our killer been local

[Wickerman]

In November an inquiry into Warren's actions were launched.

Are you referring to Warren being questioned/reprimanded over his article in Murray's Magazine?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom



Well, conceptually perhaps. Do you actually have any proof that this was the fact?

All the best

Dave

In November an inquiry into Warren's actions were launched. Why more than a month later, I cannot say, but within days he resigned. As I'm sure you're aware, other police at the time, such as Henry Smith and Anderson sounded off on the "crass stupidity" of having erased the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Tom

That's not correct though. Most policemen considered it a grave error to erase it and it played a part in Warren handing in his resignation in November.

Well, conceptually perhaps. Do you actually have any proof that this was the fact?

All the best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

I know the police were scared of people attacking Jews because of this message however if they did think it was genuine they would without a doubt have waited a bit longer and had it photographed and not erased it.Let's face it in would have been the only real clue about the killer but they destroyed it leads me to believe that they didn't take it seriously at all.

That's not correct though. Most policemen considered it a grave error to erase it and it played a part in Warren handing in his resignation in November.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pink. Many of the police of the time accepted the graffiti as genuine. Do you feel this was because of the romance and mystery it added or because it appeared at roughly the same time as the apron and in the same spot? As for the clarity of the message, because the Met screwed up and erased the message before photographing it, we don't actually know what it said.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I know the police were scared of people attacking Jews because of this message however if they did think it was genuine they would without a doubt have waited a bit longer and had it photographed and not erased it.Let's face it in would have been the only real clue about the killer but they destroyed it leads me to believe that they didn't take it seriously at all.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Pink. Many of the police of the time accepted the graffiti as genuine. Do you feel this was because of the romance and mystery it added or because it appeared at roughly the same time as the apron and in the same spot? As for the clarity of the message, because the Met screwed up and erased the message before photographing it, we don't actually know what it said.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

Hi Pink. And what changed your mind about the graffiti? Let me guess...books?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The goulston street graffiti and the letters do add a fantastic sensational twist to the story of jack the ripper and they do certainly add to the mystery I do think a lot of people only accept them as genuine because of this and I think it is a case as well of them wanting them to be true.If our killer wrote this message after killing two women to add to its shock value why not mention something about what he's just done if he did it would prove message genuine and increase its shock value .If he had done that we would not be debating if that message was genuine over a hundred years later.

[Tom_Wescott]

I believed for over twenty years that our killer wrote the goulston street message I certainly do not now.No doubt that the piece of apron is genuine but as to message been genuine no way.

Hi Pink. And what changed your mind about the graffiti? Let me guess...books?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[pinkmoon]

I believed for over twenty years that our killer wrote the goulston street message I certainly do not now.No doubt that the piece of apron is genuine but as to message been genuine no way.

[Wickerman]

Hi Fleet. You're right, we're not certain the apron was there. I'm certainly not certain. But we do have a witness who says it wasn't.

Plus Halse, who also claims to have "passed the spot" at 2:20am, he said it wasn't there then. Though he admits he may have missed it, but the point is he also did not see it, regardless of the reason.

Of course this leads into the controversy of where 'precisely' was this large piece of cloth?

[Fleetwood Mac]

And how on earth does this mean that the killer was probably local?!

The police turn up the next day and knock on doors: "did you see a stranger in the vicinity?". It couldn't be more inconsequential to whether or not the man was local or otherwise.

Do you think doors were knocked and the denizens of these homes said: "recall everything, no strangers in sight".?

If anything, your theory is contradicted by the fact that the police turned up the grand sum of nothing when they knocked local doors. Now, I'm of the belief that Jack was not about to come to the door swinging organs round his head , but locals were checked out and nothing doing.

According to you, Fisherman, Cross deliberately attempted to mislead the police as to his identity by means of giving them his address and a surname he had used at times. What you've done here is: a) defied logic and b) arrived at a conclusion that can just as easily be defined as 'understanding Jack's psyche' as any other/anyone else's statement of opinion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleets,

Everything we've learned about serial killers to date should inform us that the killer was probably local. There is not a single expert in criminology who doubts this probability. To those who have examined other cases in close detail, along with the associated statistics, this would not be a vexed question. It would be an absolute no-brainer. If people want to argue instead for a non-local commuter, they can take some solace that the thought police don't really exist, because it really does militate against all understanding of how serial killers operate within small concentrated localities.

We can permanently dispense with the idea that an unsuccessful house-to-house inquiry in the immediate vicinity means the killer didn't live there. Unless the killer was particularly foolish and clumsy, he was unlikely to leave incriminating items lying around during the day. "Hiding in plain sight" is an axiom that holds true time and again for serial killers.

Bear in mind that "local" in this context means local to the area at the time, as opposed to being necessarily born and bred.

Regards,
Ben

Maybe so, Ben, which is an altogether different argument for the killer being local than the one Fisherman peddled.

I scoffed at the idea that the killer must have been local because to have not been caught he must have utilised the 'labyrinth', rather than the idea that the killer was local.

[Ben]

Fleets,

Everything we've learned about serial killers to date should inform us that the killer was probably local. There is not a single expert in criminology who doubts this probability. To those who have examined other cases in close detail, along with the associated statistics, this would not be a vexed question. It would be an absolute no-brainer. If people want to argue instead for a non-local commuter, they can take some solace that the thought police don't really exist, because it really does militate against all understanding of how serial killers operate within small concentrated localities.

We can permanently dispense with the idea that an unsuccessful house-to-house inquiry in the immediate vicinity means the killer didn't live there. Unless the killer was particularly foolish and clumsy, he was unlikely to leave incriminating items lying around during the day. "Hiding in plain sight" is an axiom that holds true time and again for serial killers.

Bear in mind that "local" in this context means local to the area at the time, as opposed to being necessarily born and bred.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

That staple diet of last resorts eh: "we don't know Jack's mindset". Ha'way Fisherman, when the shoe's on the other foot you're happy enough to understand Jack's mindset where Cross/Lechmere is involved.

Except, we're not sure whether or not the apron was there.

Donīt be foolish, Fleetwood. I entertain the idea that Lechmere was the killer, and I look at how things would have gone down if he was.

Thatīs not the same as me claiming to know Jackīs mindset, Iīm afraid.

But you are correct that we donīt know if the apron was there or not. Actually, we donīt "know" much at all. So we make do with what the evidence suggests - and the evidence clearly suggests that the apron was not there at the time.

These things should be obvious, and not a cause to infect a discussion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Fleet. You're right, we're not certain the apron was there. I'm certainly not certain. But we do have a witness who says it wasn't. He was actually paid and trained to know this kind of stuff. There's not a witness or indeed evidence which contradicts him. So it would be entirely disingenuous for any of us to state it's a 50/50 situation as to whether the apron was there early or not. More like 75/25, or even 90/10.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott