Archive through March 24, 1999

** 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 March 24, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims: Catherine Eddowes: Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion): Archive through March 24, 1999

Author: D. Radka Monday, 15 March 1999 - 08:24 pm
Jules, I agree with you 100%. He had to have hidden out somewhere for awhile in between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, or else he would certainly have been stopped. But there were scores of little nooks and crannies, alleyways, dustbins to hide behind, etc. Therefore this kind of reasoning may mean something, may mean nothing. You are right sharp on the graffito, sir. Perhaps it is because-- The Jules is The man That Will not Be blamed for Nothing David
Author: Julian Monday, 15 March 1999 - 09:47 pm
G'day David, I thought I was the only person awake to post things on these boards. Usually I have to wait till tomorrow to see how many of my ideas have been shot to pieces. I first started thinking about this idea when I was lookin at the drawing of where Ms Nicolls' was found. Directly beside/behind her body in the large gate was a small door which would have made an excellent escape route should anyone have come along. I've mentioned somewhere else that I don't think Jack was as mysteriously elusive as has been made out to be. I believe he had an escape route in all of his murders ie, up the side of the house in Chapmans case, Down the laneway into Dutfields Yard with Stride, into one of the vacant cottages for Eddowes, Kelly I'm not sure about but I'm thinking that because he was already inside he felt 'invisible' anyway. I'm still not sure where this is leading but it might explain why he was never spotted. Thanks for the 'Jules' thing. It confused the •••• out of me the first time I read it, now I'm even more confused. Has anyone worked out what it was supposed to mean and why is it relevant? The graffiti was found streets away from where Catherine was murdered and could easily have been covered up by a burly Mr Plod standing in front of it until the photographer turned up. I'm sure there's a really simple answer to this like: that's where they found the piece of apron, so I'll sit back and wait for it. Jules
Author: Christopher-Michael Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 04:16 pm
Jules and all - The "Juwes" writing is one of those awkwardly relevant items in the Ripper case, in that while it existed, we cannot be sure what importance to attach to it. At 2.55am on October 1, Met PC Alfred Long discovered the filthy piece of Catharine Eddowes' apron in the doorway of Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street. He blew his whistle for assistance, and took the apron swatch to Commercial Street station to hand over as evidence. Now, both Long and City DC Daniel Halse later testified that they had both passed Wentworth Dwellings at about 2.20am, give or take a few minutes, and the apron piece had not been there. This - were their word taken at face value - would infer that the Ripper had hung about the streets in some safe spot for almost an hour after butchering Eddowes, and then came out to chalk up a cryptic message and drop a piece of blood-and-faeces stained apron as a taunt to the police. We may credit Jack the Ripper with luck, cunning and a number of different attributes, but the above scenario goes past cunning into madness. Though we cannot "prove" it, it is at least likely the apron was there from about 1.45am onward, and for whatever reason, Halse and Long did not notice it on their rounds. However, our concern is that we know the apron swatch belonged to Eddowes. It was found underneath a piece of ostensibly anti-Semitic graffiti. It is that location - AND THAT ALONE - that has influenced any attempt to link the two pieces of the puzzle (were the apron found at the foot of a bollard, for example, I can hardly imagine there would be much concern over what the Ripper might have "meant" by leaving it there). So, we must ask ourselves whether the location was chosen by chance or design. Martin Fido has argued - in a typically coruscatingly brilliant entry - that 108-199 Goulston Street would be the first open doorway the Ripper would come to were he leaving Mitre Square with the specific intention of avoiding detection. Hence, if he were cleaning his hand and knife to remove the damning blood evidence of his murder, this would be a natural location for him to throw away the incriminating slice of cloth. Bob Hinton has also raised the relevant point that the sordid aroma of the apron might have attracted a Whitechapel rat or dog, who might have carried the cloth from some unknown location to where it was found. However it got there, of course, it was found beneath the "Juwes" writing, and so we must now turn our attention