|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John Gray
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 3:47 pm: | 
|
Let's suppose that the now famous graffiti "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" was not written by Jack the Ripper but written by a Jew who lived in the area, perhaps in the very building near the wall on which the graffiti was written. If a Jew wrote it, his meaning would have been: "Jews, who as a group have done nothing wrong, are no longer going to accept the blame for all of society's ills." And let's suppose that Jack the Ripper, who probably frequented the area in broad daylight as well as at night, noticed this graffiti and decided in advance to leave a clue near it, if he had the opportunity, after disposing of one of his victims. Being twisted himself, he knew that, with some kind of bloody trophy close to it, the phrase itself would become twisted and take on a whole new meaning--in fact, a meaning opposite to what its author intended. Now it would mean "Jews, who traditionally have been blamed for everything, are now going to get revenge and do something to be blamed for," or something to that effect. If you buy this scenario from start to finish (and I know it's a lot to buy), then it would mean that Jack the Ripper was not a Jew.
I also think it's highly improbable that Jack the Ripper, after just murdering someone and fleeing the area, would stop and take the time to scrawl a message on a wall anywhere, especially one so close to the scene of the crime. It's also unlikely that at that hour of night he would have been able to see well enough to write anything.
And if Jack the Ripper did write the graffiti, it's more likely that he would throw suspicion on an ethnic group to which he didn't belong than on one to which he did.
It's funny that only if you look at this whole thing as an accident or coincidence (i.e., that the bloody scrap of apron just happened to be discarded in haste near a graffiti-covered wall, of which there were probably many in the area), that only if we look at Jack the Ripper's act as unrelated to the "Jewish" message, does the possibility of a Jewish suspect present itself. |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 182
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 6:10 am: |
|
Hi John,
I know I'm a bit late, but I just wanted to reply to this thread with a couple of answers to what you've written.
I am amongst those who believe that the Goulston Street Graffito WAS written by Jack the Ripper, and not somebody else, before September 30.
Having said that, I mainly want to reply to just 1 paragraph that you wrote:
"I also think it's highly improbable that Jack the Ripper, after just murdering someone and fleeing the area, would stop and take the time to scrawl a message on a wall anywhere, especially one so close to the scene of the crime. It's also unlikely that at that hour of night he would have been able to see well enough to write anything."
Now, if Jack the Ripper didn't have time to stop and write the message, what makes you think he had time to be looking at walls all the way from Mitre Square for the perfect place to drop the apron below? Wouldn't it have been quicker for him to flee straight to Goulston Street without stopping, and scrawl his message up and leave the apron while the police were very much pre-occupied with the Mitre Square and Berner Street scenes?
Plus that, if it was too dark for him to write on the wall, then how could he manage to, in the almost total darkness (remember, these areas were very poorly lit. Only a few occasional gas lamps provided a little bit of light, and even that wasn't much.), manage to read the message that was already on the wall, when he probably wouldn't have been expecting to see it there?
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think it's reasonable to believe that after claiming 2 victims, the Ripper would have wasted time looking along totally dark walls for any scrawled messages or signs he could use to drop the apron with, and then still have been able to see the message well in the first place, even if he had managed to spot it.
Remember, even the policeman who found the apron and the writing had a lamp with him at the time.
Personally, I think it's much more likely that the Ripper, knowing the police would be pre-occupied at the 2 murder spots, went straight to Goulston Street, wrote the message, dropped the apron, and then left. It would have saved time, and danger, and IMO seems more likely.
But, that's just my 2 cents! I guess anything could be possible!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 398
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
I think it's fair to say that if the killer dropped the apron there because of the graffiti he either 1) wrote it himself or 2) knew it was there from a previous-earlier in the day- spotting of it.
I have doubts that the graffiti was on the wall for very long. It would have been rubbed off or at least severely smeared by people passing.
So, I think either he wrote it himself or it is a cruel coincidence, the ultimate red herring.( I lean more to the second opinion).
Mags
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 419
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Adam and Mags,
Couldn't it be just a complete coincidence that Jack happened to drop the piece of apron so close to the graffito, without knowing that the graffito was there? Written by someone else, either that night, or a day previously.
I'm still very much undecided as to whether Jack actually stopped and took the time to write something on a wall - and drop a piece of apron right there as a "clue". I'm swayed more to the "Jack was making his escape and just happened to drop the piece of apron on his way", whether intentionally, or unintentionally (I probably go with the latter) not knowing that the graffito was even there. But I'm also very aware of the fact that my thinking is way off!
Love,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 400
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Nothing wrong with your thinking at all,Lyn.
The writing was very small and it was dark. If Jack had seen the writing and chosen to drop the apron there because of it then he had the night vision of an owl.
Most likely scenario: The graffito was done by someone earlier,but not much earlier because it would have smudged. Jack discards the cloth as he's walking quickly past, has no idea the writing is there. the rest is history.
Mags
|
Lindsey Millar
Inspector
Username: Lindsey
Post Number: 420
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Well, that's the way I'm thinking, Mags.
Love,
Lyn
"When a man grows tired of London, he grows tired of life" (or summat like that)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 553
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 4:25 pm: |
|
Adam - nice to see you around, it's been a while..
You wrote: "I don't think it's reasonable to believe that after claiming 2 victims..."
To slightly misrepresent you, I wasn't aware that Jack "claimed" anything!!
But seriously, there's no proof he killed Stride that night, so no claim based on that is reasonable..
Sorry to differ as so often,
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 619
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Although the police wasn't right on his tail when he dropped the apron in the vestibule in Goulston Street, it's quite reasonable to believe that the sound of P.C Watkins' footfalls approaching the Mitre Square forced Jack to leave the crime scene in a hurry.
By the time the Ripper had reached Goulston Street the rushed feeling may have subsided a little, but he must still have been quite anxious to get to his bolthole before he was possibly stopped and searched.
This coupled with the notion that Jack seems to have been a very practical man who used his opportunities to the full without getting caught, I think it's quite unlikely that he would waste precious time on writing the graffito.
But even apart from this, it was quite dark in the entrance, the graffito was written at about shoulder height instead of directly above the apron, P.C. Long only noticed the writing when he started looking for other suspicious things, and possibly - like Mags says - the letters were quite small. IMHO these things alone would make it quite improbable already that the Ripper chalked down the graffito.
So, I'm with Lyn and Mags here.
Adam went.... but fortunately came back again. Welcome back, Adam! Where and how have you been?
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3473
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 6:47 pm: |
|
I am with Mags, Lyn and Frank here (sorry, Adam, how are you?  )
I just have some points to add regarding Adam's post:
"Now, if Jack the Ripper didn't have time to stop and write the message, what makes you think he had time to be looking at walls all the way from Mitre Square for the perfect place to drop the apron below?"
This reasoning is apparently based on the assumption that Jack deliberately tried to find a suitable place to drop the apron. We don't know that and unless one is convinced of that the message is linked to the killer and the apron, there is no evidence for such a conclusion. I for my part think the apron was dropped in random simply because he didn't need it anymore for some reason.
"Plus that, if it was too dark for him to write on the wall, then how could he manage to, in the almost total darkness [...], manage to read the message that was already on the wall, when he probably wouldn't have been expecting to see it there?"
I don't get this. Why would he look for a wall with a message? Again, this is based on the belief, that the killer deliberately searched for a wall where a writing existed and that he deliberately chose a location for the apron to drop it. There is no evidence of this and I certainly don't believe that was the case. I don't understand why we should take that for granted.
My personal opinion, is that the writing was already there, but that the PC didn't see it the first time he passed the address, simply because it was too dark and the writing was rather small (chalk doesn't show that clearly in the dark if it's written with small letters).
The second time he noticed it, because he spotted the apron and therefore lit up the walls and the entrance with his bull's eye lanterna and therefore saw it. There was no real reason for him to do this the first time around. In my view, the message was discovered because of the apron underneath it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 31, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 578
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 8:38 pm: |
|
Adam,
So, the "Wenty-cater" is back (you get kicked off Forums too?) and as ever trailing controversy in his wake.
