Archive through May 18, 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 May 18, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: The Goulston Street Graffito: Archive through May 18, 1999

Author: Steven F Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 01:47 pm
Correct Jon, unlike today where the police have their own photographers in the Scenes of Crime Office, in 1888, the called in and paid a professional photographer to take the photographs for them.
Author: Steven F Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 02:14 pm
By the way, thank you Viper.
Author: Leanne Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 07:29 pm
G'day All, 'The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing' could have been chalked where it was found, hours or minutes before Jack & Catherine even got there. Therefore it wouldn't have been seen by anyone. A graffitist is likely to 'work' when its dark. Jack obviously fled from the scene, throwing the apron under the graffito for effect. Because police failed to photograph the graffito, no one can compare the handwriting to the 'Dear Boss' or any of the letters. I believe it would have been better just to erase the word 'Juwes'. I reckon there's too much 'false evidence', 'false alibies', 'forged diaries', 'forged letters' etc. to identify the real murderer. Leanne!
Author: RED DEMON Sunday, 16 May 1999 - 10:11 pm
Hello Everyone! In the book 'Leather Apron - or the Horrors of Whitechapel', released in December 1888 and available through the Casebook, the author states that the graffiti DID INDEED resemble the famed Ripper letters. The book is full of discrepancies, although I don't bellieve it was one of those cases where the author was intentionally misleading the public. I would like to know where he got his information from. He seems quite interested in the graffito as he goes back to the subject many times. I've only read it once, but it mentions a number of interesting things regarding the crimes (a seance to summon the spirit of Liz Stride, etc.). Take this for what you will, but definately with a grain of salt. I just wanted to point out that a contemporary person with interest in the case stated that the graffito matched the letter. And, seeing as to how much importance the police put on the letters at the time, I believe that if the graffito didn't resemble the letters at all, it would'nt have been considered a clue. That's something to check on, I think. I'll see you soon. Until then... Yours truly, RED DEMON
Author: Steven F Monday, 17 May 1999 - 02:25 am
Well this one looks destined to meander on. There is a police copy of the graffiti preserved in the police files, and this is reproduced in the Knight book. You will see that it does not resemble the letters. The writers on the Whitechapel murders, such as the book, Leather Apron - or the Horrors of Whitechapel were sensationalists, and the letters and message were simply that, sensational. Thus they drew on them heavily, as did the press. It was good copy and sold papers and books. Still does. The romantics amongst us want the letters and graffiti to be true. It enhances the image of the killer who, really, was only a sordid and seriously maladjusted individual. The killer, in all probability, wrote nothing to anybody. Some police officers though the graffiti a clue, others, such as Arnold and Warren, didn't. But the only reason it was considered a clue by anyone was the mere fact that the soiled piece of apron, which did come from Eddowes' apron, was lying beneath it. It was nothing to do with any resemblance to correspondence which in all probability did not emanate from ythe killer. Sorry RED DEMON, you're way off the mark. By the way, as regards your nickname, are you a fan of Sherlock Holmes pastiches?
Author: Ashling Monday, 17 May 1999 - 05:16 am
Hi y'all. STEVEN F: The various postings I've read about "Eddowes' apron" have confused me. I'd really appreciate any help you or anyone else can give. Some people give the impression this item was an entire apron (minus the piece found on Goulston Street). I just re-read Dr. F.G. Brown's report (under Victims> Eddowes on the Casebook) ... It seems to be stating that a piece of apron was found at the Mitre Street murder scene & another piece of apron - blood-stained was found at Goulston Street. 1) Are there any other sources giving precise details on the apron pieces, including their size? 2) How do we "know" they belonged to Eddowes? Had John Kelly or someone at a lodging house seen her with the piece(s) of apron before? Is it possible JtR had the pieces in his pocket & pulled one out to clean his knife - not realizing the other piece fell onto the ground? 3) Were the 2 pieces torn or cut apart? 4) Why do most people assume JtR separated the pieces? Maybe Kate snagged the "apron" on a nail or whatever & accidently ripped it into 2 pieces. Regarding the grafitto: Are there any photos of the Wentworth Model Dwelling other than what appears in Rumbelow's Complete Casebook or the A-Z? Unless there were steps out front - whereby standing on the bottom step put you eye level with the bottom of the entryway - Then the only Jewish residents likely to see and remove the grafitto before Eddowes' murder - would be midgets & kids. Has any research been done as to whether or not the Wentworth or other lodgings in the area were regularly cleaned on the outside by the deputy, janitor, or whoever? Surely the police asked this question. [Wonder if Stride ever worked there when she "cleaned for the Jews in the area." :^)] Thanks. Take care, Ashling
Author: Leanne Monday, 17 May 1999 - 05:22 am
G'day RED, Was the author of your book an expert on handwriting or was he just after sensationalism for readers of his book, to sell more copies? Thanks Steven F. for the above comments. LEANNE!
