our killer been local

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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. 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]

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

[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]

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

[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?

[Monty]

Really? Because I was responding to this post from you:

'The coroner thought it odd?

No. The coroner was merely establishing the facts, not passing judgement.

The head juror was questioning Long, this due to the formers ignorance of procedure.

Longs behaviour is neither perplexing nor questionable. He saw a bloodied piece of apron, considered a victim may be in the building and searched for that victim in the accessible areas of the dwellings. This to render First Aid if he could or to send for a medic.

Not finding a victim, but unsure of the building, he called PC Bettles to monitor the dwellings whilst he reported his find at the station, realising the possibility that the victim may still be in the building, but also realising the situation there is not clear. There may be a murder, murderer, siege, what the hell ever else to deal with. So he sought guidance and re-enforcement.

Long had four years service by this time, and had been trained and tested procedure constantly and reading the reports, he made no error in that procedure nor behaved oddly.'

I can't imagine how the word 'procedure' got stuck in my head.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. All Ripperologists are theorists, Monty. All of us. Or else we're not Ripperologists.

I can see why such a simple word can be overwhelming for you Tom, however that is in reference to Bens post and not events concerning 2.20am.

Monty


Bless, you are confused, Ripperoloists are students of the case. Then we have sub categories, theorists, suspect theorists, those who study the social aspect, those with a geographical interest and so on. Ripperology isn't the sole domain of you theorists sunshine.

[Monty]

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

Not this old cannard again Tom,

Show me where, in the police reports, where they stated the belief that the killer wrote the graffito.

I'll save you time.

DCI Moores report, 18th October 1896, eight years after the writing was found at a scene he never attended, concerning a clue he wasn't (judging the case file) involved in investigating. As he wasn't placed in charge of enquiries till 89.

So no, the police at the time did not accept the writing as genuine at all.

Monty

[Monty]

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

Exactly Jon,

Warrens decision was based on Arnolds suggestion, as the latter had to police an area which had experienced bouts of anti semitic violence.

Anderson, a barrister, and Smith purely criticise from an investigatory point of view, and not a policing one. Warrens resignation, and fall out, went far deeper than the murders and the erasure of the writing.

As Pink rightly states, if the majority were in agreement then it would have stayed.

Monty

[Fisherman]

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.

So more of the antagonistic stuff, Fleetwood? Alright. But you aregoing to have to explain a thing or two to me, and YOU will be resonsible for the Lechmere discussion, not me.

1. Why does it defy logic to say that using a false name is misleading the police?
2. What I am doing is not laying down what happened. I am suggesting what may have happened. How is that "understanding Jack´s psyche"? I would say it suggests a model in which Jack´s psyche can be hinted at - if and only if the model is correct.

People theorize, Fleetwood. And I am a theorizing person when it comes to Lechmere. It does not mean that I must be correct. It only means that I have realized that a functioning model can be built around him, potentially explaining many of the details about the murders.

I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion whether the man was local or not, though. And I would like to point out that I do not find the layout of the East End and the built-in difficulties to navigate it as the sole reason for believing that the man was either local or somebody with good knowledge about the area.

There, Fleetwood - I managed to give an unaffected answer to your questions and allegations. Do try the same, please.

The best,
Fisherman