|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through January 25, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Is The Goulston Street Graffito All It Seems?:
Archive through January 25, 2000
Author: Desdinova
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 06:28 am |        | Don't you have anything better to do?
Des |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 09:21 am | | Dear Boris, (call me Bob by the way no need to be so formal)
So nice to hear you have some certificates, presumably they are attached to the walls of your room with velcro as getting a nail into rubber wallpaper must be a bit of a bind.
No I didn't assume you were an adolescent, uneducated idiot, I'm quite willing to take your word that you are a middle aged uneducated idiot.
Boris, now look at me when I'm talking, these pages are for people to exchange ideas and theories, hopefully in as pleasant a manner as possible. We really don't need line after line of foul mouthed inane rhetoric, I'm sure you would be far happier going to www.sillylittleboys@wibble.com.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: RLeen
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 09:54 am | | Hello Everybody,
The dimensions of the wall; butt, as I believe we Brits call it (no laughing at the back from our colonial cousins), can clear up any ambiguities with regard to the size and placing of the script. In Britain a brick is 9 inches by 4 inches. Looking at the picture recently posted shows that JTR, or whoever, had a canvas maybe 12 inches wide to work on.
Similarly there are three courses of disfigured brickwork on either side of the doorway (nine bricks down from the lintol). The height would seem to suggest that this was the area of the dado, possibly once tiled , meaning that the black paintwork boundary would extend from the ground to a height of 40 inches.
However, make no mistake about the writing. When one looks closely at the police impression it can be seen that some form of organisation is apparent in the lines. The words have been set out in the manner of a stanza. It is easy to deduce that the work is not that of a German, the capitalization of Blamed for instance.
However, I still feel that the work was done by someone who wished to clear the Jewish populace of the crimes. It all depends upon which version of the message is the more accurate.
Thanking you
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 12:27 pm | | Dear Rabbi,
There was a suggestion, supposedly from Detective Halse, that the writing was four feet from the ground. However search as I might I can find no provenance for this claim.
Can anyone help with this?
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 01:08 pm | | Bob
I think you'll find that suggestion completely false.
Regards, Jon |
Author: your pal Jack
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 03:40 pm | | Hi all,
The mentioning from D'Onston about the French connection and JTR being a French black magician instantly recalled a interview with David Copperfield I once saw. In this particular interview the famous magician David Copperfield shows the viewers some of the many antiquities he has collected during many years. One item, as the viewers can see, is a wooden robot wich belonged to a French circus, so he tells the viewers. But then he goes on and says that somewhere in 1910 or 1914 someone discovered a knife covered with bloodstains in one of the legs. If I recall correctly this occured somewhere in Paris. Nobody back then or even now knows anything about the knife, how it got there or about the bloodstains. By the way, the knife with the blood, is shown to the viewers. The robot and the knife, complete with the bloodstains, are still in the possesion of David Copperfield. The authenticy of both items aren't disputed. |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 04:14 pm | | G'day Everyone,
Chris was right when he said that we have no way of knowing exactly how the bricks were painted in 1888. They were probably re-painted many times, because graffiti was common in the area.
If the graffito was on the ARCHWAY, not the wall, it would have been a 'risky' spot!
UNLESS, 'Jack' was seen, or thought he may have been seen, ducking into the doorway - so he pulled out his chalk (or found it and picked it up) then pretended that he just ducked in there to write on the wall (which was common in the area.)
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 04:52 pm | | In a confidential memorandum from Sir Charles Warren to Henry Mathews, we find specific mention of the location:
Subject: ‘The writing on the wall’
‘......I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.
There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.....’ |
Author: Leanne
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 05:58 pm | | G'day Jon,
I immediately recognised what you wrote above, and found it in: 'Jack The Ripper, First American Serial Killer' - Evans & Gainey, if anyone else is looking for it.
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 09 January 2000 - 07:25 pm | | Yes Leanne, that, I take is one of the more recent publications containing this report, however it is also quoted in The Ripper File, Jones & Lloyd, page 135.
Considering the 'risky location'....we would do well to remember we are talking about Jack the Ripper, who is responsible for leaving several butchered remains in full public view across the none too deserted streets of London's East End.
Compared to what he is known to have done, this little graffiti episode is 'small potato's' ....that is, assuming he wrote it.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 12:18 am | | G'day Jon,
I see your point there, but what other clues did 'Jack' leave near the scenes of his crimes?
He was good at escaping and blending back into the crowd, that's what made me think that if he wrote it, it was a 'tool', to blend back as a common graffitti artist! POSSIBLE?
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 11:35 pm | | Leanne
when you say
"I see your point there, but what other clues did 'Jack' leave near the scenes of his crimes?"
....are you refering to me saying "assuming he wrote it"?
Sometimes we feel reluctant to accept certain evidence because it either, a) appears out of character, or b) opens up a whole lot more questions.
The apron & graffiti are good examples of this. Knowing where the graffiti was deposited makes it clear that the portion of apron on the ground must have been in full view of anyone passing on the footpath.
