Archive through 03 January 2003

** 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 03 January 2003

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: Ripper Letters: Goulston Street Graffito: Archive through 03 January 2003

Author: James Jeffrey Paul Tuesday, 31 December 2002 - 10:53 pm
I am of two minds about the importance of the Goulston Street graffito. The Ripper could well have written it, but he at least wanted to call attention to it, by placing that portion of Kate Eddowes's apron beneath it. As Sugden argued, he could well have wanted to place the blame for the murder on Jews, and writing the message (or calling attention to it) would have been his way of doing that.
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 07:31 am
I agree that the purpose of the portion of apron was to validate the graffito. After all , the Police were receiving dozens of messages each week purporting to be from the killer,so "Jack" would need to authenticate his own work. Trevor.
Author: Diana Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:42 am
Maybe there is a pattern here. Authenticate the message with the apron. Authenticate another message with half a kidney. But how do you square the "round schoolboy hand" of the graffito with the spiky scribbles on the Lusk letter?
Author: David Jetson Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 02:29 pm
I'm of the opinion that the graffito is a red herring. A co-incidental juxtaposition. It would have been WAY easier for Jack to leave a message with the body, such as a pre-written note (to save time). If he wanted to "authenticate" a message, if he felt it was important enough to take time out of his fleeing the crime scene to write a message for whatever reason, he would have made it as unmistakable as possible. We sure wouldn't be arguing about it over a hundred years later. Why not write another message on MJK's wall, for instance? It would have been a lot easier and there would be no doubt at all who wrote it. I do believe that the simplest explanation is usually the best, and the only one that fits with logic as I see it is that the graffito was only seen as a 'clue' because the police were ready to grasp at straws. As to why the piece of Eddowes's apron was where it was, there are any number of reasons that are a lot simpler than Jack wanting to "authenticate" a message that he could have authenticated in much more obvious and definative way.
Author: David Jetson Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 02:40 pm
After re-reading the thread, I see that there is also the possibility that Jack wanted to create a red herring by seeming to "authenticate" an unrelated graffito that he happened to have noticed. This is more likely than the idea that he wrote it, but my objections to the graffito still stand - even if Jack was trying to create a false clue, he still could easily have made it a bit more obvious. As I understand it, the apron piece was in the middle of the street, while the graffito was written on the inside wall of a doorway or passage. If my facts are wrong here, I'm sorry. If I'm right about where the apron bit was in relation to the graf, that supports my theory of it just being a random juxtaposition. For all anyone knows, Jack could have left it at Eddowes's feet and it may have been snatched by a stray dog who dumped it a few streets away when it found something better to chew...
Author: Richard P. Dewar Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:29 pm
My view is that more than likely the apron was used by the killer to wipe his hands as he fled. He dropped it or discarded it along the way near already existent graffiti. If the killer meant to leave a message for the authorities, there were more effective ways to do so to assure that the remarks were taken seriously. Rich
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:49 pm
Hello Diana , I agree with you regarding the "Lusk" kidney , insofar as its purpose was to authenticate the accompanying letter.Therefore there is a pattern,and it is for this reason I believe the "Lusk" letter to be genuine , although others may disagree. I cannot (yet) explain the differences in the handwriting, a good point on your part I thought. Best Wishes to all for 2003, Trevor .
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 06:58 pm
Additional: One explaination ( regarding the 2 types of handwriting),is of course, that "Jack" had an accomplice - "Food for thought" as my Headmaster used to say . Regards , Trevor.
Author: James Jeffrey Paul Wednesday, 01 January 2003 - 08:08 pm
Well, there's no guarantee that the "From Hell" letter was legitimate, but as for handwriting differences--Donald Rumbelow pointed out that the handwriting of the Dusseldorf Vampire or Ripper, Peter Kurten, changed drastically when he wrote letters to the police. His own wife didn't even recognize his altered handwriting.
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:46 am
Another thing occured to me as I lay in bed last night (shows how boring I am !). When writing on a wall with chalk there are several Physical differences that may account for the different style of writing. The wall was Vertical as opposed to Horizontal,and chalk on a (brick)wall produces more friction than an ink pen on paper. On the (rare) occasions when I have been asked to teach I have found there is a certain "knack" required to write legibly on a Chalk Board (or even a Pen board as it often is these days). In the "Lusk" letter the "slant" of the hand writing is consistant , which suggests to me this is a genuine feature of the writers handwriting. Unfortunatly,we have no photograph of the Goulston street graffito to compare such features. If the Graffito was written by the murderer ,(and I believe that it was),another question would be why did he happen to have a piece of chalk about his (or her ) person ? Trevor.