Author: Caz Monday, 17 May 1999 - 06:19 am
Hi All, I read somewhere that the 'police copy' of the graffito was just that, a policeman's attempt to copy the writing, but in his own hand, in as faithful a way as he could, before the message was erased, and in the absence of an actual photo. If this is the case then we can't even begin to compare the police copy with the handwriting of any 'Jack' letters anyway. Incidentally, I recall that the Maybrick Diary 'people' have already tried to say that the policeman's attempt to copy the graffito resembled the diary handwriting, which equally tells us not a lot. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick, and there was a photo taken after all? Love, Caz
Author: Leanne Monday, 17 May 1999 - 07:35 am
G'day Caz, If the Maybrick Diary 'people', say that the handwriting resembles that of the policeman's attempt to copy the graffito, you're right, all it tells us is that whoever forged the diary tried to resemble this. -LEANNE!
Author: Caz Monday, 17 May 1999 - 10:58 am
Yep, Leanne, that is one thing it COULD tell us. Two other remotely possible, though highly improbable, explanations would be that the diary forger was also a) the graffito scribbler or b) the copper wot copied it! In other words, the diary would have had to have been forged during the lifetime of one or the other person. I don't say either idea has any merit, just wanted to explore ALL the avenues before diving down another blind alley :-) Love, Caz
Author: Steven F Monday, 17 May 1999 - 11:03 am
The killer cut half of Eddowes' apron off at the murder scene in Mitre Square, presumably to wipe the blood and faeces off his hands and knife. The half of apron cut off was found in the entrance of Nos. 108-119 of the Model Dwellings in Goulston Street, a short distance to the east. This piece was lying on the ground, in the doorway, beneath the jamb where the message was chalked. The piece (or half) of apron was later matched with the remainder that Eddowes was still wearing and was found to match (even down to a repair). Yes, there are other photo's of the Model Dwellings. There was no step in the entrance, the stairway started a few feet inside the recessed entrance. The doorway is still there. More than that I do not know.
Author: D. Radka Monday, 17 May 1999 - 01:30 pm
People above are discussing the position of the graffito--this may be important. I've heard it said elsewhere that the graffito was scrawled low to the ground--that in fact the Ripper would have to be squatting to write it. Is this true? Or, alternatively, are we talking about the fact that the Wentworth Building was set a few feet down off the street, so that the graffito only appeared close to the ground if you viewed it from street level. The Ripper thus would have walked down a few steps to write the graffito, but would have been standing up normally when he wrote it. Can anybody address this issue for us, please? David
Author: Christopher-Michael Monday, 17 May 1999 - 02:20 pm
Some thoughts on Goulston Street - We know the piece of apron found there belonged to Catharine Eddowes because it was matched to the apron she was wearing the night she was murdered ("1 piece of old White Apron," says the police listing of her clothes). The apron and its swatch matched, even down to the stitches of a repair. The swatch was stained not only with dirt, but also blood and faecal matter from Eddowes' appalling injuries. There are many photographs of the doorway to Nos. 108-119 of the Wentworth Model Dwellings, and a recent alternative one taken for Stephen Knight's "Final Solution" has come to light, making the doorway look even more ominous than its ghoulish association would credit. The doorway still exists; it is now covered over with a roll gate and is next to a fish and chip shop. You may find a modern photograph in Bob Hinton's "From Hell." As far as position. . .p. 145 of the 3rd edition of the "A-Z" tells us the graffito was found "on the brick black fascia edging the open doorway. . ." Looking at a photograph of the infamous door, however, I am a bit confused as to whether the authors are saying the writing was on the outside portion of the black stones (facing Goulston Street) or within the arch of the doorway itself. The "A-Z" also goes on to say that the writing was "almost immediately above the bloodstained portion of Catharine Eddowes' apron," which raises the somewhat ludicrous image of the Ripper sprawled flat on his stomach scribbling his enigmatic message in the middle of the night, as all the photographs of the doorway I have seen show it to be at street level within and without. As no account of the finding, preserving and erasing of the "Juwes" message mentions gymnastical contortions begin necessary to read it, we might assume it was about eye level and possibly on the outside portion of the doorway (whence Warren's fear that a covering would be torn off by passerby). Stephen Knight tells us that the copy of the Goulston message preserved in the Home Office files represents a deliberate attempt to copy the original, but as we have no idea what the original looked like, it is difficult to know how Knight could have been so sure. Donald Rumbelow tells us: "What the exact wording was is still debatable. . .When Detective Halse (City) was asked for the exact wording he rendered it as "The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing." As Halse was at the scene far longer, arranging for photographs and arguing for the preservation of the message, the balance of probabilities is that this version is the accurate one. . .Stephen Knight. . .argues that the copyist tried to imitate the handwriting; but this is nonsense. It is a copy of a copy. The source was Long's pocket book, which had to be brought back from Westminster [presumably Scotland Yard] - where it had been sent - when the Coroner asked the policeman to produce it as he was giving his evidence from memory." (pbk, pp.70-71) Christopher-Michael
Author: Steven F Monday, 17 May 1999 - 02:32 pm
The height of the graffiti is given nowhere and was probably at eye-level of the writer. We do know that it was in a position that would have made it easily read by passers-by. The building and door way is still there, and is at street level, not down any steps.
