|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RichardR
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:41 pm: |       |
First time caller, long-time listener...
Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I wasn't able to see anything on previous threads.
About 18 months ago, while working in Old Castle St, I walked past a wall (part of the carpark) at the top of Goulston St that had "Juwes" written on it in what looked to be chalk. Only a couple of months ago I noticed it still there. On the other side of the carpark, facing on to the very top of Middlesex St, was "Not the Juwes" (I think).
My question is - are these part of current Ripper tours? If not, I just thought their presence was curious - given the location, and that I've never seen this spelling in any other London graffiti.
Rich R. |
Shelley Wiltshire
Police Constable
Username: Shelley
Post Number: 8
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 31, 2004 - 9:07 am: | |
Hi Richard,
sorry it's taken so long for someone to respond to your post, please don't think that we are ignorant (i only joined the forum in the last 2 weeks).
I think that you might sum up these chalked messages as ripper enthusiasts, perhaps as you mention, on the ripper tours...It is completely irrelavent today, as the original chalked message was washed away so there aren't any photo's of the real ripper's chalked message (if it was the ripper's chalked mesage). It was a police constable that wrote down in his notebook 'Jewes', but a detective came along and corrected it to 'Juwes', i am personally inclined to take the constable's version of the spelling as 'Jewes', although a 'u' if having a slight loop on the top of the left hand part of the letter could give the appearance of an'e'.
Hope this help.
Cheers
Shelley
Criminology Student
for MASC (Ad Crim). |
sam sheppard
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 23, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
If it was the Ripper who wrote that message he could have picked the chalk up from a local pub were maybe... he played darts? |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 22
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 4:33 am: | |
The trouble with the whole chalked message business is that we don't even know if it was the Ripper who wrote it. I am inclined to accept that it was done by the Ripper, simply because it was found on the night of the double murder, had a bloody piece of apron below it, and seemed to be some sort of cryptic clue. And I acknowledge that that is extremely circumstantial evidence.
I tend to believe the spelling 'Juwes', though as Shelley points out, if written in a certain way, an 'e' and a 'u' could be mistaken for one another. But, either way, it was obviously the way it was meant to be spelt, because every other word of the message was spelt correctly and was apparently in 'school boy's handwriting'. About 3/4 of an inch high, so only fairly small.
The 'Goulston Street Graffito' hangs in the balance as perhaps the Ripper's only clue left behind, and it only hangs there because of circumstantial evidence. Though, as I said, I believe it was done by the Ripper.
Regards,
Adam. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 7:59 am: | |
Did pubs usually have chalk for darts? This could be important because I have wondered if he picked them up in pubs or outside pubs. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 1:27 pm: | |
Hi Adam
You wrote: "The 'Goulston Street Graffito' hangs in the balance as perhaps the Ripper's only clue left behind, and it only hangs there because of circumstantial evidence."
Not quite. We know the bloodies piece of apron was authentic because it matched the other half of apron left with Kate Eddowes' body. The apron piece gives some credence to the graffito also having been left by the killer but does not make it genuine. The piece of apron was thus the Ripper's only verifiable clue left behind by the killer other than at the crime scenes, not the graffito.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1210
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
Hi Diana
In addition with the dartboard with darts, the pubs usually have a blackboard with chalk in order to record the dart throwers' scores. The thought that, if he wrote the message, the Ripper might have obtained the chalk from a pub could have some validity, but would be hard if not impossible to prove.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on December 15, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Hi
It is of course possible that the graffiti was just written by a non involver, however it makes a lot of sense if the killer of stride was interupted by Swhartz, who he interpreted as a jew, hence the Lipski remark, and because of him the killer was not able to complete his business,and proceeded to track down another , which was the unfortunate Eddowes.
Therefore 'The jews are not the men that will not be blamed for nothing' makes alot of sense. for he was simply saying if i was not disturbed by that Jew in Berner street, the second woman would have been spared.
Richard. |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 24
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 2:23 am: | |
Hi Chris & Richard,
Chris, You wrote:
"Not quite. We know the bloodies piece of apron was authentic because it matched the other half of apron left with Kate Eddowes' body. The apron piece gives some credence to the graffito also having been left by the killer but does not make it genuine. The piece of apron was thus the Ripper's only verifiable clue left behind by the killer other than at the crime scenes, not the graffito."
Well, since the bloody piece of apron was found right below the chalked message, I think it's safe to link both of them together and say the same man put both there. A double clue - if 1 clue turns out not to be done by the Ripper, then the other one must also be eliminated. The fact that Cathy Eddowes was killed in Mitre Square and the graffito ended up in Goulston Street, along with her apron, is strange enough. Why not closer? And why did it take so long for him to put it there, and for the police to find it? He was putting himself in danger, the longer he hung around the streets. And remember, he had a human kidney plus a piece of bloody apron with him! A recipe for his capture! And so, though I believe the graffito is his, that is why I say it must be viewed very carefully, because it is only a circumstantial and tentative clue.
Richard, you wrote:
"Therefore 'The jews are not the men that will not be blamed for nothing' makes alot of sense. for he was simply saying if i was not disturbed by that Jew in Berner street, the second woman would have been spared."
I agree that if Elizabeth Stride had been fully mutilated to his liking, then most likely Catherine Eddowes would not have been killed and would still remain as just another unknown whore of Victorian London. However, you put 1 word wrong in the graffito message that changes everything. What the graffito said was: "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.", not "The Jews are not the men who will not be blamed for nothing." The spelling of 'Jews' was changed to 'Juwes', and there was only 1 'not' in the message. So that means what he was saying, if it can be deciphered that way, is that the Jews should be blamed for something. And since Schwartz and Diemschutz were Jews, if the killer knew that then that explains the chalked message.I could be way off the mark, but still, that seems the logical explanation - because both Schwartz and Diemschutz, both Jews, both interrupted the killing of Elizabeth Stride. Make sense to anyone else?
Regards,
Adam.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1212
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Hi Adam
I tend to agree with you that the graffito and the piece of apron were linked, but our agreement on that point does not make it so. In fact, one of the problems with the Ripper case is that it is too easy to make a "leap of faith" and construct theories on unproven ideas. There is very little in the case that is proven other than physical facts of the murder scenes, the victim's bodies, and the mutilations... and even here there are controversies: was Mary Jane Kelly's heart missing from the room or not? were there farthings at the Chapman murder scene or not? Beyond the ascertained facts, virtually everything is up for grabs and that is when speculation becomes hazardous.
All the best
Chris George
(Message edited by chrisg on December 16, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1456
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 11:21 am: | |
Adam,
Well, since the bloody piece of apron was found right below the chalked message, I think it's safe to link both of them together and say the same man put both there.
