Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • c.d.
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?
    And throw in a generous helping of adrenaline for good measure.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    I've just found another post that estimates the height of the graffiti at 3 to 4 feet, so Dave's photo and 'brushed by people's shoulders as they walked by' may be correct for height. However, Warren states it was on the jamb of the doorway rather than on the wall inside. It was supposedly three lines covering only 2 to 3 bricks, so that would fit in with it being the jamb. Were it on the wall one would think it would have been bigger, as photoshopped onto Dave's photo.

    Cheers, George
    Last edited by GBinOz; 09-23-2021, 02:04 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenway
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    Right photo location, but the writing was on the jamb of the doorway and was erased before a photo could be taken.

    As to the graffito, it was small, chalked in rounded letters similar to a schoolboy's hand, covering an area of two or three bricks only. And as such, its appearance was negligible.

    Detective Halse said at the inquest ' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall' and as recorded in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 'The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white'

    In a confidential memorandum from Sir Charles Warren to Henry Mathews, we find specific mention of the location:
    Subject: 'The writing on the wall'

    '...I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.


    There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.....'

    Cheers, George
    The evidence seems contradictory to me - Warren suggests it's on the jamb, but Halse said it was on the black facing of the wall, with the bricks above being white. In the photo the jamb is all black, and the black below white wall is the inside wall. I would tend to go with Halse.

    I think the writing is a little big in the picture but I think the location is pretty good - I remember a suggestion that the writing could be 'brushed by people's shoulders as they walked by' or similar.

    All the best

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Greenway View Post

    Interesting picture - I believe that's about the right height for the writing. Is it based on an actual image of the location?

    It was raining that night, so if he wanted to leave a message in chalk, he'd have to find a surface that was dry.

    All the best
    Right photo location, but the writing was on the jamb of the doorway and was erased before a photo could be taken.

    As to the graffito, it was small, chalked in rounded letters similar to a schoolboy's hand, covering an area of two or three bricks only. And as such, its appearance was negligible.

    Detective Halse said at the inquest ' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall' and as recorded in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 'The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white'

    In a confidential memorandum from Sir Charles Warren to Henry Mathews, we find specific mention of the location:
    Subject: 'The writing on the wall'

    '...I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.


    There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.....'

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Greenway View Post

    Interesting picture - I believe that's about the right height for the writing. Is it based on an actual image of the location?

    It was raining that night, so if he wanted to leave a message in chalk, he'd have to find a surface that was dry.

    All the best
    Right location.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    I don't think the message was necessarily vague in what it was trying to convey, but its significance to the murders was certainly vague.

    When you look at most communications left by serial killers, they always tend to have some connection to the killings, even an oblique mention. In this case, the author took a rather weak jab at the Jews and that was it. There was absolutely nothing to be gleaned from this, apart from the idea he had anti-semitic tendencies. That would theoretically rule out Jewish suspects, but what if he was a self-hating Jew? What if he was a Jew trying to frame a gentile?

    I think the lack of reference to the murders will forever leave the GSG's validity up to interpretation.
    i couldnt disagree more.
    to me it does have reference to the murders, disparaging jews that disturbed the ripper that night. thats one of the reasons i think it was definitely by the killer. and contrary to your point..many times grafitti left by killers are sometimes extremely vague : mansin murders had pigs and helter skelter, one serial killer left smiley faces, another killer wrote on the victims walls "she saved him, can they save her" night stalker drew pentagrams, none of which reference the actual murders at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenway
    replied
    Originally posted by DJA View Post

    Click image for larger version

Name:	JTR Goulston facia graffito.jpg
Views:	91
Size:	194.6 KB
ID:	769088
    Interesting picture - I believe that's about the right height for the writing. Is it based on an actual image of the location?

    It was raining that night, so if he wanted to leave a message in chalk, he'd have to find a surface that was dry.

    All the best

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Well, I guess it worked Trevor, because it was found by the police and linked to the killer.

    Can i clarify the apron piece was linked to the victim that is a know fact, it is conjecture to say that it was linked to the killer

    We don't know how far the murderer lived from any of the murder sites, so in most instances he was always carrying incriminating evidence, whether it was a bloody knife or innards (although I won't open up that can of worms with you! ) That's the element of risk that comes with the territory.

