Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

I thought the same, but if this was a hate crime, why would someone write it so cryptically? If that was indeed what it said.

IMO, the officer was a buffoon for removing, what was possibly a vital piece of evidence, before they could at least take a photograph. Did they honestly believe this obscure piece of graffito was going to cause a mass riot?

Yes, and rightly so - the East End was a cag of powder at that stage, and they could well have found themselves the igniting spark in that text. Remember that riots often start in a very small scale, only to then escalate.

Otherwise, I agree about the cryptical wording on the wall. But I feel certain that if it had been worded "Giraffes are the sort of animals that never overstay their welcome", we would still have people trying to interpret that here on the boards, feeling certain that the killer must have written it...

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

An excellent opportunity to publicly disagree with Fisherman!

I think Arnold was totally wrong in advising that riots may ensue.
Soon after the graffiti was rubbed out, it became public knowledge - suggesting perhaps that the Jews were being officially protected. This would be added incitement to riot. Where there any riots? No.

I also think that the wording isn't that cryptic. To me it is obvious what it means.

[Bridewell]

Yes, and rightly so.

Yet there was no riot and all the details of the graffito emerged at the inquest anyway when, again, there was no riot. According to Walter Dew such chalked graffiti was commonplace so I don't see the desperate urgency in the erasure of this particular example. The GSG was probably nothing to do with the Eddowes murder - but only probably. With the resources at his disposal I don't see why it should have posed insurmountable difficulties to have preserved the writing for the hour or so it would have taken to get it photographed.

[The Snapper]

I've always understood Warren was big on public order so the GSG was sacrificed to that end. Logical in his own mind if nobody elses.
As for the time gap I wonder if it isn't an illusion. If the section of apron was missed at 2:20 it could also have been missed before. A lot of ifs but hey ho.

Snapper

[Michael W Richards]

An excellent opportunity to publicly disagree with Fisherman!

I think Arnold was totally wrong in advising that riots may ensue.
Soon after the graffiti was rubbed out, it became public knowledge - suggesting perhaps that the Jews were being officially protected. This would be added incitement to riot. Where there any riots? No.

I also think that the wording isn't that cryptic. To me it is obvious what it means.

I don't know what you believe the message intends to say, but my two cents is that it likely was that....translated into modern language, "The Jews are avoiding blame again". The "again" is because I believe the message intends to suggest that there have been other things that the author feels they have avoided blame for.....I feel the message was directed towards the men at 40 Berner Street, because that's the only address that I know of that night where Jews were actively trying to avoid blame for an act that happened on their own property, with 30 or more people onsite.

If Im correct then would that suggest that the message could have been left by the same man who left the cloth? I dont think so. I think the writing may have predated the cloth, it would have been almost impossible to see at night without coming for a closer look at the cloth, and that could be why it wasn't seen until they both were found. Because no-one needed a closer look at something lying in the entranceway to the Model Homes around 2:20am...because it wasn't there yet.

I do believe its possible that the cloth may have been destined for another location further into the Model Homes and was left under the grafitto instead when the killer from Mitre Square saw those lines.

Cheers

[caz]

Hi All,

May I once again direct everyone to the original post on this thread, which shows how quickly it all went tits up and the topic turned into a debate about whether or not PC Long made a mistake when he said the apron was not there at 2.20. We were supposed to be addressing the question of how the killer might have spent the time in the event that PC Long did not make that mistake, and the apron was therefore not yet dumped (and the message possibly not yet written) at that point:

Greetings everyone!

I wanted to talk about a subject that has been bugging me lately. I want to go over the chronology of the morning of the 30th September 1888, and then pose a rather interesting question. OK, here we go:

1:45am: PC Watkins discovers the mutilated body of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, and reports he saw nothing there only 15 minutes before.

2:20am: PC Alfred Long, walking on his beat, goes down Goulston St., reports not seeing anything unusual.

2:50am: Long again goes down Goulston St. and discovers the bloody apron and the message.

So, if we take Long at his word and agree that, at the very least, the apron was NOT there at 2:20am, then that means JTR didn't go down Goulston St. until sometime between 2:20am-2:50am. So, let's compromise and say the apron was left at around 2:35am approximately. That's still a 50 minute gap between when JTR left Mitre Square and the time he went down Goulston St.

My question to everyone is: what do YOU think JTR was doing for that approx. 50 minute duration? Did he go somewhere to clean up? Did he deposit his body parts somewhere where he could pick them up later? Did he remain in the City, or did head back to Whitechapel right away.

It definitely wouldn't have taken 50 minutes to go from one location to the other because Goulston St., is right near the City of London boundary!

