The writing - a name?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Tom!

I couldn't help making a test.

And believe it or not, I tried to write IWMES.

So, did you mean something like this?!

All the best
Jukka

[Hunter]

Interesting theory Tom. Not going to go there though, except to say that there are many that defend the decision to erase the message. As we know they decided to copy it down instead. Problem is, they couldn't even do that right. Twelve little words, and they all "copied" it different. One would think that they would have at least asked the tennants if they had seen it. Maybe they did; I don't know. But, coupled with the bunch over at Berner St. that never saw Stride before her body was found in their yard, I can't help but come away with the thought that some good opportunities were missed that night.

I reckon if JTR didn't kill Liz or write the message it wouldn't have mattered much anyway. What I mentioned in the previous paragraph certainly didn't help to find out.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jukka,

Thanks for keeping an open mind and trying it out. Of course, any person reading what you wrote would never guess you were writing 'IWMES', but would assume it was something like 'JUWES', which is precisely my point. Thanks for proving the strength of my argument.

Hunter,

They did speak to all the tenants of the buildings and came away with the conclusion that the Ripper likely wrote the graffiti. The graffiti makes no sense as an anti-Semitic remark, it makes no sense as a pro-Semitic remark, but it makes perfect sense when taken in conjunction with the two murders that night. Add one bloody apron piece and you have a legitimate communication from the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

They did speak to all the tenants of the buildings and came away with the conclusion that the Ripper likely wrote the graffiti.

Hello Tom,

Actually, on this point I think you may be mistaken..If I am wrong I apologise on beforehand.. I wrote of this in a thread a little while back called Mind boggling... post No.16


......PC Alfred Long 254A, drafted in from A Division, Westminster as part of the extra patrols during the Ripper scare, talking about this FIRST night on duty in the area, said at the inquest...

When I found the apron I at once searched the staircase leading to the Buildings. I did not make any enquiries at the tenements of the buildings.

Daniel Halse, dectective officer of the City of London police said...

... .When Hunt returned, an enquiry was made at every tenement of the Building but we could gain no witness of any one going in likely to be the murderer.


This can be interpreted as the following...

Halse says enquiries were made at every tenament, but only those GOING IN seemed to be talked to as to whether or not they were the murderer. So they didn't SAY they banged on the doors of everyone living there and talked to THEM, nor those GOING OUT.

I have cut the posting down to the appropriate parts.

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

When Hunt returned, an enquiry was made at every tenement of the Building but we could gain no witness of any one going in likely to be the murderer.

Reading comprehension can be a tricky thing, as we all learned taking standarized tests in school. That said, I read the statement quite differently: We did bang on every door in the building but none of those interviewed saw anyone entering the building who was likely to be the murderer.

To suggest that "we could gain no witness of any one going in . . ." to mean "but only those GOING IN seemed to be talked to as to whether or not they were the murderer." is to believe in a syntax even more tortured than that used by the writer of the graffito.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

Very possibly. I agree with your comprehension comment. It can be read differently though. Syntaxes are by their very nature, involved.
I agree that of course one can read it as you have done...very possibly correct. It just goes to show that we READ things differently.

best wishes

Phil

*edit* Note that Long says they didn't enquire at each tenement.

[Edward]

Random thought on the message

Hello All-

Just how many policemen copied down the chalk message? How many of the policemen used capital letters? -and- Did the capital letters occur in the same words? We seem to be moving forward on the idea that one police official “got it right”. If the majority of police copied down the message, and used capital letters in the same words (alternate spelling aside), then we have a better probability that the capital letters actually occurred, and were actually used in the same words. It’s a shame that the message was not photographed.

Edward

[Supe]

Phil,

edit* Note that Long says they didn't enquire at each tenement.

Ah, but Halse and Long were describing two different events. When Long said that he made no enquiries of the tenants that was in the immediate aftermath of his finding the apron half. At that time he was under the impression that a murder had happened on the premises and was searching for a victim. Halse's statement about enquiries referred to events after he returned to Goulston Street, the high heidyins were gathering and, as standard procedure at a crime scene, a door-to-door search was conducted.

Don.

