Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[harry]

Fisherman,
Your post 1252,has Long calling the officer on the next beat,but it still doesn't give information that Eddowes murder,or Strides murder was disclosed,or that Long knew about those murders,or that the officer from the adjoining beat knew.From whom did Long know?Not Halse,one of the few who did,at that time,that seems evident,and except for Halse,no one who had knowledge of Eddowes murder seems to have been on Long's beat before the alledged finding of the rag.We can't presume to read Long's mind that another murder might have also occurred,and the bloodied rag being there could and might have suggested several possibilities.Myself,I am of the opinion that Long took the rag to the police station for a reason not connected to a perceived act of violence,though prior knowledge of such would have added an incentive to do so.

[curious]

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

Hello, Sam,

This is eminently sensible.

But to me JtR was a man of considerable ego, and by the time Eddowes was murdered, he had the experience of several kills and escapes.

If he had some use for the apron (such as putting it under some writing) I think he would not have been afraid of getting caught anymore . . . He felt powerful and in control.

I know that to us the graffito is gibberish. However, I again use the example of an extremely creative women who sends me press releases that make no sense at all. She thinks she's telling me about an upcoming event, but she is the only person who could read that release and think so.

I think an experienced, confident JtR had a use for the apron, and he took it, most likely then went to his place, cleaned up, and in his exuberance (and maybe fury at having been disturbed in Berner Street) set back out, secure in his skills.

He was right to be confident because where we are 126 years later.

curious

[Abby Normal]

Hello, Sam,

This is eminently sensible.

But to me JtR was a man of considerable ego, and by the time Eddowes was murdered, he had the experience of several kills and escapes.

If he had some use for the apron (such as putting it under some writing) I think he would not have been afraid of getting caught anymore . . . He felt powerful and in control.

I know that to us the graffito is gibberish. However, I again use the example of an extremely creative women who sends me press releases that make no sense at all. She thinks she's telling me about an upcoming event, but she is the only person who could read that release and think so.

I think an experienced, confident JtR had a use for the apron, and he took it, most likely then went to his place, cleaned up, and in his exuberance (and maybe fury at having been disturbed in Berner Street) set back out, secure in his skills.

He was right to be confident because where we are 126 years later.

curious

Hi curious (and Sam)
Great post and I totally agree. Accepting longs testimony that the apron was not there the first time around I envision the most probable scenario as thus:

The ripper (peaked cap man) is having a hard time getting stride to go to dark place. He leaves her, gets pissed, turns around several moments later, returns to her (this where Schwartz enters) and assaults her. While attacking her he sees the heavily Jewish appearing Schwartz witnessing him and yells "lipski!" at him. And he also may have been interrupted by diemshitz soon after.

After killing stride but being unable to finish (mutilate and remove an organ) he takes off and soon encounters a drunk and more willing eddowes. But while he is in the process of finagling her into a dark alley, he is again witnessed (interrupted/botheredetc.) by Jews-Lawendes and company.

After finally full filling his urge in the murder and mutilation of eddowes, the ripper is not only pissed about the constant interruptions by the Jews but he realizes for the first time he has been seen well by witnesses, who will be going to the police with his description.He decides something must be done so he cuts a portion of her apron to take away.

Of course not knowing when he started out that night that he was about to be seen/interrupted by a bunch of Jews he does not have anything to write with. So after eddowes he bolts home deposits the goodies and knife, cleans up a bit and heads back out now ith chalk. Perhaps he purposely picks the went worth building strategically because it houses mainly Jews and/or may be in a different direction than his abode.

He writes the message drops the apron and heads home to play with his goodies and chuckle the next day at all the mayhem and confusion he has created, while getting back at the dam Jews.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Curious and Abby

Good stuff, however if you compare your hypotheses to mine, I hope you can see that far more conditions would have to be satisfied in order for your scenarios to work. It's not just you... "long time-gap" theories in general tend to rely upon much more imagination in order to make things fit. In contrast, my view - as enshrined in those 4 points I made yesterday - requires very little speculation.

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

[Sam Flynn]

What is missing then Gareth, is a passage.
So lets drop another apron in the same location, at Millers Court.
Is that white lump? inside the passage, yes or no?

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

Is that white lump? inside the building, yes or no?

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

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

[Sam Flynn]

With reference to your point 1., given the many streets between Mitre Square & Goulston St. can to justify your use of "as soon as possible"?

Yes, Jon - as soon as possible, after getting the cack and gore off his hands. In addition, he's almost certainly going to be dodging, ducking and diving on the way, so a (ever-so-slightly) dog-legged escape route is quite understandable, if not axiomatic.

Also, with respect to your point 2., just how many dark shadowy passageways do you think he passed between Mitre Square and Goulston St.?

Depends on how safe he felt in any of the intervening candidates. I'd be more worried if the apron had been found in Wilkes Street or Brick Lane.

Lastly, I think the map destroys your proposal in point 3.

How does posting a map that demonstrates that Goulston Street was a few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square "destroy" the idea that... um... Goulston Street was a few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square?

PS: If your red line indicates the path of least resistance, then I can only assume that Jack had wings.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Your post 1252,has Long calling the officer on the next beat,but it still doesn't give information that Eddowes murder,or Strides murder was disclosed,or that Long knew about those murders,or that the officer from the adjoining beat knew.From whom did Long know?Not Halse,one of the few who did,at that time,that seems evident,and except for Halse,no one who had knowledge of Eddowes murder seems to have been on Long's beat before the alledged finding of the rag.We can't presume to read Long's mind that another murder might have also occurred,and the bloodied rag being there could and might have suggested several possibilities.Myself,I am of the opinion that Long took the rag to the police station for a reason not connected to a perceived act of violence,though prior knowledge of such would have added an incentive to do so.

