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

[caz]

I don’t think it matters what we'd consider normal or logical in this instant, Caz. Simply because it doesn’t change the fact that, at least 3 times, the Ripper left the crime scene without being seen or heard and apparently didn't attract any attention to himself between each murder sight and ‘bolt hole’.

Well quite, Frank. That was precisely my original point, that it only matters what the killer himself would have considered worth risking. We already knew he considered public murder and mutilation worth risking - which we presumably wouldn't. And we already knew that he managed to get away with it on each and every occasion he attempted it, without leaving a single physical "clew" that would ever connect him directly with his crimes.

We also know that nobody was caught chalking that message or identified later as the graffiti artist responsible. So I still cannot see how it's possible - or logical - to conclude that the killer could not have had his own reasons for leaving this legible but ambiguous message above the apron and would not in any case have considered it worth the risk of writing.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

That would indeed seem so, c.d.. I think the police also just had to consider the possibility that the Ripper wrote it.

Frank

[c.d.]

Hi Frank,

Thanks for that information. It would seem that even if the apron and the writing were not directly one above the other that the distance between them was not significant enough to reach any conclusion as to whether Jack was involved.

c.d.

[FrankO]

Hi c.d.,

The only official pointers we have on the position of the writing and apron are:

- Warren, who on 6 November wrote in a letter to the Home Office that the "writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once. -"
- Arnold, who on the same day wrote in a report "that it (the writing) was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out of the Building."
- Long, who, as per Hunter's post, clearly stated that the apron piece was in the passage. Plus, he noticed the apron piece first, then he started searching for blood marks by the aid of his lamp and then his attention was attracted by the writing.
- Swanson, who wrote in a report dated 6 November that Long "found in the bottom (my emphasis) of a common stairs leading to No. 108 to 119 Goldston Street Buildings a piece of bloodstained apron."

So, from these statements it seems that the apron piece was inside the entrance, while the writing was on the jamb of the open doorway, at about shoulder height, which might give the impression that the apron and writing weren’t directly next to one another.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Indeed Frank, so the ripper must have been acting irrationally and abnormally (to us) one moment, while engaged in murder and mutilation, and logically and normally the next, when needing to get back to base unmolested - except that you seem to be forgetting something here. We wouldn't consider it either logical or normal to put ourselves in that precarious position in the first place - never mind with a couple of human organs and a bloody apron to dispose of.

I don’t think it matters what we'd consider normal or logical in this instant, Caz. Simply because it doesn’t change the fact that, at least 3 times, the Ripper left the crime scene without being seen or heard and apparently didn't attract any attention to himself between each murder sight and ‘bolt hole’.

If his first priority was not being caught, he would have ditched that incriminating apron directly after the murder, or as soon as humanly possible after leaving the scene.

It would depend on why he took the apron. Also, Goulston Street wasn’t that remote from Mitre Square and we don’t know if he walked into any people on his way there. So, it’s certainly not a given that ‘humanly possible’ would mean that he’d discard the pinny within 100 or 200 yards of Mitre Square. It’s perfectly feasible that his first priority was to get as many yards between him and Mitre Square (and as quickly as possible) before he felt safe enough to stop to do whatever he felt he needed to do, and ca. 520 yards (or a little over 400 yards in a straight line) don’t seem all that far.

Once he had stashed his knife, organs and bloody clothing somewhere, and dropped the apron, how could chalking those words on a wall remote from Mitre Square have proved he killed anyone?

It couldn't. Just like nothing but catching him in the act would ever have proved he was the one. So, I agree that he may have written those words after stashing knife, organs & bloody clothing and after dropping the cloth, but it seems unlikely to me that he wrote on his way to his ‘bolt hole’.

All the best,
Frank

[c.d.]

Hi Hunter,

Long's testimony indicates that the message and apron were next to each other. I could have sworn I read somewhere that there was a little distance between them but I could be wrong. Does anybody have anything that would contradict Long's statement?

c.d.

[Hunter]

Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.

I believe above would mean just that.

[c.d.]

Hi Caz,

You are right that the "if I had been Jack" line of reasoning puts us at a distinct disadvantage right off the bat but if we don't attempt some type of framework for his actions then we basically have to accept any theory or scenario as reasonable no matter how improbable it seems to uss. Hopefully none of us are serial killers but I venture that we all share his desire for self preservation and that that aspect of his actions makes it a little easier for us to step into his shoes.

I would still have written the message first because in writing it he has to have his back to anyone approaching him. As you point out, being caught in the act with the apron on him would be a death sentence. But that assumes that a PC would be sharp enough to search someone whose only offense was writing graffiti. On the other hand, being caught in the vacinity of the apron would certainly result in questioning and most likely a trip to Scotland Yard. I don't quite understand how the geography of the dwellings could have presented a problem in the placement of the apron. If I had been Jack (oops, sorry), and willing to take a chance in writing the message, I would make damn sure that they knew it was me and put the apon and message together as close as possible.

c.d.

