|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 581
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 2:41 pm: |       |
Hi Natalie
I see where you mentioned the height of the writing now. My apologies for reading your post too quickly.
All The Best
gary |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 6:55 pm: | |
Whatho all,
In the past the good Bob Hinton undertook some experiments with gas lamps. He found the typical street gas light only illuminated a radius of about 6 feet from the base of the lamp. So if the nearest lamp was 20 yards or even 20 feet away, it was useless for lighting up the door.
It should be noted gas lamps in 1888 were only flares and mantels were not in use until a later date.
If anyone should wish to see a large area of a city using gas light, I suggest you visit the Park Estate in Nottingham. This private Victorian housing estate has the largest collection of gas lamps in the country. Also, as I point out the last time I posted this information, the Park is quite close to Nottingham Castle, the statue of Robin Hood and, even better, the oldest pub in the World: Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem
Cheers, Mark (Go for a pint of Old Trip, Kimberly Mild or Bitter) |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 52
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 8:32 pm: | |
Hi All,
I agree with Sarah in that Im not a big believer in "huge coincidences". The possibility that Jack was walking down a street that had a message
like that, and just decided "oh, i think i'll put this bloody apron under this message so the police will be confused", is very very small.
It could have happened, yes, but i dont think so. Just my opinion.
Best regards,
Paul |
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 26
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 9:49 pm: | |
Natalie,
Paul Begg's referring to Aaron Kosminski who, though literate he may have been, was not likely to have been Anderson's suspect and was certainly not the Ripper. He remained free and harmless for 3 years following the murders.
All,
It would seem from the evidence that the Ripper wanted the piece of apron for a particular purpose. It's been suggested it was used to carry the organs. Not likely, or he wouldn't have disposed of it en route. It's been suggested he injured himself and used it as a rag. But please remember that Eddowes' belongs were scattered around by the Ripper and these included many pieces of cloth, probably used by Eddowes' as sanitary napkins, and most likely cleaner - and certainly more handy - than the apron. But the Ripper chose to take the time and inherant risk in cutting off a portion of the apron. Why? So it could later be identified by comparison as having come from him. This is, of course, only a theory, but if anyone has a better reason for why he took the time to cut through her apron when cloth was at hand, I would be delighted to hear it. But if we accept that the apron piece was taken with purpose then it seems reasonable it was placed where it was with purpose. The people living in the dwelling had never seen the graffiti before, so it was probably left that evening. The rain would have slowed foot traffic in and out of the dwelling, but we know the Ripper was there. A lot of coincidence involved here. I'm not ready for the saddle just yet, but I sure am craving some hay!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 177
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:19 pm: | |
Paul, Sarah:
There are two fallacies with the coincidence proposition.
The first is that JtR actually left the apron half where it was found. We don't know that and while a good possibility, there have been previous discussions in which it was argued the apron might have been carried part of the way by a dog or even by a succession of innocent passersby who thought they saw something "valuable" (almost anything left on the street was thought to have value at the time -- including dog feces, which were seized upon by "pure" collectors), carried it off until they got a whiff of what they had and then quickly discarded it again.
The second and more important fallacy of coincidence is that the graffito was as unique as the apron half. If that graffito, cryptic as it was, were the only example to be found ever within the area then the close proximity of both would be very interesting.
We don't know how rare the graffito was, though experience would suggest it was not very. I hate to rely on Walter Dew for anything since his fifty-years-later memoirs are rife with errors about the Ripper murders, but in something this general he may be more reliable. He did, however, write that anti-semitic graffiti were common throughout the East End.
Since graffiti are a form of "pollution" that have been with us almost from the moment humankind started using symbolic communication and the area was one of ethnic and religious friction, it would seem quite probable that such messages appeared often. Written with chalk, however, they could be removed by aggrieved residents almost as quickly as they were scrawled.
The point remains, though, that unless the uniqueness of both the apron half AND graffito can be established the degree of coincidence in their proximity remains -- like so many things about JtR -- as merely fodder for more argument.
Don. |
Paul Jackson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 55
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:57 pm: | |
Hi Don,
No disrespect intended, but a dog carrying the apron and dropping it under a message that was related to the Jews is about 99% unlikely.
Thats way too big of a coincidence. I know that you didnt propose that idea, but thats very unlikely. Oh well, thats what makes this fun.