to this. Does it - can it - have any connection to the Eddowes murder? It is difficult to see how it could, without quickly sliding into a morass of conspiracy and supposition. In the first place, what is the writing supposed to mean? Yes, we see it as an attack on the Jews, but it hardly seems the sort of clear-cut message we would expect from a killer "down on Juwes" and certainly not the sort of unambiguous statement as came from the hand that penned "Dear Boss." Was it a cryptic Masonic message? Apart from the fact that Masonic involvement in the murders is hardly worth considering, we might do well to remember that Sir Charles Warren - one of England's highest-ranking Masons - took more than a leisurely half an hour to have the writing removed once he saw it. It is as well to remember that Swanson, in his report on the doings of September 30, described the writing as "blurred," as though it had been there for some time ('some time,' of course, being a relative term to us all); we should also remember that the writing was described by eyewitnesses as being in a "good schoolboy hand" and in letters not much larger than an inch in height. Is this the message that would be left by a publicity-crazed murderer? Is this the message that would be left by an anti-Semite killer determined to spark a pogrom in the East End? Sir Charles has been criticized for not cordoning off the writing until it was photographed, and yet, in retrospect, it is hard to see how he could have done otherwise. We can well imagine that memories of "Bloody Sunday" and the West End debacle that prompted Henderson's resignation were flooding his mind. His duty was to preserve public safety; were the police to give serious attention to a racist "clue" left behind after the unprecedented horror of the "double event," lynchings could well result and Warren could not allow that to happen. Perhaps he should have waited for the photographer - but hindsight is always 20/20. So, as you say, Jules, "that's where they found the piece of apron." It is the awkward coincidence of apron and writing being found together that has set off years of speculation, when the great likelihood is that neither piece of evidence was related beyond their fortuitous commingling. Only my opinion, though. . . Christopher-Michael
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 06:07 pm
Excellent piece, C-M. You are such an asset to the rest of us. David
Author: Yazoo Tuesday, 16 March 1999 - 07:27 pm
Hey All! I've always believed in coincidences and accidents or serendipity. I also believe in premediatated action. If a piece of evidence from a murder scene is carried away and deposited beneath a message written on the wall, it is our responsibility to ask "Is this coincidence, accident, furry creatures, serendipity...or does it have meaning?" Do any of these murders make one lick of sense? Can we divine a reasoning intelligence behind the message? Would a hungry rat or dog carry away a scrap of fabric when blood and meat were at hand? Would a rag smell any worse than a kidney and a uterus? Would the piece of apron be any more incriminating than these organs or the murder weapon that the murderer would ditch the piece of apron instead of them? I think any reasonable person would have to answer "No" to all these questions. Are we considering any of these scenarios simply to explain away what we really don't understand, what we can't sufficently explain? (Kind of the way, on a larger scale, some people are trying to spirit away victims from the series...even trying to remove the murderer and substitute him with another, more acceptable construct...but I digress). But can we really afford to throw away clues to theoretically hygenic killers or hypothetical furry creatures with less sense to eat and drink off the dead body but with enough "intelligence" (or luck) to drop the apron piece in just that doorway? Is the juxtaposition of the message and apron piece merely coincidence? Consider that this coincidence would not be the first of that particular night -- and all of them relate to one theme. The first coincidence between that message/apron piece and the murderer is with the site of Stride's murder -- anti-Semitism (the site, crying out "Lipski" at Schwartz). The second coincidence is the placement of the apron piece with that particular message -- which has an anti-Semitic theme to it. How many coincidences do we need to believe in the possibility of premeditation or intent as strongly as we want to believe in coincidence, accident, or serendipity? Just my opinion. Yaz
Author: Edana Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 08:34 am
I just had to stick my nose in at this point and say how satisfying it is to read these message boards. With phrases like 'fortuitous commingling' and 'hypothetical furry creatures', who cares if we ever find out who Jack The Ripper actually was, it's damn fine reading. Thanks guys. Edana
Author: Christopher T. George Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 11:46 am
Hello all: I congratulate Christopher-Michael DiGrazia on his eloquent essay on the juxtaposition of the Goulston Street graffito and the piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron. Let us not forget also that the graffito was discovered on the morning of Sunday, September 30, in close proximity to the date of the receipt of the first communications supposedly from the killer: the first Dear Boss letter dated September 25, addressed to the Central News Agency and received by that journalistic organization on September 27, and the undated "Saucy Jack" postcard written in the same hand and received by the news agency on the day after the murders of Stride and Eddowes on Monday, October 1, which seemed to predict the double killing. The expectation then that the killer was in the habit of sending messages was set up by the probable coincidence that graffito was found by the police about the same time that the first communications signed "Jack the Ripper" arrived. Even though the graffito was unsigned, in the public mind there seemed to be a tie-in, and the police action of wiping away the chalked message gave it an extra cachet which seemed to suggest it was written by the killer. With the horror over two women killed on the same night, the graffito and the Dear Boss letter and postcard stoked up the public hue and cry and made all seem to be from a joking, taunting, literate murderer. Chris George
Author: Yazoo Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 02:04 pm
Hey All! The coincidences of the night of the "double event" is a long one. My opinion: There are too many coincidences not to keep some of the "evidence" or "theories" we've discussed all over the Casebook: such as, missing victims (Stride), changed situations (Eddowes' last observed behavior), and mysterious items (the apron piece and the graffito -- and dare I mention...the dreaded, hated letters? from "the same hand as...." -- in considering the JtR series of murders. And I hate writing "graffito;" it sounds silly, even though correct. Sue me, but there oughta be a law... Who is responsible for putting the slim, svelt, delicate "i" into the maternal, rounded condition of the "o" anyway -- they didn't ask me!!?? Yaz
Author: Christopher T. George Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 02:22 pm
Yaz: I think graffito is one slogan or thought written somewhere while graffiti are a lot of 'em. Absolutely non-Jack related, but I once heard the poet Robert Wallace read what he described as a "found poem" that he called "Graffito" and that he apparently saw on a men's room wall. It is suitable for civilized company, so I will quote it. It goes: Born a virgin Died a virgin Laid in her grave Chris George
Author: Christopher-Michael Wednesday, 17 March 1999 - 09:33 pm
Thank you all for your kind words. It's that sort of respectful feedback that allows me to take courage in hand and post my little essays here and there, whether they make much sense or not. A slight correction, however - the piece of Catharine Eddowes' apron was found in the doorway of Nos. 108-119, not 199. Slip of the finger there. I had responded to your comments earlier today, Yaz, but withdrew my posting, as I felt you deserved more than the casual off-hand thoughts I would have given. If I follow your line of reasoning (and correct me if I am wrong), you seem to lean towards deliberate placing of the apron swatch beneath the "Juwes" writing in order to put willful, premeditated blame on the Jewish population of Whitechapel. As I obliquely stated earlier, if such were the idea, then the killer/killers seem to have gone about it in an oddly obscurantist way. Assuming for the moment that both Stride and Eddowes were murdered by the same hand (or hands), the prevalence of anti-Semitic blame does seem to play a role. The International Working Men's Educational Club (a Jewish haunt); the cry of "Lipski" (surname of a Jewish killer) and then the Goulston Street writing ("The Juwes," &c.). Yet, if such were the "Ripper's" intention, the idea seems to have quickly lost steam after the double event. Say the killer of Stride and Eddowes was a Jew-baiter. He chose his locations with purpose, shouted with purpose and chalked with purpose. Why not this before September 30? Perhaps, you might answer, because the idea of linking his hatred of Jews to his murderous impulses did not coalesce until he realised the fervour against the Hebraic invasion of London was being fanned by the penny press and widely accepted by the poorer inhabitants of the East End. Such anti-Semitic "clues" might not have much effect even after the murder of Annie Chapman, but by the time of the double event - and because of the horror of the double event itself - his "audience" would be more receptive to his attempt to shift the blame onto a suspected and despised race. Not an unreasonable explanation, and I would go along with it to a point. I would ask, however, if such were the Ripper's intention, why the whole idea seemed to fade away again? If the Ripper was up to murdering Stride in the yard of a Jewish club and chalking the "Juwes" writing on a wall after Eddowes' killing, why was he not up to repeating such a message when he saw no pogroms or riots resulting? "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" have nothing anti-Semitic in their construction, and neither does "From Hell." My own feeling (and it is, after all, only my opinion) is that if the Ripper really chalked the "Juwes" message - or intended it be noticed - then he is likely not the author of the generally accepted correspondence, as his anti-Jewish proclivities make no appearance in these missives. That is, if he intended the location and circumstances of the double event to spark off riots against the Jews. And were such his intention, why not make the murder of Mary Jane Kelly a blatant Jewish blood sacrifice? Why not a ghastly Star of David splattered on the wall in her blood? Why not writing inside Number 13, where he had all the time in the world to indulge himself? Why not letters to the police or graffiti scattered about Whitechapel during the tense days between September and November? I don't mean to dismiss your thoughts out of hand, Yaz, as you often have a far better grasp of these murders than I. While I think the idea of deliberate blame-placing might have some merit, it seems to me to be inconsistent and really active only for the duration of one night. Sorry for the incoherence - it's a bit late for me to be up. Thoughts, please. No offense meant - only my shortsighted opinions, after all. . . CMD
Author: Yazoo Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 07:11 am
Hey All! CM! What is this: "I don't mean to dismiss your thoughts out of hand, Yaz, as you often have a far better grasp of these murders than I." Humility is a fine trait, but...you know far more about this subject than I do. To answer your comments... It's probably a "cop-out" (can't think of a global equivalent phrase), but I don't think we can tell what the Goulston Street message is even supposed to mean. Double-negatives, misspelled words; tortured syntax. For all we can say, the message may have been some sort of political/social commentary from the murderer -- not an attempt to place the blame (perhaps the "credit" in this sick mind of the murderer) onto the East End Jewish population for the murders. My post's previous point was merely that, because we can't really make sense of what the message means and why it was written at all, doesn't mean we should exclude it or try to find equally speculative reasons why it doesn't fit into the pattern of behavior for the murderer. As you know, the letters were all quickly dismissed as hoaxes -- the murderer, IF he wrote them, failed to achieve the attention they would otherwise have brought if everyone thought they were genuine. The same holds true for the graffito -- wiped away by Warren, and puzzled over for more than a century. Sending messages MIGHT be a characteristic of the murderer. He was too stupid to be coherent on paper or brick, but ambitious enough to make the attempt. Because of the ties to Jews in the circumstances of the "double event," I think that is a connective thread -- but I could not do more than speculate on what the murderer was trying to do or say about Jews. Why this socio-political-religious material appears on this night and in the last letter(s?) written to the CNA "by the same hand..." -- I don't know. Why it disappears afterwards, I don't know. If he'd been caught, only by asking him would we have known the answers. IF this murderer is the same as Nichols' and Chapman's and Kelly's -- I bow slightly toward Scotland and Alex -- I think sending messages is a trait we could add about him. I also believe there are messages -- sick messages in the placement of organs about the room, etc. -- in Kelly's chamber of horror. None of these messages are written in words anymore, but in the murderer's own, true, bloody language! BTW, it's nice running into you again! Yaz
Author: Yazoo Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 07:14 am
