Author: NickDanger
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 03:52 am |        |
Hi Leather Apron, Anthony, et. al.
Thanks for your views on the Goulston Street Graffito. Very quickly (it's 3:30AM), in addressing Anthony's point about the unanimity of opinion among police officers about the word 'Juwes', the answer is simplicity itself. The police officers were transcribing exactly what appeared to them on the wall. If hurried writing or inexact formation of the letters 'e' and 'w' resulted in what looked like 'Juwes', that's exactly what the police would have recorded. No great mystery there.
As to whether it was written by the killer, I no longer have a definite view on the question. I appreciate everyone's input in the discussion of this interesting subject and hope I can follow up on this 'when I don't hurry so much'.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Antony Palmer
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 01:32 pm | |
Sorry Nick,
I didn't think I said anything different from that. Sure I didn't actually.
Anyway I'd still like some other explanation for the killer taking the piece of apron other than to authenticate the message. After all those who were present at Goulston street that morning were all of that opinion.
Antony Palmer |
Author: stephen stanley
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:15 pm | |
I could be wrong... but I seem to remember reading that the Graffito was on a Black dividing line(presumably one brick's width) between the lower and upper halves of the wall..remembering similiar arrangements from my schooldays we're looking at 3-4 ft from the floor
Steve S. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 06:45 pm | |
Stephen:
Much has been written about the graffiti & its supposed location. In actual fact there are few contemporary descriptions of it.
One of which is part of a personal memorandum from Charles Warren (Police Commissioner) to Henry Matthews (Home Office).
"There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan & City. The writing was on the jam of the open archway or doorway, visible to anybody in the street"
Anthony:
You will find some more thoughts on the apron & its travels in 'Dissertations' on the main menu.
Take a look at the 4th article from the bottom of the list, entitles; "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour"
Regards, Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 07:31 pm | |
Hello Antony,
You raise a very good point when you ask why did Jack take away a portion of Eddowes' apron.One explanation I toyed with is that at sometime before or during the attack on Eddowes,Jack himself was injured [possibly by his own carelessness]and used the piece of apron to cover his wound so as not to leave a trail of blood as he made his escape.He later ran into the doorway in Goulston street to examine his injury and discarded the filthy rag when found that the bleeding had stopped.
All pure speculation of course but a good percentage of posts to this site are just that!
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Antony Palmer
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 07:47 pm | |
Thanks Jon,
Of course Warren was the man behind the destruction of the evidence. If you look at the photo above I believe the words were written on the edge of the doorway in fact..'written in white chalk on the fascia of black bricks edging the doorway'. So Warren was technically right they were clearly visible from the street. It does seem amazing how quickly so many officers and superiors got to the scene, apraised the situation and acted in such a manner.
PC Long finds the apron at 2.55am
Takes apron to commercial street station at 3.10am
Soon after both the city and Met police are there.
Inspector McWilliam gives an order for the writing to be photographed.
Sir Charles Warren arrives at Leman street police station just before five.
Superintendant Thomas Arnold has already sent someone to wentworth buildings with a sponge to await his order.
Sir Charles Warren arrives at wentworth buildings around 5.15am
Chalk message wiped off at 5.30am
McWilliam and Major Smith afterwards voice their disapproval of Warrens decision.
Daniel Halse the city detective is the only one to protest at the scene.
It is an incredible series of events almost as much as the murders themselves. Warren of course intimates the possible powder keg atmosphere in the east end as reason. Nowadays the scene would have been sealed off to the public gaze and forensics would be sifting through the evidence. I still don't believe in any conspiracy on the part of Warren but it is still remarkable the speed in decision making when it was perhaps absent throught the hunt itself.
Antony Palmer |
Author: Antony Palmer
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 07:59 pm | |
Thanks Mick,
I'm no expert on medical progress at the time. I wonder when it was possible to distinguish blood types. I presume it was much later I would imagine. There was of course quite a period between the discovery of the eddowes body and the discovery of the apron, thirty seven minutes. It was only a five minute walk between the locations. What was JTR doing in this time, especially when you consider the huge police activity that was in full swing by now.
