Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Finally if the murderers intention was to communicate a message and bring attention to that message in the form of a bloody apron left to show it , why not just use the whole of Eddows mutilated body and write the same message next to her in Mitre square.? Just an observation and opinion that all.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
      Another question if i may please. If it was the murderer who wrote the writing on the wall at Goulston st, ,which by all accounts has been established that he did .
      I think you'll find that this is far from being established. There are arguments both for and against this assumption.

      With out the bloodstained apron of Eddows next to it, how else would anyone know the writing was from JTR ?.
      Without the apron there would be no reason for this to be considered related to JtR, even if he did write it, and conversely, just because the apron was found there doesn't mean we should fail to consider that he didn't write it. Had there been signs of blood found around the writing, suggestive of it being written by a bloodied hand, that would provide a more compelling link.

      Wouldn't it not be just another piece of graffiti on a wall written by anybody. After all Eddows body lay over a mile away at Mitre square ,...
      A direct line between Mitre Square and the intersection of Goulston Street and Wentworth Street is less than a quarter mile. In fact, the distance between Eddowes crime scene and Nichol's (the two most distant from each other) isn't even a mile (about 0.88 miles in a direct line).

      without the apron next to it the graffiti would have little if not no significance at all to Eddows murder. Just my humble opinion of course.... . Id be interested in your thoughts on this Michael . Regards .
      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Thanks Jeff . Well Michael thinks it was written by the murderer and so do i , and this link more then convinces me that to be the case.There is a lot more evident the police at the time thought it was written by jtr than didn't,however your entitled to your opinion https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...-graffito.html . So ill stand by my posts on that , as to the distance between the two locations i apologize i got the 1500ft mixed up with meters , still doesn't change anything as to the reasons for my suggestion .So for the second time, Michael Richards would you like to comment on my 3 post , i would like to hear your thoughts seeing how you agreed on the writing. , regards

        Comment


        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
          Finally if the murderers intention was to communicate a message and bring attention to that message in the form of a bloody apron left to show it , why not just use the whole of Eddows mutilated body and write the same message next to her in Mitre square.? Just an observation and opinion that all.
          I expect because the killer didn't want to remain at the crime scene any longer than necessary.

          Comment


          • Also, the idea to leave the message might not have popped into his head until after the murder. He took the apron piece to carry the offal back to his lair. When he got home, he was still pissed about the jews, and the possible interruption with Stride, that he snuck back onto the street to write the GSG.

            Comment


            • I believe its correct to assume that the apron section is the key element in the doorway, its the link to the killer in Mitre square, and the writing I believe is intended to point an accusatory finger at local jews for something the author believed they were avoiding blame for. I don't believe the killer in Mitre Square was pissed at being interrupted in Berner Street because I don't believe he was there that night, but I do believe that the anarchist jews running into the street proclaiming "another murder has been committed" suggests that they were appointing blame on the killer at large without much evidence to suggest it was the case. After all, the deceased was on their property and there were quite a few men still there when it happened. Could have easily been someone in attendance that night, and since Fanny noted the street as being almost deserted, and she heard or saw nothing of what Israel says happened, nor did she see Louis arrive at 1am as he stated, its almost a given that her killer came from club property. These "low" men were known for taking a smoke in the passageway after meetings, as reported by the neighbors. Yet that night no-one was in the passageway from 12:45 until 1am, according to the club senior mgmt.
              Other than Liz and her killer that is.
              There are other some members who differed with that position though.

              I do believe that the section was used to carry away organs and that he likely secured them somewhere before going to Goulston Street, and I do believe that the location was chosen because 90 plus percentage of the occupants in those homes were local jews. This is one reason I suspect that the killer is not the same man as the one that killed Polly then Annie, I don't think he came prepared to take anything away. The obtaining of that section was time consuming, if only in seconds, and I would think that Annies killer wanted to obtain internal organs again and would be better prepared to do so. Nor do I see antisemitism in anything within the evidence in that case.

