Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[pinkmoon]

I would just like to thank everyone for not mentioning anything about royal coaches and masons when we mention the word "Juwes"

[Sam Flynn]

Just a quick one boys and girls but "Juwe " is an actual surname so could there have been any "Juwes" living in the area at the time.

It seems to be extremely rare, though - I found only 10 entries on Familysearch.org for "Juwe", four of them on a German Census of 1867 - which, on inspecting the actual document, turned out to be a mis-transcription of "Leeuwe". Of the others, one was a "Richard JUVE", born in Ohio in 1956, another an 18th Century Prussian (possibly another "Leeuwe"?), and an Englishwoman of the 16th Century called "Anne Juwe". The original documents for the latter three aren't immediately available online, but it's quite possible, even likely, that they were misprints too.

"Juwe" was, and remains, a very odd word.

[DRoy]

Fish,

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.

I don't recall Long giving a time when he had heard of the murder. Why do you presume he just heard of it around 2:55? He could have heard from the public or police. Him saying it was common knowledge that a murder took place makes it clear he had heard of the murder by more than one person (the PC as you speculate). We can also presume if he heard from a bunch of people, it was not within a couple minutes but instead over a longer period of time.

Cheers
DRoy

[Sam Flynn]

I don't recall Long giving a time when he had heard of the murder.

Long says he embarked on a search of the staircases inside WMD around about three, before taking the apron to the police station, leaving another Metropolitan PC in charge "of the stair" (interesting choice of words). He says that he'd heard about the Mitre Square murder before he left for the station, so it's quite possible that he got the news from the PC whom he'd left on sentry duty. Whilst Long doesn't give a specific time, it appears that he found out about Eddowes' murder some time after 3 in the morning.

[Bridewell]

Sam Flynn:

It is a very precise determination of where the writing supposedly was.

In Halse´s and Long´s case, the wordings about where the items, writing and rag, were, are a lot more imprecise and totally open to different interpretations. You will have noticed that this is so!

Isn´t this a case of either the writing being on the jamb of the archway or Warren being wrong?

The best,
Fisherman

The various police officers who saw it couldn't reach consensus as to the exact wording or even the spelling of the word 'Juwes', 'Juews' 'Juewes', so I find it unsurprising that there is no consensus as to the exact location of the graffito.

[GUT]

G'day Bridewell

The various police officers who saw it couldn't reach consensus as to the exact wording or even the spelling of the word 'Juwes', 'Juews' 'Juewes', so I find it unsurprising that there is no consensus as to the exact location of the graffito.

Hard to imagine isn't it that they couldn't even write it down the same.

I am a real fan of crediting the police with being competent, but whenever I think of the graffiti I have serious doubts.

[pinkmoon]

I can't see why our killer would need to go back and dump the piece of apron once he had successfully left the area with the organs unless he had to give the impression he was living in the Whitechapel area.

[Wickerman]

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?

Hi Mike.
Good point.
I differentiate between two sets of logic.
First is the logic one incorporates into an argument - this must be sound, but the second is the logic this killer is expected to apply.

I try to find fault with the logic in the argument, fully realizing that the killers actions will not always be logical.
In the case of this piece of apron, "as soon as possible", to my mind is measured in feet or yards, not streets.
Ah, but then you say, "he was a nutcase, so his actions are unpredictable", to which I reply, "he suddenly came to his senses when writing the 'poetical' graffiti didn't he?"
In other words, this killer can switch the "nutcase" gene on and off at will, or more likely, it is the poster who does this to salvage the argument.

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....

This is a good example of something that I find unacceptable.
Speculation is like steppingstones, you must establish a sound footing on the first stone, before you leap to the next one.
First stone is: IF, we think he cut himself...
Second stone is: ...and this is why he took the apron..
Third stone is: ...and restricting the flow of blood is why he took so long to deposit the apron.

Three stones, and not one is first established before we leap to the next one.
The "Achillees heel" in this proposal is, to my mind, that if the cut was so severe to need such a large piece of apron, how does it then become less severe and stop bleeding to the point he can throw the rag away?
This suggestion has all the hallmarks of an argument born of necessity, it's severe when it needs to be, then unimportant when it is no longer needed.
The suggestion is being molded to fit the evidence.


Off on a tangent here...
I fully appreciate we are in the realm of speculation, but the end result of much of this type of speculation (and I'm think of Hutchinson here), is that the proposers of these unsubstantiated ideas actually begin to believe them. Worse still, they want (insist?) that others believe them too!

This is how it evolves...
Ideas shared among the converted soon become beliefs, beliefs are then accepted as proven, and what is proven is then sold as fact.
The very notion that this was nothing more than an idea in the first place has been totally lost by everyone.

[Wickerman]

That was what Warren wrote in an internal memo, several weeks later. The impression conveyed at the time, by both Long's and Halse's testimony, militates against that. Besides, a graffito "in the passage" could easily have been visible from the street (especially to a market trader setting up stall on the pavement) without its being on the very "jamb" of the entrance.

Yes Warren did write that memo on Nov 6th, two days before he resigned. Therefore, no cause to lie, so the argument against Warren is limited to him being mistaken, which is hardly likely as he is the one who washed the graffiti off.

