|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 04, 2004 - 10:19 pm: |       |
I have always considered the graffiti on the wall to seem like kind of a silly clue. I always thought that it would be a waste of time for JtR to stop and write a message in chalk on the wall, as the message does not mean anything.
However, it has recently occured to me that if that message was there before the murder it would have been incredibly easy to determine. In fact, I would not be surprised to find out that the police had questioned the residents close by. Since they were so concerned with the message, it only seems natural that the high ranking officers on the scene would have wanted to discern whether or not the message was there earlier. IT WOULD BE A SIMPLE MATTER OF ASKING A FEW PEOPLE. I think it is safe to assume that they must have asked. So, from here we can branch off on to 3 tangents:
1) The police did question the nearby residents and discovered that the graffiti had been there before the murder. Somehow, the spectacle of the message superceded this find and it blew out of proportion. And although it was known the message was not written by the killer, the media continued to report that it might have been.
or
2) After questioning the residents they discovered that none of them had seen the message before. Thus, it can only be assumed that the killer wrote the message.
or
3) The message was written either that night or the day before by somebody else and nobody had notcied it yet. Unlikely, but still very possible.
What do you guys think? |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 448
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 1:29 am: | |
After questioning the residents they discovered that none of them had seen the message before. Thus, it can only be assumed that the killer wrote the message.
Remember that the letters were less than one inch tall and the message was written on the jamb of a doorway. It could have gone unnoticed for a number of days. I don't think the killer wrote it.
Andy S. |
Paul Jackson
Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 27
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 2:13 am: | |
I have mixed emotions about that. I have always wondered why JTR would walk around with chalk in his pocket or whatever it was written with.
Paul |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 389
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 06, 2004 - 3:01 pm: | |
Chalk usually has a very temporary life and on a doorway that was on a busy street as well as one used by the large numbers of residents I would have thought it would quickly get erased-say in a day.
I have also tried to think about who would have been able to use chalk on such a vertical and unyielding support as a glazed tile---it would have had to be used by someone familiar with writing with chalk especially since it was written in"a neat Schoolboy hand"[Donald Rumbelow quoting one of the police who was questioned].
Its one of the reasons I"ve considered Druitt to be a serious suspect still----he was a school teacher,would have had the skill to write neatly in chalk---and could have been mentally unstable
at the time -hence writing gibberish.
I am a teacher myself and when I have used chalk
going from class to class I have taken it with me from time to time to be sure I had some.Also it took me quite a while to write neatly with it as you have to "roll" the chalk slighly as you write. Eventually you do this as second nature but ut takes a while.
Natalie |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1223
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 12:50 am: | |
G'day RipperHistorian,
If you were one of the residents living close by and you had written the graffiti, would you own up to it if the police came knocking on your door asking questions?
LEANNE |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 967
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Hi Ripper Historian
An interesting point but if the police had questioned nearby residents and established that the message was there before the time of the Mitre Square murder, it would obviously have been meaningless as a clue and I cannot see why other officers at the site would have raised such strong objections when Warren ordered it erased.
Chris |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 07, 2004 - 7:03 pm: | |
Very good points everybody.
Consider this, if the message was written by a regular person, of course they would not own up to it. But, the people that lived or worked right inside of that building probably would not have been the ones to write it. They also would have been the ones most likely to know how long it had been there. Chances are that AT LEAST one person, a person who had not written the message, would have known whether or not that message was there before the murder.
At the time, they had no idea who wrote the message, so that is probably why they had it erased, it probably would have gone unnoticed except for the fact that a bloody rag was near it.
Also, let's take a practical look at the situation. I have several points to consider:
1) First off, the rag being near the chalk writing is a pretty weak connection. If JTR took great pains to avoid capture (obviously he did not want to get caught in the act and must haver taken certain measures to insure that he escaped) why would he stop somewhere while still in possession of the rag. If you were in his position, you would want to wipe your hands and dispose of the rag ASAP. You would not want the rag with you period, it would be an incredibly damning thing to have in your possession. Plus, concealing a bloody rag in your clothing would further soil what you were wearing. All indicators are that JTR had become quite adept at escape.
