Hanbury Street Graffiti

[Tel]

Pure happenstance IMHO, how many chalked messages would be scrawled on walls on any given night.

[The Rookie Detective]

Pure happenstance IMHO, how many chalked messages would be scrawled on walls on any given night.

Hmmm...


The chalking of the word "Lipski" on the wall of the arch under which someone dumped the Pinchin Street torso did feel a bit too coincidental though.

The killer chooses to show us a link between the Pinchin treet torso with Schwartz's statement concerning Stride and with the earlier murder of Miriam Angel in Batty Street.


The idea that Sptialfield was the epicenter of the killings is one of the most misleading aspects of this case; he was also just as active in St George's in the East...

The triangulation between Spitalfields, St George's in the East and the City of London where Eddowes was killed, supports the Geo-profilng for a killer who lived slightly further south than has previously been accepted.


RD

[Robert St Devil]

Risk taking to murder someone and take a sexual thrill in disembowelling isn't really on par with graffitiing a fence. There's not the thrill there that one gets from slicing a body up. That's worth the risk for him; I don't think a silly message is worth being caight over.

Tell that to Sharon Tate… Helter Skelter

[Tani]

Tell that to Sharon Tate… Helter Skelter

I'm not sure that's the same category.

[Georgeb]

Tell that to Sharon Tate… Helter Skelter

I believe the Manson family blood graffiti was more planned to in someway provoke a race war. As I said earlier if he wanted to leave messages Mary Kelly's was the perfect opportunity he had time and a blank canvas of walls. I am disregarding the messages some see in the blood splatter.

[Robert St Devil]

I believe the Manson family blood graffiti was more planned to in someway provoke a race war. As I said earlier if he wanted to leave messages Mary Kelly's was the perfect opportunity he had time and a blank canvas of walls. I am disregarding the messages some see in the blood splatter.

and some might say that GSG was written to provoke the on-going antisemitism in Whitechapel in the wake of Annie Chapman’s murder? Obviously Charles Warren thought better of the possibility of having a race riot on his hands SO he erased the message.

my contention isnt pointed at whether or not Jack the Ripper wrote a message; it’s pointed at the outright dismissal that he might have written a message WHEN we have an entire century of examples of serial killers & murderous types who felt the need to communicate themselves to the police, the press, &c.

im at odds with the claim that a person who mutilated a woman’s face and harvested her womb WOULD NOT scribble a message on a wall BECAUSE he was afraid of being apprehended in the 20 seconds that it would have taken to write the message. Or, the claim that writing a message wouldn’t be thrilling enough for him.

for all we know, maybe Jack the Ripper found a piece of chalk on these women when he rifled through their pockets and decided to grafitti a wall.


as an aside, i do agree that nothing was written on the walls of No. 13. Don’t quote me on this HOWEVER i vaguely remember reading an article (i think it was by the journalist Kitty Ronan, unsure) who entered Mary Kelly’s room years after her murder AND the only thing this journalist commented about the walls WAS THAT they were still stained dark by the blood.

[The Rookie Detective]

and some might say that GSG was written to provoke the on-going antisemitism in Whitechapel in the wake of Annie Chapman’s murder? Obviously Charles Warren thought better of the possibility of having a race riot on his hands SO he erased the message.

my contention isnt pointed at whether or not Jack the Ripper wrote a message; it’s pointed at the outright dismissal that he might have written a message WHEN we have an entire century of examples of serial killers & murderous types who felt the need to communicate themselves to the police, the press, &c.

im at odds with the claim that a person who mutilated a woman’s face and harvested her womb WOULD NOT scribble a message on a wall BECAUSE he was afraid of being apprehended in the 20 seconds that it would have taken to write the message. Or, the claim that writing a message wouldn’t be thrilling enough for him.

for all we know, maybe Jack the Ripper found a piece of chalk on these women when he rifled through their pockets and decided to grafitti a wall.


as an aside, i do agree that nothing was written on the walls of No. 13. Don’t quote me on this HOWEVER i vaguely remember reading an article (i think it was by the journalist Kitty Ronan, unsure) who entered Mary Kelly’s room years after her murder AND the only thing this journalist commented about the walls WAS THAT they were still stained dark by the blood.

Excellent post


I think that dismissing the GSG outright is the wrong thing to do

I think another important point is not just whether the Ripper wrote the GSG, but rather, WHEN he could have written it AND if he wasn't the author of the GSG; whether he was AWARE it was written there earlier.

Now the obvious answer would likely be that he wrote the GSG after he fled Mitre Square, but I think there is another possible scenario...


What if the Ripper knew the GSG was there and after slaying Eddowes, he deliberately went to the location to specifically place the bloodied cut piece of apron under the graffiti as a means of making a statement and leave a message.

It would then not be as important whether the Ripper wrote the graffiti or whether he didn't; the crucial point is that IF he was aware of it's existence at any point leading up to the murder and/or whether he intended to place the apron after killing Eddowes.