IF as I believe he did write the message he may have planned the Goulston location before the murder so was waiting for the opportunity. Whatever we are talking about a real will 'o the wisp here
regards Antony Palmer |
Author: Michael Lyden
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 09:06 pm | |
Antony,
I have an article in a copy of "The Harmsworth magazine" printed in 1898.The piece entitled "The medical detective and his work",describes in some detail how scientists were able to distinguish between blood and similar red stains,using an optical device called a spectroscope.If they established that it was infact blood,then they would use a microscope to ascertain whether it came from an animal or a human.This was achieved by studying the shape of the red corpuscles[the human type having a very distinctive shape].
No mention is made of catagorization of blood into types[I'm sure that came much later].
I hope all this ramling is of some interest.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 09:08 pm | |
Anthony.....you didnt read the article, did you.
Eddowes body found 1.44am....Apron found 2.55am
(where'd you get 37 mins from?)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Diana
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 10:59 am | |
| In response to Leather Apron's question about the behavior of wet surfaces and chalk I think I may have something to contribute. If a surface is dry such as a dry classroom chalkboard, a swipe with an eraser is all that is necessary to remove chalked writing, however application of water and a sponge or water and a rag will remove both the writing and the excess chalk which tends to cling to the board in smudges and swaths though the writing itself is utterly obliterated. Most classroom chalkboards are cleaned in this manner at the end of the day. If writing was already there and it was subjected to a driving rain I would tend to think it would most probably come off. A light mist or drizzle where you might get drips running down the wall would probably result in the writing being partially removed contiguous with the lines of drip. What most people don't know is that if a surface is already wet you can write on it quite easily with chalk. In fact the result is semi-permanent. A damp sponge or rag is needed to remove it. It will not come off with an ordinary eraser or a dry rag. Teachers who want to put lines on the board as guides to keep writing level and straight will first dampen the board and then use a yardstick to apply the lines. After the board has dried they can write on the lines. The writing can be erased using a dry eraser and the lines (applied when the board was wet) will remain so that they can be reused. I suppose that wet brick and a classroom chalkboard would not be exactly identical. A wet brick that was glazed would be nearly impossible to write on due to lack of porosity, but the same problem would exist if it was dry. If the rain that night was very heavy I would think that would increase the possibility of the writer being Jack because anything written before the rain would have had a good chance of being washed off or at least streaked. The fact that a sponge was ordered to remove the writing might mean that Warren was not very erudite about chalk (not needed for his job) or that chalk on brick will not be removed as easily as chalk on chalkboard or it might mean that someone took a swipe at it with their sleeve and discovered that it wouldn't come off indicating that it was applied after the rain but while the brick was still wet. |
Author: Antony Palmer
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 01:20 pm | |
Sorry Jon, you are of course right, even longer between the two discoveries!!
regards
Antony |
Author: LeatherApron
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 08:12 pm | |
Jon,
Thanks for providing that information. I agree wholeheartedly. I'd also like to mention that Commissioner Warren while defending himself and Scotland Yard had addressed the Whitechapel Board of Trade with a letter that was carried in the newspapers (The Times, Oct. 4) wherein he chastised them for the inadequate lighting that existed in parts of the east end. One could further deduce that maintenance of these lights could have been a problem as in the Mitre Square case. Just because a street lamp was there does not mean it was working.
Diana,
Thanks for your observations about chalk writing with respect to wet surfaces. The great thing about these boards is even if we don't get closer to finding out who JtR was we are at least learning new things from the plethora of people here with various backgrounds and experiences. And hopefully we're enjoying it too!
Mick,
Great speculation. Keep them coming!
Antony,
I admire your tenacity my friend. You wrote, "Anyway I'd still like some other explanation for the killer taking the piece of apron other than to authenticate the message. After all those who were present at Goulston street that morning were all of that opinion."
