Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[curious4]

Headlines

Realised a tad belatedly that the headline I photographed to illustrate the size of letters three quarters of an inch high might possibly be interpreted as unfortunate. I just grabbed the nearest newspaper for comparison without reading it properly. To those who don't read swedish, it is an article about a nigerian tourist who was stabbed by a group of young nazis (there being something a little off in the state of Sweden/Europe at the moment). Probably I am being over-sensitive but if anyone was offended/disturbed by this in the context, I do apologise!

Best regards,
C4

[DRoy]

I just find it kind of silly that people disregard evidence (like longs testimony) just because they don't think it agrees with what they think a serial killer would do or not do. A serial killer!

Abby,

It's easy to 'question' (not disregard) Long's testimony for the many reasons already noted. I find it kind of silly that people just read testimony instead of interpreting what is actually being said. I do however agree with you that trying to interpret what a serial killer would or not do wouldn't be an easy task.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Abby,

It's easy to 'question' (not disregard) Long's testimony for the many reasons already noted. I find it kind of silly that people just read testimony instead of interpreting what is actually being said. I do however agree with you that trying to interpret what a serial killer would or not do wouldn't be an easy task.

Cheers
DRoy

We must keep a cool head in errands like these.

It is interpretation that has George Hutchinson being the killer. I don´t know if you agree that he was.

It is also interpretation that has Lechmere being the killer. And I know that you disagree with that...

Interpretation is in this very moment having Hutchinson bouncing like a ping-pong ball between Miller´s Court and Crossingham´s Lodging house. That´s because - who would have thought it? - people interpret things differently.

We will always interpret. It´s good fun and it´s sometimes rewarding. But interpretations will always be second to evidence. And the evidence in the Long case tells us that the apron was probably not in place at 2.20.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Writing this way by a man who could dissect and remove body parts under the same conditions is child's play. Child's play. Peanuts.

By saying that, Abby, it strikes me that you're assuming you know how a "serial killer" would behave. Besides, if his "dissection" skills were anything to go by, there's a good chance that his horizontal writing would have been pretty ragged, never mind the vertical writing we're talking about here.

I just find it kind of silly that people disregard evidence (like longs testimony) just because they don't think it agrees with what they think a serial killer would do or not do.

I don't pretend to know what a serial killer would or would not do. I certainly don't think they're capable of anything, however. They're human like the rest of us, and are subject to the same physical and logistical constraints. Writing in tiny, neat letters on a vertical surface in near-darkness is tricky enough; but to do so with a kidney in your pocket, your hands smeared in blood, an incriminating rag at your feet, and the police breathing down your neck is a logistical nightmare by any standards. To overcome those logistical issues, only to leave a generic message that any old racist could have written, stretches the bounds of credulity.

Incidentally, I repeat that I do not disregard Long's testimony. I simply believe he made a genuine mistake. He was only human, too.

[curious4]

Chalked message

Hello,

According to Long´s inquest testimony, the apron piece was lying in the passage under the writing and he only noticed the message when he was looking for bloodstains. Halse says it was "Three lines in a good schoolboy´s hand." Nothing about it being neat, merely a comment on the style of writing (not a legal hand, for example, or that of a poorly educated man) Also it "looked fresh and if it had been done before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing"(I seem to remember another comment somewhere else that it would have been rubbed out by the shoulders of people passing). One of the doctors comments that the apron piece was "spotted with blood and traces of something which may have been fecal matter" (quoting from memory here) - not dripping with poo and blood, then.

All this looks to me like a deliberate (and rather clichéd) planted clue - planned in advance. I do rather wonder who the two men in Wentworth street who "gave a satisfactory account of themselves" were.

Best wishes,
C4

"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness"

[curious]

Writing in tiny, neat letters on a vertical surface in near-darkness is tricky enough; but to do so with a kidney in your pocket, your hands smeared in blood, an incriminating rag at your feet, and the police breathing down your neck is a logistical nightmare by any standards.

