The writing - a name?

[DVV]

I see...
Thanks Tom.

I remember a dog having been suggested, but a "citizen" was something brand new.

Candid me...

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

He meant that the Ripper could have dropped the apron piece and it could have been moved by someone else to where it was found under the graffiti. Technically, this is not possible, but there's absolutely no reason to suppose this was the case.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

Perhaps I will have to rehash it.

How is it sure that a citizen did not move the piece?
There is time and motive to do so.

A citizen ?
Cutting a piece of Kate's apron at the crime scene ?
How ? Why ? When ?

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

Dave,

Why should the Ripper leave messages at every murder if the message he left pertained only to the murders that night? And what indications do you have that someone else 'moved' the apron? None. We work with what we know, and that is:

* The apron and graffiti, according to PC Long, were left there at the same time, and this was following the Eddowes murder.
* The message is in no way blatantly anti-Semetic OR pro-Semitic, and only makes sense in reference to the murders.
* There apparently was not much if any other graffiti on the street.
* The inhabitants of the building did not recall the graffiti having been present at a time prior to the murder.
* The investigating officials, who had a better understanding of the people, the place, and the times than we will ever have, held a majority view that the graffiti was written by the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DaveMc]

The piece of apron and the graffito have nothing to do with his MO.
What is sure is that he cut a piece of Kate's apron and left the scene with it.
Why ?

Amitiés,
David

Perhaps I will have to rehash it.

How is it sure that a citizen did not move the piece?
There is time and motive to do so.

[DaveMc]

Those are valid points. I'm not sure about the not part of his M.O though. How can anybody be sure of his M.O - definite about it. He could have been lurking at the other murders for all we know. I'll post again later - at school, tiny bit busy.

Please forgive me.
I'm trying not to rehash my opinion out of respect for Tom.
We've made our points.

The M.O. is from the other murders where he did not linger in the area (as far as we know) and he didn't leave any messages on the walls. Nor did he make leave any indications referring to the Jewish community.

Yes. He "could have" done many things.
But without evidence from one of the other murders, it's only guesswork.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi J&J,

I agree to some extent, but we can also infer much by his choice of victims and killing grounds. The average man is not comfortable soliciting prostitutes, but our Jack was, which means he had become comfortable soliciting them before he began killing them. I think it's reasonable also to assume he was comfortable with the environment of the East End. He felt his knowledge of the area, its layout, people, police, etc. would allow him an edge, and apparently it did.
The idea that the Ripper did not write the graffiti took hold as Kosminski grew in popularity as a suspect. Many assumed he'd be illiterate, or not be able to write in English (not true), or figured he'd know how to spell 'Jew' since he was one (a reasonable argument). However, unless you favor Kosminski or a suspect like him, there's really not a lot of reason for supposing the graffiti was anything less than a message from the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[JacknJill]

Well done. You two have pretty much just started the same point I was going to make when I got back. I don't see how anyone can really be positive what he did with each murder though. For all we know he could have made out with the corpses before cutting them up. :/
We simply do not know enough to start making assumptions about anything besides how he killed - which was how the bodies were found.

[DVV]

Indeed, Tom.
There is no other explanation, for if he cut the piece of apron just to wash his hands/knife, he wouldn't have gone away with it.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

To qualify the graffiti he also wrote. Same reason the Zodiac sent pieces of Paul Stein's shirt with his letters. Obviously, the Ripper didn't anticipate the age of minimalism.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

The piece of apron and the graffito have nothing to do with his MO.
What is sure is that he cut a piece of Kate's apron and left the scene with it.
Why ?

Amitiés,
David

[JacknJill]

I think "not the killer" because for the same reasons.
It's not part of his M.O. to leave messages, leave added evidence or linger in the area.
Add that the message doesn't amplify any reason for the killing.
The blood on the apron would be dry by the time of Long's discovery.

Those are valid points. I'm not sure about the not part of his M.O though. How can anybody be sure of his M.O - definite about it. He could have been lurking at the other murders for all we know. I'll post again later - at school, tiny bit busy.

[DaveMc]

I'm by no means trying to say you're wrong Dave, but just wondering - why is the killer so much more less likely? The way I see it the killer has as much chance as having pulled off the act as any other person in Whitechapel. Since there is no definite evidence pointing either way we can't pull out definite suspects. Actually, with the apron piece, I would have thought that more evidence pointed towards the killer.

Hmm... reading back over that it sounds very arguementive... My bad.

Is this the thread I posted all of that about the timeline?

I think "not the killer" because for the same reasons.
It's not part of his M.O. to leave messages, leave added evidence or linger in the area.
Add that the message doesn't amplify any reason for the killing.
The blood on the apron would be dry by the time of Long's discovery.

Occam's Razor:
"entities must not be multiplied beyond what is necessary"
The simplest theory is the best theory.

I took the easy road.

[JacknJill]

Like every suspect, it's a matter of who is the most likely.
In this instance, the killer is the one less likely.
A citizen in an axe to grind is the more likely candidate.

I'm by no means trying to say you're wrong Dave, but just wondering - why is the killer so much more less likely? The way I see it the killer has as much chance as having pulled off the act as any other person in Whitechapel. Since there is no definite evidence pointing either way we can't pull out definite suspects. Actually, with the apron piece, I would have thought that more evidence pointed towards the killer.

Hmm... reading back over that it sounds very arguementive... My bad.

[DaveMc]

Hi Dave,

The mob outside Dutfield's Yard was nowhere near Goulston Street, so I don't get your point there. As for opportunity, there was over 30 minutes from when the Ripper left Mitre Square to when the graffiti was discovered. That's ample opportunity.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Speaking of the mob gives character to the culture and the state of mind.
Do you imagine that no similar group gathered at the Eddowes site?

That was to counter your suggestion that the killer was the only person who could be placed at the site of graffitti.

As to opportunity, it's the opportunity to leave the piece "wet with blood", as described by Long, as well as avoid now alerted police for that length of time.

Like every suspect, it's a matter of who is the most likely.
In this instance, the killer is the one less likely.
A citizen in an axe to grind is the more likely candidate.