Just a couple of observations... the police (at least some) were also of the opinion that the killer was a raving lunatic who was foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog, but that doesn't make it so.
Regarding the apron and its use for authentication (I would propose it was merely for wiping off the bloody knife, pun intended) let me ask you a question, would you have taken such a big chance that the message could still have been overlooked if you had taken the trouble and risk to write it? I think Jack would have began the message with, "Here lies a piece of the whore's apron..." or at least drawn an arrow with the chalk from the apron up to the message.
Again, what does the cryptic message mean anyway? If it's a red herring, once you've identified it as such, it no longer serves its intended purpose of diverting attention.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Antony Palmer
Tuesday, 18 July 2000 - 03:16 pm | |
Well Jackyboy,
Thanks for the acknowledgment. I do have dificulty with your answer though. It wasn't in the rippers bag of tricks to signpost to the 'coppers'. He's hardly going to give them everything and he obviously had no intention of being caught. What better then giving them something to think about.
With regard to Steve Evans' if the apron had been dropped in the next alley in goulston street we would be talking about a different piece of grafitti', I just don't buy it. The trouble with authors targetting a specific suspect, if the evidence doesn't fall in with their theory it is dismissed.
As for jtr carrying this piece of apron around for an hour and ten minutes after the eddowes murder just to clean his knife on it, well it is frankly illogical and if we learn anything from the case it's how careful and methodical he was. If he wanted to clean the knife he does it at the scene. Serial killers follow a pattern. On none of the previous jobs does he remove a piece of clothing, so on this ocassion he does so for a specific purpose. He is not disturbed on this job. No one hears anything in mitre square. Pc Watkins an experienced policemen hears nothing as he enters the square. The ripper has had plenty of time to clean his blade.
Also to dismiss the police investigation is a trite unfair. Many of them were very acomplished men and probably the finest in the world at that time.
I guess this debate has a long way to run.
regards
Tony |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 01:14 am | |
Tony,
After re-reading my post I realized it sounded a bit rude. Sorry if it came across that way.
The time the Ripper carried around the piece of apron has never been positively ascertained. It is very likely that the PCs (Halse and Long) missed the piece of apron when they passed by at 2.20. Of course, I can't prove that. But no one can prove the graffito was written by the killer, so here we are. Remember (if memory serves), Long was a baker and this was his first night on the job. He was probably scared to admit that he hadn't noticed the bloody apron earlier.
I didn't mean to sound like I was completely dismissing the police and all of their efforts. There's no doubt there were a lot of good and intelligent men. That does not mean that they were all competent nor does it mean that it makes them any dumber than you or I for not having any idea who the killer was. A case in point is Commissioner Warren (who, I'd agree, had accomplished a lot before being appointed Commissioner) who steadfastly refused excellent suggestions from the public such as fingerprinting and fitting the police with "sneakers".
To say that it is illogical for the killer to clean his knife at the scene one time and not another is going against your own theory of the killer writing a message one time and not another. It is a perfectly normal thing for someone to realize they need some more paper to wipe their dirty hands and immediately get some. The fact that no one heard the Ripper at work does not mean that the Ripper didn't hear PC Watkins approaching. It is then logical that he hastily took a piece of cloth to wipe his hands on and departed immediately.
Again, there is reasonable doubt that the killer wrote the message. But if he did, what does it mean? Smith and Warren were both of the opinion that it was obviously meant to cast suspicion on the Jews. If they knew it was meant to "cast suspicion" then they knew it was a red herring and therefore an attempt to divert attention. If you've already explained your belief about the graffito, I probably missed it so please explain it again.
I will try to watch my tone as it seems to get (unintentionally) too sarcastic.
