|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 19 February 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Arthur Conan Doyle? Should he now be considered a suspect?:
Archive through 19 February 2001
Author: Jeffrey Malbisse
Monday, 18 September 2000 - 11:40 pm |        | Now that Reuters has revealed that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is prime suspect in the murder of Bertram Fletcher Robinson (see the story at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000909/re/britain_doyle_dc_1.html is you aren't familiar with the story), should he now be considered as a suspect in the Whitechapel murders?
He makes at least as good as suspect as Lewis Carroll -- probably better. After all, he had the medical background, and was a Mason to boot. Also, the varying descriptions given by witnesses accords with Doyle's alter ego, Holmes, as a master of disguise. Need it also be said that Holmes was a misogynist, perhaps reflecting a deep-seated feeling of Doyle?
It should also be remembered that Doyle was the one who suggested, contrary to all common sense, that the murder was a woman(!), or at least a man disguised as a woman. It should have been obvious to one of his deductive skills that prostitutes would never have conducted a woman to their "private place of business," where the murders took place.
There are also details of his personal life during the critical time period that fit the psychological "triggers" profilers sometimes look for: he was married in 1884, completed a grueling doctorate in 1885, and started trying to supplement his income at the same time by writing -- and his stories were not well-received by the public at first. his father was institutionalized in 1886, and his mother became a permanent part of his household. (His mother's long-term affair with a lodger during his father's prolonged illness and alcoholism had embittered him and is reflected in his later writing.) On top of that, his wife became pregnant during 1888 and it is possible that Doyle was having an affair.
What do you think? Should another name be added to the list of Ripper suspects?
Malbisse |
Author: Barry Street
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 01:54 am | | | No. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 04:47 am | | | unlikely but didn't he go to the Boer war shortly after the murders? |
Author: Feebles
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 05:52 am | | | I agree, he does make at least as good a suspect as Lewis Carroll. |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 07:12 am | | Hello Everybody,
From memory, which is slightly less what's the word again?, didn't Conan Doyle write a story where the Ripper was actually a policeman? I'll try and confirm these sketchy details later.
Incidentally, wasn't Conan Doyle's affair linked to the fact that his wife was terminally ill?
Thanking you etc
Jim Leen |
Author: Jim Kay
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 08:12 am | | Are there any famous Victorian's who are not JTR?
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's later life does not give any feasible suggestion as to why the murders stopped, other than a sudden self healing and purging of any anger or resentment.
many thanks
Jim Kay |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 01:54 pm | | So because it is possible Conan Doyle MAY have stolen a story idea, we then leap to he was unhappy at the reception garnered his writings, MAY have had an affair, POSSIBLY killed his friend, and MIGHT have been the Ripper? Garbage, utter garbage. In any event, Jeffrey, Michael Avellone preceded your thought by years in his "A Theory Holmes Would Have Liked" in the August 2, 1973 'Daily Express," when he put forth Conan Doyle as a suspect.
But to the matter at hand, I quote from Volume 2 of "The Annotated Sherlock Holmes," page 113, in the 'auctorial and bibliographical note:'
"In March of 1901, Conan Doyle and his friend Fletcher Robinson (who later wrote 'The Chronicles of Addington Peace;' London: Harper, 1905) were on a golfing holiday at the Royal Links Hotel at Cromer in Norfolk. "One raw Sunday afternoon when a wind rushed in off the North Sea," while lounging in the comfort of their private sitting room, Robinson began telling legends of Dartmoor, one of which concerned a spctral hound. By the end of the month, Conan Doyle was at work on the story, which, at first, he had no intention of making an adventure of Sherlock Holmes. Then he thought to himself, "Why should I invent a character when I had him already in the form of Holmes?". . .Conan Doyle had suggested that Robinson collaborate with him on the novel; although Robinson refused the offer, Conan Doyle acknowledged his debt by dedicating the novel to him."
Also, on page 10, note 19:
"As Mr Bliss Austin has demonstrated in his monograph, "Dartmoor Revisited, or Discoveries in Devonshire," the 'West-Country legend' Conan Doyle used as his point of departure for the legend of the Baskervilles would seem to have been that of Sir Richard Cabell, Lord of the Manor of Brook, in the parish of Buckfastleigh. He was a gentleman of evil repute and on the night of his death, black hounds breathing fire and smoke raced over Dartmoor and howled around his manor house. According to the Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould, in his 'Methuen's Little Guide to Devon,' Sir Richard's death took place in 1677."
Jim - I wonder if you are thinking of Thomas Burke's "The Hands of Mr Ottermole," in which a policeman is the Ripper? I am unaware of a Doyle effort in this manner, though it is certainly possible. He was interviewed in the "Portsmouth Evening News" of July 4 1894 demonstrating how Holmes might have solved the case through examination of the Ripper letters. Michael Dibdin's "The Last Sherlock Holmes Story" (an absolutely awful novel, by the way) posits Holmes as the Ripper.
CMD |
Author: stephen stanley
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 05:11 pm | | Thomas,
Conan Doyle couldn't have gone straight to a war which didn't start til' 1899.....
Steve S. |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 September 2000 - 08:06 pm | | Hi all:
I don't know whether or not what you will read below is the cast of the Arthur Conan Doyle-as-Jack the Ripper movie, but I have just received the following unsolicited e-mail from someone using the e-mail address mccutcheonj@primustel.com headed "Film (Good News)." Judge for yourself.
Chris George
*******************************
Just so you can pass this message on - I have 2 very interesting facts that have not been mentioned now or in the past. I know some senior ranking Police Officers at Scotland Yard. Now dear sirs here is some news. I have been passed some information informing me of who the killer is!! I will pass this information on - however there is a serious twist to this story and I'm sure you will all be in shock. The other is a film - now being made not get this !! starring:
Christoper Plummer
Christopher Reeve
Jack Palance
Chris Eubank
Katherine Zeta Jones
Bob Hoskins
MeatLoaf
David Soul
Lance Henrikson
Angelina Jolie
Kate Beckinsdale
Samantha Januss
Angelica Huston
Richard Attenborough
Sam Beckett
Tony Lorenzzo
Gabriel Byrne
Tom Contti
Jasper Carrot
Timothy Hutton
Great cast I know of a few other names but they are being signed up some of which are too busy getting involved with Pearl Harbour.
***********************
Quick aside: Do all those stars get thirty seconds each? And how does Pearl Harbour (sic) fit with Jack the Ripper..... well if you take the date of Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, and the dates of the canonical five murders..... You get the idea. CTG |
Author: Jill De Schrijver
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 03:55 am | | Hi Chris,
Katherina Zeta Jones: MJK
Angelina Jolie:Liz Stride?
Angelica Huston: Catherine Eddowes
Kate Beckinsdale, Samantha Januss: Don't know them
Cristopher Reeve: someone in a utra-modern wheelchair for 1888.
Jack Palance: Police Inspector
Bob Hoskins: Carman
Meatloaf: One of the butchers at the site of Nichols
Tom Conti: Kosminski?
Richard Attenborough: one of the doctors or coroners
Timothy Hutton: Hutchinson
Do I win a prize? :-)
Jill |
Author: D L Lewis
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 05:58 pm | | Hi, everyone,
Jim, you may be thinking of W. S. Baring-Gould's biography of Sherlock Holmes which posits Inspector Athelney Jones as the Ripper, a case Watson solves.
Conan Doyle as the Ripper! I think now it may have been an establishment/masonic/literature conspiracy. Doyle, with his medical training, Lewis Carroll with his gift for word-games, J. K. Stephen, just because, George Bernard Shaw, to heighten awareness of the squalor of the East End, Jerome K. Jerome, playing his funny little games, Stephen Adams, to frame his brother, in cahoots with Gilbert and Sullivan, one of who was drowned to cover the secret, and William McGonagall, frustrated at his lack of gift all conspired to kill five illiterate women, so as to fight falling royalty cheques. G. K. Chesterton has placed clues throughout Father Brown (all those Murders!). Queen Victoria had to keep it quiet, as she had, or was about to, knight most of the above.
D. Lewis |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 20 September 2000 - 10:38 pm | | | I nominate Queen Victoria. Or maybe my grandmother who was born in Wisconsin in 1872? |
Author: D L Lewis
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 12:52 am | | | I forgot to mention Oscar Wilde, the evil, insane mastermind of it all. Doyle used him as the model for Thaddeus Sholto in the sign of the four, and there must be forty thousand anagrams (placed by Lewis Carroll) throughout the whole book. |
Author: NickDanger
Thursday, 21 September 2000 - 02:29 am | | Hi all,
My favorite suspect remains Mohandas K. Gandhi. He was a student in London in 1888 and his whereabouts could never be satisfactorally accounted for. The godlike existence he led in the twentieth century was merely an attempt to atone for the horrendous depradations he committed in Whitechapel in 1888. Anyone want to help me negotiate the movie rights?
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: stephen borsbey
Friday, 22 September 2000 - 04:37 pm | | don,t you dare suspect my hero queen victoria!!!!!and should that be.
samantha.j.anus.(considering her acting) |
Author: LeatherApron
Friday, 29 September 2000 - 12:36 pm | | Nick old pal!
Yeah, we know what was really written in the GSG...
"The Hindus Are Not the Men..."