I, too, feel that the apron and graffito are linked only by happenstance and history, but I do find the occasional argument about the difficulty of writing in the dark rather specious. Unless we are to believe the graffito had been there since a late daylight hour (in which case the odds of it having been erased by an outraged resident are high), then it most definitely was written (by whomever) in the near-dark.
Certainly today's graffito vandals are skilled at nocturnal vision and I would think that would also apply to those in the LVP.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 554
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:55 am: |
|
I suppose that one possibility is that after a hasty exit from the square, adrenaline pumping (as well probably as other emotions) Jack calmed and slowed down and needed somewhere to wipe his mucky hands. He stood in the shadows of the entry to the dwellings, off the street and calmly wiped himself clean. Then he dropped the apron half and stepped out into the street again.
I still don't see him as either noticing a pre-existing graffito or writing one in the circumstances. His senses would surely have been alert, twitching to hear the sounds of pursuit or of a copper on his beat.
The graffito could have been written for a hundred reasons by a thousand people. it might relate to some feud between a local and a Jewish inhabitant of the dwellings. Whatever, if jack did not write it - and we have no evidence he did - then someone else did and it survived from the time it was inscribed to the time it was erased.
Thus it COULD well have been there when Jack passed or paused in that entranceway.
Phil |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 183
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 5:56 am: |
|
Hi again all!
Very pleased to see that my post has generated some interesting responses, and I must say I'm very pleased to be able to launch straight back into these great discussions.
Maria:
Interesting, and I agree with most of what you've written. As you've said, the writing couldn't have been there for long, or else it would have been rubbed off. The only other option I think is even plausible, aside from the Ripper writing the message himself, is that it was written by someone very late on September 29, spotted by the Ripper, and he decided he would return there later on, after he had killed. But obviously to accept that theory would be to walk on thin ice with the sun shining brightly, because even if the Ripper did see the writing before it was too dark, and decided to go back, there has to be atleast an 8 hour gap before he goes back, and by that time it could have been rubbed off.
So what else could he do, apart from write the message himself?
Lindsey:
"Couldn't it be just a complete coincidence that Jack happened to drop the piece of apron so close to the graffito, without knowing that the graffito was there? Written by someone else, either that night, or a day previously."
Well, IMHO, that can be summed up in 1 word: Impossible. I've accepted some pretty whacky ideas before as being 'remotely possible', but I don't think it could even fall into that category.
What are the odds that the Ripper would cut the apron off, flee the Mitre Square scene, walk/run not too far, but a reasonable distance to Goulston Street, and just happen to throw the apron off to the side as he's going along the street, and 'accidentally' land right underneath a chalked message on the wall, which barely covered a couple of bricks, and which was later considered as a possible clue from the murderer?
I'd say the odds are something like 10 trillion to one!
I could accept that as being possible if the apron was 5 or 10 feet away from the writing, sure, but it was right below it. And let's not forget that the writing was only about 3/4 of an inch high, not something that covered the entire wall, or anything.
So, sorry to say that I don't think that theory is likely at all. But, that's just me!
Phil:
"Adam - nice to see you around, it's been a while.."
Thanks Phil, it's good to be back!
"To slightly misrepresent you, I wasn't aware that Jack "claimed" anything!!
But seriously, there's no proof he killed Stride that night, so no claim based on that is reasonable.."
Well Phil, you've been around these forums long enough to know that I am a firm believer that Elizabeth Stride is a Ripper victim, so I guess that's why I said he claimed 2 victims.
But, OK, just for you, I'll re-phrase it:
"I don't think it's reasonable to believe that after killing 1 victim, and quite likely 2..."
Is that better?
(Personally, I don't like that revision... ;) )
Frank:
"Although the police wasn't right on his tail when he dropped the apron in the vestibule in Goulston Street, it's quite reasonable to believe that the sound of P.C Watkins' footfalls approaching the Mitre Square forced Jack to leave the crime scene in a hurry."
I don't think Jack was forced to leave Mitre Square in a hurry, Frank. I think I've mentioned this elsewhere before. Let's remember, there was a man working in a warehouse (His name always escapes me, but I'm sure you'll know who I mean) just on the other side of Mitre Square, and the door into it was ajar. When P.C. Watkins discovered the body, he called on the man in the warehouse to come and help him. He had heard nothing, despite being very close to the scene. Now it's excusable that while he was working away, if the Ripper was just walking along, he wouldn't have heard him. But surely, if he was running, there would have been enough noise to alert him. Unless both the Ripper was the luckiest person on Earth, and the warehouse man was deaf!
"This coupled with the notion that Jack seems to have been a very practical man who used his opportunities to the full without getting caught, I think it's quite unlikely that he would waste precious time on writing the graffito."
Precious time? What precious time? "The Juwes Are The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing." Only 12 words, Frank. How long would it have taken him to just write down 12 small words on the wall? 30 seconds? A minute at the most?
Plus that, it had been a Double Event. He had the whole of London, and the world in fear. What better oppurtunity to heighten this than by leaving 1 more frightening clue?
So with the 2 centres of attention by that point being Mitre Square and Dutfield's Yard, surely it would have been nothing for him to write a quick message on the wall, throw the apron off with it, and continue on his way.
And when you consider the other theories that attempt to explain how the apron and writing ended up together, IMO, the Ripper writing it as he left the scenes, and just throwing the apron off with it at the same time, is the most likely and logical.
"But even apart from this, it was quite dark in the entrance, the graffito was written at about shoulder height instead of directly above the apron, P.C. Long only noticed the writing when he started looking for other suspicious things, and possibly - like Mags says - the letters were quite small. IMHO these things alone would make it quite improbable already that the Ripper chalked down the graffito."
According to what I've read before, the writing was about 4 feet up the wall, and the letters 3/4 of an inch high in what was called 'good schoolboy's handwriting.'
The writing was above the apron, except just higher up. The only way he could have written lower was to either kneel, or lie down.
As for the Ripper not being able to see enough to be able to write on the wall, I don't think that's an issue. Test yourself out. Go somewhere where it's almost completely dark with a notepad and pen, and try and write something legible, in neat writing.
I haven't actually done that, but I have tried it by keeping my eyes closed and writing. Apart from some things being a bit 'here and there', it was pretty decent.
So, again, I don't think the Ripper not being able to see what he was writing clearly is a major issue.
"Adam went.... but fortunately came back again. Welcome back, Adam! Where and how have you been?"
Yes, he sure did!
And I'm glad you said 'fortunately', Frank!
Thanks for the welcome back. I wish I could have returned sooner, but things have been pretty hectic recently, as I mentioned. Fortunately that's passed though, and I'm very pleased to be back here again now! Must stick around, this time!
Glenn:
"I am with Mags, Lyn and Frank here (sorry, Adam, how are you? )"
Thanks for starting off the welcome on such a positive note for me, Glenn! Haha. Just kidding.
I'm doing fine, thanks! What about you?
How's everyone else going, by the way?
Everyone's asking me, my turn to ask you now!
"This reasoning is apparently based on the assumption that Jack deliberately tried to find a suitable place to drop the apron. We don't know that and unless one is convinced of that the message is linked to the killer and the apron, there is no evidence for such a conclusion. I for my part think the apron was dropped in random simply because he didn't need it anymore for some reason."
Glenn, I agree with you here, but when I wrote the paragraph you quoted, I was replying only to John Gray, who started this thread, not as a general response. Although, as you know, I for one feel sure that the writing and apron are linked.
"I don't get this. Why would he look for a wall with a message? Again, this is based on the belief, that the killer deliberately searched for a wall where a writing existed and that he deliberately chose a location for the apron to drop it. There is no evidence of this and I certainly don't believe that was the case. I don't understand why we should take that for granted."
...And again, this was in response to the first post on this thread, by John Gray.
John Gray wrote:
" And let's suppose that Jack the Ripper, who probably frequented the area in broad daylight as well as at night, noticed this graffiti and decided in advance to leave a clue near it, if he had the opportunity, after disposing of one of his victims."
