Apron placement as intimidation?

[Varqm]

I was talking about after the murder of eddowes in mitre square and I wasn't talking about Lechmere.

to reiterate, there was about an hour or so between her murder and when the apron was discovered in goulston street, but it only takes a few minutes to walk from mitre square to goulston street. so I was suggesting that the killer, whoever he was, had a bolt hole no more than about a half hour away-about the time it would take to walk from Miter square (drop off the incriminating evidence, maybe clean up, grab some chalk) and then back to Goulston street to leave the apron and write the GSG, in time for the PC to definitely find it this time around.

It's hard to believe the ripper went out again and risked hanging/death and the ability to kill again after reaching home safely just to write a vague message.As far as I can remember,I have not read a serial killer(s) who went out again and plant pieces of clothing and writing messages once they reached home.If there was it's rare.It's remotely possible.

But walking cautiously to the Wentworth doorway past 2:20 am,it is possible,lashing out at Jews but not,per police, shifting blame to the Jews,because Lawende and co,saw him (Lawende saw Kate's back) from 9-10 feet away and could have tell if he was Jew or not.

It's a vague message for lashing.It's hard to tell.

[Harry D]

I sway back and forth on the GSG. Currently, I'd say I'm 80/20 to the Ripper NOT writing the graffito. This was a killer who had hitherto not been the type to leave messages behind, but all of a sudden after one of his riskiest kills, he stops in a doorway and leaves some vague scrawl behind? It doesn't make sense to me. He had all the time in the world to leave a message in Miller's Court and (unless you're looking for an initial here or an initial there ) neglected to do so. I've heard the counterargument that he had a particular axe to grind with the Jews that night and simply had to get it off his chest. And that's the best he could come up with!?

[Varqm]

Yes if he was capable of lashing/killing women with a knife,surely with words he could have gone all-out.

[Abby Normal]

I sway back and forth on the GSG. Currently, I'd say I'm 80/20 to the Ripper NOT writing the graffito. This was a killer who had hitherto not been the type to leave messages behind, but all of a sudden after one of his riskiest kills, he stops in a doorway and leaves some vague scrawl behind? It doesn't make sense to me. He had all the time in the world to leave a message in Miller's Court and (unless you're looking for an initial here or an initial there ) neglected to do so. I've heard the counterargument that he had a particular axe to grind with the Jews that night and simply had to get it off his chest. And that's the best he could come up with!?

That was an extraordinary night that produced extraordinary behavior.
Best he could come up with? It sent the police into a tizzy!

[Varqm]

A homeless killer is a possibility.He does not have to mind what he have in his clothes and when he came and go unlike in a doss house,home with relative/family,or people in neighboring rooms/flats.He could also kill/search for victims at all hours,at around 1;40 [Eddowes] and 5;30 [Chapman].But when/where does he change his clothes and keep his belongings.

[Harry D]

That was an extraordinary night that produced extraordinary behavior.
Best he could come up with? It sent the police into a tizzy!

Unnecessarily, as it turns out.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;422575]

That was an extraordinary night that produced extraordinary behavior.

Having made a mistake with Stride there had to be the apron and writing.

Pierre

[Wickerman]

The only point worthy of note that I observe is that he claimed to arrest a suspect on the night of the double murder, over in Heneage-street, by Brick Lane........
It would be consistent with a killer moving eastward from Mitre Sq., through Goulston Street, and on towards Brick Lane.

I had forgot to mention this person-of-interest in the Chapman case, seen fleeing in the same direction.

John Thimbleby, coppersmith in Hanbury's brewery, went to the Commercial-street-station at one o'clock yesterday to say that at six o'clock that morning a man attracted his particular attention before he heard of the murder. He was hurrying from Hanbury-street, below where the murder took place, into Brick-lane. He was walking, almost running, and had a peculiar gait, his knees not bending when he walked......
He was dressed in a dark stiff hat and cutaway coat, reaching to his knees. His face was clean shaven, and he seemed about 30 years old. Thimbleby says he can identify him.
Lloyds Weekly News, 9 Sept. 1888.

[Robert St Devil]

I'm back full-circle. In contemporary terms, generally, when a racially charged statement is graffiti'd on the side of a business or domicile, there's a tendency for it to be erased on sight or soon after, so I can accept that the graffito had not been written in days prior. It did send the police into a tizzy, but there's no evidence that it was meant to be found by the police; part of the risk may have been that a constable found it before a Jew or a resident of Wentworth dwellings if the idea of inciting a riot holds any truth to it.

