Is Eddowes demise the key?

[L A Lester]

Hi Phil

For what it is worth, here is a copy of an article published in the 'Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling' on the MO and signature analysis of the Whitechapel murders. They suggest Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly were all victims of the same killer and showed characteristics unique to this killer’s signature, as well as to his MO.

Hope this helps!

[Henry Flower]

Stephen, I'm asking those questions because I, like many people, know some of the answers. I was hoping that people smarter and more knowledgeable than myself might know more, might tell me something I didn't know. No ulterior motive in asking the questions, and I apologise for boring you. I can't think of many subjects that haven't been done to death on the forums, but maybe I should read everything before joining in from now on.

Monty, thank you. Legible but not too clear. I love that you did your test at Goulston St itself. Is the entire doorway still the original brickwork - do we know that?

Errata - yes indeed. I remember my friends and I had a high time as children, using stones to draw very large male genitalia and female bosoms on the tarmac of the school playground. It did indeed look like chalk, but proved horribly durable, leading to a severe shouting-at and detentions for all three of us when we tried and failed to rub out the marks before the school day began.

I drew the glans.

[Phil Carter]

Stephen, I'm asking those questions because I, like many people, know some of the answers. I was hoping that people smarter and more knowledgeable than myself might know more, might tell me something I didn't know. No ulterior motive in asking the questions, and I apologise for boring you. I can't think of many subjects that haven't been done to death on the forums, but maybe I should read everything before joining in from now on.

Monty, thank you. Legible but not too clear. I love that you did your test at Goulston St itself. Is the entire doorway still the original brickwork - do we know that?

Errata - yes indeed. I remember my friends and I had a high time as children, using stones to draw very large male genitalia and female bosoms on the tarmac of the school playground. It did indeed look like chalk, but proved horribly durable, leading to a severe shouting-at and detentions for all three of us when we tried and failed to rub out the marks before the school day began.

I drew the glans.

Hello Henry,

I'm going to throw something out into the ring. Not for a minute do I put any weight on it at all.. but am trying to balance differing pieces of evidence.

We know that various "witnesses" wrote the sentence on the wall in differing fashions, including mis-spelling, and even words jumbled around.

What you have written about chalk becoming illegible after a short amount of use may be important, especially if the writing itself was only 1/3"-3/4" high. First of all, the clarity would depend on the state of the chalk in the first place-- Do we presume it started "sharp"? Or "blunt"?

Now IF, and I say IF with bold letters intentionally, the writing itself was unclear... it would explain the reason for the varying accounts... but what is more... it would also explain Chief Inspector Swanson's comment that the writing was "blurred" in his written report to the Home Office.

Are these things logically reasonable and possible?

IF so, and I know there are a lot of "IF'S", the question I then ask is why not mention the fact that the writing was blurred at the inquest? Is this an example of authorities showing they have done their job well and cannot be criticised in any way?After all, one jury member started asking questions as to the actions of the Met Police at the inquest, did he not?

Food for thought perhaps?

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

For what it is worth, here is a copy of an article published in the 'Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling' on the MO and signature analysis of the Whitechapel murders. They suggest Martha Tabram, Mary Ann Nichols, Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes, and Mary Jane Kelly were all victims of the same killer and showed characteristics unique to this killer’s signature, as well as to his MO.

Hope this helps!

Hello LAL,

Thank you for providing this. Hiwever, as one might have guessed, I am not one that is supportive of Profiling techniques. I am very back and forward on the subject... some of it is very useful statistically, but the addage that every stat has an outer limit shioukld be taken into account. Therefore, the mean average of any given thing or set of events under any specific catagory is not always the pointer to the truth of the matter. I saw the programme that made "Jack the Ripper" look like a poor man's Freddie Mercury, and although stats can lead one in that direction, he may well have had no hair at all and wore a cap hiding it... it really is speculation based on statistical information fed in from various cases...as indeed this profiling in this presentation is.

There are some that believe profiling is the answer... I am sadly, not one of those, even though I respect its meanings and intentions.


kindly


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Just one more little thing. As we are talking about Warren's possibility, or fear of, a riot... then let us put it into perspective.

Lasrt year, in London, Enfield, I believe, A cloloured gentleman was shot by an arnmed police officer. Later, a group of family members marched down to the local police station to talk to a person of responsibility about what happened. This caused a furore, which led to massive riots that night in the area, and which spread all over the country.

If we are talking riot... how long did it take between the event (the shooting) and the march? How long after the March did it take for the rioting to commence? Was the rioting near the scene of the march?

What I am trying to come to here is this. At 5.30 in poor light, Warren decides the writing be washed away. A photographer, it has been suggested, could hacve started taking photos at dawn, 5.59.

So 29 minutes is the time gap. Surely it is a tremendous leap of conjercture that within 29 mins someone would be able to get near enough to read the writing and then play chinese whispers causing a riot before the photographer got to the scene? Just a thought.

kindly

Phil

[Errata]

I have been under the assumption, possibly erroneously, that the GSG was written on the wall of an entrance alcove, not on a street side wall. Like, you step into a doorway where there is a stairwell, look to wall on your right, and that's where the graffiti was. Since foot traffic is to the right, anyone walking on the side of the street where the building was would not be walking towards the writing, and those walking towards the writing would likely be across the street. So it's not all that visible to begin with.

And I don't think 29 minutes is enough to start a riot in this case, but it might seem like a frantic eternity if you are afraid of what the neighborhood populace is going to do if you can't scrub it off before they start crowding around.

