Jack's Escape Route?

[Enigma]

How would the graffitist know that Eddowes gave her name as 'Nothing' to the police? To me, this does not seem to be something that would be discussed in the conversation between Eddowes and JtR, if in fact it was he who wrote the graffito.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, let me help to try to remove those splinters I hate to see a grown man suffer.

There are a number of points to raise and questions to be asked not only with the graffiti but with the depositing of the apron piece. dealing first with the graffiti

There is no evidence of any graffiti being left at any of the other crime scenes.

Agreed.

The Graffiti has no logical reference to any of the murders

Agreed.

Why would the killer write a message in such an out-of-the-way, location if he wanted it to be seen and found and connected to the murders?

Fair point.

The same goes for the apron piece why deposit it at that location when it might not have ever been found this leads me to be suspicious as to exactly how the Pc came to find it and decide it was of evidential value because at the time of discovery I don't believe he was aware of the Mitre Square murder.

Im unsure if Long was aware of the murder when he found the apron. To be honest, I’d assumed that he was but I have no evidence for that (if evidence exists)

If the apron was deposited by the killer why did he wait so long before depositing it, when there would have been innumerable more public locations between Mitre Square and Goulston Street again it might never have been found, Why would the killer have taken such a risk of being stopped by police and found with a bloody knife and a bloody apron piece? and if he did take the organs away in the apron piece what happened to the organs ? I don't buy the suggestion that he went home and then came back out again to deposit the apron piece that would have been fraught with danger for him.

Very fair point.

As the apron piece was found minus the organs and there is no plausible explanation as to what happened to the organs we must rightly assume that the organs were never taken away in the apron piece, modern-day medical tests have proved this to be correct, so there has to be alternative explanations, the obvious one is as I have continuously postulated that being the killer did not deposit it.

Fair point but we disagree on whether the killer deposited it. I have a high level of confidence that he did but I’m certainly not keen on the suggestion that he carried away a kidney in it. I prefer the suggestions that he took it for a clean up or perhaps because he’d injured himself. I’m not certain about either.

If the same killer and that killer was responsible for one or more of the letters sent to the police surely if he had taken the apron piece he could have sent it to the police with a note attached that would have proved its authenticity

Not sure about that.

I am sorry to have to keep saying this but in my opinion, the killer did not write the graffiti nor did he deposit the apron piece, the old accepted theory surrounding this part of the Eddowes murder does clearly not stand up to close scrutiny

I’m undecided on the message but see no other explanation than the killer depositing the apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Im going to ask Admin to preserve this message and response for posterity as we’ve never agreed on so much.

[FISHY1118]

Well, let me help to try to remove those splinters I hate to see a grown man suffer.

There are a number of points to raise and questions to be asked not only with the graffiti but with the depositing of the apron piece. dealing first with the graffiti

There is no evidence of any graffiti being left at any of the other crime scenes

The Graffiti has no logical reference to any of the murders

Why would the killer write a message in such an out-of-the-way, location if he wanted it to be seen and found and connected to the murders?

The same goes for the apron piece why deposit it at that location when it might not have ever been found this leads me to be suspicious as to exactly how the Pc came to find it and decide it was of evidential value because at the time of discovery I don't believe he was aware of the Mitre Square murder

If the apron was deposited by the killer why did he wait so long before depositing it, when there would have been innumerable more public locations between Mitre Square and Goulston Street again it might never have been found, Why would the killer have taken such a risk of being stopped by police and found with a bloody knife and a bloody apron piece? and if he did take the organs away in the apron piece what happened to the organs ? I don't buy the suggestion that he went home and then came back out again to deposit the apron piece that would have been fraught with danger for him.