I seem to recall from a chatroom discussion that you wanted to know where my short story was located. Now that the site's back up, I see it's still posted here. Go to the main page and start with the small menu in the upper left corner that begins with "Introduction". Click "More" and then "Original Ripper Fiction". Then follow the link to "Jack Knife". It's the last one on the page.
I wrote it for myself and for others who want a vicarious thrill. Once you've had a chance to read it, send me an e-mail and let me know who the suspect is based on his description. His name is never mentioned but it's easy for the average Jackologist.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 07:30 pm | | Re: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as Jack the Ripper:
A little hard to accept, but inevitable. After
all, Sherlock Holmes formally appears in December
1887, in Beeton's Christmas Annual, with the
publication of A Study in Scarlet. I commented
about this in a small article I wrote for a book
WHO WAS JACK THE RIPPER? A COLLECTION OF PRESENT
-DAY THEORIES AND OBSERVATIONS (London: Gray
House Books, 1995). My point in that book was
that in the novel, one of the scenes had a message
written on the wall: one word "Rache". Lestrade
jumps at the conclusion it is a woman's name,
Rachel, at the basis of the killing of a man near
the wall. Holmes mentions it is German for "revenge". Only nine months or so later somebody
wrote "Juwes" on Goulston Street's wall, and
that had two apparent meanings too. I wasn't
suggesting Conan Doyle was the Whitechapel murderer, but I did suggest that the person who
wrote on Goulston Street might have got the idea
from the novel. [By the way, in the novel the
murders are revenge murders, so Holmes' interpretation of "Rache" is correct - naturely!]
Conan Doyle was a complex enough man. So complex
that no current biography (there have been over
a dozen) is perfect in explaining him. To imagine
him as Jack the Ripper is unfair. He had a streak
of the chivalrous knights of old that appeared
in his historic novels, THE WHITE COMPANY and
SIR NIGEL, somewhat out of step even in Victoria's
time. When one of his sons made a disparaging
remark about a woman, Sir Arthur slapped him and
said that every woman was a lady. That is not
a comment I would associate with Jack the Ripper.
He fell in love with his second wife while his
first was dying, but resolutely refused to have
a messy and selfish affair. As a result his first
wife did not know about the second lady, and died
after nearly a decade of declining health (no there was no foul play involved).
In recent years, as his memory remains green with
readers, Conan Doyle pops up in novels as a
detective too. He also occasionally crops up
as a suspect, but in non-criminal crimes. I am
referring to a theory, about ten or fifteen years
old, suggesting that Conan Doyle planted or helped
to plant the bogus bones that are at the center of
the Piltdown Hoax of 1912. I think most of you
are aware of the story, of how remains of the
oldest living example of a man like creature were
found in Piltdown, in Sussex, England, by a local
amateur archeologist named Charles Dawson. The
remains looked (if they were real) like the missing link: a creature with the jaw of an ape
and the cranium of a man. It was proposed that
the hoax (not revealed as such until 1953) was
the work of Conan Doyle, who wanted to discredit
scientists who were at work attacking his pet
ideas about the psychic and spiritualist world.
The problem about such an attack is that Conan
Doyle did not start getting deeply involved in
spiritualism until he suffered a series of personal losses and deaths (including his mother
and oldest son) during the years of World War I.
These were after the "great discovery" at Piltdown. He also had only a narrow involvement
in the actual case. He may have visited the
site on three occasions, and he knew Dawson slightly (he had to ask a local expert some
questions on fossile dinosaur tracks, and was
directed to Dawson, who subsequently visited
Conan Doyle's home). Attempts have been made
to link Conan Doyle's Professor Challenger novel,
THE LOST WORLD, to the digging at Piltdown, but
there is little that really connects them, except
that the novel was written in 1912. For a careful review of the evidence (and a good read)
see John Evangelist Walsh's UNRAVELLING PILTDOWN
(New York: Random House, 1996). Walsh dismisses
the theory about Conan Doyle and Piltdown.
My guess is that Sir Arthur looks like an attractive figure because his best known work is
a fictional view of Victorian and Edwardian crime. But I doubt he would like being considered for the title of Whitechapel Murderer.
He did come up with a theory that the murderer was
a woman, a midwife. The best account of this,
and of his work as a real life detective and
solver of crimes, is in Peter Costello's THE REAL
WORLD OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (New York: Carroll and
Graf, Publishers, 1991).
If I may suggest a person who might be at least
looked at as a terciary possible suspect, known
to Conan Doyle (though it is just a matter of
a suggestion - I have no real interest in it),
I suggest you read about George Edalji. In 1903,
Edalji was arrested for cattle mutilations, found
guilty after a trial, and sent to prison. He
protested his innocence. Conan Doyle studied the
case, and came to the conclusion that the wrong
man was arrested and punished. His candidate was
one Roylston Nash, an old classmate and enemy of
Edalji's, who had a bad temper and a liking for
using the knife. While there are many questions
still unsettled about the Edalji case, Nash may
be worth at least examining.