2) Why leave the rag near the chalk? If he wanted it to be known that the message was from him, it would have been far more effective to sign his name. I think that bloody rags would have a way of being blown around, kicked around, picked up, taken by animals, etc. It would seem unlikley that the rag would stay near the chalk for long (at least where it would be real noticable).
3) The rag could have been blown, carried, brought by an animal to the spot, rather than it being left there.
4) It would appear that JTR was quite adept at escape. It has been well documented in several different profiles that serial killers blend in well with the society around them. JTR probably attempted to blend in with the society around him immediately after each murder to avoid being identified. Why would somebody who has taken such great pains to avoid detection stop and take the chance of being seen doing something so out of place as writing a cryptic message on a wall in the middle of the night with chalk, while being in the possession of a knife and a bloody rag. If he were indeed paranoid, which it has been speculated that he was, he would not have wanted to stick out at all.
5) In my opinion, it seems that if he were carrying the chalk before the murders, that would indicate that he had premeditated the cryptic message. If that were the case, it seems that it would have been easier and more effective to write a message ahead of time and leave it on one of the bodies rather than take a chance by writing with his back turned to the street. However, the message seems as though it is nonsense writing. If he had the chalk with him and had planned on writing a message, it seems like he had plenty of time to come up with something better.
Let me know what you guys think. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 836
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 4:59 am: | |
Hi All,
It's not so much a case of what we guys think, or what we would or wouldn't do in similar circumstances (when would any of us ever be in similar circumstances?), but what the writer was thinking when he chalked his nonsense message.
I plump for a non-Jewish killer, with anti-Semitic tendencies, yet living and/or working among all those Jews close by in 'The Jews' Market', fighting with the nonsense in his own head, and losing to the nonsense.
I think he had the chalk with him, and used it and the incriminating apron piece (minus the kidney he was saving for later) for a spot of nonsense designed to stir up more trouble in the land of the Jews and send the police even further off the scent.
Just for jolly - wouldn't you?
Of course not, but I think he just might.
Love,
Caz |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 3:05 pm: | |
The Wentworth graffitus was potent rocket science, IMHO. It represents a cluster of richness, a real little gem, in a very few cryptic words. I maybe could have done it myself, but I'd have all I could do. Brilliant!
Bullwinkle
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 459
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 10, 2004 - 10:56 pm: | |
Natalie wrote:
I have also tried to think about who would have been able to use chalk on such a vertical and unyielding support as a glazed tile---it would have had to be used by someone familiar with writing with chalk especially since it was written in"a neat Schoolboy hand."
Good point, to be sure. But there is a difference between today's "dustless" chalk and chalk of the 1800's. Chalk used for writing on slates then was, I believe, much softer (hence also messier, "dustier"), which would make it easier to write on a glazed surface.
Andy S. |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 858
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Andy,
I wrote on the glazed brick with a piece of todays 'dustless' chalk.
It came out blurry (rather as Swanson described it, strange...he wasnt there !).
So older chalk would appear less 'blurry', yes ?
Interested in your view Monty
 |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 174
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:06 pm: | |
Gang,
I believe Jack wrote the Grafitto. I believe it refers to one specific kill. I also believe it was more of a statement rather than something to send suspicion in another direction, cryptic though it may have been.
Mikey |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 863
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
Raney,
You can believe what you want....no one is listening to a two-timing.....
Would he have a cryptic mind ??
Monty
|
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 176
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 12:46 pm: | |
Monty hon....wrong thread for that. And I think Jack thank cryptically (sp), whether it was intentional or not.
Mikey |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 412
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:08 pm: | |
I think that too Mikey.Those triangular cuts on Catherine Eddowes face ,the positions of the bodies tec are all a bit cryptic though I think he meant it all right-but quite what he meant in the writing[if it was his]is hard to understand-as are the cuts.
