Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Juwes Graffiti

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Dickere View Post
    Is there any evidence whatsoever that suggests or connects the writing on the wall to the ripper ? I find it hard to believe that someone so elusive would also wander around with a pot of paint and a brush and spend the time to write the message.
    Only Eddowes apron that had been deposited close to it. It was written in chalk, so it's a lot easier to imagine the killer doing it than if it was done in paint, since chalk is pocketable while a paint pot and brush would be much less so.
    " Queen Vic lured her victims into dark corners with offers of free fish and chips, washed down with White Satin." - forum user C4

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Dickere View Post
      Is there any evidence whatsoever that suggests or connects the writing on the wall to the ripper ? I find it hard to believe that someone so elusive would also wander around with a pot of paint and a brush and spend the time to write the message.
      The bloodied apron from the 4th victim could be deemed a clue.

      As others have said, the message was written in chalk.
      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

      Comment


      • #48
        IF the murderer wrote the graffito, then he had chalk. It's possible, although IMHO quite unlikely, that he found a piece of chalk in the street and decided to write something. Much more likely, IMHO, is that he had chalk with him. So, if the graffito was the Ripper's work, did the murderer routinely carry chalk, possibly as a tool of his job, or was this night somehow special?
        - Ginger

        Comment


        • #49
          Michaelmas term - Wikipedia

          Perhaps a teaching pathologist who had been preparing green boards.

          First murder was close to the London Hospital.

          The second a bit further away.
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Dickere View Post
            Is there any evidence whatsoever that suggests or connects the writing on the wall to the ripper ? I find it hard to believe that someone so elusive would also wander around with a pot of paint and a brush and spend the time to write the message.
            eddowes bloody apron piece found underneath it and the fact that the ripper had been disturbed by a bunch of jews that night while trying to do his thing.and it was written in chalk.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              eddowes bloody apron piece found underneath it and the fact that the ripper had been disturbed by a bunch of jews that night while trying to do his thing.and it was written in chalk.
              The simplest explanation of the writing, considering both the misspelling and the double negative, is that it were written by an undereducated local man. However, disturbance is another question. Can we really believe he would have thought he could get away with evisceration in that laneway? If no, then the motivation for the first murder could have been very different to that of the second.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                The simplest explanation of the writing, considering both the misspelling and the double negative, is that it were written by an undereducated local man. However, disturbance is another question. Can we really believe he would have thought he could get away with evisceration in that laneway? If no, then the motivation for the first murder could have been very different to that of the second.
                I certainly agree the most likely explanation is that this is the work of an uneducated person. If it was written by the murderer and he wanted to be found why not make it a lot bigger. I always had the impression for a long time the script was far larger than it actually was.
                Best Regards,

                Tristan

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                  I certainly agree the most likely explanation is that this is the work of an uneducated person. If it was written by the murderer and he wanted to be found why not make it a lot bigger. I always had the impression for a long time the script was far larger than it actually was.
                  To me, the size of the lettering is irrelevant.
                  Whoever wrote it , meant it to be seen and read whether it was the Murderer or just someone with a grudge against Jewish market stalkers.

                  Also the actual wall it was written on was quite narrow, therefore It would seem that to make it larger you would have to split the lines into either one or two words per line.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by spyglass View Post

                    To me, the size of the lettering is irrelevant.
                    Whoever wrote it , meant it to be seen and read whether it was the Murderer or just someone with a grudge against Jewish market stalkers.

                    Also the actual wall it was written on was quite narrow, therefore It would seem that to make it larger you would have to split the lines into either one or two words per line.
                    I wonder if the location and size meant that it was for a specific market trader, rather than the general public?
                    Best Regards,

                    Tristan

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

                      I wonder if the location and size meant that it was for a specific market trader, rather than the general public?
                      Was the apron also for a specific market trader or the general public too?

                      My guess both were for the police.
                      "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                      - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                        The simplest explanation of the writing, considering both the misspelling and the double negative, is that it were written by an undereducated local man. However, disturbance is another question. Can we really believe he would have thought he could get away with evisceration in that laneway? If no, then the motivation for the first murder could have been very different to that of the second.
                        Or it was an attempt to give that impression. Writing in a way that you want the words to be pronounced, as a means of misdirection - but still making a point (albeit cryptically) is not a new phenomenon in this case.

                        We actually see the exact same behaviour in two of the ripper letters. The ‘From Hell’ and ‘Openshaw’ letters. Re-read the graffiti and those letters out loud in your best Dick van Dyke cockney accent.
                        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                          Was the apron also for a specific market trader or the general public too?

                          My guess both were for the police.
                          I am not convince the two are linked. There is every chance that our man was illiterate and either dumped the apron without being aware of the graffiti or deliberately placed it in front of the it, not knowing what it actually said, so it would be found by the police.
                          Best Regards,

                          Tristan

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Ginger View Post
                            IF the murderer wrote the graffito, then he had chalk. It's possible, although IMHO quite unlikely, that he found a piece of chalk in the street and decided to write something. Much more likely, IMHO, is that he had chalk with him. So, if the graffito was the Ripper's work, did the murderer routinely carry chalk, possibly as a tool of his job, or was this night somehow special?
                            Hmmm, perhaps it's just waiting for the coffee to kick in, but carrying chalk as tool for his job has often led to people suggesting some association with teaching/lecturing blackboards, but it just struck me that perhaps the most common user in the area would have been in market sales, for advertising daily specials and such on "sandwich boards" and writing the items for sale on a board in a shop - so it might have been used by fruit sellers, butchers, etc. I think chalk was used in tailoring too, for marking cloth? It seems to me that chalk was probably pretty common, though it points to someone a above the most down and out.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              That the Mitre Square murderer bothered to cut the apron, and carry on himself a handy piece of chalk, suggests that the chalked message may have been premeditated. So if the message was intended to convey that the need to kill another woman was to be blamed on the Jews getting in the way of the first attempt, then the non-mutilation of the first victim may have been intentional. However, an interrupted murder is how he wanted it to be perceived.

                              Why? Perhaps because that would suggest a murderer who just happened to be hanging around or passing by Berner street, but did not live anywhere near the murder scene. In other words, he did live near the murder scene - quite possibly on Berner street.

                              So after the first murder, with little or no blood on himself, he goes home, possibly changes his coat, and waits for the police whistles. When he hears them, he tells the household that he is going outside to investigate. He returns an hour later.
                              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Nah!
                                My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X