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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

More or less, except that I'm not sure he originally intended to leave it so long.

But I think he had selected the building in advance.

He did wipe his knife on the piece of apron, but there was no need to take the apron with him unless to use it for some other purpose.

[Fiver]

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 had no way of knowing if the apron piece would be found by anyone, let alone the police.

The murderer had no way of knowing if the graffito would be found by the police.

You are making a series of assumptions:
* That the apron piece was deliberately dropped by the killer.
* That the killer wanted the apron piece to be found.
* That the graffito was written by the killer.
* That the graffito blames the Jews for the killing.
* That the writer of the graffito was not Jewish.

None of these assumptions are facts.

The murderer was in a hurry to escape.

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

The murder wasn't in a hurry to escape from Mary Kelly's flat. But he didn't write anything on the wall there.

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

You're making more assumptions.
* You're assuming that this is why the killer took the apron piece.
* You're assuming that the killer knew the building residents were primarily Jewish.
* You're assuming that the killer was deliberately targeting the residents if that building.

You're also ignoring some other possibilities.

There were Jewish sailors.
Many Jews did not look stereotypically Jewish.
The odd spelling of the graffitto could be a sign of poor handwriting, not lack of familiarity with the English spelling of the word Jews.

[Simon Wood]

Two policemen in Goulston Street at approximately the same moment. Yet neither reported seeing the other, the piece of apron, or the chalked message. Yet, within the hour, one of them would discover the chalked message and piece of apron, and the other would be first to notice the piece of apron was missing from the deceased.

Do the math.

[FISHY1118]

While those Assumptions are not proven facts, in Eddowes case i would tend to agree with most of them .

As in all things JtR all we really have is assumptions and speculations and opinions . Trevor assumes the phantom organ harvester theory with no fact or proof , Ike maintaines the diary of Maybrick makes him the Ripper with no facts or proof, Fisherman has Lechmere a certainty [correct me if im wrong fish] as jacky boy again no facts or proof, so on and so on .

No one has yet to prove anythnig, so 1 assumptions i suppose is just all as good as the next .

[Trevor Marriott]

Two policemen in Goulston Street at approximately the same moment. Yet neither reported seeing the other, the piece of apron, or the chalked message. Yet, within the hour, one of them would discover the chalked message and piece of apron, and the other would be first to notice the piece of apron was missing from the deceased.

Do the math.

Hi Simon

Exactly, and you wonder why on here researchers want to readily accept the police evidence without question in all of these murders as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

While those Assumptions are not proven facts, in Eddowes case i would tend to agree with most of them .

As in all things JtR all we really have is assumptions and speculations and opinions . Trevor assumes the phantom organ harvester theory with no fact or proof , Ike maintaines the diary of Maybrick makes him the Ripper with no facts or proof, Fisherman has Lechmere a certainty [correct me if im wrong fish] as jacky boy again no facts or proof, so on and so on .

No one has yet to prove anythnig, so 1 assumptions i suppose is just all as good as the next .

But no one has proved the old accepted theories to be correct either!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Simon

Exactly, and you wonder why on here researchers want to readily accept the police evidence without question in all of these murders as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Two say that they are in a street at approximately the same time but they don’t see each other.

Conclusion: they weren’t in that street at exactly the same time.

There only has to be a matter of seconds between the actual times that they were both there and they miss each other. There’s no mystery Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Two say that they are in a street at approximately the same time but they don’t see each other.

Conclusion: they weren’t in that street at exactly the same time.

There only has to be a matter of seconds between the actual times that they were both there and they miss each other. There’s no mystery Trevor.

How unusual that I have to disagree with you yet again. Halse would have seen the uniform officer from some distance bearing in mind the uniform officer would have had his lamp shining as he was checking his property. At that time of the morning, the street was deserted and therefore the sound of footsteps would have carried some distance alerting both to the sounds of each other, and your matter of seconds is way out.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

You simply can’t know this. And no one is saying that all events that occurred were haphazard but we can’t assume that the killer planned everything like Napoleon. How can you possibly claim to know that he’d selected the location for depositing the rag in advance? And as Fiver has said, why didn’t he leave messages at any of the other locations? Especially at Miller’s Court when he’d have had ample time and opportunity of doing so?

The graffito might or might not have been written by the killer but in a world where freakish coincidences occur every day it’s hardly an impossibility that some drunk who’d had an argument with a Jew or had an issue with Jews in general wrote it on his way home from the pub and a couple of hours later the killer stopped to wipe his hands and dropped the rag in the same doorway.

Another point that has to be considered too is that if Long hadn’t missed the rag when he passed as 2.20 but found it at 2.55 where was the killer in the time between the murder and the depositing of the apron? Is it likely that the killer waited for 40+ minutes before heading back to Goulston Street knowing that by that time the Police were looking for a double murderer?