IIRC, that was what I was referring to when I wrote that reply, Glenn.
Do you understand what I mean now?
(Jeez, I hope so!)
"My personal opinion, is that the writing was already there, but that the PC didn't see it the first time he passed the address, simply because it was too dark and the writing was rather small (chalk doesn't show that clearly in the dark if it's written with small letters).
The second time he noticed it, because he spotted the apron and therefore lit up the walls and the entrance with his bull's eye lanterna and therefore saw it. There was no real reason for him to do this the first time around. In my view, the message was discovered because of the apron underneath it."
Well, I'm not sure what else your beliefs are as far as the Goulston Street Graffito goes, but I agree with you in this part. The PC probably only spotted the writing, small and hard to see, as you said, because he saw the apron first, and the writing was just around 4 feet above it. Makes sense, I guess. But whatever circumstances there were around the discovery of the writing and the apron, personally I believe the writing was left by the Ripper straight after he left Mitre Square (i.e. He went straight to Goulston Street), and it just wasn't seen until then.
Don:
"So, the "Wenty-cater" is back (you get kicked off Forums too?) and as ever trailing controversy in his wake."
Nice introduction there, Don. I like it! I like it a lot!
Yes, I'm back! And I'm pleased to say that no, I haven't been kicked off any Forums - yet!
"I, too, feel that the apron and graffito are linked only by happenstance and history, but I do find the occasional argument about the difficulty of writing in the dark rather specious. Unless we are to believe the graffito had been there since a late daylight hour (in which case the odds of it having been erased by an outraged resident are high), then it most definitely was written (by whomever) in the near-dark."
Interesting thoughts there Don, but I think I've already replied to much the same things you've said already, so please just read through the rest of this post, and see if you can reply to anything else from there. But if you have any other thoughts you'd like me to consider, by all means, go ahead!
Well, I think that's all I needed to reply to for now! Great and interesting discussion so far, guys!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 556
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Adam, you assume that the "JUWES" message was the only graffito around in the area. It may have been the one that concerned the police in THAT entryway because of the position near the apron, and its interpretation as being anti-semitic.
Had the message said "Irving is great as Hamlet" or "Drink Gin" we'd probably not have heard of it. But ANY reference to a political agenda, however vague, would have been likely to have been perceived as a potential clue. I say potential, because at that time that sort of link was all the police had to go on.
But there is no clear link to the apron, other than location, and no one has yet intrepreted the message in any way that gains a concensus among students.
So far as the 2 victims that night were concerned, you miss my point. I was responding to your implication in any earlier post that Jack's motives were reliant on what happened earlier. If your basic assumption is wrong, so is your logic.
You don't think "Jack was forced to leave Mitre Square in a hurry". But that is simply carping over a word. He certainly did not hang about, and the chances are that the arrival of Watkins DID precipitate his departure. A "hasty" exist does not necessarily imply panic, but at that precise moment i don't see jack as being particularly calm for various reasons.
Your depiction of Jack's exist running rather reflects your tendency to narrow options down so that you make your point. A hasty exit need not assume someone ran - he could, as I have proposed above, leave furtively. He could shelter in shadows and then flit off - still a comparatively hasty exit to my way of thinking.
As for wasting time writing, it would be a waste of time to a fleeing man unless he had an overwhelming desire to make a statement. WE do not know that Jack did, and there is no other COMPELLING evidence to support such a construction. He had plenty of time in Millers Court (assuming he killed MJK) but left nothing by the way of messages. So why do it on one particular night?
Actually, the uniqueness of the writing could be enough to its being discounted.
"...with the 2 centres of attention by that point being Mitre Square and Dutfield's Yard, surely it would have been nothing for him to write a quick message on the wall..."
We do not know that Jack was even aware of events the other side of Whitechapel Road (ie Stride in Berner st), though he might by the point he reached Wentworth Buildings, have been hearing police whistles and running men in hobnailed boots!!
The most logical interpretation of the evidence, Adam, is IMHO, that graffito and apron had no connection. It was and is right to consider whether there might be a link, but none has been proven. Messages were not a usual part of jack's MO - hence I plump for the "simple" explanation.
I know you have axes to grind mate, but Jack was not, at least on the basis of present evidence, a leaver of enigmatic messages, any more than he used royal carriages or look-outs. (All of which have been vehemently argued for before now.)
Recognise the graffito for what it almost certainly is - misleading.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3474
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 8:25 am: |
|
Adam,
I'm OK, thanks. Nice to see you again. It's been a while.
Good, fair enough. I am glad you could see my points (not that they necessarily have to be true, of course, but still...).
Phil,
Good post as usual. No further comments needed.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1669
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 8:53 am: |
|
Adam, Lindsey,
Adam,
Good to have you back.
"I don't think Jack was forced to leave Mitre Square in a hurry, Frank. I think I've mentioned this elsewhere before. Let's remember, there was a man working in a warehouse (His name always escapes me, but I'm sure you'll know who I mean) just on the other side of Mitre Square, and the door into it was ajar."
Morris notes that Watkins disturbed him at 1.45am. Its from this that Watkins estimates his time of arrival at Eddowes body at around 1.44am. Morris states that the door was open only moments before Watkins called him. Therefore the door was opened by Morris after the murder was committed or at its very end at least. Either way, if Morris was telling the truth (and I see no reason for him to lie) the door was not open while Jack was murdering Eddowes. Maybe during the final acts of mutilation. Also, Morris was working deep within the bowls of the offices most of that night and not near the door, well not until he opened the door, so dont be too harsh on him eh?
Lindsey,
"Couldn't it be just a complete coincidence that Jack happened to drop the piece of apron so close to the graffito, without knowing that the graffito was there? Written by someone else, either that night, or a day previously."
Yes, despite some peoples absurd percentages. Your idea is as valid as any other and just as probable.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 9:49 am: |
|
Hi,
interesting thread.
Hey Lyn,
I'm inclined to think that it was a coincidence that the apron was near the graffito. Yes sure, as you say what are the chances? i don't actually know what the chances ARE - but it is possible none the less. I find that a somehow more convincing explanation than that 'Jack the Ripper' did it. Perhaps we can start reading too much into it??
Hi Adam,
good to see you back.
hey Don,
if someone had seen the graffito before hand then its certainly interesting they never said anything to the police about it. That said , who knows!
hi again Adam,
you ask what are the odds of that happening, I'm not sure quite how one goes about working out the odds of something happening. Aren't the odds really a side issue, it is technically possible (stop laughing Don!!).
Hey Monty,
Who would be harsh on Morris? Seriously though, i find the timing very puzzling. We know there were five people in the sq, Eddowes, Morris, 'Jack the Ripper', Watkins and the other policeman who's name temporarily escapes me. and we know where four of them were at 1.44/1.45, Eddowes was dead, Morris was in the warehouse, Watkins was entering the sq/discovering the body, the other policeman who names escapes me was at some point on his beat (not sure where, do you know?)the only person we dont know where he was is jack, but i do wonder if in theory it cant be narrowed down at bit.
I do know how to ramble on don't I?
Anyway, back to work i think
cheers
Jenni
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1791
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Recognise the graffito for what it almost certainly is - misleading.
That works for me - its author may have written it for that purpose - to mislead. 
Did Charles Manson and his sidekicks leave messages at every crime scene?
The trouble with dismissing a possible example of a ripper communication on the grounds that Jack didn't write any other obvious messages anywhere (and that's assuming all the ripper missives were hoaxes), is that even serial killers are capable of trying something just once.
On that basis, would you argue that Jack didn't kill Eddowes because there is no other evidence that he had a thing about kidneys?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 01, 2005) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 10:51 am: |
|
Caz,
Did Charles Manson and his sidekicks leave messages at every crime scene?
Aye....at the crime scene.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 558
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
I think it could be very dangerous to assume that in 1888 people would have acted in the same was as in the 1970s.
