'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[Cogidubnus]

It was only a kidney. That isn't all that large and once removed it's quite possible that he dried the blood on it - with the apron - and simply put it in his pocket. He cleaned his hands, also with the piece of apron. Now he has a piece of bloody apron (I don't think the size was specified) which he doesn't want to pocket because he doesn't want blood from it on his clothing. He therefore throws it away in the first place he thinks it'll be reasonably hidden from immediate view e.g. in a passageway that's unlikely to be used for a few hours.

My inclination is towards his having partially bungled his dissection, and on top of that nearly being caught in Mitre Square, rushing off flustered before he's had a chance to wipe the blood and excrement from his hands, and as you surmise simply dumping the incriminating cloth in a handy doorway...(perhaps he didn't mind blood, but wasn't expecting to be covered in crap and it appalled him...he didn't usually sever bowels did he?)...

There is absolutely no justification - whatever - that the Ripper wrote it. None. Zero. Zilch. There's no link between the graffito and the murders. There's simply a coincidence that the piece of apron was found where some graffiti was.

Bearing in mind the small letters (only a brick size in height - also mentioned as being capitals of 3/4 of an inch high with other letters proportionate) and good round schoolboy hand, I'm inclined to agree with this also...not something written in haste in the dark - And as the black painted dado was (according to the ABC anyway) only 4' 6" in height, the observation about the likely height of the writer also seems relevant...not something I'd thought of before, so thanks!

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Evidence

There is absolutely no justification - whatever - that the Ripper wrote it. None. Zero. Zilch.

There's no link between the graffito and the murders. There's simply a coincidence that the piece of apron was found where some graffiti was.

Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.

There's no evidence either way, is there?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It was only a kidney. That isn't all that large and once removed it's quite possible that he dried the blood on it - with the apron - and simply put it in his pocket. He cleaned his hands, also with the piece of apron. Now he has a piece of bloody apron (I don't think the size was specified) which he doesn't want to pocket because he doesn't want blood from it on his clothing. He therefore throws it away in the first place he thinks it'll be reasonably hidden from immediate view e.g. in a passageway that's unlikely to be used for a few hours.

Now that is a weaker argument.

If the apron was used to wipe hands or knife, then it must be deduced that it would have been more prudent to have done so in Mitre Square (before putting said knife away and waltzing off down the street bidding night walkers a good night). Unless you're prepared to argue that he was disturbed. But, then you'll have to argue that he must have cut the apron much earlier and quickly picked it up before heading off.

In terms of the organ, in the event the kidney was wrapped in the cloth, then surely the only reason for dropping the cloth at that particular location, was that he was about to enter the premises where he lived/lodged within a street or two.

I don't see him walking down the street carrying the cloth in open view.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but if there is one cover up in this whole affair I'd go for it being the apron - placed there by the police in order to suggest the Ripper was the Met's problem, thereby avoiding recriminations such as resignations and the like.

[PhiltheBear]

The whole Jew thing is a red herring, folks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Careful. We are in agreement

[PhiltheBear]

Ok , so can someone please clear this up for me

Why would the killer throw down the apron for no reason ? After all he had her insides in his bag , no reason whatsoever to throw it down when it would have been a lot easier to stick it back in his bag or pocket with the rest of her , and no trace of him left behind ?

moonbegger

It was only a kidney. That isn't all that large and once removed it's quite possible that he dried the blood on it - with the apron - and simply put it in his pocket. He cleaned his hands, also with the piece of apron. Now he has a piece of bloody apron (I don't think the size was specified) which he doesn't want to pocket because he doesn't want blood from it on his clothing. He therefore throws it away in the first place he thinks it'll be reasonably hidden from immediate view e.g. in a passageway that's unlikely to be used for a few hours.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If there was even a tiny bit of evidence to support that idea I night go along with it. But then I'd ask why he didn't pick out Jewish prostitutes to kill.

Gotta say, Phil, your point about writing well above eye level is an excellent one and one I haven't read on here in the past.

I agree. And the last line will have been around eye level, which instinctively is always the aim. Presumably this would make the author shorter than 5 ft.

[Tom_Wescott]

The whole Jew thing is a red herring, folks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PhiltheBear]

Or the building had a particular significance for him because he was antisemite and he knew that the building was inhabited by Jewish families, and he knew that the population was biased against jewish suspects.

If there was even a tiny bit of evidence to support that idea I night go along with it. But then I'd ask why he didn't pick out Jewish prostitutes to kill.

[moonbegger]

Hello all ..

"The question is - why? Why would he write the note and then go back to dump a piece of apron there? How would he even know in advance he'd have a piece of apron? Isn't it much, much more likely that he simply saw the open passageway as a convenient place to throw the piece of apron as he passed by?

Ok , so can someone please clear this up for me

Why would the killer throw down the apron for no reason ? After all he had her insides in his bag , no reason whatsoever to throw it down when it would have been a lot easier to stick it back in his bag or pocket with the rest of her , and no trace of him left behind ?

moonbegger

[PhiltheBear]

Sorry, Phil the Bear. Your wild theorizing just doesn't satisfy me. It was probable then and probable now that the Ripper wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There is absolutely no justification - whatever - that the Ripper wrote it. None. Zero. Zilch.

There's no link between the graffito and the murders. There's simply a coincidence that the piece of apron was found where some graffiti was.

Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.

