Hanbury Street Graffiti

[etenguy]

In the days after Annie Chapman's murder, some rumours were published in the press concerning chalked graffiti found on a wall in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street that read something like: "Five; 15 more, and then I give myself up." It was suggested this message was left by the murderer. The reports state that this was uncorroborated and as far as I can establish it was never confirmed to be true. Nevertheless, it does appear that such a message was suggested to have been left by the murderer by some in the area.

These reports were in early September (eg the evening standard on 10th September reported -

No corroboration of the story that she [Annie Chapman] was served in a public house at Spitalfields Market, on its opening at five a.m., could be gained; nor of the report that the murderer left a message on a wall in the yard, which was made out to read: "Five; 15 more, and then I give myself up."

This was of course a few weeks before the more famous GSG chalked message following Catherine Eddowes murder.

My first thought was that if the message had been there, perhaps the police had erased this in the same way as they did the GSG for a reason I could only speculate (to avoid panic, or to keep out of the public domain so police could test if the killer was caught or someone confessed - or a whole range of possible reasons).

Another thought that came to me was that it was simply an untrue rumour, but that the murderer seeing it reported in the paper was inspired to leave the GSG after his next murder.

Not sure what I think about any connection between the two messages yet - but wonder if the Hanbury Street graffiti, whether real or imaginary, does provide a reason to believe that the GSG was a message left by the killer.

[Pcdunn]

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

[etenguy]

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

Thanks Pcdunn

It is just another pointer in the factors that lead us to believe or not that the GSG was written by the killer. I wonder though if Hanbury street was a better cover up than Goulston street and that makes me wonder - were there any others and were they erased more successfully?

[Tani]

I find it very hard to believe that a murderer at this point operating almost in daylight in a backyard would hang around to write a message in chalk. Those few seconds could, and in this murder series seem often to have been, a matter of getaway or being caught. It seems unlikely someone murdering 'in a box' with multiple potential witnesses through windows, an open door policy, a bloke sitting on the other side of the fence and the sun coming up would waste time scribbling ultimately meaningless messages.

I just can't buy it.

[Losmandris]

I tend to agree with Tani here. I just can't see that it would have been put there by the murderer. Probably a random thing. I image that this type of chalk graffiti was a lot more common that we think. Of course, unlike paint no evidence of it would last more that a few days, weeks at most. Certainly no evidence of it would survive until the present day.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Pcdunn

It is just another pointer in the factors that lead us to believe or not that the GSG was written by the killer. I wonder though if Hanbury street was a better cover up than Goulston street and that makes me wonder - were there any others and were they erased more successfully?

I think its almost a given that the GSG was written by Kates killer. Presuming both murders were by one man may obfuscate attempts to understand what that message is intended to mean. Only 1 murder is referenced at the GSG...by virtue of the crime scene evidence from Mitre Square. There is no indication that the Mitre Square murderer was also claiming the Berner St victim. But there is an indication that the author had some feelings about Jewish people, although vague.. but more likely than not, antisemitic. So its interesting that the first murder site is run and operated by local immigrant jews, and that the GSG was written on the entranceway to the Model Homes...a development almost 100% Jewish immigrant occupied.

It seems to me that the area became so antisemitic because of the huge influx of immigrants feeling Eastern Europe over those years and the severe overcrowding that the East End saw as a result of that exodus. I dont imagine British born Jews were treated as poorly as the immigrants were. That animosity was driven by economics...shortages of jobs, housing,... etc.

So....is the GSG a broad sociopolitical message......or is it a finger of blame towards the Jews where the murder was discovered that night? Was the killer of Mitre Square publicly washing his hands of any involvement in Liz Strides killing?

[Robert St Devil]

Those few seconds could, and in this murder series seem often to have been, a matter of getaway or being caught.

Jack the Ripper rifled through her pockets.

