|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
BARRIEGLEN@YAHOO.CO.UK
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2003 - 12:30 pm: |       |
IN CURTIS BOOK .NEWS FROM WHITECHAPEL.PAGE 158.DAILY TELEGRAPH.REPORTS POLICE SAY RUMOURS OF WRITTING ON WALLS ARE FALSE.? BARRIE GLEN. |
Alan Sharp
Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 317
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 29, 2003 - 8:12 am: | |
Barrie
I don't have that book with me but if not very much mistaken that is referring to the supposed message on the wall in Hanbury Street which Monty refers to. To be honest that message worries me slightly. The wording, "Five, fifteen more and I give myself up" seems altogether wrong as most only considered this to be the fourth murder. So if it was made up, why Five?
Mark
Sorry, didn't spot that. Great minds think alike. (Or fools seldom differ!) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 571
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 1:37 pm: | |
Hi All,
I have often seen comments like: “Jack would have written more messages and in different ways (eg pre-written cards pinned to victims, clearer letters on Kelly’s wall etc) if he was that kind of killer”, by way of an argument against Jack chalking up the graffito or sending any communications to the police, Lusk etc.
But I don’t quite understand how this argument works. I hate to say it, but it almost smacks of Cornwellian thinking. The evidence for the claim that Sickert sent one or more ripper letters appears to have led Cornwell to believe that in all probability he would have sent many more – in fact, that he sent them by the sackload.
But why would this follow? We know that some murderers do like to read about their crimes and do communicate with the outside world about them. But they would be limited by all sorts of factors besides opportunity - factors such as lack of imagination, foresight, impulse or will at any given moment, to name but a few. I don’t see why the absence of messages pinned to Eddowes’ clothing or written in blood on Kelly’s wall, when Jack apparently had the opportunity to supply them, should make it unlikely that he would have done anything similar.
This is akin to arguing that Jack would surely have taken the womb or a kidney from the scene of Kelly’s murder when he had every opportunity, if he took these organs away from previous crime scenes. But those of us who accept that one man did exactly that – ie the latter but not the former (which I guess would be most of us) must consider it equally possible that he decided to write the graffito and/or send a piece of kidney through the post, but chose not to communicate in other ways on other occasions, for whatever reason.
Love,
Caz
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 521
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 5:55 pm: | |
Hi Caz et al:
Sure the killer might have left other graffiti that went unlinked with him because he didn't leave a calling card such as a bloody apron. This is why some killers who do communicate give some sort of code number so the police will know it is them (e.g., the Unabomber did this in his communications).
As an aside, there is a record that there was an anti-Jewish chalk inscription, specifically anti-Lipski inscription, found at the scene of the Pinchin Street murder, presumably put there around the time of the murder, though not necessarily by the murderer.
Four days after the discovery of the headless torso by P.C. William Pennett, at daybreak on Tuesday, 10 September, 1889, it was reported in the press 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 or after no one seems to know, but the name was there." East London Observer, Saturday, 14 September 1889.
In the short story "The Presser," A. E. Coppard (Alfred Edward Coppard), who worked as a boy for a Jewish tailor in the East End at the time of the Whitechapel murders, relates that the boy in his story, based on his memories of that time, "avoided the railway arch [possibly also Pinchin Street?] because someone had done murder there, and someone else had painted a white skeleton on the wall. . ."
All the best
Chris |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 6:17 pm: | |
Hi Caz
If the Sept 30th message was planned, wouldn't Jack have delivered it in a different manner? Why would he stand, at great risk to himself, writing a message on a wall in circumstances where there was a possibility that either the message, or apron, or both, might be completely missed, or else not connected with each other by the police?
Of course, the graffito may have been a spur of the moment afterthought.
Re Kelly's wall, sure he may not have felt like writing anything that day. But doesn't the absence of writing at least cast doubt on the Dear Boss letter, which actually mentions writing with the "proper red stuff", which Jack had an abundance of in 13 Room?
I feel the Lusk letter is in a category of its own, because it was addressed to a specific person.
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 156
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 6:32 pm: | |
Hi Robert,I have a hunch that the killer enjoyed the risk-more even than that-he needed the risk
like some need cocaine-it gave him a similar rush!
I may well be wrong over this but I think that he enjoyed being provocative/getting up peoples noses
that sort of thing and getting away with it was the biggest rush of all.And I think he could stillbe as mad as a hatter to boot.Best Natalie. |
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 109
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 9:07 pm: | |
Hi Robert,
“If the Sept 30th message was planned, wouldn't Jack have delivered it in a different manner?”
He might then have pinned a pre-written card to Catherine, that’s true, but a thing I hadn’t thought of when I wrote my last post on this thread is that he may simply have found – as has been suggested - the thought of another thrill more appealing.
“Why would he stand, at great risk to himself, writing a message on a wall in circumstances where there was a possibility that either the message, or apron, or both, might be completely missed, or else not connected with each other by the police?”