[Herlock Sholmes]

How unusual that I have to disagree with you yet again. Halse would have seen the uniform officer from some distance bearing in mind the uniform officer would have had his lamp shining as he was checking his property. At that time of the morning, the street was deserted and therefore the sound of footsteps would have carried some distance alerting both to the sounds of each other, and your matter of seconds is way out.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, do you know how far apart two men can walk in a minute or so? One minute, two minutes, three minutes who knows? You yourself have previously accepted that we can’t hold people to exact times so why do you appear to be doing this now? If we look at all events with a hope of discovering something sinister then we might easily find things but unless we have solid evidence we have nothing.

It’s very noticeable that in Long’s statement he mentions three times. Before each of them he adds the word ‘about.’ Which points to an estimation.

[FISHY1118]

But no one has proved the old accepted theories to be correct either!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well as long as you put your theory in with the others as unproven and assumption based, thats ok by me .

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, do you know how far apart two men can walk in a minute or so? One minute, two minutes, three minutes who knows? You yourself have previously accepted that we can’t hold people to exact times so why do you appear to be doing this now? If we look at all events with a hope of discovering something sinister then we might easily find things but unless we have solid evidence we have nothing.

It’s very noticeable that in Long’s statement he mentions three times. Before each of them he adds the word ‘about.’ Which points to an estimation.

But not forgetting Halse was on high alert as he had just left the Mitre Square crime scene, and Goulston Street is around 200 yards long and almost runs in a straight line.

Plenty of distance for Halse to have seen the officer shining his light, and I find it strange as to why the officers were not asked if they saw each other or made contact with each other, and it also seems strange that after Halse left the location the officer suddenly finds the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But not forgetting Halse was on high alert as he had just left the Mitre Square crime scene, and Goulston Street is around 200 yards long and almost runs in a straight line.

Plenty of distance for Halse to have seen the officer shining his light, and I find it strange as to why the officers were not asked if they saw each other or made contact with each other, and it also seems strange that after Halse left the location the officer suddenly finds the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Halse also says ‘about’ 2.20. Unless we have solid evidence of something sinister, and we don’t, then the simple explanation is by far the likeliest. Halse and Long passed along Goulston Street at different times.

[Trevor Marriott]

Halse also says ‘about’ 2.20. Unless we have solid evidence of something sinister, and we don’t, then the simple explanation is by far the likeliest. Halse and Long passed along Goulston Street at different times.

I still think that they should have seen or heard each other because Pc Long was presumably coming up Goulston Street and Dc Halse coming down Goulston Street towards each other in the dead of night with no one else around, how did Pc Long find out about the Mitre Square murder?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The murderer had no way of knowing if the apron piece would be found by anyone, let alone the police.

He did!

He left it, covered with faeces and bloodstained, at the foot of a stairway which the residents used to go in and out of the building.

He knew it would be noticed and reported to the police because a murder had just been committed.


The murderer had no way of knowing if the graffito would be found by the police.

He knew the graffito would be noticed.

He wrote it on the jamb of the entrance arch in order to make sure it would be noticed.



You are making a series of assumptions:
* That the apron piece was deliberately dropped by the killer.
* That the killer wanted the apron piece to be found.
* That the graffito was written by the killer.
* That the graffito blames the Jews for the killing.
* That the writer of the graffito was not Jewish.

None of these assumptions are facts.


They are all reasonable deductions from the evidence and all make perfect sense.

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

The alternative to my explanation is to argue that the events of that night are haphazard.

They obviously are not.

There was no need for the murderer to cut the apron in two.

He could more easily have taken the whole apron.

There was no need for him to carry the apron such a great distance.

He could have discarded it much earlier.

There was no need for him to hold onto it for such a long time.

The point of cutting the apron in two was to identify the author of the graffiti as the murderer.

That explanation makes sense.

I would like to see you, or any other critic of mine, suggest a better explanation instead of trotting out the familiar mantra that my explanations are not facts!

It is a reasonable deduction from the evidence that the writing accused the Jews and was written by a gentile.

That was the prevailing view at Scotland Yard.

I don't recall seeing Scotland Yard's deduction being called an assumption in any article or book I have written, nor an objection to it on the supposed ground that it is not a fact!



You're making more assumptions.
* You're assuming that this is why the killer took the apron piece.
* You're assuming that the killer knew the building residents were primarily Jewish.
* You're assuming that the killer was deliberately targeting the residents if that building.


It was well known that the area was Jewish.

The police knew that.

What on earth makes you think the murderer didn't?

Jeff Hamm has shown in some detail that all researchers have concluded on the basis of the murderer's movements that he lived in Spitalfields, not far from Goulston Street.

He was obviously familiar with the area and its inhabitants.



You're also ignoring some other possibilities.

There were Jewish sailors.
Many Jews did not look stereotypically Jewish.
The odd spelling of the graffitto could be a sign of poor handwriting, not lack of familiarity with the English spelling of the word Jews.


I honestly think that outsiders, looking in at this conversation, would conclude you are playing the devil's advocate.

There weren't Jewish sailors, just as none of the policemen in the case was Jewish.

It was well-known that the building was inhabited by Jews.

This fact was clear from statements made by the police at the time.

It was not a question of handwriting.

There is a handwritten copy on file and the spelling is clear.

There is no evidence that the handwriting was poor.

Please see my answers above.