our killer been local

[harry]

If the piece of apron had been dropped,it would likely have landed on the pavement.Had it been thrown it would probably have ended on the floor further into the building.Why not just drop it into the gutter?Why choose an entrance to a building to dispose of it?It was going to be noticed whatever.It was no less a help wherever it landed.I think it was discarded without thought .It has no relation to anything,only the killer having passed that way.

[Lechmere]

Wickerman
True, I guess it is possible the killer was looking for another victim to make it a triple event.
I guess it is possible that rather that walk off to a safer location (as for example the distance between Berner Street and Mitre Square), he lingered in the near vicinity for this third victim.
Possible, but I would tend to regard this explanation as being extremely unlikely.

I would suggest that the PC Spicer story should be treated with caution and I personally would not be inclined to use it as supporting evidence.

The apparent ‘freshness’ of the graffiti was attested to by PC Halse.

Thinking that the killer would have certainly written any chalked message in a large script is another instance of presuming that we can understand exactly what was going on in his mind when (if) he wrote it.

I think we do have grounds for believing that PC Long was incorrect in stating that the apron was not in place at 2.20 am.

• The night of the ‘Double Event’ was Long’s first on the beat in the East End, as he had just been seconded from A Division to beef up the police manpower as a result of the Ripper scare.
Accordingly he would have been unfamiliar with his beat, and could well have resented being there and so been less than attentive to his duties. Though this would not be something he would admit to at an inquest.

• Less than a year later Long was dismissed from the police for being drunk on duty, so he was not an exemplary officer.

• Long discovered the apron at about 2.55 am, but he said he only found out about the murder in Mitre Square after this. The murder was discovered at 1.45 am and Long found out about it at about 3.00 am, presumably from PC 190H who was the next policeman to arrive at Goulston Street.
It seems strange that it took an hour and fifteen minutes for Long to become aware of a murder that was committed just 500 yards away from his beat. I think this is suggestive that he skiving during that period.

• Long said he passed down Goulston Street at 2.20 am, the same time that Halse says he was in Goulston Street. But they did not see each other. It could be that their timings were out, or perhaps Long was not there.

Tom
I would characterise Charles Lechmere as an ’anonymous local’ in the context of the investigation - in that he wasn’t suspected and I would suggest, from what can be discerned, that he was not even investigated.
He was heavily involved in the Nichols case but was overlooked as he was seemingly insignificant and of no importance. This situation prevailed in later popular accounts of the murder with such matters as the discrepancy between his and Mizen’s varying versions of their conversation, the covering of Nichols’ wounds, and the excessive time he allowed himself to get from his home to Bucks Row being passed over, while an exonerating and incorrect tarpaulin scavenging enterprise became part of the accepted version of events.
I would suggest this was because he came across a non-descript anonymous local with even his real name remaining unknown for over 110 years.

Fleetwood
Just a quick one, you said to Fisherman
‘Cross deliberately attempted to mislead the police as to his identity by means of giving them his address and a surname he had used at times.’ There is no evidence that Charles Lechmere ever used the name Cross, apart from after finding Polly Nichols’ dead body.

I would prefer it if other suspects or issues could be discussed without Charles Lechmere being brought into it.

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to determine this, and if this killer was the author, why write so small?
Aren't messages typically broadcast 'loud' across the wall?, not squeezed onto a couple of bricks, like a whisper.

At the Eddowes Inquest Daniel Halse stated that the size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. I too thought this meant three quarters of an inch, but now think it was probably meant to be three to four inches each capital letter...

Pat...................

Hi Pat.

That thought occurred to me many years ago, which was one of the many reason's I ordered a copy of the original inquest.

If the 3/4 had been written in a report then we might assume it is ourselves who had misinterpreted the officers writing. However, the 3/4 was spoken at the inquest and "three-quarters" sounds nothing like "three to four", which is why I abandoned that idea.

P.S. this is how it was worded in the Daily News:
"...The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion."

[curious]

because the killer feared that he was in danger of being caught with it in his possession.

Hi, Bridewell,
Doesn't that mean that you are seeing the killer as a thinker, as someone who was conscious of such matters?

Any further thoughts on that?

Thx,
curious

[Errata]

The writing was done by a Jewish schoolkid, Simon DeLafuente, a resident in the building, hours before it was found.

Bravo! That has to be the most culturally confused name I have ever seen. Unless of course it was Simon "Runs with Buffalo" De La Fuente.

[Scott Nelson]

The writing was done by a Jewish schoolkid, Simon DeLafuente, a resident in the building, hours before it was found.

[Graham]

There was no sink in the stairwell.

You are correct. I was confusing this with the sink that was come across by Major Smith in Dorset Street, after he had visited the Model Dwellings to inspect the Graffito. He claimed that the sink still contained blood-stained water and assumed that the killer had washed his hands there.

Graham

[Monty]

There was no sink in the stairwell.

The police did not believe the killer wrote the writing, nor did they believe it was not. It was a clue to be investigated.

There was no chalk residue at the scene.

The dado was not noted as narrow, descriptive and photographic evidence supports this.

Warren is clear as to the writings location.


There are lot of myths connected to this incident, some clearly require repetition to serve a ends.

Monty

[Paddy]

Wickerman.

I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to determine this, and if this killer was the author, why write so small?
Aren't messages typically broadcast 'loud' across the wall?, not squeezed onto a couple of bricks, like a whisper.