Now, I’m not saying that the Ripper planned it, if he actually was the one who wrote the graffito, but I don’t think there was much chance of something being missed. First of all, the apron was just inside a doorway that led to the staircases of a dwelling house mainly inhabited by Jews, through which they would daily come and go and certainly they wouldn’t all have missed the bloody apron and the writing. Secondly, Sir Charles Warren’s decision to have the writing wiped out shows that (in daylight) the writing was probably clearly visible to the public in the street and that it would have been connected with the apron.
All the best,
Frank
|
Gary Alan Weatherhead
Inspector
Username: Garyw
Post Number: 455
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 9:44 pm: | |
Hi All
I tend to believe that the writing may have come from Jacky. Chalk is notorious for smearing or being partially wiped away when someone rubs up against it or inadvertently comes in contact with it. This might indicate the writing was relatively fresh.
The wall writing is interesting in that it was placed at a spot exactly in a place where Jack left his only definite clue in the form of the apron.
All The Best
Gary |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 574
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 5:11 am: | |
Hi Robert, All,
I never said anything about the graffito being planned to the last detail. But Jack could have taken chalk with him, having toyed with the idea of leaving some sort of message if and when the mood took him.
I have also suggested that he may have gone back to his lair with the organs wrapped in the apron piece, then decided to go out again to discard the incriminating item slightly off his original escape route, taking the opportunity to snub the Jews he saw as interfering with his plans/responsible for making him do what he did that night.
We can’t know what motivated the killer to do all that he did or how much planning went into it. One may as well ask why he would have stayed to nick a victim’s eyelids and mark her cheeks, at great risk of being caught red-handed, since no one has been able to explain that either. The difference is that we know he did these things.
I agree with Gary here – the fact that the apron piece was the only definite clue left by Jack makes it seem almost perverse to me to discard the message as someone else’s work. Why not just keep it in the pending tray? We wouldn’t try to argue that someone else nicked Eddowes’ eyelids after Jack left, would we? What are the chances of Jack poncing about looking for a suitable piece of graffito to drop the apron piece under, or dropping it there by chance, without even noticing the writing on the wall? Isn’t it simpler to consider that the apron may well have underlined the message in the same way the author of the Lusk letter used the kidney to underline his?
Love,
Caz
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 575
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 5:28 am: | |
Hi again Robert,
Regarding your observation about the ‘Dear Boss’ letter, I have no strong views either way, but I do feel that what a killer thinks or says he will do one minute, fancies doing another, and actually does, if and when he gets the chance, are not necessarily going to be consistent - ever. He can lie and fantasise and change his mind and his plans to his heart’s content – that is what successful killers tend to do. There are no rules – rules is for fools.
This is why I have never understood arguments that letters promising one thing when the killer delivers something else must be hoaxes. Why must a killer be telling the whole truth, even to himself, if he ever puts pen to paper (or even chalk to wall)? I’d expect to see a tangled web of lies and self-delusion, fantasy and reality that would take a supersleuth to separate and analyse.
Love,
Caz
|
Frank van Oploo
Detective Sergeant
Username: Franko
Post Number: 110
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 7:41 am: | |
Hi all,
We know that Sir Charles Warren and superintendant Thomas Arnold considered the graffito important enough in connection with the Ripper crimes to have it erased before a photograph could be taken. It caused much debate. We also know that the police made a door to door inquiry in the dwelling house and must also have focused their attention on the graffito in their investigation following this initial inquiry. Also the newspaper hounds must have done their share of interviewing and chasing the public for any leads on the subject. Despite all this, not one inhabitant of the dwelling house turned up to make a statement that he or she had seen the graffito before.
All the best,
Frank
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1707
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 7:47 am: | |
Hi Caz and everyone
I certainly don't want to rule anything out (though I do stand firm on one point : these crimes were not committed by Princess Anne's dog).
I would love to know just how many doorways in Goulston St had graffiti on them. At one extreme, every doorway had graffiti, and since Jack had to drop the apron in a doorway rather than in the open street, to buy a little more escape time, there would be nothing very suggestive about the
Juwes message. The other extreme is where the Juwes doorway is the only one in the street with graffito. That makes it look much more like Jack's work. I suppose there is the fact that this graffito appears to have been the only one on this wall - that may be a slight pointer.
I'm not a fanatical risk-taker myself, but I can see how he could have got a taste for living dangerously. I'm just wondering though whether he'd still have been on this high, and in a mood to do the graffito, after doing the murder and going home first to dispose of the organs. Wouldn't he be coming down from it by then? Also I don't see why he'd need to dispose of the apron, if he'd been home first : if you're going to keep a womb and kidney at your place, you might as well keep a bit of apron. If he didn't want the apron because it was mucky, surely he could have ripped it up and shoved it down a drain or something?
Re Dear Boss, yes he could have written this swaggering letter and then changed his mind in Room 13. These nutters can do anything.
I just wonder how he was supposed to have saved the blood in the bottle. Did he have the bottle with him at the time? Or did he squeeze out organs over one when he got home? Or was it all just a joke?