Author: Diana Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 08:03 am
Maybe it was connected to his trade? Teacher? Tailor? What else?
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:51 am
Trevor, Actually, it's been shown (and I've done it as well) that blackboard handwriting is amazingly similar to regular handwriting. Also, if a person is ambidextrous, typically the weak hand mirrors the strong hand's style. Everybody else, In any event, we really don't have any idea what the graffito really looked like, as it was erased before being photographed. Everyone who saw it claimed that it matched the "Dear Boss" letter's handwriting, too. Personally, I think it was legitimate, only for the placement. Warren had it erased because he felt that it was in such a close proximity to the street that any attempts to cover it up could be removed by a passerby easily. If it was that accessible, how did it last longer than five minutes? An anti-semitic chalk phrase on the side of a Jewish tenament, in a predominantly jewish neighborhood? Unless the killer and the vandal were working on a near flawless schedule, I doubt that the graffito could have lasted as long as it did. Also, keep in mind that it rained the night of the 29th of September and into the morning of the 30th. and that it had let up sometime after midnight. So the graffito had to have been written between 1 AM and the time that it was found. Which makes it even MORE of a coincidence if the killer didn't write it. B
Author: David Jetson Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:00 am
Brian - you seem a friendly guy so I'm sorry for arguing with you, don't take it personally - to me the answer seems quite clear. There are 3 posibilities with regard to the graffito: 1. Pure co-incidence, Jack never even saw it, and just happened to throw the apron piece into that doorway. Or it ended up there in some other way, or Jack chose that passage for some other reason, or whatever - anyway, let's call option one the co-incidence option. 2. Jack saw the graffiti either on his way to find a victim or while escaping the scene of the murder, it appealed to him for some reason, so he left the bloody apron there as some kind of statement. Call this the statement option. 3. Jack wrote it, most likely as a red herring, possibly as part of some kind of ritual related to Masons, the Illuminati, or some other conspiracy. Call this the clue option. I'm no expert, but I have read a lot of true crime stuff, and I've had the dubious pleasure of dealing with some completly senseless maniacs in my time, too. For my sins, I know exactly how it feels to be running in fear of your life, and I know exactly how it feels to be threatened with death by a seriously deranged person. I know a few other feelings that I would prefer not to know, as well, and I can promise that even the most delusional person knows what fear is, and that fear is one of the most basic and primal human motivations. I feel that Jack enjoyed his work, and didn't want to be caught. I can't prove it, but it seems a reasonable deduction to me. He was scared of the cops, for sure. And even if his twisted psyche was full of exultation at claiming another victim, I really don't think he'd be stopping to write a message on a wall. The idea that a person whose strongest emotions would be a combination of triumph and fear would write something like the graffito while escaping from the crime scene just doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't feel right. I know that attributing sense to the senseless is not always sensible, but I just don't get the feeling that the graf was written by somebody in the grip of strong emotions. I have some actual death threat letters that were written to me by an insane stalker who had a grudge against me, and they read quite differently, I assure you. Anyway, my personal feelings aside, I just don't see Jack taking time out to write the graffito. Being in a dangerous situation makes your hands shaky, and strong emotion does the same thing. Even psychopaths have emotions, they just don't believe in the existance of other people's emotions. Psychopaths see other people as things, but they have plenty of feelings for their own sweet hides. Crazed serial killers will certainly express themselves in writing, but not in such a mystifying way. Simply, as I've said, if Jack wanted to communicate something, he'd have made it abundantly clear by leaving a letter tucked under the body or written on the wall over it. He wouldn't write a message on a wall a long way away and then attempt to authenticate it by leaving a piece of bloody apron near it - it's too subtle, and what's the point of going to such effort when there is a good chance that it won't even be noticed? Someone could have easily moved the bloody apron piece, or it could have rained again and erased the writing, or the cops could have just plain missed it. If you have a message that you feel is important enough to put yourself at some risk, then you want to make damn sure it gets through. I really think the graffito is a red herring. Option 3 makes no sense at all. Option one - pure co-incidence, seems most likely. Why not? Weird co-incidences happen all the time, for no reason at all. Seeing patterns in random activity is actually a pretty common human trait - we try to see patterns, and the harder we try, the more likely we are to start filling in the missing details ourselves. And we know where that leads.