Author: Leachy Monday, 17 May 1999 - 03:57 pm
I notice that Mr. DiGrazia deliberately avoids making any comment about the one suspect who would have been the perfect height to write this message 'immediately above' the apron. Prejudice, Christopher-Michael? Do you cling to some pompous and outdated notion that insane fantasising is not just as legitimate an historical method as so-called rational thought? Or are you just not man enough to confront the small fluffy homicidal bear that is inside all of us? Leachy
Author: D. Radka Monday, 17 May 1999 - 04:16 pm
Okay, C-M, you've been called out now. Your manhood is in question, so let's see what you've got!! David
Author: RED DEMON Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 12:11 am
Hello All! Leanne, and everyone who got the impression that I was giving the 'Leather Apron' book complete credence. I thought I made it clear that the book was full of discrepancies common to the knowledge of the time. I thought I was making it clear that I was just presenting the information because it was there. And, no, I don't believe the author was after pure sensationalism. The book was quite well written, actually, and in a professional style. I'm a bit confused, actually, why he named the book 'Leather Apron' and not Jack the Ripper. JtR would certainly have been more sensationalistic. While a book such as this, with all it's discrepancies, should be approached with upmost caution, it could be valuable in that it may contain information not yet known that could be substantiated at some point somewhere else. Until substantiated, though, any information in the old books must be considered untouchable. By the way, the Ripper could've written the message sitting down. It was four feet from the ground. He didn't have to be kneeling or lying on his belly. Let me know what you think.Until then... Yours truly, RED DEMON
Author: RLeen Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 05:42 am
Hello All, One aspect of the graffiti that has yet to be addressed, and forgive me as this comes from memory so may be inaccurate, is that the killer fled towards Dorset Street? and washed his bloody hands in a communal sink. If traces of blood were noticeable in the sink some time after the killing, surely there is every liklihood that some scrapings of matter, blood and faeces for example, would have been left on the wall by the writing action had this same bloody handed killer written the message? Trusting that this may be of interest. Rabbi Leen
Author: Leanne Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 07:14 am
G'day Red and everyone, I realised that you weren't giving your book 'complete credence'. I have a book published 30 years after the murders, so I value it for the eyewitness descriptions and details of the inquests etc., but much more 'evidence' has been added, since our books were first published. He probably named your book 'Leather Apron' for sensationalism, because Leather was everyones favorite suspect, at the time. By the way, my book: 'The Whitechappel Horrors', says nothing was mentioned of the Goulston Street Graffito at Catherine's inquest, so this tells me it wasn't considered important then. LEANNE
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 18 May 1999 - 10:28 am
Rabbi Leen's point above is an interesting one - IF the graffito is to be considered the work of the murderer, and IF there is any merit to the story of the Dorset Street sink. There are problems, though, with both. I probably don't need to repeat those relating to the graffito itself here, given the context of the present discussion. The Dorset Street sink story is also very troublesome, coming as it does from Major Henry Smith, and published in his memoirs. No independent corroboration is known to exist for Smith's story - we cannot say with any certainty whether Smith was telling the truth, embroidering the truth, remembering events inaccurately, or simply making it all up. We can be certain, on the basis of his documented movements on the night of 29-30/9/88, that his claim to have been only five minutes behind the murderer is nonsensical. I think it was Martin Fido who characterised Smith as the kind of man who would have made an entertaining drinking partner, but an unreliable historical source. If, as seems likely, the Dorset Street sink story is actually wrong, then the question of whether or not the graffito scrawl was accompanied by blood or faeces stains could be a bit of a red herring - even if it was a genuine message from the Whitchapel Murderer himself, it was most probably written after he had wiped his hands on the piece of apron.