Is Eddowes demise the key?

[Henry Flower]

Monty - yes, one shouted, one chalked. I know that 'Lipski' was also used between Jews, but it did have history of usage as an anti-Semitic insult also. Now, before you let me have it with both barrels, please don't think I'm asserting that

Stride was definitely a Ripper victim
Goulston St was chalked by JTR
JTR was EDL

- none of the above. Merely tiddling some winks out loud

[Monty]

I was referring to the wall writing Henry,

You see anti, I see pro.

No, I think the Lipski call was a negative shout. Not necessarily anti semetic but will not state that for certain.

Now (raises shotgun and aims), get orf my laaaaaand.

Monty

[Henry Flower]

Anti/pro, pro/anti. All I know for sure, Monty, was that Jack was probably anti-pro.

*retires, clutching gunshot wounds*

[Monty]

It was rife in the area Henry,

Pro, anti, Auntie, Pru.

Monty

[Errata]

One reason I can't eliminate the Mitre Square killer from the Stride enquiry is that I have read about genuine double events of more recent years where the similarities between the crimes are far fewer and far weaker than we have here.

Love,

Caz
X

Oh for the love of Christ. I don't know why this is so hard. I don't have the slightest idea who killed Liz Stride. And for the record, NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER. We have guesses, speculations, we don't know. That being said, the entire point of this whole mishugas was to say that it is not ludicrous to see other hands in some of these murders. Not that there were other hands, not that there weren't, but that there are legitimate reasons to question whether or not Jack killed all 5 of these women. Just because I can see the argument for a different killer doesn't mean I believe there was one. There is a tendency for those confronted with an argument for a different killer of one or more of these women to say "No that's stupid." It's not stupid. It is a different opinion because someone concentrates on different elements of the crime.

For the record: The only person I have stated that I actually think was killed by someone else is Mary Kelly. And I've explained why. I don't know who killed Liz Stride. The timing is seductive, but not necessarily significant, and her throat wound is quite a bit different. I can see an argument for her not being a victim of the Ripper. But because she was not mutilated the way the others were, there is very little to compare to the other crimes. My argument is to take her out of the equation. The only thing we can learn from her death is that IF she was killed by the Ripper, then that MAY have triggered him to kill again immediately. So since we all know that, it seems that putting her murder aside and looking at the picture without her in it is a more realistic way to get a picture of the killer. The details of her murder are far more filled with assumptions than facts. If you have to build a theory on five or six assumptions that cannot be proven and have valid alternate explanations, then it's not a very good theory is it?

I am perfectly happy for anyone to believe whatever they want to believe. I will believe what I choose to believe. It works out. But don't put words in my mouth and do not make assumptions because I agree with someone over a technicality. I can see the argument for more than one killer. That does not make me Tom, Lynn, or whoever else, and it doesn't mean I agree with them. It means I see the argument, and in this particular case, I think any dispassionate thinking person should see the argument as well. I don't care if you agree. But you really should be able to at least SEE it.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

A serious set of questions that I really would like a serious attempt at an answer to. Because logically, I see only illogiocal decisions made.

Sir Charles Warren personally directed that the writing on the wall at Goulston Street be eradicated from sight. He feared that the offending line "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" could be the firelighter for a disturbance amongst the local poplace, even going so far as to say that the "property would be wrecked and lives would probobaly have been lost". (HO1244/221/A49301C, f.183)

When it was suggested that the offending writing be covered up until the photographer arrived, this offer was declined because of the fear of the "cover being torn off at once", and the decision was taken to wash the wall of it's written contents.

I have previously suggested that it would not have aroused suspicion if the offending writing were covered up, and guarded by a couple of policemen, in much the same way as policemen blocked and guarded all three entrances to Mitre Square to the poplace. As the writing was not known about for a couple of days, unlike the site of the murder, known, it seems, with a very short space of time, there would have been no reason for any person passing the entrance to the Model Dwellings to stop and stare at two policemen standing there.. and would hardly have attracted a crowd. If so, they would have been quietly moved along. "Nothing to see here Madam. Please move along Sir, thank you"
Sir Charles Warren would have been very aware of this procedure of securing a site with a form of guard, from his years in the Army. So logically, it seems, there was no reasoned argument for him not to have done the above. However... the comment that attracts my attention is the one that he feared the writing could soon be seen from the street, as daylight was fast approaching.

I would like to know how it is possible for a person, walking at a normal pace, towards the place in question, in a straight line, and having to turn their head, would actually be able to read said writing from the street, at a mean distance of 8-12ft, because

a) there would surely have been persons still standing around there protecting the entrance
b) there would have been policemen moving people along if they stopped...
and most telling of all
c) according to the facts we have, the height of the CAPITAL letters were about 3/4", with the others letters sized accordingly.

