From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Elamarna]

A very relevant observation Steve. Also where his previous boss, who had him charged for stealing, at one time conducted his business. Could that boss, and/or the jewish council that removed his kosher licence, be the subject of the GSG?

Cheers, George

It does provide a logical reason George.

I had always rejected the GSG on balance. But the evidence in Jacob the Ripper, by the I'ansons made me reconsider my long held conclusion.

While i remain firmly in the Anderson suspect camp, Levy is right up there too for me.
Above all, the situation allowed me to understand how it could have been written by levy or Anderson's suspect, and still make sense.

Steve

[Fernglas]

Too right! I think on this and other some other issues people just like arguing the point to show they can be different. What your photo shows is that there were other pretty much identical entrances on that street, yet the random anti-Jewish graffiti artist and JtR just happened to pick the exact same one! Pull the other one.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I too find this happenstance to be suspect. The Ripper could have thrown away his apron anywhere on his way back home, but it ended below the grafitti! While there is a possibility of pure chance, it is a very small one.
I think the Ripper was annoyed by what happened at Berner Street, he could have been captured there and the grafitti was his way of letting out steam.

[Bridewell]

he was the best at finding the rippers only clue my friend.

and if he was drunk on duty that night, eventhough there is no evidence for it, he probably would have missed it the second time too.

Thanks for the 'my friend' thing. I'm never setting out to fall out with folks on here, even if it sometimes seems like I am.

I haven't suggested he was drunk on duty that night - but I suspect he may have been drinking somewhere. But just running with the idea that he was truthful in his evidence, what's your thoughts on the time lag? Did the killer hang around for 40 minutes, within 300 yards or so of Mitre Square, in possession of the apron piece or did he leave the scene with it and then bring it back? If the apron piece wasn't in the stairwell when Long visited earlier, one or the other has to be true doesn't it? (Unless I've missed something which is always a possibility at my advanced age).

[Bridewell]

As I wrote in an earlier post, I too find this happenstance to be suspect. The Ripper could have thrown away his apron anywhere on his way back home, but it ended below the grafitti! While there is a possibility of pure chance, it is a very small one.
I think the Ripper was annoyed by what happened at Berner Street, he could have been captured there and the grafitti was his way of letting out steam.

Possibly - but there was a great deal of anti-semitic graffiti around in the area, so the possibility of pure chance is perhaps greater than you think.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for the 'my friend' thing. I'm never setting out to fall out with folks on here, even if it sometimes seems like I am.

I haven't suggested he was drunk on duty that night - but I suspect he may have been drinking somewhere. But just running with the idea that he was truthful in his evidence, what's your thoughts on the time lag? Did the killer hang around for 40 minutes, within 300 yards or so of Mitre Square, in possession of the apron piece or did he leave the scene with it and then bring it back? If the apron piece wasn't in the stairwell when Long visited earlier, one or the other has to be true doesn't it? (Unless I've missed something which is always a possibility at my advanced age).

hi bridewell
thanks! i think after the eddowes murder he went back to his bolt hole cleaned up a bit, dropped off knife and goodies, grabbed some chalk and headed back out to write the gsg and sign the graffiti with the apron piece. why? he was pissed off at being bothered by a bunch of jews that night when he was trying to do his thing and decided on a little pay back and obsfucation.

[Wickerman]

As I wrote in an earlier post, I too find this happenstance to be suspect. The Ripper could have thrown away his apron anywhere on his way back home, but it ended below the grafitti! While there is a possibility of pure chance, it is a very small one.
I think the Ripper was annoyed by what happened at Berner Street, he could have been captured there and the grafitti was his way of letting out steam.

Wouldn't you think if he was "letting off steam" he would have wrote it considerably larger?

[DJA]

Goulstonian Lecture - Wikipedia

[GBinOz]

Wouldn't you think if he was "letting off steam" he would have wrote it considerably larger?

Good point Jon. But he did show a considerable dedication writing in cursive 3/4" high, with chalk, on a brick wall, in the dark. There is a dissertation somewhere on this site where someone tried to replicate this feat with somewhat disappointing results.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Good point Jon. But he did show a considerable dedication writing in cursive 3/4" high, with chalk, on a brick wall, in the dark. There is a dissertation somewhere on this site where someone tried to replicate this feat with somewhat disappointing results.

Cheers, George

The 64.000 dollar questions are ?

Why would the killer risk being stopped by the police in possession of incriminating evidence i.e. the apron piece a knife, and traces of blood on his hands? when he had ample opportunity to deposit/discard the apron piece long before he got to Goulston Street

why would the killer deposit the apron piece and allegedly write the graffiti in an off-the-road location where it may have never been found?

