GSG Conclusion

[erobitha]

Or he absent-mindedly wiped the knife on it and stuck it in his pocket, later realising what he had done and discarding it.

Or he carried the organs away in it and then found a better receptacle, so discarded it.

Or he had cut himself during the attack so used it to staunch the blood flow, and discarded it once the blood had stopped flowing from the wound.

I'm sure there are plenty of other possible explanations.

I go with this one. I believe he 'dropped it off' before venturing back out onto the street to leave his little clue.

[erobitha]

Not half as much of a laugh im getting from the ''SUTTON THEORY ''....... in he goes at No6 on the M.R.S. list.

Ahead of Lechmere?

[FISHY1118]

Ahead of Lechmere?

Im re doing my top 10.. theres been some reshuffling of late

[caz]

At the same time and in order to disprove the suggestion that the organs were taken away in the apron piece a uterus was removed from a live donor and wrapped in a piece of material and left for 10 mins and then photographed the result show a large volume of blood form the organ on the material which is not consistent with how the apron piece was described.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trev,

Eddowes would not have been a 'live donor' though, would she? She'd have been dead when the organs were removed, so the amount of blood would have been a lot less than from your living donor.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trev,

Eddowes would not have been a 'live donor' though, would she? She'd have been dead when the organs were removed, so the amount of blood would have been a lot less than from your living donor.

Love,

Caz
X

I disagree, the alleged removal of the organs from Eddowes took place at the time of her death. The removal of the organ from the live donor was removed and placed in the cloth as soon as it was removed entirely consistent with the Eddowes removal

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

The reason behind the removal of the graffiti was apparently the fear it would spark unrest, regardless of whether it was written by the killer or not. This initial fear is somewhat shot down by the wide reporting of the graffiti and then there being no subsequent riot. A possibly vital piece of evidence lost for nothing.

But there is a suggestion that it was old graffiti that happened to be there so nothing to do with the murder anyway. However, if it was old graffiti and had been there a while it seems strange that no-one apparently came forward to say, "Oh that? No, that had been there all week." It was so widely reported and had such distinct wording that surely someone would have gone to either the police or the press to say it had actually been there some time before the murder so not connected to the apron piece. But neither apparently occur.

This then makes it more likely that the graffiti was at least new when spotted by PC Long. But again, whether the killer wrote it is another matter.

[FISHY1118]

The reason behind the removal of the graffiti was apparently the fear it would spark unrest, regardless of whether it was written by the killer or not. This initial fear is somewhat shot down by the wide reporting of the graffiti and then there being no subsequent riot. A possibly vital piece of evidence lost for nothing.

But there is a suggestion that it was old graffiti that happened to be there so nothing to do with the murder anyway. However, if it was old graffiti and had been there a while it seems strange that no-one apparently came forward to say, "Oh that? No, that had been there all week." It was so widely reported and had such distinct wording that surely someone would have gone to either the police or the press to say it had actually been there some time before the murder so not connected to the apron piece. But neither apparently occur.

This then makes it more likely that the graffiti was at least new when spotted by PC Long. But again, whether the killer wrote it is another matter.

I think you exactly right , and ill add for me it was written bY the killer.

[Abby Normal]

The reason behind the removal of the graffiti was apparently the fear it would spark unrest, regardless of whether it was written by the killer or not. This initial fear is somewhat shot down by the wide reporting of the graffiti and then there being no subsequent riot. A possibly vital piece of evidence lost for nothing.

But there is a suggestion that it was old graffiti that happened to be there so nothing to do with the murder anyway. However, if it was old graffiti and had been there a while it seems strange that no-one apparently came forward to say, "Oh that? No, that had been there all week." It was so widely reported and had such distinct wording that surely someone would have gone to either the police or the press to say it had actually been there some time before the murder so not connected to the apron piece. But neither apparently occur.

This then makes it more likely that the graffiti was at least new when spotted by PC Long. But again, whether the killer wrote it is another matter.

hi cc
totally agree. and if had been there any length of time and in daylight, one of the residents of the mostly jewish building would have wiped it off. that graffiti never saw the light of day.

[Mark J D]

... if had been there any length of time and in daylight, one of the residents of the mostly jewish building would have wiped it off. that graffiti never saw the light of day.

