| Author |
Message |
    
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 3:43 pm: |       |
Hi, Steven
The problem is that we don't have any evidence of Eddowes having any chalk. Sure, for the sake of argument, we can argue that maybe she did, and that the killer lifted it. Yes, chalk kind of ties in with the sewing materials found on Eddowes, but remember, looking at what we know was actually on her person, it seems that she's mostly working with scraps of cloth and rags, not the kind of whole cloth a tailor would use chalk with. So you have to believe she's using a blocky piece of chalk to mark these scraps, which sounds a little awkward to me.
You also have to believe he killed her, mutilated her, rifled her pockets, retrieved some chalk before putting everything back (well, almost everything). Unless of course, he got lucky and found the chalk first.
But aren't we really just making stuff up to suit a theory? Imagination is good, but I believe you have to confine yourself to what the actual evidence was.
That's just my opinion; I'm not trying to change your mind.
Respectfully,
Dave |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 942
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 5:58 am: | |
David,
Where exactly would we find evidence that Kate would have had the chalk. If the Ripper took it from her then by the time her items were sorted it would have gone.
If we just confine ourselves to the basic evidence of everything then we will never get anywhere.
I thought that somewhere there was evidence of the Ripper going through her pockets.
I think it is very likely that he could have taken in from Kate. There were no messages left after the other victims, so why after Kates. If the killer did write it then he would have to have retrieved it from somewhere as it doesn't look like he was in the habit of carrying it around with him.
I agree with Rodney here too. It is most likely that the killer wrote it and to me personally, because of the double negative, it suggests that he wasn't that well educated.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 900
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:52 am: | |
...and Kate (or Liz) would have chalk for what reason ?
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 946
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:58 am: | |
Monty,
...and anyone would have chalk for what reason?
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 901
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
Sarah,
That settles it then...Kate had chalk, cos we all do.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 254
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 8:48 am: | |
Hi, Sarah
You hit the nail on the head--where would we find evidence for the chalk? I'd suggest the inquest records are a good source, and there's no mention of chalk anywhere.
As far as evidence of the Ripper going through her pockets, I haven't seen it. Maybe I've missed it, though. Can you find it?
We can imagine all sorts of things and put them at the scene.
Cheers,
Dave |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 949
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 9:10 am: | |
David,
Why would the inquest records have any evidence of her having chalk? If Jack took it, then it wouldn't have been found on her and noted down.
I'll try and have a look for that reference of Jack going through her pockets but I may have been making it up so I apologise now if such a reference doesn't actually exist.
Monty,
My point is, why would anyone have chalk? I'm not saying we all do, because, well we don't, but how can we possibly know why someone would be carrying chalk 116 years after their death? Chalk has many purposes and one of those purposes was to get rid of grease from material, so maybe someone would carry it as a form of grease remover. I don't know but just because we don't know why someone would be carrying chalk, it doesn't mean they wouldn't have been. Kate seemed to have been carrying her life's possessions on her so why couldn't she possibly have had some chalk on her too.
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on March 22, 2004) |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 255
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 9:39 am: | |
Hi, Sarah
Well, that's fair (laugh), but my point is that there's no evidence that she ever had any. Maybe if Eddowes had spent the previous month working for a tailor or school, instead of hopping, I'd find it more of a possibility.
Cheers,
Dave |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 507
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 9:47 am: | |
Sarah, Monty,David,
when I was thinking about this yesterday it crossed my mind that the ripper may have carried chalk on him deliberately because of its absorbent qualities as Sarah is suggesting.To help dry off and absorb blood he may have crumbled it in his hands and used it like soap.
Johnr above points out he would have got it all over his clothes -not necessarily if he was careful with it.That remark by Sgt White about seeing someone near the Mitre Square Scene at the very moment Kate"s body was stumbled on who had "snowy white hands" has always perplexed me
why would he have noticed unless there was something unusual about that? Natalie. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 954
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 9:51 am: | |
David,
We could just go round in circles here. You say there is no evidence that she had any, I say there is no evidence that she didn't have any.
People look at the evidence in different ways though and my thought process goes as follows:-
I think that Jack wrote that message (as chances are that he did - I'm not getting into that again). He must have acquired the chalk from somewhere. He hadn't written anything with chalk after his other victims, which to me suggests that he didn't carry it around with him. Therefore, I see it as quite likely he took it from Kate or possibly Liz. Not as likely from Liz though because he didn't have time to even mutilate her. Maybe he even found it on the floor.
Sarah |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 256
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:07 am: | |
Okay, Sarah. However, I don't understand what form "evidence she didn't have any" chalk would take.
Cheers,
Dave
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 898
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:24 am: | |
Hi All,
How about this for a bit of speculation?
The killer wrote it, but wasn’t claiming to have done so himself. A bit like a naughty schoolboy who writes his own sick note for teacher, but gives the game away by writing:
Dear Miss,
Johnny is not well today so he won’t be able to come to school.
From my Dad.
This is the other way round, but would show a similar childlike naivety. Jack knows they suspect he is a Jew after Annie’s murder. So he helps their suspicions along by leaving part of Eddowes’ apron by the entrance to a building occupied by Jewish residents. Then he overeggs the pudding by pretending to be your average youthful graffiti artist who happens to be passing by, and seeing the bloody piece of cloth and where it has been dropped, thinks to himself “Gor blimey, luvva duck and ‘ow’s yer father! [as Dick van Yawn might say] If they weren’t right to blame the Jews for ripping up those poor wimmin! I’ll whip out me chalk and spell it out for them in me schoolboy hand.”