Author: Monty Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:38 am
Trevor, Check out this ...it may help....it may not ! Martin, Jim, This is Monty reporting...this is Monty reporting....... ....After heavy bargining (I buy pizza) I persuaded Becky to let me take a trip up East. Arrived at Goulston st around 5pm ish. It was dead...no one around. Located the enterance with thanks to the map in Messrs Evans and Gaineys book and with the help of Mr Hintons photos, cheers Gents. For those who have visited it recently will have found the site very much as it is in the photo from Bob Hintons from Hell. Whitewashed from the pavement to about halfway up the enterance frame. It was at this point that I got worried because in the photo from the A-Z the black facia continued from pavement to top. As it is now where the whitewash has finished it continues to top in brick. After a brief struggle with morals and wanton vandalism I notice that the next enterance along had quite a few chips in its whitewash. One was a huge, tennis ball size chip and at shoulder height, right on the outside edge of the enterance. Now if I may ask a question here, would the enterances to the dwellings have had the same decoration in 1888 ? I would have thought, seeing as it is all the same building, it would have the same decoration. With this in mind I wandered over and inspected the chip just to see what was underneath. What I found, shining through, was a 'glazed' piece of brick. Monty got excited...Becky got worried. Then I remembered (from where I do not) that the fascia was black. The brick work I found was not. It was a very dark chocolate brown which could have been passed off as black at night. But in the daylight it was certainly dark brown. I would like now to ask another question. The building on the opposite side to the street (west side) looks very similar to the dwellings. Were they built at the same time and would they have been decorated the same ? The reason I ask is that while I was doing my chalk experiment (more on that later...god this does go on a bit eh ?) Becky had wandered over to these buildings and beckoned me over. She had found, at about knee height, right near a enterance edge, a chip that was so deep it went through to the brickwork. Looking at it closely you could trace the layers of paint from Whitewash to Royal Blue to Brown 'glaze' and finally to brick. There was no sign of black. There you have it. Make of that what you will. But for me personally, I feel that the fascia was a dark brown 'glazed' brick as opposed to black painted regular brick. The chalk experiment ? It did occur to me Jack about using dressmakers chalk and even industrial but I plumped for blackboard chalk...On account of my lookout bottling it in Shenaz Fashions and Monty was unable to h'opperate (I would have returned it folks). The tennis ball size chip (which was the biggest I could find) was too small to write out the full graffito on but I could do individual letters. Infact I used all the different letters in the graffito and they all came out legible if somewhat blurred. This Monty...reporting for Casebook at Ten...ITV...over to you Trevor ! Knackard Monty Author: Martin Fido Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 06:01 pm Hi Monty, Yes, the buildings across the road, surrounding what used to be a very sinister rundown yard, were indeed more of the Model dwellings. All the best, Martin F Author: Tom Wescott Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 10:43 pm Monty, Since I am currently writing a piece as to what the graffiti said and how it appeared, I find your above post of much interest, particularly how you state that the chalk writing you performed came out 'legible' but 'blurred'. This is the same conclusion I came to in my researches, that the graffito was legible (which is obvious) but blurred (which does NOT mean 'faded', as some people take it). Although we cannot determine what kind of chalk the author used, your test may be valuable since it showed that at least SOME chalk, freshly applied, would appear blurred. I wonder why no previous authors attempted such a test? Yours truly, Tom Wescott P.S. Just to make sure that I'm clear on your experiment, you tested the chalk on the glazed portion of the brick, correct? What about an unglazed portion for comparison? Author: Timsta Tuesday, 09 July 2002 - 11:02 pm Monty, Without trying to put a dampener on what was a) excellent research, b) obviously a heck of a lot of fun to do, I should point out that 1888 chalk was probably a little different from the modern variety. It certainly changed during the course of my (English) schooldays, from a kinda hard nasty brittle stick to a more oily one with better 'coverage' for want of a better word. Perhaps we need to go down there en masse and do a JD Power comparison The Ripperologists are the Men that will Not be blamed for all the graffiti in Whitechapel, timsta From the thread :- Goulston St Graffito..not a double negative after all ? Sorry for the long post Monty
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 12:05 pm
