Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:38 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."
David,
We're on the same page on these matters.
Sir Robert |
Author: John W. Whitaker
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 02:46 pm | |
Hi R.J.,
That is an interesting tidbit. Especially considering that it was reported that bloody clothes were found in Batty St. Which was the scene of the original Lipski murder. Although the police are said to have thought it unrelated.
Also interesting is a bit from the Woodford Times, 13 September, 1889. From the Pinchin St. Inquest, while being deposed PC William Pennet, 239 H,
"Then that made you go across? - I don't always look in at the arch. I thought it was a "bundle" that some Jews had thrown away in the night. "
I couldn't find mention of any of the items (graffiti, clothes or the quote) in a second document. I am no expert on the papers of the time so I don't know how reliable any of the accounts are. However I do think that they (at least the quote and graffiti) illustrate a pretty good bit of anti-semitism in the area.
regards,
John |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 03:08 pm | |
Hi all,
I think Dan has made very telling and interesting points.
It would be wonderful if the killer was someone who left clues or messages for the authorities. Yet there really is no evidence whatsoever to conclude this.
There is absolutely no evidence that the graffiti was written by the killer - there is only speculation that because the apron was dropped nearby the message was thereby written by the Ripper. To me, that is quite a stretch.
A couple of items that I have seen repeated but I don't really think have been proven - that the message was fresh and that the authorities felt it was genuine. I have seen no evidence of this.
Because no one reported seeing the writing before and it rained that night does not mean the writing had not existed the day before - I have seen chalked graffiti remain on buildings for days in inclement weather and I, and to my knowledge, no one else reported it.
The police noted the information and suspected it could have been from the killer. This is altogether fitting. This does not mean that the authorities accepted the message as genuine. But even if they did, unless we know what they based that position upon, it is still speculation.
I am not saying that the killer did not write the graffiti - he very well may have. What I am saying is there is no evidence to support that contention.
Rich |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 03:56 pm | |
"there is only speculation that because the apron was dropped nearby the message was thereby written by the Ripper. To me, that is quite a stretch. "
Rich,
Of course, the killer could have simply randomly dropped the apron at the Goulston Street location and it just so happened that the graffito was nearby. We'll probably never know for certain.
However, I just finished rereading Sugden and he cites PC Long as saying he found the apron JUST BELOW the graffito (p.183). Sugden goes on to create a time line for the placement of the apron
(pp.187-188) which makes it clear that the killer really put himself at considerable risk to double back into Whitechapel after Eddowes to place the apron in that location.
So I am inclined to believe the apron's placement was chosen with care, it's location had a deliberate meaning and a purpose. Of course it is a leap to say that it's simply too big a coincidence that the graffito was there as well, but I'm willing to make that leap. I agree with David that the apron was there to I.D. the message.
Sir Robert |
Author: Trevor Robert Jones
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 05:05 pm | |
Hi All,
I just thought I would re-iterate my two pennyworth.
I believe that the graffito and the letter were written by the killer , and the purpose of the Apron and Kidney was to validate/authenticate the accompanying messages - although these in themselves appear somewhat cryptic .
However , as several posters have pointed out , ther are several difficulties with this postulation , not least of which is the difference in the handwriting .
Perhaps it might be useful to apply the lesser standard of evidence , ie. on the balance of probabilities to this POSSIBLE piece of evidence.
One thought on the handwriting , I have noticed over some years that my own handwriting deteriorates (relativly speaking !) over the course of a busy day (although certain features always remain).
Perhaps he wrote the "Lusk" letter early during the day?
Has anyone done any comparative analysis between the two "Dear Boss" letters and the "Lusk" letter ?
Best Wishes,
Trevor. |
Author: Timsta
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 05:18 pm | |
Hi all.
Although I lean towards thinking that the graffiti was written by the killer (and have my own theory as to its meaning, which a quick keyword search will locate for you), I agree that the evidence for this claim is circumstantial at best.