Counterpoints hardly make the best introductions STILL i send a polite hello, Tani

He rifled through her pockets, removed a pair of combs, a piece of muslin, a portion of an envelope; Inspector Chandler and Dr. G.B. Phillips noted how they were “lying near the feet” & head; NOT tossed haphazardly about the yard, NOT pitched hurriedly over the fence, NOT EVEN remained within her pocket BUT RATHER these items were “arranged there”… AS IF placed with consideration; AS IF Jack the Ripper reached into Annie Chapman’s waist-pocket, removed each item, made his observation, and then PLACED each item at her feet or by her head.

A step futher… i would lean heavily to the probability that the items were NOT bloodstained [ALTHOUGH i cannot say that with 100% certainty SINCE this revelation may have been an oversight unmentioned at the inquest] MEANING THAT Jack the Ripper rifled through her pockets BEFORE he ripped her open.

While this aspect of the crime may seem incidental it emphasizes the point that: Jack the Ripper may have acted quickly BUT he was NOT rushed or hurried [Part of the sensationalism of these crimes IS PRECISELY the amount of overkill performed in public; hardly the act of a killer who was worried by fleeting feet]

I am of the mind that any supposed writing or chalk-scribbling at 29 Hanbury WASN’T anything more than a rumor STILL what would it have taken to scribble a message upon a wall? 20, 30 seconds tops??

[Tani]

Jack the Ripper rifled through her pockets.

Counterpoints hardly make the best introductions STILL i send a polite hello, Tani

He rifled through her pockets, removed a pair of combs, a piece of muslin, a portion of an envelope; Inspector Chandler and Dr. G.B. Phillips noted how they were “lying near the feet” & head; NOT tossed haphazardly about the yard, NOT pitched hurriedly over the fence, NOT EVEN remained within her pocket BUT RATHER these items were “arranged there”… AS IF placed with consideration; AS IF Jack the Ripper reached into Annie Chapman’s waist-pocket, removed each item, made his observation, and then PLACED each item at her feet or by her head.

A step futher… i would lean heavily to the probability that the items were NOT bloodstained [ALTHOUGH i cannot say that with 100% certainty SINCE this revelation may have been an oversight unmentioned at the inquest] MEANING THAT Jack the Ripper rifled through her pockets BEFORE he ripped her open.

While this aspect of the crime may seem incidental it emphasizes the point that: Jack the Ripper may have acted quickly BUT he was NOT rushed or hurried [Part of the sensationalism of these crimes IS PRECISELY the amount of overkill performed in public; hardly the act of a killer who was worried by fleeting feet]

I am of the mind that any supposed writing or chalk-scribbling at 29 Hanbury WASN’T anything more than a rumor STILL what would it have taken to scribble a message upon a wall? 20, 30 seconds tops??

As far as I know, there is some confusion over what was actually lying about Annie and where these items were. We must hesitate before assuming we see ritual or careful practice where none was intended.

Reading the Inquest of 14th Sept in The Times it mentions that these items were found after the body was removed. This doesn't suggest to me that the Ripper had diligently placed them anywhere as they hadn't been noticed before then. It mentions the piece of envelope being found near where her head had been. For all we know this could have fallen from her pockets or elsewhere and flown beneath her head whereupon the Ripper laid her down. Other items which were found round about her were not necessarily hers, as Mrs. Richardson identifies some as her own.

I think much has been made of the items around Annie without any real backing for their supposed meaning. This, if it were done with Annie, was done with none of the other victims. As with those darned cachous of Liz, Annie may have been in fact holding these items (the comb, for instance), and dropped them on being frightened.

The matter of the rings and coins has been debated and Sugden treats it broadly as a myth or legend, which seems apt to me. Ripper A to Z has two farthings, but again this may just be myth. It would also be rather bizarre not to take what was then essentially free money. On pg. 101 of Sugden's Complete History we know the Ripper didn't even wash his hands as the water in the pan was clean.

I find these things push me towards believing Jack wasn't wasting time on silly trinkets and chalkings. He didn't even wash his hands, as far as we can tell.