David, I am a nice guy! I only get mad when people are mean to me. ;) As for your post, I tend to agree with most of it. If the graffito was written by Jack on his trip home, it was probably a red herring, meant to deceive the police, or plant blame on the Jews. I just seem to think that it would be a very odd bit of a coincidence that a random person would be out between 1 and 3 am writing anti-semitic graffiti in the heart of the Jewish neighborhood during the middle of murder season in the East End. And on the chalk question - could it have been something other than chalk? Perhaps a pebble or some other stone that would've left a white looking mark on the brick? That might cancel out the whole "why was Jack carrying chalk" issue with the graffiti as well. Just an idea. B
Author: David Jetson Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 12:38 pm
"I just seem to think that it would be a very odd bit of a coincidence that a random person would be out between 1 and 3 am writing anti-semitic graffiti in the heart of the Jewish neighborhood during the middle of murder season in the East End." Odd, sure, I agree. But as Sherlock said, once you eliminate the impossible, whatever's left - however improbable - must be the answer. Or words to that effect. I don't think it's impossible that Jack wrote it, I just think the "co-incidence" option is the most likely, despite the fact that it is indeed a bit of a co-incidence. Anyway, I would hesitate to even say it was definately anti-semetic. It might mean "The Jews will be blamed, and with good reason" or it might mean "The Jews don't deserve to be blamed." And it might refer to practically anything. The fact that it was right in the heart of murder season in Whitechapel may be relevant, and it may not. The fact that the message is impossible to understand due to the botched grammer means that, simply, we don't know for sure what the writer meant. It could have been part of some other episode that we know nothing about, that was completely unrelated to the murders. The thing about crime, and badness in general, is that life goes on around it. I can say that from my own perspective, certain events that had a big impact on my lifestyle didn't stop my friends from doing the usual stuff that they do. People still need to go to the shop, pay the rent, etc, even if someone is murdered in the next street. By another odd co-incidence, after writing that line above I remembered that a young man was, in fact, murdered two streets away from me on Xmas eve. It was some kind of falling out between friends, and the guy that did it is safely behind bars, but my point is that while that was certainly horrible and tragic, I still went about my daily business as per usual. And if I had happened to write something on the wall of the church across the road on the same night, it would be no more than a co-incidence, even if the killer had happened to drop the murder weapon directly under it. Unless it can be shown to definately be related, I think ANY "clue" should be regarded as probably co-incidental. Odd stuff happens all the time. Back in the 80s, a mad gunman killed a bunch of strangers here in Melbourne, and was captured by the cops in a little suburban lane, which, by a meaningless co-incidence I myself had been standing in a couple of hours earlier. I found out about it at work the next morning, and you can bet I felt pretty creeped out about it - but it didn't actually mean a thing. I later went back and looked at the bullet marks on the brick wall, not too far from where I'd stood a few hours before they were made... means nothing. I was just lucky things didn't go late that day. Very creepy, but ultimately meaningless. If I'd happened to chalk my name on the wall, and the bullets hit my name a few hours later - that would have been super creepy. But still meaningless. People look for patterns, we look for meaning, and sometimes we see it when it isn't there.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 01:59 pm
David, My only meaning that it would be odd that he would do that during the height of murder season was less a "why would they do that with people murdering prostitutes" and more of a "why would the guy be out at all." But your point is still valid - even in the midst of all of the murders, there must have been some people forced - either by their jobs or lack of them - to be out that early. And your Holmes point is also well taken. Your arguments are swaying me...but I think I'm still partially convinced that the Ripper did the writing, now mostly because of the contemporary feeling that it was real. But, it does appear that there is strong evidence to support the coincidence opinion. B
Author: Richard P. Dewar Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 02:53 pm
Hi all, It has never been established that the graffiti message was chalked the morning of the killing - it may very well have been there for some time. If there was chalk laying around the scene, anyone before or after the killing might have scrawled the message. If the killer was carrying chalk with him he could have made certain that the authorities understood that he scrawled the message by writing his text at the crime scene. The killer may or may not have written the message - we just don't know. Rich
Author: Bob Hinton Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 04:51 pm