As for the Lusk Letter, to my mind it's most likely that *either* it was sent by the killer, *or*, as authorities seemed to think at the time, it was a hoax perpetrated by a medical student or similar.
My only problem with the latter explanation is that I feel the possible consequences of being discovered as the perpetrator of the hoax (a very real possibility, I would suggest) would be so severe as to dissuade any potential hoaxer. The police were *very* interested in medical students, mortuary assistants, etc. at the time. Being such a person, and being linked to the Lusk letter, would have been a sure fire route to the gallows, I would think.
Regards
Timsta |
Author: Tony Rutherford
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 05:46 pm | |
Dear All.
According to Paul Begg's book, Jack the Ripper, The Definitive History,graffiti was very common on the streets of Whitechapel. He quotes Walter Dew on the subject.
" It was soon after the Hanbury Street murder that strange messages began to be chalked up on the walls in the vicinity of the crime. On a wall in a passage running off Hanbury Street this terrible prophecy was read with awe by thousands of people:
THIS IS THE FOURTH. I WILL MURDER 16 MORE AND THEN GIVE MYSELF UP."
Just thought I'd throw this in
Tony |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 07:38 pm | |
Hi Sir Robert,
Your contention certainly is plausible. And I understand your view that the killer tooks risks in fleeing down Goulston St - therefore you conclude the apron was placed there.
My view is that it is more likely the killer was simply taking the quickest route to whatever his destination was.
Both your opinion and mine are conjecture. We apparently will never know for sure what happened. Each of us simply comes to our own conclusions based on probability and/or intuition.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 08:51 pm | |
Hi Rich,
One of the interesting wrinkles here is that the murderer apparently did not flee directly to Whitechapel after Mitre Square. Based on when PC Watkins found Eddowes (1:45am) and PC Long's discovery of the apron (2:55am), it can deduced that JtR took 36 to 70 minutes to get from Mitre Sqaure to Goulston, a time at which he was in grave risk of discovery.
According to Sugden, this is normally a 5 minute brisk walk.
Eddleston's new Jack the Ripper : An Encyclopedia offers a very simple explanation to why the apron was found where it was. George Hutchinson was the Ripper, and he simply dropped the apron off near where he lived, right near the doorway on Goulston Street! Which would address your point about destination but leave unresolved the gap in the time line.
Sir Robert |
Author: Diana
Friday, 03 January 2003 - 10:20 pm | |
| He went all the way home -- home being somewhere east of Buck's Row (remember the wedge shaped paradigm), cleaned himself up, changed his clothes and carrying the piece of apron and a piece of chalk in his pocket went to Goulston Street and placed the apron and the graffito. |
Author: David Jetson
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 08:15 am | |
"He went all the way home -- home being somewhere east of Buck's Row (remember the wedge shaped paradigm), cleaned himself up, changed his clothes and carrying the piece of apron and a piece of chalk in his pocket went to Goulston Street and placed the apron and the graffito."
OK, but - why? What would be the point of doing all that? When it would have been easier to do it in a less dangerous and more "authenticatable" way? That's my problem with the graffito. I'd need a reason to believe that Jack was attempting to achieve something by doing that. And if he wanted to achieve something, he failed miserably because it's 2003 and people are still arguing about what it means and whether it's relevant.
Unless that's what he was TRYING to achieve... which seems a bit out of character. I mean, Jack doesn't seem like a subtle guy to me...
I think it's actually more likely that the cop missed it on his first beat. There's a sort of rule I find useful: Never ascribe intention to anything that can be explained by incompetence. People being dumb and lazy is far more likely than people pulling off a fiendishly clever conspiracy. |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 12:16 pm | |
| David, that's a wonderful rule and I think you have a point with it. I just thought that if the apron was not there earlier the only explanation would be that he went home and then came back with it. |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 03:33 pm | |
Re the grafitto: I have read repeatedly that the word JUWES did not only NOT mean JEWS (in Yiddish, masonic ceremony or anywhere else) but it did not appear to exist in any known language.