Regards,
Jackyboy ;-) |
Author: Antony Palmer
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 05:32 am | |
No problem Jack,
Very funny and no offence taken. Anyway my personal view about the grafitti is (as I believe its authenticity) I really have no idea what it means and I imagine neither did the police. Tricky Jack had his reasons I'm sure. Was it to implicate the Jews? Was he himself Jewish and was implicating himself? Is the message purposely cryptic or was it simply poor English on his part? What we do know is that those present that morning who saw the grafitti and were aware of all the environmental facts and the condition of the writing, (had it been raining etc) were of the opinion that he was the author. I don't think we can dismiss their opinions so easily. The grafitti was lying on some exposed brickwork and would have been clearly visible from the street. It was only written in chalk and it is difficult to imagine it remaining legible for any length of time in a busy market street.
Of course Warren who I don't have the greatest faith with, was an old stick in the mud but the inspectors on the ground were of high calibre. Warren was appointed commissioner to ground some military discipline and organisation to the force and largely succeeded in that. It is suprising though how involved he got in the actual ripper case, a man with no experience of police work or the gathering of evidence.
With regards to Jackyboy cleaning the knife I think it would be easier and quicker to give a cursory wipe at the scene than to cut a piece of apron from her garments. It is described as severed with a 'clean cut'.
Dr Brown's testimony on the apron 4th october. 'My attention was called to the apron ( found on the body).It was the corner of the apron with string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen a portion of an apron which had been found in Goulston street...I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have, the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston street.'
We can assume he cut the piece with the knife he used on the deed, thus imparting its gruesome remains on the offending piece. He may well have wiped some from his knife onto the piece of apron at the scene as well. The doctor refers to the 'piece of material' It would have been easy to cut away from the apron but I sense a deliberate hand by the reports description.
As for Pc Long well he would I think have been aware of at least one if not both the killings that night. He has been told no doubt to be aware of everything. His actions on finding the apron don't sound like the works of a total greenhorn. He casts around for signs of blood and deciphers the message. He leaves a constable at the scene and rushes to commercial police station, warranted takling the evidence with him. In todays police an offence in itself. He even returns to the scene of the crime and notifies in the inquest the obliteration of the message at 5.30.
Of course he 'could' have missed it but in terms of evidence that would be admissible we can only take his word....and he was positive that the apron was not there at 2.20. I don't know about Long being a baker! By my information PC Long 254A had been drafted in temporarily from A Division in Westminster to Whitechapel.
regards
Tony |
Author: David M. Radka
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 10:09 am | |
I've been working on the Goulston Street grafitto, and have deduced the following anagrams from it:
KELLY IS NEXT. I CUT A BITCH IN BERNER. ABBERLINE NOW SEQUESTER STEPHEN. BERTIE.
BIG MAN WARREN NOW BLAME THE JUWES. WATCH THE FIRE ON THE DOCKS. AN ORGY WITH KELLY.
BEN DISRAELI KNOWS. OUTRAN THE JUW IN ROMFORD. DIDN'T USE THE HORSES. HUTCH.
Please advise Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow immediately of these developments. Thanks,
David |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 10:16 am | |
| If the message was at least halfway down the wall it tells us something. If it had been near the top before the rain started it might have survived, but if you think about it rain rarely comes down straight and all the droplets which hit the wall above the message were either absorbed by the brick or ran down over the message. The amount of water flowing over the message would increase as you go lower in the wall because it would be cumulative. In 1888 women wore full skirts. I don't know how narrow the sidewalk was, but if the message was placed low any woman passing by could have smeared it. If Warren ordered a sponge and bucket because a dry wipe had already been tried and found ineffective, it was because the message was applied after the rain, thus increasing the chances that the writer was JtR. |
Author: Antony Palmer
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 10:57 am | |
Thanks guys,
The anagrams are all very ingenious but really David to implicate poor old Hutch from the cult hit 70's series. Isn't that a bit unfair.
For Diana do we have any documented description of weather conditions on that night for the area.
regards
Tony |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 11:03 am | |
Tony,
Thanks for restating your position on the GSG.