[Monty]

Henry,

No, not THE doorway, the one a few doors down towards the baths. Its the original brickwork, and for clarification, I didn't use the exact wording.

Errata,

That's the location Warren states, on the jamb.

One point I will make here, and its often overlooked however its pertinant in my opinion, is the fact the footpath didn't run flush to the dwellings in 1888. Thud making the arguement of it being easily view from the street not as simple as it sounds. Nor would a cover be so easily removed from the street.

There were actual recesses infront of the dwellings and entrances had their own path/crossing.

Of course, those exiting/entering would have been able to have read or remove a cover.

Monty

[Henry Flower]

Profiling

The ironic thing about the psychological profile and signature analysis article kindly shared by LA Lester is that it takes such care to name its sources at every turn, its scrupulous honesty in that respect detracts somewhat from its value: clearly it must be heavily influenced by those secondary sources which it constantly (and inevitably) cites. It simply accepts as fact that the Ripper was disturbed during the Stride attack, and the reader is left wondering whether that's a conclusion that would have been reached independently by the profilers had it not been a staple of every secondary source they read in preparing the piece.

[Henry Flower]

Monty that's news to me. What exactly do you mean by 'recess'?

I think we can all agree that a sheet of cloth and couple of police officers were all it would take to keep the writing hidden until a photographer and daylight arrived; but then of course the location on the jamb would make it impossible to hide the message during the actual taking of the photograph, at which point its 'grand unveiling' would have much more impact on the ignorant hoi-polloi witnessing it. The fact of its being kept secret and guarded by police officers, then being photographed - I'm sure Warren calculated the potential impact of all this.

In terms of a criminal investigation, of course it was a grotesque error - but I'm inclined to feel some sympathy for Warren's decision. The message was impossible to hide while being photographed, the whole thing would've drawn more attention to it than it perhaps warranted, and tensions were high. A riot was the last thing he personally would've wanted - it was only a year since he had earned the enduring hatred of the liberal press with his absurd antics in Trafalgar Sq.

[curious]

What I am trying to come to here is this. At 5.30 in poor light, Warren decides the writing be washed away. A photographer, it has been suggested, could hacve started taking photos at dawn, 5.59.

So 29 minutes is the time gap. Surely it is a tremendous leap of conjercture that within 29 mins someone would be able to get near enough to read the writing and then play chinese whispers causing a riot before the photographer got to the scene? Just a thought.

kindly

Phil

Hi, Phil,

What is your thinking on this. The real reason Warren had it removed?

Thx,

curious

[curious]

The ironic thing about the psychological profile and signature analysis article kindly shared by LA Lester is that it takes such care to name its sources at every turn, its scrupulous honesty in that respect detracts somewhat from its value: clearly it must be heavily influenced by those secondary sources which it constantly (and inevitably) cites. It simply accepts as fact that the Ripper was disturbed during the Stride attack, and the reader is left wondering whether that's a conclusion that would have been reached independently by the profilers had it not been a staple of every secondary source they read in preparing the piece.

Exactly. I found that botherisome as well. There was nothing really presented to allow the reader to see how that leap was made.

[Monty]

Monty that's news to me. What exactly do you mean by 'recess'?

I think we can all agree that a sheet of cloth and couple of police officers were all it would take to keep the writing hidden until a photographer and daylight arrived; but then of course the location on the jamb would make it impossible to hide the message during the actual taking of the photograph, at which point its 'grand unveiling' would have much more impact on the ignorant hoi-polloi witnessing it. The fact of its being kept secret and guarded by police officers, then being photographed - I'm sure Warren calculated the potential impact of all this.

In terms of a criminal investigation, of course it was a grotesque error - but I'm inclined to feel some sympathy for Warren's decision. The message was impossible to hide while being photographed, the whole thing would've drawn more attention to it than it perhaps warranted, and tensions were high. A riot was the last thing he personally would've wanted - it was only a year since he had earned the enduring hatred of the liberal press with his absurd antics in Trafalgar Sq.

News to most Henry.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=193569#post193569

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The self-evident conclusions and leaps of logic in the profile kindly provided by LA Lester do not bode well for criminal profiling.

Nor for the gentle art of proof-reading. In places its authors hopelessly confused details of the murders of Nichols and Chapman

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello Curious,

Not sure really. If my conclusions be correct then there are some fairly odd reactions from different individuals in this. Am trying to work out why Swanson wrote 'blurred' but no-one else did. Two things spring to mind as possible answers- that ip was as Henry Flower says where the letters themselves were not easy to read- thereby 'blurred'- and the other thing is he could have picked the word up from a PC report, that we have never seen.

Warren is another kettle of fish. The actions seem to me to be determined, resolute- yet amateur and poorly weighed up. They contradict. I am left with the feeling that Warren was covering a backside. If Arnold's- why?

Kindly

Phil

[GregBaron]

I'll edit for a small fee...

Hi All,

The self-evident conclusions and leaps of logic in the profile kindly provided by LA Lester do not bode well for criminal profiling.

Nor for the gentle art of proof-reading. In places its authors hopelessly confused details of the murders of Nichols and Chapman

Regards,

Simon

I noticed this also Simon. They mention Bucks row and the Nichols time of death in the Chapman discussion. Quite an amateur editing mistake.

I noticed no factual errors beyond that however, yet, as indicated, most info comes from the grandfather Titans of the case in a secondary manner.

With that said, I agree with their MO/Signature conclusions, whatever that is worth....


Greg