the Goulston St Graffiti

[D.B.Wagstaff]

If this has been discussed already, forgive me, but the following thought occurred:

Jack leaves Mitre Square after killing Catherine Eddowes - taking a piece of her apron to wipe his hands and/or knife. He wipes his hands and/or knife as he walks, and knows he needs to discard the piece of cloth, not wanting to have it on his person in case he is stopped and questioned by the police. He happens to see the Ghoulston Street Grafitti (he might even have ducked into the doorway when somebody - maybe even the police, walked by) and thinks "Perfect - it mentions Jews and is written so badly, it's hard to tell what it means. I'll just toss the rag here - that should muddy up the waters . . ."

Possible? Probable? I await your comments . . .

[DVV]

Were there many "graffiti-decorated doorways" in Goulston Street ?
All as strange as the GSG ??

Amitiés,
David

[Jason]

Simon Wood:

"Jack the Ripper murdered his second victim of the night in Mitre Square, took the only piece of material which could be directly traced back to the body, smeared it with blood, dropped it in a stairwell and then chalked an anti-Semitic sentiment [which six police reports spelled differently] on a black dado/arched entrance [take your pick] in Goulston Street" is the most convoluted, complicated and unlikely scenario of events on 30th September 1888."

Agreed!

How about this version:

Jack the Ripper chose the area around St Botolphs on the night at hand, found Catherine Eddowes, chatted her up in Church Passage, followed her into the square, killed her there, and cut loose a piece of her apron to use for wiping his hands, that had gotten smeared with fecal matter and blood. He shoved the apron piece into his pocket and left the square, possibly after having heard George Morrison open the warehouse door.
He took an eastern route and headed home, unaware that the area around Berner Street was swarming with cops after Liz Stride had been killed there by BS man, who was not the Ripper. As he excited Little Goulston Street, he took a left turn and crossed the street, suggesting that he would go right at the next turn. As he reached the eastern side of Goulston Street, he was not far from home, and as he did not wish to let the bloodied rag in his pocket implicate him, he threw it into one of the many graffiti-decorated doorways of the Wentworth Model dwellings.
There was no double event.
There was no reckless doubling back into danger´s way.
There was no writing of any dubious message.
There was no antisemitism.
Just like Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, Catherine Eddowes met with an opportunistic killer, with no other intent than to kill for his own satisfaction.

How´s that for an alternative?

The best,
Fisherman

works for me....said something very similar myself about 6 pages back....i think thats very likely to have happened

[Fisherman]

Simon Wood:

"Jack the Ripper murdered his second victim of the night in Mitre Square, took the only piece of material which could be directly traced back to the body, smeared it with blood, dropped it in a stairwell and then chalked an anti-Semitic sentiment [which six police reports spelled differently] on a black dado/arched entrance [take your pick] in Goulston Street" is the most convoluted, complicated and unlikely scenario of events on 30th September 1888."

Agreed!

How about this version:

Jack the Ripper chose the area around St Botolphs on the night at hand, found Catherine Eddowes, chatted her up in Church Passage, followed her into the square, killed her there, and cut loose a piece of her apron to use for wiping his hands, that had gotten smeared with fecal matter and blood. He shoved the apron piece into his pocket and left the square, possibly after having heard George Morrison open the warehouse door.
He took an eastern route and headed home, unaware that the area around Berner Street was swarming with cops after Liz Stride had been killed there by BS man, who was not the Ripper. As he excited Little Goulston Street, he took a left turn and crossed the street, suggesting that he would go right at the next turn. As he reached the eastern side of Goulston Street, he was not far from home, and as he did not wish to let the bloodied rag in his pocket implicate him, he threw it into one of the many graffiti-decorated doorways of the Wentworth Model dwellings.
There was no double event.
There was no reckless doubling back into danger´s way.
There was no writing of any dubious message.
There was no antisemitism.
Just like Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, Catherine Eddowes met with an opportunistic killer, with no other intent than to kill for his own satisfaction.

How´s that for an alternative?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

bruises

Hello Maria. No, my wife did not punch me in the nose--she only thought about its desirability.