Dear Everyone, I have never personally believed that JTR wrote the graffito in Goulston St. My main objection is Why? There are several answers to this, among them to blame someone else (the Jews) to tantalise the police with a clue and a hundred and one other things. However this overlooks the fact that the writing was extremely small, the largest letter was I believe 1/2" tall, on the inside of the wall, ie not readily seen from the street, and only really noticed because of the piece of apron. Why not write it in letters six inches tall next to the body of one of his victims? Why mess around with bits of apron to validate etc etc when leaving a body alongside really punches the message home. I wrote a short story once about how the writing came to be there - I must dig it out. Bob Hinton
Author: Warwick Parminter Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 05:01 pm
Since man has been civilized enough to take notice of his actions,--and record them, there have been actions that don't make sense, or have no rhyme nor reason, some are sensless "ha ha", some are plain evil, and some raise an insaitable "why". They had a reason when they were perpetrated, and they will carry on being perpetrated, but we will never know "why". How can you ask "why" of a killer like this, he has a reason but not one that would make any sense to any normal person, he's a cruel wicked child who has put paraffin on an old cat and lighted it, and nowadays that sort of thing is done by adults to adults, does it make any sense?and if they told you why, would it be a great revelation?. I think Jack the Ripper was no more than a man who was younger than his 28 to 30yrs, he was filled with hate for his surroundings and certain people in them, he had a lot of curiosity, and a devilish glee in shocking people and hurting those who could not hurt back. He had no conscience, he wouldn't think twice about killing if it bettered his position, he had a quick mind and he would make sure he could get away with it before he would make a move. And when he had completed his kill he could barely contain his amusement. While I think he was right under the authorities eyes, (a member of the vigilalties) I don't think Jack the Ripper wrote any letters at all. To our "young" Jack's mind, that would have destroyed his mystery, I think that in his glee after each killing, he would have thought, "why should I let them know I'm human, let them think I'm a Rumplestiltskin,-- I can come and go, and no one can stop me!!. There are plenty of potential JtRs around today, you can read of them in the paper, see them on tele, every day, the only reason they need knowing, is to put them away, and if it was left to me, it would be permanently Rick.
Author: Trevor Robert Jones Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 05:18 pm
I am indebted to Brian and Monty for their valued research and expertise. Trevor.
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 06:44 pm
Rich, I stated earlier why I don't think it could have been there for long, but I'll reiterate it one more time for clarity's sake: 1.) Location: It was in an easy place where it could have been erased or removed. It was an anti-semitic statement (and I only consider it so because the contemporary sources considered it to be) on the side of a Jewish tenement. 2.) Rain that evening: The weather reports for September 29, 30 indicate a heavy downpour beginning at 9:30 pm on the 29th and lasting until sometime after midnight on the 30th. 3.) PC Long's inquest testimony: He said that he discovered both the writing and the chalk markings at 2:55 AM on the 30th. 4.) Detective Halse's inquest testimony: He said that he had passed over the spot where the apron was found at 2:20 and did not notice the apron, nor did he notice the graffito (granted - he probably wasn't looking for it, either) When you put all of that together, you've got a pretty good circumstantial case that the graffitto and the apron ended up there at about the same time. At worst, you have an okay circumstantial case that the graffito was placed there sometime between whenever the rain let up after midight, and 2:55 AM when it was discovered. While David has a point - it could still be a coincidence - there's as good a chance that it wasn't. Trevor, thanks for the compliment! You're welcome! B
Author: chris scott Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 07:07 pm
A quick question - does anyone know of any comments or contemporary sources that would give some idea of how common grafitti was in the East End at that time? What Im getting at is that if it was as common as in a lot of inner city areas today, the fact that the piece of apron was dropped under/near a grafitto, then this would hardly be surprising and the "coincidence" argument would be strengthened If, on the other hand, grafitti is a modern phenomenon and it was rare in Victorian London then that would give food for thought as to who did it Not being an expert on the social history of grafitti Id welcome any comments Many thanks Chris Scott
Author: Dan Norder Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 07:20 pm