Indeed. But -- if I may shyly ask -- what's it for...?

I'm absolutely serious: why leave the apron-piece (which could easily have been dumped unfindably in the deep recesses next to the doorway); and why leave an impenetrable chalk message...?

Why? What's it all for??

I don't get it. After all these years ... I still don't get it...

M.

[DJA]

He was drawing the police away from his bolt hole at 6 Mitre Street.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The reason behind the removal of the graffiti was apparently the fear it would spark unrest, regardless of whether it was written by the killer or not. This initial fear is somewhat shot down by the wide reporting of the graffiti and then there being no subsequent riot. A possibly vital piece of evidence lost for nothing.

But there is a suggestion that it was old graffiti that happened to be there so nothing to do with the murder anyway. However, if it was old graffiti and had been there a while it seems strange that no-one apparently came forward to say, "Oh that? No, that had been there all week." It was so widely reported and had such distinct wording that surely someone would have gone to either the police or the press to say it had actually been there some time before the murder so not connected to the apron piece. But neither apparently occur.

This then makes it more likely that the graffiti was at least new when spotted by PC Long. But again, whether the killer wrote it is another matter.

You make an excellent point. I would add that once the wording had been reported, there would be no reason for the police not speak to the residents of the building, about having seen it at any time. Not doing so could mean losing timing information, adding to the handwriting information that had already been lost.

[Mark J D]

He was drawing the police away from his bolt hole at 6 Mitre Street.

Could be, squire! :-)

Lechmere, on the other hand, was dropping it just before he made that right turn into Wentworth Street and the most direct route home...

After all, why carry it further and therefore drop it on a street that was also so useful as one of the shortest routes to and from his work...?

M.

[JeffHamm]

And, just for fun, if we go with a suspect at 30 Cumming Street, which could be suggested from some discussions in this tread here (albeit there are other interpretations), then one might envision the following route being taken which is from Mitre Square basically east to Commercial, then north, out of the Spitalfields area but passing by both Hanbury and Dorset Street, and also consistent with someone who headed west from Berner Street but ends up in Mitre Square. Someone coming from that area would also have fled west from Buck's Row if scared off by the approaching carmen, and could have easily ended up in that area by heading along Hanbury rather than continuing down Commercial Street. Also, following more or less along that direction (from Cumming Street), down Commercial Street one could end up heading towards Berner Street by going along Commercial Road.



Do I think that's the solution? No, but one can make things fit if they want to. While one would generally expect the spatial information to fit the offender, one has to remember that spatial information will also fit many innocent people too. If we keep in mind that things like movement directions, and locations, are spatial information, it is not evidence per se. It is information to be considered, but it is not evidence against someone because it will also fit nonguilty people too. Moreover, there are times when the actual offender and the spatial information do not appear to correspond all that well, so a suspect who doesn't fit the spatial information should not on that basis be set aside entirely. It is useful to guide a search for evidence, but it is not definitive, and once evidence is found pointing to an actual suspect, those leads should be followed in preference.

- Jeff

[Iconoclast]

Indeed. But -- if I may shyly ask -- what's it for...?

I'm absolutely serious: why leave the apron-piece (which could easily have been dumped unfindably in the deep recesses next to the doorway); and why leave an impenetrable chalk message...?

Why? What's it all for??

I don't get it. After all these years ... I still don't get it...

M.

It'll probably turn out to be a means to and end, Mark. For example, it may have been the killer's attempt to embed himself into the narrative of the crimes without actually giving away his identity. If we look hard enough, we might start to see evidence of it.

Just a thought ...

Ike

[Abby Normal]

Indeed. But -- if I may shyly ask -- what's it for...?

I'm absolutely serious: why leave the apron-piece (which could easily have been dumped unfindably in the deep recesses next to the doorway); and why leave an impenetrable chalk message...?

Why? What's it all for??

I don't get it. After all these years ... I still don't get it...

M.

hi mark
IMHO the ripper left the apron to "sign" the graffiti, to connect the two as it were. I have little doubt the ripper wrote it and left the apron intentionally.
why? I think he was pissed off he was interupted by so many pesky jews that night, knew he had been seen by them and was giving a little pay back while also to confuse the police.
worked like a charm.