Seems we were both right about Long. Long was a baker and joined MEPO in 1884. So he was not as green as a frog, though it was his first night on this beat and he was probably in the process of orienting himself.
The more I think about it, the more the time is becoming inconsequential. How do we know the ripper wasn't backtracking or circling and spent a considerable amount of time in the area? If he did or didn't it doesn't amount to anything.
Diana and Tony,
Chief Inspector Swanson stated that the chalk was 'blurred'. Superintendent Arnold concluded immediately that the graffito had nothing to do with the murder. (The JTR A-Z)
Graffiti was common in the area and chalk requires some effort to remove.
The only evidence that it had anything to do with the murder at all is circumstantial. That's the problem with this entire murder case, unfortunately. If you can not prove that the graffito was written by the killer, then it's reasonable to doubt that it was. To me (and probably to a jury) it requires a direct connection (like something I mentioned before) where the killer would indicate that he'd left it.
I would like to toss in one last bit of speculation that agrees with one of your statements Tony to kindle a spark of doubt... let's say the Ripper used the piece of cut apron at the murder scene to wipe his hands. He then stuffed it in his pocket and departed. It then fell from his pocket where it was found and he was none the wiser that he'd lost it.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 11:19 am | |
| If the chalk was blurred then the probability would be that it was written before the rain. I think we have managed to solve one small piece of this riddle! The graffiti had nothing to do with JtR. The fact that the policeman did not notice it on his first pass through suggests that in all probability the piece of apron was likewise present and passed over. |
Author: Antony Palmer
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 12:39 pm | |
Hi Jack, Diana,
You mention the difficulty in removing chalk. Hmmm, I'm not so sure about that one and I'd love to know your evidence behind the alledged profusion of grafitti in the area. The trouble with your case is that I'm sure the police asked the inhabitants of the buildings if they had seen the writing there before. Remember this would have been visible from the street and from anyone leaving and entering the block. If as seems logical no one had seen it before that night (otherwise it would be documented wouldn't it) then it seems probable it was written that night, therefore...blah blah blah.
Plus as Warren intimated in his reason for sponging the writing off, it could have caused a riot.
Something's just come to me actually:
The blurring could easily nay surely have been caused by the ripper himself. As he wrote further down or along his clothing would naturally have come in contact with the fresh chalk. It would have blurred.
Jack also why would he stuff the apron in his pocket. It is of no use after he's wiped his hands surely. Also why is he in the alley in Goulston street, waiting for a bus maybe!!...- Joke.
regards Tony |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 02:12 pm | |
Diana , the statement that grafitti was common in the area is correct , but I think it is fair to say that we have no evidence of a piece in any way similar to the Goulston Street writing. I can honestly say that I have never seen a piece like it in my lifetime , as far as I can remember anyway.
Since the crimescene was guarded by policemen after the body was found , I think we can be almost certain that it was Jack who took the piece of apron from Mitre Square. Therefore it was Jack who left it in Goulston Street. Thus I don't think we can doubt that Jack at least saw the Goulston Street grafitti , even if he didn't write it ; thus since he left the piece of apron below the writing it must have summarised his views in some way.
The point is by leaving the piece of apron under the grafitti Jack WAS sending a message to the police. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 05:52 pm | |
Congratulations David,
Your work on the Goulston street graffito anagrams
is possibly the most significant development in this area of the subject,that we have seen in recent years.
I am also working along similar lines,only I am using a very powerful piece of software to extract the encrypted data,using equi-distant letter sequences.I am,of course devoting every waking hour to this,the most worthwhile of projects.