Yes, PC Long could have made a mistake, but anyone who wants to argue the toss and say it's more likely the apron and GSG were both in place at 2.20 (for reasons related to their gut feelings about the killer's probable mentality - a killer who likes to fanny about in risky locations, extracting organs, nicking eyelids and so on ) really should have taken their opinions to a separate thread about a thousand years ago, instead of taking pops at the rest of us who have stuck rigidly to topic.

Strangely enough, Gareth (Sam), one of the worst offenders, used to act as board monitor and remind people (including me no doubt) to stick to the original topic.

All we really know is that PC Long first found the bloody thing at 2.55 and as a direct consequence shone his lamp around the immediate vicinity, upon which he was able to see the small neat message some way up the nearest wall. (How's that, Gareth? ) To the best of his knowledge, the apron was not there at 2.20, unless he genuinely overlooked it or was not being entirely honest. But then he was honest enough to effectively admit (deliberately split infinitive in case Ben is reading along ) he had no idea if the writing had been there on his earlier round. That would have been remarked upon, surely, if the writing stuck out like a sore thumb to anyone else who saw it in situ.

Since Long saw nothing untoward at 2.20, it makes sense that he wouldn't on that occasion have thought to shine his lamp precisely where he later found the writing, and might not have seen it in the darkness had it in fact been there. That merely allows for either or both pieces of evidence to have been there and overlooked until 2.55; it doesn't mean they were there, or even were probably there. Their absence at 2.20 would have produced the exact same result, whether Long and Halse were exceptionally vigilant and observant that night or blind drunk and blind as bats. But again, none of this matters since we are supposed to be discussing what the killer was doing 'if we take Long at his word'.

Those of you who are unable or unwilling to do that small thing have been wasting their time on a thread created for that very purpose. Just go away and play nicely elsewhere. Nothing easier.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Strangely enough, Gareth (Sam), one of the worst offenders, used to act as board monitor and remind people (including me no doubt) to stick to the original topic.

The possibility that Long could have missed the apron the first time around is entirely relevant to the topic of this thread, Caz.

[pinkmoon]

Hi all,could our killer have decided after his botched attack on stride not to push his luck and go home on way home he bumps into eddowes perhaps she presented to good an opportunity so he butchers her then finally gets himself home.When he gets home he puts the organs somewhere safe cleans himself up calms down and panics because eddowes is so far away from the other murders would the police thing he didn't live locally so he gets piece of apron heads back to murder scene and drops apron in doorway to give impression he lives in Whitechapel area.

[DRoy]

But again, none of this matters since we are supposed to be discussing what the killer was doing 'if we take Long at his word'.

Those of you who are unable or unwilling to do that small thing have been wasting their time on a thread created for that very purpose. Just go away and play nicely elsewhere. Nothing easier.

The irony.

Okay, I'll play along.

If we take Long at his word then in my opinion the killer had a place to hide out and get cleaned up before going back out again and dropping the piece of apron in a spot he could have done earlier but chose not to. He probably knew Long was close by at 2:20 and would spot the apron earlier than he wanted it found (because of Long's keen eye) so better to drop it before 2:55.

Just my opinion if taking Long at his word.

Cheers
DRoy

[Sam Flynn]

Playing along, too. The killer could have been hiding nervously in the shadows of the WMD doorway (or up the stairs) the first time Long passed, dropping the apron on his way out when the coast was clear.

[Hunter]

Ain't it nice kids, when the right toys are thrown out to play with... LOL.

[Fisherman]

Yet there was no riot and all the details of the graffito emerged at the inquest anyway when, again, there was no riot.

This is absolutely true. However, since the risk was identified by the police, it would be wrong not to act upon it. They did not have the benefit of hindsight, as we do. What they DID have, though, was an overall responsibility to avoid setting London on fire, and to that end, they seemingly overreacted. But understandably so.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Playing along, too. The killer could have been hiding nervously in the shadows of the WMD doorway (or up the stairs) the first time Long passed, dropping the apron on his way out when the coast was clear.

In which case he would still be at the WMD thirtyfive minutes after he killed Eddowes ...? What do you suggest would have taken him so long?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I think that was Caz applying for the job of board monitor.

The most likely scenario was that the culprit went to a place where he would be off the streets for a while, perhaps to clean up and stash his booty, and then re-emerged and dropped off the apron, perhaps as he wanted to get the 'Jews' thing off his chest. I would presume that the apron was too big to stash, or he just didn't want it, or perhaps as has been suggested he kept it for a while to stem the blood from a wound.
Whatever the explanation, for his to work, the culprit would need a bolt hole of some sort reasonably near by that would be discrete enough for him to enter and leave and that would fit geographically.
Hmmm.

Also to re-enter the 'investigation zone' with a bloody apron suggests he was an incredibly cool character

[Fisherman]

I think that was Caz applying for the job of board monitor.

Isnīt she already ...?

Fisherman