Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Abby Normal]

A point well made Christer.
Historian's typically do not entertain tittle-tattle, they prefer to deal with what we know was said & accepted at the time.

Should Sugden delve into speculation, then offer a conclusion based on that speculation, he might anticipate his status as a respected historian would suffer.

I do notice that thee most important question has remained unanswered.
Ie; 'Why is it so unacceptable to have this (serial?) killer return to the streets with the piece of apron?'

Well the long missed it brigade would say-Because that's not what a normal person would do.
As if a serial killer is normal.

[Abby Normal]

Do you suppose the killer had a lamp?
(nothing like a lamp to draw attention to yourself?)

When Halse arrived he said the writing was hard to read..
"...As plain as I could see it in the dark - for I had no light"
Det. Halse.

If the killer wrote the graffiti (in the dark), I wonder how he managed a "good schoolboy hand" if he could barely read what he was writing.

Rather seems to me this was written in daylight.

If the ripper could mutilate and remove organs in the dark as I've said before I'm sure he could manage to write a brief message in the dimness.

I don't think that graffiti ever saw the light of day. Surely one of the Jewish inhabitants would have rubbed it out the moment they saw it.

[GUT]

G'day Abby

If the ripper could mutilate and remove organs in the dark as I've said before I'm sure he could manage to write a brief message in the dimness

Hard to argue with that.

I don't think that graffiti ever saw the light of day. Surely one of the Jewish inhabitants would have rubbed it out the moment they saw it.

I thought they'd be proud to leave it there.

Just joking.

[The Good Michael]

I do notice that thee most important question has remained unanswered.
Ie; 'Why is it so unacceptable to have this (serial?) killer return to the streets with the piece of apron?'

Because it would have been illogical to do so with police on high alert. So...if he did it, he would have probably lived in the building.

Mike

[Wickerman]

No. It's on the doorstep/threshold, or "at the entrance".Again, no. It's on the doorstep/threshold, or "at the entrance".

When using a range of statements to try locate an item, it is always preferable to select a location which is consistent with all the suggestions.
Unless any of the suggestions can be proven faulty.

If you place the apron inside the building, presumably in a dark location out of sight from the street then you must eliminate Warren's evidence.
However, if we place the piece of apron at the entrance, no source needs to be eliminated. The piece of apron is, at the same time, "inside the building", "inside the passage", and below the graffiti where shown by Warren (confirmed by PC Long).

At the entrance is the only location that suits all the evidence.
And, to some degree this is confirmed by Halse when he notes that it was believed the market stall erectors would be able to see the graffiti.

"....and it was decided to have it rubbed out, as the people were already bringing out their stalls into the street."

This is understandable if the graffiti could be seen by anyone passing (as Warren stated), but not understandable if the graffiti was deep inside the tenement out of sight of the street.

Love the drawings, as ever, Jon. They help make a point... and I say that, genuinely, without irony.

Thankyou, I truly believe a picture saves a thousand words.

[Wickerman]

If the ripper could mutilate and remove organs in the dark as I've said before I'm sure he could manage to write a brief message in the dimness.

Professional opinion at the time would have us believe the Eddowes mutilations were 'messy'?
And, modern opinion would have us believe he cut himself by accident.

Is this consistent with a killer who could see what he was doing?

I don't think that graffiti ever saw the light of day. Surely one of the Jewish inhabitants would have rubbed it out the moment they saw it.

I tend to think the Jews were above all that. After the persecutions they have suffered as a people, why respond to crazy christian scribble. Rub it out and there will be more, let it alone and you show it does not affect you.

[Wickerman]

Because it would have been illogical to do so with police on high alert. So...if he did it, he would have probably lived in the building.

Mike

Hi Mike, I tend to think 'nearby' is sufficient.
No killer could anticipate how thorough a search may result of the building, they might find his 'lair', so no, the killer did not live in the same building, but in a nearby street, quite possibly.
Apparently the police also thought the same if the limits of the house-to-house searches are anything to go by.

[Wickerman]

That's not to say the "long time-gap" theories aren't correct - it's just that simpler explanations tend to be closer to the truth. According to Ockham, at any rate

C'mon Gareth, how many serial killers have claimed Ockham as inspiration?

After all the discussions have we had about serial killers injecting themselves into an investigation, or others who have returned to the crime scene to spectate, or even go back to the unfound corpse to commit more mutilations, after all this you think such actions are ...unlikely?

Clearly, these characters are not thinking straight, these actions are not considered 'normal' by any means. But, we know they are true, they actually happened. Ockham only talks to normal people, not nutcases.

[The Good Michael]

C'mon Gareth, how many serial killers have claimed Ockham as inspiration?

Clearly, these characters are not thinking straight, these actions are not considered 'normal' by any means. But, we know they are true, they actually happened. Ockham only talks to normal people, not nutcases.

Jon,

Here's the rub: You seem to try and take the most logical approach to things, reproaching those who, to your mind, don't. So, how is it that you can logically insert abnormalities into your approach? This question is not only aimed at you, of course. I point it at myself as well. When things are reduced to the most logical path, we do have to include the normalcy for human behavior. Anything else could actually lead to the truth, but for argument's sake, doesn't hold water.

Looking at all things and at normal human behavior and normal patterns, it would seem to me that a killer would try to dispossess himself of a piece of cloth that was only used for wiping his hand or staunching blood flow, as soon as possible. This must be agreed upon before we can go any further in a dicussion. (1)Of course 'as soon as possible' can mean different things. For example, it may have taken 15-25 minutes of constant pressure to staunch the blood flow of a decent-sized cut. Moving quickly would increase the time whereas, hiding somewhere while applying pressure would shorten the time. The man didn't want to leave any blood trails, and apparently he didn't.