Got to disagree with you Brian (so what else is new)? 1) Without the apron there it's only ambiguously anti-Jew, so not likely to be erased... and there could be lots of it, and maybe some gets erased but it keeps coming back. Assuming that graffiti in a slum is a one time occurance that would be erased immediately is quite a leap of logic. 2) Rain doesn't necessarily erase chalk, even assuming the rain got on the wall, which we don't know. 3) This doesn't mean the two are related. The ever popular dog theory above accounts for the placement of the apron, as would a number of other circumstances... dropped randomly by killer, placed by someone else, chalk written by someone else after seeing apron, etc. etc. 4) As you grant, it'd be very easy to miss the chalk when Halse went by. Even the apron could have been there but not seen. Many people also think Halse missed that patrol and was inside getting a hot cup of whatever. You also question why someone would be out making graffiti at that time of night if they weren't the ripper... At one time of day would you recommend people write graffiti? And you can't tell me nobody would be out that time of night, as we know lots of people frequently were. Again, it's not some upperclass suburb somewhere with nuclear families who all go to bad at 9 p.m. I'm agnostic on both the Graffito and the Lusk letter. I firmly believe that neither has to be the work of the killer, as the evidence is all quite weak. Either or both could be by the killer, but I wouldn't base any theory around either assumption. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Timsta Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:17 pm
Brian: Good point about it possibly not being chalk. As kids, we would often write graffiti with pieces of broken coping stone, plaster, mortar, whatever came to hand around the derelict buildings we used to frequent (sadly this list also includes brown amosite and other nasty materials). I imagine the same substances were readily available in proximity to the Model Dwellings. They make pretty good chalk substitutes. If the Discovery Channel ever coughs up the money for my proton spectrometer study, we may someday find out for sure. Regards Timsta
Author: Brian Schoeneman Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:26 pm
Dan, All of your points are valid - which is why I didn't put "case closed" in my last message. If we look at this from the reaction of the contemporaries - Warren, the Detectives, etc. - they all seemed to think that the statement was sufficiently anti-semitic to possibly cause a riot. If so, I think it's reasonable to believe that it was significantly anti-semitic for someone would have wiped it off if they saw it. What was the literacy rate for the area? That would be a better reason for it not being erased actually. How many of the Jews in that area could read it? Then again, Warren and the boys felt that enough East Enders could read it to start a riot, so they had it erased. Rain doesn't necessarily erase chalk, but I think this is a stronger point than you are giving it credit for. The photo of the doorway in "Letters from Hell" is pretty clear - the doorway was just there...there was no overhang, it wasn't protected at all. In a heavy downpour, which the rain was categorized, I would think that it would have been sufficiently wet to if not erase the chalk marks, then at least blur or distort them. It's too bad Monty didn't throw a bucket of water on his chalk marks after he made them! I'd've liked to see how long it lasted there. And my third and fourth points are, of course, from witness testimony, and you know what I think about that. But these were police, so it does add a pinch more credability to their testimony. I don't know what time of day I would expect people to be writing grafitti, but like I said before, if you work off of the basis of my 3 hour time period, it's a hell of a coincidence. And of course there would have been people out and about, but considering this area was on the beats of at least two police, they weren't going to be hanging around there. B
Author: Timsta Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:31 pm
Brian (again): I can think of one good reason why the 'round schoolboy hand' should look different from, say, the Lusk Letter (apart from the obvious, that they were written by different people). I may have posted this before, but anyway: as far as I know, Board School (and similar) kids in the mid 19th century would pack a 'slate' on which to write during class. They would therefore presumably be quite skilled at 'chalkmanship'. Again, if I remember rightly, the use of a pen was not taught extensively until an age at which many children had left formal education. Therefore it would be possible for a person to be fluent in the use of chalk, but lousy with a pen. Ever used a Victorian-era nib? Not an easy device. Those were still the days when 'clerk' referred to an actual skill. (Other than discussing Star Wars construction methods and peepshow booth cleaning techniques.) Regards Timsta
Author: Timsta Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 09:34 pm
Brian (yet again): Can't quote the source (Fishman maybe?), but I seem to remember reading that East End literacy rates in the 1880s were actually better than they are now. Which I guess isn't saying much, actually. Regards Timsta
Author: David Radka Thursday, 02 January 2003 - 11:20 pm
"Those were still the days when 'clerk' referred to an actual skill." What's wrong with clerks? I have friends who are clerks, and they are skilled. They run complex software. Most of them are women, too. David
Author: Timsta Friday, 03 January 2003 - 12:34 am
David: I merely meant that the adjective 'clerical' referred to a specific set of skills associated with things like penmanship, bookkeeping, etc., as evidenced by its derivation from 'cleric'. My point is that even as late as the 1880s, ability to use a pen proficiently was not as universal as it is today (in itself largely due to the efforts of Messrs. Waterman, Biro et al). Regards Timsta