Harry, I can only reiterate that Long himself said at the inquest that as he left the WMD, he had knowledge of the Mitre Square slaying, and that he had heard rumours of another murder.

Are you suggesting that he was lying about this?

When he DID leave the building, much more than an hour had passed since the murder. The word would have spread. I am more baffled by Long not having heard it sooner.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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

So, Gareth, if somebody had walked past Millers Court with that rag placed where Jon placed it, and afterwards said "There was a rag lying in the Millers Court passage", you would conclude that it could not have been lying where it is in Jon´s drawing ...?

If I say that it is a drawing of the Millers court passage with a rag lying in it, you would fault me?

If a person replaced the rag, seeking shelter from the rain, and believed that he was sheltering in the passage of Millers Court, he would actually be doing no such thing?

The best,
Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer/Jon

If a person replaced the rag, seeking shelter from the rain, and believed that he was sheltering in the passage of Millers Court, he would actually be doing no such thing?

In my honest opinion, he'd be "standing in the entrance", or "standing in the doorway"...the wording of the reports suggest (to me at least) the rag was further in than that...

All the best

Dave

[Sam Flynn]

the wording of the reports suggest the rag was further in than that

Indeed, Dave... reports, plural.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer/Jon



In my honest opinion, he'd be "standing in the entrance", or "standing in the doorway"...the wording of the reports suggest (to me at least) the rag was further in than that...

All the best

Dave

Well, I wouldn´t exactly feel dishonest for saying that I would have thought I was in the passage during that rain, at least if I kept dry. I probably would have ascribed that dryness to the good influence of the passage and not of the threshold. But there you are...!

Nor would I have felt like a liar if I said that the apron in Jon´s drawing was placed in the passage to Millers Court.

I would even think that if this discussion was not ongoing, and any of the participators of it were faced with Jons drawing and asked "Can you recognize where the cloth is lying?", they could easily come up with the answer "In the passage into Millers Court".

But in the whacky world of Ripperology ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

The opinion that Sam has regarding the reasonability of the killer wanting to get rid of incriminating evidence is sensible, that is not to say that as a result makes it a more probable answer. The logic that the killer used isn't knowable and therefore it isn't an issue here, but his timing is.

The cloth would have been discarded long before Goulston based on the above, and the fact that 2 policemen passed the very spot it was later found and one of them stated with confidence that "it was not there" when he passed, we must assume that it is possible that A, the cloth was still needed while fleeing, and B, the person was off the street very soon after the murder and therefore had no need to quickly drop the cloth, C, that the cloth was placed deliberately at that spot over an hour after the murder, and D, since the cloth may have been placed so it would be found, so too might the grafitto have been, making it possible that both were left by the killer.

When people disregard potentially valuable circumstantial evidence or attempt to debunk witnesses whose statements seem to make the situation seem "less realistic" or less logical, they are asserting that they understand the facts based on their own sense of right and wrong, fact and fantasy, or logic and chaos. I put it to you that the killer may have had his own ideas of what logic is, what a good idea is vs a bad one, and he may have risked even going back out to place the cloth despite the seemingly potential suicidal nature of that act.

Long gave us a chance to see this delay, he gave us the opportunity to consider these elements which may have directly related to the killers behaviour and/or location. Disregard his statement and you lose that chance.

Sort of like by accepting Mrs Longs statement in the Chapman case you disregard a witness who may have heard the actual attack begin.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Mike

The cloth would have been discarded long before Goulston based on the above

Eddowes had excrement smeared over her externalised intestines, and someone did the smearing... and I don't think it was PC Watkins. Eddowes' killer therefore must have had excrement on his hands, and that stuff takes some shifting.

the fact that 2 policemen passed the very spot it was later found and one of them stated with confidence that "it was not there" when he passed

We don't know that he said it with confidence - as I've pointed out several times, such things as confidence and emphasis are not preserved in the written record. And, as I've pointed out more than several times, it's a fact of life that people can assert, and genuinely believe, that things "were not" there, when they were all the time.

Furthermore, this is the same PC Long who could "not form an opinion" as to whether the graffiti was fresh. If he'd truly inspected the entrance-way at 2:20, he'd have known whether the graffiti was there or not. Since he could "not form an opinion" as to its freshness, Long is, in effect, admitting that he wasn't sure it was there earlier; in other words, he might have missed it. From this, it follows that (a) he did not inspect the passage with any thoroughness at 2:20; and (b) if he missed the graffito, then he could have missed the apron.

It was, after all, "easily overlooked" (I quote myself, but that's the corollary of Halse's testimony) because it was "in the passage" (Long) or "in the building" (Halse). Take your pick... whichever way you cut it, the apron was not in a position where it would definitely be seen by a passerby.

I put it to you that the killer may have had his own ideas of what logic is, what a good idea is vs a bad one, and he may have risked even going back out to place the cloth despite the seemingly potential suicidal nature of that act.

I put it to you that such an argument has about as much use as asserting that "God could make the sun stand still if He wanted, because He's God".

This kind of magical thinking ("Jack was a nutter, so anything's possible") really gets us nowhere. A nutter he may well have been, but that doesn't give him - or us - carte blanche to ignore physics, logistics, plain common sense, nor the constraints placed upon us by human nature. And Jack, for all his considerable problems, was human like the rest of us.

[Wickerman]

The fact that Sugden prioritizes the view that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20 does not make it a fact. Many times, top authorities must be challenged and questioned.

The reason I quote Sugden on this is simply to point to the fact that one can be the most renowned researcher and historian in the field and STILL say that Long was more probably right than wrong.

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?'

[Wickerman]

He writes the message drops the apron and heads home to play with his goodies ....

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.