Why? What evidence do we have that links the two items?
Neither are linked directly to each other. The graffito doesnt mention anything about a apron.
Monty
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Kelly Robinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kelly
Post Number: 106
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
Just how much graffiti was around in Whitechapel? Quite a bit, I gather. If the piece of apron was dropped in any random alley there's a chance of graffiti there. If it had been dropped somewhere else we could well today be arguing over the significance of "Betty Loves Bill" or "Don't Eat at Smedley's".
I've always thought that the chalk marks were probably coincidental, but who knows?
-K
"The past isn't over. It isn't even past."
William Faulkner |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1215
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 12:48 pm: | |
Hi Kelly
True... and the idea that Jack wrote the graffiti is given strength and veracity fallaciously so by the "Ripper" letters which the public at the time thought were written by the killer and which may not have been. One big component of the Jack the Ripper myth that grew up at the time of the crimes and that continues to this day, is that Jack wrote messages and taunted the authorities. And yet, as I have remarked before, his only real statement might have been the murders themselves, whatever that might mean.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on December 16, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1409
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 3:51 pm: | |
I don't the graffito is linked to the apron. but what do i know? the police seemed to attach some importance to it, no? |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 28
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 8:16 pm: | |
Hi Chris & Monty,
Chris, you wrote:
"In fact, one of the problems with the Ripper case is that it is too easy to make a "leap of faith" and construct theories on unproven ideas. There is very little in the case that is proven other than physical facts of the murder scenes, the victim's bodies, and the mutilations... and even here there are controversies: was Mary Jane Kelly's heart missing from the room or not? were there farthings at the Chapman murder scene or not? Beyond the ascertained facts, virtually everything is up for grabs and that is when speculation becomes hazardous."
I agree with you, and that is the unfortunate part about Ripperology, there is no real sequence of things that you can construct a solid theory on. And we have to construct theories and only theories, because there is no strong line of evidence to support much more than that. Maybe in time as more is uncovered, more will be proven, but until then, it's all speculation. Therefore, these 'leaps of faith' must be taken.
And in that 'leap of faith' being taken, I can say with reasonable confidence, that the chalked message and the apron were both the work of 1 and the same man - Jack the Ripper.
Monty, you wrote:
"Why? What evidence do we have that links the two items?
Neither are linked directly to each other. The graffito doesnt mention anything about a apron."
Well the graffito doesn't really mention much about anything, does it?
There's not a great deal you can say in 12 words, especially discussing a piece of bloody apron that had just been taken from one of his victims.
The only 'evidence' I have to link the 2 together is simply that they were found next to each other (I can hardly imagine the Ripper walking round the streets, probably with a large amount of blood on him and carrying a kidney, looking for a chalked message that suited what he wanted to say), that the message seemed to carry some sort of cryptic clue with the apron, both were found on the night of the double murder, Goulston Street was well within walking distance of Mitre Square, and that the bloody piece of apron did indeed belong to Cathy Eddowes.
That, for me atleast, is strong enough evidence to say that they were done by the Ripper. Though it is circumstantial evidence, at best, I admit.
Regards,
Adam.
|
extendedping
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 9:34 am: | |
Just a thought...i've heard people talk bout the timeline between eddowes killing and the police finding the graffito/apron...is it possible the ripper being a local man actually went straight home, washed, changed, and then went back to the scene of his crime to watch as killers often do? and if so it it possible he kept the apron with him and dropped it and wrote the message on his RETURN to the scene as an "innocent" bystander (or even as a concerned citizen willing to help), as opposed to the conventional wisdom that holds he dropped the apron/wrote the graffito while fleeing the scene? i actually don't beleive this myself but just wanted to throw it out there as it could explain why the police did not see it earlier. hmmm. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
"...since the bloody piece of apron was found right below the chalked message, I think it's safe to link both of them together and say the same man put both there."
Then you are a bolder man than am I. Indeed, I doubt that any serious critic would support such a contention for a moment.
The presence of two things in the same area does not constitute a link. HAD the graffito referred to the cloth, I might have agreed, but it does not.
Occam's razor (paramountcy of the simplest explanation) would also suggest that the cloth was left in the entryway VERY quickly after the murder, that it was NOT FOUND until later can easily be explained - police inattention.
It is NOT logical (IMHO) to assume that "Jack" hung around for a long time - though I am open to persuasion if OTHER EVIDENCE were to support such a contention. Common sense suggests otherwise though, to me.
He might easily, by the way, have discarded the kidney fragment somewhere and it was never discovered - where is the evidence he did not? There is, of course, no way of proving a negative (ie an absence), but the Lusk kidney does not constitute proof of anything either since that could be a hoax.
All I am saying is that the "evidence" surrounding the eddowes killed (JtR as a whole??) is a minefield, and we should not be too hasty in jumping to conclusions.
There is also no substance to a claim (IMHO again) that had Stride been mutilated, eddowes would have lived!! Eddowes is quite possibly JtR's only victim of the night.
Phil
|
si
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 16, 2004 - 9:37 am: | |
many of " alleged" ripper letters and writing were written phonetic why. the writer of the Goulston street graphito may have simply meant to write " jews" but thought it was spelt " juwes" as it sounds. make sense? |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1457
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 11:51 am: | |
Adam, Phil,
Adam,
Well the graffito doesn't really mention much about anything, does it?
Exactly. Not a murmor about the apron, Eddowes or Stride, Abberline, Warren or Morris. Only grumblings about Jews...or Juwes.
If there was more than the one element to this then circumstantial evidence, in my eyes, does come into play. However, seeing as its just the location which unite the 2 I cannot go down the road of ascertained fact that they're linked.
Phil,
Kidney and the womb....dont forget the womb !
Monty
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1446
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 20, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Hello,
would the graffito have been able to be seen from the street. I mean i am just assuming here that the apron wasn't placed in any deliberate manner and could have easily been slung (for want of a better word) into the doorway without much thuoght being given to the place where it landed??
Of course that's pure speculation equally the killer could have thought the doorway was an ideal location and had a good look in it and thought it a good location to write his graffitto written his graffito and placed the apron deliberately beneath it.
Jenni
ps or equally a third or fourth option!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, December 18, 2004 - 2:24 am: | |
The records of the graffito as taken by the police are contradictory and confused. Can we be certain even that it was the writer who mispelled the word and not the police? or that the writing was smudged or poor.
I discount any connection to the letters personally.
Is "Juwes" the way someone would spell "Jews" phonetically? I'm not sure.
extendedping - nothing wrong with what you conjecture, except that it is very complicated and requires a great deal of unsupported supposition about motive and opportunity and the killer's accommodation. The more supposition, the more likelihood you are incorrect because some parts of your argument are wrong. I rest my case.
Phil |
Adam Went
Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 50
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:08 am: | |
Hi all,
Monty, you wrote:
"Exactly. Not a murmor about the apron, Eddowes or Stride, Abberline, Warren or Morris. Only grumblings about Jews...or Juwes.
If there was more than the one element to this then circumstantial evidence, in my eyes, does come into play. However, seeing as its just the location which unite the 2 I cannot go down the road of ascertained fact that they're linked."
I agree with you in that there is no mention of any of the key players, but would there really be any need for it, assuming it is real? If one thing is clear about the message, whether it was done by the Ripper or not, is that it is a cryptic message. At face value, it would appear that he meant the Jews (or Juwes, whatever it was) should be blamed for something. But perhaps it is more crpytic than that.
It may be nothing but theory, but if the Ripper was literate, then I can see no reason why he wouldn't heighten the already huge fear of him in the East End and the world over by writing such clues and/or letters to the police. It seems almost logical that he would.
Phil, you wrote:
"The records of the graffito as taken by the police are contradictory and confused. Can we be certain even that it was the writer who mispelled the word and not the police? or that the writing was smudged or poor."
It could well be one of those options, because there was indeed conflicting quotes of it by the police. Perhaps the U was mistaken as the first V in W, though that seems unlikely. I tend to believe the 'Juwes' version, but I can't be sure, and it's very hard to solve what it means anyway. It just seems more than a coincidence that one of the victims' bloody apron was found directly below the writing, on a largely Jewish building.
So, for me, I believe it's real, but I admit that there is no proof of that what so ever. It may not even refer to the Ripper crimes.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
As a checkable detail could we do a survey of the history of London graffiti, and of the various spellings and misspellings of the word "Jew" |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 442
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 7:30 pm: | |
Hi Diana,
Various people have in the past checked on common misspellings. Juwes was right up there. I don't recall in which threads here it was talked about, and it may have been the old boards in which case it'd only be on the Casebook At Home version at this point.
As far as the graffiti goes, I'm not sure there are sources that get that detailed. I do believe people have tried already. Of course there are mentions of graffiti being common in other books, like Dew's autobiography for one.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1460
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 5:59 am: | |
Adam,
Firstly I do not see the graffito as cryptic. To me the only ambiguous part of the whole writing is the word ‘juwes’. I agree when you say it appears to be aimed at the Jews (though I do favour Stephensons theory also) but all this is just my view.
Its unusual for Serial Killers to leave messages however, as you know, its not uncommon. Zodiac sent strips of Stines shirt with his communications (maybe a similar scenario happened at the dwellings however The Zodiac took claim to Stines murder in his letter whilst Jack does not make any claim), Heirens left his message at the murder scene, I could go on.
Evidence suggests Jack had ample time to leave a message at the sites of Eddowes and certainly at Kellys murders. But he doesn’t. He his given the opportunity to keep the apron and send swatches with his letters. But he doesn’t. Obviously we cannot delve into his mind but for a killer who people feel communicated he communicated very little, especially as he had the evidence to back it up.
Now THAT would heighten the fear !
Cheer,
Monty
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 54
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:31 am: | |
Hi Monty,
"Firstly I do not see the graffito as cryptic. To me the only ambiguous part of the whole writing is the word ‘juwes’. I agree when you say it appears to be aimed at the Jews (though I do favour Stephensons theory also) but all this is just my view."
Well, as we discussed before, 'Juwes' could have been mis-spelled, and indeed different policeman took it down in a different form. Let's just assume it was the Ripper for a moment. Let's analyse it...
He must be literate. It was described as 'good schoolboy's handwriting', so it must have been reasonably neat. But the wording and grammar of it suggests someone not quite so smart. "The Juwes (?) are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" - there were several words in it which had capital letters. It's incorrect to have capitals mid-sentence, unless it's the name of a place or person. Also, the wording 'not be blamed for nothing', isn't good English. It may have been said like that in the late 1800's, I'm not sure, but we would word it something like 'won't be blamed for anything'.
So, based on that, I think it's reasonable for us to assume that who ever wrote it, Ripper or not, was a person of moderate intelligence. Literate, but not brilliant.
As for it not being cryptic, you may well be right. We can only speculate.
"Its unusual for Serial Killers to leave messages however, as you know, its not uncommon. Zodiac sent strips of Stines shirt with his communications (maybe a similar scenario happened at the dwellings however The Zodiac took claim to Stines murder in his letter whilst Jack does not make any claim), Heirens left his message at the murder scene, I could go on."
That's true, however, Jack did admit it in I believe it was the "Dear Boss" letter (the "Double event this time" letter), and mentioned the kidney in the Openshaw letter, as well as sent the kidney to Lusk with 'saucy jacky' postcard. These letters are still debated, but I find it hard to believe that he wasn't responsible for atleast some clue, perhaps a letter, perhaps the graffito...who knows, perhaps both?
"But he doesn’t. He his given the opportunity to keep the apron and send swatches with his letters. But he doesn’t. Obviously we cannot delve into his mind but for a killer who people feel communicated he communicated very little, especially as he had the evidence to back it up."
Well, he did send part of what was supposedly Cathy Eddowes' kidney to Lusk, and there were similarities. He barely had time to kill some of the victims, let alone leave a clue behind. Remember, in the case of Cathy, he may have had as little as 8 minutes.
As for Mary Kelly, well, based on her mutilations, I don't think there was any need to heighten the already hysterical fear by leaving a clue behind, for her atleast.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2444
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 5:57 am: | |
"Well, he did send part of what was supposedly Cathy Eddowes' kidney to Lusk, and there were similarities. He barely had time to kill some of the victims, let alone leave a clue behind. Remember, in the case of Cathy, he may have had as little as 8 minutes"
He didn't send a message of any sort -- that we know of -- in connection with Nichols' and Chapman's murders, unless one believes that the "placing" of the artefacts belonging to Chapman should be interpreted as such (on which I have no real opinion -- I would have liked to see a photo or a sketch depicting those before I have a firm belief in either direction).
He didn't have more time in connection with Eddowes murder than he had compared to the others, and still is supposed to have left a "message". And this time with the police very tight on his tail.
I can't rule it out, but one wonders why he should go to such a stretch under these circumstances. The Eddowes murder is probably among the ones where he were closest to capture.
Besides, it's a bit strange to rely too much on a piece of writing that doesen't exist today. We have no photo of it -- all we have are two notes that to some degree show disimilarities.
I think it's rather hard to deduce the degree of literacy on the author's part concerning a message that no longer is possible to study in its original.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1462
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:37 am: | |
Howdy Adam,
You find it hard to believe he wasn’t responsible for at least some clue? Why? Is this a feeling you have? The only clue I see is the apron. Its final location indicates where he was, nothing more. I do not believe he was a clue leaver. It would, no could defeat him.
A kidney was indeed sent to Lusk. Its debateable that the kidney was Eddowes though. The kidney removal was common knowledge by the 5th October. This information could have been picked up in The Daily Telegraph for example. Seeing as the Lusk letter didn’t arrive till the 16th there is ample time to produce a hoax. There are a number of factors regarding this letter and parcel that keep churning in my head. If this is a ‘publicity stunt’ why was it sent to Lusk? Does he see Lusk as a threat? Maybe its to do with the fact that Lusk requested a pardon from the HO (2nd & 7th Oct 88) and why wait a fortnight to post it when the Postcard was posted quick smart? Why is there no mention of the womb or apron or Lewande or Morris? I know I keep harping back to this but if this guy craves attention the why does he not do it properly? Besides posting an apron would be easier, keep the communication going for longer and cost less !!!
As for timing at the Eddowes scene, he had plenty of time. I disagree that he had little time. He nicked the eyelids, carved patterns into her face and rifled through her belongings. So why take the mountain to Goulston st when you could have left Mohammed there? The only reason is the lighting situation. However, going by my calculations (which may be wrong granted) the lighting was more adequate in the Square than the dwellings.
And Mary….come on. An apt opportunity to taunt is it not?
Cheers,
Monty
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 58
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:39 am: | |
Glenn,
"He didn't send a message of any sort -- that we know of -- in connection with Nichols' and Chapman's murders, unless one believes that the "placing" of the artefacts belonging to Chapman should be interpreted as such (on which I have no real opinion -- I would have liked to see a photo or a sketch depicting those before I have a firm belief in either direction)."
The artefacts being neatly arranged with Chapman's body has never been fully proved, and though I don't sway too much either way, I tend to disbelieve that. We know there was a torn envelope with her which contained her pills, certainly, but as for the artefacts - probably about 70% no, 30% yes from me.
"And this time with the police very tight on his tail.
I can't rule it out, but one wonders why he should go to such a stretch under these circumstances. The Eddowes murder is probably among the ones where he were closest to capture."
Oh, certainly. Lawende saw her perhaps as late as 1:35 AM (though more likely 1:32 - 33), still standing outside the passage to Mitre Square. She was discovered at 1:44 AM. Even if she was instantly taken into the square after Lawende left, and the discovery time was out by a couple of minutes, there still wouldn't be 15 minutes in between. And to avoid any danger to himself, then it probably was only about 10 minutes maximum. I think he probably watched the police patrols, to see when they came around, and then timed himself. There was danger of him being walked in on otherwise.
"Besides, it's a bit strange to rely too much on a piece of writing that doesen't exist today. We have no photo of it -- all we have are two notes that to some degree show disimilarities.
I think it's rather hard to deduce the degree of literacy on the author's part concerning a message that no longer is possible to study in its original."
Yes, Warren's decision to have it scrubbed without a photo or accurate transcription first seems a little weird at face value, but when you consider his reasons, it's understandable. The rest of the message is agreed on. It's just 'Juwes' that causes the controversy, and unfortunately, that is probably the most important part of the message. We may never know, unless some forgotten, lost document surfaces to support 1 theory or another towards it.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2447
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 6:59 am: | |
Hi Adam,
"The artefacts being neatly arranged with Chapman's body has never been fully proved, and though I don't sway too much either way, I tend to disbelieve that. We know there was a torn envelope with her which contained her pills, certainly, but as for the artefacts - probably about 70% no, 30% yes from me."
I agree. That is along the same lines I have thought myself.
"And to avoid any danger to himself, then it probably was only about 10 minutes maximum. I think he probably watched the police patrols, to see when they came around, and then timed himself. There was danger of him being walked in on otherwise."
Hmmm... quite possible, perhaps,come to think of it. I can't rule that out.
I would like to hear Monty's view about that.
"Yes, Warren's decision to have it scrubbed without a photo or accurate transcription first seems a little weird at face value, but when you consider his reasons, it's understandable. The rest of the message is agreed on. It's just 'Juwes' that causes the controversy, and unfortunately, that is probably the most important part of the message. We may never know, unless some forgotten, lost document surfaces to support 1 theory or another towards it."
yes, I agree with most of what you say here.
It's just that I prefer to have the opportunity to study a piece of evidence in its original before I think it's of any great value to get into it.
It's not only the word Juwes that is an enigma; from what I remember, the two notes also differ in the sequence of words, which could give them different meaning. I know this has been a subject to discussions as well.
It would be a lot easier if the two notes were completely similar. As it is now, we have no real idea what the original scribbling exactly looked like because of this.
Yes, I think there were political reasons for Warren's rather unprofessional decision. He probably didn't want to fuel the anti-semitic opinions in the area, and I believe he had good reasons for being cautious. Still, he only had to wait one hour before there was enough light to photograph it, and it could have been covered up in the meantime. I'd say his decision was based on irrational and hasty thinking, and he also had to pay for it in the long run.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 422
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:33 am: | |
The round schoolboy's hand indicates some level of education. It also indicates that the part of the brain (the cerebellum) responsible for fine muscle coordination (fingers) worked well. Language skills (Broca's and Wernicke's areas) are another story. Thus the ungrammatical and very unclear "Juwes" message. This is a classic example of multiple intelligences. The brain has departments. It is possible for one department to function very well and another to be all messed up. I have commented before that JTR probably had great fine and gross motor skills. He never could have gotten away as fast as he did, nor cut as efficiently as he did without them. However that does not mean that the frontal lobes were clicking on all 4 cylinders.
This is true whether he wrote the graffito or not.
As far as handwriting and education going together, you can only run so far with that ball because it is axiomatic that most doctors have horrible handwriting! |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1463
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Glenn,
Looking at Eddowes, Watkins statements in The Star that he was working left handed and that he sometimes leaves the square via church passage (which in its self is odd) indicates that the Police altered their beats.
I have read up quite a bit on this and it seems that the Beat Sergeants would indicate before the Officers commenced their beats which route to take. The fact that PC Harvey was also working an alternate handed course indicates to me that The Beat Sergeant told the Officers to take a different patrol route that night.
Like Adam, I thought he watched and studied the patrols, now Im not so sure. Whatever route Watkins took he knew it would be another 12-14 odd minutes before he returned (Regulations stated that a beat must be patrolled at 2 mph. All officers would have been spot checked by the Beat Sergeant throughout the night.). All the killer would have to do is watch the PC complete 1 or 2 beat circuits before Jack had an idea of the timing. This is a possibility obviously. However, Jack would run the risk of being questioned due to the fact that watching a PC is suspicious act. An act that the PC would actually do a stop and search on. It all depends on how he was watched, how discreet the watcher was.
That’s my view for what its worth.
Monty
PS 10 mins is a long time. Just sit there and time it.
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2455
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:32 am: | |
All good points, Monty, as usual.
That's exactly why I wanted to hear your views about it. Makes sense.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 60
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 8:45 pm: | |
Hi all,
Glenn, you wrote:
"I agree. That is along the same lines I have thought myself."
Wonderful. Jeez, 2 agreements in 1 day, Glenn - pretty soon we won't disagree on anything! And what would happen to the forum then!? ;-)
"It's not only the word Juwes that is an enigma; from what I remember, the two notes also differ in the sequence of words, which could give them different meaning. I know this has been a subject to discussions as well.
It would be a lot easier if the two notes were completely similar. As it is now, we have no real idea what the original scribbling exactly looked like because of this."
IIRC, doesn't the other note say "The Jewes (sp?) are not the men that will not be blamed for nothing" ? Major difference here is the spelling of Jewes/Juwes, and the extra 'not'. If this version is correct, and you twist it round in your mind enough, then it seems to mean that the Jewes/Juwes (Jews?) shouldn't be blamed for anything, where as the other version makes it sound like they should be blamed for something.
So since the 2 versions result in markedly different meanings, I think we need more conclusive proof of the exact message before we can elaborate on potential meanings of it.
"Still, he only had to wait one hour before there was enough light to photograph it, and it could have been covered up in the meantime. I'd say his decision was based on irrational and hasty thinking, and he also had to pay for it in the long run."
Yes, over the years, he certainly has copped a lot of flak from that decision. But really, he was trying to control a police force who were trying to control an almost hysterical public. People wanted answers, not more riddles to the question. And thus, I think, as you say, Warren's decision was an irrational and hasty one, and he was frightened of the backlash that would be received if the message was seen by newsmen or the public. They'd start crying 'bloody racism' instead of just 'bloody murder' - chaos on the streets.
So, overall, when you weigh it up, I think Warren's decision was the right one, but that he should have done more to have the message atleast taken down correctly.
Monty, you wrote:
"You find it hard to believe he wasn’t responsible for at least some clue? Why? Is this a feeling you have? The only clue I see is the apron. Its final location indicates where he was, nothing more. I do not believe he was a clue leaver. It would, no could defeat him."
Yes, it is the feeling I have. It seems unlikely to me that he could butcher atleast 4 women, likely 5, and possibly 7 without leaving some taunt or clue behind.
As for would/could defeat him, I don't think that is so. Remember, in 1888, there was nothing like fingerprints taken to check for matches, and certainly nothing even like DNA, which we are fortunate to have today. How would it defeat him?
"If this is a ‘publicity stunt’ why was it sent to Lusk? Does he see Lusk as a threat? Maybe its to do with the fact that Lusk requested a pardon from the HO (2nd & 7th Oct 88) and why wait a fortnight to post it when the Postcard was posted quick smart? Why is there no mention of the womb or apron or Lewande or Morris? I know I keep harping back to this but if this guy craves attention the why does he not do it properly? Besides posting an apron would be easier, keep the communication going for longer and cost less !!!"
Perhaps he did see Lusk as a threat. Perhaps he thought he would try and scare this 'threat' away - a kidney possibly from a murder victim wouldn't exactly be the nicest thing to receive in the post, I wouldn't imagine. Besides, the Lusk letter is just 1 of dozens of letters that have some chance of being connected to the Ripper - they went to doctors, newspapers, police - anywhere. Though the Lusk letter is perhaps the most likely to be connected to the Ripper out of any of them.
As for the wait, apparently it had been preserved, and had therefore still been in relatively good condition. Perhaps the reason it took 2 weeks was because he wanted to hang on to his 'trophies' from the killings for a bit longer. There was also 2 rings missing from Annie Chapman's finger, IIRC. Once again, perhaps trophies?
Re Lawende and Morris, there has never been any proof that the man talking to Cathy outside the entrance passage to Mitre Square was the Ripper. Indeed, I believe he was, but there is always some chance that he left her after Lawende left, and she then entered the square on her own accord, where the Ripper was waiting. If this was the case, then Morris and Lawende didn't see the Ripper at all, so he would have no reason to mention them.
"As for timing at the Eddowes scene, he had plenty of time. I disagree that he had little time. He nicked the eyelids, carved patterns into her face and rifled through her belongings. So why take the mountain to Goulston st when you could have left Mohammed there? "
It would have taken very little time for him to nick the eyelids and do the facial damage, if he was experienced with using a knife. It would be the other mutilations that took the bulk of the time, I would say. He had an absolute maximum of 15 minutes (doctors at the time seemed to think he would need atleast 15 minutes to commit such mutilations), and then he has to make his getaway from there as well. So, I would say he only had about 10 minutes. And, IIRC, the whole time all this was going on, there was a man (name?) cleaning up/sweeping in a building on the opposite side of Mitre Square. He would surely have heard running if there was any, same with screaming. Thus, I believe the Ripper was in no hurry when he left. More proof that he had less time.
"And Mary….come on. An apt opportunity to taunt is it not? "
Not entirely, I don't think.
The mutilations (excluding Stride) gradually grew worse in each victim, up to Kelly. Kelly was barely recognisable, even to her own boyfriend. I think the Ripper had completely gone mad by this point, and was therefore incapable of controlling his actions. If that is so, then he would not be capable of sending taunts. He may not necessarily have died or been committed to an asylum after the killings stopped, but I do believe he went completely mad, and couldn't control himself. There's no proof of that though, obviously.
"However, Jack would run the risk of being questioned due to the fact that watching a PC is suspicious act. An act that the PC would actually do a stop and search on. It all depends on how he was watched, how discreet the watcher was."
Well, Jack had clearly worked out to attack so the victims were not heard, he was not heard, and he was not walked in on in the process. If he was so good at doing these things, then he may well have been able to position himself so he was hiding while watching the PC pass by.
"PS 10 mins is a long time. Just sit there and time it."
It seems like it, but not when it's applied to Jack the Ripper context. When Lawende left, Cathy wasn't even in the square. This was no more than 15 minutes before she was found - mutilated and dead. She had to have got in there and been attacked first. We don't know how long she stood talking to the man outside the square for.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 370
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:10 pm: | |
Adam
As for would/could defeat him, I don't think that is so. Remember, in 1888, there was nothing like fingerprints taken to check for matches, and certainly nothing even like DNA, which we are fortunate to have today. How would it defeat him?
True, they may not have fingerprints or DNA, but consider how assiduously the police did handle other "clues" that proved false, like the screw of paper with a regimental crest found at the Chapman crime scene. Or checking pawn shops for Chapman's missing rings and tracking down the pawn ticket found on Eddowes and so on. Had JtR left any personal items -- intentionally or not -- it could have been his undoing. Read about Late Victorian police investigations; they did an amazing job with what they had to work with.
And Monty is spot on. Ten minutes is a lot longer period of time than you might think and quite a bit can be done in that span.
Don.
|
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 62
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:26 pm: | |
Donald,
"True, they may not have fingerprints or DNA, but consider how assiduously the police did handle other "clues" that proved false, like the screw of paper with a regimental crest found at the Chapman crime scene. Or checking pawn shops for Chapman's missing rings and tracking down the pawn ticket found on Eddowes and so on. Had JtR left any personal items -- intentionally or not -- it could have been his undoing. Read about Late Victorian police investigations; they did an amazing job with what they had to work with."
Oh I'm not knocking the methods of the Victorian police force and how well they did, not at all, they did a fantastic job for what they had.
But, I doubt the Ripper would have carried many personal items - save for his knife, of course. There were 80,000 people living in Whitechapel alone, it would have been an extremely arduous task to track things down. And then it's not even known for certain if the Ripper was an inhabitant of Whitechapel.
What personal items could he have left behind? These days we can test victims clothings for fibres from a different type of clothing. We can reconstruct crime scenes using electronic technology. We can, of course, test the tiniest samples of DNA. We can fingerprint. We can do just about everything that couldn't be done in 1888. If the Ripper was carrying nothing more than his knife, perhaps a bag, and the 'trophies' he took from a couple of victims, then he could leave nothing behind. Even if 1 of the rings from Chapman's finger fell out of his pocket as he was leaving, it wouldn't be suspicious, because it could be seen she had 2 rings, and it may be assumed that 1 fell off during the attack or something.
A lot of babbling there, I know, but in short, I doubt the Ripper carried anything with him other than his bag/knife.
"And Monty is spot on. Ten minutes is a lot longer period of time than you might think and quite a bit can be done in that span."
It took me 10 minutes to type this message up, and it doesn't seem that long at all. If you're doing nothing, sure, 10 minutes is a boringly long time, but if you are, it's not. As I discussed above, she had to get into the square first, get attacked, killed/mutilated, and then the killer had to flee. All before her body was found. It may not have even been 10 minutes, but that is the maximum that I would allow, based on the process of deduction.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 626
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
Hi all,
Re: the fifteen minutes. Dr. Brown's bottom was five minutes. Even five minutes is a long time, depending on your perception. Adam, sit down and and do nothing but stare at a clock for a full five minutes. Hold your breath for five minutes, then hold it for ten. Take it from me, I grew up in the South-five minutes is half of Freebird, and that's a long, long time. And that's the bottom estimate. Ten minutes is an eternity.
IMO, if anyone knew the beats in Mitre Square, it was Kate Eddowes. We've got those six hours of her time unaccounted for; even if she went to Bermondsey and back, she's still got lots of time where she could have visited there a few times. Here's the problem with this idea though: Watkins didn't go on duty until quarter to ten and Eddowes was off the street at eight. Anyone know about the beats prior to eight o'clock?
Dave
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 372
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 9:51 pm: | |
Adam,
A lot of babbling there, I know,
Uh huh.
Don.
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 170
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 11:07 pm: | |
Adam...I'm with you on the GSG.
There are 5 different interpretations of the GSG,by the various police...page 499 Sugden.
There was a message above the apron...
It was a fresh graffiti according to someone who was there: Halse.
There was no need to mention the GSG by the police. Like Caz said....pick up the apron and move on...
There was a concerted effort to make sure it,the GSG, was obliterated completely.
Why?
Why would Arnold send a cop with a bucket and sponge to the spot making the GSG important in the first damn place? Why would Anderson moan about not photographing it later on.........
Why?
Because it was a clue attached to another clue in the eyes of the police.
No one disputes or contradicts modern policemen at work,when they uproot plots of land to correlate that type of grass to a grass stain on a murder victim in 2004,as an example of an unusual police measure..... For these policemen,the graffiti meant something. What that was is irrelevant other than it was relevant to them.
Sometimes it appears that men and women who are accustomed to using their intellects and/or intellectual acumen in their livelihoods and other pursuits, tend to minimalize their native common sense approach to matters,such as the Bigfoot of the WM, the GSG. This is not meant to insult anyone individually or as a personal dig against anyone who thinks differently than I do or anyone who doesn't believe in the authenticity of the GSG being by JTR...A lot of times very bright people, like all the posters who are here,with me as the exception, overthink things....Arnold and Warren,among others who were there,seem to not have taken it lightly.......they didn't take any time in removing it.
No need to erase a miniscule, run of the mill graffiti.
Now,its almost as much a legend as the Case itself.
Why would Halse be angered about the obliteration...and why would the Patron Saint of The Babbling Jew Culprit, Anderson ,even mention it exactly 20 years later[ the same guy who never mentioned WHOM was named as the Ripper at Hove......]?!!!!!!!!!
Why all this extra public p.r. work in the press by Warren? Consulting the top Rabbi....?
Because....it was a clue....left by the Ripper....along with the apron.
..and just maybe it read, "Juives" ! A sixth interpretation....Oy vey !!!!
(Message edited by howard on December 23, 2004) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1465
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 4:51 am: | |
Howdy Adam
Yes, it is the feeling I have. It seems unlikely to me that he could butcher atleast 4 women, likely 5, and possibly 7 without leaving some taunt or clue behind.
As for would/could defeat him, I don't think that is so. Remember, in 1888, there was nothing like fingerprints taken to check for matches, and certainly nothing even like DNA, which we are fortunate to have today. How would it defeat him?
How would it defeat him? I mentioned could. I wasn’t talking about DNA/fingerprinting anyway. More the basic handwriting matches, height calcs that sorta thing.
Perhaps he did see Lusk as a threat. Perhaps he thought he would try and scare this 'threat' away - a kidney possibly from a murder victim wouldn't exactly be the nicest thing to receive in the post, I wouldn't imagine. Besides, the Lusk letter is just 1 of dozens of letters that have some chance of being connected to the Ripper - they went to doctors, newspapers, police - anywhere. Though the Lusk letter is perhaps the most likely to be connected to the Ripper out of any of them.
