The International Working Mens Club and the GSG.

[Observer]

Hi

You know if the Ripper didn't write that message then someone else did, and that person in the days following the messages discovery would surely have realised the importance it held in the inquiry. I wonder why they never came forward to claim responsibility? Although on second thoughts they would have realised that they would have to encounter a police grilling. The fact that they never ventured forward might also point to the fact that they were alone at the time of writing, obviously the more people who witnessed the writing the more chance of the author being discovered.

all the best

Observer

[KatBradshaw]

Indeed, however it must be remembered that Longs duty was to the Queens highways, byways and buildings. He had no reason to look into that private dwelling entrance unless he felt a crime had been committed or was about to be commited.

Maybe Long was aware of a crime after that 2.20am sweep and started to check entrances.

Thats true. I just thought that he may have felt that he should have seen it. Like when we all blame ourselves for things that we couldn't have forseen.

[Monty]

Kat,

Indeed, however it must be remembered that Longs duty was to the Queens highways, byways and buildings. He had no reason to look into that private dwelling entrance unless he felt a crime had been committed or was about to be commited.

Maybe Long was aware of a crime after that 2.20am sweep and started to check entrances.

[KatBradshaw]

Panic maybe. It certainly seems like he feels he has to justify the fact that he didn't find it first time round.

[Monty]

Hey Guys,

Been out of the loop for a while but back now. Just a few things that I think are important to mention.

1. It was Longs first night alone on his new beat in an area far more criminal friendly than his regular patch.

2. it wasnt confirmed that it was Eddowes apron until Browns post mortem.

To me, Longs statement and testimony smacks of panic.

[DrB]

Gsg

Hi everyone ,
New to the site, not a ripperologist , but read a few books. In my opinion the whole mystery pivots on the Sept 1888 double murder night. He kills Stride and then soon after kills Eddowes - why? He walks or goes by cart to Goulson st carrying a blood soaked piece of apron and some organs in his pocket!! He enters a stairwell leading to some flats and drops the apron and writes a message on the wall ? who lived in those flats - was it a message for them? Incredibly a PC on the beat spots the "rag" out of all the rubbish in the east end of London and links this cloth to a murder over a mile away a few hours earlier. Why not write above Eddowes body if he wanted the message to be found - did this PC spot something not meant to be found? If it was written in chalk he must have set off with chalk in pocket and therefore it was part of the nights "plan".

Keep thinking

DrB

[Supe]

Michael,

The thing that nags me is that when Long made that first pass after Kates death, he was aware that this was the second murder of the evening,

But we do not know if that is so. He testified that he had heard of the Mitre Square muder someime before he carried the apron to the police station. Indeed, there is a possibility he only heard of the murder(s) from PC190H as his testimony in that regard was phrased oddly and evidently was repeated on two occasions as if by rote. To wit: "Before proceeding there [the police station with the apron part] I had heard of a murder having been committed." Moreover, and adding to the confusion, when Long searched the staircases he was not looking for a murderer but for a body. Thus, it would seem, even had he already heard of the Mitre Square murder, he did not connect the bloody apron part with that murder.

In fact, PC Long's testimony is a jumble. It may be that he was not terribly bright as it sounds as if he had been carefully coached in what to say because every time, to use a modern metaphor, he had to go off the teleprompter he floundered. It also seems clear from the inquests transcript that the jury was not at all satisfied with his testimony, which suggests he appeared even more at sea than the impression gleaned from the written word.

In any case, while I am sure that under the circumstances you would have been very alert and very conscious of your duties, you are not PC Alfred Long (for which I think we can all be thankful). It is a fallacy that often arises for us to expect Jack or any of the other players in the drama to have acted the way we think we would have acted (viz. Albert Cadosche).

Instead, we are stuck having to make sense, if possible, of the confused and confusing testimony of PC Long.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

The thing that nags me is that when Long made that first pass after Kates death, he was aware that this was the second murder of the evening.

Actually, Mike, I don't think he was. Long states that he only learned about the second murder when he set off to the police station - the apron already being in his possession by then.

Hi Don,

Thats a sound bit of conjecture. And it addresses the human element, which can be less than ideal at the best of times. Interesting thoughts Don. I realize that there are factors that might weigh heavily on his accumen, and as Sam pointed out, there are line of sight perspectives and lighting factors that might weigh heavily as well.

The thing that nags me is that when Long made that first pass after Kates death, he was aware that this was the second murder of the evening, and that the man they assumed they were seeking likely lived somewhere among the streets he and others were patrolling. Im wondering whether that fact might have sharpened his scannning. There was some urgency at that moment....the optimum time to assess any clue is as soon after the event as possible, and a casual stroll looking casually about doesnt seem fitting to me. After all, the man might well be on the streets when he made that pass.

Would a policeman, knowing that a killer might be lurking in a dark alley or entrance at that very moment, look more intently for signs or clues? My guess would be yes, if only for his own safety. Jack hadnt killed a man, but he hadnt run into a policeman just after murdering either.

You know, when your surroundings seem trepadacious, often the senses become more acute. And where he found those items it was likely quiet, dark, and forboding...and a murderer had been out killing recently. Does a quick glance, one that might miss seeing something out of place, seem like heightened awareness?

Best regards Don.

[Supe]

Michael,

One of the major problems in trying to make any reasonable timeline for the GSG and apron half isthat we are almost entirely dependent on the observations and testimony of PC Alfred Long and as luck would have it he is about the worst PC imaginable to be in that position. Not only was it his first night on that beat but he was drafted in from A Division and that raises firther questions about him. Perhaps the MET was different, but almost any military or para-military unit, when given an opportunity to lose a few members, while eagerly riid itself first of any slackers, idlers or troublemakers--and we do know that he was dismissed from the force the following June.