Then we have PC Long who actually saw both the apron & the graffiti in situ, so his evidence is important.
Warren & Long taken together provide the precise locations of both the piece of apron and the graffiti.

However, you also add the words of Det. Halse, but Halse never saw the apron in situ, in fact in the official Inquest source he does not suggest a location for the apron.
We know from other sources that "where the apron was found was pointed out to him", however precise this was, and who pointed it out remains unknown.
Halse does not constitute a solid witness about the location of the apron, where he "believed" it was found was heresay at best.

(I think the phrase you attribute to Halse "in the building", was taken from the Times, but actually spoken by a juror, not Halse.)

Warren also added that it couldn't be covered up (easily?), due to its location.
On the jamb would indeed be difficult, but inside on the wall should not cause a problem given its small size and the fact it was lower than 4ft from the ground.

[The Good Michael]

This is a good example of something that I find unacceptable.
Speculation is like steppingstones, you must establish a sound footing on the first stone, before you leap to the next one.
First stone is: IF, we think he cut himself...
Second stone is: ...and this is why he took the apron..
Third stone is: ...and restricting the flow of blood is why he took so long to deposit the apron.

That was one option, yes, but I don't believe he cut himself, but it would explain hanging onto the cloth, and it wasn't a huge piece of cloth if a cut was fairly deep and a guy needed to wrap his hand and squeeze to apply pressure, something I've done before and had wished I'd had something bigger than a hanky. Yet, the first "stone" would be that he had the desire or need to carry the cloth a longer way than what would seem was necessary. Then we try to explain that by adding a logical idea.

Mike

[harry]

Jon,
Where has it been substanciated that the apron piece was on the floor beneath the writing? Nowhere.It is a claim by Long,an unsubtanciated claim,that it was so,and no,we do not have to accept it was there simply because Long states it was.We need corrorberating evidence,and there is none.

[Monty]

G'day Bridewell



Hard to imagine isn't it that they couldn't even write it down the same.

I am a real fan of crediting the police with being competent, but whenever I think of the graffiti I have serious doubts.

Have you ever read Victorian handwriting?

Monty

[GUT]

G'day Monty

Have you ever read Victorian handwriting?

Yep and I follow what you mean, except it was the handwriting they read all the time and not being able to get the "not" in the same place worries me more than the spelling of "Juwes".

[Fisherman]

The various police officers who saw it couldn't reach consensus as to the exact wording or even the spelling of the word 'Juwes', 'Juews' 'Juewes', so I find it unsurprising that there is no consensus as to the exact location of the graffito.

There is no disagreement inbetween the various police officers on that issue, Colin - it´s just us having a disagreement about that.

Warren said that the writing was on the jamb of the doorway.

If it was, then it must have been divided up in a number of lines and the writing must have been small.

And what do we have? Exactly, we have a very small writing and five lines of it.

So either it was written on the inside wall, in a format cut out to fit the jamb exactly. Or it was on the jamb.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

This is a good example of something that I find unacceptable.
Speculation is like steppingstones, you must establish a sound footing on the first stone, before you leap to the next one.
First stone is: IF, we think he cut himself...
Second stone is: ...and this is why he took the apron..
Third stone is: ...and restricting the flow of blood is why he took so long to deposit the apron.

Three stones, and not one is first established before we leap to the next one.

What you do here, Jon, in all honesty is to surmise that the speculation goes along three steps:

What if he cut himself?

What if he took the rag to bandage it?

What if he threw it away when it had stopped bleeding?

The overall suggestion is one where it all hangs together. And the reason I speculate along these lines lies in the fact that it was pointed out that a portion of the rag was wet with blood when found.

Apparently, the rest of, bloodstained as it was, was dry.

I find it hard to believe that the wet blood came from Eddowes. Itr therefore asks for an explanation.

If it did not come from Eddowes, we need to speculate. And the speculation that it came from a cut killer would answer both the freshness of the wet blood and the fact that he would have needed the rag.

It really is that simple.

I welcome other suggestions too, that would explain why the rag was dry but for the wet portion.

The "Achillees heel" in this proposal is, to my mind, that if the cut was so severe to need such a large piece of apron, how does it then become less severe and stop bleeding to the point he can throw the rag away?

I tend to look upon it the other way: All untreated wounds, but for lethal ones, will eventually stop bleeding. Some do so after a minute or two, some after five, some after ten, some after ...

As long as it bled, he would have hung on to the rag. Then he would have thrown it away.

I see no mystery here at all. He bled, he bandaged himself, he checked the wound every now and then. As he arrived in Goulston Street, it no longer bled. So he threw the rag there.

This suggestion has all the hallmarks of an argument born of necessity, it's severe when it needs to be, then unimportant when it is no longer needed.
The suggestion is being molded to fit the evidence.

No, Jon, it is not. The suggestion is put forward to explain the blood. It is also an effort to explain why Long could easily have been right, which is the topic of the thread, more or less.

At the end of the day, any suggestions should fit the evidence. Not all do, mind you.

The best,
Fisherman