Now, if some techno person can help me post the results?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"you see, there's been at least 2 graffitos on Hanbury Street and Buck's Row with direct reference to the murder(s), as brought up here by Monty and Jane Coram. And I'm sure there must have been more."

I know that full well, Maria. And I agree very much that there would have been heaps of graffiti about the Ripper at that time, just as there would have been graffiti about the Jew issue. So we´re very much agreed on that.
The end station for my train of thought, though, is that the Goulston Street graffiti would in all probability belong to the scores of anything-but-murder-related graffiti too - and I´m not sure you agree on that as well?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

I wasnt being sarcastic Caz, I was being genuine.

Youve been here too long.

As for the rest of your post, its worth responding to, despite the sarcastic hypocrisy held within it.

Monty

[Jane Coram]

Hi Maria,

There's not much doubt about why the message was written on the gates of the slaughterhouse. The three men who were working at Barber's on the night of the murder, were leading suspects for at least a short time, until they satisfied the police that they had nothing to do with it. Jimmy Mumford gave a fairly long statement to a reporter a day or so after the murder, in which he stated categorically that they were being persecuted and under suspicion for Polly's murder. At the very start of the investigations, there were suggestions that Polly might have been killed in Winthrop Street, and her body taken around to Buck's Row. Let's face it - having a slaughteryard just around the corner that was open when the murder took place, was begging for a backlash and a bit of malicious graffito!

Sorry for the diversion, but it was a short post.

Hugs Janie

Xxxxx

[mariab]

Lynn Cates wrote:
But now you must excuse me as I need to go and cut a lady's throat.
Oops! That's no lady; that's my wife!
(Wish us luck!)
Cheers.
LC
Abby Normal wrote:
Hopefully you'll only be using Ockham's Razor for that.
If I were Lynn's wife (even if wishing to restrain myself so as to collaborate with the “experiment“), he would have come back with a broken nose and a very bloody face.

C.D. wrote:
Hi Simon,
What explanation do you have for how the apron made its way to the stairwell?
The problem's not the apron, but the graffito, I'm afraid.

[c.d.]

Hi Lynn,

I agree. The simpler the explanation the better.

"Jack the Ripper murdered his second victim of the night in Mitre Square, took the only piece of material which could be directly traced back to the body, smeared it with blood, dropped it in a stairwell and then chalked an anti-Semitic sentiment [which six police reports spelled differently] on a black dado/arched entrance [take your pick] in Goulston Street" is the most convoluted, complicated and unlikely scenario of events on 30th September 1888.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

What explanation do you have for how the apron made its way to the stairwell?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Maria. Thanks. I like that better.

But now you must excuse me as I need to go and cut a lady's throat.

Oops! That's no lady; that's my wife!

(Wish us luck!)

Cheers.
LC

Hopefully you'll only be using Ockham's Razor for that

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

I agree. The simpler the explanation the better.

"Jack the Ripper murdered his second victim of the night in Mitre Square, took the only piece of material which could be directly traced back to the body, smeared it with blood, dropped it in a stairwell and then chalked an anti-Semitic sentiment [which six police reports spelled differently] on a black dado/arched entrance [take your pick] in Goulston Street" is the most convoluted, complicated and unlikely scenario of events on 30th September 1888.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Maria. Thanks. I like that better.

But now you must excuse me as I need to go and cut a lady's throat.

Oops! That's no lady; that's my wife!

(Wish us luck!)

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Yes, Lynn, precisely, "The simpler explanation is the better". (I'm afraid that Ockham's razor became popular after that Robert Zemeckis silly movie with Jodie Foster, Contact, came out.)

[lynn cates]

ontology game

Hello Maria, CD. I am merely pointing out that Ockham's little dictum is being taken out of its original context.

Does it hold good in its new one? Perhaps; perhaps not. Of course, that is not to the point. Ockham gave us a perfectly good way to win the ontology game: you posit 3 entities, your opponent posits 4. Both of you account for ALL of reality. You win.

Can this, in fact, be defined on a different domain--one of empirical objects? Well, if so, we need a new or modified principle.

(Perhaps something like, "The simpler explanation is the better"?)

Cheers.
LC