The reason why I believe the Ripper deliberately intended to place the apron piece under the GSG is evidenced by the fact that he chose to take those extra few seconds to cut the apron in the first place.

Why cut the apron in the first place if there was no subsequent intent to use it later?

To wipe away the blood from his knife?

Hmmm...unlikely...because he there's no evidence to suggest he had used that method of cleaning his knife after any of the other murders.

To clean his hands?

Hmmm... Is cutting a piece of bloodied apron the most obvious way to do that?

The question that then arises is...Who's blood was on the apron?

Eddowes?

Or the Ripper's blood?

Had he inadvertently cut himself?


Unlikely IMO


But going back to the GSG itself; was there not some evidence to suggest that the chalking was slightly older than would be associated with a freshly chalked message?

Again, crucially, it had been raining heavily that night/morning and it was also particularly windy... and so perhaps the chalk message was exposed to the elements?

Could the 2 different recorded versions of the text have been due to the chalk having been exposed to the rain and wind; ergo, making some of the writing ineligible?


Ultimately I believe it comes down to whether it is probable to have a killer leave a piece of bloodied apron confirmed to have been from Eddowes directly under a chalked message which links the murder of Eddowes to Stride...another woman murdered shortly before.

Considering that BOTH Stride and Eddowes worked within the Jewish community, it seems plausible that the killer was aware of this.

It then enhances the meaning of the GSG even further because the primary reason for the GSG....


To leave a message.



RD

[The Rookie Detective]

That's interesting, and could provide a reason for the apparently unique GSG message.

There is also a link between Stride's murder and the Pinchin Street torso...

The latter featured a written chalked message on the arch under which the Torso was dumped.

The word "Lipski" was written.


This of course tallies with Schwartz's witness statement when the man who assaulted Stride was alleged to have shouted "Lipski!"


So we have the Torso killer place the body under a message that matches a witness statement from Stride's murder.
We then have the GSG that potentially links Eddowes with Stride through the fact that both women worked within the Jewish Community

As did McKenzie

But crucially, it doesn't necessarily matter who wrote the chalked messages; it's the choice of location and placement of bloodied aprons and a torso that forms the link.

The address that Eddowes gave in Fashion Street was a Chandlers Shop run by a Jew who ended up in the mental asylum as a lunatic. He was listed as "Incurable"
And so where does that leave Chapman and Hanbury Street and the alleged chalking referred to in the initial post of this thread; well it is perhaps no coincidence that 29 Hanbury Street is only yards away from a location connected with the Jewish community.

And of course, Nichols in Bucks Row...around the corner in Brady Street was the Jewish Cemetery and this location is close to where a woman was heard calling out for help by 2 witnesses. She was heard heading down Brady Street, then hitting the shutters of the shop and then heading towards Bucks Row. Nichols body was found shortly after.


And so my point is that the chalking may have been another means for the killer to leave a message.

It would appear that the killer was obsessed with trying to leave messages and trying to seek acknowledgement through the press

It may explain why John Cleary knew of the Torso murder BEFORE the body was even dumped in Pinchin Street.


There's only one person of interest that fits into that criteria and was obsessed with the Ripper case and leaving messages...

He was of Jewish German Heritage and yet denied he was.

He disliked being called Jewish and he disliked being referred to as being German, despite his parents being German.

He disliked Socialists, Liberals, and Radicals

He also lived in a location that forms a triangulation between Spitalfields, St George's in the East, and the City of London.

The question is...

Was the Ripper a Jew, a man who pretended to be a Jew, or a man who disliked the Jews?


The point being that the Jewish connection is undeniable.



RD

[Geddy2112]

as an aside, i do agree that nothing was written on the walls of No. 13. Don’t quote me on this HOWEVER i vaguely remember reading an article (i think it was by the journalist Kitty Ronan, unsure) who entered Mary Kelly’s room years after her murder AND the only thing this journalist commented about the walls WAS THAT they were still stained dark by the blood.

...quoted!!!

I actually made a thread here a month or so ago when I suggested that the walls in the crime scene photo looked as if they had been wiped clean of something. Maybe some graffiti there. Maybe graffiti was Jack's thing after all.

[Geddy2112]

Why cut the apron in the first place if there was no subsequent intent to use it later?
To wipe away the blood from his knife?
Hmmm...unlikely...because he there's no evidence to suggest he had used that method of cleaning his knife after any of the other murders.
To clean his hands?
Hmmm... Is cutting a piece of bloodied apron the most obvious way to do that?
The question that then arises is...Who's blood was on the apron?
Eddowes?
Or the Ripper's blood?

Was it to carry the organs in? What happened to the apron piece? It's amazing all these 'artefacts' simply disappeared. It's a cover up I tell ya.. hiding a scandal of the highest order.