Thus, just how assiduously PC Long conducted his 40-minute (!) beat and how carefullyy he checked the entrance at 108-19 at 2:20 (if at all) is open to considerable doubt.

Don.

Hi Mike,They may have been found at the same time, but Long didn't spot them at the same time - indeed he didn't spot the writing until he was engaged in a purposeful inspection of the venue, after first glimpsing the apron.
The fact that Long failed to glimpse the writing, on both occasions he passed by, demonstrates that we can be less certain about that assumption than perhaps we could have been.

Hi again Gareth,

Its my belief that the apron was left conspicuously to draw the attention, and the message was to be noticed once that had occurred. "I did this"...but "didn't do that" kind of sequence.

I do feel that there is sensibility in the meaning if placed in context, and one context is the refutation of a murder assignation due to misrepresentation by the "Juewes/Juwes/Jewes"....or whatever the actual word was. The only Jews I can think of that night that might fit would be the ones that blamed Jack for Liz Stride...almost immediately after finding her.

It seems strange to me that they would be unrelated when there is a literal meaning to the message possible,.. that involves one of that nights murders.

Not saying they were both from Jack, or either, but one surely was from a killer that evening.

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

They were found together

They may have been found at the same time, but Long didn't spot them at the same time - indeed he didn't spot the writing until he was engaged in a purposeful inspection of the venue, after first glimpsing the apron.

and for all we know, they arrived together.

The fact that Long failed to glimpse the writing, on both occasions he passed by, demonstrates that we can be less certain about that assumption than perhaps we could have been.

Claire,

I happen to agree that in proper context the message is anything but unclear. The writer suggests that the Jews evade blame. Now,.....did Jews blame someone for Liz Strides death? Someone with no link or ties to themselves? Yes.

They ran into the street yelling "another murder" was committed, and anyone who lived in that area at that time would know who they referred to. The madman at large. Well, what if the madman didnt kill Liz, and upon hearing commotion on his return home, discovers that people are running around blaming him for a kill he knew nothing about? He hears its at the International Club....a Jewish Socialists club with known anarchist tendencies. And yet they paint themselves as shocked and scared...Eagle is scared of blood apparently, but rushed down the stairs to look. Diemshutz was scared and shocked, but a few months later, takes a club to policemen. Diemshutz was young, Kozebrodski was 17, and Diemshutz is young. And yet they act like scared rabbits,....Act may be the key word there...and a Jewish witness with a theatrical appearance...hmm.

Sam, your point on the direction, lighting and the fact that the apron was not seen is fair. But I wouldnt use that to conclude the message was already there, myself. They were found together, and for all we know, they arrived together. And that wasnt until just before 3am.

Maybe the GSG was there already. Maybe. But all we know is that nothing was seen by Long until the time mentioned. To suggest they were put there by the same person just before they were found is not fanciful at all. And in context, the message might well explain why only one murder that night is represented, by the physical evidence left by the Mitre Square killer. Because he only committed one. Since the killer has never killed twice in one night, before or after this event, and since International Club Jews were blaming the killer at large from the very outset, I think thats a reasonable perspective.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

But few seem to interpret Long's not seeing anything as evidence that nothing was there yet.

It's worth noting that Long only noticed the apron the second time round. Presumably the relative "whiteness" of the cloth caught a flash of light as he was passing, drawing his attention to the doorway. Whatever, the salient point is that Long noticed the graffito only after having picked up the apron, as he started to examine the surroundings. In other words, it's fair to say that Long failed to notice the graffito twice.

I believe that this little fact reveals something interesting. If Long didn't immediately notice the writing the second time, then maybe it was because he was unsighted (e.g., his beat went north → south and the writing was "behind" him on the northern pillar of the doorway, or vice versa), or the writing wasn't particularly conspicuous in the gloom. It may have been a combination of both factors.

If so, and the same lighting/sighting conditions applied to the bobby on the previous shift, then it's quite possible that the writing was on the wall already, unnoticed, before Long even started his beat.

[claire]

Many would like it to be simply grafitti from some other stranger, placed there for inexplicable reasons and with inexplicable meaning. There is however a logical answer which many seem to bypass. The cloth and grafitto were not seen there until the second pass by Long after Kates death, more than 1 hour later. Many would have you believe he just missed seeing anything. Possible, sure.

But few seem to interpret Long's not seeing anything as evidence that nothing was there yet. I find that odd myself, but Ive learned that many Ripperologists often dismiss any ideas that deflate the notion of a Canonical Group of 5, regardless of the logic offered. Like nothing else in these stories had meaning but Macnaughtens grouping of victims.

Hi Michael,

Not wishing to raise your ire, but it's not as if most pieces of graffito have any really 'explicable' reason for being there, apart from the fact that there's an available wall to scribble on. And, to be fair, it's not everyone's opinion that said piece of graffito (GSG) is 'inexplicable.' I think to suggest that it is is very much overcomplicating what, to many, is a quite simple message written in the context of the area and the time.

Also, it's really quite likely that PC Long's attention was drawn to the graffito after discovering the piece of apron simply because his senses, having found the apron, would have been on high alert. If there were a number of graffiti around the area, isn't it likely most people would just walk on by, without noticing it? PC Long, however, suddenly had damned good reason to notice everything around him given the jolt that piece of apron would have given to his senses.

I think to suggest that your finding it odd that people would argue that he didn't see it the first time round is suggestive of 'many Ripperologists often dismiss any ideas that deflate the notion of a Canonical 5' is both a logical leap and pretty derogatory.