Oh, let me clear something up. In one of the letters in this thread, there was a reference to
Gilbert and Sullivan, and how Gilbert drowned in
his swimming pool. That is frequently how his
biographies conclude but they are wrong. On May
29, 1911, while he was trying to rescue a young
lady who was in distress in the pool (apparently
beyond her safe level), Gilbert had a fatal heart
attack and sank while dying. He did not drown. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 15 February 2001 - 08:53 pm | | Hello Jeff,
I found your article titled "On the Danger Of Writing Graffiti Too Cleverly" very well done. I do agree that the killer got the idea for the writing from Doyle's book "A Study In Scarlet" 1887. Doyle and D'Onston had pieces printed in the same edition of the Pall Mall Gazzete in Nov 1888. So they would have read each others work. More to the point Doyle and D'Onston shared the same interests including Madam Blavatsky. They moved in the same circles. I cover this subject at greater depth in my book. As you are aware many points connect D'Onston ( and the murders ) to Doyle's work. I hope you continue to post your quality articles on the casebook. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 11:34 am | | Hi, Jeff:
I join Ivor in thanking you for your detailed and informative post on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. From my point of view, I think you are both being hasty in concluding that the killer got the idea for the writing on the wall in Goulston Street from Doyle's book, A Study In Scarlet (1887), and especially hasty I believe because we cannot be sure that the killer was responsible for that enigmatic scrawl.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 02:30 pm | | Does anyone know if the word "Juews" or "Juewes" means anything (other than a reference to ethnicity or religious belief)in German, Polish, or other languages spoken by immigrants who resided in noticeable numbers in the WhiteChapel area in 1888?
JD |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Friday, 16 February 2001 - 09:44 pm | | Thanks to Chris and Ivor for responding. As for
Jack's questions, I am not aware of any words
like "Juews" or "Juewes". As far as I know, the
German word is "Juden". At least it was up to
the 1930s and 1940s.
There is an issue I would like to have someone
explain to me. Why is it that everyone seems
to accept the idea that if the killer wrote the
words on the Goulston Street wall, he did it
while in the process of running just slightly
ahead of the police? Wouldn't it have been more
sensible for the killer, if he wrote the phrase on
the wall, to have first (at his leisure) scrawled
it BEFORE the murder, as though he was just writing some graffiti (who would have cared at that moment - there had been no killing yet), and
then, when running away from the murder site leaving a trail that passes the wall (and makes
his pursuers slow down even more - they're reading his message now). I would be curious
to have some feedback on this matter...a matter
of timing.
Jeff |
Author: Christopher T George
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 01:48 am | | Hi Jeff:
The killer running away from the murder scene to scrawl the graffiti and drop the piece of apron is the traditional scenario, but you are quite correct that the killer conceivably could have written the words hours earlier and returned after Catherine Eddowes's murder to deposit the bloody apron (or whatever else he might have had handy from the woman he had just murdered). An argument against this having been the sequence of events, however, is that no policeman noticed it earlier on. Such an inflammatory piece of graffiti could have caused problems and the police may have wished it gone, just the way Warren finally ordered that the wording be destroyed. ... And has been second-guessed by armchair detectives ever since! 
Chris |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 10:56 am | | | Good point Jeff, Mr D has made a valid point in reply. The evidence given by PC Alfred Long, and he was most adamant on this point,was that the writing on the wall was not on the scene prior to 2.20am. In fact, it was found at 2.55am. So this is evidence that the killer did not go straight to Goulston Street on leaving Mitre Square. So where did he go? It is interesting to note that we also have a missing period of time from when the killer left Berner Street, prior to 1.00am, to when he was seen with Eddowes at the entrance to Church Passage. I believe that the killer left Berner St and went to ground halfway between sites. He went to ground at the same place on leaving Mitre Square and before he went to Goulston St.As far as I am aware no one has come up with the idea of Jack using two addresses. My suspect was in the London Hospital at the time of the murders but my evidence shows he also used a second bolt hole near the centre. This has never been disclosed until now.I believe that he went to this 2nd bolt hole after murders 2,3,4,5. Note how the routes from these sites lead back to the centre, all in the same pattern.Notice how straight the routes are. The most efficient way to travel from A to B is in a straight line. Try doing this in a built up area without planning it first. Note the layout of all of these sites from the centre. I can reach the centre from sites 3,4,5 in only a difference of 18 seconds. I cover this at great depth in my book. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 11:17 am | | | Should have put MR G not D, sorry.It is my belief that the apron piece was left near the writing to show that the killer wrote the message. His aim was twofold.It is my belief that the killer was laying a false trail by doing so. I wish to make it clear that I am simply giving information.My intention is not to debate the matter as yet. Do not think that because Melvin is no longer on these boards that I am his substitute. I am not.I will ignore the type of smug and snide posts which he and others recieved. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 12:03 pm | | Well, if Long said it was not there when he
passed, that doesn't mean that shortly after he
passed it could not have been written by the
killer (if the killer wrote it). It is just that,
even if you are an egotistical killer like Jack,
you have enough sense of self-preservation to
know that you can't stop running with police
chasing you, to write messages down.