If it is believed that the killer wrote any of the letters and if he did take the apron piece then he could have posted the apron piece along with a letter to either the press or the police.

For what purpose did the killer cut a piece of the apron, if it was to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done either on the victim's clothing before leaving the crime scene. or within a short distance from Mitre Square and not kept it with him for such a long distance and I don't buy the explanation that he cut himself

This old accepted theory is wearing thin now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

The 64.000 dollar questions are ?

Why would the killer risk being stopped by the police in possession of incriminating evidence i.e. the apron piece a knife, and traces of blood on his hands? when he had ample opportunity to deposit/discard the apron piece long before he got to Goulston Street

why would the killer deposit the apron piece and allegedly write the graffiti in an off-the-road location where it may have never been found?

If it is believed that the killer wrote any of the letters and if he did take the apron piece then he could have posted the apron piece along with a letter to either the press or the police.

For what purpose did the killer cut a piece of the apron, if it was to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done either on the victim's clothing before leaving the crime scene. or within a short distance from Mitre Square and not kept it with him for such a long distance and I don't buy the explanation that he cut himself

This old accepted theory is wearing thin now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I would submit that the apron piece was far more incriminating than a knife or bloodstains. A butcher could have explained the latter, but not the apron piece.

I agree that it is unlikely that the apron was used to wipe blood for the same reasons that you detail. Did he use it to transport organs? To risk this act he must have really wanted them. Then what did he do with the organs after he discarded the apron at Goulston St. With all due respect to your opinion, if he cut himself it was an unanticipated event for which he needed a cloth from the site. He then kept it only until the bleeding stopped. I think that he only kept the apron until his matter of necessity subsided and then jettisoned the incriminating evidence.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

(Unless I've missed something which is always a possibility at my advanced age).

Hi Bridewell,

Advanced age and an interest in motorcycles. I'm pushing 75 and have a Triumph Bonneville 1200. Do you still ride?

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

The 64.000 dollar questions are ?

Why would the killer risk being stopped by the police in possession of incriminating evidence i.e. the apron piece a knife, and traces of blood on his hands? when he had ample opportunity to deposit/discard the apron piece long before he got to Goulston Street

Thats a bit of a fallacy though Trevor, the police were not looking for a piece of missing apron so soon after the murder. The homeless walked about in torn clothing all day long. She had a piece of torn rag around her neck - so what? None of the authorities showed any interest in the section of torn apron until it showed up at Goulston St., and the body was at Golden Lane.
If he was stopped by a policeman it was nothing more than a stained rag, this is why PC Long took it to the station - not because there was a missing piece of apron.
We might think a bloody rag could also be incriminating but he would, in my view, have tossed it aside when he saw a constable approach. The police didn't just drop on a person out of the sky, they could be seen down the street from a good distance - time to ditch the rag.
But then again, isn't that precisely what we have here?, the rag was ditched in a doorway, so we have no argument.

...why would the killer deposit the apron piece and allegedly write the graffiti in an off-the-road location where it may have never been found?

If it is believed that the killer wrote any of the letters and if he did take the apron piece then he could have posted the apron piece along with a letter to either the press or the police.

For myself, I don't believe he wrote it, we have managed to find a few street photo's from the time where graffiti is evident on walls in the background. This was a Jewish tenement, it could have been there days if none of the tenants could read English. Plus, the graffiti was very small, more like what a cheeky schoolboy might scribble, and there was a school just around the corner.

For what purpose did the killer cut a piece of the apron, if it was to wipe his knife or his hands he could have done either on the victim's clothing before leaving the crime scene. or within a short distance from Mitre Square and not kept it with him for such a long distance and I don't buy the explanation that he cut himself

This old accepted theory is wearing thin now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He cut the apron to wrap the organs in, likely for the same reason Chapman's scarf was missing from her body too.

[DJA]

Apart from being handy for carrying organs,the apron piece would have prevented a trail of blood droplets.

[Scott Nelson]

For myself, I don't believe he wrote it, we have managed to find a few street photo's from the time where graffiti is evident on walls in the background. This was a Jewish tenement, it could have been there days if none of the tenants could read English. Plus, the graffiti was very small, more like what a cheeky schoolboy might scribble, and there was a school just around the corner.

Thank you, Jon. I always knew you and I thought (somewhat) alike. That school nearby was the Jews Free School on Bell Lane, where the writer probably got their chalk.

[Aethelwulf]

Thank you, Jon. I always knew you and I thought (somewhat) alike. That school nearby was the Jews Free School on Bell Lane, where the writer probably got their chalk.

No one saw or rubbed it off before where it would have been easily visible during the day? It's not a very childlike message is it? Sounds like an annoyed adult. Just another bizarre way of creating a mystery for the sake of it.