apron piece what happened to the organs ? I don't buy the suggestion that he went home and then came back out again to deposit the apron piece that would have been fraught with danger for him.

                                Very fair point.

                                As the apron piece was found minus the organs and there is no plausible explanation as to what happened to the organs we must rightly assume that the organs were never taken away in the apron piece, modern-day medical tests have proved this to be correct, so there has to be alternative explanations, the obvious one is as I have continuously postulated that being the killer did not deposit it.

                                Fair point but we disagree on whether the killer deposited it. I have a high level of confidence that he did but I’m certainly not keen on the suggestion that he carried away a kidney in it. I prefer the suggestions that he took it for a clean up or perhaps because he’d injured himself. I’m not certain about either.

                                If the same killer and that killer was responsible for one or more of the letters sent to the police surely if he had taken the apron piece he could have sent it to the police with a note attached that would have proved its authenticity

                                Not sure about that.

                                I am sorry to have to keep saying this but in my opinion, the killer did not write the graffiti nor did he deposit the apron piece, the old accepted theory surrounding this part of the Eddowes murder does clearly not stand up to close scrutiny

                                I’m undecided on the message but see no other explanation than the killer depositing the apron.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Im going to ask Admin to preserve this message and response for posterity as we’ve never agreed on so much.​​​​​​​

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X