              I believe that a "Lusk package" idea was something that was thought up when the killer decided to take the organs that night, and that the killer revealed his antisemitism by his placement of the apron section and the writing nearly an hour after the murder. So, for me, Kates killer was someone who demonstrated his distaste towards immigrant jews openly, and someone who had a bone to pick with either the vigilance committees as a whole, or with Lusk himself.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • That would be one possibility yes agree . However given it just took 29 secs to write that one sentence on a blackboard with chalk, was the killer that concerned in his escape after he finished as not to write his message , especially as he could have been caught in the act the whole time he was dissecting Eddows . just another possibility.... One also has to ask why the killer chose Goulson st to leave the writing, surely it lead the police to the area where he might have been hiding out or lived near by. Mitre square would have been a better option. thanks HarryD for your thoughts tho. regards

                Comment


                • Very informative post. thanks Michael.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                    Thanks Jeff . Well Michael thinks it was written by the murderer and so do i , and this link more then convinces me that to be the case.There is a lot more evident the police at the time thought it was written by jtr than didn't,however your entitled to your opinion https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...-graffito.html
                    Well, I can't say your wrong nor can I say you're right as it's an unanswered question. If he did write it, he could be sort of taunting the police, or the Jewish population, as in "I've left this apron piece here by a residence of Jews and now they will be blamed for the murder" type thing; or he could be venting over some perceived wrong, or just an unfocused dislike of the immigrant Jewish population. It also ties in with Schwart'z report of "Lipski", which would indicate anti-Jewish sentiment as well,Of course, if he didn't write it, then it tells us little about JtR's thinking on any of these. But, it's certainly not wrong to consider it possibly from JtR.


                    . So ill stand by my posts on that , as to the distance between the two locations i apologize i got the 1500ft mixed up with meters , still doesn't change anything as to the reasons for my suggestion .
                    No worries, that's easy enough to do.


                    So for the second time, Michael Richards would you like to comment on my 3 post , i would like to hear your thoughts seeing how you agreed on the writing. , regards
                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Interesting ... Thanks jeff for your thoughts.

                      Comment


                      • Question...... Who was the last person to 100% positively ''IDENTIFY'' Eddows alive .?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                          Question...... Who was the last person to 100% positively ''IDENTIFY'' Eddows alive .?
                          Hi Fishy,

                          To the best of my knowledge that would be the police when she was released for being drunk (though she gave the false name Mary Anne Kelly at the time).

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • PCs Robinson and Simmons [City police] could not definitively identify Eddowes at Golden Lane mortuary as the woman they had arrested in Aldgate for drunkenness and taken to Bishopsgate police station.

                            DAILY NEWS, 3rd October 1888

                            Some information furnished by two City police constables to their superior officers yesterday morning supplied what is at present the only clue to the identity of the woman murdered in Mitre Square.

                            The policemen, having seen the mutilated body at the mortuary in Golden-lane, expressed the opinion that it was that of a woman who had been taken to the station by them a short time ago when under the influence of drink. Owing to the disfigurement of the face they could not, however, speak with absolute certainty.
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • That would be correct Jeff thank you . Which begs another question , why does just about every theory as to what happen at Mitre square that night start with Eddows and a man [supposedly her killer] at duke st church passage at 1.35? truth is no one can say with any certainty how she entered or from which direction she entered Mitre Square . Except of course her killer. What we do know for sure is Eddows was not in the spot she was found before 1.33 am [ assuming p.c Watkins took 3 mins to walk around the square and then left to start his route again, returning 11mins later and finding her body. Now lets say for argument sake that Eddows and her killer were seen at church st passage at 1.35am as one witness testified, that makes it approx 1.37am to reach the spot she was found. That leaves 7 mins untill Watkins discovers Eddows body at 1.44am. agree/disagree?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
                                That would be correct Jeff thank you . Which begs another question , why does just about every theory as to what happen at Mitre square that night start with Eddows and a man [supposedly her killer] at duke st church passage at 1.35? truth is no one can say with any certainty how she entered or from which direction she entered Mitre Square . Except of course her killer. What we do know for sure is Eddows was not in the spot she was found before 1.33 am [ assuming p.c Watkins took 3 mins to walk around the square and then left to start his route again, returning 11mins later and finding her body. Now lets say for argument sake that Eddows and her killer were seen at church st passage at 1.35am as one witness testified, that makes it approx 1.37am to reach the spot she was found. That leaves 7 mins untill Watkins discovers Eddows body at 1.44am. agree/disagree?
                                Thats of course if the couple entered the sq at 1.35am they could have entered at 1.36/1.37. or as late as 1.38 ! They were seen standing talking not on the move.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-30-2019, 06:09 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X