The idea of communication, of having something to say, of leaving "messages" seems to me to be a feature of the media age - i.e. since the First World War. I am not sure that for most people in 1888 (26 years before 1914 changed everything) they would have thought in the same way - even if literate - and we don't know our man was!!
Phil |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1795
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:23 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Point taken. 
But Jack could hardly have hung around much longer with Kate, could he?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 01, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1796
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
But Phil,
Hoaxers left messages on walls pretending to be Jack, didn't they? Or at least, the papers said so.
And hoaxers sent messages to the police by the hundred. Some were even taken very seriously indeed.
So if a hoaxer could think to imitate a killer and do this in 1888, why couldn't a killer think to do it too?
Can't a killer ever have a mind like a hoaxer?
Can't a killer ever be influenced by the actions of a hoaxer?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 01, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 560
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 1:42 pm: |
|
My question Caz was not a generality. People in 1888 did not necessarily think as we do.
Graffiti today (especially since aerosol cans and it became regarded by some as an art form) is VERY different from what I recall from my youth.
In the 60s there were plenty of "X loves Y" sort of writings on walls, or "Kilroy was 'ere". But I don't remember anyone having these logo like "names" that seem to be the thing today. Styles, fashions and inspirations change and evolve with time.
So my question related to the sort of graffito a person might write in 1888.
Clearly someone wrote "The JUWES are not the men...". But what might their motivation have been - not in the sense of what message Jack might have tried to send (most of the theories linked to that seem flawed by being C20th to me), but in the context of its time and place?
That may be an unanswerable question. But I am certain that late Victorian attitudes, inspirations, intentions, approaches and motivations would have been VERY different to those of later generations.
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3476
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
I see your points, Phil, but the crank letters to the press and the police shows that people in 1888 were quite similar to us in that respect (and equally crude). Not much in those differ from modern ones.
The 19th century is my historical speciality and in my experience I think it is a mistake to think that the people of that period were that different from us, because I really do not think they were. One example is some letters from the late 19th century that I once read, written by the Swedish painter Ernst Josephson, and they contained very rough and crude sexual words, all of them which we consider "modern".
Although some of the social codes were different, I believe you could have had a rather normal modern conversation with a person from 1880 as someone from 2005.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 01, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 561
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 4:11 pm: |
|
Glenn, I would still argue that post filmic man will think in terms of edits and the language of film; pre film-age man would not, because he had no reference to do so.
Pre-Freudian man thought about sex quite differently to the way we do today. Imagery (not symbolism) was viewed in quite a different way.
In some ways, I would argue that man in the past was more "innocent" than we are today, while in some ways being more sophisticated. (I'm not talking class here.)
I once read that some primitive tribes, unaware of concepts like perspective or art, shown sketches of themselves by a European traveller, saw nothing but lines on a page - they had no learned to "perceive" the drawing and the lines as we do. They saw them 2-dimensionally; we are trained to see them as 3-dimensional from an early age.
Ancient Egyptians, again without our concept of perspective, probably "saw" their wall paintings quite differently to the way we do.
Words are different - "anglo-saxon words (the four letter ones) are ancient. But I suspect their usage has changed. Swearing for instance has always been with us, but up to the 60s at least one never heard anyone say "f**king" as a common word in casual speech. the common swear words were "Blimey" (Blind me) or in an earlier generation "Zounds" (By God's wounds) and they were deeply frowned on as not only rude but as blasphemous.
So I'm not sure you would have been able to speak to and understand a cockney; or an English speaking immigrant as easily as you say Glenn. Look at Dicken's vocabulary and speech given to Fagin.
As for the upper classes they might well have talked in a way we would regard as stilted, or poetic - based on what they read. They would regard us as very odd indeed i suspect for our terseness.
Just some thoughts, I'd welcome your response,
Phil |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3477
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Hi Phil,
Well for once we seem to disagree (which is healthy, I guess...).
The codes of society and social behaviour surely was different in many ways in 1888 compared to now, but I think the people were pretty much the same.
Let's not forget that the late 19th century was the starting point for our modern society.
I agree with you on the Victorian upper class -- their life style was in many ways exceptional and sophisticated -- not to mention much bound to rules.
But besides that, I really see no great differences between the people of the 1880s and now. All we have to do is to read letters and books from that time and in many ways they are quite close to our reasoning.
As I said, the crank letters to the police and the press is one example of that very little has changed. So also the pornographic stuff, which was pretty much as hard core as modern ones. Haven't you seen the old porno glass plates from that time? It's quite advanced stuff. The only difference is the aesthetic environment and the outfits, but that's about it.
Not to mention the very erotic stuff on the painted fresco walls of Pompeji. So already in those days...
Yes, the society was in many ways different, but its impact on the general individual in those days have been highly exaggerated, and I feel that is a common mistake.
A glance through the newspapers, personal letters etc. of the 1880s tells us that they didn't differ that much from us but on the contrary very much close to us.
I've been studying Swedish late 19th and early 20th century sources for nearly twenty years now, and for the most part it feels like reading modern, contemporary stuff.
Don't confuse it with the very literate language you come across in books of the Brontë sisters and the likes.
More sophisticated... well, maybe on higher levels. But innocent? Hardly.
Sorry, have to totally disgree with you on this one.
By the way, did you know that the word "f*ck" (sorry everyone), to take one sordid example, actually existed and meant the same already during in 18th century?
I think you have a way too romanticised perception of the people of the 19th century, Phil. They were quite modern to a large extent, which is also why I find this period in history so interesting -- the people in those days are quite easy to relate to and in many ways express themselves quite similar to us.
Just look at the so called Ripper letters. Sure, they contain some contemporary or local slang, but on the whole they hardly seem out-dated or old-fashioned to me and quite much resemble modern hoax letters in both tone and language.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 01, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 620
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Hi Adam,
“I don't think Jack was forced to leave Mitre Square in a hurry, Frank. … But surely, if he was running, there would have been enough noise to alert him. Unless both the Ripper was the luckiest person on Earth, and the warehouse man was deaf!”
In addition to Phil’s reaction, why couldn’t the Ripper simply have walked quickly, yet rather silently? There’s every chance that he knew somebody was in that building; there was probably some light coming from some of the windows.
“Precious time? What precious time?”
OK, so let’s assume the Ripper did write the graffito and that, like you suggest, his main or even sole purpose of doing so was to heighten the fear of the public. If so, then of course he wouldn’t have regarded writing the graffito as wasting time, nor would he have minded that it was dark. It can be done; I’ve already tested that quite a while back.
The fact that the darkness didn’t prevent him from writing it would then be quite a strong indication that he was very eager to. And so would the fact that there was a very real chance that the police were out looking for him by then, something he undoubtedly would have been all too aware of.
However, if he was so very eager to create this frightening clue, then why, even more than a century later, are we still discussing its authenticity as a Ripper message? Why then didn't he make it perfectly clear that the graffito was his?
What would be so difficult about kneeling down to write it closer to the apron? Why couldn’t he just have bent over so that he could write the message lower on the wall? Why didn't he write it in big letters so that it stood out more, leaving more of an impression that the apron and message were linked? Why not very simply draw an arrow in the direction of the apron if it was so important to let ‘his public’ know that the graffito was his. I see no problem there.
Yet, he didn’t do any of these things, leaving people who had been on the scene in doubt as to whether the message was written by JtR, which makes me inclined to believe that, IF the Ripper wrote the graffito, he at least didn't do it with the clear intent of heightening the fear among the public.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 476
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Dear Frank....
It is quite possible that someone did extrapolate on the graffiti and not in a mysterious,threatening,sinister,or mocking way.
That depends,of course, on how one views Stephenson as a suspect.
But if it wasn't RDS, then your question as to why the graffiti,which the police took seriously,wasn't "explained" in further detail by another Ripper suspect/The Ripper, is a good one.
Maybe it was "enough" for him to simply leave that and speak no more on the subject.
HowBrown
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 186
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 01, 2005 - 8:55 pm: |
|
Hi again all!
Phil:
"Adam, you assume that the "JUWES" message was the only graffito around in the area. It may have been the one that concerned the police in THAT entryway because of the position near the apron, and its interpretation as being anti-semitic."
