| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 933
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 11:14 am: |       |
Sarah,
I refer the Right Honourable Lady to my previous response.
Monty
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 987
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:01 pm: | |
Monty,
I just like seeing you bang your head against a wall!!
I'm just saying that even though evidence supports that he didn't take it from Kate (which I don't agree with anyway) it doesn't mean that he didn't.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 936
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
Sarah,
You can disagree all you like with the evidence, or even the lack of it.
The fact is that its there...or rather not there.
You're an insurance company. I come to you for a pay out because I had my car stolen last year....do you believe me ?...more importantly would you pay me ?
I am now going to retire from this topic as I cannot be arsed with it anymore.
Monty
(Message edited by monty on March 25, 2004)
Our little group has always been and always will until the end... |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 988
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 25, 2004 - 12:14 pm: | |
Monty,
Ok, well I won't expect an answer then but just to simplify things. I agree that there was no chalk found on Kate's body but that does NOT mean that she didn't have it taken from her.
I don't see why I wouldn't pay you. There is no evidence that your car wasn't taken so they have no choice.
Actually I have a funny story about a car insurance company. This lorry backed into my car and made a huge dent because I was parked in it's way for about 1 whole minute and his insurance company actually wrote to me these words (remember this was supposed to be a proper respected insurance company) "What was our client meant to do? Wait for you to return?". Now that cracked me up. I wrote them a letter which was so good and fool proof that they went from refusing to pay for my repairs at all to compensating me 100%.
Sarah
(Message edited by Sarah on March 25, 2004) |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 544
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 5:26 am: | |
Tim, chalk that has been there for say a few days loses it"s whiteness and density and looks "faded".Someone did remark that the writing was a bit blurred but added something about thinking it was due to the difficulty of writing with chalk on the tiles glazed surface -meaning there would be no "key" for the chalk to adhere to easily.
The graffito was not OUTSIDE it was in the indoor passage way leading to the staircase on the black glazed brick or tile and at shoulder height.I feel this is quite important actually when trying to decide whether it was written by the killer.
If it was "outside" then I think anybody could have written it within the previous few days.But if it was inside the Wentworth dwellings in this "passage" leading to the staircase and "on its own" [with no other graffiti as would be expected on some graffiti decorated walls eg lavatory walls etc] with the bloodied cloth directly underneath it and the chalk appeared "fresh"[not discoloured] then I think it almost certainly WAS written by the killer and obviously MEANT something [to him].Even if he didnt write it but had seen it earlier that day and as he passed decided to drop it "inside" the building and underneath the writing then it would still be intended to communicate something I would have thought.
PS
Maybe Jack went back home to get his dog and take it for a walk and the dog did the detour into the building with the piece of apron and dropped it underneath the writing!According to Sarah and Richard it seems possible it had supernatural powers and did its best to help Jack out! |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Chief Inspector
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 763
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 2:39 pm: | |
Hi Natalie,
The dog suggestion is ludricous, I however did see a small pile of dogs waste, on a spot we assume was Eddowes final demise, and attempted to suggest a joke regarding a dog, finding the body , doing the obvious, picking up a peice of loose apron, wandering to Goulston street, and releasing the said item, outside the relevant building.
To sum up. I just thought it amusing on tuesday, to visit the square, look at the murder spot, and see exhibit one.
Richard. |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 550
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 26, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Sorry Richard I was joking---when you write you sometimes forget the other person can take you at your word because they dont see your expression
---I will try to be a bit nearer the mark next time
Natalie |
Thomas C. Wescott
Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 36
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 27, 2004 - 12:45 am: | |
Hello all,
A man who did not visit the scene (I want to say Anderson)but who would have conferred with those who did, referred to the writing as 'blurred', which should not be taken to mean 'faded'. There's nothing on record to contradict the testimony that it was fresh. And the whole 'dog' scenario reminds me of Bob Hinton's rather ludicrous suggestion that the victims' organs were missing because giant alley rats carried them off.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 938
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 29, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Hi Nat,
Forgetting the diary for a moment, the question I wanted to ask was, if the killer wrote the message, and if it was in an effort to implicate a Jewish killer, or even a non-Jewish killer, what could he have written to have avoided any ambiguity, and to convince the police that the message contained the truth?
