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

[caz]

If the Ripper had wanted to dispose of the piece of apron, he could have done it in a number of ways. Taken it home to burn it, bury it, or whatever. He could have thrown it down one of the recesses or down a sewer. Instead of those things, he did something else entirely: he left it on a public pathway, i.e., an entrance into a building, where it was bound to be found before long. That's worth considering.

I agree, Chris. The chances are that the entrances would have been kept reasonably clean and clear by the proud residents of these shiny new dwellings. A filthy, blood-stained and foul-smelling piece of a woman's apron was not going to be missed, or stepped over and ignored for long, by the people coming and going.

Someone chose that particular location for leaving that particular message, and as Hunter said (and was totally ignored) his only option when using white chalk would have been to write on the black part of the wall, regardless of his age or height and how low down it would make the writing. All this talk of a child or even a midget doing it gives me real fits. What's wrong with him having to stoop to make the white legible on the black, whether this was the same man who dropped the apron or not?

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree, Chris. The chances are that the entrances would have been kept reasonably clean and clear by the proud residents of these shiny new dwellings. A filthy, blood-stained and foul-smelling piece of a woman's apron was not going to be missed, or stepped over and ignored for long, by the people coming and going.

Someone chose that particular location for leaving that particular message, and as Hunter said (and was totally ignored) his only option when using white chalk would have been to write on the black part of the wall, regardless of his age or height and how low down it would make the writing. All this talk of a child or even a midget doing it gives me real fits. What's wrong with him having to stoop to make the white legible on the black, whether this was the same man who dropped the apron or not?

Love,

Caz
X

Why would you stoop down when easier to stand upright unless Quasimodo wrote it

[mariab]

Or Toulouse-Lautrec. Who threw the apron into the air, but it was still too low.

[PhiltheBear]

Thank you for highlighting unable in bold for me Phil,

Made it so clearer.

I aim to please (did you mean so much clearer? - Trying to please again )

Nor did Byfield state she was incapable of speech, or any utterance for that matter.

His statement was "I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when she was brought in". The only other testimony to anything she is supposed to have said was 'nothing' by Robinson. Both claim she was too drunk to stand. It's 100% logical that she didn't reply on being asked her name because she was too drunk - it's illogical, not to mention downright bad English, to state that 'When asked her name she made the reply "Nothing"'.

It's right up there with any idea that JtR wrote the graffito - simply not believable.

[PhiltheBear]

What's wrong with him having to stoop to make the white legible on the black, whether this was the same man who dropped the apron or not?

Love,

Caz
X

Try it. It's not easy and if in a hurry it's even more difficult - unless, of course, you are 4ft tall or less.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

it's illogical, not to mention downright bad English, to state that 'When asked her name she made the reply "Nothing"'.

Not at all...the Constable has written this part of his statement using perfectly good, crystal-clear English, with no possible ambiguity whatsoever...or were you expecting the drunk (who was incapable of giving her particulars, but evidently not incapable of speech), to speak clear coherent Queen's English perchance?

Personally I see the link between this and the GSG to be quite tenuous, probably unsustainable, but I don't see how distorting the meaning of a perfectly clear statement helps promote this view...

Sorry!

Dave

[Monty]

I aim to please (did you mean so much clearer? - Trying to please again )



His statement was "I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when she was brought in". The only other testimony to anything she is supposed to have said was 'nothing' by Robinson. Both claim she was too drunk to stand. It's 100% logical that she didn't reply on being asked her name because she was too drunk - it's illogical, not to mention downright bad English, to state that 'When asked her name she made the reply "Nothing"'.

It's right up there with any idea that JtR wrote the graffito - simply not believable.

No Phil, I stated what I meant.

The testimony is clear and is in line with Police procedure as Bridewell points out.

I see no relevance between being too drunk to stand and being incapable of speech. I have witnessed slumped drunks speaking to themselves incoherantly yet the odd legible word is made out.

For what its worth, the notion that 'nothing' in the writing is in reference to Eddowes mumblings is a no goer for me anyway. It alludes to conspiracy and for what point?

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

I aim to please (did you mean so much clearer? - Trying to please again )

His statement was "I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when she was brought in". The only other testimony to anything she is supposed to have said was 'nothing' by Robinson. Both claim she was too drunk to stand. It's 100% logical that she didn't reply on being asked her name because she was too drunk - it's illogical, not to mention downright bad English, to state that 'When asked her name she made the reply "Nothing"'.

It's right up there with any idea that JtR wrote the graffito - simply not believable.

Hello Phil

You certainly are persistent, Phil, and as I have said here before, you are entitled to your opinion, as we all are.

It's equally illogical that Eddowes would have been doing her best drunken impersonation of a fire engine in Aldgate High Street, but that's what we are told.

Sometimes we have to accept what is reported as being factual instead of trying to put another construction on it.

All the best

Chris

[Abby Normal]

Hi Monty. And what reasons could be 'more valid'?