Regards,
Mick Lyden. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 09:30 pm | |
First off I would like to point out that David is the only one who has posted correctly on this board. This is the anagrams implicating Druitt board. Come to think of it, David didn't implicate Druitt so he's wrong as well! (You'll have to try harder next time David)
Antony,
I don't see how Stewart Evans' comment about different alley, different graffiti is some how tied up with his suspect or a dismissal of the evidence. It is just an astute observation based on the fact that the only reason that we pay any attention to the Juwes (or Juewes) graffiti is because of it's close proximity to the piece of discarded apron. As Leather Apron has mentioned, via the statements of Walter Dew, the area was teeming with graffiti, some of it supposedly signed by the killer, a fact which apparently increased once the name Jack the Ripper came into vogue. No apron, no attention paid to it.
The blood and fecal matter on the apron was not the result of cutting the apron with the knife, (there was too much on it for that) but in all probability, was used by the killer to wipe his hands/knife. "It is assumed, (by the doctors), from certain bloodstains upon the portion which was torn away that the murderer had taken it for the purpose of wiping his hands upon it..." From the Daily Telegraph, 2nd October 1888. The "piece of material" Dr. Brown refers to was a patch sewn on the apron to cover a hole or rip.
As to your observation that "it would be easier and quicker to give a cursory wipe at the scene than to cut a piece of apron from her garments." I agree totally, however we can only speculate and/or jump to the conclusion that the apron was taken in order to draw attention to some very obscure, tiny chalk writing on the side of an archway. PC Long, testifying at the inquest, stated that he only noticed the writing when he was searching for bloodstains, i.e. when he was paying close attention and using his bulls-eye lamp.
As to weather conditions that night, it was cool, had rained earlier on in the evening but the rain had stopped by around midnight.
Leather Apron,
Chief Inspector Swanson did indeed state that the chalk was 'blurred', however we don't have any evidence that he ever saw the writing. Detective Sergeant Halse stated to the Coroner that the writing had the appearance of having been recently done. When Mr. Crawford, the city solicitor asked why he thought the message had recently been written, Halse answered, "It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing." PC Long had stated that he could offer no opinion as to if the graffiti had looked to have been recently written.
One interesting side note about Halse's testimony at the inquest. He also passed down Goulston Street at about 2:20 that morning and stated that he had passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found and had noticed nothing but even though he was on the lookout, he, "should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron."
Diana,
The message was not written near the ground. Some confusion seems to reign because of PC Long's statement that the apron was lying in the passage and, "Above on the wall was written in chalk" the message. That doesn't mean right above it, inches away.
Sir Charles Warren did not order "a sponge and bucket" to wipe out the message. It was Inspector Arnold who had done so. Upon arriving at Leman Street police station in the early morning of the murders, Arnold briefed Warren and advised him that the chalk message should be obliterated. He told Warren that he had already sent an Inspector to Goulston Street "with a sponge for the purpose of removing the writing." Warren decided that it should be his decision to do so, (i.e. he should take the responsibility or blame) and so stopped at Goulston Street on his way to Berner Street. It is unclear whether Arnold himself ever saw the message and therefore realised that a sponge was needed but it is clear that no attempted "dry wipe" would have taken place without Warren's permission. In all probability, Arnold just assumed that a sponge was necessary to wipe clean the brick.
Wolf. |
Author: LeatherApron
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 11:36 pm | |
Wolf,
Now you're guilty of not giving us an anagram that implicates Druitt too.
;-)
Just to stay in compliance...
MONTY PLAY CRICKET FIND WOMAN THEN RIP IT
I already knew everything you mentioned except Halse's testimony about "...it would have been rubbed out by the people passing".
My statement still stands about Superintendent Arnold who went to the spot. It depends upon whose opinion you believe. Sigh.
Thanks for your comments.
Mick,
Once you are done, please write another decryption program for the Lusk letter. I have a sneaky suspicion it is encrypted code. "Kidne" and "nise" and "knif"? Come on. The killer was sending an encrypted message and we MUST find the key!
Regards,
Jack |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 02:21 pm | |
Mr. Apron, I believe this is the correct message:
THE JUWES ARE
THE MEN THAT
WILL NOT BE BLAMED
FOR NOTHING
rendered thus:
"NOT THE TIME, THEN, TO WRITE FEEBLE ANAGRAM BULLSH**" --M. JOHN D.