Robert |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi Frank
That's a good point. Furthermore, in his report of 6 Nov Warren doesn't say anything such as "The Jews who live in the building have since informed me that it was an old message that they'd meant to rub out" - something that it would have been natural for him to mention if it was true, as he was trying to justify his actions in the report.
Of course, the message could have been written by some passer-by sometime after nightfall on 29th. Still...
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 220
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 31, 2003 - 4:17 pm: | |
Here's another scenario: I am Jack's wife/brother/mother/father/employer/whatever. We live in the same premises. I am suspicious because he has been acting odd for some time now. Whenever there was a killing he was gone. I fear the worst but a large part of me is still in denial.
On the night of the double event he runs in panting with a wierd gleam in his eye and a rag in his hand, and wrapped up in the rag are a kidney and a uterus. There is shortly an uproar in the streets outside as the door to door searches get underway.
"Give me that!" I yell. "Are you out of your mind?" I dispose quickly of the body parts and then run out into the street with the rag hidden in my pocket. I come to a convenient doorway in Goulston Street where I toss the rag under some graffito.
This would account for the delay in finding the piece of apron -- if Jack actually got all the way home with it and was intercepted by a horrified relative, one who was determined to maintain respectability. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1724
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 1:38 pm: | |
Yes Diana, but why would this relative be able to dispose of the kidney and uterus in one place,yet have to go to another place to get rid of the apron?
Robert |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 01, 2004 - 5:11 pm: | |
Good question. Possibly Jack wouldn't surrender them? In fact if the Lusk letter is true, that would be the case. |
Chris Scott
Chief Inspector
Username: Chris
Post Number: 815
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
To show how misleading contemporary writing styles can be look at the extract below from the 1891 census for Marlborough.
the second entry looks like, and indeed has been transcribed in the index, as George Baily Juw but the context of the entry (son of the man above) make it clear that the last word is JNR. (Junior) and not JUW.
Maybe we are looking for a family called Junior to whom the finger was being pointed??? (This is not an entirely serious suggestion - just a comment on how easily written script can be misread)
Chris
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 536
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 02, 2004 - 12:56 pm: | |
Hi, all:
In the A&E series "American Justice" there was a segment this week on the so-called Lipstick Killer of Chicago, who in 1945-1946, murdered three people, two women and one child, washing the bodies, and in the case of the child, dismembering her. The point is that at one of the murder scenes the killer left a message on the wall in lipstick, "For heavens sake catch me before I kill more. I cannot control myself."
A man, a petty burgler named Bill Heirens, age 17 at the time of the crimes, supposedly confessed to the murders but has since maintained his innocence, claiming he was bullied and tortured by the police, who threatened him with the electric chair if he did not confess. His confession does appear to show that he was being "lead" in talking about the crimes rather than talking fully and freely about the details of the murders. Heirens is now in his seventies and is known as a model prisoner. The Center of Wrongful Convictions at the law faculty of Northwestern University have taken up his case as a model of injustice.
In the A&E special, it was mentioned that the writing on the wall may have been written by a reporter. Considering the alleged police and prosecutorial misconduct, I suppose that is possible, although it does not appear to explain why the same handwriting style appears in two ransom notes concerning the abducted and murdered child. The handwriting in neither the notes nor on the wall appears to have matched Heirens' handwriting. I am not saying that a reporter in 1888 was responsible for the graffito found in Goulston Street, although there is an interesting parallel here to the police allegation that the Dear Boss letter may have been concocted by a reporter.
As an aside, the washing of the bodies by the Chicago Lipstick Killer is reminiscent of the similar activity by the killer or killers in the Black Dahlia murder of 1947 in Los Angeles and the Cleveland Torso murders of the 1930's.
Best regards
Chris |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 30, 2003 - 10:36 pm: | |
I agree glen, I find it interesting that the only place the ripper ever left a definite clue was left under this message. I dont usually believe in coincidence. I have gone back and forth on the issue if the writeing was written by the ripper or not but if it was it could have been the ripper who knew that the police suspected a Jew stateing that he was not a Jew and they should not be blamed for the ripper murders However, The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing refering to the death of Christ. This may indicate that the ripper was a religeous person. I understand that the spelling of Jews that they found on the wall is debateable? Two different police organizations claim two different spellings of the word Jews. [Juwes,Jews.] Is this correct? Thanks, Take care CB |
Alan Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 8:39 am: | |
Hi Everyone
I feel that the grafitti is the biggest red herring in this entire case. The evidence of the policeman who discovered it along with the apron stretches belief to the limit. Did he go lantern in hand into each unlit entry on his beat in search of finding miniscule writing on the walls? If not how on earth could he know that this particular message wasnt there when he passed previously? Surely it was only its proximity to the section of apron which even brought it to his attention.
I fear that like other aspects of this mystery the evidence of the police must be taken with a large pinch of salt. Jack couldnt really have been so lucky/skillful so often to just fit his dastardly deeds into the small and varying time frame between the various bobby's rounds, much more likely that old PC Plod was painting his dilligence and conciencousness in a favourable light. Also the thought of a fleeing killer whose every animal instinct must have been screaming at him to get the hell out of it and into safety should stop to write a message on a wall, something the likes of which he had never done before in the course of his funny little games just doesnt ring true. Nor does the idea that he reached safety then decided to go back out to do so.