Phil, I'm very aware that there would have been other graffito around, no doubt about it.
But yes, since it was above the apron, and in such a doorway, then it makes it more likely, IMO. If the apron had been thrown against a wall, for example, which was entirely filled up with graffito and nasty messages, and then it landed under the "Juwes" message, that might be a coincidence, but I have never read anything about any other graffito being present immediately near the message above the apron. Because of that, I think it makes it just that bit more likely that the apron and writing are linked.
"Had the message said "Irving is great as Hamlet" or "Drink Gin" we'd probably not have heard of it. But ANY reference to a political agenda, however vague, would have been likely to have been perceived as a potential clue. I say potential, because at that time that sort of link was all the police had to go on."
I wouldn't say that was "all" the police had to go on, but yes, you're right in the rest of what you say here.
"You don't think "Jack was forced to leave Mitre Square in a hurry". But that is simply carping over a word. He certainly did not hang about, and the chances are that the arrival of Watkins DID precipitate his departure. A "hasty" exist does not necessarily imply panic, but at that precise moment i don't see jack as being particularly calm for various reasons."
No, he didn't hang about Phil, I agree with you there, and the short time frame between the Lawende sighting and the finding of the body could well mean that the Ripper heard P.C. Watkins approaching, but I tend to doubt that.
Jack may not have been calm inwardly, but I would think that, as with the other murders, he would have had to appear calm and normal outwardly, because he may have attracted attention to himself otherwise.
"Your depiction of Jack's exist running rather reflects your tendency to narrow options down so that you make your point. A hasty exit need not assume someone ran - he could, as I have proposed above, leave furtively. He could shelter in shadows and then flit off - still a comparatively hasty exit to my way of thinking."
I don't see how I've narrowed down options by expressing what I feel most logically happened, Phil. But if you want to list more options for what could have happened, then I'd be more than happy to discuss them with you.
Let's assume for a moment that the Ripper did leave the scene when he heard P.C. Watkins approaching. Chances are he wouldn't have heard him until he was close to the entrance. The entrance P.C. Watkins went into the square through, meant he only had to go a short distance, look to his right, and from there he was able to make out the body. If the Ripper, upon hearing Watkins, had "left furtively", he still had to get out of the Square, via one of the other 2 exits, before Watkins arrived. Could he have done it? I'm doubtful. If he had ran, could he have done it? More likely, but then it's also more likely that Watkins would have heard him running.
Or, as I think happened, did the Ripper leave the Square (walking) before P.C. Watkins even arrived? Well, that explains why nobody heard any running, or 'quick' footsteps. And it also meant the Ripper had already gone from the Square.
Now consider it that way. What do you think?
The latter certainly makes more sense to me, anyway!
"As for wasting time writing, it would be a waste of time to a fleeing man unless he had an overwhelming desire to make a statement. WE do not know that Jack did, and there is no other COMPELLING evidence to support such a construction. He had plenty of time in Millers Court (assuming he killed MJK) but left nothing by the way of messages. So why do it on one particular night?"
There may be no *evidence* that the Ripper wanted to leave such a message, but I ask you, what conclusive evidence is there of anything in the Jack the Ripper case?
As to why he may have written the GSG on that particular night, it was a Double Event (Or, just to be correct for you, a so-called double event.), most likely he killed 2 victims 1 night, and he had the oppurtunity to write a message. What other circumstances could he use?
Why wasn't there any writing at the scene of the MJK crime? Who knows. Perhaps the killing spoke for itself. Perhaps it was an 'on the spot' decision to write a quick message on the wall as he was walking along Goulston Street. There's nothing to say either way, really.
"The most logical interpretation of the evidence, Adam, is IMHO, that graffito and apron had no connection. It was and is right to consider whether there might be a link, but none has been proven. Messages were not a usual part of jack's MO - hence I plump for the "simple" explanation."
Sorry Phil, but to me, the theory that the apron and writing had no link at all is neither simple nor logical. As I've said before, if it was 5 or 10 feet away from the writing, I probably would accept it as a coincidence. But the closeness of the 2, along with other things, brings me to the belief that the apron and the writing were both the work of one and the same man - Jack the Ripper.
Glenn:
"I'm OK, thanks. Nice to see you again. It's been a while.
Good, fair enough. I am glad you could see my points (not that they necessarily have to be true, of course, but still...)."
Thanks Glenn, and yes, it's good to be back and into the good debates again.
Yes, I see your points...and everyone else's...just that I don't necessarily agree with them...hehe. ;)
Monty:
"Good to have you back."
*Monty says through gritted teeth.*
Hehe...just kidding. Thanks, Monty! ;)
"Morris notes that Watkins disturbed him at 1.45am. Its from this that Watkins estimates his time of arrival at Eddowes body at around 1.44am. Morris states that the door was open only moments before Watkins called him. Therefore the door was opened by Morris after the murder was committed or at its very end at least. Either way, if Morris was telling the truth (and I see no reason for him to lie) the door was not open while Jack was murdering Eddowes. Maybe during the final acts of mutilation. Also, Morris was working deep within the bowls of the offices most of that night and not near the door, well not until he opened the door, so dont be too harsh on him eh?"
Interesting, Monty. Thanks for pointing that out. Well if the door wasn't open until later on, perhaps that could be a reason why Morris didn't hear anything.
Still, I was just thinking, in a fairly closed-in place like Mitre Square, if all was fairly quiet, wouldn't the sound of running, or even walking footsteps echo a bit? Just an idea, I might be wrong.
Anyway, I believe that Morris said too, Monty, didn't mean to be too hard on him.
You know I'm nice underneath it all! ;)
"Yes, despite some peoples absurd percentages. Your idea is as valid as any other and just as probable."
"Some peoples absurd percentages" , eh? Well, according to what I believe, 10 trillion to 1 WAS being nice, and generous, for that theory!
Nope, sorry, I don't buy the theory that it was an 'accident' that the writing and the apron ended up so close together at all.
Jenni:
"Hi Adam,
good to see you back."
Thanks Jenni! But it's alright, you can tell the truth about what you really think. Hehe.
Frank:
"In addition to Phil’s reaction, why couldn’t the Ripper simply have walked quickly, yet rather silently? There’s every chance that he knew somebody was in that building; there was probably some light coming from some of the windows."
Check above Frank, I think I've already pretty well answered that question earlier on in my response to Phil.
I agree the Ripper probably knew there was someone in the building. I don't think it would have bothered him unless Morris got too close to where he was. He did, after all, kill Annie Chapman in partial daylight, just a few feet from people's windows, so I don't think he was afraid of taking risks like that. Still, it was dangerous.
"However, if he was so very eager to create this frightening clue, then why, even more than a century later, are we still discussing its authenticity as a Ripper message? Why then didn't he make it perfectly clear that the graffito was his?"
I must say, that's a very good question, Frank.
IMO, the reason the Ripper didn't make it clear that he wrote it and left the apron there, was because he wanted it to be seen as a clue. A cryptic clue, if you will. Remember, he had the entire police force on the look out for him, and had managed to keep them at bay for, by that time, about a month. More, if you include earlier victims. It would have been too simple for him to write, for example, "I killed the 2 whores, and here's a piece of one of them. You'll soon get more. Your pal, Jack." , or anything else along those lines. Too obvious. Instead, he had to write it so it was seen as a clue, but not known what kind of a clue it was. Again, he could give the police the run-arounds trying to figure it out.
That's, of course, just my theory in answer to that question. Again, I could be wrong. But what do you think?
"What would be so difficult about kneeling down to write it closer to the apron? Why couldn’t he just have bent over so that he could write the message lower on the wall? Why didn't he write it in big letters so that it stood out more, leaving more of an impression that the apron and message were linked? Why not very simply draw an arrow in the direction of the apron if it was so important to let ‘his public’ know that the graffito was his. I see no problem there."
I can really only think of 1 answer to those at the moment.
