Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[c.d.]

I would say that Arnold, Warren and I made a reasonable deduction from the physical evidence that the message was anti-Jewish and that our deductions are not speculative.

Except that neither you, Warren or Arnold wrote the GSG. Hence, your deductions are speculative.

And you might want to give the bold typeface a rest. It is getting old and quite annoying.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The best evidence we have is that the apron was not there at 2.20 a.m.

To suggest that Long missed it would be speculation.

It is reasonable, as Scotland Yard did, to deduce from the physical evidence that the murderer and the writer were gentiles.

To suggest that the murderer and writer were Jewish would be speculative.

It is a reasonable deduction from the physical evidence - the cutting of the apron, the long delay in leaving it at Wentworth Dwellings, and its positioning near the writing, as well as the content of the writing, that the murderer used the piece of apron to authenticate the message as coming from him.

To say that the writing was already there and no resident had bothered to erase it is speculative.

Your just selectively deciding what is reasonable and what isn’t to suit your own viewpoint PI. It was just a piece of rag lying in a darkened doorway in a district that was hardly Belgravia. Why would it have stood out? To say that he might have missed it is a reasonable possibility.

Whether Scotland Yard deduced this or not it doesn’t make that deduction correct unless you assume that the police were infallible.

How can you possibly know that the killer wasn’t Jewish but he wrote the graffito as a way of trying to move attention away from Jews and onto Gentiles? We know the prejudices that existed at the time so why wouldn’t a Jewish murderer have sought to deflect these? I’d say that was entirely possible.

We simply cannot deduce ethnicity from the evidence that we have. We can speculate but that’s all.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your just selectively deciding what is reasonable and what isn’t to suit your own viewpoint PI. It was just a piece of rag lying in a darkened doorway in a district that was hardly Belgravia. Why would it have stood out? To say that he might have missed it is a reasonable possibility.

Why then did he not miss it the next time?


Whether Scotland Yard deduced this or not it doesn’t make that deduction correct unless you assume that the police were infallible.

They made a logical deduction from the evidence.

How can you possibly know that the killer wasn’t Jewish but he wrote the graffito as a way of trying to move attention away from Jews and onto Gentiles? We know the prejudices that existed at the time so why wouldn’t a Jewish murderer have sought to deflect these? I’d say that was entirely possible.

We simply cannot deduce ethnicity from the evidence that we have. We can speculate but that’s all.

You've got things the wrong way round!

There was anti-Semitic prejudice with the Jews being accused of committing the murders.

The murderer gave the anti-Semites what they wanted.

If the murderer had been a Jew, who wanted to play that kind of game, he would have accused gentiles!

And one other thing: a Jewish person would not have mis-spelled Jews as Juwes.

There was a report in a newspaper at that time that Juwes was a Jewish spelling of Jews and of course it is not.

Similarly, it was alleged that the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man, but the police disposed of that theory some 77 years before Odell revived it.

The idea that the murderer could have been Jewish and written the message should have been discarded long ago.

Please see my answers above.

[Fiver]

To suggest that the murderer did not write the message and that the message was not anti-Jewish is far-fetched.

You are linking two unrelated points.

The meaning of the GSG has been debated from the beginning. It probably was intended to be anti-Semitic, but we can't be certain.

Whether the GSG was written by the killer is a separate, also much debated issue. If the killer really wanted to send a message to the police, it would make more sense to write it at a crime scene. There was no guarantee that the apron piece would be considered anything but a random but of rubbish or that the GSG wouldn't be erased before the police saw it.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

You are linking two unrelated points.

The meaning of the GSG has been debated from the beginning. It probably was intended to be anti-Semitic, but we can't be certain.

Whether the GSG was written by the killer is a separate, also much debated issue. If the killer really wanted to send a message to the police, it would make more sense to write it at a crime scene. There was no guarantee that the apron piece would be considered anything but a random but of rubbish or that the GSG wouldn't be erased before the police saw it.

I disagree.

The murderer knew that the police would notice that a piece of apron had been cut away and that because of the condition of that piece it would arouse suspicion.

Consequently, it would be connected with the message, which was written where it was most likely to be noticed by passing policemen at a time when the fewest residents would be about and it was least likely to be erased by any of them.

The murderer was in a hurry to escape.

That is one reason he did not write the message in Mitre Square.

The second is that he wanted to target a building whose residents were predominantly Jewish.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I disagree.

The murderer knew that the police would notice that a piece of apron had been cut away and that because of the condition of that piece it would arouse suspicion.

Consequently, it would be connected with the message, which was written where it was most likely to be noticed by passing policemen at a time when the fewest residents would be about and it was least likely to be erased by any of them.

The murderer was in a hurry to escape.

That is one reason he did not write the message in Mitre Square.

The second is that he wanted to target a building whose residents were predominantly Jewish.

More opinion stated as facts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

More opinion stated as facts.

They are reasonable deductions from the evidence.

What you are doing is suggesting farfetched scenarios and putting them almost on a par with reasonable deductions.

We are not dealing with haphazard actions.

The murderer acted with purpose.

He knew what he was doing.

