Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Wickerman]

As for the graffiti, if it was old the residents would have seen it and already known what it said.

If you notice, any press stories about chalk graffiti found in Whitechapel include the wording. There is no interest in a story about graffiti if you can't provide the wording.

There are no stories about the GSG prior to the Inquest, yet the press investigated the rumors.
If the press fail to find anyone who knows the wording, they have no story.
Think about it...

[Tom_Wescott]

If you notice, any press stories about chalk graffiti found in Whitechapel include the wording. There is no interest in a story about graffiti if you can't provide the wording.

There are no stories about the GSG prior to the Inquest, yet the press investigated the rumors.
If the press fail to find anyone who knows the wording, they have no story.
Think about it...

That doesn't make any sense, Wick. Either the graffiti pre-existed the Eddowes murder or it didn't. It appears it did not. That doesn't make it the work of the Ripper, but it makes it all the more likely it was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

That doesn't make any sense, Wick. Either the graffiti pre-existed the Eddowes murder or it didn't. It appears it did not. That doesn't make it the work of the Ripper, but it makes it all the more likely it was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The point I was addressing is that you appear to think the police told the residents what was written while being questioned.
Had that been the case the press would have had ample sources from which to obtain samples of the wording for publication.
However, they appear to have no available sources prior to the Inquest, which is consistent with the police not telling anyone.

The apparent fact the graffiti was not known to exist prior to the date in question means that either it was new, or it was of no consequence to the residents - they were not interested.
At this point we cannot determine which.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. I'll keep this simple, since neither of us were on scene that day. What I'm suggesting is that it was in the best interests of the police to prove that the Ripper didn't write that graffiti, which would have been extremely easy to do if he had not. But they could not find this proof. This suggests to me that the graffiti was placed there roughly the same time the apron was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The simplest solution is to accept that we cannot determine whether the graffiti was recent or not.

The police cannot be expected to prove it existed prior to that night if no-one can remember seeing it, and the fact it was insignificantly small does not help to draw attention to it.

Oh, by the way..

.... just that the Ripper had written it. Which, of course, he did.

What we appear to have is a killer who leaves his victims mutilated, exposed and prostrate. The bold attitude of this killer is easy to see.

The intention to shock the discoverer is apparent, yet this same killer, in your opinion, then chooses to leave a message which is not equally bold or emblazoned across a wall, but is laughably small and somewhat obscure as to meaning.
There is a contradiction here that is apparently ignored out of preference.

There was plenty of time for messages in Millers Court, if, he was the messaging kind... apparently he was not.

[c.d.]

Hi Wick. I'll keep this simple, since neither of us were on scene that day. What I'm suggesting is that it was in the best interests of the police to prove that the Ripper didn't write that graffiti, which would have been extremely easy to do if he had not. But they could not find this proof. This suggests to me that the graffiti was placed there roughly the same time the apron was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

You lost me here. How could the police prove it wasn't the Ripper's handwriting when they didn't know who the Ripper was and didn't have a sample of his writing? Are you referring to the apron?

c.d.

[c.d.]

The simplest solution is to accept that we cannot determine whether the graffiti was recent or not.

The police cannot be expected to prove it existed prior to that night if no-one can remember seeing it, and the fact it was insignificantly small does not help to draw attention to it.

Oh, by the way..


What we appear to have is a killer who leaves his victims mutilated, exposed and prostrate. The bold attitude of this killer is easy to see.

The intention to shock the discoverer is apparent, yet this same killer, in your opinion, then chooses to leave a message which is not equally bold or emblazoned across a wall, but is laughably small and somewhat obscure as to meaning.
There is a contradiction here that is apparently ignored out of preference.

There was plenty of time for messages in Millers Court, if, he was the messaging kind... apparently he was not.

Hello Wickerman,

I agree with you on this. If we accept that none of the Ripper letters were authentic then it seems that the one time the killer decided to communicate was when the police were out looking for him. Why not just get home as quickly as possible? If he wanted to communicate with the police he could have cut off part of the apron and sent that to them with a message. And you would think that the GSG would make some reference to what he has just accomplished rather than a seemingly obscure message as you point out. I absolutely agree that if he had taken the time to write the message and it was erased that he would have been quite pissed and would have left a message in blood at Millers Court.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

You insult yourself. Never did I say the graffiti supported the Jews. You don't read. You just infer things because you have your own inane plots going on in that large, complex brain of yours; a brain I wish I could have because I think living in delusion-land might be a good thing.

Mike

Maybe check your own post # 902 where you speculate just that. I am always surprised when folks like you try to discredit others for using known and qualified data, despite the fact that you seem to believe in urban fairy tales and post insults as rebuttal.

3 witnesses claimed within 1 hour of the murder that they were alerted to the body, by Louis, at around 12:45. That's corroboration. Israel, Louis, Morris and Joseph, ...likely all club affiliates, have ZERO corroboration for any part of their stories. That suggests that there was no BSM at all.

Its choosing what to believe that may be your problem here, rather than being compelled to a position based on the existing evidence.

You believe there was a BSM....no-one but Israel says he saw or heard him, and no evidence exists that suggests his story was mentioned, submitted or even considered at the Inquest, ..you believe Lave and Eagle, despite the fact that they said they were both in the passage at 12:40 and neither mentions the other, and you choose to believe Louis when 3 witnesses all agree that the time they saw the body was within a minute or 2 of 12:45, not 1am.

Perhaps youre correct,... and perhaps there really is a bigfoot, perhaps there is a tooth fairy, and perhaps dreams can come true......but none of that nonsense belongs in a serious conversation about murder.

Believe what you want, but you must know by now that almost everything you've espoused about these murders since Ive been coming here can be summarily dismissed as pure speculation, without any substantiation by any hard evidence.

Ive just posted a few facts from the investigation that make those dreams of yours ash, maybe you should quiet down a bit in that glass house of yours. You might be seen as more credible anyway.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Tom,

You lost me here. How could the police prove it wasn't the Ripper's handwriting when they didn't know who the Ripper was and didn't have a sample of his writing? Are you referring to the apron?

c.d.

Hi C.D., it's quite simple. The premise is that the Ripper wrote the graffiti while depositing the apron, and we know that the earliest time that would have been possible is within minutes after the time Eddowes was murdered. Therefore, if the residents of the building stated they'd seen that graffiti earlier in the evening, it would effectively disprove (or at least cast serious doubt upon) the notion that the Ripper wrote it. Apparently, the police found no one who had seen the graffiti prior to the Eddowes murder and no such person seems to have written to the press.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Hello Wickerman,

I agree with you on this. If we accept that none of the Ripper letters were authentic then it seems that the one time the killer decided to communicate was when the police were out looking for him. Why not just get home as quickly as possible? If he wanted to communicate with the police he could have cut off part of the apron and sent that to them with a message. And you would think that the GSG would make some reference to what he has just accomplished rather than a seemingly obscure message as you point out. I absolutely agree that if he had taken the time to write the message and it was erased that he would have been quite pissed and would have left a message in blood at Millers Court.

c.d.

I think there were reasons for the Goulston Street message that weren't present (or necessary) at the Miller's Court murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

Apparently, the police found no one who had seen the graffiti prior to the Eddowes murder and no such person seems to have written to the press.

Or no such person who would admit to have seen it prior to the Eddowes murder, especially if they were a resident of the building.

[The Good Michael]

Maybe check your own post # 902 where you speculate just that. I am always surprised when folks like you try to discredit others for using known and qualified data, despite the fact that you seem to believe in urban fairy tales and post insults as rebuttal.

What I said was that the belief that a certain interpretation of the GSG could cause riots, was one that was a pro-Jewish one. I also said that I don't know what the GSG meant. The only interpretation that would send people over the edge was one that a Jew wrote the graffiti, thereby, showing some sort of connection or pride about the murders. How is any of this some sort of swimming against the stream?

Mike

[Wickerman]

Or no such person who would admit to have seen it prior to the Eddowes murder, especially if they were a resident of the building.

It should have been quite easy to find a resident who could say for certain that it was, or was not, there the day before.

Had one been found who could swear it was not there the day before then this witness could have been called at the inquest, instead of asking Halse if it looked fresh.
Alternately, if one could swear it previously did exist then the issue should not have arisen.

All indications are, that the residents knew nothing about it, given its size, I am not surprised.

[c.d.]

That is some damn fine reasoning there, Wickerman.

c.d.

[Batman]

Jews writing in cockney?

Why?