The word JUWES

[Elamarna]

thanks steve
its a possibility.
1.But, as far as we know he never cut and took away any of the other victims clothing to clean himself or the knife.why only with eddowes?

2. if he wanted to clean his hands and knife he could have just done it on her apron as she lay there. why take any extra time at the scene to cut away a large portion of her apron, only to take it a short distance away, take it out, take his knife out again and clean it and or his hands. Isnt that much more riskier and time consuming?

also, long was pretty adamant he would have seen it-it was a large white piece of apron. He was pretty certain he said it wasn't there. Im sure he would have known better than anyone-Ill go with the PC on this one. it probably wasn't there the first time around.

Sorry Abby

think I got distracted,

so :

1. Because the mutilation was more extensive, both to the contents of the body and the face.

It has been suggested that he may have cut himself, I can believe this with the facial cuts in particular, he would need to hold the face/head as he cut surely, so a great chance there of a self inflicted cut.
However we have no hard evidence for that so far as i am aware so it remains just a possibility.

Of course we know he had cut into the intestines, separating the small from the colon. This would result in a amount of faeces which would have got on the killer, and in all probability the more liquid contents from the small intestine would have spilled onto him when he separated the two sections of the intestines.

This I believe means he MAY have been dirtier than in previous murders, and MAY have felt the need to wipe himself clean on this occasion.

Just a possibility of course

2. I see your reasoning; but am not sure i agree.

a.) He may not have wanted to dwell over the body any longer than needed. Quicker to walk off hands and apron and bits hidden

b.) Its not easy to see blood and shall we just say muck on your hands in the dark to the extent you can be sure you have cleaned it.(that is from my experiences in medical research and not just a bland statement).
We certainly know that the light in Mitre Square was not great, but obviously ok for the killings. There is a difference in seeing to work and seeing if you are clean.

c.) It is possible that the killer heard one of the two police officers approaching and the last thing he did was to cut some cloth to wipe his hands with as he fled.

d.) Actually i see it as being less risky, you get up, quickly leave the square, walk off some distance, check your hands under a street light, which were close to the GSG location. and then just throw the cloth away, in an area where it may not be seen or indeed reorganised. he could clean his hands when the coast was clear so to speak, he would initaly be heading the the opposite direction to the Police.

Overall I would say the disposal location was due to needing light to see the hands correctly and wanting to put distance between himself and the murder site.

However just to show I am flexible, if he was heading home and dropped it near home, then we do have a possible candidate living in Goulston St:
Isaac Kozminski, 40 years old, boot and shoemaker,

He would I think be unlikely to have written the GSG for obvious reasons


Steve

[c.d.]

Just a quick thought -- I always thought that the word nothing meant for no reason but now I wonder if it could mean that what he was doing to these women was really nothing in light of the fact that the women had no value. Just a thought.

c.d.

[Rosella]

I've always thought that the Eddowes murder proved more than a bit messy, for obvious reasons, and the killer, not having brought anything with him, bar perhaps a rough piece of cloth to wipe his hands on, (a man was seen earlier wiping his hands in Church Lane) he took an opportunity to slice away part of Kate's apron.

It was a filthy garment anyway, (the state of Kate's other clothing was hardly pristine) but it would have done as a receptacle for her kidney, wrapped around it and then put in his pocket, having perhaps given his hands a quick wipe on it beforehand to remove faecal matter and blood.

I do think that going out again from his bolt hole to deposit this grubby clue was quite dangerous. If it had been dropped earlier just after the murder, perhaps not so much, but once news of the Mitre Square murder got out the police would have been extra alert and certainly would have taken note of sole adult males.

[Errata]

Actually a good thought provoking question!
Probably nothing to do disparaging Jews women police or anything about violence.

Some example might be:

John smith is a pig
God save the queen
Don't eat at joes
Eds gang rules
Prince Alberts a wanker

Well some variant on "Die Jewish Scum" is not particularly remarkable as far as graffiti goes. That happened, and it happens today. So it's not like the guy left the third act of Henry V on a wall, which would have been remarkable (though puzzling). Nor did he write "Stride got Lucky" which would have been concise and damning. Even a "You'll never catch me" is less damning, less urgent, but still perfectly in the wheelhouse of what we expect a killer to say.

