The writing - a name?

[JacknJill]

I'll probably be shot down for this - but I think that even if the Ripper did not write the graffiti, he was at least aware of it. Because, as before mentioned, it is unlikely to have been pure coincidence that the Ripper took the apron piece and dropped it there. I don't think he would have been careless enough to do it by accident.

[Hunter]

message

Hello Everyone,

This dissertation offers some plausable explainations tha have been discussed here for the apron and grafitti.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

[JacknJill]

Hello Everyone,

This dissertation offers some plausable explainations tha have been discussed here for the apron and grafitti.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

Hey Hunter!
Thanks heaps for that. It's a rather interesting read. I recommend anybody coming back here to take a read of that. ^

[Edward]

Davey Mac and Edward,

You guys seem to be struggling to explain why the Ripper couldn't have written the graffiti. Of course he could have. In fact, he's the only person we can for certain place in that spot in that hour with a motive to write the graffiti.

Tom Wescott

Tom -

I have great respect for your knowledge about this mystery. I am a relative newcomer to the Casebook, but I am not "struggling" to prove or disprove anything. I believe that those who are certain that Jack wrote the message are the ones who are "struggling". There is absolutely no proof that the killer wrote that message.

Who knows the motive for writing that message? The message does not directly (or even indirectly) refer to any specific act. (including murder) Anybody in that overcrowded area of London could have any number of motives for writing such a message.

The message itself, according to some of the police officials looked "recent". Recent? The term itself is subject to interpretation. Recent could have been the morning or even the day before the murder ever occurred. Additionally, if that particular message was the only graffiti in the East end, I would probably feel that more then likely, the killer wrote it.

The fact that the piece of apron landed near some graffiti does not necessarily link the two. There is no proof of a connection. There is absolutely no proof of when the message was chalked (especially within that particular hour). There is no reference to the murder(s) within the message itself.

Respectfully,
Edward

[mklhawley]

How Dark Was it?

Does anyone know more about how well lit this particular location was?

Mike

[Hunter]

From the inquest-

Dr. G. W. Sequeira: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed...

[mklhawley]

Thanks Hunter.

Mike

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.