| Author |
Message |
    
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 885
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:20 am: |       |
Natalie, Dave,
Nat,
The Police used their lamps.
Dave,
Good post Buddy.
Monty
 |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 902
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:26 am: | |
Andy,
would have to be determined by the number of messages on all the walls within the dog's walking range.
GSCE Maths just came flying back at me there!!
All,
In my mind though it is most probable that the Ripper wrote the message due to the evidence of the piece of Kate's apron underneath it.
Sarah |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 464
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 10:52 am: | |
Hello Sarah --
Yes, Statistics and Probability (or "Sadistics and Probability," as we used to call it) always gave me a headache in college.
Let's not dwell on the dog per se, since that scenario is most unlikely. But it does have application to the question at hand. Your line of reasoning seems to be that it is unlikely that a person would accidently or randomly drop a bit of cloth beneath a message written on a wall. I think you said essentially that in your last post. Let's look at that.
Can we assume that it is at least possible that the killer dropped the cloth randomly? If indeed he did drop it randomly, then his behavior approximates that of a dog dropping the cloth. As we have seen, the probability of randomly dropping a cloth under a message is no less than the probability of dropping the cloth at any other given spot. Assuming random dropping, the odds depend on the ratio of pavement space underneath messages to the pavement space not under messages. If 50% of the pavement space on the killer's escape route were below messages on walls, then the chance of dropping the cloth below a message would be 50%. If 20% of the pavement space were below messages, the odds would be 20%, etc.
So where does that leave us? We are left with a piece of apron found under a message. This scenario immediately suggests the possibility of a connection, but the scene does not suggest that there is a connection. As we have seen, it is not at all implausible or unlikely that the cloth could have been randomly dropped under a message (unless there were very few messages written on the walls of this area).
We do also have to look at the content of the message. There is nothing in its content connecting it with the murder(s). True, the killer is not required to write explicitly about his murder, so this does not disprove that the killer wrote the message. However, the lack of such a verbal connection suggests that it is also likely that the cloth was dropped randomly.
It would be most helpful to know how common graffiti was on the walls of Whitechapel.
Andy S. |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 903
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 11:48 am: | |
Andy,
It would be most helpful to know how common graffiti was on the walls of Whitechapel.
I completely agree, but what would be more helpful would be to know how many other messages he passed on his route. I am going on the known facts and therefore presuming that this was the only message on his route and therefore if the whole of his route is 100% then it would be only 1% likely that he accidently dropped it by that piece of graffiti.
That's enough maths for now I think or else my head my explode and that was just simple stuff.
Sarah |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 459
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:10 pm: | |
I agree 100% with Sarah on this!
Natalie |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 904
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 12:24 pm: | |
Thank you Natalie. I was hoping someone out there thought I wasn't talking twaddle (hope that's a word).
I was trying to think of the probability of him seeing the message and then dropping it by it on purpose but my brain just melted.
I still think it's most likely that he wrote it himself.
Sarah |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 179
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:20 pm: | |
I hate to rain on the parade here, but we don't know if JtR left the apron-half where it was found (we don't even know if he took it, though I would not feel confident arguing to the contrary.) Even if Jack dropped the apron-half there, we don't know what route he took from Mitre Square to Goulston Street and so on. Blithely assigning probalities is not likely to be productive.
The point of my original post (in which I dragged in the curious behavior of the dog in the night-time) was to illustrate the need to factor in the uniqueness of each element when assessing the probability of coincidence.
To go off-topic momentarily, much is sometimes made of the fact that all the canonical victims lived near each other at one time or another. True, and each victim is unique because she was murdered. But, since everyone lives somewhere and the victims were all part of a greater class of local unfortunates and many of the lodging houses to which these women resorted were located on Dorset or Flower and Dean streets, then there is nothing unique about the victims having lived there. Thus, the coincidence of where they lived becomes much less suggestive unless you want to believe they were not chosen at random.
Certainly it would be helpful to know how common such grafitti were. For what it is worth, Dew says they were common and considering the universality over time of graffiti and the evident tensions in the area, it would seem likely such messages were not unusual. But again, we don't know -- alas.
Don. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 464
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 2:47 pm: | |
Hi Donald,the only point I"d make is that this graffiti"s wording is fairly mildly worded,[no swearing or abusive terminology]its also concise
-whatever its meaning,and itis intended to be read obviously-in other words its not a drawing or caricature.Its fair to consider that not all the people in Whitechapel could have read it for a start---so who was it intended for?