Alan |
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 696
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:22 pm: | |
Alan Smith writes...
Hi Everyone
I feel that the grafitti is the biggest red herring in this entire case. The evidence of the policeman who discovered it along with the apron stretches belief to the limit. Did he go lantern in hand into each unlit entry on his beat in search of finding miniscule writing on the walls? If not how on earth could he know that this particular message wasnt there when he passed previously? Surely it was only its proximity to the section of apron which even brought it to his attention.
I fear that like other aspects of this mystery the evidence of the police must be taken with a large pinch of salt. Jack couldnt really have been so lucky/skillful so often to just fit his dastardly deeds into the small and varying time frame between the various bobby's rounds, much more likely that old PC Plod was painting his dilligence and conciencousness in a favourable light. Also the thought of a fleeing killer whose every animal instinct must have been screaming at him to get the hell out of it and into safety should stop to write a message on a wall, something the likes of which he had never done before in the course of his funny little games just doesnt ring true. Nor does the idea that he reached safety then decided to go back out to do so.
Monty agrees...whilst getting around the 25 word limit !!! Sneaky.
Just an add on..or question, whatever you want.
Part of my job is to fill out a QB50, commonly known as a notebook. Now, I have to put down significant events like entering buildings, courts, people seen, statements taken, chalked messages on the walls..your usual stuff. This has to be done a soon as possible. At the time is best but sometimes this cannot be done, so you have to input the info ASAP after the event.
Now, what I want to know is would these guidelines (and thats all they are, guidelines) be used in 1888 ? Or would a Bobby be taking down the 'particulars' over a brew at the nick ?
Is this the reason for a 'forgotten' notebook or why the wording doesnt match ?
Just wondering,
Monty
 |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 681
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 7:51 am: | |
Hi Monty,
I thought I read somewhere that the routine carrying and use of notebooks while on the beat came in later than 1888, but I couldn’t swear to it, or to the reliability of the info.
Love,
Caz
|
Monty
Chief Inspector
Username: Monty
Post Number: 706
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - 10:17 am: | |
Caz,
Really ?
That does interest me. It begs the question then on how reliable the Bobbies were.
It maybe just as well Jack was never caught. The PCs evidence would be no more reliable than the witnesses.
Case dismissed.
Thanks.
Monty
|
Ken Morris
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 6:48 pm: | |
Everyone -
I see that no one has posted here in a while but I have not read this anywhere, so let me air this out. If it has come up then someone let me know. But if ghoulston street is known for being a very dark place, which would be the most logical route taken by someone who is carrying assorted body parts in a bloody apron, is it not possible that the killer upon going to wherever he/she was going may have seen the writing on the wall, dropped of his product, then came back and decided it would be a great place to drop his apron? If the killer is not jewish than it would make very good sense to drop it there, and if this person is a calculating person, which we have seen, it would be a very natural thought then. Oddly enough, the times given and the locations of the place of the murder and the writing on the wall lend very well to a theory involving Barnett, but im not getting into that. I just don't know if this has been discussed yet, on his way to his hide-out the killer sees the writing, and returns to drop off his apron.
Here's looking at you kids-
Ken |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1187
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
Ken,
The route to Goulston st was dark...but no darker than any other. I feel it has to do with how well populated that street was and how quick his (Jacks) chosen route was...which we can only guess at.
To answer your question, well in my eyes I cannot see Jack hanging around. If he chosen Goulston st for the two reasons I mention above then he would have been very concerned with street traffic. He wouldnt want to be seen. The Police where well on the look out (Halse and his cronies already on the search not long after thhe body was found) and loitering wouldnt have been an option.
The only way I can see your scenario working is by looking at a suggestion made by Ivor Edwards. That Jack hid in a bolt hole for a while then re-appeared to deposite the apron. This is a risky manouver but not a impossible thought.
As for linking the apron with the graffito. I cannot see the reasoning for that other than implicating the Jews. If so then why not write your own message ?
Cheers,
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 132
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 8:18 pm: | |
Monty,
Just for the record, I'm in favor of the bolthole idea. As Paul Begg points out in his editorial for the new Ripperologist, to explain away the missing 45 minutes means making the dangerous and unfounded assumption that PC Long was either lying or was negligent in his duties. I believe Ivor is right in his suggestion that the Ripper had a bolthole (though I don't believe Ivor was the first to suggest such a thing)and may have an idea where it was.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1188
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 5:50 am: | |
Tom,
I agree. A bolthole is a more favourable scenario than Jack hanging around the area Police dodging.
Ive not read Pauls editorial just yet (I havent read my Ripperologist at all at the moment!) so I cannot comment as such but going on what you have revealed above, I agree its dangerous to assume Long was lying or negligent.
But its plausible that he was mistaken. An option that should be looked at just as openly as the bolthole I feel.
