Goulstan Street Graffito.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff,

This makes sense to me. I used to wonder why the killer would have taken away a piece of cloth to wipe his knife and hands when he could have done it in situ but time might have been a factor of course. He might also have wanted to give himself the once over when he got near a lamp and if he needed to to clean himself before he ran into anyone. Obviously he wouldn’t have wanted to have been seen wiping his hands in the street so a darkened doorway was ideal.

You wonder why the killer cut a piece of the apron. I wonder why there is no record of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and her clothing and possessions listed in detail at the mortuary.

https://www.trevormarriott.couk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I apologize, but I don't have my reference books with me, but my recollection is that the apron piece had a corner that was described as heavily saturated in blood, which would happen if pieces were placed on the corner, then the apron rolled around it (similar to how the centre of the cloth above is heavily saturated because the organ was placed there and parts further from the centre are just spotted and smeared a bit).

That being said, if the partial uterus and kidney were wrapped in the apron piece, it seems to me unlikely JtR would unwrap them while en route to where ever he was going. While it also seems unlikely to me he would then venture out again with a piece of bloody cloth, that seems less unlikely than unwrapping while travelling. However, if he used the apron only to clean his hands and knife, and tossed it when finished, then the en route idea makes more sense (with the corner having been saturated at the original scene). Since there's nothing to suggest he needed anything from other scenes where he took organs (Chapman's uterus and some bits of belly, Kelly's heart), I see no reason to suggest he needed the apron to carry organs this time.

Of course, anything is possible, but the "apron to clean his hands" due to him rupturing her bowel, still strikes me as the most plausible. Sadly, we don't have any image depicting the nature, placement, or shape of the stains, information that would greatly help us move beyond speculating based upon our own prior beliefs and fooling ourselves into thinking we have uncovered evidence (myself included here of course).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

This makes sense to me. I used to wonder why the killer would have taken away a piece of cloth to wipe his knife and hands when he could have done it in situ but time might have been a factor of course. He might also have wanted to give himself the once over when he got near a lamp and if he needed to to clean himself before he ran into anyone. Obviously he wouldn’t have wanted to have been seen wiping his hands in the street so a darkened doorway was ideal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there is no evidence to show that the graffiti was new is there. It could have been there for weeks. People have tried to hard to interpret the message, but the only persons who knows is the person who wrote it and we have no idea who that was. All the many interpretations given over the years are nothing more than guesswork.

I know you keep saying that I keep using the terms unsafe, and guess work but that is what much of ripperology is about, unsafe witness testimony,unreliable newspaper reports, wild uncorroborated speculation by researchers etc etc

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with treating evidence with caution because of the potential for error and lies but there’s nothing wrong with using a ‘what if’ scenario. The grafitto was either written by the ripper or it wasn’t but we shouldn’t completely dismiss it because it’s an unknown. When you yourself are looking at the case you have the same evidence that’s available to everyone else and you use your own judgment on how to interpret it but you wouldn’t get anywhere if you just chucked out anything that’s not 100% certain. Without sidetracking the thread a case in point is the Memorandum which you say is unsafe to rely on. Ok. It exists. MacNaghten definitely wrote it. He said that he was in receipt of private information and that Druitt’s family felt that he was guilty. So....either MacNaghten was lying or he received incorrect information or he received information that he misinterpreted or he received info and Druitt was guilty. An argument could be, and has been, put forward for accepting or dismissing any of these four. None of us know the truth. But because we don’t know for sure my opinion is that we shouldn’t just dismiss it as unsafe anymore than we should say “well that shows that Druitt must have been the ripper.” Just as I don’t think that we should dismiss the possibility that the ripper wrote the grafitto. He might have.

It boils down to not stating opinions as fact.

[JeffHamm]

As part of my investigation into proving or disproving the organ removals and the apron piece I worked closely with a consultant gynecologist who was able to assitand provide a valuable insight inot the removal of the organs and the apron piece being suggested as what they were carried away in.

The attcahed photo is the result of a uterus being removed from a live donor by the consulatant, and being wrapped up for a short time and then photographed. if a kidney was added to that there might be even more blood absorbed by the material

As can be seen it is heavily bloodstained not spotted/smeared with blood as the goulston apron piece was described, so based on these results I belive it is fair to say that the killer did not take away the organs in the apron piece.

Which begs the questions did the killer remove the organs? and if he did what did he take them away in, and if not the apron piece, what did he use?

And how did the apron piece end up in Goulston Street, and who deposited it, if not the killer?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I apologize, but I don't have my reference books with me, but my recollection is that the apron piece had a corner that was described as heavily saturated in blood, which would happen if pieces were placed on the corner, then the apron rolled around it (similar to how the centre of the cloth above is heavily saturated because the organ was placed there and parts further from the centre are just spotted and smeared a bit).