He wasn't Aaron Kosminski.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n800651.[/QUOTE]


Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Your just selectively deciding what is reasonable and what isn’t to suit your own viewpoint PI. It was just a piece of rag lying in a darkened doorway in a district that was hardly Belgravia. Why would it have stood out? To say that he might have missed it is a reasonable possibility.

Why then did he not miss it the next time?

Can you really ask such a simplistic question? Because he looked closer the second time. And by the way, I’m not stating that he missed it the first time, only that it’s a possibility.

Whether Scotland Yard deduced this or not it doesn’t make that deduction correct unless you assume that the police were infallible.

They made a logical deduction from the evidence.

But it’s not logical to assume that they were correct and yet you continue to do just that. Again PI, the world isn’t black and white.

How can you possibly know that the killer wasn’t Jewish but he wrote the graffito as a way of trying to move attention away from Jews and onto Gentiles? We know the prejudices that existed at the time so why wouldn’t a Jewish murderer have sought to deflect these? I’d say that was entirely possible.

We simply cannot deduce ethnicity from the evidence that we have. We can speculate but that’s all.

You've got things the wrong way round!

There was anti-Semitic prejudice with the Jews being accused of committing the murders.

The murderer gave the anti-Semites what they wanted.

You cannot know that. It’s simply speculation.

If the murderer had been a Jew, who wanted to play that kind of game, he would have accused gentiles!

And now you’re claiming to know how a serial killer would have reasoned, Surely you can see how futile this is?

And one other thing: a Jewish person would not have mis-spelled Jews as Juwes.

Unless he did it intentionally of course.

There was a report in a newspaper at that time that Juwes was a Jewish spelling of Jews and of course it is not.

Similarly, it was alleged that the murderer was a Jewish slaughter man, but the police disposed of that theory some 77 years before Odell revived it.

On what grounds could this theory be dismissed? It couldn’t be dismissed then and it can’t be dismissed now. The killer could have been a Jewish slaughterman.

The idea that the murderer could have been Jewish and written the message should have been discarded long ago.

You’re too rigid in your thinking. Everything is black and white with you. And you are massively overconfident in your deductions. You appear to have come up with a fixation that the killer was a sailor and you are now trying to tailor every piece of potential information to fit.

[Herlock Sholmes]

They are reasonable deductions from the evidence.

What you are doing is suggesting farfetched scenarios and putting them almost on a par with reasonable deductions.

We are not dealing with haphazard actions.

The murderer acted with purpose.

He knew what he was doing.

He wasn't Aaron Kosminski.

There’s no point in debating nonsense like that. You are claiming to know more than you possibly can. Take the blinkers off PI.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There’s no point in debating nonsense like that. You are claiming to know more than you possibly can. Take the blinkers off PI.

It's not nonsense.

I've read the biographies of more than a hundred serial killers.

The vast majority are purposeful.

They know what they are doing and why they are doing it.

The apron was cut for a reason and left for a reason and the reason was the message.

The location was chosen too.

He just happens to leave the apron and message at the entrance to a building populated by Jews and the message just happens to mention Jews and the apron just happens to have blood from the latest victim on it.

We are not dealing with haphazard events with equally likely multiple explanations.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not nonsense.

I've read the biographies of more than a hundred serial killers.

The vast majority are purposeful.

They know what they are doing and why they are doing it.

The apron was cut for a reason and left for a reason and the reason was the message.

The location was chosen too.

He just happens to leave the apron and message at the entrance to a building populated by Jews and the message just happens to mention Jews and the apron just happens to have blood from the latest victim on it.

We are not dealing with haphazard events with equally likely multiple explanations.

Opinions stated as facts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Opinions stated as facts.

They are logical deductions based on a valid assumption that the vast majority of serial killers know what they are doing.

We are not dealing with haphazard events.

[Parisi North Humber]

PI1 Hi,.

I've read through the thread and I've got more confused as the thread got more convoluted. Can you please explain in a sentence (without verbosity please) what is point you are trying to make regarding the GSG?
I know it's a simple question but I'm a simple Yorkshire lass as such I look forward to your point put succinctly as so much of a debate seems to get lost in the chaff of verbiage.

Helen x

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI1 Hi,.

I've read through the thread and I've got more confused as the thread got more convoluted. Can you please explain in a sentence (without verbosity please) what is point you are trying to make regarding the GSG?
I know it's a simple question but I'm a simple Yorkshire lass as such I look forward to your point put succinctly as so much of a debate seems to get lost in the chaff of verbiage.

Helen x

My point is as follows:

The vast majority of serial killers know what they are doing and act purposefully.

The physical and eyewitness evidence suggests that the murderer cut the apron in two, and had it in his possession for almost an hour before depositing it at the entrance to a dwelling populated by Jews, and chalking a message, which accused the Jews, where it was most likely to be noticed by a passing policeman, and that the purpose of cutting the apron and leaving it there was to identify the message as having come from the murderer.

[Parisi North Humber]

Hi PI1,
Thanks for replying.
So (forgive me if I'm wrong) you believe a piece of apron was cut from CE. for no other purpose but to leave physical evidence at a site chosen by the murderer and to be left at sometime in the future to accuse/implicate Jews for Catherine's murder?

Helen x