[Robert St Devil]

This, if it were done with Annie, was done with none of the other victims.

unless mustard tins containing pawn tickets don’t count, well then… it was done with another victim.

regarding the annie chapman case,

the narrative seems fairly straightforward, that is, relying upon the inquest. Dr. Phillips states that he saw the combs and muslin upon encountering her body, and Inspector Chandler noted the same items AFTER her body was removed (SO there should be no confusion as to WHAT the items were or WHO they belinged to). Dr Phillips even goes as far as opining that they were “arranged there”.

[Tani]

unless mustard tins containing pawn tickets don’t count, well then… it was done with another victim.

regarding the annie chapman case,

the narrative seems fairly straightforward, that is, relying upon the inquest. Dr. Phillips states that he saw the combs and muslin upon encountering her body, and Inspector Chandler noted the same items AFTER her body was removed (SO there should be no confusion as to WHAT the items were or WHO they belinged to). Dr Phillips even goes as far as opining that they were “arranged there”.

I'm not convinced by this statement, though, as I said before. We must be wary of seeing ritual where they may just be accident.

We also need to ask how reliable an observation this is, given some also observed that the killer seems to have surgical knowledge and the jury is still out on this. What may appear to be arrangement to one person can easily look like happenstance to another.

I'm not going to labour the point as they may well have been arranged there, but the rest of the context seems to me that they were not.

So, no graffito from the killer for me.

[Georgeb]

I'm not convinced by this statement, though, as I said before. We must be wary of seeing ritual where they may just be accident.

We also need to ask how reliable an observation this is, given some also observed that the killer seems to have surgical knowledge and the jury is still out on this. What may appear to be arrangement to one person can easily look like happenstance to another.

I'm not going to labour the point as they may well have been arranged there, but the rest of the context seems to me that they were not.

So, no graffito from the killer for me.

Hi Tani

I agree I cannot see with the mayhem of the night how the Ripper would suddenly decide you know what I'll leave a cryptic message on the wall. He had nearly been caught earlier and the night was wearing on. Also if he was that way inclined Mary's room would be the ideal time to practice his literary art.

[Tani]

Hi Tani

I agree I cannot see with the mayhem of the night how the Ripper would suddenly decide you know what I'll leave a cryptic message on the wall. He had nearly been caught earlier and the night was wearing on. Also if he was that way inclined Mary's room would be the ideal time to practice his literary art.

Yes, he also wrote hundreds of letters and sent organs to folks. He's a busy man.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

I find it very hard to believe that a murderer at this point operating almost in daylight in a backyard would hang around to write a message in chalk. Those few seconds could, and in this murder series seem often to have been, a matter of getaway or being caught. It seems unlikely someone murdering 'in a box' with multiple potential witnesses through windows, an open door policy, a bloke sitting on the other side of the fence and the sun coming up would waste time scribbling ultimately meaningless messages.

I just can't buy it.

Hi Tani! I agree; I don't buy the GSG as being written by the Ripper. For years I have been calling it "the great Non-Clue."

[FrankO]

I'm not convinced by this statement, though, as I said before. We must be wary of seeing ritual where they may just be accident.

...

So, no graffito from the killer for me.

Hi Tani,

I agree with you. What drove the Ripper were the mutilations. If scribblings also did something for him and if he wanted to be sure they would be connected to him, he could have pinned letters on his victims or put them in their pockets.

What I think may have been important to him, however, was getting his money back before he left. If so, this might well explain the items left around Chapman and Eddowes. Just a thought of mine.

All the best,
Frank

[FISHY1118]

I find it very hard to believe that a murderer at this point operating almost in daylight in a backyard would hang around to write a message in chalk. Those few seconds could, and in this murder series seem often to have been, a matter of getaway or being caught. It seems unlikely someone murdering 'in a box' with multiple potential witnesses through windows, an open door policy, a bloke sitting on the other side of the fence and the sun coming up would waste time scribbling ultimately meaningless messages.

I just can't buy it.

For all the points you mentioned in your post ,i would have thought that writing the message on the wall would fit right in with the very same kind of risk taking .Just my opinion.