That being said, if the partial uterus and kidney were wrapped in the apron piece, it seems to me unlikely JtR would unwrap them while en route to where ever he was going. While it also seems unlikely to me he would then venture out again with a piece of bloody cloth, that seems less unlikely than unwrapping while travelling. However, if he used the apron only to clean his hands and knife, and tossed it when finished, then the en route idea makes more sense (with the corner having been saturated at the original scene). Since there's nothing to suggest he needed anything from other scenes where he took organs (Chapman's uterus and some bits of belly, Kelly's heart), I see no reason to suggest he needed the apron to carry organs this time.

Of course, anything is possible, but the "apron to clean his hands" due to him rupturing her bowel, still strikes me as the most plausible. Sadly, we don't have any image depicting the nature, placement, or shape of the stains, information that would greatly help us move beyond speculating based upon our own prior beliefs and fooling ourselves into thinking we have uncovered evidence (myself included here of course).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

A new and enigmatic message appears at the same time as a piece of bloodied apron from the murder in a doorway? It’s almost a banker that most would at least try and connect the two.

Most things are speculation Trevor. The only time we can safely say ‘wrong’ is if someone says that it definitely ‘was’ or definitely ‘wasn't’ written by the killer.

But there is no evidence to show that the graffiti was new is there. It could have been there for weeks. People have tried to hard to interpret the message, but the only persons who knows is the person who wrote it and we have no idea who that was. All the many interpretations given over the years are nothing more than guesswork.

I know you keep saying that I keep using the terms unsafe, and guess work but that is what much of ripperology is about, unsafe witness testimony,unreliable newspaper reports, wild uncorroborated speculation by researchers etc etc

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aelric]

Does Anyone know WHEN the term "Goulston Street Graffito" was adopted? I very much doubt that contemporary writers used it and I'll wager that it was being used in Italian-speaking areas sometime before English-speakers used it. I don't think I've ever seen it in anything before the Centennial (1988).

If I were to put money on it, I'd wager that Martin Fido may have been the first to use it, or at least popularised its use.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are right there is no connection to any of the murders both past and present in the wording of the graffiti, so for anyone to suggest it was written by the killer is pure speculation.

By leaving the apron by the writing I have to ask how would anyone be able to assume that the killer wrote it, if the wording has no relevance to the murders?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A new and enigmatic message appears at the same time as a piece of bloodied apron from the murder in a doorway? It’s almost a banker that most would at least try and connect the two.

Most things are speculation Trevor. The only time we can safely say ‘wrong’ is if someone says that it definitely ‘was’ or definitely ‘wasn't’ written by the killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or maybe the killer just left the apron by the writing to show that he wrote it? After all, the message isn’t connected to the murder by anything obvious in the wording.

You are right there is no connection to any of the murders both past and present in the wording of the graffiti, so for anyone to suggest it was written by the killer is pure speculation.

By leaving the apron by the writing I have to ask how would anyone be able to assume that the killer wrote it, if the wording has no relevance to the murders?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or maybe the killer just left the apron by the writing to show that he wrote it? After all, the message isn’t connected to the murder by anything obvious in the wording.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is significance to that location Trevor, if one considers the text above it. That entrance way was used by the Model Homes tenants who, its my understanding, were 90%+ immigrant Jews.I also recall hearing that at least one Berner St club member or family member lived there. The message was interpreted as antisemitic, I believe correctly, and its placement could not be more dangerous for the locals. I say he should have taken a picture first, but covering it up or erasing it seems justifiable.

Its my belief that the message was suggesting Jews evading blame for events both recent and past, and the apron section is like a signature by someone who knows what a real killer looks like. Not with some clumsy single cutting left behind. Hes the guy who killed the woman in the city, Mr Apron guy, a real boogy-man...of that he leaves no doubt, but he suggests that they should blame the Jews for the International Mens Club murder. And whatever else his prejudice tells him they got away with.

If you allow for Long to be accurate in his beat recollections, then its possible the man who left Mitre Square with some of Kate in some of her own apron had approx 70 minutes to A) Hear a buzz on the street about some Jews claiming The Ripper struck in Socialists Cub just after midnight, and to B) walk away for 10-20 minutes in any direction from Mitre Square.

If he went West, then the apron was brought back out into the street to place it where it was found. That would strongly suggest that the message also not noticed until almost 2 was placed there with it. As I said, its like a signature. I wrote this. But not the guy who killed that woman in Berner Street.

Nothing to indicate that the man was referencing a double murder, or claiming responsibility for it, just a note and a signature from the man who killed in Mitre Square.

As part of my investigation into proving or disproving the organ removals and the apron piece I worked closely with a consultant gynecologist who was able to assitand provide a valuable insight inot the removal of the organs and the apron piece being suggested as what they were carried away in.

The attcahed photo is the result of a uterus being removed from a live donor by the consulatant, and being wrapped up for a short time and then photographed. if a kidney was added to that there might be even more blood absorbed by the material

As can be seen it is heavily bloodstained not spotted/smeared with blood as the goulston apron piece was described, so based on these results I belive it is fair to say that the killer did not take away the organs in the apron piece.

Which begs the questions did the killer remove the organs? and if he did what did he take them away in, and if not the apron piece, what did he use?