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:44 am
Brian- You said: "Warren, the Detectives, etc. - they all seemed to think that the statement was sufficiently anti-semitic to possibly cause a riot." Yes, but at that time the police and the crowd already knew (or assumed) that it was written by the killer. "If so, I think it's reasonable to believe that it was significantly anti-semitic for someone would have wiped it off if they saw it." The meaning is entirely different (or less severe anyway) if it was written by, say, a disgruntled out of work 60-year-old American sailor instead of a maniacal killer. I don't think it's fair to assume it would have been wiped off if the apron had never been found (say, if the theoretical dog had taken it away from that area instead of to). "Rain doesn't necessarily erase chalk, but I think this is a stronger point than you are giving it credit for." Yeah, I'm mostly poking a series of holes in your assumptions and not really expecting any of them to be particularly devastating. All of them taken together though raise enough doubts that I believe your conclusions are premature. As far as rain not washing chalk away, for example, it is likely that if rain had gotten onto the chalk that it would at the least look different and a competent officer would have noticed the difference. But this assumes competence (which I don't think is a given) and also that rain would have gotten onto it. "The photo of the doorway in "Letters from Hell" is pretty clear - the doorway was just there... there was no overhang, it wasn't protected at all." That's probably a good indication that it would have gotten wet... although, if the prevailing rain comes at an angle, and that angle happened to be from the opposite direction of the facing, the chalked area might have been largely missed by the brint force of the rain. It's fairly unlikely it'd happen to line up just so, but is possible. "I don't know what time of day I would expect people to be writing grafitti, but like I said before, if you work off of the basis of my 3 hour time period, it's a hell of a coincidence." You can't assume that without knowing how prevalent graffiti-writing behavior was at that time. If people were writing graffiti often the "hell of a coincidence" slips away into a statistical probability that graffiti would be there accidentally. "And of course there would have been people out and about, but considering this area was on the beats of at least two police, they weren't going to be hanging around there." What do you mean "hanging around"? People lived there, more people per square mile than most of us can even begin to visualize. Why do you assume that just because police would walk by there that nobody would dare be there? Do you think a policeman would scare off anyone standing near any doorway? Why? I think a lot more pieces of this particular puzzle need to be put together before you can make an informed guess about what the big picture is. Dan
Author: John W. Whitaker Friday, 03 January 2003 - 07:57 am
Chris, I've been wondering about how common grafitti was in the East End myself. But for a slightly different reason. If graffiti could be found on, let's say, 4 out of 5 doorways the killer could have left the piece of apron as a sign that the message was indeed from him. Perhaps he had written a message after the murder of Annie Chapman that was ignored and decided to make sure this time he was heard. Oh, and the only mention I have been able to find yet about graffiti was in a disertation by Jon Smyth where he wrote, "Graffiti of all kinds was not unusual, in fact it had proliferated since the murder of Annie Chapman,..." John
Author: David Radka Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:12 am
The proliferation of grafitti in the East End following Chapman should not necessarily be considered a reduction of the possibility that the murderer wrote the lines on the Wentworth building. If many people started writing grafitti, perhaps he would, too. After all, Jack the Ripper was a person, too. What a gleaming pearl of wisdom this is! But does anyone listen to me? No. They listen instead to the several ignorant slobs who post here. David
Author: David Jetson Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:37 am
David Radka - I think my posts were certainly taking into account the fact that Jack was certainly a real person, and at least some of the time acted like a normal person. Anyway, from what I gather, you think you have the correct solution. I'm not saying you don't, but I haven't seen any reason for you not sharing it here. Can you tell me what your reason is? Book deal? And, keeping it on topic, do you think the graf is a deliberate message from Jack or a co-incidental red herring?
Author: Philip Rayner Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:51 am
David, what you say in your posts is usually a well thought out and balanced view of the topic under discussion, then you have to spoil it making an arrogant and provocative comment. Do you really need to belittle the rest of us in order to boost your ego. We may not be your intellectual equals, god knows you tell us often enough, but each of us has a right to share this forum without being insulted. Someone who was educated till 16 then left school to become a binman has as much right to an opinion as you do!