For what it's worth, these are the results of searches I have done for this word (i.e. in occurences unrelated to the Whitechapel case)
Juwes:
1) In Gaelic, alternative name for the "spruce tree" associated in the lunar calendar with the 1st sign - the Stag
Ref: http://www.angelfire.com/journal/cathbodua/Calendar.html
1) In 16th century French, supposed alternative for "juif" i.e. Jew
Ref: http://bartydeux.gminformatique.com/svq/juh297.html
Line 9
3)The word also occurs on Old german - I am still trying to track down what the modern translation would be
Ref: (these are just a few examples) - to locate, use Edit menu then Find
http://online-media.uni-marburg.de/ma_geschichte/pest/Quelle11.html
'here, wi deden dat mit rade juwes dekens und juwer domheren de hir sitten'.
http://www.rrz.uni-hamburg.de/Landesforschung/pub/3frame.html?/Landesforschung/pub/js/js161.htm
"Ik vorneme nymandes alhir van juwes ordens wegen"
http://www.bis.uni-oldenburg.de/~havekost/needer/rey2-6.htm
Juwes kyndes ick ock nicht enbeghere
Any experts in Old German who read the message boards - I'd be grateful for a a translation!!!
Chris S |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 04:13 pm | |
Hi Sir Robert,
That scenario might be true - though I have doubts about Hutchinson.
One of the more irritating characteristics I have is to generally not accept what many consider "apparent" as fact. I know this sometimes even frustrates those who like me!
I know that the testimony is that the apron was not there initially but there later - but I am not convinced that is true.
Another possibility, that rarely seems considered, is that following the killing the murderer went directly to Goulston St.
What of this scenario:
The killer hears footsteps approaching as he is mutilating Eddowes, flees the area wiping his hands with the apron along the way. He then hides the apron and ducks into a doss house or some other public place. He waits for 30-40 minutes until the public is roused over the crisis. Then he flees down Goulston St and drops the apron off as he makes his escape.
It's all conjecture, but certainly a possibility.
Regards,
Rich |
Author: Dan Norder
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 04:18 pm | |
Chris:
1) In this example, Juwes is not a word but an example of how a modern English speaker might pronounce the word.
2) From context it appears that nobody is sure what it's supposed to mean in that document, it could have just been a typo.
3) My modern German is very rusty, let alone archaic German, but it doesn't look like the word is used as a noun at all, at least to my eyes. And if it's not a noun it can't really be relevant to the graffiti.
Although not blaming the spruce tree makes some twisted amount of sense. It's very zen.
But I think you are (ahem) barking up the wrong tree here.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consider supporting this great site by making a donation |
Author: chris scott
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 05:22 pm | |
Hi Dan
Well your German must be better than mine (which is non existent!!!)
Barking up the wrong tree!!!!!! Ow, that hurt:-)
Chris S |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 05:43 pm | |
"One of the more irritating characteristics I have is to generally not accept what many consider
"apparent" as fact. I know this sometimes even frustrates those who like me! "
Hi Rich,
It doesn't strike me as irritating at all. Heck, the case is UNSOLVED. Thinking outside the box by questioning everything and looking for previously unexplored avenues of thought, like Ivor's, may advance the ball.
Sir Robert |
Author: John Patrick
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 06:10 pm | |
It was JUZ!
John Patrick |
Author: John W. Whitaker
Saturday, 04 January 2003 - 10:26 pm | |
According to the accept/reject/maybe thread most people that accept the graffiti also accept the "From Hell" letter. Perhaps Jack was just a poor speller. 
John |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 10:44 am | |
Another thought that occurred to me, regarding the bloody apron piece, which I haven't seen mentioned.
I'm pretty sure that Jack's hands wouldn't have been very bloody, since he strangled the victims first and only cut them up after they were dead. The idea being that a living cut throat will cause blood to spurt out, a dead one - after the heart has stopped pumping - will only cause the blood to seep out.