As for the wait, apparently it had been preserved, and had therefore still been in relatively good condition. Perhaps the reason it took 2 weeks was because he wanted to hang on to his 'trophies' from the killings for a bit longer. There was also 2 rings missing from Annie Chapman's finger, IIRC. Once again, perhaps trophies?
Yes, Trophies that’s plausible. Yet he gives them up. Why, do you think, would he do that?
Re Lawende and Morris, there has never been any proof that the man talking to Cathy outside the entrance passage to Mitre Square was the Ripper. Indeed, I believe he was, but there is always some chance that he left her after Lawende left, and she then entered the square on her own accord, where the Ripper was waiting. If this was the case, then Morris and Lawende didn't see the Ripper at all, so he would have no reason to mention them.
You are quite right. Lewande may have seen a different couple. As for Morris, its highly likely that he would have opened the Warehouse door whilst Jack was in the act, or towards the end of, mutilating Eddowes. This would have been noted by anyone in the square.
It would have taken very little time for him to nick the eyelids and do the facial damage, if he was experienced with using a knife. It would be the other mutilations that took the bulk of the time, I would say. He had an absolute maximum of 15 minutes (doctors at the time seemed to think he would need atleast 15 minutes to commit such mutilations), and then he has to make his getaway from there as well. So, I would say he only had about 10 minutes. And, IIRC, the whole time all this was going on, there was a man (name?) cleaning up/sweeping in a building on the opposite side of Mitre Square. He would surely have heard running if there was any, same with screaming. Thus, I believe the Ripper was in no hurry when he left. More proof that he had less time.
Taken very little time to knick the lids and mark the face, yes I know. It’s the Doctors opinion that the main mutilations would have happened prior to the facial mutilations. This time (for the face) could, and I stress could, have been taken up by writing the graffito. Yet Jack chose to go and mutilate the face…..and also went through Eddowes stuff. A subject no one has commented on so far in relation with the timing aspect.
Morris was the man sweeping the building. I have mentioned him above already. Its interesting to note that during the rest of the week, at that time, Morris would have been in the square smoking his pipe. There is only one night when he is not. Just happened to be that night. Morris didn’t hear Watkins approach until the PC was opening his door. He was working and therefore no really taking note of what was going on outside. A scenario we have all encountered and no doubt will do numerous times today.
Thus, I believe the Ripper was in no hurry when he left. More proof that he had less time.
A contradiction? Not being awkward, I just don’t understand that one mate.
Well, Jack had clearly worked out to attack so the victims were not heard, he was not heard, and he was not walked in on in the process. If he was so good at doing these things, then he may well have been able to position himself so he was hiding while watching the PC pass by.
Yes, I agree.
It seems like it, but not when it's applied to Jack the Ripper context. When Lawende left, Cathy wasn't even in the square. This was no more than 15 minutes before she was found - mutilated and dead. She had to have got in there and been attacked first. We don't know how long she stood talking to the man outside the square for.
Again, fair comment. Of course, it has been mentioned before (and sorta ties in with the above paragraph) that it could have been Eddowes who studied the beats. St Boltophs (the church where the prostitutes solicited) wasn’t far away and Mitre Square would have been the ideal location to do business. I have mentioned before about the Police changing the beat routes and this is one of the reasons they did so. To try and catch out the Girls and their clients.
It took me 10 minutes to type this message up, and it doesn't seem that long at all. If you're doing nothing, sure, 10 minutes is a boringly long time, but if you are, it's not. As I discussed above, she had to get into the square first, get attacked, killed/mutilated, and then the killer had to flee. All before her body was found. It may not have even been 10 minutes, but that is the maximum that I would allow, based on the process of deduction.
Again, I agree. We seem to be on a roll. The max is ten mins for me also. However, my take on the evidence is that the whole act took 5 – 8 mins. Too specific I guess but that’s me.
….and as for the actual bodily mutilations? Well personally, I think Brown was being generous when he stated 5 mins !
Cheers,
Monty
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1483
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:01 am: | |
You think five minutes is too generous? umm...interesting.
ten minutes can take forever, when you are waiting for something. trust me on this. ever waited for publictransport, man its boring as hell!
Jenni
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:23 am: | |
Jenni,
I refer you to our texts last night !
Too much info Hunni !
Monty
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:30 am: | |
Monty,
uh-hum!!!
What I MEANT was five miuntes to perform the mutliations you think that is too long?
I think that maybe it isn't so long all things considered. but hey what do I know!
And as its Christmas I will leave it there!!
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on December 24, 2004)
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 6:33 am: | |
God i must watch what i say!
Ho! HO! Ho!!!!!!! |
Adam Went
Detective Sergeant
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 65
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 7:08 am: | |
Hi all,
Donald:
"Uh huh."
Glad to see you're being so in-depth and specific. Oh well, atleast it was short and sweet I suppose, rather than my 'babbling' post.
Howard, thanks for your agreement. I don't think I need to add anything else to your wonderful post, you've done it in-depth quite enough!
Hi Monty. You wrote:
"How would it defeat him? I mentioned could. I wasn’t talking about DNA/fingerprinting anyway. More the basic handwriting matches, height calcs that sorta thing."
Well, you've got to have a suspect to match it against first. And I'd say that some people would have a very similar handwriting style. That is, of course, of those who could write. Many people in the East End of London of 1888 were not literate. Or, if they were, not very much. A matched handwriting link is a very tentative one.
"Yes, Trophies that’s plausible. Yet he gives them up. Why, do you think, would he do that? "
Well, why would he want to hang on to them forever? The kidney would rot sooner or later. He seemed not to have a problem with discarding the piece of apron, so why would the kidney be any different? After a couple of weeks, perhaps he decided that he could put it to a frightening use.
"Taken very little time to knick the lids and mark the face, yes I know. It’s the Doctors opinion that the main mutilations would have happened prior to the facial mutilations. This time (for the face) could, and I stress could, have been taken up by writing the graffito. Yet Jack chose to go and mutilate the face…..and also went through Eddowes stuff. A subject no one has commented on so far in relation with the timing aspect."
That's true. But if we accept that his rage was so built up after his failed attempt to mutilate Liz Stride, then that explains the extra mutilations inflicted on Cathy Eddowes. He had to exact on her the vengeance he could not on Liz Stride. What do you think?
