Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

G'day DRoy




I think that is right.

But what does it change?

If it was not fecal matter, then the obvious risk of getting infected by it would not be there if the killer used the rag as a makeshift bandage for a cut in his hand.
If- that is - he DID cut himself.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

If it was not fecal matter, then the obvious risk of getting infected by it would not be there if the killer used the rag as a makeshift bandage for a cut in his hand.

IF he knew that risk even existed.

[Fisherman]

G'day Fisherman



IF he knew that risk even existed.

Exactly. I am not the one suggesting that the killer would not use the rag as a makeshift bandage since he would be wary of the infection risk. Others are the ones pointing to this.
But just like you say, we do not know how well versed the killer was in medical errands, we donīt know how much he could see in the darkness and we donīt know whether the feces - if it WAS feces - was only situated on a small part of the apron, giving the killer the option to avoid having his hand coming in contact with it. The possibilities abound.
Plus, if he had cut himself and was bleeding severely, then he may have felt that stopping the bleeding - and the blood trail it would produce - was a top priority, no matter if there was feces on the rag or not.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Michael , this was the interview with an Interpreter , as opposed to the Police one , without .. And why would he want to pull her across the street ?

The Hungarian saw him put his hand on her shoulder and push her back into the passage,

Fish ,

As for the Apron , if it was indeed wet with blood , then the strongest contender would have to be the Organs ... although you would have to suspect that for the sole purpose of carrying them, then the middle of the cloth would have been the wet part , as opposed to just the corner .

But what if , the killer did just use the cloth to wipe his hands , then just threw it in his bag , container or whatever , on top of the bloodied organs , until he reached Goulston street , where he used the apron in essence to sign his earlier graffito . Was that really the sole purpose of the Apron ?

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

As for the Apron , if it was indeed wet with blood ...

Oh, it was!

... then the strongest contender would have to be the Organs ...

"A" contender. Not necessarily the strongest one.

... although you would have to suspect that for the sole purpose of carrying them, then the middle of the cloth would have been the wet part , as opposed to just the corner.

Yes, just so.

But what if , the killer did just use the cloth to wipe his hands , then just threw it in his bag , container or whatever , on top of the bloodied organs , until he reached Goulston street , where he used the apron in essence to sign his earlier graffito .

Well, then he would take a huge risk, not least if he was gonna wait for an hour plus until parting with the rag. And I donīt know how certain he would be that the police would be able to be sure that his half of the apron fitted together with the other half.
If the killer had decided to bring something along that no doubt belonged to Eddowes, then why not take a body part? For example? That would bring a very sinister and noticeable message across.
And while he was at it, he could just as well have written something that could not be misunderstood, instead of incoherently babbling away about jews in a manner that still has us quibbling over whether he liked jews or disliked them.

He brought the apron along out of necessity, he threw it away when he did not need it anymore, it happened to be in Goulston Street, in a building where jews lived, and where somebody had written something about jews on the doorway dado some time earlier.

No mystery, no stuff for legends, no Einsteinishly cryptical poetry, just a used rag ending up close to something that was found in many places: graffiti.

Thatīs how I read it.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

this was the interview with an Interpreter , as opposed to the Police one , without

Moonbegger,

I'm pretty sure someone acted as an interpreter for both the newspaper and police interviews.

And why would he want to pull her across the street ?

Nobody can say why but that is what he is supposed to have done as per Schwartz's translated words. I do agree though that there could very well have been things that were lost in translation.

Cheers
DRoy

[Abby Normal]

It was a substantial piece of cloth, Abby, and there is no knowing whether he noticed the feces or not in the darkness on that night. He may not have known it was there as he bandaged his hand.
Moreover, we do not know how large a quantity of feces it was. Maybe it was just a small quantity.
To add, the feces would have been transferred to the cloth from the killers hands - so he already had the feces on his hands, perhaps so on the hand he cut (if he did cut himself), meaning that this damage was already done.

Anyway, the evidence speaks of a cloth with a corner that was wet with blood and a portion where it seemed as if something had been wiped. Maybe the corner end of the cloth was clean.

If the rag was not put in the doorway until an hour or so after the murder, I find it a compelling suggestion that the wet state of if was a result of the killers blood having seeped into that corner continuously. If no wet blood had been added for a long period of time, itīs a lot harder to explain how the corner could still be "wet with blood" when Long found it at 2.55. That was an hour and ten minutes after the strike - at least.

Two more things:

If you use a rag as a makeshift bandage, you will grab one of the corners with your damaged hand, and use the other hand to wrap the rag around the wound. Therefore, the corner will be the portion of the rag exposed to the blood.

If he hung on to the rag for a substantial time, he also took a great risk; the apron piece would have had him hung if found. Thatīs why I say that his hanging on to that apron could perhaps best be explained by sheer necessity; as long as he bled, he would not drop the apron and leave a blood trail behind him. Maybe that insight was what made him go for the rag in the first place, feces or no feces.

Exactly how the deposition of the rag in Goulston Street would lead the police astray, I donīt know. Since we donīt know where he lived, and since the police did not do so either, why would Goulston Street of all streets be the best suited option for leading the police astray? How would that work?

All the best, Abby!
Fisherman

hello fish
we were assuming I believe that we are talking about lech as the ripper so we do know where he lived.
so dropping the apron in the doorway of a jewish occupied building neither where he lived or worked would throw the police off by trying to make them think the killer lived there and was also possibly jewish, neither which of course applies to lech.

But this also of course could apply to non lech as the ripper, assuming he did not live there and was not jewish (which more than likely was the case).

[Abby Normal]

Exactly. I am not the one suggesting that the killer would not use the rag as a makeshift bandage since he would be wary of the infection risk. Others are the ones pointing to this.
But just like you say, we do not know how well versed the killer was in medical errands, we donīt know how much he could see in the darkness and we donīt know whether the feces - if it WAS feces - was only situated on a small part of the apron, giving the killer the option to avoid having his hand coming in contact with it. The possibilities abound.
Plus, if he had cut himself and was bleeding severely, then he may have felt that stopping the bleeding - and the blood trail it would produce - was a top priority, no matter if there was feces on the rag or not.

All the best,
Fisherman

that's actually a very good point fish

[Abby Normal]

moonbegger:

As for the Apron , if it was indeed wet with blood ...

Oh, it was!

... then the strongest contender would have to be the Organs ...

"A" contender. Not necessarily the strongest one.

... although you would have to suspect that for the sole purpose of carrying them, then the middle of the cloth would have been the wet part , as opposed to just the corner.

Yes, just so.

But what if , the killer did just use the cloth to wipe his hands , then just threw it in his bag , container or whatever , on top of the bloodied organs , until he reached Goulston street , where he used the apron in essence to sign his earlier graffito .

Well, then he would take a huge risk, not least if he was gonna wait for an hour plus until parting with the rag. And I donīt know how certain he would be that the police would be able to be sure that his half of the apron fitted together with the other half.
If the killer had decided to bring something along that no doubt belonged to Eddowes, then why not take a body part? For example? That would bring a very sinister and noticeable message across.
And while he was at it, he could just as well have written something that could not be misunderstood, instead of incoherently babbling away about jews in a manner that still has us quibbling over whether he liked jews or disliked them.

He brought the apron along out of necessity, he threw it away when he did not need it anymore, it happened to be in Goulston Street, in a building where jews lived, and where somebody had written something about jews on the doorway dado some time earlier.

No mystery, no stuff for legends, no Einsteinishly cryptical poetry, just a used rag ending up close to something that was found in many places: graffiti.

Thatīs how I read it.

The best,
Fisherman

if you or lech ever find any writing by Charles Lechmere where he spells jews as juwes you would still let us know right? ; )

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

we were assuming I believe that we are talking about lech as the ripper so we do know where he lived.

Mmm - but it has people yelling "Supposition!" whenever such a thing is even vaguely hinted at.

so dropping the apron in the doorway of a jewish occupied building neither where he lived or worked would throw the police off by trying to make them think the killer lived there and was also possibly jewish, neither which of course applies to lech.

Ah - I see where youīre coming from now! And what you say is of course true. But it has a few things working against it:

Would any killer be stupid enough to throw away an almighty clue on his own doorstep?

Would the police reason that he probably would?

And - once again - he could have been a lot clearer if he was the one who wrote the GSG. To me, it can be either pro or against jews. So it makes little sense to me in the context you are outlining. But of course, it could have made all the sense in the world to the killer!

But this also of course could apply to non lech as the ripper, assuming he did not live there and was not jewish (which more than likely was the case).

Exactly what was more likely the case? That he did not live there or that he was not jewish? Or both? Or that it was not Lechmere? Or all three...?

that's actually a very good point fish

You sound surprised ...?

if you or lech ever find any writing by Charles Lechmere where he spells jews as juwes you would still let us know right? ; )

Deal! But donīt hold your breath. I happen to think that Charles Lechmere was a rather accomplished writer, given his heritage (who was that, yelling "Supposition" again ...?).

[moonbegger]

Hello DRoy,

I'm pretty sure someone acted as an interpreter for both the newspaper and police interviews.

Yes indeed DRoy , but the competence of the Police interview interpretation has to be questioned ..

came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter.

But the Press interview seems a lot more detailed and coherent , suggesting a better quality of interpreter

The reporter's Hungarian was quite as imperfect as the foreigner's English, but an interpreter was at hand, and the man's story was retold just as he had given it to the police.

Also the press interpretation puts Liz exactly where she was found ..

Fish .

Well, then he would take a huge risk,

A lot less risky than anything else suggested me thinks , especially if the apron was there on Longs first round , but unnoticed .

Moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Charles Letchford, living at 30, Berners-street, says

Did this Letch work at Pickfords ??

[DRoy]

Deal! But donīt hold your breath. I happen to think that Charles Lechmere was a rather accomplished writer, given his heritage (who was that, yelling "Supposition" again ...?)

Fish,

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"

Instead of worrying about the word supposition so much why not make this easy for everyone and seperate for us all the actual evidence you rely on and all the 'filler' you provide that make your posts so colorful? This way we might make sense of it all.

If your posts are purposely fiction then perhaps have a disclaimer so we don't think you are relying on the evidence you preach about. We get confused when you tell other posters to comment on evidence yet fill your own posts with suppos..oops scrap that...'fantasy filler'.

The only filler I suggested as a possible time-gap between Eddowes' murder and when the graffito was found was Long missing it at 2:20. You have come up with an opposite scenario where there is no actual evidence (please don't again say Long's testimony is evidence) and the entire time-gap becomes 'fantasy filler'.

I will do my best to not use the word supposition again so that your future posts don't have to refer to that instead of attempting to offer a retort with value.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

But the Press interview seems a lot more detailed and coherent , suggesting a better quality of interpreter

Moonbegger,

Sorry for derailing this thread for a second but what makes you say so? You think a reporter would have been more thorough than the police? The reporter is a writer so perhaps that's why it is a bit more coherent? Not sure what you mean by more detailed?

This is probably better discussed in a Stride thread so I'll join you there if you want to answer and discuss further

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Did this Letch work at Pickfords ??

LetchFORD, Moon ...!

Fisherman