Best Regards
Paul |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 880
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:50 am: | |
Guys,
Nat,
still you will maybe be able to tell us what he "could" see when you get that info
Working from info provided to me by Stewart Evans (who informed me of the position of the lamp) and, I think it was, Mike Raney ( Sorry Mikey if it wasnt you but Im sure you told me about the gas lamps in your area) and also info from Bobs book I concluded that the south side of the doorway (the side of the stairs) would be very dimly lit if lit at all. Unfortunately I have recently found a map which points to the lamp being 20 odd yards south of the doorway. This would put the south side in almost complete darkness. So now Im confused and still working on it.
All pointless is the graffito was found well inside the doorway. Then it would definately be dark.
Tom,
Very good points made mate. Your opinion. Would/could the apron have come away during the ripping through Kates cloths. Its a sizable piece. I feel it was a trophy discarded during the escape (for whatever reason, maybe an approaching Bobby) because of the obvious implications involved....Im thinking Halses 2 men here. But thats just a thought.
Cheers,
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 892
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:43 am: | |
Don,
I'd have to agree with Paul on that one. The chances of the Ripper dropping the apron under such a message by chance is already very unlikely, but a dog dropping it under the same message by chance it even more unlikely.
Not everything is a coincidence, in fact the bigger coincidence, the more likely it is that it is not in fact a coincidence at all. At least in my opinion and in my experience.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 522
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:50 am: | |
Paul
No disrespect intended, but a dog carrying the apron and dropping it under a message that was related to the Jews is about 99% unlikely.
But let's say it was a dog. And let's say that instead of a message about Jews he had dropped it under a message about shoe salesmen. Would we all now be theorising that Jack was a shoe salesman, or that he was trying to blame a shoe salesman, and would you be saying that the chances of a dog dropping the apron by chance under a message about shoe salesmen was 99% unlikely.
If it was a dog, he had to drop the apron somewhere, and wherever it was would naturally take on a significance in many peoples minds. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 894
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:29 am: | |
Alan,
If it was a dog then it would have been more likely that he would have probably dropped it under no such message at all.
We have to look at what is the most probable explanation and that to me is that the Ripper dropped the apron and wrote the message on the wall above it.
Also, yes, a dog dropping the apron under ANY message is about 99% unlikely (please note I didn't say 100% and neither did Paul), unless of course the dog was super smart and could read.
I find it fascinating that, in my opinion, a lot of people on here don't like to look at the most probable thing and that some are willing to think that a dog picked it up and dropped it under a message on the wall rather than think that the Ripper probably wrote that message and that's why the apron was under it.
Sarah |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 523
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 6:33 am: | |
Sarah
Forget about the dog. The dog is a red herring (if that makes sense).
The point is that the apron was found, and as such it had to be found somewhere. And wherever that somewhere was, people would read some significance into it, regardless of how the apron got there.
The message on the wall was not unique. There were many messages on many walls. There is nothing in the message which specifically relates to the Ripper murders. Therefore the only connection between the message and the apron is their proximity. If the apron had been in the proximity of something else, anything else, people would try to read meaning into whatever that something was.
That isn't to say that the Ripper did not write the message. Just that you cannot conclude that he did solely from the fact that the two items were close together. You have to come up with something which links the two together.
David Radka for instance states that the message is the key to the whole thing. Although he doesn't give away his thought processes, that plainly means that he has seen a specific meaning in the message, and that specific meaning is his corroborating evidence which links the message to the crimes.
If you can find similar corroborating evidence, then you can argue for linking the two things. If not, then you have to accept that it is more than just a 1% possibility (in fact by the law of averages it would be a 50-50 possibility) that the two things just happened to be near each other. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 898
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:18 am: | |
Alan,
wherever that somewhere was, people would read some significance into it
If it had been dropped by no message on the wall then the only significance that would be read by this would be which way the killer went, which is exactly what we already are trying to establish.
There is nothing in the message which specifically relates to the Ripper murders
Why should there be? He may not have felt like writing exactly about the murders and may have just wanted to have write what was on his mind (whatever that may have been) and left the piece of apron there to indicate that he wrote it.
As far as I'm aware the apron was directly beneath the message and not near it as you say. I may be wrong and if so then I apologise, but I still say it is too much of a coincidence.
Also, the 1% possibility was specifically for the dog dropping it by the message not for the Ripper writing it or not. For that, yes it is a 50-50 chance he did or not.
Sarah
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Chief Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 583
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:08 am: | |
Hello All
I would note that, leaving aside the limited lighting from the gas lamp, there may have been sufficient ambient lighting for the killer to have written the message. I realize it was a dark cloudy/rainy night, however we have all experienced a situation where we have peered into a dark corner and seen only blackness. Upon approaching the same spot our night vision affords us a limited ability to see in the dark.