Hey All! CM! What is this: "I don't mean to dismiss your thoughts out of hand, Yaz, as you often have a far better grasp of these murders than I." Humility is a fine trait, but...you know far more about this subject than I do. To answer your comments... It's probably a "cop-out" (can't think of a global equivalent phrase), but I don't think we can tell what the Goulston Street message is even supposed to mean. Double-negatives, misspelled words; tortured syntax. For all we can say, the message may have been some sort of political/social commentary from the murderer -- not an attempt to place the blame (perhaps the "credit" in this sick mind of the murderer) onto the East End Jewish population for the murders. My post's previous point was merely that, because we can't really make sense of what the message means and why it was written at all, doesn't mean we should exclude it or try to find equally speculative reasons why it doesn't fit into the pattern of behavior for the murderer. As you know, the letters were all quickly dismissed as hoaxes -- the murderer, IF he wrote them, failed to achieve the attention they would otherwise have brought if everyone thought they were genuine. The same holds true for the graffito -- wiped away by Warren, and puzzled over for more than a century. Sending messages MIGHT be a characteristic of the murderer. He was too stupid to be coherent on paper or brick, but ambitious enough to make the attempt. Because of the ties to Jews in the circumstances of the "double event," I think that is a connective thread -- but I could not do more than speculate on what the murderer was trying to do or say about Jews. Why this socio-political-religious material appears on this night and in the last letter(s?) written to the CNA "by the same hand..." -- I don't know. Why it disappears afterwards, I don't know. If he'd been caught, only by asking him would we have known the answers. IF this murderer is the same as Nichols' and Chapman's and Kelly's -- I bow slightly toward Scotland and Alex -- I think sending messages is a trait we could add about him. I also believe there are messages -- sick messages in the placement of organs about the room, etc. -- in Kelly's chamber of horror. None of these messages are written in words anymore, but in the murderer's own, true, bloody language! BTW, it's nice running into you again! Yaz
Author: D. Radka Thursday, 18 March 1999 - 10:30 pm
I'd like to give Yazoo a hug for his response to C-M above, and for his responsively-open position on the graffito as a whole. It seems to me that the highly-esteemed Mr. D may be a wee bit overly influenced by the nay-saying, crepe-hanging, deconstructionist faction of Ripperology. Absolutely no disrespect to C-M intended--surely he is one of the best who post here. I think we well ought to leave open the possibility that the Ace of Spades himself wrote the graffito. David
Author: Caroline Friday, 19 March 1999 - 03:41 am
Hi all, I don't think I've had a response yet to my idea that JtR1 chalked up the graffito to drop JtR2 in it, in the event that said JtR2, possibly semi-literate and anti-Semitic and more stupid than JtR1, got his collar felt by the bobbies on the night of the double event. It would then be an easy nick because JtR2 would fit the bill, especially if he had just killed Stride. The Jewish slant serves the double purpose of confusing the issue further, and giving the police the unenviably difficult and time-consuming task of damping down a potentially explosive political situation, while simultaneously hunting a vicious killer. In the event, the ruse worked, and both 'Jacks' lived to kill another day. I think it was the Knave or Jack of Spades wot wrote the peculiar message. Love, Caroline
Author: Yazoo Friday, 19 March 1999 - 06:43 am
Hey All! Have no fear; if I know the Slippery One (that is, every Casebookworm's good friend, CM), he is off plotting a devasting response! (grinning at ya, buddy -- and also wheedling for some preemptive mercy for myself!) Since I believe in the two-man model, Caroline, you're singing to the choir on the JtR1 and JtR2 idea. I think you and Bob and myself (are there others -- I just don't know who?) all have slightly different "flavors" of the two-man model. I favor an equal partnership -- I think you both have variants on a master/apprentice kind of relationship, no? As to the sage of Scotland...just when you think you've written a really swell, spiffy post....(cue theme music from the movie, Jaws) Yaz
Author: D. Radka Friday, 19 March 1999 - 11:35 pm
I regret any inconvenience to Christopher-Michael resulting from my ill-conceived post above. It was unfair of me to caricature him as too deconstructionist in his thinking. I believe I got two or three different ideas crossed in my mind when I wrote that. I was just trying to keep a good discussion going, basically. I'm sorry. David
Author: Christopher-Michael Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 05:11 pm