Best Natalie. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 461
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Monty,
Modern classroom "dustless" chalk is very hard and smooth. Trying to write on a glazed surface with a hard, smooth piece of chalk would, I'm sure, not work well. One hard, smooth surface rubbing against another would not produce the needed friction for much of the chalk to come off on the writing surface.
You might try the experiment if you can get hold of a piece of cheap, soft chalk rather than the dustless variety. I would think that the writing would be much darker but would also smear very easily, giving it the impression of being blurry.
Andy S. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 415
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 3:55 pm: | |
But even so, accepting your point which is a good one Andy,I think its a bit of an art to write on a vertical surface.I suppose schoolchildren wrote on little boards in those days as they still do in countries where paper is expensive,so he may have learnt the art that way-as a school child but even so you would be able to tilt the board
to suit yourself if you had a small individual board.I suppose there could have been some who enjoyed writing graffiti for the hell of it just as there are today with spraycans.
Natalie |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 262
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 4:52 pm: | |
The "chalk-school teacher" connection is obvious, and fits with Druitt as a suspect.
But, did market sellers, shoe repairs, butchers, etc, post advertisements outside their shops and stalls on chalk boards? I see it all the time today still, but this isn't 1888 Victorian London. Was such "Daily specials", etc, advertised in such a manner?
None of this means the Ripper wrote the message. But if so, it may widen the search (like it needs to be).
- Jeff |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 179
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
Jeff,
Excellent thought! Also, what about a tailor? Would he have used chalk to make measurements for inseams, sleeves, etc.? I don't believe that Jack was a tailor, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have had access to tailors chalk.
Mikey |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 419
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
Have just looked it up in Peter Ackroyd"s book of London.He talks about lavatory walls always abounding with graffiti in London and about pavement artists doing pictures in bright chalk
in the past 150 years.Also that the walls of prisons were always covered with graffiti.So far no mention of shops and trades advertising but lots anout billboards[huge ones advertising Guinness in the 1870"s!and so on but I suppose you are right there would have been the chalked ads for those things just as today! best Natalie |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 865
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 3:43 am: | |
Andy, Mikey, Nat, ect,
Andy,
Thanks for the info. I shall purchase some cheapo soft chalk and make my way back to Goulston st.
I have already got the tailors chalk.
Two birds and all that...or rather two pieces of chalk !!!
Monty
PS Raney....DONT call me Hon !!!
(Message edited by monty on March 12, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 862
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 7:33 am: | |
I haven't read all the above posts so please excuse me if this has been brought up somewhere that I missed but, why does everyone seem to think that, if Jack wrote the message that HE had been carrying it. Was it not possible for Kate to have had it or Liz?
Sorry if this is a silly question.
Sarah |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 191
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 12, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Sarah,
There are no silly questions, just silly people afraid to ask. That is a good question. What does everyone else think?
Monty,
Ok, no more "hon". At least you're talking to me.
Mikey |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 230
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 8:19 am: | |
Hi Sarah,
I think you’ve suggested something possible and plausible, if indeed the Ripper wrote the message. After all, it’s a fact that a thimble, a mustard tin and some buttons were found near Eddowes’ body, suggesting that the Ripper took these out of her pocket(s) and he sure took some items from Chapman’s pockets to place them in the vicinity of her body. So why not a piece of chalk?
Frank
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 19
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2004 - 9:01 pm: | |
Hello,
For those who are apt to dismiss the graffiti as a genuine clue on the basis that the Ripper wouldn't have stopped with a piece of chalk to write an obscure message, let's not forget that less than an hour before this he was carving obscure designs into his victim's face - a feat that would've required much more risk and daring on the Ripper's part than would defacing a public wall. From this perspective, the graffiti is perfectly in keeping with the Ripper's M.O. Also, the PC who spent the most time in the company of the graffiti, and proved the most competent witness, was of the opinion that the graffiti was fresh. The weight of the evidence suggests the graffiti was written on the same evening the Ripper deposited the portion of apron. Thus the possibility that he wrote it cannot be discounted.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
