GSG Conclusion

[Aethelwulf]

hi mark
IMHO the ripper left the apron to "sign" the graffiti, to connect the two as it were. I have little doubt the ripper wrote it and left the apron intentionally.
why? I think he was pissed off he was interupted by so many pesky jews that night, knew he had been seen by them and was giving a little pay back while also to confuse the police.
worked like a charm.

Absolutely agree and I don't really see why this is such a big deal. I can see JtR being into other 'isms' e.g., racism and I think as he left stride he'd already conceived the idea of having a dig at the Jewish community for some petty real or imagined grievance typified by Schwartz. I don't think the apron was used to carry or clean anything - as Abby says, it was just a way of making clear the ripper had written it and he didn't like Jews. The content isn't that ambiguous either and the police obviously understood what it meant. If it was written to today it would be something like 'the juwes won't be blamed 4 nuffink'

[Mark J D]

... IMHO the ripper left the apron to "sign" the graffiti, to connect the two as it were...

I like your thinking: Berner Street might not have looked like his work without the tie-up...

... why? I think he was pissed off he was interupted by so many pesky jews that night, knew he had been seen by them and was giving a little pay back while also to confuse the police...

You don't think that he was trying to make it look like the killer was a Jew? In the same way as he had previously tried to make it look like the killer was Robert Paul...?

Bests,

M.

[Aethelwulf]

You don't think that he was trying to make it look like the killer was a Jew? In the same way as he had previously tried to make it look like the killer was Robert Paul...?

Bests,

M.

He was just prejudiced towards jews - I think it is really that simple. Despite the police interest, the GSG rules out Koz and any other Jewish suspect IMO. Although the police must have interviewed lots of people from lots of backgrounds I wouldn't be surprised if there was a subconscious bias towards looking for a Jewish suspect, a bit like wearside jack and sutcliffe.

[Abby Normal]

I like your thinking: Berner Street might not have looked like his work without the tie-up...



You don't think that he was trying to make it look like the killer was a Jew? In the same way as he had previously tried to make it look like the killer was Robert Paul...?

Bests,

M.

yes I think he was probably trying to put blame on a jew

[caz]

The reason behind the removal of the graffiti was apparently the fear it would spark unrest, regardless of whether it was written by the killer or not. This initial fear is somewhat shot down by the wide reporting of the graffiti and then there being no subsequent riot. A possibly vital piece of evidence lost for nothing.

But there is a suggestion that it was old graffiti that happened to be there so nothing to do with the murder anyway. However, if it was old graffiti and had been there a while it seems strange that no-one apparently came forward to say, "Oh that? No, that had been there all week." It was so widely reported and had such distinct wording that surely someone would have gone to either the police or the press to say it had actually been there some time before the murder so not connected to the apron piece. But neither apparently occur.

This then makes it more likely that the graffiti was at least new when spotted by PC Long. But again, whether the killer wrote it is another matter.

Good points. If the oddly worded message had been there for any length of time, it had evidently failed to spark any unrest thus far, so it could be inferred that the writing was fresh, and the decision to remove it was more about prevention than cure.

Love,

Caz
X

[Curious Cat]

IF the graffiti was written by the killer of Catherine Eddowes - as the apron piece was undoubtedly dropped/placed by them - then it may be possible they wrote it before the murder rather than after. What if it had been their intention to leave something belonging to the victim they managed to come by close to the graffiti?

[caz]

hi mark
IMHO the ripper left the apron to "sign" the graffiti, to connect the two as it were. I have little doubt the ripper wrote it and left the apron intentionally.
why? I think he was pissed off he was interupted by so many pesky jews that night, knew he had been seen by them and was giving a little pay back while also to confuse the police.
worked like a charm.

I tend to agree, Abby.

In the case of Colin Ireland, who killed five gay men in 1993, he became frustrated with the police when they failed to link his victims, putting their deaths down to domestic abuse or sex games gone wrong.

I could see JtR setting out that night to do another 'ripping' murder [even more so if he had just promised as much in a letter to Central News, using 'the trade name'] and not wanting anyone else to get the recognition for Stride's murder because she wasn't ripped. His ego made him blame this on the Jews, while taking the credit for both murders and leaving his calling card in the form of the apron piece.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

If the graffito had been scribbled by the killer, I would question how much premeditation went into it. As Abby suggests, the killer might have still been frustrated at the interruption with Stride and decided to vent his displeasure, but this could've been an idea that only occurred to him after his bloodlust had been sated.

Although the authorities feared a public backlash enough to scrub out the evidence, why would a Jewish killer sign off a murder with a vague Cockney double-negative about accepting blame? It appears to be a self-defeating statement. If this was a gentile author's intent to frame the Jews, I wonder if it points to someone of limited intelligence? Most serial killers tend to have below-average IQ and are not the Hannibal Lecter-esque villains portrayed by the media.

[DJA]

GSG was not scribbled.