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 03 January 2003 - 11:02 am
John W.--You might be interested in the following, from the East London Observer, 14 September, 1889, after the discovery of the Pinchin-street torso: "That the memory of this notorious criminal is still fresh in the minds of the inhabitants around is shown by the fact that on a black paling opposite the arch under which the unknown body was hidden some one had written the word "lipski" in large chalk letters. Whether done before the discovery of the body or after no one seems to know, but the name is there." Best wishes, RJP
Author: Brian Schoeneman Friday, 03 January 2003 - 12:14 pm
Dan, What I meant by "hanging around" as that if someone had been hanging around, not going into the residence and merely loafing in that area - or standing around taking the time to write random graffiti, he would have been rousted by the cops. One of the major duties of the police then was making sure that the homeless weren't sleeping in the gutters. And I'm sure that a cop on his beat at 1 AM during that time period would have challenged anyone who didn't appear to belong in the area who happened to be standing around. B
Author: David Radka Friday, 03 January 2003 - 01:51 pm
Hi, 1. I believe the graf is a real message from the killer. So is the Lusk letter. The apron was taken to ID the graf, and the kidney to ID the letter. No other letters were genuine, IMHO. 2. I'm not talking about my theory because I want to have what Patricia Cornwell has: When I do release a work on the case, I'll be swept right into Valhala by the tide of public acclaim! So I need to keep it a surprise till then. 3. I am sorry for being such an egomaniac. What is said above about me is correct. I swim in egomania the same as JtR swam in ...whatever. Nevertheless and at the same time, there are certain ignorant slobs who post here. Certain, mind you. A few. Not many. David
Author: Dan Norder Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:01 pm
Brian, Why are you sure of this? You keep using words that indicate near certainty of your beliefs, or close to it, but don't really come up with evidence to support those conclusions. We know that a significant number of people were up and about at that time, so why would cops run everyone off of anywhere they walked by? People sitting on the ground like they were going to sleep would have been told to move along, but someone standing by a doorway, especially if he were talking to someone else, or going in or out when he heard the cop clomp by, probably wouldn't be considered suspicious. It's not like there was a curfew by which everyone had to be inside under penalty of law. And what are the odds that a graffiti writer wouldn't "appear to belong in the area"? And if the cop for some unknown reason decided to run the person off, what's to stop him from coming back five minutes later? And now that we are starting to get evidence in that anti-Jew scrawlings and graffiti in general were not one time events (which I think would have been a reasonable conclusion considering the area anyway), the whole argument that Jack had to have done it falls to pieces. And, like a number of people have pointed out over the years, if he were prone to writing on walls there was all sorts of space at MJK's that he could have left a message on, but chose not to. (And yes, I know this assumes he killed MJK, but there's a heck of a lot more real and obvious evidence that he did than there is that he wrote messages either on walls or on paper.) The time crunch to escape probably would make writing at the other scenes impossible, should he be inclined to do so, but he could have written a letter ahead of time and left it on a body if he really wanted to authenticate a message. Or he could have put something in the text of the graffiti specifically about killing or whores, or smeared the apron around the writing, or something to give it a little more oomph to link it if he had written that. He didn't do any of these things. Maybe he just wasn't very bright -- or maybe he wasn't the message leaving kind of maniac. The lack of any message at any of the physical crime scenes, especially Kelly's, and lack of a direct tie between the apron and the chalk letters (other than being merely in the same genreral area) both seem like a strong indicator that the Goulston Graffiti isn't related. Lack of specifics about the crimes that only the killer would know and lack of confirming physical evidence (Lusk letter possibly excluded) both point to the ripper not being a letter writer either. Dan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consider supporting this great site by making a donation
Author: Philip Rayner Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:21 pm
I would imagine that, as with other message boards, there are a minority of people who make no attempt to read the Casebook pages or previous messages. I saw someone in another thread who reiterated the question which began it. This is life. Still I just feel that a new member (Potentially a valued and welcome new member.) might take a look at some of the posts and decide that if we are just infighting all the time it's not worth it. For what it's worth David I thought that, toned down a bit the meaning of your message regarding women and Ripper research would have been quite valid. That is not a comment on the intelligence and logical ability of either sex as I pointed out in my message in the same thread. Just that a man and a woman examining the same evidence could and probably would draw different conclusions. From that point of view the only thing wrong was that you seemed to be taking Ms Cornwells inadequacies and projecting them onto all women. In general we all get on together but what you meant (And clarified in later posts.) suffered because the original post quite clearly seemed to denigrate women. I also find your 'less controversial posts' informative and to the point. I am well versed in Ripper lore but I have learned from the board a few facts I did not know and some came from yourself.