Later,
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:01 am: | |
Hi,
I have read Ripperologist, and i have one question if it possible to know the answer that would be helpful!!! Do you know how dark it would have been?
Jennifer |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 6:17 am: | |
Jenni,
How dark what would have been ?
Goulston st ?
The entrance to the dwellings ??
The Dark side of the force ???
Monty
(Message edited by monty on June 16, 2004)
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 368
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Monty,
well know you mention it the dark side of the force how dark is that???
seriously i meant wherever the apron was located and the general scene!!
Jennifer |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 414
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 5:26 pm: | |
Hi,
I just want to make sure I've got things correct with respect to Long.
He testifies that he found the apron at 2:55. He passed the spot previously at 2:20, which is about a 35 min patrol (that seems on the long side, pardon the pun, compared to Watkins and Harvey's beats, which are closer to the 15-20 min rounds; but Long is on his first night of patrol).
Anyway, if 35 minutes is his patrol time, then that would suggest he passed this area at 1:45 am, 2:20, and 2:55, when he found the apron.
Now, 1:45 is about the time the body was found. The distance from the murder scene to the graffito looks to be such that it would take say not more than 10 minutes at a walk (based upon some of my computer simulation stuff). So, if JtR had fled the scene at 1:42 ish (just before the body is found), then he wouldn't get to the graffito location until around 1:52 ish, which is after Long has passed that location at 1:45.
Given Long's long patrol, that would introduce a delay of up to 35 minutes between the dropping of the apron and it's discovery.
At 2:20, if the apron is there, Long could easily have missed it, although he seems quite sure it was not there. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us why he is so sure. If he said, I'm sure it wasn't there because I checked the stairs and doors of all the buildings during my patrol, having heard of the murder. Then, we would be pretty safe in concluding the apron wasn't there.
However, Long has heard of yet another murder, and it's his first night on this patrol, so it's possible he was more interested in looking for suspicious people (or persons), running around in the area, etc, rather than checking for garbage and such (which is what the apron would have looked like). And, if his attention was to initially keep an eye out for people, by the time he's on his 2nd round (the one where he finds the apron), he would have concluded that JtR has long passed out of his area; if he was ever even in it.
And it is on this round that he finds the apron. What about his confidence in the apron not being there? Well, because he was being "alert" on his 1:45-2:20 patrol, he's sure it's not there. But, he was "alert" to looking for people, so his confidence may be misplaced.
Anyway, none of this proves the apron was there at 2:20 of course because all I'm doing is tieing in a bunch of conjecture that I've made up in the first place; it's assumptions disguised as proof and I want to ensure nobody thinks I'm doing this deliberately. Remember, I have nothing that suggests Long's attention was on people, it's just a convienient thing to assume to ensure he misses the apron the first time he passes.
Anyway, looking at the times of Long's patrol, it does seem that if he missed the apron, he missed it only once. JtR, at the earliest, would have passed by the location just after Long patrolled it on his 1:45-2:20 round (so he couldn't have missed it then because it almost certainly could not have been there as early as 1:45 am; note almost certainly!).
It should be remembered, that Long wrote in his notebook the graffito, and in his notebook Jews is spelled correctly, and not as Juwes. If we believe that Long got that wrong, while looking right at it and knowing it was evidence, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to think he may have missed something more subtle when he doesn't even realise beforehand what to look for.
Of course, it is also possible that the apron simply was not there at 2:20 even if Long could be thought to be predisposed to have missed it if it were. That JtR hid somewhere, and dumps the apron sometime later (after 2:20, but before 2:55), is possible. And just because we can think of reasons why Long might have missed it, we can also make up reasons as to why he would not have missed it. But making up reasons doesn't tell us if the apron was or wasn't there at 2:20.
Both scenerios can be made to work. So neither should be preferred. If a theory hinges on the apron being there, or not being there, at 2:20 am, then unless it has some other evidence to support the choice, the theory must be considered "unproven" to the extent that the time of the apron placing is important. And by evidence I do not mean just more made up stuff pretending to be evidence like what I've done above, but real documented evidence. Simply attributing convienient "mental/emotional states" to the people involved is story telling, it's not interpretation, and it's not evidence.
Of course, if a theory can "cope" with the apron being placed at any time after the murder, then either scenerio works within the context of the theory. This would make the theory "robust as to the detail of the apron leaving time".
- Jeff
Be alert! We need more lerts. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1191
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 5:47 am: | |
Jeff,
Thats exactly the way I see it and always have done.
Jenni,
The street would have been dark and the entrance even darker.
Does that help ??
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Monty,
Yes I thank you. I am just guessing it would have been very easy to miss especially considering what Jeff said about whom the police would be looking for.
cheers
Jennifer |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 415
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 4:51 pm: | |
Hi,
Jennifer, just be careful though! I don't know that Long was looking for people, only that such a behaviour would be reasonable for him to do. It would also be reasonable for him to look for evidence that the killer may have passed his way - looking for signs of blood for example. If Long took the latter course, then the chances of him missing the apron at 2:20 go down (so the notion that it was never there would be stronger under the alternative).
