Stealing Jacks Thunder?

Ah, but 'if' is the word here.

Jack did kill Liz, but because his thunder was stolen by the unsuitable location he thundered on to Mitre Square, neatly explaining how lightning struck twice that night.

It's the simple and logical solution, backed by the fully documented double eventers who came after Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

I concede the "IF"...but still stand by it as the most probable answer considering the absence of some key elements that wound indicate 'Jack" in this first murder of the evening.

All the best Caz

[caz]

Ah, but 'if' is the word here.

Jack did kill Liz, but because his thunder was stolen by the unsuitable location he thundered on to Mitre Square, neatly explaining how lightning struck twice that night.

It's the simple and logical solution, backed by the fully documented double eventers who came after Jack.

Love,

Caz
X

Ah, thanks for that, Sam, all is now clear. I should have known that would be the case.

Hi Perry,

I still don't like the logistics here. You are suggesting that when he takes the apron he has no idea about the Berner St murder; then he hears people talking about it and, thinking on his feet, decides to put the apron and some chalk to good use and comes up with a cryptic message denying the earlier murder. I say cryptic, because after 121 years only you appear to have grasped that this is what he was trying to say.

Love,

Caz
X

Its not rocket science Caz, and Im not a nuclear physicist.

If Jack didnt kill Liz Stride but did leave the chalk message by the apron section, then it stands to reason the chalk message deals with the Mitre Square murder, or an earlier murder that Jack the Ripper was being blamed for...(within 5 minutes of discovering a woman with a cut throat on the private property of Jewish Men).

Since the second makes more sense considering the content of the writing, both the "Jewish men (Juwes/Juewes/Juwes)" and the "blame" would be accounted for.....then it seems like the author is suggesting that the Jewish Men at the first murder site were evading blame for something.

Since they immediately blame someone outside their organization and suggest that the murder of Stride is "another" murder.....I would say that attempting to "evade blame" seems to be accurately ascribed to them.

Best regards Caz

[caz]

True, Caz, but the degree I took was more "science-based" than "arts/humanities-based" (BSc rather than BA) and, as such, it placed a strong emphasis on experimental design and statistics. The latter was a compulsory, and examined, subject throughout the course.

Ah, thanks for that, Sam, all is now clear. I should have known that would be the case.

Hi Perry,

I still don't like the logistics here. You are suggesting that when he takes the apron he has no idea about the Berner St murder; then he hears people talking about it and, thinking on his feet, decides to put the apron and some chalk to good use and comes up with a cryptic message denying the earlier murder. I say cryptic, because after 121 years only you appear to have grasped that this is what he was trying to say.

Love,

Caz
X

Where did that come from, Perry? Of course it's no big deal. But I didn't even mention the chalk.

My question concerned the logistics involved in Kate's killer learning the details of Liz's murder in time to write a message which supposedly denies responsibility for it.

If he was doing his best to avoid all human contact after leaving Mitre Square, and he hadn't been in Berner St at all, I just wondered how the news about an earlier murder was meant to have reached his ears. Even if the whole area was buzzing with it by then, he wouldn't have heard a word if he was deliberately keeping well out of people's way.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

The chalk bit was intended as a preemptive strike, didnt mean to infer it was your bone of contention.

On how and when he might hear of Liz Strides murder......well, theres nothing that says he didnt live near Berner himself, maybe on Batty Street perhaps...and if he waited 70 minutes to casually drop the apron off he could have gone to Goulston for a reason after learning of the crime by overhearing street conversation on his way home after the Mitre murder...., not just because it was on his way home......he could have been staying in a lodging house and heard of it by the manager or other tenants who had heard the news.

Im not so sure that the man that left Mitre Square slipped from shadow to shadow when leaving that scene..he might well have cleaned his hands with a hanky of his own, necessitating the apron section to replace it, and been relatively blood free. He could have just strolled after leaving the immediate area. Particularly if he had to cross major roads...which I think is likely myself. Cops local to the Club werent stopping all couples and singles once Liz Strides murder had been telegraphed across the local stations...they were helping to hold 28 men and some other residents for questioning and trying to start an investigation,... or covering someone who was, getting medical personnel or relaying info to senior authorities.

If the killer encountered anyone who had heard of the murder in Dutfields Yard while he headed home from Mitre Square, he would have heard the Ripper spin on the story I think.

From what I can tell, killers may not reveal all the murders they have committed or other crimes they have committed while under arrest or in custody....but they comparatively rarely take credit for ones they didnt commit. Meaning I dont see any reason for Jack to have written any letters, but I could see the logic in his corresponding if it were about something like this.

If he put both things at that location....the apron section is an admission of guilt for the murder of the woman in Mitre Square. What logically then might the writing be about.....assuming either he did kill both women, or he didnt kill Liz Stride?