As the apron piece was found minus the organs and there is no plausible explanation as to what happened to the organs we must rightly assume that the organs were never taken away in the apron piece, modern-day medical tests have proved this to be correct, so there has to be alternative explanations, the obvious one is as I have continuously postulated that being the killer did not deposit it

If the same killer and that killer was responsible for one or more of the letters sent to the police surely if he had taken the apron piece he could have sent it to the police with a note attached that would have proved its authenticity

I am sorry to have to keep saying this but in my opinion, the killer did not write the graffiti nor did he deposit the apron piece, the old accepted theory surrounding this part of the Eddowes murder does clearly not stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is just pure speculation and susposition on your behalf trevor , all those things you mentioned could just as easily been done by the killer. We have been through this befor over and over again .

''Old accepted theories'' and things ''Not standing up to scrutiny'' are just your opinions ''Not proven'', ''Not fact'', ''Not authenticated'' . You should also pay heed to this from Jeff.



''That is the thing with JtR, so much of our "conclusions" are determined in how we deal with information we really don't know; and with each guess we make we head down a different path, sometimes not realizing just how many other roads there were to travel.''

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them (unless they are school masters ) and, to take the time to write it he must have wanted it to be seen, so why so small? What is the difficulty factor of writing in chalk on a brick wall in cursive in the dark with the capitals only 3/4" high. Sounds more like a daylight task which wasn't washed off because it was too small for most people to notice?

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I’m just about to head out so I don’t have time to check but can you (or anyone else) remember there being mention of the height above the ground that the message was situated? Maybe I’m mis-remembering but something is telling me that it was unusually low down?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Herlock,

Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them (unless they are school masters ) and, to take the time to write it he must have wanted it to be seen, so why so small? What is the difficulty factor of writing in chalk on a brick wall in cursive in the dark with the capitals only 3/4" high. Sounds more like a daylight task which wasn't washed off because it was too small for most people to notice?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

"Writing "nothing" being the name she gave to police", implies that JtR was a policeman. Is this a serious proposal for any of us?

I don't see the carrying of chalk as a problem - an experienced butcher/slaughterer working in the daytime as a butcher, would be quite likely to carry chalk in his pocket, for marking up meat prices on a board. He would be thoroughly used to writing in capitals about 3/4 inches high. These were a body of men, highly skilled with the use of a knife, who were always high on the list of potential suspects for the police.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Abby,

You certainly could be right and I’ve mostly favoured that it was written by the killer but whenever I sit and think about it doubts come up. What if’s and maybe’s everywhere. I just can’t help wondering why he didn’t just write a more obvious message mentioning the murder itself or prostitutes? I’m getting splinters from spending 35+ years on the fence.

Well, let me help to try to remove those splinters I hate to see a grown man suffer.

There are a number of points to raise and questions to be asked not only with the graffiti but with the depositing of the apron piece. dealing first with the graffiti

There is no evidence of any graffiti being left at any of the other crime scenes

The Graffiti has no logical reference to any of the murders

Why would the killer write a message in such an out-of-the-way, location if he wanted it to be seen and found and connected to the murders?

The same goes for the apron piece why deposit it at that location when it might not have ever been found this leads me to be suspicious as to exactly how the Pc came to find it and decide it was of evidential value because at the time of discovery I don't believe he was aware of the Mitre Square murder

If the apron was deposited by the killer why did he wait so long before depositing it, when there would have been innumerable more public locations between Mitre Square and Goulston Street again it might never have been found, Why would the killer have taken such a risk of being stopped by police and found with a bloody knife and a bloody apron piece? and if he did take the organs away in the apron piece what happened to the organs ? I don't buy the suggestion that he went home and then came back out again to deposit the apron piece that would have been fraught with danger for him.

As the apron piece was found minus the organs and there is no plausible explanation as to what happened to the organs we must rightly assume that the organs were never taken away in the apron piece, modern-day medical tests have proved this to be correct, so there has to be alternative explanations, the obvious one is as I have continuously postulated that being the killer did not deposit it

If the same killer and that killer was responsible for one or more of the letters sent to the police surely if he had taken the apron piece he could have sent it to the police with a note attached that would have proved its authenticity

I am sorry to have to keep saying this but in my opinion, the killer did not write the graffiti nor did he deposit the apron piece, the old accepted theory surrounding this part of the Eddowes murder does clearly not stand up to close scrutiny

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

[QUOTE=GBinOz;n800991]


Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them, unless they are a lecturer at the London Hospital preparing for the Michaelmass Term.

