Hanbury Street Graffiti

[Sunny Delight]

Something which may be of interest to some.

The Artizan Dwellings Graffiti

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-wallwriting.html

A superb read. This certainly offers much needed context. One thing that is noteworthy is that the graffiti was not particularly unique. It didn't stand out as something remarkably different. For me the dropping of the apron in that spot was a random act of a man fleeing the crime scene- who felt sufficient space existed and the street was quiet enough to discard the evidence into a doorway.

[Tani]

I haven’t checked all of the newspaper reports Tani but Long didn’t describe the woman’s clothing at the inquest. Only that she believed that it was the woman that she’d seen in the mortuary.

Walking around with a dead woman's scarf is a bit odd, but neither would I put it past him, so I'm ambivalent. The scarf may have stopped him from strangling effectively or he could have used it to do that, then taken it off to cut the throat. I really have no position.

[JeffHamm]

Something which may be of interest to some.

The Artizan Dwellings Graffiti

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-wallwriting.html

Fascinating read. Thanks for pointing this out.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Elizabeth Long believes she did. I'm not sure we have clothing descriptions from her.

I haven’t checked all of the newspaper reports Tani but Long didn’t describe the woman’s clothing at the inquest. Only that she believed that it was the woman that she’d seen in the mortuary.

[Tani]

Yes, she was also wearing a neckerchief (over the woolly scarf according to Donovan)



Not that I`m aware of.
Did any witnesses see her ?

Elizabeth Long believes she did. I'm not sure we have clothing descriptions from her.

[Jon Guy]

Time last saw her at about half one-quarter to two. There are hours between this in which Annie could have been robbed of her scarf, lost it etc. Hadn't she also a neckerchief around her neck when Jack found her? It's possible she was substituting this for her scarf.

Yes, she was also wearing a neckerchief (over the woolly scarf according to Donovan)

Did other witnesses mention a scarf?

Not that I`m aware of.
Did any witnesses see her ?

[Tani]

Annie Chapman appears to be missing her woolly scarf, when she found in the back yard of No 29. Tim Donovan said she was wearing it when he was talking to her earlier that morning.

Looks like the killer took Chapman`s scarf.

Tim last saw her at about half one-quarter to two. There are hours between this in which Annie could have been robbed of her scarf, lost it etc. Hadn't she also a neckerchief around her neck when Jack found her? It's possible she was substituting this for her scarf.

Did other witnesses mention a scarf?

[Jon Guy]

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.
RD

Annie Chapman appears to be missing her woolly scarf, when she found in the back yard of No 29. Tim Donovan said she was wearing it when he was talking to her earlier that morning.

Looks like the killer took Chapman`s scarf.

[Monty]

Something which may be of interest to some.

The Artizan Dwellings Graffiti

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-wallwriting.html

[The Rookie Detective]

Maybe so. We can't again prove either way so the possibility must remain open. One thing we can be fairly certain on is that the Pinchin Street Torso was not linked to the Whitechapel murderer. Therefore my initial point Still stands- despite ample opportunity particularly with Mary Kelly the killer did not leave any messages nor did he write to the Police or contact them via letter. With the evidence we have it seems much more possible to me that the apron was discarded randomly and the graffitti is not connected in any way to the case. Even if it was it wouldn't really take the case forward.

May I ask why you don't believe the Pinchin Street Torso had anything to do with the Whitechapel murderer?

I know the police dismissed it; but that doesn't provide definitive proof that the Pinchin Street murder wasn't linked in some way.

The proximity from the Stride murder site to the arch in Pinchin Street shouldn't be underestimated.

I can understand the MO is not the same as 4 of the generic Canonical victims, but it could be said that the slaying of Stride could form the bridge between both sets of murders.

To dismiss the Pinchin Street torso is to indirectly and passively dismiss Stride as a Ripper victim also.

Now IF there was some evidence to show that the Pinchin Street torso was a woman who could be linked to the Stride case; would that be suffice to at least consider the option of it being the work of the same man...or men?


Theoretically speaking of course



RD

[Sunny Delight]

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

Maybe so. We can't again prove either way so the possibility must remain open. One thing we can be fairly certain on is that the Pinchin Street Torso was not linked to the Whitechapel murderer. Therefore my initial point Still stands- despite ample opportunity particularly with Mary Kelly the killer did not leave any messages nor did he write to the Police or contact them via letter. With the evidence we have it seems much more possible to me that the apron was discarded randomly and the graffitti is not connected in any way to the case. Even if it was it wouldn't really take the case forward.

[Tel]

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

[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

[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.

[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