The way I figure it, the guy is running, and is running out of proverbial road, because people are now searching for him. He ditches the apron, and he takes a brief moment that he cannot afford to take (with any kind of safety) to write out the one thing he wants people to know about him. And he picks "Jews suck." A message that was likely more strongly stated on another wall in a six block radius. All over the city really. Along with your other standard graffiti. The message is not unique, it's only remarkable in it's relative mildness. So one of two things had to happen for the killer to have written this message.

1: It had to be on that specific building. Not just any building, because variants of the message were on just about any building. That building.
or
2: The killer needed to link himself to the fairly common casual antisemitism of the day. He couldn't assume that people would know that about him, so it was really important that he spell it out. Poorly it should be said. As far as anti semitic graffiti goes, it's pretty mild, and clearly the spelling is atrocious.

I have no idea why that particular building would be of any interest to the killer, leaving out the first theory. As for the second, people who feel that strongly (strongly enough to risk capture to write it out like a schoolboy) about their motive for killing generally write a lot more. A LOT more. They write manifestos. Even poorly reasoned and badly spelled manifestos. And any paper would have published his screed on whatever his point was. Even if it was utter nonsense. Never mind the total lack of expletives or name calling in the actual graffiti. Like he didn't even feel that strongly about it. So the second reason doesn't make much sense either.

So I'm tapped. I guess I wonder what you guys would brand as insignificant to get an idea where your boundaries are. Because oddly enough, I can't imagine anyone writing that graffiti, though apparently some mild mannered person who dislikes strong language did.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Abby

think I got distracted,

so :

1. Because the mutilation was more extensive, both to the contents of the body and the face.

It has been suggested that he may have cut himself, I can believe this with the facial cuts in particular, he would need to hold the face/head as he cut surely, so a great chance there of a self inflicted cut.
However we have no hard evidence for that so far as i am aware so it remains just a possibility.

Of course we know he had cut into the intestines, separating the small from the colon. This would result in a amount of faeces which would have got on the killer, and in all probability the more liquid contents from the small intestine would have spilled onto him when he separated the two sections of the intestines.

This I believe means he MAY have been dirtier than in previous murders, and MAY have felt the need to wipe himself clean on this occasion.

Just a possibility of course

2. I see your reasoning; but am not sure i agree.

a.) He may not have wanted to dwell over the body any longer than needed. Quicker to walk off hands and apron and bits hidden

b.) Its not easy to see blood and shall we just say muck on your hands in the dark to the extent you can be sure you have cleaned it.(that is from my experiences in medical research and not just a bland statement).
We certainly know that the light in Mitre Square was not great, but obviously ok for the killings. There is a difference in seeing to work and seeing if you are clean.

c.) It is possible that the killer heard one of the two police officers approaching and the last thing he did was to cut some cloth to wipe his hands with as he fled.

d.) Actually i see it as being less risky, you get up, quickly leave the square, walk off some distance, check your hands under a street light, which were close to the GSG location. and then just throw the cloth away, in an area where it may not be seen or indeed reorganised. he could clean his hands when the coast was clear so to speak, he would initaly be heading the the opposite direction to the Police.

Overall I would say the disposal location was due to needing light to see the hands correctly and wanting to put distance between himself and the murder site.

However just to show I am flexible, if he was heading home and dropped it near home, then we do have a possible candidate living in Goulston St:
Isaac Kozminski, 40 years old, boot and shoemaker,

He would I think be unlikely to have written the GSG for obvious reasons


Steve

Thanks Steve
Good points. Beleive me I have often considered that maybe he simply used it to wipe all the blood and crap he got on his hands and dropped it the first chance he got.

But then I have to take into account all the other stuff-the place and graffiti were a coincidence. And that long missed it the first time. And the Jewish content of the graffiti was a coincidence.

And all the police who's opinion was it was written by the killer were wrong.


And then I think well that's a lot of stuff to disregard. And then I think what's more likely-
All that or simply the killer went back out and left a message.

