Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

Ok, fair enough, but what did you mean by previously suggesting I was not being honest?

Let's not play "find a quote that suits our argument", Jon.

That was a request not to get dragged into one of those tedious games of "quote ping-pong", which you and I know can derail otherwise sensible discussions, Jon. It was not a suggestion of dishonesty by any means, and I'm sorry if it was perceived as such.

[Wickerman]

That was a request not to get dragged into one of those tedious games of "quote ping-pong", which you and I know can derail otherwise sensible discussions, Jon. It was not a suggestion of dishonesty by any means, and I'm sorry if it was perceived as such.

Were all good Gareth, its too easy to take words the wrong way, apologies if I mistook your meaning.

[Wickerman]

Ah now there I may disagree but am agnostic - Can we talk about this for a while, though i know that it must have been debated many times before. Police at the time were pretty damn sure it was him. I don't believe graffiti was that commonplace.

My theory - On his way back to his bolt hole he stopped to take a piss, remembering Stride interruption and the Eddowes witnesses he was frustrated and angry with Jews, so he scrawled the graffiti - what he meant by it was that if it wasnt for Lipski interruption he wouldnt have had to have killed Eddowes aswell, which I suppose is true enough in the context of the nights proceedings.

If the killer truly intended to leave a message, why write it so small?
And, why not write it out in the open where, not only can he see what he is writing (by the streetlamp outside), but where others can also see the message clearly?

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello Gareth. Thanks.

"Way too close to the murder scene, Lynn - especially (but not necessarily) if my intuition is correct that he had been unnerved by police footsteps."

But would that not inspire him to jettison it even more quickly? Why get caught with solid evidence?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yes

Hello (again) Gareth.

"There is, however, a need to explain what Jack did about the fæcal fall-out from his botched butchery, and that one or both of his hands would almost certainly have been contaminated with excrement as a result."

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

This is one of those episodes, like the Lusk kidney, that is a bit inconvenient for many, in particular those who still hold to all the John Douglas FBI profiler stuff from 20 years ago. I believe these discussions reveal more about our individual biases than they do anything about the case. Posters who otherwise swear by the honesty and integrity of the police are quite quick to throw Henry Smith and PC Long under the bus in order to keep the case from appearing as anything other than a run of the mill sex serial murder case. And maybe they're right. Nothing they suggest is implausible. But it just doesn't quite satisfy. I think everyone should at least TRY to look at everything that happened that night as though nothing was a coincidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

If the killer truly intended to leave a message, why write it so small?
And, why not write it out in the open where, not only can he see what he is writing (by the streetlamp outside), but where others can also see the message clearly?

Because he was hiding as he wrote it. A normal guy writing graffiti probably would have done just what you said...write it big and proud. But not a guy who'd just committed murder and had a bloody apron on his person.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Boggles]

And, why not write it out in the open

#
Because in my imaginings he was taking a wiz.

, why write it so small?

how small was it?

in particular those who still hold to all the John Douglas FBI profiler stuff from 20 years ago

Tom - Hi i read this profile and seems pretty good to me, what is it in particular that has any bearing on the writing on the wall. Didn't he later retract his opinion on the letter writing subject and said it was possible

[Tom_Wescott]

#
Because in my imaginings he was taking a wiz.


how small was it?




Tom - Hi i read this profile and seems pretty good to me, what is it in particular that has any bearing on the writing on the wall. Didn't he later retract his opinion on the letter writing subject and said it was possible

John Douglas doesn't retract anything. He believes his opinion is fact and sticks to it. On the many occasions where he's been found to be wrong, he becomes silent.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

how small was [the writing]?

The graffito was chalked in letters approx three-quarters of an inch high.

[Michael W Richards]

The fact that one corner was "wet" suggests that it had been dipped directly in blood, rather than used to wrap something. Had the organs been wrapped in it, the middle of the cloth would have been soaked (uniformly) with fluid.

Hi Sam,

Thats what the problem for me is....suppose he wiped his hands with his own cloth, what would he need the apron section for if not to carry organs? We know that the apron section does not appear to have been used to wipe his hands, thats why I suggest his own hanky, so if not for organs, why take the cloth at all?

Cheers

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo all.

Possibility: He wrapped apron around his other carrying device as he had two organs instead of one. More blood, so second layer.

[Lechmere]

Tom
I think the FBI profiler stuff does assist in establishing in broad terms the sort of person who would have done these crimes.
I think it was a ‘run of the mill’ serial murderer case. I am less certain about the sex aspect, but err towards there being a sexual aspect.
I think the police were human. Some were lazy, some lied to get out of trouble, some were vain. They made mistakes and but broadly, organisationally, they were sensible.
I am uncertain about whether or not the Lusk letter and kidney came from the culprit. I tend towards the notion that they were genuine.
I suspect that Long missed the apron and it was there all along.
However I can see a scenario where the killer took the kidney to a bolt hole - the same location where he took the other body parts. But perhaps on those other occasions he had some sort of receptacle with him to carry them in. That might explain why he took the apron part and didn’t leave it at his bolt hole but took it away and discarded it. It perhaps suggests that his bolt hole wasn’t his domicile as otherwise why deposit the body parts at his house, leave and dump the apron, and then return to his house.
On the balance of probabilities I would say that the graffiti was written by the culprit also.
So in essence I am an old-school traditionalist – believing Long was mistaken, the apron was dumped more or less immediately, the graffiti was by the killer as was the Lusk letter. But I am not 100% on any of these aspects… and none of them trouble my suspect theorising!

[GUT]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the apron got cut by accident, after all it seems he was ripping, cutting and slicing in the dark. Got caught on his clothing someone and wasn't noticed. Then either when it was noticed was cast aside or simply fell off. A bit like the toilet paper stuck to your shoe.

Not an argument I'm pressing at the moment just a thought.

Maybe noticed it when he stopped for a bit of Graffiti writing?

[GUT]

Must have been Druitt, only teachers and Barristers do as much writing as Jack, 1000's of letters to police, Graffiti all over the place.