[PhiltheBear]

I forgot to add that the personage most likely to have access to chalk - other than a schoolmaster - would probably be a schoolboy.

[Tom_Wescott]

Sorry, Phil the Bear. Your wild theorizing just doesn't satisfy me. It was probable then and probable now that the Ripper wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Rubyretro]

The question is - why? Why would he write the note and then go back to dump a piece of apron there? How would he even know in advance he'd have a piece of apron? Isn't it much, much more likely that he simply saw the open passageway as a convenient place to throw the piece of apron as he passed by?

Yes.

Or the building had a particular significance for him because he was antisemite and he knew that the building was inhabited by Jewish families, and he knew that the population was biased against jewish suspects.

He might, or might not, have already noticed the graffito and decided to **** stir by associating the apron piece with it.

I certainly don't thinkthat he wrote the thing.

[Bridewell]

Hi Phil,

The question is - why? Why would he write the note and then go back to dump a piece of apron there? How would he even know in advance he'd have a piece of apron? Isn't it much, much more likely that he simply saw the open passageway as a convenient place to throw the piece of apron as he passed by? If my theory that he was a rookery inhabitant holds then he was simply on his way back there. (But having then found that the apron had been sufficient to clean himself up he went on....)

This all makes sense to me. If you are right about the height of the writing, it would be below Pc Long's eye-line, and so quite possible that he missed it.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PhiltheBear]

Phil's conclusions aren't unsound, but they're not entirely accurate. Jack had moonlight to work by and was using white chalk against black dado. The writing was certainly not done during the daylight, unless Phil is suggesting no one in the building saw it.

I think they are accurate. Firstly, there was no moon. I've rechecked and it's the case that this was a moonless night. (The 'scientific' term is 'dark moon' i.e. when the moon is in earth's shadow and doesn't reflect any sunlight)
Secondly, you assume the chalk was white. That's highly likely - but no evidence for it that I can recall.

But imagine you were standing in the entry of Goulston Street and an earthquake started happening, you would stand in the entrance way, which was like a doorway but with no door. On what you might call a door jamb, at approximately shoulder height to an average man, was the writing. White chalk on black dado.

OK - let's clear the terminology. A 'jamb' is simply the vertical part of a door frame. A 'dado' is the bit of a column between the base and a cornice - so it's likely that both refer to the same thing - the difference being explained by the difference in the level of education of those using the words. As this was the entrance to a passage and was, in fact, without a door what we are looking at is a door frame. The jamb would be unlikely to be more than, say, a foot wide. The message format, according to Warren was:

The Juwes are
The men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing

That means it's unlikely that any letter was more than an inch high! Further, according to the report made 6th November by C.I. Swanson the writing was blurred. I'm not sure that such a small text, blurred, would have incited a riot. The whole question of the size and position seems to have been inferred, in error, later on.

The report from Inspector McWilliam of the City police says "on the wall above it was written in chalk..." That report was the first written report (27th October). There is no mention of black, dado or jamb. Nor is there any such mention in Warren's report of 6th November or in Swanson's report or Long's report - both of the same date. Supt Arnold's report of 6th November says "some writing on the wall". Arnold also states that "it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by shoulders of persons..."

Long's evidence at the inquest says 'wall'. It isn't until the inquest evidence of Detective Halse that we get 'chalk writing on the black facia of the wall'. According to The Times report of the inquest, however, there were two interjections from jurymen. The first:"There were about three lines of writing, which was in a good schoolboy hand" and the second:"The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall". It is unclear whether the jurymen were getting explanations to questions or making statements.

I assume that the information is reasonably correct as it wasn't challenged by the coroner. Therefore, what we actually have is some graffiti with poor spelling in a schoolboy hand. Hmm. Could it have been a schoolboy?

Well, quite probably. The height of the message is a bit of a give-away. Most people, if they are writing on a blackboard, or similar surface, for others to see will start writing at or above their own eye-level. Try it yourself. The chances of you starting to write at or below your own shoulder height is slim. I propose, therefore, that the message was written by someone much shorter than average - probably about 5ft tall. It was badly spelled. It was inside a passageway - not outside and not on show. The background wasn't black - or that would have been mentioned by all the other witnesses. It was on a wall, rather than a jamb or dado and these descriptions were added later. It was blurred - so it quite likely had been rubbed by a passing shoulder or two beforehand.

I submit for your consideration that it was the work of a schoolboy, probably at or around dusk.

And the only reason the officer noticed the graffiti when he did , is because he was alerted to it after seeing the apron , then searching about .. so
what if the message was written before the double event even happened , maybe on the way to finding Liz Stride ! How much pressure would be on the shoulders of the murderer or even an accomplice to scrawl down what would appear to be an anti Semitic message on the walls of a mainly Jewish tenement building .. not a hanging offence that's for sure . And once the murder's had been taken care of , simply by placing or even throwing the piece of Catherine Eddows bloody apron beneath the chalk writing ( that had been scrawled a few hours before ) would take no time at all , my guess is you wouldn't even have the break pace at all ( that's if he was walking)

The question is - why? Why would he write the note and then go back to dump a piece of apron there? How would he even know in advance he'd have a piece of apron? Isn't it much, much more likely that he simply saw the open passageway as a convenient place to throw the piece of apron as he passed by? If my theory that he was a rookery inhabitant holds then he was simply on his way back there. (But having then found that the apron had been sufficient to clean himself up he went on....)