Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, but that's due to the impracticalities of writing in such small, neat letters in the post-2AM darkness. Besides, given the fact that he'd left behind a veritable exploded corpse in Mitre Square, I don't think our Jacky was the type to make small gestures!

Indeed. And I don't see how leaving a bloody portion of the second murder victim of that night under a Jew incriminating graffiti on the door step of a predominantly Jewish building which sent the police agog and nearly settled the hash of the commissioner as any small gesture!

And as for impracticality it would seem simple for me for a man to simply bend over scrawl his message and be outta there all in the matter of seconds.

[The Good Michael]

I've seen several "pub-grub" blackboard menus with letters about that big, so it can be done - particularly by those used to wielding a stick of chalk. In Victorian times, of course, schoolchildren would have exercised this skill daily, writing in chalk on the confined surface of an iPad-sized slate.

That is a conundrum here. I too write every day on a blackboard. I write small when I need a lot of data on the board, but that would be only something like an outline or a series of quiz questions that I would need to be there the whole day for several classes to see. Most of the time, I write boldly and erase and write again, and do this for every class. The idea of small writing indicates a very thoughtful process going on. The only murder I see with this sort of meticulousness is Kelly's though that is because of time and lighting, one supposes. I have a difficult time marrying this handwriting to quick street slaughter.

Cheers,

Mike

[curious4]

Children

Hello all,

While I concede that the occupants would not necessarily have erased the chalked message, I do feel that the message itself is unlikely to have been written by a child. Too convoluted. Found some examples of Victorian graffiti here: http://catsmeatshop.blogspot.com/201...ffiti.html?m=1

Best wishes,
C4

[caz]

...the rag could have been anywhere in the East End between Eddowes' death and Long's finally seeing it. And it needn't have been "missing" for any great length of time. It could easily have been dropped there at 2:23.

Ah, now you're talking my language, Sam.

Equally it could have been dropped there before 2.20 if PC Long wasn't paying the kind of attention he paid at 2.55. It's a guess either way.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Doorways where people might just be hiding? Halse - knowing that there'd been a murder nearby, and on a mission to find people - had arguably more reason to gawk into doorways than Long ever did, on that night or any other.

I made the same point some while back, Sam, and I seem to recall that was when Monty launched into his observant Rob Clack/Halse versus unobservant De Locksley/Long comments. It was put to me in no uncertain terms that Halse was beyond reproach for not gawking into 'the' doorway where Long succeeded in finding the apron half an hour later.

Of course, we still don't know if it was there at 2.20 for Halse to find, had he gawked thoroughly enough into that particular doorway.

I love this thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz,
Why would anyone think about criticising Halse? He was a City detective going onto the Met's area to search for an offender. It wasn't his job to check the location; that was the responsibility of the uniform Metropolitan beat officer - Long in this instance.

Hi Bridewell,

Am I alone in finding those two (underlined) statements slightly at odds with one another? If he's searching for an offender, where is he likely to run across him, if not in some 'location' or other?

By 2.20, when Halse passed over the spot where Long found the apron, the killer had been away from the Mitre Square location a good half hour. Was Halse really hoping to find him still walking the streets, as opposed to holed up somewhere - possibly even hiding temporarily in a doorway?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I made the same point some while back, Sam, and I seem to recall that was when Monty launched into his observant Rob Clack/Halse versus unobservant De Locksley/Long comments. It was put to me in no uncertain terms that Halse was beyond reproach for not gawking into 'the' doorway where Long succeeded in finding the apron half an hour later.

Of course, we still don't know if it was there at 2.20 for Halse to find, had he gawked thoroughly enough into that particular doorway.

I love this thread.

Love,

Caz
X

The suggestion that Halse had more reason to gawk into doorways than Long is a slippery one, sort of.
Of course, if Halse had knowledge about the murder as he passed down Goulston Street at 2.20 (and he did), whereas Long had no such knowledge when he undertook the same passage, it cannot be contested that Halse DID have more reason as such to check the doorways.

But if we leave matters at that, then we make ourselves guilty of not taking in the whole picture. For much as Halse would have had the reason, whether he also had the time or the inclination to check doorways is another thing altogether!

Halse was in a rush, looking for people surrounding the murder site area. His aim was never to check doorways, since that would have slowed him down and allowed people to leave the area before he had a chance to speak to them.
So much as the reason as such was there, I think that Halse´s focus would have stopped him from making any thorough search of any doorway (although he certainly would have had reason as such to check each and everyone of them very thoroughly!). He would perhaps have thrown the odd cursory glance to his side as he sped along, but that´s about it.