QUOTE]

FIFY

[GBinOz]

What if’s and maybe’s everywhere. I just can’t help wondering why he didn’t just write a more obvious message mentioning the murder itself or prostitutes?

Hi Herlock,

Just to brainstorm, perhaps "nothing" referred to Eddowes, being the name she gave police. That would make more sense of the content. Other considerations are that he would have had to have had intentions in advance to write the GSG, as most people do not carry chalk about with them (unless they are school masters ) and, to take the time to write it he must have wanted it to be seen, so why so small? What is the difficulty factor of writing in chalk on a brick wall in cursive in the dark with the capitals only 3/4" high. Sounds more like a daylight task which wasn't washed off because it was too small for most people to notice?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
Pretty much agree with everything you say but to me the GSG was probably written by the killer, especially considering the circs of the night of the double event. The ripper was interupted by an apparently jewish looking person in schwartz, that angererd him to the point of shouting a jewish slur at him. And that the GSG disparaged jews pretty much seals the deal for me.

Hi Abby,

You certainly could be right and I’ve mostly favoured that it was written by the killer but whenever I sit and think about it doubts come up. What if’s and maybe’s everywhere. I just can’t help wondering why he didn’t just write a more obvious message mentioning the murder itself or prostitutes? I’m getting splinters from spending 35+ years on the fence.

[FISHY1118]

You started the argument and anyone viewing our exchanges can see that all the infantile remarks were made by you and that none was made by me.

Just as anyone can also see through these exchanges what a ridiculous statement you made regarding the man seen with lawende.

That you have been shown to be the case by another poster backs up my original reply

I guess the good night sleep didn't help.

Don't let your opinions get mixed up with the facts. Rookie mistake.

[Abby Normal]

Even though I’ve mostly slightly favoured that the writing was written by the killer I think it’s worth us remembering the obvious. That the writing in no way mentions or even hints at being linked to the murders. Only the positioning of the apron provides a possible link. We know that anti-semitism was rife at the time and, if I recall correctly, someone posted on here a while ago that graffiti was fairly commonplace at the time. So it’s reasonable to assume that some of that graffiti might have been anti-Semitic. So it has to be a possibility that the graffito was already there.

Now the question could (and no doubt will) be asked “why did no one rub it off, especially in a building with Jewish occupants?” A fair question. But here are 4 points/questions that I think are worth considering. Apologies to all for stating the obvious.

Firstly, I grew up in the seventies. Racist words and insults were sadly commonplace. I recall seeing racist graffiti on walls, bus stops, written into the grime on vans and lorries and even in the school playground (floor and walls). I can’t recall black people going around wiping it off to any real extent. All that I’m saying is that perhaps no one bothered rubbing out a small piece of graffiti which, when all said and done, is hardly the worst example of its kind. Maybe it was a case of people thinking “someone else will rub it off,” but no one actually did. Perhaps because of this it had been there for two or three days and if the murder hadn’t occurred ‘Mrs Cohen’ would have decided that she might as well be the one to rub it off? We don’t know.

Secondly, and this won’t appeal to those who don’t believe in coincidences (you might as well say that you don’t believe in trees) it could have been the case that it was written that night by some drunk bloke coming home from the pub.

Thirdly, it has to be asked why, if he did write the message, didn’t the killer write something obviously about the murder; with the cloth confirming it as genuine? Why didn’t he mention the murder itself? With this ambiguous message he risked the police thinking that he’d just by chance dumped the cloth near to a piece of anti-Semitic graffiti. Surely he’d have realised that the police would have asked the same questions that we do today? How much simpler and more effective to do an “I’m Jack - type message?”

Fourthly, and very obviously, why did he write a message after Eddowes but not after the other murders? He could easily have written one in the backyard of number 29 or in Mary Kelly’s room (FM controversy aside of course) Yet he chooses to stop and do one on the very night when the police are looking for the killer of two women, especially if it wasn’t there when Long passed at 2.00. Why the risk?