As for placement of the graffito, well, there wouldn't be much point in just putting it right next to her, would it? No, too obvious. He would have to put it somewhere where it would create confusion. Where better than on a largely Jewish building's wall, a decent distance but not too far from the murder sites? Besides, as we have said before, he may have almost had to flee the scene of Cathy Eddowes' murder as well.
"Just happened to be that night. Morris didn’t hear Watkins approach until the PC was opening his door. He was working and therefore no really taking note of what was going on outside. A scenario we have all encountered and no doubt will do numerous times today."
Not ordinarily, no. But I feel sure that if there had been running, and subsequent loud footsteps, he would have heard them. And if she had screamed, he certainly would have heard it so close by. I think it's safe to contend, therefore, that either he was half-deaf or the Ripper struck silently, and quickly, but left enough time for him to creep away slowly, rather than be in a hurry. This is also evidenced by the fact that the PC saw nothing out of the ordinary as he entered the square. If he saw or heard a man running away down the street, then saw the dead woman's body, then he'd be on the chase, and the Ripper may have been caught. Too dangerous.
"A contradiction? Not being awkward, I just don’t understand that one mate."
Not a contradiction, but...erm...let me try and clarify.
If he didn't hear the PC coming, then he would have no need to hurry. If he left quietly and slowly, then that proves that he spent even less time killing and mutilating Eddowes. If he hurried, Morris, the PC or both would have heard/seen him. So we can knock the time limit down by perhaps atleast 1 minute, minimum. What do you think? Clearer now?
"I have mentioned before about the Police changing the beat routes and this is one of the reasons they did so. To try and catch out the Girls and their clients."
You may well be right, it could have been Cathy who watched the police beats. Do you suppose as well, then, that it was her who accosted the Ripper, not the other way round? Or would it just have been from Cathy's previous experiences that she worked out the pattern of times?
I personally believe the Ripper accosted his victims, but that's of course just my belief, and I fully agree Cathy may have been the one who timed it.
"Again, I agree. We seem to be on a roll. The max is ten mins for me also. However, my take on the evidence is that the whole act took 5 – 8 mins. Too specific I guess but that’s me."
Well, based on what we have discussed, let's try and work out an estimate of the time he took.
Lawende saw Eddowes and the man outside the passage between 1:30 and 1:35 AM. But for the sake of discussion, let's say it was 1:33. She was discovered at 1:44. Let's allow 2 minutes for Lawende to leave, and for Cathy to enter the square, where she is attacked. That brings it back to 9 minutes. He then has to make a getaway, I would allow another 2 minutes for that. That brings it back to 7 minutes. Perhaps Dr. Brown was much closer to the truth than was thought! 7 minutes is an extremely short time. I think we can, based on that, drop the maximum back from 10 to about 8, with an obvious minimum of, say, 5. We can therefore assume that Cathy was killed by about 1:37 AM. What do you think?
Jennifer, you wrote:
"You think five minutes is too generous? umm...interesting.
ten minutes can take forever, when you are waiting for something. trust me on this. ever waited for publictransport, man its boring as hell!"
Waiting for public transport is somewhat different to what we are discussing here, me thinks. It's not like you are just sitting there, or standing idly, watching the seconds tick by. A completely different context.
Regards,
Adam.
The Wenty-icator! |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 423
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 8:42 am: | |
Last summer during my anatomy class, I was part of a group that dissected a rat. I watched the clock closely because my thoughts were on Jack. We opened the abdomen, found all the major organs including the kidneys in under 15 minutes and we had never done it before. Plus because it was a group there was a lot of discussion and hemming and hawing at each step. Of course a rat is much smaller, and Jack had done it before whereas we hadnt. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 208
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:00 am: | |
Adam-
I think you can be a little more generous in your timeline. It shouldn't have taken 2 minutes for Lawende to leave/the victim and killer to get into the square. If the couple he saw was them, they could have gone right after he saw them (and I firmly subscribe to the idea that the victims led the killer to the venues).
Also, just to muddy the waters a little bit more,what if the couple that was seen WASN'T Edowes and the killer? If Mitre Square was a popular spot for trysts maybe the couple was someone else and Eddowes and her killer were already in the square when Lawende came on the scene. Just throwing that in for a jolly-wouldn't you?
I don't think Jack was a deliberate clue leaver or publicity seeker.The taking of trophies is usually to enable the murderer to relive the experience later on so I don't think he's want to give them up.
As I try to imagine the killer and the crimes, I keep coming back to the feeling that he was extremely curious about the (I surmise) heretofore forbidden female body. I see the escalation of mutilations as a symptom of rage, yes, but also as an exploration of what he can do with his knife--what avenues he can explore in satisfying himself. It's a sort of macabre playfulness, if you see what I mean.The arranging body parts and personal belongings. If it had any symbolic meaning it was probably known only to him.
I also wonder about the lighting in Mitre Square--and I think we have another thread for that, so I'll only say that perhaps he was there longer than we think.
Mags |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1469
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
Adam,
If I was honest mate, Im too pesched to reply !
However, from what I have read, though I may not agree (with parts) I do find the replies you give interesting. Thank you,
I am now off to keel over in a corner.
Have a Gud 'un Buddy, I have !
Monty....who has now slumped over with a bottle of Jack Daniels in his mits!
Ps I love you mate....no I really do......burp I love you all....even Kitty....mail me Kitty....I love you mate.....your my bestest mate....three bucks??? Kiss my arse !!!!!!!!! Jenni Why do you hate me ????!!!!!
Fear.
Fear attracts the fearful. The strong. The weak. The innocent. The corrupt.
Fear.
Fear is my ally. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 8:47 am: | |
It just seems more than a coincidence that one of the victims' bloody apron was found directly below the writing, on a largely Jewish building.
Why?
The murderer wipes his hands as he walks (home?) and when he is done, tosses the unwanted apron scrap into the first doorway he passes. Unbeknownst to him there is a graffito there.
This is simple and uncomplicated (and likely). It is coincidental and no more is needed by way of explanation.
If it was intentional, thensurely the phrase would be something akin to:
"The Jews are those responsible for the murders from which this apron scrap was taken..."
There is NO KNOWN connectivity between graffito and apron, except for their juxtaposition in space (but whether in time or by origin cannot be proven).
Phil
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 10:19 am: | |
Warren's decision to have it scrubbed without a photo or accurate transcription first seems a little weird at face value, but when you consider his reasons, it's understandable.
Precisely - the implication is that he did NOT believe the writing was evidence, but saw the juxtaposition with the cloth as potentially inflammatory. The view of men of the world, and with clear responsibility (and incentive) to find the killer - who had struck twice that very night - decided the graffito was not important. I would, on balance, give their judgement considerable weight.
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