I agree that to us the message is inflammatory
towards Jews (or towards Masons, for people who
note that spelling - if it was Juwes), but in
1888 anti-Semitism was more open than it generally
is today, and more tolerated as a way of letting
people vent feelings. If there had been no
killings that night, the scrawl on the wall would
have been left there until the buildings owner
decided to wash it off for some reason. It is
the murders that made it really inflammatory.
Thanks to both Ivor and Christopher for their
responses.
Jeff |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 02:31 pm | | Gentlemen
(Jeff & Ivor)
Rather than take up this very interesting subject of Graffiti, apron & lost time, I maybe should poste something I wrote a long time ago, others have read it before, but rather than direct you to the 'Dissertations' menu I will re-poste it below.
===============================
A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour
Was the portion of Eddowes apron actually in Goulston St. at 2.20am?
Did the killer only use the apron to wipe his hands?
Was the Goulston street graffiti old or new?
Contentious issues that may never be satisfactorally answered. But if we look more closely at the evidence we can at least arrive at an acceptable solution.
For instance, P.C. Alfred Long stated the portion of apron was not there at 2.20am when he passed Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street. This statement has been questioned by many who point out that seeing as how the portion of apron was taken from Eddowes in Mitre Square, and the murder had been committed between 1.35-1.44am. Then the discovery of this piece of evidence at 2.55am, approx 1500ft and 3 streets away raises serious concerns. Why a gap of over an hour?
Obviously, the small portion of apron was simply overlooked by P.C. Long on his earlier pass along Goulston St. or at least that is a more satisfactory explanation
There has never been any doubt that the portion of apron came from Catherine Eddowes. Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City Police Surgeon stated on the first day of the Inquest, held on Thursday October 4th, that "......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, 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 apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"
Dr F. G. Brown described the portion of apron still with the body as 'it was the corner of the apron with a string attached'.
Also, The Daily Telegraph, Oct 2nd, '....while throwing a light upon the movements of the murderer after he quitted Mitre Square, an important piece of evidence was obtained yesterday. When the body was examined there was a piece of white coarse apron still attached to it. The missing portion was discovered yesterday in Goulston Street....'
And the last item in the police list of Eddowes belongings was ' 1 piece of old white apron'. These remaining references do not seem to describe a large portion of apron, as might be expected, the smaller piece presumably being the portion found in Goulston St. But maybe we've presumed wrong.
In fact there had been no mention of Eddowes cut apron until the body was being stripped in Golden Lane mortuary, it may not have been obvious that she was wearing an apron until the body was at the mortuary.
Any contemporary photographs showing East end women of the period clearly show that the type of apron was large, with a bib from the waist to the neck, with the bulk of it extending from the waist down to the ankles.
This type of apron was wrapped around the body, from the waist to the ankles, almost meeting at the back. Taking a measure from the waist down, we have 30-36" and to wrap around at the back at ankle level, would be something like 36" wide. This lower section (from the waist, down) of apron was in the order of 9 square feet of material, not including the bib portion.
So, how big was this portion of apron found in Goulston Street?
We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:
'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'
- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)
Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:
'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.
- (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)
P.C. Long had found 'about half of it' or, if we allow for a little error in judgement on the high side we have 5-6 square feet, and if we allow for error on the low side, something in the order of 3-4 square feet. That is a sizable piece of cloth.
So how is it that he could not see it the previous time when he passed the same location at 2.20am?
Where was this piece of apron found, exactly?
Even a piece this large in the shadows up against the wall and definitely black with dirt might be hard to see at night, and why did P.C. Long look inside the open entry way of the building?. The entry was not lighted. So how did he see, not only the dirty piece of cloth, but the chalk writing too?
The answer to these questions will be known when we find the exact location of the graffiti, where was it written, on what portion of wall?
Detective Halse said at the inquest ' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall' and as recorded in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 'The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white'
P.C. Long reported ' ....about 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk - the jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...'
There have been a few suggestions over the years, that it must have been inside the entryway, otherwise P.C. Long would have seen the apron from the street. And as it was recorded that white walls were above the writing, it has been assumed the graffiti was low down, some even suggest very low down, all erroneous assumptions.
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.....'