And when I balance the two, it just seems the latter is more likely, IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Abby

think I got distracted,

so :

1. Because the mutilation was more extensive, both to the contents of the body and the face.

It has been suggested that he may have cut himself, I can believe this with the facial cuts in particular, he would need to hold the face/head as he cut surely, so a great chance there of a self inflicted cut.
However we have no hard evidence for that so far as i am aware so it remains just a possibility.

Of course we know he had cut into the intestines, separating the small from the colon. This would result in a amount of faeces which would have got on the killer, and in all probability the more liquid contents from the small intestine would have spilled onto him when he separated the two sections of the intestines.

This I believe means he MAY have been dirtier than in previous murders, and MAY have felt the need to wipe himself clean on this occasion.

Just a possibility of course

2. I see your reasoning; but am not sure i agree.

a.) He may not have wanted to dwell over the body any longer than needed. Quicker to walk off hands and apron and bits hidden

b.) Its not easy to see blood and shall we just say muck on your hands in the dark to the extent you can be sure you have cleaned it.(that is from my experiences in medical research and not just a bland statement).
We certainly know that the light in Mitre Square was not great, but obviously ok for the killings. There is a difference in seeing to work and seeing if you are clean.

c.) It is possible that the killer heard one of the two police officers approaching and the last thing he did was to cut some cloth to wipe his hands with as he fled.

d.) Actually i see it as being less risky, you get up, quickly leave the square, walk off some distance, check your hands under a street light, which were close to the GSG location. and then just throw the cloth away, in an area where it may not be seen or indeed reorganised. he could clean his hands when the coast was clear so to speak, he would initaly be heading the the opposite direction to the Police.

Overall I would say the disposal location was due to needing light to see the hands correctly and wanting to put distance between himself and the murder site.

However just to show I am flexible, if he was heading home and dropped it near home, then we do have a possible candidate living in Goulston St:
Isaac Kozminski, 40 years old, boot and shoemaker,

He would I think be unlikely to have written the GSG for obvious reasons


Steve

Who's that? Is he related to Aaron Kosminsky? Is he your favored suspect.
Do tell!

[c.d.]

Hello Errata,

But we can't say for certain that it is anti semitic. It could be pro Jewish as in "The Jews are tired of being blamed for things they didn't do." Because if anti semitic graffiti were rampant then you can bet some Jewish person somewhere took it upon himself to fire back. It's only human nature.

c.d.

[Elamarna]

Who's that? Is he related to Aaron Kosminsky? Is he your favored suspect.
Do tell!

Hi

Scott Nelson did some work on him :

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-isaac.html

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/kosfinal.html

No he is not my preferred suspect, but I will say if I had to pick it would be one of the group covered by the term "Polish Jews".

Aaron is obviously the lead, but there still problems with him, however no one ever said it was Aaron, just "Kosminski".

It could be there are links between this Kosminski and Aaron, but I don't think this has been proven.
I would list Jacob Levy as an interesting character too.

However I am not set in stone.

I also consider Druitt and Bury as very serious contenders, and am prepared to consider anyone if there is some real evidence.

That’s why I don't discount Pierre, no matter that he thinks I do, and will not until he presents a theory rather than just hints.
Then who knows? well maybe I can guess the outcome anyway.

Steve

[SuspectZero]

Because it was the only murder where the victim had her colon cut off in a 2 foot section, then placed between her arm and body. It would seem logical that the feces changed the scenario. The issue is though that the apron section was only smeared slightly with both blood and feces, leading one to surmise that he may have used the section for the organs, which were virtually bloodless at that point, and he used something he had with him to clean his hands.

Michael,
If he used the apron piece to carry the organs and then dumped the apron piece, what happened to the organs?

[SuspectZero]

Um.....I'm not the person wot didn't kill them womin......um,let me try that again

Ever occur to you lot that he was creating a false trail away from his bolt hole and certainly not in the direction of where he actually resided.

This person is a well educated and skilled individual.

Ever wonder how easily he travelled through an area chockablock full of police specifically looking for Jack the Ripper that night!

I've always believed that was actually what he was doing. Doubling back on his way home.

[Elamarna]

I've always believed that was actually what he was doing. Doubling back on his way home.

The question to ask if this is true, is in what direction was the killer going? North towards Wentworth Street or South towards Whitechapel High Street.

looking at the proximity of the location to Wentworth Street, I would suggest that the killer had turned from there and was heading South. If he were heading North I would suggest he would have disposed of it further from the junction.

Of course there is nothing to confirm one way or another, individual choice will probably be based on whom you think the killer may have been, and where was their home.

Steve

[Abby Normal]

Michael,
If he used the apron piece to carry the organs and then dumped the apron piece, what happened to the organs?

exactly. Its the question I always have also for people who think he used it to carry the organs in. its the reason he cut away the apron for in the first place, so why take them out somewhere and dump the apron? whats he do then-just stick them in his pocket?

and if he takes them all home first, takes out the organs, and then heads back out to dump the apron-then is dumping it and leaving some writing that much of a stretch? I mean hes headed back out into the breach with incriminating evidence on him any way???

the only scenario I find likely is he headed home, got cleaned up a bit, left the knife and organs. at some point decides to write the graffiti and sign it with the apron. He may even got the idea before he heads home the first time-like when he gets pissed off hes been interrupted by jew(s) during Stride killing.

[Elamarna]

exactly. Its the question I always have also for people who think he used it to carry the organs in. its the reason he cut away the apron for in the first place, so why take them out somewhere and dump the apron? whats he do then-just stick them in his pocket?

and if he takes them all home first, takes out the organs, and then heads back out to dump the apron-then is dumping it and leaving some writing that much of a stretch? I mean hes headed back out into the breach with incriminating evidence on him any way???

the only scenario I find likely is he headed home, got cleaned up a bit, left the knife and organs. at some point decides to write the graffiti and sign it with the apron. He may even got the idea before he heads home the first time-like when he gets pissed off hes been interrupted by jew(s) during Stride killing.

That is true Abby, if he used the apron to carry the organs!


I suspect he did not need it to carry the organs, he already had something on him to carry them.

You have asked yourself, why he cut material on this occasion when he had not previously. it was I suggest not to carry but to clean.

We will not agree on this, and there is nothing wrong with that,
Either view is possible in light of the lack of firm evidence.

This is one of the better debates in recent weeks,

cheers

Steve

ps did the links to I kosminski give the information? hope so

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,
If he used the apron piece to carry the organs and then dumped the apron piece, what happened to the organs?

Technically the apron section wasn't discovered until slightly more than 1 hour after the killing, based on Longs assertions about what he saw during his 2:20 pass by that area, so there is ample time for him to have gone somewhere to either store, or dispose of, the organs.

If that was indeed what happened, then the fact that the message was found above it at the same time might indicate both were from the same person. So, the fact that Juwes are the focus of the message and its posted on a wall that leads to housing that is almost 100% Immigrant Jewish might be of help when interpreting its potential meaning.

[Abby Normal]

That is true Abby, if he used the apron to carry the organs!


I suspect he did not need it to carry the organs, he already had something on him to carry them.

You have asked yourself, why he cut material on this occasion when he had not previously. it was I suggest not to carry but to clean.

We will not agree on this, and there is nothing wrong with that,
Either view is possible in light of the lack of firm evidence.

This is one of the better debates in recent weeks,

cheers

Steve

ps did the links to I kosminski give the information? hope so

Hi Steve
Yes I agree-very good debate.
As you know I keep an open mind-but this how I see it:

after being interrupted by Schwartz, a man with an apparently obvious jewish appearance, hes angered by it, shouting a jewish slur at him.

After Eddowes, he uses her apron to carry her organs, heads home, gets cleaned up, drop off his organs/knife. Now hes got her apron piece and hes still stewing about the interruption by the jew(s). gets the idea to blame the jews and throw off the police by using the apron. Grabs some chalk heads back out and writes the graffiti signing it with the apron.
Giggles to himself all the way home and into the next days seeing how much confusion he caused and how smarter he is than everyone else.

Perhaps he did start out with something already to carry organs in but because of the aborted stride murder had to use that to wipe his hands, and then discard that before looking for another victim (church st sighting).

In any case I don't think he would have used strides apron to carry organs in only to discard the apron on the way home. and longs account corroborates that.