I believe the graffiti is legit Ripper evidence. I'm not so sure about the Lusk kidney, because unlike the apron piece, it could not be established beyond doubt as having come from Eddowes. However, there is an interesting similarity between the two, and that is that the apron and the kidney were both utilized as a 'signature' for their respective messages.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

perhaps he used the apron to carry her kidney in.

[moonbegger]

Hello , Hello , Hello ,

Can someone throw me a bone here .. is it really so inconceivable , so far beyond the realms of possibility , that the GSG may have been scrawled earlier .. just before the rain ( hence the slight blurring of the wording in places ) .
And taking it one step at a time , If the killer (as we know he did ) threw down Cathy's apron at that specific spot beneath the Message , would it not look as though one was authenticating the other ( baring in mind , he could have got rid of it a dozen other ways, as have been discussed on here .. If in fact he needed to get rid of it at all )
And IF ( big if ) it was the killer who put the message there an hour or so before the murder(s) then , Would it not be a logical assumption .. that not only did the the killer Plan his route , but also and more importantly he had something to say . just a thought

cheers all
moonbegger

[Archaic]

Hi Monty.

Thanks very much for the clarification, additional photos, and Goad map. Your help is much appreciated.

I agree with Hunter and Caz. The writer of the graffito did the sensible and the most noticeable thing with his white chalk, which was to write on the nice black dado.

I do believe that the graffito and the apron are connected, and it seems to me that each was placed so as to help "highlight" and draw attention to the other, thus making the combined effect even more dramatic.

As for the height of the writing, it was of course dictated by the height of the available writing surface. I can picture the writer crouching down a bit to hurriedly write it. People naturally crouch to some extent when engaged in furtive behaviors like avoiding pursuit, and there was an additional need to crouch because the chosen writing surface wasn't very high...makes sense to me.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Hi Moonbegger, just saw your post regarding the possibility that the graffito had been written earlier, before the Mitre Square murder. We discussed that on a thread a while back, but I'm afraid I can't remember which one. Perhaps someone else will know.

Personally I do think he used the apron and the graffito to "authenticate" each other, and also to tie in to the Berner Street murder earlier that night- hence the reference to Jews.

I also think it's possible that he had originally intended to write some kind of graffito in Dutfield's Yard, maybe on the big wooden gate, but was unable to because he had to flee. Having been thwarted in that regard, he wrote a graffito after the Mitre Square Murder...maybe what he would have written earlier at Berner Street, or maybe something different because he felt so angry at the Jews for Diemschutz interrupting him.

[Bridewell]

Agreement

Or, simply, Long didn't see it on his first pass? Perhaps his attention was drawn to something or somebody on the other side of the street as he passed the passageway? Or he didn't look. Perhaps it was already there.

Hi Phil,

This is much more likely than him hanging around for 40-odd minutes or going back out again after reaching a safe haven. I agree with you that the likely explanation is that, for whatever reason, he didn't look.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Indeed

Not at all...the Constable has written this part of his statement using perfectly good, crystal-clear English, with no possible ambiguity whatsoever

Hi Dave,

Succinct as always. Right as - well, most of the time anyway!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Moonbegger

I think yours is a reasonable suggestion...it's been made before you understand, but it's perfectly reasonable...In my opinion it gains further credence if JtR noticed a previous graffito and thought dumping the apron there would either make a statement or cause confusion...but I'd reluctantly accept what you propose as an alternative...

I'd also happily accept a scenario where there is no connection at all...ie the presence of the GSG at the dumping site is entirely coincidental...though, realistically, as each post goes by, the likelihood of this seems to decrease...the logic of those arguing that the presence of the basements, and the depth of the entrance, indicate that said dumping site was deliberately chosen, seemingly becomes more and more irrefutable...

What I can't really accept though, is that in the pretty perfect darkness of this particular night, and in the midst of a flight from the alien Mitre Square back to the safety of home territory, JtR stopped off, casually lit a lamp...or maybe just a fag... (for illumination) and carefully wrote in very small, (for chalk on brick), controlled characters, the GSG...that one to me defies belief...

Best wishes

Dave

[Wickerman]

That's true, Tom. If the Ripper had wanted to dispose of the piece of apron, he could have done it in a number of ways. Taken it home to burn it, bury it, or whatever. He could have thrown it down one of the recesses or down a sewer. Instead of those things, he did something else entirely: he left it on a public pathway, i.e., an entrance into a building, where it was bound to be found before long. That's worth considering.

Best regards

Chris

Another consideration is possible. That he intended the apron, including any contents, to be found there in that doorway.
He threw the bundle as he ran past, the bundle struck the archway and unfolded, spilling any contents down the grate adjacent to the archway.

Assuming the police thought that the bloodstains were the result of him wiping his knife/hands, they presumably would not bother to search the area for the missing uterus or kidney. They may never have looked in the filth at the bottom of that grate (surrounded by railings), they had no reason to.

The grate at the back of our house (in UK) was about 6 ft deep.

Regards, Jon S.