A killer writing the message to imply a non-Jewish killer, whether this was true or not, doesn’t work for me because why would he immediately undermine the very purpose of the message by writing it where he did and underlining it with the bloody apron piece - dropped right at the entrance of a building occupied predominantly by Jews?
Do you see what I mean?
Hi RJ,
Fair point - just substitute press and public suspicions about Leather Apron, or a Leather Apron 'type', for my too-early top cop suspicions. My point was and is that, if the WM, in his last pre-Jack moments decided his public wanted him to be a Jew, the boy done good - so good in fact that top cops looking back at the chase 'always knew' he was a Jew, and even today's top researchers are seduced by this apparent knowledge.
As usual, beware even the most respected of 'experts', if they display none of the self-doubt that stops them in their tracks from always claiming to be right and to 'know' they are right, even on occasions when they should have admitted to being only human, and therefore only thought they were right.
Ring any Andersonian bells, RJ? 
Love,
Caz
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 593
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:09 am: | |
Just a thought brought to mind by the discussion on the Martha Tabram thread about Emma Smith. Thought I would put it here as more appropriate.
My thought is this, and this is just an off the top of the head thing thrown out for discussion.
Imagine that the Ripper was part of the gang that attacked Emma Smith, and so was Piser. It was a predominantly Jewish gang. The Ripper has seen Piser arrested and then let go. Remembering that in the papers at this time Emma Smith was constantly being listed as one of the victims. Could the graffito then be a taunt to the police that they had had "one of the Ripper gang" and let him go? |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1131
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 7:32 am: | |
Alan,
I'm actually starting to think that the message means:-
"The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for no reason".
Or more simply put "they won't be blamed without good reason".
Which now to me means that whoever wrote it (the Ripper or otherwise) is suggesting that the Jews (Juwes) will get the blame and not for no reason. Obviously it's author thinks that the Jews (Juwes) deserve to get the blame that he thinks/knows they will get.
Hope that makes sense.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 186
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 9:21 am: | |
Isn't the French for 'toys' 'Jouets', which might be rendered phonetically as 'juwes', and wasn't there a 'Ripper letter' mentioning a 'box of toys'?
Just a thought on a beautiful Sunday afternoon. |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 742
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2004 - 6:59 pm: | |
Sounds intriguing!!!....boxes of toys?....am off to consult letters book! fabulous Sunday here too!!....now get out into that sun and look up the references then!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 747
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 5:31 pm: | |
Hi
Despite my trawling throught the letters the toys have as yet eluded me! Suzi |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 396
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 10:28 pm: | |
Hi,
I believe the "box of toys" letter has a line something like "Don't you box of toys play copper games with me". I can't recall the quote exactly, but it sounds very much a cockney rhyming slang phrase. I figure "box of toys" has something to do with "cocks on boys", but I've never been good at figuring out how the rhyming slang works (having grown up in Canada and not London, it's probably not surprising).
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on May 17, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 6:46 am: | |
Bob,
Phonetically "jouet" would be "jouay". I suppose someone might read "juwes" as that, but most read it as "jews".
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 13
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 8:40 am: | |
Sarah, regarding your post on the 13th, I agree with you in all but the smallest detail. My only take on the writing is that as some others have stated it seems to me that it was unlikely that the murderer would have stopped and written this. Rather I think he simply discarded the apron piece used to clean knife, hands, whatever, at that point. I seriously doubt that he even noticed the writing. Anyway, to what I started saying, the writing has always sounded more like a threat or a boast to me. You stated that it could read "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for no reason". If we take the scenario that it was written by a Jew living in the area, then what he actually might be saying is "We won't be blamed for things we have not done". Reading between the lines there is a threat that the Jews would retaliate. And of course this could have been referring to any of the multitude of problems facing Jews in London at that time.
Scotty. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 517
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Bob --
Interesting idea, but then we would have: The "toys" are the men who will not be blamed for nothing? Doesn't make a lot of sense. The fact that "Juwes" are identified in the text as "men" I think makes certain that the reference is to people.