So how is it possible that Sir Charles Warren believed that this 3/4" writing, (and that was only the capital letters, remember, the rest would, if in accordance with the capital letter height, have been between 1/3" and 1/2" in height be around) if seen by anyone, would cause a riot leading to possible loss of life? It has been suggested that a photographer would have arrived and a decent photograph would not have been able to have been produced until sunrise, at 5.59am. (The News from Whitechapel, Chisholm, DiGrazia and Yost, page 193, published by McFarland and Company, 2002)

So we must presume from this comment that the light would have been insufficient for a camera to have got a decent picture before this time. Ahh, I see. The light would have been insufficient for a close up photograph of this 3/4" written message, yet totally sufficient for a moving human being to be able to read it from 8-12 feet away in the street, whilst bobbing his or her head from side to side dodging the people that would have been standing in the way in any case waiting for the photographer, and what's more, people would have been so incensed to see a piece of cloth covering this tiny message that they knew nothing of, they would have ripped the cloth down in order to see it.

Err.. how would they know what was behind the cloth hiding the offending part of the wall anyway? Who is going to tell them?


Policemen in 1888 have been described as doing their duty to the best of their abilities given the times, hours, training, equipment etc etc. Well, Having Sir Charles Warren at the head really helped. Here was an ex Army Officer used to working out the minutæ of battle plans if need be, yet cannot work out that absolutely nothing untoward would happen if everything was just allowed to carry on in a quiet tone, with sufficient guard around the tiny piece of offending wall. How in heaven's name will a few policemen standing around cause a riot?

NOBODY is going to tell ANYBODY what's on that wall anyway!!!


I, like Errata, above, am perfectly happy for people to believe what they wish to believe about any of this. That is their choice. I, like Errata above, also ask that another argument put forward is seen and accepted in the same light as both Errata and I. As has been written..

I don't care if you agree. But you really should be able to at least SEE it.

Unlike 3/4" high letters in poor light on a wall guarded by people stopping people getting anywhere near what don't know what they are infact looking at in the first place, assuming they are allowed to stop and barge their way through to the massively offending chalk writing.


kindly

Phil

[Monty]

If only Phil was incharge,

Would have been so simple.

Phils post show he either has not seen the dwellings entrance or understands the possibilities of the writing location.

Warren is clear that it was on the jamb. Therefore smack on the entrance. Which means a policeman standing infront is an impossibility. Therefore, again, it will be exposed to those exiting the building (unless you keep the residents inside for the duration. This is workable however would only raise suspicion and rumour, possible fuses).

Covering up is not as simple as one thinks and again would lead to rumour.

Reading is possible however at that location, in the dark? Left till daylight hours then runs a risk.

What I'm trying to say is the writing, if on the jamb, is exposed to the street. That said, the closing of Goulston Street from Wentworth to New Goulston Streets should, in my opinion, have occurred with access monitored. So Phil has a very valid point.

That said, Warren (though I suspect it was really Arnold who drove for this) had the writing removed. His concern was the policing of the area and this act may show his feeling on the writing, that it wasn't a clue.

In my opinion it was a grave error. Halses offers of covers and line removal shows how important he felt the writing may (and I stress may) be. I know the City police took such writing seriously, even those pieces which are obvious frauds.

However, this is no proof Halse felt the writing was placed by the kiler, just that it may have been (again, I stress the word may).

The bottom line is that Goulston Street is Warrens jurisdiction and his descision to remove was his. His reasons are valid, he wanted to eradicate any risk of riot, and as frustrating as it is, his concern for more lives over one which has sadly already gone is obvious and understandable.

Monty

[Barnaby]

If the police simply picked up the bloody apron and took a "nothing to see here" approach (why even noticeably guard the area?),they could have easily waited until daylight to take the picture without attracting much attention. Of course, this line of thinking assumes there is nothing in the grafitti itself that would necessarily link it to the murders.

That Warren vehemently wanted it gone suggests otherwise. I suspect that the writing looked fresh. Residents might notice that "hey, this wasn't here yesterday" and, combined with the news of the double murder, riot.

If the police really thought that the grafitti had been there for an extended period of time there would have been no need to take such draconian measures to erase the message. Simply pick up the apron and leave the scene.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

I have seen the building. I saw it many many years ago. Possibly , although I do not know, before you did for the first time. Please do not assume. I won't.

The height and placing of the writing was not the given reason for it not being covered up. See previous post as to Warren's reasoning there. (it would be ripped down)

Now, as regards the entrance, and stopping people coming out from the Dwellings... there was possibly a back way. Long referred to it in his testimony.

Foreman of the Jury: Was there any possibility of a stranger escaping from the house?
Long: Not from the front
Foreman: Did you not know about the back?
Long: No. it was the first time I'd been on duty there.

(Daily Telegraph, Friday 12th October, as transcribed and shown in "The News from Whitechapel", by Chisholm, DiGrazia and Yost, page 184.)

So the possibility is there, that they could have been directed out that way, by a friendly policeman (At 5.30a-m- I doubt there would have been floods of them in 30 mins or so!)