All The Best
Gary |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 883
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
Alan,
One of my many points put forward far more clearly than I ever did or could.
Thank you.
Monty
|
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 463
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:36 am: | |
Regarding the dog --
Assuming the presence of the writing has no influence on where such a dog might drop a bit of apron there is exactly an equal chance that the dog would drop the cloth under a message as under any other given spot within that dog's walking range. The probability of dropping under a message or under no message is neither 1% nor 50%, but would have to be determined by the number of messages on all the walls within the dog's walking range. If there are few such messages, the probability is low. If there are many, the probability is higher.
Andy S. |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 178
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
All,
Alan is absolutely right that the dog is irrelevant. I was not necessarily arguing in favor of that idea, but simply suggesting that we don't know the chain of events that saw the apron half move from Mitre Square to Goulston Street.
And that uncertainty coupled with the probablity that the graffito was not unique make their proximity seem less the result of design and more that of mere chance.
And now I want to get moving before yet another snow storm strikes us.
Don. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 455
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:50 am: | |
Thanks Monty I hope it can be worked out.Also if it was inside the doorway this points to him hiding-maybe from a passer by.I think Gary and the point about night vision is valid -after all the police were all able to read it in that light
and the chalk itself would have been like a bit of illumunation possibly.
Tom,
Its not clear whether Kosminski WAS "free" or harmless for that matter.He wasnt in COLNEY HATCH
or LEAVESDEN in 1888 but there are refernces to him being taken to a workhouse possibly in 1888.
Also it is stated in one asylum record that he had been insane for two years [this written in 1891].There are also early references to him being difficult and perverse and [begun]to speak only in German etc.
Kosminski was said to be Andersons suspect by Swanson who wrote it in the margin of Andersons Memoirs.
Macnaghten also names his second prime suspect as "KOSMINSKI".
Kosminski was supposed to have been preoccupied with "Solitary Vices" which wasnt the case with
Nathan Kaminski who was treated for venereal disease.Both Anderson and Machnaghten talk about Kosminski as having these "solitary vices" and the Asylum records discharge book [Colney Hatch]
refers toAaron Kosminski Hebrew hairdresser,admitted January 1891 suffering from
mania[here they have apparently written two then crossed it out and put 6 yrs] caused by "self Abuse"-presumably the "solitary vices" mentioned by Macnaghten Swanson and Anderson.Best Natalie |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 456
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:57 am: | |
All,I find it strange the police didnt mention any saliva that a dog would have left on the apron with all the other stuff.Also dogs dont usually leave blood alone they usually lick it off[and are not deterred by other organic stuff I think the police would have noticed the gnawing of a dog and its saliva and they didnt comment on it.
Natalie |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:12 am: | |
Hi, Tom and Monty
That's a good point Tom made about the scraps of cloth. However, these weren't scattered about the body--they were found on Eddowes' person. They appear on the list of clothes and possessions, which items found near the body (the thimble, mustard tin, pawntickets) don't appear on. According to Stewart Evans, police were (and are) very strict about victim inventory, and so distinguished between what was on the body, and what was near it.
So perhaps a likely explanation for the Ripper not making use of the many pieces of cloth Eddowes was carrying was that he didn't know they were there.
Like Tom, I also dismiss the idea that the apron was used to transport organs--JtR seems to already have had some type of container with him (we don't see any of the other victims' clothing being torn in this manner). Also, I believe there were marks on the apron piece which indicated it had been used to wipe a knife clean. So it seems to me that the purpose for the apron was to clean the Ripper's knife and perhaps his hands of blood and excrement, and the distance from Mitre Square to Goulston Street is an indication of how dirty he got. As far as the dog theory goes, no dog is going to fool around with a filthy bit of cloth when there are blood and entrails nearby.
Myself, I lean towards discounting the graffiti--stopping to write a message while he's making his escape seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Why don't we see messages in the vicinity of the other murder scenes, particularly Mary Jane Kelly's bedroom?
On the other hand, because of its proximity to an important clue (the apron piece), I don't think the graffiti can or should ever be completely dismissed. Maybe Tom's theory will change my mind, when he's ready to present it. I've certainly enjoyed his other articles.
Cheers,
Dave
|
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 7:56 pm: | |
The bloody rag being near the chalk writing is not strong evidence that it was written by the killer at all. The rag had to be dropped somewhere, hence it had to be dropped near something. You cannot suppose that anything the rag was DROPPED NEAR was SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE KILLER.