David - No offense taken! Actually, I didn't realise you were referring to me when you spoke of "Mr D." So you needn't apologise. I don't know but that some of my Ripper opinions are out of sheer cussedness and dislike of received wisdom, so you can usually count on me to favour the "Stride and Kelly weren't Ripper victims and the letters are fake and the kidney is fake" school. But I enjoy a well reasoned debate as much as anyone. It is certainly POSSIBLE the Ripper could have written "The Juwes. . .," my assertion was that I don't think it PROBABLE. It's the apron swatch, as always, that this turns on. It could be a coincidence that it landed there, but that certainly does seem to stretch credulity. I once half-jokingly raised the thought that the Ripper had passed through Goulston Street earlier, seen the graffitti and filed the sight away in his mind as something that might be useful. Our problem - as with so much in this case - is that of interpretation. "The Juwes" can mean anything, everything and nothing, depending upon the context and purposes you wish to put it to. You, David, could use its syntax as evidence of an anti-semitic killer. I could use the same syntax as evidence of a poorly-educated local chalking up a complaint. Yaz could use it as evidence Lewis Carroll had run out of paper and was reduced to writing an "Alice" sequel on Whitechapel walls!:-) You see the point I am making. We can't PROVE the filthy piece of Catharine Eddowes' apron landed where it did by design or fortune. We can't PROVE the graffiti was written by the Ripper or not. All we can do is choose the INTERPRETATION that seems most reasonable to ourselves, and defend that against all other naysayers. So is that a deconstructionist view? Am I turning into the Ripper world's Jacques Derrida? I don't know. I do know that over the last year, my thinking on this case has gravitated much more to the "simplest explanation is best" school. Of course, like everyone, I reserve the right to chuck my principles over the side when I find a loony idea that appeals to me! Once again, David, no offense taken. CMD
Author: Yazoo Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 06:54 pm
Hey David, CM, and All! Didn't I warn you CM was slippery? (grins) Actually I agree with CM's outlook on the elements of the case, while qualifiying my own conclusions drawn from that outlook. Many of the issues we debate are beyond proof anymore. So what should we do -- pick one side of any particular issue or question and argue that side til our last breath or we change our minds...whichever comes first? Personally, I like to keep as many different opinions of each piece of evidence and try to fit them into whatever perspective I'm currently engrossed in -- a la, the JtR de jour, an organized crime model of the killings. Keep a record of them all; use them responsibly and appropriately; put them aside if they don't fit our own "big picture:" but never just throw them away. And I'm only talking about factual things, not theories of whodunit -- since we admittedly don't know all the facts or understand the "big picture," how can we really say whodunit yet? (But I bow to David, Caroline, Stewart, and others who say they have an answer as to whodunit. And they mave solved the case. But if I don't understand the facts or the "big picture" anyway -- no wisecracks now -- I'll never really understand any solution. No?) As silly as it would sound coming from anyone else but me (read: non-sense is what many think I offer here, all the time, anyway), I think that's the most profitable use to make of the information we have. So I choose to battle any theory that, to me, seems to be trying to eliminate that piece of information from consideration once and for all. I say let's keep the Goulston street message. There's enough reason -- although certainly no definitive proof -- to keep it in the murderer's profile as a possibility that he wrote it. We may never use it, and we may never understand it. But you never know... Yaz
Author: Julian Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 10:34 pm
G'day everyone, Just a thought but I reckon we should start with one idea, flog it to death, then move onto any peripheral ideas that have been generated, flogging each one of these to death in turn. I've done this sort of thing before in brainstorming sessions and it's amazing the ideas that come out. Jules
Author: Cindy L. Tuesday, 23 March 1999 - 11:32 pm
Hi Everybody, (Just in case you're wondered Jules, I am not intentionally following you around the boards. It might seem like it, but I'm not. I'm sort of just wandering around.) I have two different schools of thought in my own mind regarding the apron piece and the Juwes thing. Please bear with me here... 1. Pure coincidence. You know, the apron piece just happened to land there, graffiti was old, etc., Versus, 2. Rather than pointing a finger at the Jewish as suspects, a warning to them...sort of like a "you might be next" type of thing. I can't seem to decide in my own mind which school of thought seems more logical. Throw in looking at the Juwes thing as pointing the finger, and I get really befuddled.