Imagine if you managed to located the apron and it was proved to be genuine.

[Robert St Devil]

What if the Ripper knew the GSG was there and after slaying Eddowes, he deliberately went to the location to specifically place the bloodied cut piece of apron under the graffiti as a means of making a statement and leave a message.

I’ve already done my part to throw off the intention of etenguy’s thread R D which IS the Hanbury Street Graffiti
…TO THAT POINT my apologies @etenguy

I guess it depends on how you answer the following questions, R D…

1. Do you believe that Jack the Ripper murdered both Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes? [i do]
2. Do you believe that Jack the Ripper intended on murdering two women that dreadful night? [i don’t]
3. Do you believe that Jack the Ripper murdered Catherine Eddowes as happenstance, as a secondary attempt at fulfilling what he wasn’t able to complete with Elizabeth Stride? [i do]; or,
3, Do you believe that Jack the Ripper would have only murdered Elizabeth Stride that night IF he had been able to rip her apart? [i do]

if you answered similarly, then you would have to ask yourself IF “the Ripper knew the GSG was there and after slaying” Elizabeth Stride “he deliberately meant to go to the location to specifically place the bloodied cut piece of [clothing] under the graffiti”

*************

plus, what statement would be made by taking that course of action? I hate antisemitic graffiti??

im trying to wrap my head around it RD, to keep an open mind about your line of thinking BUT the only way i could see any relevance applied to the graffito (IF it wasn’t written by Jack the Ripper AND he had foreknowledge of its’ location) WOULD BE IF he encountered Catherine Eddowes while she was scribbling the graffito on the wall AND leaving her apron in the archway was his way of making a statement.

Other than that… {shrugs}

[FrankO]

im at odds with the claim that a person who mutilated a woman’s face and harvested her womb WOULD NOT scribble a message on a wall BECAUSE he was afraid of being apprehended in the 20 seconds that it would have taken to write the message. Or, the claim that writing a message wouldn’t be thrilling enough for him.

Hi Robert,

I don't know if your post was (also) directed at me, but if it was, then I'd have to conclude that I didn't do a good job getting across what I meant.

I don't outright dismiss the possibility that the Ripper wrote the GSG and I don't think he would have been afraid of being apprehended in the time that it would have taken to write it.

My point would be that, if leaving a message would have been important to the Ripper, the best ideas would have been to leave it at the crime scene or in some other place, like, for instance, above a bloody apron piece in an entrance to some building. In the latter case, however, it would only make sense if the message was clear and if it would be clear it was left by the Ripper. Seeing that the clearly ambiguous GSG doesn't meet those requirements, I'm inclined to think it wasn't written by the Ripper. Had other equally unclear messages been found in connection to (the) other murders, then I might have been differently inclined. Therefore, I do think leaving messages wasn't thrilling (enough) for him. In fact, I think it didn't interest him.

The best,
Frank

[Sunny Delight]

Hi Robert,

I don't know if your post was (also) directed at me, but if it was, then I'd have to conclude that I didn't do a good job getting across what I meant.

I don't outright dismiss the possibility that the Ripper wrote the GSG and I don't think he would have been afraid of being apprehended in the time that it would have taken to write it.

My point would be that, if leaving a message would have been important to the Ripper, the best ideas would have been to leave it at the crime scene or in some other place, like, for instance, above a bloody apron piece in an entrance to some building. In the latter case, however, it would only make sense if the message was clear and if it would be clear it was left by the Ripper. Seeing that the clearly ambiguous GSG doesn't meet those requirements, I'm inclined to think it wasn't written by the Ripper. Had other equally unclear messages been found in connection to (the) other murders, then I might have been differently inclined. Therefore, I do think leaving messages wasn't thrilling (enough) for him. In fact, I think it didn't interest him.

The best,
Frank

I would agree with this. Of course no one can say for certain if the graffitti was written by the murderer or not. Without definitive proof either way it is always open to possibility. It does appear however to have merely been a coincidence that the bloodied apron piece was discarded beside the graffitti. No other messages were ever found linked to a crime scene and all other methods of communication such as letters have largely been dismissed as hoaxes.

I find the whole graffitti aspect to be a red herring anyways. It would do nothing to advance the case if one could prove (now impossible) that the killer wrote the message. The key aspect of the apron find is not the message found beside it but rather the direction of travel taken by the killer. He is heading straight back into the heart of Whitechapel. This tells us much more. This was obviously a local man with a good degree of local knowledge.

[The Rookie Detective]

No other messages were ever found linked to a crime scene.

Under the archway where the Pinchin Street torso was dumped was written the word "Lipski" in chalk.


This potentially links the Pinchin Street Torso to the murder of Stride and that of Miriam Angel in 1887.

Stride, Angel and Pinchin Street were all found in St George's in the East.


RD

[Tel]

My question remains - how many other places had "Lipski" written on them on any given night?