[Edward]

Message not Jack's

Hello again -

The best that we can say about the timing of the chalk message, is that it was probably written near the time that the piece of apron was deposited. (since nobody seems to have noticed the message before the discovery of the piece of apron). Even if the two events occurred at about the same time, it does not say anything about who the author of the message was. I believe that Jack was not the author. Only one taunting message out of four or five (you pick the number) of Ripper murders? Unlikely. If an offender has something to say, they would, in all likelihood, take every opportunity to get that message out. Only one message out of four or five opportunities? Unlikely.

Edward

[DaveMc]

Tom,

Not a bad assumption at all.
I think you deserve at least one Jr. G-man Detective point for that.

Yet, I'm afraid I still have to disagree.

There is this said at the Inquest by Detective Halse-
"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion."
Not the description of hasty or sloppy writing.

I can also see how it's written by someone other than the killer.
For instance, a member of the moderate mob said to have formed at the Stride scene.
The message would mean "You're not going to blame us (the IWMES) for this".
There's still reason for a non-killer to have written the graffiti.

AND THERE IS YET MORE ! (insert trumpet fanfare here)

If this is a purposeful act by the killer, then here's what can be said.

*The act was premeditated (assuming he intentionally took the piece).

*He tore the apron piece away instead of using his knife.

*The killer carried the piece with him for at least 35 minutes
( Eddowes' body discovered at 1:44am. Apron piece placed no earlier than 2:20am per Constable Long's report)

*He loitered for ~15 minutes or more after the killing before placing the apron piece.
(The time to walk between Mitre Square and the Goulston address is ~20 minutes. At this time, according to Detective Halse, police are stopping men on the street)

Yet another distraction is that Constable Long discovered the apron piece at 2:55 am where he reports:
"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."

Had the killer placed the apron piece at Goulston Street, the blood on the apron would have been no less than 1 hour and 10 minutes old on the cloth. (1:44am to 2:55am)
Not only unlikely, but nearly impossible to be still wet at just the corner.

The killer did not leave the message, according to that information.

So says
Dave (El Otro)

[Edward]

Other thoughts

Tom,

... Had the killer placed the apron piece at Goulston Street, the blood on the apron would have been no less than 1 hour and 10 minutes old on the cloth. (1:44am to 2:55am)
Not only unlikely, but nearly impossible to be still wet at just the corner.
...
So says
Dave (El Otro)

Dave,

I agree with most of the above. However, the term "wet" can be a relative description, and in the eye of the beholder.

Also, there is a school of thought that the piece of apron was used to wrap a "trophy", and therefore, could have absorbed some blood discharged from the "trophy" much later that the actual murder.

Not trying to be "contrary" ... just recounting ideas that I have encountered on the Forum.

All the Best,
Edward

[JacknJill]

Wow, now I really am surprised. And very pleased.
I though this theory would end up with several 'nah, probably meant nothings' and then be forgotten. Oh - and Tom - I'm thinking I might steal that little IWMES theory for class if that's alright with you?
If anyone else who's been writing on here happens to pop back in could you let me know if there's anybody who doesn't like me showing this to others?
In the Complete Jack the Ripper by Donald Rumblelow the message is recorded as "The Juwes Are Not The Men That Will Be Blamed For Nothing."

If this version is actually correct then it could take on a whole new meaning. "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." could be taken to mean that the blame is to go to the Juwes. They will not be blamed for nothing. They will be blamed for something.

However, if it reads "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing." could be taken to mean that the Juwes are not to blame.

As for the writing having been done by some sort of mob or perhaps a tenant in the building, Constable Alfred Long, who was the man who discovered the writing :
"assumed that it must have been recently written because so many people were living in the flats that the words would certainly have been rubbed out soon after being written." Especially words that could be taken as racist. Now I'm not saying that one persons assumptions are correct, but I do think it's a valid point.

That, and the fact that it was supposedly the only piece of graffiti in the street, and that it was in plain sight and would easily have been seen in daylight, all taken into consideration - it seems a little odd that no one would have noticed it before. And I don't think it's likely that so many people could have seen it (presuming many would have if it had been there awhile) and then continued on, ignoring it, leaving it be.

If my thoughts are correct that leaves two options that I can see. Either it was written by JTR - or - there was someone else prowling around the streets (an individual or a small group) at the same time JTR was committing his next crime, only ten minutes walk away.