The police, or more importantly Long in particular, had to chose one of many reasonable actions. Of course, he could just have easily been on the lookout for any signs, etc, which is most probable. I'm just thinking "what if's" here; what if he concentrated on looking for a suspect more than looking for other evidence? etc.
Regardless, his route appears to have taken him 35 min to complete. That seems longer than some of the others reported (or he's slower than other officers; not surprising as it was his first night so he would have to familearise himself with a new beat). In whatever case (long route, new route, slow cop, any or all), it means PC Long must be considered "disadvantaged" with respect to spotting the apron relative to the norm (slow cop implying poor attention to duty - supposed to cover the beat in 15-20 min). Normally, we could assume the officer has a decent familearity with the route, that he knows all the nooks and crannies along the way, that he's generally doing his job well, etc. With Long, we can be sure the first two are not met, the last is debatable, but suggested by the fact he's later dismissed for drunkeness on duty (or something like that?), misrecords evidence (spells Jews correctly), doesn't check the homes where he finds the apron (just the stairs, not the occupants).
Anyway, I was just mulling over things, and looking at it from different viewpoints (making different assumptions; none of which are supported no matter how I weave them together to try and make them look connected).
Anyway, I've always been of the opinion that the apron was simply missed by PC Long at 2:20. It's dark, he's new to the beat, he seems a bit lax, his beat is a long one, an apron would just look like normal refuse, etc. All these things combined suggest that missing the apron if it were there is not a stretch. Also, the most obvious route the killer takes from Mitre Square is out through St. James Place, and from here there is pretty much a straight line route to Ghoulston Street by crossing Houndsditch, etc. In other words, the apron appears to be along a path suitable for someone who's trying to maximise their distance from Mitre Square using non-major streets. So the route from MS-GS is suitable for a fleeing Jack. JtR would have passed the location after Long patrolled at 1:45 ish, but before Long patrolled it at 2:20 ish. That suggests Long missed the apron.
But I fully admit that opinion is not an established fact. As much as these statements all support the same conclusion, they are simply demonstrating that one can make up a consistent story which includes the apron being missed by PC Long. But, I'm sure we could all make up a consistant story that includes the apron being dropped after PC Long patrols the area at 2:20.
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on June 17, 2004) |
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 416
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Hi Monty,
As per the "bolt hole" and loitering. If JtR arrives on Goulston street, and PC Long is still in view (but down the street, heading away), then JtR knows he's got at least 10-15 minutes before PC Long shows up again. Turns out he probably had even more time.
Since the estimated times of JtR getting Goulston street and PC Long's patrol of the area are within a 5 minutes of each other, then such a possibility has to be considered I think (estimated times are so error prone that to be within 5 minutes in this case is practically no different from saying they were there at the same time). Anyway, if JtR is fleeing, knowing his hands are bloody, this may have afforded him the perfect opertunity to clean up knowing that the beat cop just passed.
Anyway, I'm not sure the notion of JtR taking time to clean up would be that risky. He's gotten a distance away from the scene, there's a good chance he may have seen PC Long and so knows he safe for a few minutes, and having bloody hands is riskier than not having bloody hands.
What say you?
- Jeff |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1196
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 18, 2004 - 5:10 am: | |
Jeff,
What say I?
Well, firstly I say our thoughts are very similar. Except that I feel Long didn’t miss the apron (half an apron would still have been a sizable piece, there is a dissertation somewhere regarding this) just that he chose to ignore what would have been seen as a rag.
I have walked the distance between the Square and Goulston st. Going at the pace I assumed the killer would go at (brisk but not too brisk) and the route I got to the spot in 4 mins 24 secs (don’t quote me on the seconds). So yeah, he may have seen Long depart. But the route would have been slightly more different in Jacks day.
I also understand your views on Jack having time to take stock and clean up. The problem I see with this scenario is that you haven’t taken into account the plain clothes operations taking part that night. As you know Halse, Outram and Marriott were doing business in Aldgate way. Im sure they wouldn’t have been the only plain clothes Bobbies around. Would our boy have been that wary ?
Halses actions speak volumes for me that night. Upon hearing the news he ventured on to the square then immediately went in the direction of Middlesex st and Wentworth st. When you couple that with the Met search area it does seem to indicate a conscious thought pattern. Also, Halse may have been trying to link up with the beat Bobbies, such as Long, as well as stop searching. Im sure he would have known the beats (not sure about Halse knowing the PC because a) Long, as you say, was new and b) PCs were beginning to be rotated and beats reversed). As a point of interest, Walter Dew stated that strangers were stopped searched by the Police but known faces and locals were rarely challenged. Makes you wonder doesn’t it? Though Im sure Halse wouldn’t have dreamed of taking that stance as he meandered through the streets looking for our chap.
Overall I cannot see Jack taking risks that don’t need to be taken…..BUT the whole act of murder in public is a risky do isn’t it ?