So, here we have it, on the jamb of the open doorway, which also indicates the location of the large piece of apron, being below the graffiti, at the foot of the jamb, and just as noticable to anyone passing along the sidewalk.
Now we have a better idea of why P.C. Long stated quite firmly at the inquest '...I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2.20am the apron was not there when I passed then'
Also Detective Halse said at the inquest '...about 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything'
Although the above is not conclusive, it does appear that a larger than previously thought, piece of apron was found in a very exposed spot at the edge of the sidewalk (footpath). And it was not there at 2.20am ....which does not sit well with some, mainly because it is not a tidy solution, and people prefer tidy solutions. So, where was the apron between 1.44am and 2.55am? ....if we give P.C. Long the benefit of the doubt then we must conclude the apron was with Jack.
This puts an entirely different light on the matter, because that means Jack may well have lived in the immediate area. He may have taken the apron to his 'place' and the apron was cut large enough to carry away the organs that he removed, he had to carry them away in something, why not the cut-off apron?
The uterus would be about the size of a small orange, warm and wet with blood, actually blood running out of it so wrapping it up in a folded cloth makes perfect sense. P.C. Long said the piece of apron was 'wet', but with us knowning that it had rained that night, and Lawende actually said it was raining at 1.30am, we can believe that the bottom edge of her apron was wet with rain as Eddowes walked. But if it was wet with blood (as reported in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 1888) then what would make it so?
If you have blood-stained hands, and you wipe them on a cloth you dont easily wet the cloth, but only badly stain it. Blood is not wet like water and does not soak in as easily, so if the portion of apron was wet with blood then something may have been leaking into the cloth for a few minutes to make it that way.
Jack may have sliced off a sizeable portion of apron, dropped the organs in it, wrapped them up and took the bundle to his 'place', removed the contents then returned to the streets to deposit the piece of apron some place distant from where he lived. How else do we account for the lost 'hour' in the journey of the apron.
It was the press who started the suggestion that the killer had used the cloth to wipe his hands and then cast it aside as he fled the scene. This was the most likely explanation at the time, except for a small detail, Goulston street is several streets away from Mitre Square, and does not quite fit the idea of Jack wiping his hands and discarding the rag in the first available doorway.
Look at any map of the area between Mitre Square & Goulston Street, the many turns he made and streets he crossed, covering over 1/3rd of a mile, 1500ft, this is a long way to be running while wiping his hands and a very conspicuous figure he would make too. But carrying a folded bundle would attract less attention. If Jack had fled the area with a rag just to wipe his hands the rag would have been deposited somewhere in the Hounsditch & Stoney Lane area. It doesnt take that long to wipe blood from your hands.
If Jack left Mitre Square by St James Place, he would be crossing the square about 100 ft, to the northern passage exit, then up the passage, 55 ft, (still wiping his hands) then diagonally across St James Place, passing the all night manned mobile Fire station and the nightwatchman at the roadworks, about 120 ft, then eastward along little Duke Street passing several houses, (still wiping his hands) crossing Hounsditch then along Stoney lane passing about 40+ houses (still wiping his hands) to Middlesex street, about another 850 ft, still carrying the rag presumably not finished wiping his hands. Turning right running down Middlesex street for about 100 ft passing another 6 houses, then left, eastward again along New Goulston street until the end, another 250 ft. At this point he crosses the road and presumably discards the rag in the doorway of 108-119 Goulston street.
Quite the distance considering he was only 'supposedly' wiping his hands.
And what about the graffiti?...was it wrote by Jack?
At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said '...the writing had the appearance of being recently written...', then in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, in response to a question of "why did you say it seemed to have been recently written?" Halse responded, "it looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing..." Graffiti of all kinds was not unusual, in fact it had proliferated since the murder of Annie Chapman, so there is no reason to think of this as anything special.
The actual wording was under dispute from the very start due to the fact it was erased before it could be photographed.
The spelling of the word 'Jews' has been open to question and even at the inquest there were 4 different recorded versions of it. So any theory that requires a particular spelling of the word is on shakey ground to begin with. On page 38 of the Eddowes Inquest papers we have 3 different spellings, line 6 = Jews, line 16 = Jewes, line 21 = Juews (Jeuws?). Then on page 42 = Juwes (Jewes?)
And as mentioned before, the actual wording was disputed, Det. Daniel Halse recorded it as 'The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing' as opposed to P.C. Long's version '...The Jews (Juews) are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...'. There were other versions less well known but these two are the ones mentioned at the inquest. And as Long said, '...I copied the words from the wall into my report - I could not say whether they were recently written - I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews, there was a difference between the spelling...'