(one "W" is inverted to form an "M")
Simon--On a somewhat more serious note, there possibly were stange chalked messages around Whitechapel. Note Forbes Winslow's characteristically strange statement from an article in Umpire:
"So well-known was my association with
the hunt for Jack-the-Ripper that he
actually wrote to me. These two epistles
are, I firmly believe, genuine, because
the writing corresponds with various
inscriptions chalked under Whitechapel arches..."
Coming from F.W. this should possibly be taken with a grain of salt.
RJP |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 19 July 2000 - 08:42 pm | |
| If the chalk was blurred it would not have been done by Jack's sleeve provided that the brick was still wet when he wrote. Chalk applied to wet blackboards (at least) is impervious to dry wipe. If the writing was not blurred, then I have another suggestion to make. I will postulate a PC (Let's call him PC Jones). PC Jones has had a rather comfortable existence until all this Ripper mess got started, walking his beat, taking a break at the station, sipping his tea and collecting his pay. He is heartily sick of the whole thing. The public pressure felt by Warren, et. al. has percolated down to PC Jones and has forced him to put in extra hours, be yelled at by his overworked supervisor and just generally made his life miserable. PC Jones is also an antisemite. In fact he tends to blame the "Juwes" for everything that goes wrong in his life. On the night of the double event Jones has been harassed and driven by his superiors beyond endurance. Catherine Eddowes has just been found. Overworked, tired and irritable he is ordered to scour the East End along with everyone else for the fleeing Ripper. As Jones strides along Goulston Street his frustration boils over. He looks around to see if anyone is watching and then chalks his lament on a handy wall. He is convinced that JtR is a "Juw" and that the "Juwes" are being obstructive when they insist that JtR is not necessarily one of them. "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." He does not notice the rag lying on the sidewalk. Imagine his horror when he finds out that the rag was significant, that he has unintentionally created a red herring, that questions are being asked in Parliament as to why Warren wiped it off. Will he come forward and admit that he was the writer? Not if he values his job! I postulate PC Jones because if it was written after the rain and not by JtR, then what other kind of person would have been in that area at that time on that day? |
Author: Antony Palmer
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 02:25 am | |
Hi all,
Just to go over a point I wrote earlier. The grafitti was written in a very exposed place, clearly visible from the street and to anyone entering the tenemants. The police undoubtedly questioned the occupants as to whether they had seen the writing before. As the vast majority of those investigating the murders were of the opinion it was a genuine piece of evidence, then the only conclusion to be drawn can be that it was written sometime during the night. In that case the most likely suspect is JTR.
Wolf
You say 'close proximity' to the apron. Isn't this just playing with words to give credence to your own opinions. It is clear, PC Long found the apron just beneath the writing.
As for Walter Dew and his memoirs you are quoting from recolllections of an old man years after the events. I am trying to deal with facts as they were deduced on the night of the discovery. Didn't Dew also think Mrs Mortimer had seen Jack the ripper (the infamous black bag carrying suspect), a man Leon Goldstein who presented himself to the police and was eliminated from the enquiry. Clearly Dew's recollections of that time leave a lot to be desired.
With regards to whether he wiped his hands, knife or whatever on the piece of apron it is largely immaterial. The fact that he carries it from the scene of the crime is the only point of interest.
You also going back to the grafitti mention the signing of grafitti Jack the ripper and its presence in every doorway in London. Of course the name is a newspaper hacks invention. The fact that he dosen't sign it jtr should not go against the authenticity of the writing and in many ways gives credence to it.
With regard to Long's testimony that the writing was not immediately obvious well you said it all. He's searching for blood on the floor, not on the brickwork. If he had been searching for grafitti no doubt he would have noticed it earlier.