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar... |
kenmorr1
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2004 - 6:00 pm: | |
Monty-
Agreed. I have always thought how you do that there is no way anyone would want to hang out, or return to any other location to deposit something. The problem I see is the times. If the constable didnt see the aprong at 2:25, and then did see it at 2:55, and if memory serves although I dont have it in front of me the murder was at 1:45, the apron spot is definately no where near 30 minutes from the murder spot. Taking this into consideration throughs a twist on everything, whether Jack wrote it or not, why did the apron take so long to get there? Only three mathematically possible explanations are that he hid out, then left. OR he went home then came back. OR he didnt touch the apron and someone/something(i.e. dog) brought it there. The final theory seems like mush to me, i dont think he hung out because then he had to drop an aprong and walk around with body parts in his hands, only possible theory is he went home then came back, unless I've missed something(which of course is totally possible).
Here's lookin at you kids-
Ken |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 15, 2004 - 7:00 pm: | |
Dear CB,
The spelling was most certainly a point of contention between the various parties who claimed to be present at the time it was erased.
Whether the graffitto was directed at the local Jews (threatening incitement); a message addressed to the police (taunting); or, both of the foregoing (species of a sociopathic agenda directed at Jews/Police/Everyone), is open to various interpretations.
It could also be a statement of 'religious belief' as you suggest...but now you are supplying a cultural variable into a dynamic psychopathic milieu, but that would be a nonsensical approach to viewing the contextual representation of the Goulston Street graffitto!
Rosey :-) |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Inspector
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 20, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Whatho all,
What if PC Long walked along the other side of the street on his 2.20 stroll along Goulson Street. He wouldn't have seen the apron then (if it was there).
Do policemen's beats state on which side the street the policeman must walk?
Cheers, Mark (remember, it was too dark to write anything on the wall at night, just reminding you) |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 8:47 pm: | |
Halse said it was a good schoolboy's round hand. If that means that the writer exhibited neatness and control, then it would militate against the writer being JTR for the simple reason that if he did stop to write it he would have been in an awful hurry. You would expect a scrawl. He would have wanted to get it down and get out of there. |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 2:04 am: | |
"Jack may have been a "cool" customer and been calm and taken his time.
But I am certain he did not write it.
It was the juxtaposition of apron fragment and graffito that exercised Arnold and Warren - not a common origin.
I suspect also that in the days of "copper plate" writing it was less easy than now to change your style. Both the way it was learned and the pens of the time would underpin habit.
Does anyone know what the wall surface was like? Chalk on a glossy surface would require time to make the words stay and show. On the other hand they would be harder to wash off a rougher plaster surface, though easier to write.
Phil |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 585
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 1:33 pm: | |
Phil,
I believe Monty Burns made the trip to Goulston Street with some chalk and found that the bricks were glazed. I don't know if his account is on the current boards, but if it isn't maybe he'll drop in and give the account again.
All,
Going back to some of the older posts, I don't think it's "dangerous" at all to consider that Long missed the apron. I think it's dangerous not to. It's only responsible to note that he's fired for drinking on duty. What's really telling to me is that he showed up at the Eddowes inquest without his notebook, and had to be sent back for it. In the great buzz the Eddowes murder generated, Long shows up to testify at this well-publicized and most important inquest without his notes! He just doesn't seem to be terribly observant to me. So I don't think we have to do a lot of stretching to suppose that Long just missed it. He needn't necessarily to have been derelict, although you've got Long and Halse on the spot at 20 past two and they don't seem to remember each other.
Halse is harder. He seems more solid to me, and that's what keeps me in indecision. But in response to questioning by Coroner Langham, Halse admits that he wouldn't necessarily have seen the apron piece because it was set back in the building. And at 20 past two, when Halse makes his first visit through Goulston Street, he's not aware that a piece of apron is missing (he doesn't find that out until he goes to the mortuary). So during that first pass, he's more concerned with who's walking the street, not what's lying on the ground. So I think there's plenty of room to doubt the idea of the Ripper hanging around for an hour, and that the dangerous assumption is assuming that the graffiti is an authentic Ripper communication.
But since Halse seems capable to me, I also have to consider that he didn't notice the apron because it wasn't there. When discussing graffiti written and erased in 1888, and not photographed for posterity, there's not a lot of room for certainty, imo.
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on December 07, 2004) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1435
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 7:58 am: | |
Phil,
For your benefit mate.
POSTED ON THE CASEBOOK 8/7/03 by me.
"..... I shall tell you a story that most Casebook vets know already..sorry to bore folks.
I took a trip to Goulston st a last summer with a mate of mine. We went with an intention of doing a little experiment with a piece of chalk. We found the dwellings enterance but we also found it covered in whitewash. The next entry (which we assumed was also part of the dwellings) had chips off the whitewash and exposed a royal blue paint. This we thought could not have been its original brick work because in books it is described as black.
Becky (my mate) had wandered across to the opposite side of Goulston st whilst I was contemplating some wanton vandalism. She called me over. She had noticed a large chip on the buildings opposite the Wenworth dwellings. This chip ran through a few layers of paint including the exact same shade of blue we had noted previously. The difference being that this chip ran straight through to brick.