Covering it up would lead to rumour? So what? Seeing a policeman or two arresting two local skinheads leads to rumours Monty. Two policemen knocking on Mrs Jones door and walking in, staying for 20 minutes and leaving with her in a car leads to rumour. So what? 12 Policemen doing a drugs raid on a nightclub full of The Kray gang mob starts a rumour.. and possibly then a riot!

But as I said...nobody had a clue what was on that wall, and didn't need to know either. And as I said at the start...

Please tell me how ANYONE is going to be able to

a) READ the writing from a distance of 8 to 12 feet. without stopping, or if they do, barging their way past all and sundry and peering directly at 3/4" (maximum) height writing, in poor light? (Light being so poor a photographer couldn't take a CLOSE UP picture in it until dawn) to look at a thing they didn't know what was? Without ONE policeman (amongst how many?) stopping them? That's curiosity gone mad.

b) why would the sight of policemen naturally assume that something anti-semetic was about? Warren feared the anti-semitism factor.. but if they couldnt get near enough... they would never know. They couldn't get near enough to read the tiny writing Monty.. so how would Warren's fear of a riot be a reality or even be possible? It would take an incredible escalation of things at 5.30am for that to happen.

c) Warren was ex-army. He must have known all about securing a site. I thank you for saying I have a valid point. however, securing the site in the way explained would have been, imho, far easier than blocking off the entire street. As little fuss as possible. Don't want to arouse suspicion. It could cause a riot. Logical too.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

If the police simply picked up the bloody apron and took a "nothing to see here" approach (why even noticeably guard the area?),they could have easily waited until daylight to take the picture without attracting much attention. Of course, this line of thinking assumes there is nothing in the grafitti itself that would necessarily link it to the murders.

Hello Barnaby,

Yes, I agree with this. And yes, your further response about the time factor here whether the writing is new or not does enter into the equation, I agree.
However, I still feel that with writing 3/4" in height, in the time period between when the order to wash off the writing and a photographer would be able to talk a photo (dawn, 5.59am), people just wouldn't be able to see the anti-semetic writing.

kindly

Phil

[Henry Flower]

Phil, I think you're asking a valid question, absolutely. At this stage though I am puzzled by something else: assuming the main body of the text, the non-capitals, to have been roughly 1/2 an inch in height - has anyone actually tried to write a legible message in chalk on brickwork, with the letters little over one cm in height? After a word or two the chalk is so blunted that letters of that size because a jumble.

My question then is about Victorian chalk: what form did it come in? Sticks of roughly the same girth as our modern blackboard chalk? What type of person would have chalk handy? What type of profession used chalk on a day-to-day basis? Would market traders use chalk on their temporary hoardings the way they do now? Perhaps Jack was not a sailor, but a tailor?

[Wickerman]

Perhaps Jack was not a sailor, but a tailor?

Henry, tailor's chalk is generally a round, flat disk, for drawing lines not writing.



Druitt might have carried chalk.....
(just saying)


Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Henry,

How Brown ran some experiments some years back, I think his findings are on the dissertations page.

I did some experiments myself at Goulston Street. Was legible but not clear.

Modern chalk is of a differing compound today I believe. Has gypsum so I've read. Tailors chalk has a talc compound making it easier to remove from cloth and leaves a more 'powdery' effect.

Now many years ago I raised the question on if the floor of the entrance was checked for residue. Obviously there will be no answer, if there can be one, it was merely a passing thought.

Far more people would have carried chalk and there are chalked messages in the area today, some lasting years. I've found such chalkings in Parliment Alley, Puma Court (reminants still there after a couple of years) and Rob and I found the words "3 Juwes" at the back of Wentworth dwellings which was still there when I looked early last year (though it must be noted that its undercover and sheltered from the elements).

Monty

[Errata]

Phil, I think you're asking a valid question, absolutely. At this stage though I am puzzled by something else: assuming the main body of the text, the non-capitals, to have been roughly 1/2 an inch in height - has anyone actually tried to write a legible message in chalk on brickwork, with the letters little over one cm in height? After a word or two the chalk is so blunted that letters of that size because a jumble.

My question then is about Victorian chalk: what form did it come in? Sticks of roughly the same girth as our modern blackboard chalk? What type of person would have chalk handy? What type of profession used chalk on a day-to-day basis? Would market traders use chalk on their temporary hoardings the way they do now? Perhaps Jack was not a sailor, but a tailor?

1/3 of London is built on chalk. A rock could have achieved the desired effect.

[Stephen Thomas]

My question then is about Victorian chalk: what form did it come in? Sticks of roughly the same girth as our modern blackboard chalk? What type of person would have chalk handy? What type of profession used chalk on a day-to-day basis? Would market traders use chalk on their temporary hoardings the way they do now? Perhaps Jack was not a sailor, but a tailor?

You're a smart guy, Henry

You know the answers to all those questions so why are you asking them?

The tailor argument has been done to death elsewhere.