Just to go back to a point I made earlier in this thread. The murders that night had certainly a 'Jewish' connection. First it is likely the suspect shouts 'Lipski' at a passing Jew or another man. Secondly his murders Stride in front of the Jewish socialist club. Lastly he drops the apron beneath rooms largely occupied by Jews. I don't think this can be dismissed so lightly and does give credence to the authenticity. This is an opinion which may have induced Warren to destroy the evidence.
regards
Tony |
Author: Scott Nelson
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 05:47 am | |
| Couldn't the piece of apron have been used to carry portions of organs, which were stored at some other locality, the killer then returning to the Goulston doorway to discard it? Someone, I believe Jon Smyth, said he thought this scenario was possible. Correct me if I'm wrong Jon. |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 08:53 pm | |
Hello Everybody,
One alternative reason for the graffiti could be that an occupant of the dwellings saw the apron, deduced its origin, realised its implication, and wrote a cack handed denial.
Think about it, there were murmurings at the time, and therafter, that the killer was Jewish. Add the complication of the location of a bona fide clue and we may then surmise that the graffiti is an almost aggressive denial. The JEWS are the men that WILL NOT be BLAMED FOR NOTHING. In the colloquial context, nothing should be read as anything.
With regard to the graffiti height if memory serves me correctly the door jamb, which would be around nine inches wide, was two tone. White at the top, black below seperated at dado height, i.e. around three feet. Therefore, for the writing to be visible it would have to be placed on a dark background neccessitating the need for the curiously spaced wording and level.
Finally, to bring this posting back to the stated subject...I can't bring myself to think about it.
Thanking you and hoping you all have a nice weekend.
Jim Leen |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 20 July 2000 - 10:49 pm | |
Yes Scott
That was one of the issues I raised in the 'A piece of Apron, some chalk graffiti and a lost hour' in the list of dissertations on the main menu.
One other point was the distance that the piece of apron was carried. Several people seem to be under the impression that Jack just cast it aside in the nearest available doorway, not so.
Incidently, I wrote it for consideration only, not as some background to an overall theory.
Jim:
For your scenario to be realistic, dont you think it would have been more practical to remove the apron?
Regards, Jon |
Author: Ellie Hurst
Tuesday, 10 April 2001 - 04:03 pm | |
Hello everyone, I am a new recruit! I wondered how many anagrams have been made regarding JTR.
I read in the Wilding book many regarding Bertie.
I also wondered if any other authors had explored the possibility of clues coming in this form?
Cheers all.
Ellie |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 06:15 am | |
The Lewis Carroll Lunacy plays with anagrams and word games.
Martin Fido |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 11 April 2001 - 07:06 pm | |
Dear Martin,
"Curiously spaced wording"...together with a school-boyish handwriting...do you supposed Jack deliberately avoided 'printing' the text for some-as yet- unknown consequence?
A cryptical/elliptical
Marry a Roesy, no?
:-)) |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 07:03 am | |
Dear Marry a Rosey? - No, I'm afraid, to both the question in your text and the question in your signature.
Martin |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 02:54 pm | |
Dear Martin,
I suspect Ivor might?
Marry a Roesy-no? |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 04:32 pm | |
The queues would be five deep, Rosey-no darling, if there weren't more married than unmarried men around.
Martin |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 07:43 pm | |
Telling Martin porky's about the 'Butler' Rosy.Aint good. What's yer game ducks? What other porkys yer bin saying? What yer bin up ta nah?.
Sort her out Martin. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Thursday, 12 April 2001 - 09:36 pm | |
Dear Ivor,
I bin telin' loadsa Porkys cos ther true Porks!But since we have a rebbit present I got to hold me toung, see. Rebbit & Porkys dont go totether..
tha one eets tother.
The OSA has a mediating effect on Rosy...if yer gets me meening? But since yer so interested, I told David to go to Waco and establish his Church,
and so, one thing leads to another! Ain't life just a little bit strange...Tim McVey! So where does this man fall in your remit of murder?
St Mary Rose! |