And how did the apron piece end up in Goulston Street, and who deposited it, if not the killer?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[TheCuriousCat]

Hi TCC

There was graffiti in the east end of London. However, JtR needed to leave the crime scene with some haste and so if he was to leave a message it is likely it would be some distance from the crime. To make his message stand out, if it was his message, he would rely on the apron piece.

Hi Etenguy

He was in haste to get away, and yet decided it was worth it and stop to write a bit of graffiti that wouldn't have been noticed if it wasn't for the constable searching for blood stains? Even though he hadn't ever felt the need to leave a message before, and it was very ambiguous as to what it meant. He must really have wanted to get that message out, but simultaneously felt content leave it up to chance that it would get spotted. It's always struck me as really suspect.

In terms of the photograph, if it existed, it could help, not least in knowing exactly what the GSG said. The handwriting could also have been compared to letters received by the police - even though writing with chalk on a wall and writing on paper with a pen might look somewhat different, there could possibly have been some core similarities.

I really don't see how the photograph helps. It apparently was fairly generic handwriting. So was the handwriting on the Dear Boss letter. At best, they would know how the killer (if it was the killer) spelled Jews and if he in fact had similar handwriting to the writer of that note. Which they decided he did. Which didn't help them. Possibly because tonnes of people had very similar handwriting. Like Ulysses S Grant and George Bernard Shaw. But... yeah, it would be cool to have seen the actual picture. I don't think having the picture would have made any difference to catching the killer.

[etenguy]

We know that Warren was a military man and certainly not the kind of man that would accept or enjoy having his orders questioned. I can imagine an under-pressure Warren ordering a writing, containing the word Jews (however it was actually spelled) to be erased in a kind of panic perhaps picturing in his mind Jewish shops and homes being attacked and mobs on the street. He knew of the Vigilance Committee and so might have suspected that some might have sought to take justice into their own hands? And then when someone suggested preserving it he might have taken the “are you questioning my authority?” attitude. Later he might have regretted acting so precipitately but obviously he wouldn’t have wanted to admit to an error.

Possibly, Herlock - though from what we know of Warren, he wasn't given easily to panic even under pressure. It may simply be that he made an error and tried to cover that with an excuse. Or he may have had a different reason that was not voiced publicly, but if so we can only speculate what that might be.

[etenguy]

I live in a small city known for its relative cleanliness, and yet there is still graffiti everywhere. If you were intending to leave your signature next to a crime scene you would need to leave it with a couple of yards if you didn't want someone else's tag to be more noticeable than yours. It's hard to believe that 1888 Whitechapel didn't have graffiti aplenty. Also, if there was a photograph...how would that help? "Good schoolboy script" is practically the definition of generic handwriting.

Hi TCC

There was graffiti in the east end of London. However, JtR needed to leave the crime scene with some haste and so if he was to leave a message it is likely it would be some distance from the crime. To make his message stand out, if it was his message, he would rely on the apron piece.

In terms of the photograph, if it existed, it could help, not least in knowing exactly what the GSG said. The handwriting could also have been compared to letters received by the police - even though writing with chalk on a wall and writing on paper with a pen might look somewhat different, there could possibly have been some core similarities.

[C. F. Leon]

Indeed, but it is known as the GSG today so I thought it worth pointing out.

Does Anyone know WHEN the term "Goulston Street Graffito" was adopted? I very much doubt that contemporary writers used it and I'll wager that it was being used in Italian-speaking areas sometime before English-speakers used it. I don't think I've ever seen it in anything before the Centennial (1988).

[Michael W Richards]

Signature killers leave their signature somewhere where the item whatever that item might be is going to be found, not in an archway some distance from the crime scene where it might never have been found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is significance to that location Trevor, if one considers the text above it. That entrance way was used by the Model Homes tenants who, its my understanding, were 90%+ immigrant Jews.I also recall hearing that at least one Berner St club member or family member lived there. The message was interpreted as antisemitic, I believe correctly, and its placement could not be more dangerous for the locals. I say he should have taken a picture first, but covering it up or erasing it seems justifiable.

Its my belief that the message was suggesting Jews evading blame for events both recent and past, and the apron section is like a signature by someone who knows what a real killer looks like. Not with some clumsy single cutting left behind. Hes the guy who killed the woman in the city, Mr Apron guy, a real boogy-man...of that he leaves no doubt, but he suggests that they should blame the Jews for the International Mens Club murder. And whatever else his prejudice tells him they got away with.

If you allow for Long to be accurate in his beat recollections, then its possible the man who left Mitre Square with some of Kate in some of her own apron had approx 70 minutes to A) Hear a buzz on the street about some Jews claiming The Ripper struck in Socialists Cub just after midnight, and to B) walk away for 10-20 minutes in any direction from Mitre Square.

If he went West, then the apron was brought back out into the street to place it where it was found. That would strongly suggest that the message also not noticed until almost 2 was placed there with it. As I said, its like a signature. I wrote this. But not the guy who killed that woman in Berner Street.

Nothing to indicate that the man was referencing a double murder, or claiming responsibility for it, just a note and a signature from the man who killed in Mitre Square.