All the best Caz

[Sam Flynn]

Where did I get the idea that you did psychology at uni? Must have been one of my senior moments - or maybe I'm one degree under.

True, Caz, but the degree I took was more "science-based" than "arts/humanities-based" (BSc rather than BA) and, as such, it placed a strong emphasis on experimental design and statistics. The latter was a compulsory, and examined, subject throughout the course.

[caz]

Thanks, Mike. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, after having studied statistics for three years at university, "coincidence" spooks me less than it does most people.

Hi Sam,

Where did I get the idea that you did psychology at uni? Must have been one of my senior moments - or maybe I'm one degree under.

So...a killer had some chalk on them? Thats a big deal?

Where did that come from, Perry? Of course it's no big deal. But I didn't even mention the chalk.

My question concerned the logistics involved in Kate's killer learning the details of Liz's murder in time to write a message which supposedly denies responsibility for it.

If he was doing his best to avoid all human contact after leaving Mitre Square, and he hadn't been in Berner St at all, I just wondered how the news about an earlier murder was meant to have reached his ears. Even if the whole area was buzzing with it by then, he wouldn't have heard a word if he was deliberately keeping well out of people's way.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Without having the broad tools to found a statistical study on in the first place

True, but that's no reason to give up on taking an analytical approach to the case. We do have some contemporary facts at our disposal, we also have near-contemporary data from which we can extrapolate, and contemporary data from which we may draw reasonable assumptions. In the circumstances, that's a good enough baseline for me.

Thanks, Mike. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, after having studied statistics for three years at university, "coincidence" spooks me less than it does most people.

I knew your fascination for that area didnt just suddenly pop-up.

Im not sure that we have the statistical basis to make evaluations on some of these issues though, like for probable behaviors of common individuals in the year 1888 in London for example.

Or on how much Grafitti was present at the time in the area, how much related to Jewish men, at what locations, ....

Without having the broad tools to found a statistical study on in the first place, its kind of hard to dismiss many of the coincidental features cropping up in these murders and events, for me anyway.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn.....you are a champion of the concept of Coincidence.

Thanks, Mike. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, after having studied statistics for three years at university, "coincidence" spooks me less than it does most people.

Sam Flynn.....you are a champion of the concept of Coincidence.

All the best G

[c.d.]

I'm not clear as to whether it was generally believed by people that the Whitechapel murderer was Jewish prior to the discovery of the apron or if that was ever a common belief. Can someone enlighten me?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

That last bit refers to the fact that it seems probable if the senior assessment of the message was at all accurate, that the message was not there during daylight. Many Jewish men would pass through there to go home to the Model Dwellings that night....I believe the ethnicity blend in those dwellings was almost 100 % Jewish.

That's not to say that they'd have said anything about the graffito after it had been erased, Mike - why should they? And, if they didn't volunteer the information, I can't see that the police would have been too keen to squeeze the information out of them. "What did you do last night?", or "Did you see any strangers in the neighbourhood between the hours of 1 and 2?", were the likely lines of enquiry... can't see much of a priority being put on "Did you notice any writing in the doorway?"

I think that little point gets forgotten when wondering if someone other than the man that left the apron section had written it spitefully or casually.

Sadly, that's not something we can ever be certain about. Even if we could, the matter of authorship is surely the key question - not the author's mood.

it seems to me that the chances are slim to none that Jack would accidentally find it and toss his apron by it

All Jack did was duck into a doorway which might have contained any number of things, or nothing at all. Would we feel compelled to exercise our feverish imagination if, instead of the "Goulston Street Graffito", the police found the apron near the "Goulston Street Orange Peel" or the "Goulston Street Puddle of Piss"? Such things are found in tenement doorways all the time - as, indeed, are graffiti.

Hi Michael,

What do you mean when you say the message fits the known data of one of the murders?

c.d.

If you take the message literally, assuming that the killer would allude to facts rather than spelling them out....as he does by leaving the apron section alluding to Kates murderer....then....

...."The Juewes/Jewes/Juwes are the Men that will not be blamed for nothing"...could easily refer to the Jewish men at 40 Berner Street, who immediately upon calling for help proclaimed "another" murder had been committed, in essence, blaming the Unfortunate killer at large for her death.

Since they are the only people on site, and they are the only people who give an accounting of the yard status, the discovery and the timing, they were in a position to pass blame onto someone from outside their organization and location.

I think thats one possible reason Jack may have written the message where he did......to tell the Jews what he knew, not the Police or the Public. He knew he didnt kill her, and where she was found.

I dont feel that the above is a reach...in fact I believe it makes some sense IF Jack didnt kill Liz.

Cheers cd

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

What do you mean when you say the message fits the known data of one of the murders?

c.d.