Because of the length of time between the murder and the finding of the apron, we do not have to assume that the killer still had the kidney in his pocket and his hands smeared with blood.

IF he had already thrown the rag at his feet and was not in possession of it, he could have denied seeing it in the dark if anyone questioned him about writing something that makes no mention of murder. The only "crime" that could be pinned on him was writing graffiti.

curious

[GUT]

G'day Curious

IF he had already thrown the rag at his feet and was not in possession of it, he could have denied seeing it in the dark if anyone questioned him about writing something that makes no mention of murder. The only "crime" that could be pinned on him was writing graffiti.

BUT would he have wanted even that attention, surely the police had to look at such a person closely, IF he had been seen.

[curious]

BUT would he have wanted even that attention, surely the police had to look at such a person closely, IF he had been seen.

wanted?

of course not

But the killer does appear to have been quite a risktaker -- why would something so comparatively small have made him hesitate?

[Wickerman]

But the killer does appear to have been quite a risktaker -- why would something so comparatively small have made him hesitate?

And you remind us of a point too often overlooked.
The killer was, if our assessment of the evidence is correct, most certainly a risk-taker. And, a common trait of modern serial killers is often, though not always, that they took unnecessary risks.

Even the much debated modern Profiler will agree, we cannot judge the Serial Killer by what we consider 'normal' standards of behavior.

With this in mind we cannot rule out that he took the apron & contents 'home', removed the organs, and returned to the streets with the empty rag to deposit it as a red-herring.
Though it is not necessary to see the graffiti as anything more than coincident to the location of the piece of apron. It would be easier to accept they were related if the wording had contained anything pointing directly to either or both of the two murders.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

You're right...it's not a possibility we can outright dismiss...similarly loads of other possibilities (such as the copper missing the rag first time round) can't be outright dismissed either....

We're honestly in Never-Never-Land territory here aren't we?

All the best

Dave

[moonbegger]

There is also the slight possibility that the Killer either noticed the graffito earlier , or even wrote the graffito earlier , knowing full well that by dropping off some token , ie (apron) from his murder , he would be raising the steaks a little higher .

All this looks to me like a deliberate (and rather clichéd) planted clue - planned in advance.

If indeed the killer was responsible for the Apron and Graffito ending up in this local , then I would have to agree , it was most likely planned in advance .

moonbegger

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

You're right...it's not a possibility we can outright dismiss...similarly loads of other possibilities (such as the copper missing the rag first time round) can't be outright dismissed either....

We're honestly in Never-Never-Land territory here aren't we?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave.
Best measured in Degrees of Probability, sadly our scales are not always synchronised.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

You're right...it's not a possibility we can outright dismiss...similarly loads of other possibilities (such as the copper missing the rag first time round) can't be outright dismissed either....

Best measured in Degrees of Probability, sadly our scales are not always synchronised.

You're quite right, and I'm quite wrong...And therein lies most of the JtR debate over the past 20 years...the so so definite nature

All the best

Dave

[curious4]

Planned

There is also the slight possibility that the Killer either noticed the graffito earlier , or even wrote the graffito earlier , knowing full well that by dropping off some token , ie (apron) from his murder , he would be raising the steaks a little higher .



If indeed the killer was responsible for the Apron and Graffito ending up in this local , then I would have to agree , it was most likely planned in advance .

moonbegger

Hello Moonbegger,

Yes, definitely upping the odds. I think he did get a kick from taunting the police. Speculation, of course. There is, I believe, no evidence that he used the apron piece to carry his trophies. What did he use in Chapman's case? You would expect the rag to be much more bloodstained than it was - not "spotted with blood" if he had. "Wet with blood on one corner" suggests dipping it in the blood to me.

Best wishes,
C4

[Sam Flynn]

Because of the length of time between the murder and the finding of the apron

Which brings us back to the subject of this thread