(2)If we are talking about a wiping of the hands not associated with a self-inflicted wound, I should think discarding the cloth a mere 10-20 paces from the scene would be enough unless he was a neat freak.

(3) If we are looking at the apron as a trophy, then something caused him to want to get rid of it where he did, perhaps the sound of boots nearby.

(4)If we want to see the killer as someone who saw (or wrote) the graffiti and sought this place out because of that, we have a logical reason.

(5)If we believe he took the trophy back to his place (at the Wentworth buildings or extremely close, adjacent even) rested, and then decided to display the apron, we have a logical path, but one that requires an indirect route.

Which of these is correct? Only the first scenario seems to the be the one that follows the path of human nature, murderer or not, but then we have
to accept the wounding of himself.

I am not ready to accept any of these, though they are all logical. Scenario 4 gets as plausible for me as possible at this time.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Looking at all things and at normal human behavior and normal patterns, it would seem to me that a killer would try to dispossess himself of a piece of cloth that was only used for wiping his hand or staunching blood flow, as soon as possible. This must be agreed upon before we can go any further in a dicussion. (1)Of course 'as soon as possible' can mean different things. For example, it may have taken 15-25 minutes of constant pressure to staunch the blood flow of a decent-sized cut. Moving quickly would increase the time whereas, hiding somewhere while applying pressure would shorten the time. The man didn't want to leave any blood trails, and apparently he didn't.

(2)If we are talking about a wiping of the hands not associated with a self-inflicted wound, I should think discarding the cloth a mere 10-20 paces from the scene would be enough unless he was a neat freak.

(3) If we are looking at the apron as a trophy, then something caused him to want to get rid of it where he did, perhaps the sound of boots nearby.

(4)If we want to see the killer as someone who saw (or wrote) the graffiti and sought this place out because of that, we have a logical reason.

(5)If we believe he took the trophy back to his place (at the Wentworth buildings or extremely close, adjacent even) rested, and then decided to display the apron, we have a logical path, but one that requires an indirect route.

Which of these is correct? Only the first scenario seems to the be the one that follows the path of human nature, murderer or not, but then we have
to accept the wounding of himself.

I am not ready to accept any of these, though they are all logical. Scenario 4 gets as plausible for me as possible at this time.

Mike

There´s my Mike - this is cracking stuff. I would, however, like to add a few elements.

Point 3 - what if the apron was a trophy? Well, I think we need to add some other stuff to the picture: a kidney and a uterus. If he threw the apron away to rid himself ot incriminating evidence, then why did the innards not go the same way?
There are also other concerns. If the killer decided that he wanted a trophy in the shape of some clothing belonging to Eddowes, then I personally think that he would have taken the whole apron. If he was into aprons, that is.
Most killers who take clothing from their victims, will settle for underwear or at least clothes that have been touching the skin of the victim. Alternatively, something that can be tightly knit to the character of the victim, like, say, a hat or something such that the victim wore habitually and that had become part of the victim´s identity. As Eddowes would probably have been a stranger to our killer, this will not be one of the alternatives. And an apron was something that all or nearly all women wore.

If the apron was in any way related to taking trophies, then I prefer the suggestion that it was a makeshift bag for the innards - a practical item. But, as you know, I don´t favour the overall suggestions as such.

I would also like to add the possibility that the killer had a bolthole somewhere, and that this would have gotten him off the streets for the major part of the time that the rag was missing up at Goulston Street. It is, of course, reasoning that he was rational in his thinking, and it may be that it was the other way around - he could have gone in search for another victim, for example, and just been very lucky.

Otherwise and on the whole, I like your reasoning this time over. But don´t let that depress you!

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Point 3 - what if the apron was a trophy? Well, I think we need to add some other stuff to the picture: a kidney and a uterus. If he threw the apron away to rid himself ot incriminating evidence, then why did the innards not go the same way?

of course I was referring to the parts along with the apron piece, or why just take a piece? Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Mike

[Fisherman]

of course I was referring to the parts along with the apron piece, or why just take a piece? Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Mike

Ah! Then I´m with you. But if he threw the rag away after having heard approaching steps, or something like that, then what happened to the innards? Surely they were every bit as incriminating, and needed to be discarded too?

Or are you just listing it as something he could have done?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Just another possibility is that he did find the rag at about 2.20am,just didn't know what to do about it,and carried on his patrol while he thought of things he might do.The result was to take it to the police station at about 3AM ,just to cover in case there had been an incident.The call for aid,if that did happen, and the apparent attendance of an officer from a neighbouring beat, was to bolster his story.It is rather strange that this second officer's name is never mentioned,nor his account,for it is certain,that having called him,Long would confine his reasons for doing so,a nd this would make a perfect secondry witness as to the rags position in relation to the writing.Then again,having another officer there,would also aid in securing the site,making it unnessessary to take the rag to a police station.I presume that even in those days,an officer was aware of keeping important evidence as found.

[Sam Flynn]

I think we need to add some other stuff to the picture: a kidney and a uterus. If he threw the apron away to rid himself ot incriminating evidence, then why did the innards not go the same way?

Quite so, Fish.

[Sam Flynn]

(4)If we want to see the killer as someone who saw (or wrote) the graffiti and sought this place out because of that, we have a logical reason.

If he wrote the graffito - to pick up on an earlier (counter)argument offered by Wickerman - why didn't he write it sooner? Why are we talking about a graffito in Goulston Street, and not a graffito in Creechurch/Stoney/Gravel Lane? I'd suggest that, in line with my "4 points" earlier, he needed to put a couple of blocks' distance between himself and the police.

Not that I believe he wrote the graffito but, if he did, the same broad arguments apply as those that support the "early apron drop" scenario.