I think the meaning of the graffito will always elude us. For one thing we don't know for sure the accurate wording. For another thing we don't know whether the author was using anything like proper grammar.
"The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" could mean:
The Juwes will be blamed only for good reason
--or--
The Juwes will never be blamed for anything.
Andy S.
|
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1800
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 3:38 pm: | |
I concur with Scotty here.
It seems most unlikely that the killer -- on the run from a large amount of police activity -- would stop to write this message.
And as Scotty suggests, the message, although we can't be exactly sure of its real meaning, has more the character of a threat than a "clue" or communication.
I believe it was already there, when he dropped the apron and it is indeed questionable if he noticed it in the first place. I admit it's a bit of a coincidence, but that's all. Stranger things have happened.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Michael Raney
Inspector
Username: Mikey559
Post Number: 374
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 4:56 pm: | |
Is it possible that someone who knew a little more about the murders than we do, wrote the Graffito? Possibly someone that wanted to make it clear the the Jews didn't have anything to do with the murders? Just a thought.
Mikey |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 518
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 8:11 pm: | |
I should have mentioned also that I doubt the killer had anything to do with leaving the graffito.
Andy S.
|
Paul Jackson
Inspector
Username: Paulj
Post Number: 229
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 8:42 pm: | |
Whats up guys?
In my opinion it is way too big of a coincidence that the killer just happened to throw the apron down under the message. The chances of that happening are so remote,that to me, even though it is possible that its just a coincidence, its not probable.
Paul |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1801
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 9:29 pm: | |
Hey Paul,
Not if we consider the possibility that there may have been a large number of similar writings on the walls in Whitechapel, which I think there were; this was an area of anti-semitic reactions.
The fact that this particular "message" was acknowledged, was because it was found near the piece of apron, but I believe that was all.
If the killer had any intention whatsoever to leave a message to anybody, he could have done so in connection with the body, or done it in a clearer or more obvious manner. The letters were, as I recall, quite small and were probably only found because the police in the area searched the vicinities rather thoroughly.
And still, we have the problem with him taking his time to write this communication, during the most intensive stage of the police activity.
It just doesen't add up.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 107
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2004 - 11:45 pm: | |
When you toss a beanbag into a grid with 10 rows and ten columns, it's going to land on a square. Say it lands in row 2 column 7. The odds of it landing in that exact spot are 1 in 100. Are we to believe that the odds of that happening are so low that "27" must have some sort of special significance?
No matter where that apron was found, people would pounce all over the particulars of the location trying to read something into it. If it had landed on a fish crate we'd have people swearing up and down that it couldn't have been an accident and trying to spell the word CRATE with the victim's initials or whatever.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 824
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2004 - 2:48 am: | |
Contrary to what I used to believe about the exact spot where the graffiti was written it was actually inside the Wentworth dwelling in the "hallway" entrance towards the staircase but visible from the street through the doorway-I used to think it had been written on a pillar of the doorway].
The building was then thoroughly searched for more evidence and nothing else was found which included anymore writings.
So the graffiti was found as a sole piece of writing inside a hallway with the piece of Catherine"s apron directly underneath it,leading police who found it to think it had been deliberately written by the killer himself.The writing they said looked "freshly written" although blurred because the glazed tile support
made it difficult to write.It was spotted for the first time by the policeman who saw the apron.Many people used the building and as it was at shoulder height it was believed that had it have been written earlier it would have been rubbed out quickly.As it was Warren ordered its immediate removal in case it inflamed tension
already simmering over "leather apron" a local man of jewish appearance giving rise to the belief that the killer was Jewish.So clearly it caused deep concern to Warren!
Its possible the killer knew the graffiti was there and dropped it for dramatic effect or even that he had written it earlier himself but it looks to me that it is too much of a coicidence not to be connected to the apron and it looked to the police seeing it there at that time to have not been coincidental.
Having said that others are right to point out that there was other graffiti in Whitechapel at that time[not masses of it from what I have read but certainly some and stuff in Hanbury Street connected to the murders,also Cable Street/Pinchin Street etc.
But as far as the Wentworth dwellings go there was only that Graffiti referring to "Juwes".
The spelling of the word seems to me to be a simple spelling error.
Natalie |