At the Eddowes Inquest Daniel Halse stated that the size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. I too thought this meant three quarters of an inch, but now think it was probably meant to be three to four inches each capital letter...

Pat...................

[Tom_Wescott]

I don’t know why Tom says:
‘the graffiti being legit poses a problem for those who want to paint the Ripper with the brush of the anonymous East End schlub who was no different than any killer before or sense. This ideology is a product of the now largely discredited serial killer profiling movement of the 1980's and 90's.’

I think the killer as probably responsible for the graffiti and I favour an anonymous local culprit. I would also dispute that the ‘profiling movement’ has been discredited, although I’m not totally sure what Tom means by this.

Hi Lech. You don't favor an 'anonymous' suspect. You favor Cross. I'm referring primarily to those who long ago gave up the hunt for the Ripper and prefer just to sling arrows at the rest of us. They like their case nice and tidy so dispose of any evidence that gets in the way of that.

As for serial killer profiling, it is thus far a failed experiment. It has put innocent men behind bars (Wayne Williams) and has let guilty men walk free (Gary Ridgway and countless others) but has not caught a single serial killer. This is because it's extremely flawed. There are many reasons for this, but chief among them is the fact that the data has been drawn from only about 30-50 killers, all of whom were captured, many of whom were captured easily and early on in their 'careers' and thus could not possibly help to shed light on the Ripper mystery. The fact that no two 'profilers' can agree on anything about the Ripper should tell you something. As different as Cross was to Le Grand or Le Grand was to Tumblety or Tumblety was to Kozminski, we could all find a profile to fit out suspects if we so choose.

That's not to say certain things profilers say aren't true, but they're so general as to be common sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to determine this, and if this killer was the author, why write so small?
Aren't messages typically broadcast 'loud' across the wall?, not squeezed onto a couple of bricks, like a whisper.

If the author were not the killer, it would have been written large on a larger wall because the author would want it seen. The Ripper on the other hand was hiding and had this very narrow piece of dado on which to write. He clearly knew it would be discovered and taken for his writing because of the apron. Of course he didn't count on the second-guessing of 21st century would-be sleuths.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Graham,

I don't suppose the entryway was lit up. But if there was enough natural light for the constables to suppose they would have seen the graffiti had it been there, and there was enough natural light for it to have been written in the first place, then it reasonably follows that it wasn't pitch black out. It was almost black in the passageway of Dutfield's Yard because the passageway was so narrow that the buildings blocked out the moon, but apparently this wasn't the case in Goulston Street.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

There's no difference between the organs and the apron. It delivers the same message. And there shouldn't be an assumption that he was trying to blame the Jews for anything. As for serial killers writing graffiti, there's a bunch of them, but such discussion presupposes the Ripper was a common serial killer. As for influences for this action I can think of two:

1) Following the Chapman murder there were two rumors circulating - that of a 'double event' (i.e. a second victim was found), and that graffiti written by the killer was found near the crime scene. Neither happened, but miraculously, they did occur following the end of Chapman's inquest.

2) The year before the Ripper murders the first Sherlock Holmes story appeared and was instantly popular. It involved a murder and a mysterious and ambiguous piece of graffiti written in chalk.

Either or both of these would have been the Ripper's inspiration.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The placement of the apron points to a local killer because the movement - Berner Street, Mitre Square, Goulston Street – suggests a return to his residence in the direction from Mitre Square to Goulston Street to wherever.

But how do you know he was not looking for victim No. 3?

Remember PC Spicer's story of who he found, where he found them, and on this particular night?
Police records must have been full of beat constables pulling in suspects off the street, are we correct to ignore this particular claim?

The graffiti supposedly appeared to be fresh.

I'm not sure how anyone is supposed to determine this, and if this killer was the author, why write so small?
Aren't messages typically broadcast 'loud' across the wall?, not squeezed onto a couple of bricks, like a whisper.

[Bridewell]

The Possibility That Long Was Mistaken.

I think too much credence is given to the notion that there was an inordinate length of time between the Eddowes murder and the placing of the apron piece in the passage leading to the New Model Dwellings. That view is wholly dependent on the accuracy of Pc Long's recall.

Long says that the apron piece was not there when he made his previous round at 2.20am - but was he as certain of that as he claimed? Even if he was that certain, was he actually right?

When he found the apron section he says that "Above it on the wall was written in chalk, 'The Jews are etc'". Yet when the coroner questions him about this graffito, he replies, "I could not say whether they were recently written". Why couldn't he if he was there only 30 minutes previously, when the one was so close to the other? Did he check the area thoroughly or not?

Either Long was observant or he unobservant. He can't have been both. How is he certain that the apron piece wasn't there previously, but simultaneously uncertain as to whether or not the graffito had been recently written? The graffito was above the apron; the apron was beneath the graffito which may, or may not (Long doesn't know)have been there at 2.20am. There is, to my mind, every possibility that the apron piece was there but that Long failed to see it, for whatever reason. Much more likely that it was there and he didn't notice it, than that the killer stayed on the streets within 400 yards of the murder site for an hour or more in possession of incriminating evidence.

Witnesses can be certain they are right and yet be mistaken; police witnesses are not exempt from that possibility. The most likely scenario, I think, is that the killer was a local man who was able to get off the streets to a safe location within a very short time of each murder. The apron piece was dumped, either because it had served its purpose or because the killer feared that he was in danger of being caught with it in his possession.