[Harry D]

I had forgot to mention this person-of-interest in the Chapman case, seen fleeing in the same direction.

John Thimbleby, coppersmith in Hanbury's brewery, went to the Commercial-street-station at one o'clock yesterday to say that at six o'clock that morning a man attracted his particular attention before he heard of the murder. He was hurrying from Hanbury-street, below where the murder took place, into Brick-lane. He was walking, almost running, and had a peculiar gait, his knees not bending when he walked......
He was dressed in a dark stiff hat and cutaway coat, reaching to his knees. His face was clean shaven, and he seemed about 30 years old. Thimbleby says he can identify him.
Lloyds Weekly News, 9 Sept. 1888.

As I've said before, I love these little tidbits in the newspapers about possible sightings.

[Wickerman]

As I've said before, I love these little tidbits in the newspapers about possible sightings.

Yes, I don't really subscribe to the view that the killer was not seen.
I'm sure he was, but people didn't always realize it, and even when reported the police are not going to have an easy time trying to find him. Such as would be the case above.

There are several descriptions of a man, early 30's, well-dressed, and not only with a limp or awkward gait, but strange, weak or peculiar eyes, in one case without eyelashes.
If each of these various reports involve the same character then it would be the first time we know of where the same man was seen in the vicinity of a murder. In this case three murders, those of Stride, Chapman & Kelly.

[Harry D]

There are several descriptions of a man, early 30's, well-dressed, and not only with a limp or awkward gait, but strange, weak or peculiar eyes, in one case without eyelashes.

What sources are you drawing from, Wick?

[Abby Normal]

Unnecessarily, as it turns out.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

[Wickerman]

What sources are you drawing from, Wick?

These are all press sources, like the Thimbleby one.

"The man was about 5ft. 5in. in height. He was well dressed in a black morning suit with a morning coat. He had rather weak eyes. I mean he had sore eyes without any eyelashes. I should know the man again amongst a hundred. He had a thick black moustache and no beard. He wore a black billycock hat, rather tall, and had on a collar. I don't know the colour of his tie. I said to the woman, "that's Leather Apron getting round you." The man was no foreigner; he was an Englishman right enough."
Evening News, 1 Oct., 1888.


The man is described by Mrs. Kennedy as having on a pair of dark mixture trousers and a long dark overcoat. He wore a low crowned brown hat and carried a shiny black bag in his hand. Further, it was stated that he was a man of medium stature, with dark moustache, and that he had an extremely awkward gait, which could at once be recognised.......
Just then the woman noticed the unnatural glare of the man's eyes, and instinctively fled from the spot leaving him behind. They subsequently ascertained that the same man accosted other women the same night. Mrs. Kennedy is confident that the man whom she noticed speaking to the woman Kelly at three o'clock on Friday morning is identical with the person who accosted her on the previous Wednesday.
Evening News, 10 Nov. 1888.


“Shortly afterwards, it is stated a respectably dressed man accosted Kelly and offered her money. The appearance of this man is far from definitely ascertainable. Some say he wore a high silk hat and brown overcoat; others that he was habited in dark mixture trousers, long, dark overcoat, and low-crowned, brown hat, and that he carried the now famous shiny, black bag in his hand. In stature he is variously described as of medium height and slight, short and thick set, and of awkward gait. Nearly all the accounts agree, however, as to his wearing a black moustache and having a very remarkable and unpleasant glare in his eyes."
Sunday Times, 11 Nov. 1888.


"Harry Bowyer states that on Wednesday night he saw a man speaking to Kelly who resembled the description given by the fruiterer of the supposed Berner Street murderer. He was, perhaps, 27 or 28 and had a dark moustache and very peculiar eyes. His appearance was rather smart and attention was drawn to him by showing very white cuffs and a rather long white collar, the ends of which came down in front over a black coat. He did not carry a bag."
Western Mail, 12 Nov. 1888.

[c.d.]

I sway back and forth on the GSG. Currently, I'd say I'm 80/20 to the Ripper NOT writing the graffito. This was a killer who had hitherto not been the type to leave messages behind, but all of a sudden after one of his riskiest kills, he stops in a doorway and leaves some vague scrawl behind? It doesn't make sense to me. He had all the time in the world to leave a message in Miller's Court and (unless you're looking for an initial here or an initial there ) neglected to do so. I've heard the counterargument that he had a particular axe to grind with the Jews that night and simply had to get it off his chest. And that's the best he could come up with!?

I have said it before and I will say it again. You are one of my favorite posters on these boards, Harry. You cut right through the nonsense and get to the most salient points time and time again. Well done, Sir.

c.d.