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

[curious]

Why? No doubt because they were waiting for an American with his superior intellect and deducing powers to come along and solve the case for them. When you get to Heaven, tell them I said I'm sorry I was so late!

Just kidding. The answer is simple. They were focused on the first word, which was not a word, and not entirely clear, therefore they all saw something different. And because of this, they didn't pay much attention to the construct of the entire sentence, just the gist of it. My theory actually explains everything and makes absolutely perfect sense in conjunction with Stride, the apron, and why the graffiti was necessary in the first place. It's the only theory that does so and yet does not require Halse to have been committing LAPD style crimes on the streets of Whitechape! (wink)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This just popped into my head and I will probably regret mentioning it, but could the apron have been necessary because the killer had written a message before that had been ignored?

[lynn cates]

message

Hello Velma. What would the purpose of such a message be?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Purpose

Hello Velma. What would the purpose of such a message be?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

A taunt to the police? A threat to someone else?

I'm guessing you'll prefer the second of these!

Regards, Colin.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Curious,

I would say that's as good an idea as any.

Phil,

I'm glad you appreciated my humor, as that's all it was. And no, I'm conceding anything about the moonlight. Didn't you notice my PS?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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....)

[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.

[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.

[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

[PhiltheBear]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Tom_Wescott]

The whole Jew thing is a red herring, folks.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[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.

[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.