    But he didnt need to take that risk

    However, if PC Long is to be trusted, the apron didn't appear until over an hour after the murder. Do you think it was simply overlooked by PC Long or was it deposited later?
    Thats a very good question which has no defintive answer there are a number of different explanations being postulated and I am glad you say trusted in relation to Pc Long

    1. It was there and he missed it
    2. It was not there when he passed
    3. It was deposited there by the victim
    4. It was deposited by Dc Halse who then promts Pc Long to check all the doorways and then he finds the apron piece despite them both stating they never saw each other in Goulston Street

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I think one should also take into account "signature killings" whereby a killer will leave something at a crime scene which will easliy be found and readily identifable to the killer by officers. After all if the killer had cut a piece of apron he could have put it in an envelope and sent it to the police

    In this case why would the killer firstly walk the distance between Mitre Sq and Goulston Street in possession of incriminating evidence and risk being stopped

    Second and most importantly why would the killer decide to deposit these items in a location so far away from the crime scene where they may never have been found.

    We have no evidence from any of the other murders of clothing being cut or graffiti being found

    I dont subscribe to the killer writing the graffiti or depositing the apron piece

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Well, I guess it worked Trevor, because it was found by the police and linked to the killer.

    We don't know how far the murderer lived from any of the murder sites, so in most instances he was always carrying incriminating evidence, whether it was a bloody knife or innards (although I won't open up that can of worms with you! ) That's the element of risk that comes with the territory.

    However, if PC Long is to be trusted, the apron didn't appear until over an hour after the murder. Do you think it was simply overlooked by PC Long or was it deposited later?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    I don't think the message was necessarily vague in what it was trying to convey, but its significance to the murders was certainly vague.

    When you look at most communications left by serial killers, they always tend to have some connection to the killings, even an oblique mention. In this case, the author took a rather weak jab at the Jews and that was it. There was absolutely nothing to be gleaned from this, apart from the idea he had anti-semitic tendencies. That would theoretically rule out Jewish suspects, but what if he was a self-hating Jew? What if he was a Jew trying to frame a gentile?

    I think the lack of reference to the murders will forever leave the GSG's validity up to interpretation.
    I think one should also take into account "signature killings" whereby a killer will leave something at a crime scene which will easliy be found and readily identifable to the killer by officers. After all if the killer had cut a piece of apron he could have put it in an envelope and sent it to the police

    In this case why would the killer firstly walk the distance between Mitre Sq and Goulston Street in possession of incriminating evidence and risk being stopped

    Second and most importantly why would the killer decide to deposit these items in a location so far away from the crime scene where they may never have been found.

    We have no evidence from any of the other murders of clothing being cut or graffiti being found

    I dont subscribe to the killer writing the graffiti or depositing the apron piece

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi harry
    what do i think triggered the message? those pesky jews that kept interupting him that night and forced him to scuttle his first attempt, one which pissed him off so much he yelled a racial slur.

    re the vague message- i dont think its really that vague. i read once an expert on cockney say it should be read as... the jews wont take the blame for anything...as in... the jews wont take responsibility.

    but really for me trying to decipher the message or its motive is not really all that important. i always say if the motive is unclear, just go with the evidence. and the evidence is...it was found right above the apron, found at the same time, and the police believed it to be by the ripper. thats good enough for me.

    I don't think the message was necessarily vague in what it was trying to convey, but its significance to the murders was certainly vague.

    When you look at most communications left by serial killers, they always tend to have some connection to the killings, even an oblique mention. In this case, the author took a rather weak jab at the Jews and that was it. There was absolutely nothing to be gleaned from this, apart from the idea he had anti-semitic tendencies. That would theoretically rule out Jewish suspects, but what if he was a self-hating Jew? What if he was a Jew trying to frame a gentile?

    I think the lack of reference to the murders will forever leave the GSG's validity up to interpretation.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    The apron may have been used to bind a wound that he may have suffered when cutting Eddows - handle gets wet and slippery and hand slids forward. This being an unforseen event, he would not have come prepared for that eventuality. The blood was described as being mainly in one corner.

    When thinking about whether the graffiti would have been erased by the residents, bear in mind that it was located down very low on the wall (shin high) and the capitals of the "schoolboy hand" were only 3/4" high, with the other letters in proportion.

    Cheers, George
    Click image for larger version

Name:	JTR Goulston facia graffito.jpg
Views:	91
Size:	194.6 KB
ID:	769088

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenway
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    The apron may have been used to bind a wound that he may have suffered when cutting Eddows - handle gets wet and slippery and hand slids forward. This being an unforseen event, he would not have come prepared for that eventuality. The blood was described as being mainly in one corner.

    When thinking about whether the graffiti would have been erased by the residents, bear in mind that it was located down very low on the wall (shin high) and the capitals of the "schoolboy hand" were only 3/4" high, with the other letters in proportion.

    Cheers, George
    I think there's a good chance he cut the apron before he started the mutilation given the positioning of her clothing when she was found.

    All the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    I wonder,would the Jews have been affected by the message?If we cannot establish a true meaning,could they.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X