Natalie |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 181
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 3:52 pm: | |
Natalie,
Point taken, but I suppose that could cut either way. You know, it doesn't say "Here's the whore's apron!" or "Jews go home!" or anything else easily classified. Instead, it just says something vague about Jews (or Juwes or Jeuwes or something). And again, it would be nice to know what sort of graffito did abound -- if it did abound.
Maybe it will provide an opening for the "Druitt Did It" partisans on the boards. After all, a schoolmaster might well have a piece of chalk in his pockets and the confusing construction of the sentence would be worthy of both a schoolmaster AND lawyer at his obfuscatory best. Perhaps Juwes was even the nickname of some cricket club. And to forestall anyone getting the wrong idea, I'm having fun in this paragraph.
Like almost everything to do with the JtR puzzle, the graffito is both fascinating and frustrating.
Don. |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 465
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 4:08 pm: | |
Sarah wrote:
I am going on the known facts and therefore presuming that this was the only message on his route and therefore if the whole of his route is 100% then it would be only 1% likely that he accidently dropped it by that piece of graffiti.
Gee, Sarah, in my opinion that is a very hazardous assumption. I have no proof either way, but human nature being what it is I would strongly suspect that there was a fair amount of graffiti present on these walls. It may not have been anything like 50% coverage, but I think there must have been many such messages.
If you are correct in your assumption that this is the only message on any wall on JtR's escape route and if the cloth was dropped randomly then what we have is an occurrence that would not likely be soon duplicated, however that says nothing about its likelihood of having happened. Probabilities are a priori.
As an example: I recently knocked a marker off the tray of a marker board. To my amazement, it bounced once and then landed and stood on its end on the floor. Statistically, I might well have to repeat that trial hundreds of times before it happened again. However, that probability has no effect on the likelihood of the event having occurred in the past (which past "probability" is 100% since I know that it in fact did happen).
Nothing blithe about it. Just sound math.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on March 16, 2004)
(Message edited by aspallek on March 16, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 907
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 4:40 am: | |
Andy,
I doubt there would have been many other message like that. I have a feeling graffiti wasn't that common back then. How many people had writing utensils on them that could be applied to walls? How many could write for that matter and so neatly too?
If there was more graffiti then I would guess that they would just be marks on the wall and not messages.
You example with the marker is irrelevant I feel because you know that it is fact that you did that and you are right the probability doesn't matter because you know it occured, but we co not know for a fact that the apron was dropped there out of chance and so cannot be proven as 100% likely.
Also, as Natalie said, the message wasn't rude (as in swearing) in anyway and was fairly mind and yet if someone wanted to write it on the wall to slate the Jews for some reason then surely they would write something a little less cryptic and more straight forward and rude.
That's just how I see it.
Sarah |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 5:24 am: | |
Hi Sarah
Chalk would have been extremely common. Quite apart from any schoolteachers (probably rare) any shopkeeper, shop assistant, tailor, seamstress, etc. would have had it.
And we have at leat one policeman (Dew) who claims graffiti was common.
Plus we have the actual actions of the police. Warren clearly thought the graffiti was inflamatory (while we still argue over whether it actually meant Jews or not - he obviously thought it did). But it is not clear that he thought it was written by the Ripper, and I would say his actions - unless we postulate conspiracy - suggest that he did _not_ think it was JtR's work.
Regards
Pete
|
PF arm
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 8:35 am: | |
Just a question to add another dimension to this board.
If you were just doing some graffiti why would you hide in in a doorway rather than put in on a wall in full view of passerbys?
|
steven tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 9:33 pm: | |
In response to earlier posts, perhaps he didn't take one of Eddowe's rags to clean his knife, because it would not be easily linked to the murder. He removed a piece of her apron soley to provide a deliberate clue- and to draw attention to the grafitto. |
Bart Cubbins
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 7:16 pm: | |
re the gaslight 20+ yards away: find out the brightness level thru some kind of research - then go put an easily contrived simulacrum on a road, not forgetting the moon's light on that date - and see how your eyes do. In my younger days I might have been able to write ubder those conditions - or not, since I don't know the results of the experiment. But if an inspector carries this experiment out, there'd be a better idea about that at least
Someone said he'd have his back to the lamp, of course making it harder. If 18" high, would Jack have sat down to catch his breath? And why not him happening upon this recent graffito and dropping the apron for a lark /tease? Why do some call this improbable? } |
RipperHistorian
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 16, 2004 - 8:43 pm: | |
As far as the message goes, "The Juwes (or however it is interrpretted) are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"
Basically that seems to be an inarticulate way of saying either "This area sucks and it's the fault of the Jews" (If written by a non Jew) OR "This area sucks and it is not the fault of the Jews, but we get blamed for it" (If written by a Jew).