Why didn't he write it in bigger letters? Well, it could be because he didn't want it to stand out too much, he wanted the apron to be seen first, or else because it would have taken just that much longer to write it in big letters.
The same goes for why he didn't kneel or lie down to write the message. (Not sure if laying down would have even been possible there.) If he had to flee in a hurry, and a real hurry, then it would have taken just that tiny bit longer to get up and out of there. If he was standing, he could just turn back round and go.
Or it could be for any other number of reasons, those are the ones that just come to my mind first.
"Yet, he didn’t do any of these things, leaving people who had been on the scene in doubt as to whether the message was written by JtR, which makes me inclined to believe that, IF the Ripper wrote the graffito, he at least didn't do it with the clear intent of heightening the fear among the public."
Why not? When the writing and apron became public knowledge via the press, and that Sir Charles Warren had ordered it be scrubbed off, not even photographed, there was more of a public outcry anyway. Anything was enough to set off fear in the public in 1888. Anyone could basically point to a person and say "That's Jack the Ripper!" and there would be a mob chasing after them. So if it was that easy to set them off, what's a bloody apron and a possible message/clue from the killer going to do to them?
It is very important to remember the general fear and hysteria in the public at the time. As I said, it took very little to set off an outcry, and more fear.
Howie:
Good post, and I agree totally with you there.
...Except I'm not sure about the RDS part. George Chapman sounds more likely to me, I'm afraid...Hehe. ;)
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 562
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 1:47 am: |
|
Adam - I'll simply say that, given the difficulties of the case - our task today (at least I see it that way as an historian) is to evaluate the evidence. We need to sift the evidence and try to separate chaff from wheat.
Your approach, seems to me to be to arrange the information you have (unsifted by logic) into pretty patterns and it is how the info fits (not its reliability or source) that determines what you consider valid.
That will always be self justifying and means you end up with a hotch-potch of material undermining the foundations of your logic.
No point in arguing about that, any more than there ever was when everything in your posts was seen through the lens of Chapman dunnit.
Sorry if that sounds harsh - I'm just trying to summerise the difference between our positions as I see it.
Glenn, I remain unconvinced by what you say. For instance, the "erotic" frescoes in Pompeii were definitely perceived by those living when they were painted in a different way to which we see them today. The phallus has a connotation of good luck, and the paintings were by no means seen as dirty (the moral element was missing in the judgement of viewers).
I remain of the view too that experience colours perceptions and thought processes. Man, before the age of mass media DID think differently and have a different frame of reference to us today.
We must be careful not to lose sight of the differences and the subtleties by assuming similarities .
But you argue well and eloquently as usual.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 92
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
What is the evidence that the Goulstan St incident leaves.It simply tells us that the killer of Edowwes was there,and the general direction he travelled after leaving Mitre Square.
It does not give a clue to the identity of the murderer or his racial origin.The writing does not ,in my opinion,imply a personal motive as one would expect,and I have said this before,I do not think the killer was a person who acted on behalf of any group or race.He killed purely for selfish reasons.
The writing,if meant to be political,was more likely to have been written by a person allied to,or sympathetic to,a political or racial group,whose actions in support,would not have been to kill and mutilate prostitutes whose deaths meant nothing in political terms.
The writing has no value,and the apron piece,which is the only evidence that the killer was in Goulstan St,only gives an indication of the probable direction which his residence was situated. |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 188
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 5:57 am: |
|
Hi again, Phil.
Let me first of all say that I am in complete agreement with that it is important to evaluate evidence, and sort wheat from chaff, right from wrong, probable from improbable.
But it's apparent that our methods for doing that are different, and that's the problem here. I'd just like to get back to a few things you said in your last post, hopefully to make my position a little more clear.
"Your approach, seems to me to be to arrange the information you have (unsifted by logic) into pretty patterns and it is how the info fits (not its reliability or source) that determines what you consider valid."
Phil, I don't see how that is a fair comment, sorry. If you look back at my posts, you will clearly see that I always atleast attempt to explain WHY I think something is logical or the most likely explanation, when I say that. If you or anyone else disagrees with the way I've gone about it, then they are of course welcome to reply to me on that. I have already asked you to provide more options that could then be discussed if you didn't like the way I 'narrowed it down', but so far, you haven't been able to do that.
"That will always be self justifying and means you end up with a hotch-potch of material undermining the foundations of your logic."
Perhaps to you, Phil, but I can't agree. You have a different posting style to mine, obviously, and you are of course able to do that. You may not like the way I go about most things, but that doesn't necessarily mean I like the way you go about such things either. I have my way, you have your way. It's that simple.
"No point in arguing about that, any more than there ever was when everything in your posts was seen through the lens of Chapman dunnit."
Again, I disagree. What I may have said months ago about George Chapman shouldn't be a reflection on my postings about the Goulston Street Graffito now, Phil. Times change, so do people, and it's pretty disappointing if you can't accept that.
"Sorry if that sounds harsh - I'm just trying to summerise the difference between our positions as I see it."
Fair enough, Phil, and I do agree with a little of what you have said, but I think you need to accept the way I go about things instead of debating them. I'm not sure about your reasons for being here, but if you are in 1 way like me, picking errors at every other poster I cross swords with is the last thing I intend to do here.
Hope I've made my position a little more clear. If I haven't, then let's atleast stick to the topic at hand.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 564
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 6:27 am: |
|
I hadn't realised, Adam, that you had changed your position. A few months ago you were "adamant" that all evidence for you was scrutinised under as to whether it related to the Chapman theory.
My apologies if you now take a different view. Did you state that you were and I missed it? Or is it just that my crystal ball is not functioning properly. Whatever, I regret that I clearly got it wrong.
In the meantime, we'll just have to agree to differ,
Cordially,
Phil |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 190
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 6:50 am: |
|
Phil,
"I hadn't realised, Adam, that you had changed your position. A few months ago you were "adamant" that all evidence for you was scrutinised under as to whether it related to the Chapman theory."
I think that is highly exaggerated, Phil. But if it does have an element of truth to it, then it is no longer the case. While Chapman still is my suspect, I don't and hopefully never seriously did try and make every topic into a plus for Chapman, although I admit my first few weeks here weren't the best. That's almost 6 months ago though, and yes, times change.
"My apologies if you now take a different view. Did you state that you were and I missed it? Or is it just that my crystal ball is not functioning properly. Whatever, I regret that I clearly got it wrong."
Great sarcasm, Phil. I love it. Although I think it does kind of prove my point.
Anyway, yes, things have changed, and I would have thought you would have known that about 5 months ago, not just woken up to it. But, atleast it's cleared up, I guess.
Because it's cleared up, there should be no more need to be picky about each other, should there?? ;)
"In the meantime, we'll just have to agree to differ,"
That's the best option, I think.
Though I would like to say again that I don't completely disagree with you, nor do I like disagreeing with you.
I hope things improve from here. Seriously, I do.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3478
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
Harry Mann,
I totally agree with your post above (for once!). Well expressed and my own views exactly.
I've always felt the message to be an over-empathized red herring and I stand by that thought until further evidence says otherwise.
As you say, the apron tells us that he was there; the message does not necessarily have to be related to it.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 02, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 7:10 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
The fact remains that someone wrote those words on a wall in 1888. It was a message of some sort left by its author - regardless of the fact that no one in 1888 or 2005 could get inside his head and know what prompted him to write what he wrote, and whether or not it was connected to the apron piece dropped beneath it by the ripper, both items being discovered at exactly the same moment by the police.
If the ripper wrote the message, his twisted ego may have taken it for granted that the writing would immediately be linked to him on account of his latest victim's pinny lying right beneath it. He was certainly right if he expected it would get everyone going - it has done so ever since!
I agree with Adam that it actually seems less simple to believe that a local man decided to chalk those words there in a good schoolboy hand (was this typical of other graffiti in the area?), and that they would survive long enough for the ripper to happen along and discard his one clue at that precise spot, both men unaware that their actions would soon become forever associated together.