The layer above brick was a sepia glaze (which could have seemed black at night), there was NO black. Now we reckoned that this must have been its original brickwork and was roughly 4 - 5 ft off the ground. The chip was around 1 - 2 inches in diameter and just big enough for me to write in different letters with my chalk. I chose letters from the graffito (J's, W's etc) and it came out very bitty and blurred. It seem as if the writing was old when infact I'd only just put it there.
The only problem was that this experiment was NOT conducted on the Wentworth dwellings. I put out a request on the boards asking if the surrounding buildings were a) built at the same time and b) had the same decorations as the Wentworth Dwellings. Mr Fido kindly replied (do you remember this Martin ?) that the opposite buildings had been built at the same time and had been decorated in the same manner.
I used modern chalk for this experiment and it has been pointed out to me that different chalks may produce different results.
But in answer to your question about the removal, I found that all I had to do was wipe my thumb over and it was gone. This was so easy because it was a glazed brick. It was something I didnt expect.
Make of that what you want...or even better, if you happen to be down old Goulston st way with a piece of chalk...... "
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1436
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 8:20 am: | |
David,
Just out of interest....maybe !
I have a QB50 (a notebook) to use when noting down significant events.
If I have to give evidence in court then I have a choice of how I recall that evidence.
One is to work from memory. This obviously opens you up to 'attack' from the defence brief who will bust a gut to show the court that your memory is er....is erm....what was I saying?
The other is to use my notebook. Thats the preferred option. However if you bring a notebook then the court has a right to see for themselves what is noted down. After all, you could be quoting any old tosh. Seeing as Long noted the words down wrong I have a hunch he was trying to avoid such a scenario and tried to blag it. Once the Coroner starts asking about the graffitos spelling and grammar and the Foreman starts asking about the location of the notebook then Long has no choice but to fetch it from Westminster, the place from which he is seconded.
Basically what I am saying is that there maybe no sinsister reason for leaving behind the notebook and no reason for Long to bring it at all. The choice, if I am correct and assume we work the same, was his.
Cheers,
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 589
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 9:22 am: | |
Hi Monty
Thanks and that certainly is of interest. Although I don't think anything particularly sinister was going on, just that perhaps Long was behaving a bit unprofessionally. I'd have thought as a matter of course a constable testifying at a murder inquest would bring along his notes. That it might have been a conscious choice hadn't occurred to me, although I do wonder what a policeman would say about that.
Thanks for reposting that account of your visit to Goulston street. I always thought that was well done
Best,
Dave |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1437
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Dave,
Long should have brought his notebook along. No question. As you say, smacks of unprofessionalism.
To be honest, if it was me? Id have brought the notebook along and come clean about the noting of the writing. When on duty it should be on our persons....that would include an inquest.
Maybe this incident shows just how much relivence Long gives to the graffito. This in itself is odd as everyone else around attached a significance of sorts to the writing.
I agree with you about Long. Doesnt seem to be the sharpest around but I fear I judge him harshly. First night on a new beat, comes across the apron and writing, notes in down incorrectly. A combination of first night nerves and pressure due to the realisation Jack has been on his beat?
Bet he wished he was back in Westminister !
Cheers,
Monty
Don't be shocked by the tone of my voice
Check out my new weapon, weapon of choice- Jack the Ripper
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 590
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Ha, I bet he did wish that, what a first night! And I think your assessment of Long is very reasonable, Monty. I'm not sure I would have gone around knocking on those tenement doors myself
Dave |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1371
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 11:02 am: | |
i still wonder if he genuinely missed both the writing and the apron first time round? |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 08, 2004 - 8:34 am: | |
Monty - this is very useful and much appreciated. Your initiative in carrying out the experiment is something for which we should all be grateful.
The book "The Writing on the Wall" carries a good clear picture of the entry on page 24 (hardback 1st ed) and simply says the door jamb was "brick". That is no real surprise!! It is the question of the wall being tiled (glazed) or built with glazed bricks that interested me. Clearly a very shiny tiling or glaze might have resisted chalk.
While I could imagine the entry being glazed 9as a form of protection against wear and tear and graffiti in say the 20s or 30s, I was unsure about the 1880's. I saw these buildings long ago (in the 70s) but did not then take sufficient notice (Knight's book putting emphasis on the "Juwes" had not then been published).
Your scrutiny of the "chip" and the layers of paint/glaze seems good evidence to work on.
Once again, many thanks for a most illuminating post.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 2:46 pm: | |
Logic surely suggests that mistakes, oversights, or mis-statements by the police in regard to the timing, are more likey than that Jack hung around for a long time.
I'm not saying that we should assume the police are wrong, just stating what I see as an inherent probability.
I don't know what the view now is, but wasn't there once a feeling that the policeman responsible for Mitre Square (Watkins?) was probably indoors somewhere enjoying a "brew" and thus may have missed one circuit of his beat? Correct me if I am wrong, please.
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