However, at the time, and for about 150 years before, it had been drilled into British soldiers that they must wipe clean their bayonets immediately after using them, otherwise the blood will congeal, making them a lot harder to clean, and causing them to stick inside their scabbards. Also potentially causing them to rust/decay.
I believe it was common practice, after battle, to cut off a piece of your opponant's clothing to wipe your bayonet down before you replaced it in the scabbard. Same with cavalrymen and their swords.
Now Jack didn't use a bayonet, according to the post-mortems, but if he had been a soldier it would have been second nature for him to do this with his knife.
From what I know, he didn't do this with the other women, but he could (and very likely did) use their skirts to wipe down the knife. So maybe he changed his MO slightly with Eddowes - it certainly happens that serial killers will change parts of their MO that they don't consider important to their satisfaction.
For all we know, maybe he forgot his knife-wiping rag that night and had to improvise. |
Author: Chris Jd
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 10:50 am | |
Hi Chris Scott,
this old German thing comes up here every few months.
"Juwen" or "Juwe" etc never meant "Jew" in any period of German language.
In the resources you discovered it means "You" or "Your"
Best wishes
Christian (German)
P.S.: Please see my post from Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 01:42 am + following in General Discussion: Miscellaneous: Goulston Street. |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 10:51 am | |
Hey David!
The muderer's hands might not have been especially bloody but they were probably quite soiled with fecal matter from Eddowes' intestines. (Yegads, what a lovely sentence to write while having breakfast!!) So he needed to wipe his hands rather badly.
Regards,
Sir Robert |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 11:06 am | |
Sir Robert: excellent point. Though the apron was described by the cops as "bloody" and not "sh__tty."
In fact, I doubt Jack was a British soldier. I don't know if soldiers from other countries recieved similar training with bayonets/swords/knifes, though it would make sense if they did.
I only raised the point because it occurred to me, not because I actually think it's important. There is also the theory that Jack used the apron to carry away the uterus (still enjoying breakfast?) - though, again, as far as I know he didn't remove pieces of clothing from the other victims. |
Author: David Jetson
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 11:11 am | |
You know, I'm increasingly leaning towards the idea that the graffitist was trying to blame female sheep:
The ewes are the ones who will not be blamed for nothing.
Maybe, if he was from a northern european background, he used the J as a silent. Think about it. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 02:28 pm | |
Hi, David:
What neighborhood did ewes grow up in? 
Sounds like Yo! Rocky from Philly or someone from Queens or Brooklyn. 
Chris |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 02:35 pm | |
Yo, maybe ewes think Jack was one of the Sopranos?
|
Author: Garry Ross
Sunday, 05 January 2003 - 03:53 pm | |
[Stephen Fry]BAAAAAAAAAA![/Stephen Fry]
take care
Garry |
Author: Sir Robert Anderson
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 10:08 am | |
"There is also the theory that Jack used the apron to carry away the uterus (still enjoying breakfast?)"
Turned me right off my breakfast haggis.
Sir Robert |
Author: Robert Maloney
Monday, 06 January 2003 - 11:03 am | |
Hi,
[good schoolboy's round hand] = youth
[Catch me when you can] = youth
[youth + youth] = _ _ _ _ _
Rob |
Author: Monty
Tuesday, 07 January 2003 - 12:22 pm | |
Hello,
For me the timing of the aprons discovery all depends on Long (duh !)....or more importantly the timing of when he was informed about the murders that night.
He admits that he knew that a woman/women had been murdered that night but doesnt indicate at what time he found out.
Was it post 2:20am ? Would this make him more vigilant? Would he be more inclined to look in doorways?
He would sound extremely foolish if at the inquiry he states "well, yes sir, I did notice the dead womans apron when I first passed the spot..and a bit of graffiti, but I thought nothing of it until I heard of this ere murder !"
Speculation of course...but when in Rome !
Monty
|