Halse said he noted it down before it was erased, but here we have Long stating not only that he recorded it before it was erased but the fact it was witnessed by the Inspector. And the Inspector read his notes and apparently compared what was recorded with what was on the wall. So bearing that in mind, who's version would we feel was likely to be the most accurate? an unwitnesed version by Halse or a witnessed version by Long?
The graffiti was not emblazoned across the wall as we might expect by a notorious flamboyant killer out to strike fear into the neighbourhood. Halse reported: "There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboys round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"
What is unsettling to me is this.....in these low income neighbourhoods, where people never roam more than a street or two, they know everything about their immediate surroundings, all the neighbours, all the gossip and because they pass in and out of this doorway several times a day, they will be intimate with the graffiti.
Det. Halse: '....when Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of anyone who was likely to have been the murderer...'
And City Solictor, Mr Crawford: '...as to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make a diligent search in every part of the tenements, the moment the matter came to their knowledge....'
This aside from the Met. police search and the obvious newspaper hounds interviewing and chasing the public for any leads,.....why didn't any one of those locals, or anyone living in the building tell the police or the press that the graffiti was there yesterday, or it had been there a couple of days, or it was there last week?
Not one comment to the police or press from anyone......we might ask ourselves, why?
We might not like the idea of a piece of apron and a few lines of graffiti appearing at the same spot on the same night. This might imply a connection, and any connection might not fit in with our preconceived notions of who Jack was. The locals, neighbours and tenents, these people knew their surroundings, if this graffiti was old, if any one resident or neighbour had seen it before on the doorway wouldnt they have mentioned it to someone?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, although we have not solved anything we at least may have a better perspective on the events of that morning, which may lead us in another direction, if the apron indeed was not there at 2.20am, if Jack took it for something more than just to wipe his hands on, and if he went 'to ground', then returned to the streets some time later to drop it in another doorway, could he have scribbled some graffiti as a 'red herring' ....just for jolly?,...wouldnt you?.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
==================================================
Cudgels at the ready, Gentlemen?
I dont support the idea that Jack wrote the graffiti, but I dont totally discard it either. What I do firmly support is that I find no other more practical reason for carrying the piece of apron so far and placing it where it was found.
Regards, Jon
(P.S....I know Chris is a gentleman too, but he's already seen the above)
:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 04:16 pm | | Very interesting article Jon thanks for placing it here.
That is rather a large piece of apron we are dealing with. |
Author: Michael Lyden
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 07:43 pm | | Hello everyone,
I must confess that I can't consider Sir Athur Conan Doyle as a being plausible suspect.
A far more promising idea was discussed elsewhere on these boards.I am talking about the Gilbert and Sullivan connection.
Take for example their comic opera "H.M.S.Pinafore".Let me break it down: What would be the most important material used in the manufacture of good quality H.and M.ade S.hoes?
What is the alternative name for a pinafore?
Mystery solved!
Mick Lyden. |
Author: E Carter
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 09:47 pm | | | Hate to butt in, but Halse copied the graffito to the last detail, honestly, I can not emphasis this enought, the graffito is exactly right. I could make it stand up in court! THE GRAFFITO IS CORRECT TO THE LAST DETAIL! ED CARTER. IF I AM WRONG IT MAKES ME A TOTAL FOOL! THE GRAFFITO IS CORRECT! as you may know I have challenged any one reputable to prove me wrong, they can examine my work. |
Author: Jeff Bloomfield
Saturday, 17 February 2001 - 09:47 pm | | Ah, Mick, if you are going to consider Gilbert
and Sullivan, may I remind you that Gilbert
wrote his only tragic Savoy Opera in 1888, The
Yeoman of the Guards, and that there is a dark
sense of humor in his works. The Bab Ballad,
Yarn of the Nancy Bell, is about cannibalism
among the survivors of a shipwreck. And
The Mikado deals with problems of a public
executioner.
I am not prepared for cudgels. Thank you Jon
for your article.
Jeff |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 05:42 am | | Jeff, you are absolutly right I have re-read my message and it appears big-headed and very arrogant, I'm sorry! Let me re-phrase it, I geninly believe I have broken the Graffito, but I do not expect people to believe me at this stage. If someone will kindly name an author of repute, I will ask him to look at my work, when, and where he chooses and I will make my way to him, or her.
Best wishes ED.
PSST....Jon, your advice about being 'more objective', where did I go wrong? |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 11:38 am | | Ed.
Objective, not assertive.
:-)
You will understand when I say that 'we' may prefer to alay judgement on your 'graffito opinions' until we taste the proof of the pudding, so to speak?
Also, your preference to only disclose your findings to an author of repute is possibly a tad condecending, considering publishing a book is by no means a guarantee of scholarly judgement.
But I'm sure either Stewart Evans, Paul Begg, Martin Fido, Melvin Harris, Keith Skinner, naming only those who frequent these boards, will be considerate enough to proofread your 'solution'.