[Trevor Marriott]

If the graffito had been scribbled by the killer, I would question how much premeditation went into it. As Abby suggests, the killer might have still been frustrated at the interruption with Stride and decided to vent his displeasure, but this could've been an idea that only occurred to him after his bloodlust had been sated.

Although the authorities feared a public backlash enough to scrub out the evidence, why would a Jewish killer sign off a murder with a vague Cockney double-negative about accepting blame? It appears to be a self-defeating statement. If this was a gentile author's intent to frame the Jews, I wonder if it points to someone of limited intelligence? Most serial killers tend to have below-average IQ and are not the Hannibal Lecter-esque villains portrayed by the media.

Why would the killer scribe a meaningless piece of graffiti, and deposit a piece of the victims apron in an insignificant archway some distance from the crime scene where it may never have been found.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Why would the killer scribe a meaningless piece of graffiti, and deposit a piece of the victims apron in an insignificant archway some distance from the crime scene where it may never have been found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In the case of Colin Ireland, who killed five gay men in 1993, he became frustrated with the police when they failed to link his victims, putting their deaths down to domestic abuse or sex games gone wrong.

I could see JtR setting out that night to do another 'ripping' murder [even more so if he had just promised as much in a letter to Central News, using 'the trade name'] and not wanting anyone else to get the recognition for Stride's murder because she wasn't ripped. His ego made him blame this on the Jews, while taking the credit for both murders and leaving his calling card in the form of the apron piece.

Love,

Caz
X

[NotBlamedForNothing]

hi mark
IMHO the ripper left the apron to "sign" the graffiti, to connect the two as it were. I have little doubt the ripper wrote it and left the apron intentionally.
why? I think he was pissed off he was interupted by so many pesky jews that night, knew he had been seen by them and was giving a little pay back while also to confuse the police.
worked like a charm.

If so many pesky Jews had interrupted him, then presumably you refer to men in the club, and not Diemschitz. You also claim he had been seen by them, and knew it. So let me ask you a few questions ...

What physical evidence leads you to believe that the killer was interrupted? Was the Coram knife left behind, perhaps?

My recollection is that you believe Dear Boss and saucy jacky to be authentic. If so do you suppose the Ripper intended on ripping in Dutfield's Yard?

Did all the pesky Jews feel guilty about two women being killed, rather than just one? Or did saucy jacky suggest to them that a double event had been planned in advance?

Was the broad-shouldered man the Ripper? If yes, why do you suppose this man was so blasé about having been seen on the street with the victim, shortly before he murdered her?

Why was the graffiti able to confuse the police, but not yourself? Why couldn't they see what is so obvious to you?

One more ...

yes I think he was probably trying to put blame on a jew

Which one?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

IF the graffiti was written by the killer of Catherine Eddowes - as the apron piece was undoubtedly dropped/placed by them - then it may be possible they wrote it before the murder rather than after. What if it had been their intention to leave something belonging to the victim they managed to come by close to the graffiti?

This is a notion that I've thought about too. I think it comes down to what the intention of the final product was. Conceivably, the idea of the writing + apron was to lead investigators into believing that an interrupted mutilation had occurred in Dutfield's Yard, when actually there had been no interruption. The theory being that this was an attempt to obscure the plan behind the premeditated double event. That plan being; murder but not mutilate a woman close to home - close enough that the ensuing commotion could be heard from inside the Ripper's residence - then inform the household that he is "going outside to investigate". Returns inside about three-quarters of an hour later.

There is one bit of evidence that the Coram knife was left behind in the yard, but otherwise there is no evidence for interruption. Perhaps that knife was part of the plan - in the sense that it may be supposed that he dropped it in his haste to leave - along with the writing and apron piece. Other than the lack of evidence for interruption, the apparent skill of Stride's killer - both with the knife and in managing to keep her quiet - suggests that this was a Ripper killing. It does not look at all like something that the man described by Schwartz would seem to be capable of.

By the way, have you read this report?

[erobitha]

Why would the killer scribe a meaningless piece of graffiti, and deposit a piece of the victims apron in an insignificant archway some distance from the crime scene where it may never have been found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Having something from the crime scene would help make that graffiti seems so less meaningless.

The location of the clue was not meaningless either - it was written to be seen and connected to the apron.

The writer knew this was on the police beat, most likely from having passed one previously at the same spot.

He just needed people to connect it to him. I doubt he expected people to debate it so heavily as they have done so in history. It's pretty obvious.

The bit he made deliberately obtuse was the message, but I have always read it differently to most. He is openly claiming credit - most likely for frustration at the police keep on blaming Jews and that would not be any less so after Stride's murder.

In the From Hell and Openshaw Letters the writer is better educated than the wording would suggest on the face of it.

I have written more about it here.

This is the same behaviour.

[DJA]

Pink Floyd - Another Brick In The Wall (HQ) - YouTube