Simpler, IMHO, if just one man was responsible that night for the "Lipski!" insult; the cut throats of Stride and Eddowes, both near Jewish men's clubs; and the 'Juwes' message chalked above the second victim's apron half, rather than three separate individuals: an anti-Semitic abuser-turned-killer, an active serial killer, and a local anti-Semitic graffiti artist.
The more I think about it, the more I feel our man's thoughts and actions could have been influenced by the late Leather Apron scare in the newspapers.
Love,
Caz
X |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Hi all,
The apron, is the important clue. It tells us the direction the ripper was moveing after the Eddowes murder. The graffiti tells us nothing. It can mean so many different things, was he a mason? Was he a jew? Did he hate jews? Was he unable to spell the word jew correctly? did he spell the word incorrectly on purpose? Did he even write the graffiti? The graffiti can have so many different meanings, that can point to different suspects. However, the apron tells us the direction the ripper was going after the Eddows murder. He was going back into the eastend.
Your friend,Brad |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 566
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
I'm not sure the graffito has always been the subject to such intense interest. It seems to have come to prominence once Stephen Knight gave it a twist with his link to freemasonry.
I don't think Matters or the writers in the 50s and 60s spent much time on it.
Contrary to your views, Caz, there were masses of people in the East End precisely at that time, who might want to blame the Jewish race (assuming that is what JUWES refers to) for all manner of things.
Had Jack wished to I am sure he could have found Jewish victims - but he did not. And I repeat, no one has yet devised a widely acceptable interpretation that links to the murders or murderer.
Hence I believe apron and graffito should be de-coupled unless or until more compelling evidence of a link of some sort is proposed or found.
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 622
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 02, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Hi Caz,
“He was certainly right if he expected it would get everyone going - it has done so ever since!”
But did it? Surely, there was much ado about the writing in the first few hours after its discovery. As we all know, it seemed to implicate the Jews and was finally rubbed out because Warren feared riots against the Jews if it would’ve been left there, but the news about the discovery of the graffito didn’t get into the newspapers until 8 October. So, until then the public knew nothing of it and afterwards, besides the fuzz over the spelling, nothing much seems to have happened as a result of the graffito - as far as I know.
Indeed, later on, it got discussions going about whether or not the Ripper wrote the message, but it didn’t and still doesn’t go any further than that. It has remained a question ever since why he would have wanted the apron piece and graffito to be linked in case he did write it. So, maybe it’s simpler if the Ripper didn’t write it.
“Simpler, IMHO, if just one man was responsible that night for the "Lipski!" insult; the cut throats of Stride and Eddowes, both near Jewish men's clubs; and the 'Juwes' message chalked above the second victim's apron half, rather than three separate individuals: an anti-Semitic abuser-turned-killer, an active serial killer, and a local anti-Semitic graffiti artist.”
Simpler perhaps, but only if you count Stride as a certain Ripper victim. Furthermore, there were heaps of Jewish people living in the East End, so I would be surprised if there weren’t more Jewish clubs and institutions there. Since it was a rough and poverty-stricken district, street brawls were commonplace in the area. The very reason for rubbing out the graffito indicates that anti-Semitic feelings weren’t rare, but rather the opposite. So again, yes, simpler perhaps, but one shouldn’t exaggerate.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 193
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:08 am: |
|
Hi again all!
Glenn:
"I've always felt the message to be an over-empathized red herring and I stand by that thought until further evidence says otherwise.
As you say, the apron tells us that he was there; the message does not necessarily have to be related to it."
I'm curious to know, Glenn, what further evidence do you think there could possibly be?
The message wasn't photographed, even the statements of what it said are contradictory, and what else is there from it that could be used as 'evidence.' And even if there was something else, after 117 years, where are we going to get the evidence from? Pull it out of a hat?
No, I'm pretty sure what we have now is all we're going to get in regards to the GSG. There's no evidence to point either way, but personally I believe that enough circumstances can be strung together to sway one towards believing the writing was the work of the killer, just as we know the apron was. I can't see there is enough to sway anyone the other way, though some people obviously have. Not me, though!
Caz:
"I agree with Adam that it actually seems less simple to believe that a local man decided to chalk those words there in a good schoolboy hand (was this typical of other graffiti in the area?), and that they would survive long enough for the ripper to happen along and discard his one clue at that precise spot, both men unaware that their actions would soon become forever associated together."
Finally, someone who agrees with me! Thanks Caz!!
I'd just like to re-iterate, since you made the point too, that it seems very unlikely that 2 seperate men would do 2 seperate things that would somehow end up together at the same place and the same time. What are the odds of it? I stand by my 10 trillion - 1 estimate.
Again, I could accept it as being 2 seperate occurrences if the apron was 5 or 10 feet away from the writing. But it wasn't. I could also accept it if the apron was in Mitre Square itself under the writing. But it wasn't.
Could someone please give a plausible reason, how it is possible that someone would write a message on a wall, only covering a tiny amount of space, the letters being about 3/4 of an inch high, on the same day that Jack the Ripper just happens to go out and kill Cathy Eddowes (Elizabeth Stride too, but to keep everyone happy, I'll just say Cathy Eddowes), cut off her apron, go from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, just happens to decide to throw the apron off to the side all of a sudden, and it lands right underneath the writing?
I know it's probably been discussed before, but to be perfectly honest with you all, I'm stunned that anyone could believe that's even remotely likely to have happened. But, if anyone can put up the other side of the story, and why they think it's possible, then it would be much appreciated!
Phil:
"Contrary to your views, Caz, there were masses of people in the East End precisely at that time, who might want to blame the Jewish race (assuming that is what JUWES refers to) for all manner of things."
I agree with you here Phil, you're right. The Jews were not popular at all in the East End at the time of the Ripper murders. But I think it's important just to remember something here.
The majority of the East End was poor, slum areas. Many, many of the people in the East End weren't able to read or write, or very little if they could. Just take a look at some of the surveys author Henry Mayhew conducted amongst the poor in Victorian times. I've read parts of these recently, and the lack of general knowledge amongst the majority of them is quite surprising. Now also remember that the writing was described as being in "good schoolboy's handwriting".
So, IMO, that would tend to show that whoever wrote it was atleast literate, though not necessarily intelligent. The end of the message was "not be blamed for nothing" - what the lingo in 1888 London was, I don't know, but that is poor English. Still, the spelling was correct, and apparently the writing was neat.
Now I know this is a long stretch to make, but could the writing, perhaps indicating an educated person, be consistent with witness descriptions of a man "Shabby-genteel" (Long) or "Prosperous-Looking" (Hutchinson) ?? Could it also show that the killer, who many people believe had a certain level of knowledge of the human anatomy, was indeed an educated man?
So the writing can be looked at that way. But anyway, I've strayed off topic a little here. My point is simply that the style and type of writing would limit the number of people capable of having written it, and it may even be an indication that the killer could well have written it, going on what else many people believe about him.
But, again, I accept that it's a long stretch to make, and there's nothing conclusive to back it up.
Any thoughts, though?
"Hence I believe apron and graffito should be de-coupled unless or until more compelling evidence of a link of some sort is proposed or found."
On this point, I ask you the same questions, and say to you the same things as I did to Glenn at the start of this post, Phil.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 571
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
Adam, your post actually answers your own question to me about who else might have written the graffito!! Many people.
And because many people in Whitechapel and Spitalfields were illiterate, does not mean all of them were. Shopkeepers and businessmen must have had at least basic literacy and numeracy levels to do their book-keeping/ordering etc.
NOTE: I am not saying Jack didn't write the message - that's unprovavble. But at present, the link is also unproven. Maybe it would be less misleading to decouple the two things and consider the case without the possible message.
Phil
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 194
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 4:49 am: |
|
Phil,
"And because many people in Whitechapel and Spitalfields were illiterate, does not mean all of them were. Shopkeepers and businessmen must have had at least basic literacy and numeracy levels to do their book-keeping/ordering etc."
Phil, I never said that everyone was illiterate, obviously that's not true. What I said was that while many were illiterate, or some had *little* knowledge in that area, it narrows down the people who could have written it by the fact that it was described as "good schoolboy's handwriting."