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 11:53 am | | | O'k Jon, select anyone of your choice, I will comply to both the time and the place. ED> If any of those agree! |
Author: Avril Sprintall
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 01:20 pm | | Get real everyone.
Who knows who Jack was? No-one.
Who thinks they know who Jack was? Everyone.
We could all argue until we are blue in the face that our individual theory is the correct one, but to be honest, part of the fascination is the fact that we can never be sure.
Would we really want to be told for certain " Jack the Ripper is definitely .........".
Personally I enjoy all the "evidence" brought forward to prove A or B was Jack, & for a time I can convince myself it could be, then I pick up on mistaken timing, incidents etc & start looking again - brilliant!
My personal favourite is Joe Barnett, but undoubtedly you will disagree.
Enjoy searching, enjoy discussing - but please do not say someone is way out, as I said we just don't know. |
Author: Jade Bakys
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 01:30 pm | | I wouldn't use your theory on any of the above Ed! Not that I don't have the utmost respect for their work and contribution to Ripperology, but I find that historians/writers on the Ripper case can be quite defensive of their own theories. Also some are only expert in a particular area. or suspect (Like trying to convert a die hard Fenian to the Orange Order) Not only that but D. Radka and your good self, have often been treated with indifference and with subtle ridicule on these boards for promulgating new theories and identities in the Ripper case. The sheer audacity of your claim is enough to herald posts of indignation, and cries of call yourself a ripperologist...'. Not to mention cudgeling. But if and when you do, run your theory by a ‘reputed’ ripperologist/historian/author/writer, then good luck!
Love Jade |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 01:58 pm | | Jade is justifiably causious, most of those who have wrote on the Ripper have a suspect of their own. Indeed it was said at one time to be almost a requirement, to have a suspect to get something published.
Very few authors could come out with an 'Ultimate' or an 'A-Z', the first time out, books which contain only data are not always for the masses so the market is smaller than something that has a controversial suspect.
So, where do we go from here?
ED. your poste of 9:47pm was emphatic, dogmatic and assertive.....this is fine when you can share your evidence and prove your case. But, it is not fine when you are reluctant to do so. Solving an issue in your own mind, to your own standards can have little satisfaction unless you make your case to an audience, true?
Here you have an audience which collectively knows all there is to know about this case. We share idea's and test theories.
I can understand it if you lack confidence, it might appear to you to be a formidable task to be judged by people who may have more knowledge than your good self......but, such is life.
I might add that speaking for myself I have no interest in shooting you down on the Halse/graffiti issue, but you make some statements that must be supported.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jade Bakys
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 02:34 pm | | Jon has a good point Ed, I for one would certainly welcome your theory here, on the boards, if only for your findings on the Goulston Street graffiti. I have gleened several clues from past posts that you have written, and have a good idea of the background the players and the motive, what puzzles me is the link with Goulston Graffiti. I found it difficult to obtain information on Herman Adler, and and the 'Hiram Key'. Your Goulston street message solution somehow ties in with everything else but I don't know how.
Although I will have a stab in the dark, and decipher the double negative being an affirmative, basing this on the widely known tenet that Freemasons base much of their secret symbols on mathematics and Architecture, and that a double negative in maths gives a positive? nah this is too easy.
Love Jade |
Author: E Carter
Sunday, 18 February 2001 - 07:40 pm | | | Over four years I have been through stages where I belived something was developing from my work, but my attitude was always sceptical, it's part my nature. However, you will understand when you know how to read it, it's unambiguous. You begin reading the text in four parts, starting at the capital letters. Love ED |
Author: Jade Bakys
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 09:50 am | | Hi Ed
Well I did try that initially, but I got nowhere, I figured it had something to do with the Capitals, I thought names, but I could only find two. And I drew a blank on Herman Adler. Keep giving me the clues, I will hopefully get there!
Love Jade |
Author: Jack D. Killian
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 02:48 pm | | Great dissertation Jon.
Great commentary all.
Ivor, I concur your 2nd bolt hole theory is a strong possibility. I am inclined to believe the killer had more than one hideaway to disappear into. A compelling aspect relative to the center of the murders concept is the possible suspects, Kosminsky, Kaminsky, and Klosowski had residences which were approximations. Also, another Kosminsky family (no connection to Aaron yet proven)lived at 76 Goulston Street (not sure of the dates)which is also near this centre.
In regards to Halse's and Long's different versions of the Graffito, the double negative meanings in each version remains the same; "The Juews will be blamed for something."
Whether the killer wrote the graffito or not, he or she did take the piece of apron away from the murder site and approximately 45 minutes to an hour later, dropped it at the wall of the writing. If he did not write the graffito, he must have surely seen the writing.
Regards,
JD |
|
|
|
|