He threw the rag down while running away and it happened to be near the chalk writing is the most likely explanation.
If the rag had been thrown down near a bag of garabge on the street, would you assume that the bag of garbage belonged to Jack?
If the rag had been thrown down near a street sign, would you conclude that Jack had put up the street sign?
If the rag was near a pile of dog poop, would you conclude that Jack had his dog with him on a leash during the killing?
All of these are ridiculous.
There is nothing close to a coincidence here.
NOW IF ...... the chalk was lying near the writing and had blood stains on it, and the wall where the chalk writing was had blood stains on it, and the bloody rag was lying below the writing near the bloody chalk .... THAT MY FRIENDS WOULD BE STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THE KILLER HAD WRITTEN THE MESSAGE.
The bloody rag being dropped near the writing is weak evidence to support that the message was written by the killer, no matter where the rag was dropped there would be something that police could associate with the killer.
Tim |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
Hi all
The problem with the graffiti, as with many other things in this case, is that our attention is brought to it for the wrong reasons. Let's try to cast the net a bit wider.
Why does it have to have been written by JtR? There are parts of London now where it would hardly be possible to drop something on the road without it being near _some_ piece of graffiti.
Was the graffiti in fact visible from where the apron was dropped? I don't know, but those who've drawn sketches etc might.
Why did (some of) the police regard it as so important to erase it? Because they thought it was vital evidence? Hardly. Surely it was more that the coincidence of finding the piece of apron near some inflammatory graffiti might have caused a riot. The act of erasure in itself suggests the senior officers did not regard it as important in the tracking of JtR. It is not necessary to suppose, in the Victorian age, that the senior officers who came to this conclusion would have explained their opinion to the junior police who found the graffiti (and whom they might well have thought fools for drawing unneccessary attention to it). Or to officers in other divisons who had different opinions.
It seems to me that the location and relatively careful writing the graffiti supposedly exhibit suggest it must have been written in daylight - surely the previous evening at twilight would count as 'recently'. So, maybe JtR wrote it earlier, when someone writing a cryptic message about Jews would be in minimal danger of being accused of JtR, although he might get a bunch of fives from an enraged inhabitant. That would be a dgree of planning which would put a totally deranged person well out of consideration.
I put these ideas forward merely to suggest, without depending on wandering dogs (who probably would have chewed the horrible thing up - certainly my Schnauzer would have) there are many explanations that can neither be proved nor discounted.
Regards
Pete
|
steven tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 8:04 pm: | |
Possessions
2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
2 short black clay pipes
1 tin box containing tea
1 tin box containing sugar
1 tin matchbox, empty
12 pieces white rag
1 piece course linen, white
1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
6 pieces soap
1 small tooth comb
1 white handle table knife
1 metal spoon
1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
1 ball hemp
1 piece of old white apron with repair
Several buttons and a thimble
Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Burrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
Printed handbill
Portion of a pair of spectacles
1 red mitten
The aforementioned possessions,as listed by this site, were found on Eddowes. It seems possible, even probable that she would have chalk to mark the fabric like a tailor. The idea for the grafitti may have popped into Jacky's noggin when he discovered the chalk on her. |
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 15, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
JTR always planned ahead. He already had the chalk with him. The graffito hides the killers name but is not quite correct, hence the mutilations to Eddowes face. It is unfortunate that the inverted v's are now main topic of conversation as they are obviously more prominent. The v's are in fact only pointers to the actual 'clues'. These 'clues' to the mind of the killer satisfy him for what he could not attain in his graffito. The reference to jews is of no significance, though the spelling is if you are to solve the puzzle. Hope this gives food for thought. Good luck.
This is all obviously in my opinion of course! } |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 5:30 am: | |
Dear Mr B. Winkle,
Do you think it could have been written by a Sufi mystic quoting the works of the Sufi sheikh Daud of Kandahar, who died in 1965:
"Speak to the wall, so that the door may hear".?
Rosey :-) |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 14, 2004 - 6:03 pm: | |
"Kosminski couldn't have written it as he was illiterate."
"I think Kosminski could read and write and this I believe is recorded in the registers of Colney Hatch Asylum[or Leavesdon]."
>>I know of no evidence anywhere on the crust of this earth to support either of these claims.
"One cannot disregard the possibility that the graffiti may have been a puzzle, and while it's surface meaning may have held some relevance, the true meaning may only be revealed when the puzzle is solved."
>>Brilliant!
A?R Bullwinkle
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