I am well aware that many people would have had basic numeracy and literacy skills, and I said that in my last post.
If the writing was, say, described as being "Scrawled across the wall, messy, and almost indecipherable", well that would broaden the scope. "Good schoolboy's handwriting", if that was an accurate description, narrows down the field quite a bit, IMO.
"NOTE: I am not saying Jack didn't write the message - that's unprovavble. But at present, the link is also unproven. Maybe it would be less misleading to decouple the two things and consider the case without the possible message."
That's true Phil, and I know what you mean, but I think in short, it's as simple as this - there's nothing to conclusively prove the writing was written by the killer, nor is there anything to conclusively prove that it wasn't written by the killer. In my personal opinion, there's more to suggest that it was written by the killer, to others, it's the other way around. So, really, it just depends on how you look at it.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1803
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Hi Adam, Phil,
If the message was written by anyone other than Jack, its author was most probably not your average reasonably literate shopkeeper or businessman, who tend not to use graffiti to settle personal grudges.
Yob culture began in the Victorian age, 'yob' being an example of Victorian backslang (for 'boy') that survives to this day.
And graffiti artists are usually no more than yobs, who have no respect for people or property, and if they think about it at all, they think of defacing walls with racist taunts as a way of making their mark on a society they feel alienated from.
So I think Adam's point is a fair one. If the chalked message does not reflect the kind of messy, contempt-filled scrawl we would expect from a local yob or ragamuffin, who else might have seen fit to write it on that part of the building?
A graffiti artist is generally satisfied if his work is noticed by the local population and tutted at; this one only got his work noticed when the man who found the apron piece looked up and clocked the words chalked neatly above it. But it soon resulted in Warren being alerted, followed by the whole world.
That's a pretty freaky accident, if it was just an East End yob who coincidentally made his discreet chalk mark on history, while Jack was making his own marks on Eddowes.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 03, 2005) |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 94
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
I would like to ask those who believe the leaving of the apron piece, and the writing on the wall,to be by the same individual,what motive for the crimes does the writing confirm or imply?.
The message speaks of real or imagined blame,but blame for what.We understand the Jews were,as a race and religon,despised and ill treated in those days,and one could understand some outburst of protest,but do you seriously suggest that the killing and mutilation of other despised and ill used victims,to be the means of atonement.Were they revenge crimes,and was revenge the motive?.I do not think so.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1804
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Serial killers don't have a 'normal' motive, so the message can't help us out there, if Jack wrote it.
But we know they try and justify their actions to themselves and to others, in ways that don't make much sense to us. If Jack did write it, I think he was trying to blame the local Jews somehow; trying to keep the Leather Apron scare alive is one possibility.
Others include the theory that he blamed Schwartz or Diemschutz for what happened in Berner St, and for making him go on to kill a second time that night. If he was aware of the three Jewish men who may have seen him with Eddowes, by the time he got to the Dwellings, he could have been seeing red on account of interfering Jews asking to be blamed, as well as lousy, cheating whores who go with Jews asking to be ripped up.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 03, 2005) |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 47
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Interesting thread, how could I have missed it for so long?
Just a few thoughts on the grafitto.
First of all, it is certainly possible that it was written with no connection to the killings at all. No one can dispute that possibility.
However, there are some oddities about this grafitto.
For example. Why was it placed 1.2 meters above ground (4 feet)? Either a child wrote it, or a dwarf (both highly unlikely!) More probable it was a man kneeling down. I have tried this, and kneeling on one knee, this height is perfect for writing comfortably.
Also, I have found that it is actually easier to write relatively small (about 2 cm - 3/4 inch) sitting in this position, especially in darkness or semi-darkness) Trying to write large have a tendency to garble the writing because one simply does not have the muscular control in the arms (as opposed to wrist) to write well without good vision.
(Don't take my word for it, try it!)
Also, and this is at least in my mind, highly interesting..the act of kneeling down does indeed bring the writing closer to the apron (obviously). Why? Why would anyone write grafitti at this level?
I would think that most people writing "ordinary" grafitti in daylight would write standing up. And in bigger letters!
Why these small letters and why so low?
In my opinion this can reasonably be explained because a) The writing was done at night (small letters) b) There was a reason to kneel.
The reason to kneel could be psychological, in effect doing something "covert".
In daylight this does not apply, because kneeling in a street rather increase the likelihood of attention.
But as most of you probably have experienced, behaviour and psychology in poor illumination\darkness becomes completely different. Behaviour that would stand out in daylight may now suddenly serve to disguise and conceal (I base my own experiences on night time operations during my military service)
Thus I propose that the height from the ground can actually be explained because someone did write it "covertly" at night.
Also, and possibly more importantly, the act of kneeling, brings attention TO THE GROUND. Where lo and behold directly underneath the grafitto there is a part of an apron smeared with blood that can be connected to a murder.
In my humble opinion Old Jacky Boy wrote the grafitto. And the reason we can't quite make out its meaning is just because old Jacky was not quite the average Joe just after a sucessful night out!
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 573
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Can I suggest that anyone writing anti-semitic insults, in a building inhabited by Jews, would be likely to be furtive, and thus kneel.
I think this covers your "The reason to kneel could be psychological, in effect doing something "covert"."
Actually, as the writing is in a schoolboy hand, there is no reason to assume a young person did not write it (hence the level).
In my humble opinion Old Jacky Boy DID NOT write the grafitto. And the reason we can't quite make out its meaning IN RELATION TO THE MURDERS is because there is no connection. However, we cannot prove it either way.
Phil |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 49
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:06 am: |
|
Ok, Phil, we disagree on that, and I cannot prove you wrong. 
Just trying to analyze things from my point of view.
But still think anyone being furtive in daylight would not actually kneel, for the reasons I explained above.
Also, somehow, the words does not sound to me as being from the pen (or chalk!) of a child.
The connection however, is there for all to see, in location. We cannot expect the grafitto to have been actually signed by Jack, as I don't think he would consider himself to be "Jack the Ripper", this being a phrase coined by others.
But, yes, we agree on one thing, this cannot be proven either way. And so I fully respect your position.
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 575
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
...the words does not sound to me as being from the pen (or chalk!) of a child.
My reading of history, and experience of life, suggests to me that children who grow up in slums, ghettos, concentration camps and the wild, can mature early and gain a cynicism and streetwise attitudes very early.
I was careful to use the phrase "young person" rather than child for that reason. I think Dickens' depiction of The Artful Dodger is a good illustration of a London character of this type.
I personally see no reason why a child in Whitechapel/Spitalfields in 1888 could gain some education but also grudges and chips on his/her shoulders in the course of a short life.
Phil |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 902
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Hi all,
Just thinking aloud, I'd dislike to draw much of a conclusion about what kind of person would be capable of a "round schoolboy hand". Even the down and out Kate Eddowes and John Kelly had the benefit of some sort of an education, which I believe was the case with most people back then.
Way back, I had the acquaintance of a severely retarded person who had the most elegant cursive script, yet he couldn't speak and barked like a dog (I'm not joking). Meanwhile, ever try deciphering a physician's handwriting?
Dave |
Helge Samuelsen
Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 50
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 03, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hah! Dave, I never could decipher physicians' handwriting, and one of the great mysteries in life is to me how anyone can 
(and I can decipher egyptian hieroglyphs, so I'm not particularly challenged!)
I agree we should not infer too much concerning the actual handwriting. My personal handwriting sucks, though my education is higher than average, just as an example.
I would imagine a "schoolboy hand" would be considered rather well written by most East Enders in 1888, and it certainly does not mean it has to be a schoolboy (as in young person), though it does imply some education.
Phil, [does not]"sound to me" does mean it does not sound to me.. haha. No, it is possible that a young person could have written it, but the political overtones seems to me simply to imply a more mature mind. But there is no way of knowing for sure.
But then again, I think Jack wrote it, and am therefore biased. Anyone else?
Sincerely Helge
Fascinating! (Mr Spock raises an eyebrow)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