Dave, you mentioned he tore the piece off instead of using his knife? Complete Jack the Ripper, pg. 59 - "As the body of Eddowes was being undressed in the mortuary, the detectives noticed that part if the bloodstained apron that was around her neck had been cut away."
Course, there could be facts written elsewhere saying the piece looked torn, but it is mentioned several times here that it had been cut away - with presumable - a knife.

[DaveMc]

Dave,

I agree with most of the above. However, the term "wet" can be a relative description, and in the eye of the beholder.

Also, there is a school of thought that the piece of apron was used to wrap a "trophy", and therefore, could have absorbed some blood discharged from the "trophy" much later that the actual murder.

Not trying to be "contrary" ... just recounting ideas that I have encountered on the Forum.

All the Best,
Edward

No, you're right. I've read enough variations of the same story in official accounts that questioning the accuracy is valid reason to leave the debate with questions.
But, unless I find something contradicting the report I'm stuck with it.

Had the apron piece been used to wrap a "trophy" the blood would have covered more than just a corner, I would think.
Without venturing too much further off the subject, the killer came prepared to transport things away.
I don't see any indication that he was improvising during the murders.

To further my belief, I just (finally) found a timeline for Eddowes to support the "non-killer" message.

It's here: http://www.casebook.org/timeline.eddowes.html
Given that it's not a world of digital watches I should allow for some slack in the time, but even without it :

The body of Eddowes is removed from the Square at 2:35am
The distance is traveled in 20 minutes at 3mph / 4.8kph (average human)
The same distance is traveled in 15 minutes at 4mph / 6.4kph

So there is time for the corner of cloth to fall from the body as it's lifted into the ambulance and for it to be transferred to Goulston St. by a racially motivated person and STILL be wet with blood.

Since accuracy is a real challenge in this case,
the weight of probability influences me most.
The hints fit the "Non-killer" idea better.

[DVV]

Only one taunting message out of four or five (you pick the number) of Ripper murders? Unlikely. If an offender has something to say, they would, in all likelihood, take every opportunity to get that message out. Only one message out of four or five opportunities? Unlikely.

Edward

Hi Edward,

the piece of apron was also the ONLY clue ever left behind him by the murderer.

Amitiés,
David

[JacknJill]

Wow, now I really am surprised. And very pleased.
I though this theory would end up with several 'nah, probably meant nothings' and then be forgotten. Oh - and Tom - I'm thinking I might steal that little IWMES theory for class if that's alright with you?
If anyone else who's been writing on here happens to pop back in could you let me know if there's anybody who doesn't like me showing this to others?
In the Complete Jack the Ripper by Donald Rumblelow the message is recorded as "The Juwes Are Not The Men That Will Be Blamed For Nothing."

If this version is actually correct then it could take on a whole new meaning. "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." could be taken to mean that the blame is to go to the Juwes. They will not be blamed for nothing. They will be blamed for something.

However, if it reads "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing." could be taken to mean that the Juwes are not to blame.

As for the writing having been done by some sort of mob or perhaps a tenant in the building, Constable Alfred Long, who was the man who discovered the writing :
"assumed that it must have been recently written because so many people were living in the flats that the words would certainly have been rubbed out soon after being written." Especially words that could be taken as racist. Now I'm not saying that one persons assumptions are correct, but I do think it's a valid point.

That, and the fact that it was supposedly the only piece of graffiti in the street, and that it was in plain sight and would easily have been seen in daylight, all taken into consideration - it seems a little odd that no one would have noticed it before. And I don't think it's likely that so many people could have seen it (presuming many would have if it had been there awhile) and then continued on, ignoring it, leaving it be.

If my thoughts are correct that leaves two options that I can see. Either it was written by JTR - or - there was someone else prowling around the streets (an individual or a small group) at the same time JTR was committing his next crime, only ten minutes walk away.

Dave, you mentioned he tore the piece off instead of using his knife? Complete Jack the Ripper, pg. 59 - "As the body of Eddowes was being undressed in the mortuary, the detectives noticed that part if the bloodstained apron that was around her neck had been cut away."
Course, there could be facts written elsewhere saying the piece looked torn, but it is mentioned several times here that it had been cut away - with presumable - a knife.