Sounds like common graffiti to me folks. There is nothing in the content to show that JTR wrote it. And, in my opinion, if you are going to take the chance of writing a message after committing a murder, and be in possession of a bloody knife and apron, you would be writing something pretty darn important, or at least something that identified the author as the killer.
Unless of course that you want to speculate that the message was written before the murder and the rag was dropped after, but that just doesn't sound right.
Tim |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 889
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:25 am: | |
Bart,
If my memory serves me correct Stewart Evans told me the lamp was 20 yards north of the enterance. I may be wrong because a) 20 yards north would take the lamp out of Goulston st and b) when I looked on the map the lamp is 20 yards south of the enterance.
The graffito was found on the south side of the doorway therefore any light given off by the lamp (if any at all) would be of no use what so ever.
So if Jack did write the graffito he either did it in the dark (not impossible) or he provided his own light (1 Tin match box empty).
The other possibility is that it was written in daylight earlier....by Jack or someone else.
But this doesnt get anyone anywhere.
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Chief Inspector
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 915
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Steven,
Good point. If he had taken the chalk from Kate's pocket, then he may well have had a sudden urge to vocalise his feelings and thoughts. I think he then left the apron there as a marker to draw attention to the message rather than to wipe his knife as he didn't take any other clothing from any other the other victims.
Sarah |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 891
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:40 am: | |
PF,
Exactly !
a) Why not put the graffito above Kates body or on the pavement nearby ?
b) Why be so cryptic ?
c) Why hide it away ?
Monty
|
Chris Michetti
Detective Sergeant
Username: Pl4tinum
Post Number: 58
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 11:58 am: | |
Maybe the message was so cryptic because the killer was high (opium anyone?). Seems like when he says "not the men" and then "for nothing" he's contradicting himself.
Chris 
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 880
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:05 pm: | |
Hi All,
By the time he had finished cutting Kate's face and eyelids, Jack would have been hard pressed to go into extra time to write a message there as well, wouldn't he?
I can't understand the argument that because he had time for the former, he would have had time for the latter. Kate's mutilations would surely have taken priority over a few chalked afterthoughts?
What no one has picked up on yet is the fact that, if such graffiti was really that common in the immediate area since Annie was murdered, you'd think the police would have had their work cut out erasing it all, yet I've seen no mention of this.
My point being that once they had removed the bloody apron piece from beneath this example, there would have been nothing to distinguish it from any other - assuming the theme of the message was a fairly common one, in line with the alleged proliferation of such graffiti. I don't blame the police for erasing it anyway - it was provocative and could very easily have been seen as racially offensive by any Jewish passer-by.
But do you see what I'm getting at here? It makes no difference whether the police really believed the ripper wrote it or not. Even with the apron piece removed, its continuing presence was still considered to be a threat to law and order if anyone had noticed it there that night minus the apron.
Did the police routinely check for other examples and get rid with the same sense of urgency? If not, perhaps it's because there weren't too many other similar examples around after all.
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 881
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:09 pm: | |
Hi Chris, All,
Does arsenic help you see in the dark? Anyone? 
Nicking eyelids couldn't have been exactly childsplay either, holding a knife in one hand and a lighted match in t'other.
Love,
Caz |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 882
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:15 pm: | |
And another thing...
Apparently, recent statistics indicate that roughly 80% of people who are sent to prison have a problem with alcohol or drugs.
I suppose that must range from persistent graffiti artists and vandals to serial killers with a nice piece of chalk burning a hole in their pocket.
Love,
Caz |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 469
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 1:30 pm: | |
Some excellent points made there Caz.
I thought this about Catherine Eddowes.That he managed to perform amazing stuff in the 10 mins or so in the pitch dark little intricate incisions
here and there astonishing to think all this was discovered only 40 mins after she was saying ta ta to thechap who set her free!
Also your point about the supposed proliferation of graffiti.If Whitechapel was so used to this sort of inflammatory graffiti then why dont we hear this mentioned at all.And perhaps why dont we hear them saying something like "we erased it as we do with all graffiti that is likely to cause political unrest among the population of Whitechapel at the present time".Because it WAS a time of great social unrest[which was partly the reason Anderson resigned ofcourse].
Rereading this Caz I see I am just reiterating what you said---well they really were such good points. |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 472
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 17, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Bullwinkle,
RE:correcting my post on Kosminki"s
ability to read and write
See Paul Begg"s JtR A Definitive History
page 269 record from Colney Hatch register of admissions.viz Education R&W
Natalie |