Jack wanted to provide a second opinion that the police were right to be looking for him among the Jews of the area. He just went over the top in doing so, and ended up with such an unlikely scenario that no one realised what he was really trying to do.
Does it work?
Love,
Caz
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 509
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi Caz,Well yes I can see that as being a possible scenario myself.
The only thing that jars would seem to me to be his actual phrasing which to me seems to have the type of idiomatic errors thet you find in the speech and writing of people whose first language isnt English.
A person familiar with idiomatic English but likes to be street smart {or grammatical if he is trying to ape "schoolboy English"}would have used words like "aint" or phrases like you"ve used above ---a sort of street smart Cockney or if posing as a naive schoolboy perhaps the phrasing might have been more up front or straightforward
If it had been written by a native English speaker in other words it would have had regular features of English or Irish dialect or slang.
As it is it has the inconsistencies of a non native speaker!
Best Nats |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 902
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 10:48 am: | |
Sarah, Nat,
Chalk has many purposes and one of those purposes was to get rid of grease from material.
AT LAST ! A valid reason.
Monty...chances are he didnt.
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 510
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
OK Monty may need to accept rules of chance
but what about if he knew that chalk would cover things up for him so took the chalk on purpose?
Nats |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 957
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
Monty,
Yes but Kate may have had it on her for a similar reason which is what you asked me for.
David,
Well, what form would "evidence that she ever had any" take? If it was gone by the time her body was found how can we ever know if she had any on her in the first place.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 906
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
Sarah,
I was agreeing with you. I was after a valid reason for Kate to have chalk...you gave me one.
But its speculation without evidence, which is what Dave is after. No chalk marks at Kates or Lizs murder scene, no reports of dust in any pockets or on clothes. Therefore the lack of chalk evidence in its self supports the theory that the victims didnt carry chalk.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 959
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:44 am: | |
Monty,
Almost called you Minty there ooops.
Chalk doesn't always create dust, there may have been a marking inside her pocket that wasn't spotted. Just because there is no record of chalk dust it doesn't mean there wasn't any. Back then they used to think that different things were important. There didn't used to think that photographing a crime scene was that important but that doesn't mean they were right. I doubt they would have noticed a tiny bit of chalk dust amongst the blood and mutilated body of Kate anyway let alone note it down.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 908
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:08 pm: | |
Sarah,
a) Just because there is no record of chalk dust it doesn't mean there wasn't any..... but it supports the idea that there wasnt.
b) You saying that the police (the same police who went through Kates belongings in such detail) wouldnt have made the jump between any chalk residue and that wall in the Wentworth buildings ? What do you think they were looking for ?
c) Call me anything you want...and at anytime !
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
David O'Flaherty
Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 257
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 12:16 pm: | |
Hi, Sarah
Evidence that she ever had any chalk could appear in the form of witness testimony that someone saw her with some. Something like "Yeah, I remember her--she was drunk as a skunk and fooling around with some chalk." Or something from John Kelly "We popped my boots, bought some tea and chalk."
Cheers,
Dave |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:22 pm: | |
Whatho all,
If Kate had some chalk with her, Maybrick would have mentioned it in diary, wouldn't he?
Cheers, Mark |
Bullwinkle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 21, 2004 - 11:54 pm: | |
I'd like to read for myself Natalie's citation from Begg's History, please. (I don't own this book.) Or, if someone is available and willing (preferably Natalie,) to have the whole applicable paragraph quoted out here. I much appreciate her citation, because on the surface it seems to indicate something new to me about Aaron--written evidence that he was literate. I can't remember seeing that before, although I'll admit it is possible.
Please keep in mind that Aaron was seriously disturbed at his various committments, and was unlikely to be filling out his forms for himself. Likely the administration did this for him, in response to oral questions put to whoever accompanied him at the time. If it says somewhere in these documents that he was literate, I'd love to have the quote. I believe that it may be the case that a someone ATTRIBUTED literacy to him in response to a general interest question--I don't think there would be an EXAMPLE of Aaron's literacy there.
Thanks very much for the help!
Bullwinkle
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 1:42 pm: | |
A bloody knife handle is quite a slippery object. I remember when I played baseball I would rub my hands in the dirt at homeplate to dry out the sweat on them in order to better grip the bat. If you watch a Major League game you will see the players doing the same. I think that this is a very logical reason for him to be carrying chalk: to better grip the knife. What do you think?
Regards, Vincent
P.S.: Do cricket players (!) do this too? |
PF arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 8:22 am: | |
What does it matter where the chalk came from?
Surely the point is that it was available and would not looked a strange possession for some one to carry so the writer of the graffitti (ripper or not) would not of had a problem obtaining chalk and getting to the site. Only if the police at the time (i believe it is too late now) had established Eddowes had had chalk stolen from her would such evidence help us understand the origins and significance of the graffitti.
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 34
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 11:06 pm: | |
The Chalk....
It's a nice idea that Jack got it from either Eddowes or Stride, and one that's been tossed around for years. But...There's no evidence of either of them having chalk, so it's a moot point.
As for Kosminski being literate, it was news to me too until Natalie pointed it out. I own Paul's book and have read it, but that part must not have stuck in my head. Of course, since Aaron Kosminski wasn't Jack, he's not a real priority in my limited brain space.
Incidentally, one source (I'll have to find it again) stated that the last part of the 'Dear Boss' letter was written with red 'chalk' and not crayon. Interesting.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