Long, however, who had much less reason (or at least did not know that he did have reason, to be more precise), would have trotted along at a leisurely pace, giving him time to do the precise thing HE had on HIS agenda - checking doors and doorways as a matter of routine. And there was nothing to take his focus off that task.

So speaking of reason as the deciding factor in this case will in all probability lead us wrong! I have said it before, but it deserves pointing out again.

All the best
Fisherman

[Monty]

I made the same point some while back, Sam, and I seem to recall that was when Monty launched into his observant Rob Clack/Halse versus unobservant De Locksley/Long comments. It was put to me in no uncertain terms that Halse was beyond reproach for not gawking into 'the' doorway where Long succeeded in finding the apron half an hour later.

Of course, we still don't know if it was there at 2.20 for Halse to find, had he gawked thoroughly enough into that particular doorway.

I love this thread.

Love,

Caz
X

A naughty post there Caz, either I misunderstood, you misunderstood, or you are bent on causing friction just to make a petty point.

It is clear that Halse was returning to Mitre Square, as is his priority at that time, he states as such, and does as such.

Colin is correct, Longs remit, not Halses. I think its is logical to assume the killer either made it home, or was on the move home, and was not hanging around in doorways.

I do not love this thread.....circular debate on points which cannot be proven by those who enjoy the sight of their own posts.

Monty

[caz]

But then why would anyone write graffiti so small? It defeats the purpose of writing graffiti at all.

In my mind, the most reasonable explanation would be that the killer didn't care what the size was because he knew it would be found because it was marked by a large visable clue-the apron.

Which is exactly what happened.

Indeed, Abby.

By what logic is it any more likely that the average local graffiti artist would have used such tiny writing for his message, than the man who dropped the apron beneath? Whoever wrote it made the letters that size - however unusual that may appear to some. And the more unusual it actually was, the better the argument for the killer doing it, I'd have thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Maybe not literally, but some youngster, teenager? It was estimated to have been lower than 4 feet from the ground.

Hi Jon,

But that would be irrelevant if the height of the writing was dictated by the maximum height of the black surface. No point in trying to use white chalk on the higher white surface, even if the writer was a giant of six foot seven.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Indeed, Abby.

By what logic is it any more likely that the average local graffiti artist would have used such tiny writing for his message, than the man who dropped the apron beneath? Whoever wrote it made the letters that size - however unusual that may appear to some. And the more unusual it actually was, the better the argument for the killer doing it, I'd have thought.

Love,

Caz
X

Thanks Caz
agree.
and if you bend over to write on a wall it would facilitate smaller writing, as would wanting to fit words onto the surface of individual bricks (preferring to not write over the inbetween, morter spaces).

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jon,

But that would be irrelevant if the height of the writing was dictated by the maximum height of the black surface. No point in trying to use white chalk on the higher white surface, even if the writer was a giant of six foot seven.

Love,

Caz
X

exactly
I was going to make that point too, but I was not sure at what height the black part went up to. he probably wrote it at that (low ) height to get it on the black part.

[Sam Flynn]

And as for impracticality it would seem simple for me for a man to simply bend over scrawl his message and be outta there all in the matter of seconds.

Precisely, Abby - scrawl. This was neat, this was small, it was written on a wall... and, by all accounts and witnesses, it wasn't scrawled at all.

[Paddy]

The Doorway

Originally Posted by Wickerman.....
Maybe not literally, but some youngster, teenager? It was estimated to have been lower than 4 feet from the ground.

Just been looking at the photo archive on this site.
If you look at the following picture of the doorway I would say that the writing was probably higher than 4 feet....

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=4&pos=9

Warren said the writing was on the Jamb.
(The jamb being either of the vertical sides of a doorway, arch, window, or other opening. Or
Either of two stones, timbers, etc., forming the sidepieces for the frame of an opening)

Incidently I wonder what time the barrows started coming out for the market?

Pat............................................

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Pat

As the other witnesses evidence can be read to suggest the graffito was actually in the passage and Warren seems to be the only source mentioning the jamb, I'm personally quite prepared to accept that CW may have "bigged up" the potential visibility of the message.

I'm without my reference books at present but seem to recall he'd already appeared before the Home Secretary re the events of this night, and may already have been reamed out, (we'll probably never know but it seems likely to me at least), and he may be seeking to justify his actions in his written report.

If this is indeed the case, then the dado level may well be lower...

All the best as ever

Dave