[caz]

If I had been Jack, I would have written the message first while keeping the apron concealed beneath my coat. It would not have been wise to drop the apron and then write the message in case he was caught in the act while concentrating on his writing. Having written the message first, I would have then placed the apron directly beneath it to guarantee that the two were connected. But in actuality, the apon was a little bit distant from the writing was it not?

c.d.

Hi c.d,

While your reasoning is basically sound, once again we have to remember that it starts with "If I had been Jack..." which would automatically have made your reasoning very unsound indeed.

What we might have done in his place doesn't work, whether he was suffering from a mental illness or as sane as the next man. He was still doing stuff that night that the next man wouldn't even contemplate doing. So how do we begin to imagine how we'd react in such a situation, never mind how he would have done?

But surely being caught writing that message with a victim's apron concealed beneath his coat would be infinitely more incriminating than with the apron already discarded 'a little bit distant from the writing'. They would have to prove he had discarded it himself - a tall order, considering how sure some people are that a different man was responsible for that.

I recall some argument being made for the apron not being found directly beneath the writing, but then again, it depends on how reliable the primary source was for the entire incident. Judging by all the uncertainties about the physical properties of the writing, how confident can any of us be about the exact position of the apron when found, relative to the message? And would the geography of the dwellings have lent itself to the message and apron being left one immediately above or below t'other, if that had been the intention?

Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

Not only was Halse on Met turf but he was also outranked. It was Met decision as they were fearful of unrest. Quite logical after the aftermath due to the Hanbury Street murder.

The bottom line is, and Warren stated this quite clearly, that there was a fear by the Police of imminent rioting or reprisals.

Yes word got out, however this was not immediately and gave the authorities breathing space, enough time to prepare.

And that is why the writing was erased.

Fair point Monty. When Arnold suggested the possibility of rioting I would imagine that Trafalgar Square entered Sir Charles' mind as well. He didn't need a repeat of that episode on top of the murders. It was a no win situation either way for him and he was unlikely to get much support from Matthews, who seemed to dodge critical decisions - except rewards - for political expediency.

Though the City officials naturally didn't like it, it was his decision to make... and he made it.

[c.d.]

If I had been Jack, I would have written the message first while keeping the apron concealed beneath my coat. It would not have been wise to drop the apron and then write the message in case he was caught in the act while concentrating on his writing. Having written the message first, I would have then placed the apron directly beneath it to guarantee that the two were connected. But in actuality, the apon was a little bit distant from the writing was it not?

c.d.

[D.B.Wagstaff]

This is going back to something much earlier in the thread, Eddow's arrest and saying "Nothing" when asked her name. Is it possbile Eddows said nothing - as in not answering - rather than saying "Nothing" - as in actually saying her name was Nothing? Like everything else in study of Jack's murders a subtle difference changes everthing . . .

[Jerry P.]

If erasing the GSG without photographing it was not the biggest police "blunder" in this case, what was?

And as to the apron; I wonder what the likelihood is that JtR used it carry the Eddowes organs back to his place of residence, unloading it, and then going out to discard it?

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Just came across your post containing this quote.

I agree that, if the Ripper wrote the GSG, it may very well have been the illogical and ambiguous message for the reason you’ve outlined.

However, you seem to be forgetting something. Even though murder and mutilation are irrational and unfathomable to us, the Ripper was as logical as any of us in the sense that, although luck must have played its part, he was keen on getting away scot-free. So it seems more likely that, directly after each murder, his first priority was to get away without being caught instead of keeping his head inside this bubble of murder, mutilation & organ removal, and writing whatever message for himself under circumstances that could lead to his capture – and death.

All the best,
Frank

Indeed Frank, so the ripper must have been acting irrationally and abnormally (to us) one moment, while engaged in murder and mutilation, and logically and normally the next, when needing to get back to base unmolested - except that you seem to be forgetting something here. We wouldn't consider it either logical or normal to put ourselves in that precarious position in the first place - never mind with a couple of human organs and a bloody apron to dispose of.

The entire episode, from picking up Kate and entering Mitre Square to dropping her apron - eventually - in Goulston, lacked any logic or normality as far as I can see. If his first priority was not being caught, he would have ditched that incriminating apron directly after the murder, or as soon as humanly possible after leaving the scene. Having that on his person would have guaranteed his capture - and death - if a copper had stopped him. Once he had stashed his knife, organs and bloody clothing somewhere, and dropped the apron, how could chalking those words on a wall remote from Mitre Square have proved he killed anyone?

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

D. C. Halse may have been on Met turf, but the evidence related to a City murder. If they had wanted to keep the message hidden for another 30 minutes so it could be photographed, they could have done it. The handwriting was fairly small and would not have been readable at any considerable distance. The news of its existance became public knowledge anyway.

At least they could have copied it right.

...And at least there was better co-ordination between the City and Met forces after this... so someone recognized there had been a significant problem that couldn't happen again.

Not only was Halse on Met turf but he was also outranked. It was Met decision as they were fearful of unrest. Quite logical after the aftermath due to the Hanbury Street murder.

The bottom line is, and Warren stated this quite clearly, that there was a fear by the Police of imminent rioting or reprisals.

Yes word got out, however this was not immediately and gave the authorities breathing space, enough time to prepare.

And that is why the writing was erased.

Monty