And the size of the portion of apron tends to suggest it was hardly small enough to be missed.
So, I give P.C. Long the benefit of the doubt when he say's "it wasnt there at 2.20am" .....if it was, he would have seen it.
Most people will take the simplest solution "he didnt notice it" ...well, we can all contradict testimony when it suits us.
But to accept it wasnt there, means it was elsewhere (see, this is not rocket science):-) and if it was elsewhere, it was elsewhere with Jack.
So, where was Jack for about an hour with this piece of apron?
Thats what people dont like to consider, because he obviously wasnt walking the streets. It implies he went 'to ground', which implies he lived in the area. Which further implies he returned to the streets to conveniently drop this as a decoy, and if he did, why not scribble something to go with it?.
If you get my drift.....simply giving P.C. Long the benefit of the doubt can lead you in a direction that is contentious, to say the least.
And as no-one in the area said it was old graffiti, and Halse said it looked recent, and it was anti-Jewish in meaning, in a Jewish area, this circumstantial evidence tends to lean towards it being wrote that same night, and that implies Jack wrote it.
And as you are aware, none of the above is readily acceptable to most enthusiasts.
I remain open to the whole idea, I dont think it is out of character for this killer.
I'm not convinced, but I'm not turning a blind eye either.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 11:32 pm | | G'day Jon,
NO NO NO, mate, I wasn't referring to anything. I know that some people ignore some evidence because it doesn't fit in with their own theory.
Some JTR books I've read, ignore the Goulston Street graffito completely. I'm just weighing up the possibilities. By saying "I see your point there", you added weight to the possibility that he DID write it. By saying "What other clues..." I was adding weight to the other side.
About the apron: if it and the graffito were both deposited outside the building, why were they so sure that 'Jack' ENTERED the building at all?
LEANNE! |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 06:59 pm | | Leanne
P.C. Long, when he came across the apron, at once searched the staircase, then leaving another P.C. at the entrance, he took the apron to Commercial St. Police station.
We have no statement as to when the Met searched the dwellings, but we have a City PC saying they searched every dwelling and every building in the area, as they also did around Mitre Square.
'were they sure Jack entered the building at all?' no, not sure, but they had to check anyway.
Regards, Jon |
Author: John CLare
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 09:27 pm | | Just found the site. I was interested in this idea that the Ripper would be put off by large numbers of people. I'm not entirely sure of that. I went to Mitre Square in the early 1970's when it was unchanged. Although it was a Public Street, it was really an enclosed square with a small entrance. At that time it was mainly full of small workshops about four stories high. Early in the morning it would have been quite secluded and since the area had a brisk prostitution trade, the occasional scream would have been unlikely to create much interest. People may have lived there, but it looked as though it had been built as workshops and might well have been fairly deserted at night.
I may be entirely wrong of course, but that was my impression |
Author: Jon
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 10:03 pm | | John
Do you recall the square as it was?
I also was there in the early 70's, I recall Church passage being narrow, about 6-8ft wide at the most.
All the buildings in the square appeared old, except one. I think even the gate in the corner, 'rippers corner' was still there with a notice posted on it.
St James passage was still covered and Kearley & Tonge's warehouse still stood.
I intentionally made it there at 1.00am on a Sunday morning to see how dark & quiet it was.
I recall thinking it like a cavern, footsteps echoed on the cobbles.
I stood on the murder spot and looked across the square and up Church passage. I think PC Harvey could have stood at the bottom end of the passage and not seen Jack crouched over the body, at least that was my impression. But I also do not recall any lighting in the square at all while I was there.
The only building I recall being recent was one built behind the gate in 'rippers corner', I think the empty houses that front onto Mitre Street were still there, but in the left corner (S/E?) was a newer building, all the rest appeared very old, probably original.
Regards, Jon |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 10:54 pm | | I haven't finished reading this board ... but wish to ask a question anyway.
The assumption is always that JtR wrote the message.
What if he did the opposite? Graffito was common.
What if he removed words from an existing graffito ? This might explain the strange grammar.
Hence he had no need of chalk & a rag was at hand.
John |
Author: Jon
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 11:35 pm | | | Finish reading the boards John,...all of 'em :-) |
Author: John CLare
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 07:22 am | | Hi, Jon.
I went to Mitre Square during my lunchtime, so it was full daylight, but still claustrophobic. At that time there didn't seem to be anything new at all.
As to reading all the boards, give us a chance, I found the site because my daughter is doing a musical about JTR (how wierd can you get) and they have chosen Druitt as the lead. I'll get through the rest in the near future. |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 08:07 am | | G'day John,
Druitt, is a good choice for the lead in a theatrical production about Jack the Ripper, because to end with him drowning in the Thames, is very.............
is very..............theatrical!
But after you've read through the boards, you will see that there's a lot more to this mystery!
Welcome. Please stay and talk to us!
LEANNE! |
|
|
|
|