Surely we all have to admit to having doubts on whether it was written by the killer or not? Like many on here I’ve been interested in this case and have been reading about it and thinking about it for over 35 years and I still can’t make my mind up on this issue (and others) So it beats me how anyone can be confident on this. On what basis? We have so little to go on.

So when someone asks - was the graffito written by the ripper, my answer’s the same. I haven’t a clue. Maybe….maybe not.

Hi Herlock
Pretty much agree with everything you say but to me the GSG was probably written by the killer, especially considering the circs of the night of the double event. The ripper was interupted by an apparently jewish looking person in schwartz, that angererd him to the point of shouting a jewish slur at him. And that the GSG disparaged jews pretty much seals the deal for me.

[c.d.]

We know that anti-semitism was rife at the time and, if I recall correctly, someone posted on here a while ago that graffiti was fairly commonplace at the time. So it’s reasonable to assume that some of that graffiti might have been anti-Semitic. So it has to be a possibility that the graffito was already there.

If this is true (and it most likely is) then sure as shooting the other side (the Jews) fired back and and there was pro Jewish sentiment expressed as well in the graffiti in Whitechapel. That is just human nature.

c.d.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even though I’ve mostly slightly favoured that the writing was written by the killer I think it’s worth us remembering the obvious. That the writing in no way mentions or even hints at being linked to the murders. Only the positioning of the apron provides a possible link. We know that anti-semitism was rife at the time and, if I recall correctly, someone posted on here a while ago that graffiti was fairly commonplace at the time. So it’s reasonable to assume that some of that graffiti might have been anti-Semitic. So it has to be a possibility that the graffito was already there.

Now the question could (and no doubt will) be asked “why did no one rub it off, especially in a building with Jewish occupants?” A fair question. But here are 4 points/questions that I think are worth considering. Apologies to all for stating the obvious.

Firstly, I grew up in the seventies. Racist words and insults were sadly commonplace. I recall seeing racist graffiti on walls, bus stops, written into the grime on vans and lorries and even in the school playground (floor and walls). I can’t recall black people going around wiping it off to any real extent. All that I’m saying is that perhaps no one bothered rubbing out a small piece of graffiti which, when all said and done, is hardly the worst example of its kind. Maybe it was a case of people thinking “someone else will rub it off,” but no one actually did. Perhaps because of this it had been there for two or three days and if the murder hadn’t occurred ‘Mrs Cohen’ would have decided that she might as well be the one to rub it off? We don’t know.

Secondly, and this won’t appeal to those who don’t believe in coincidences (you might as well say that you don’t believe in trees) it could have been the case that it was written that night by some drunk bloke coming home from the pub.

Thirdly, it has to be asked why, if he did write the message, didn’t the killer write something obviously about the murder; with the cloth confirming it as genuine? Why didn’t he mention the murder itself? With this ambiguous message he risked the police thinking that he’d just by chance dumped the cloth near to a piece of anti-Semitic graffiti. Surely he’d have realised that the police would have asked the same questions that we do today? How much simpler and more effective to do an “I’m Jack - type message?”

Fourthly, and very obviously, why did he write a message after Eddowes but not after the other murders? He could easily have written one in the backyard of number 29 or in Mary Kelly’s room (FM controversy aside of course) Yet he chooses to stop and do one on the very night when the police are looking for the killer of two women, especially if it wasn’t there when Long passed at 2.00. Why the risk?

Surely we all have to admit to having doubts on whether it was written by the killer or not? Like many on here I’ve been interested in this case and have been reading about it and thinking about it for over 35 years and I still can’t make my mind up on this issue (and others) So it beats me how anyone can be confident on this. On what basis? We have so little to go on.

So when someone asks - was the graffito written by the ripper, my answer’s the same. I haven’t a clue. Maybe….maybe not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that suggestion cannot be dismissed!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Agreed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats fine, because there’s no evidence that he was a sailor.

But that suggestion cannot be dismissed!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk