A Victorian Apron Full of Questions...

[Fiver]

So the writing that nobody came forward to say was there the day befor, a part of her apron that just happen to have Eddowes bloodstains on it, found right below where it was written !!

I doubt your doubt, and say it had everything to do with th Ripper murder of Eddowes.

Whether the writing was there the day before is irrelevant. We have no way of knowing if the GSG was written before, after, or at the same time as the apron piece was dropped. We have no way of knowing if the apron piece was dropped intentionally or accidentally.

I stand by what I said - I doubt that the GSG had anything to do with the Ripper.

[FISHY1118]

Whether the writing was there the day before is irrelevant. We have no way of knowing if the GSG was written before, after, or at the same time as the apron piece was dropped. We have no way of knowing if the apron piece was dropped intentionally or accidentally.

I stand by what I said - I doubt that the GSG had anything to do with the Ripper.

Yes i see youve taken the stance of ''we have know way of knowing'' thats ok, many do. I on the other hand look at probability ,evidence and possiblity and what the police thought at the time ,rather than just dismiss the incident because its to easy to say ''We just dont Know''. Bit of a cop out really, one overwhelmingly outweighs the other in this case in my opininon. So again i doubt your doubt .


Just for the record, of course the writing if it was there the day before is relevent ,think about it ,its there for the whole day and no one notices it and says nothing? . So when the police turn up to wash it off, mind you not just any old police were talking Sir Charles Warren himself, dont you think someone would have mentioned it ? , Cmon think about it .

Its always astonishes me that people 134 years later would bring in to question and be willing to completely dismiss such historical doumented testimony from such important police officials who were there on the day without battering an eyelid just so to ignore what is known, because its easy to say ''We just dont know.''

[Fiver]

Yes i see youve taken the stance of ''we have know way of knowing'' thats ok, many do. I on the other hand look at probability ,evidence and possiblity and what the police thought at the time ,rather than just dismiss the incident because its to easy to say ''We just dont Know''. Bit of a cop out really, one overwhelmingly outweighs the other in this case in my opininon. So again i doubt your doubt .


Just for the record, of course the writing if it was there the day before is relevent ,think about it ,its there for the whole day and no one notices it and says nothing? . So when the police turn up to wash it off, mind you not just any old police were talking Sir Charles Warren himself, dont you think someone would have mentioned it ? , Cmon think about it .

Its always astonishes me that people 134 years later would bring in to question and be willing to completely dismiss such historical doumented testimony from such important police officials who were there on the day without battering an eyelid just so to ignore what is known, because its easy to say ''We just dont know.''

I am not dismissing the period testimony of police officials. I am analyzing it.

The GSG was evidence. Several police copied down the wording. There are slight variations in wording, but we appear to have a fairly accurate transcription. They also note that it was in a "round hand" (cursive), which can explain some of the spelling discrepancies. I think the police should have photographed the GSG - as GUT notes that would have provided a handwriting sample and a rough estimate of the height of the person who wrote the GSG. Most police wanted the GSG preserved and photographed - Warren was the only one who wanted it erased, but he outranked the others.

But just because something is evidence doesn't mean it was a clue. Police estimated the GSG was fresh, but that does not mean it was written at the same time the apron piece was dropped. The apron was clearly part of Eddowes' apron, but why did the killer take it? And was it dropped deliberately or accidentally?

The two most likely reasons to take the apron piece would be to carry off a trophy organ or as a improvised bandage. With the amount of frenzied slashing done to Eddowes body, there is the possibility that the killer accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage.

Had the killer made it safely back to their lodging with a trophy organ, burning the apron piece in the fireplace would have been much safer than going back into the street and dropping it somewhere. That would make an accidental dropping more likely, perhaps spooked by encountering someone else. And accidental dropping would mean the proximity to the GSG was coincidence, with the lost trophy organ likely being gobbled up by a stay dog.

If the apron piece was an improvised bandage, then it would have been discarded because the wound had stopped bleeding. At which point, I'd expect the killer would be going home to wash out the wound in better light, not spending time chalking the GSG.

There is the idea that the GSG was chalked and the apron dropped as a way of taunting the police. That does fit the Saucy Jack persona, but as I have stated I think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more newspapers and not a reflection of the personality of the real serial killer. Even then, the wording of the GSG does not match the style of any of the Ripper letters.

So while I cannot completely rule out the idea that the GSG was chalked by the killer, it seems wildly unlikely that it was.

[Abby Normal]

I am not dismissing the period testimony of police officials. I am analyzing it.

The GSG was evidence. Several police copied down the wording. There are slight variations in wording, but we appear to have a fairly accurate transcription. They also note that it was in a "round hand" (cursive), which can explain some of the spelling discrepancies. I think the police should have photographed the GSG - as GUT notes that would have provided a handwriting sample and a rough estimate of the height of the person who wrote the GSG. Most police wanted the GSG preserved and photographed - Warren was the only one who wanted it erased, but he outranked the others.

But just because something is evidence doesn't mean it was a clue. Police estimated the GSG was fresh, but that does not mean it was written at the same time the apron piece was dropped. The apron was clearly part of Eddowes' apron, but why did the killer take it? And was it dropped deliberately or accidentally?

The two most likely reasons to take the apron piece would be to carry off a trophy organ or as a improvised bandage. With the amount of frenzied slashing done to Eddowes body, there is the possibility that the killer accidentally cut himself and needed an improvised bandage.

Had the killer made it safely back to their lodging with a trophy organ, burning the apron piece in the fireplace would have been much safer than going back into the street and dropping it somewhere. That would make an accidental dropping more likely, perhaps spooked by encountering someone else. And accidental dropping would mean the proximity to the GSG was coincidence, with the lost trophy organ likely being gobbled up by a stay dog.

If the apron piece was an improvised bandage, then it would have been discarded because the wound had stopped bleeding. At which point, I'd expect the killer would be going home to wash out the wound in better light, not spending time chalking the GSG.

There is the idea that the GSG was chalked and the apron dropped as a way of taunting the police. That does fit the Saucy Jack persona, but as I have stated I think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more newspapers and not a reflection of the personality of the real serial killer. Even then, the wording of the GSG does not match the style of any of the Ripper letters.

So while I cannot completely rule out the idea that the GSG was chalked by the killer, it seems wildly unlikely that it was.

yeah not too impressed with your detective skills there. the gsg was written on a mostly jewish building and surely the jewish residents would have rubbed out anti jewish graffiti had it been there for any length of time. the police thought it was from the killer, fresh and that it would have been rubbed out had it been there awhile. the gsg never saw the light of day, which points to it being written at the same time the rag was dropped there purposely.

the gsg disparages jews and what a coincidence... the ripper was seen, disturbed by several jews that night. one, schwartz, who abberline said looked very jewish.

also, if you knew thoroughly the events of that night, which you obviously dont, then you would have known that the anon church street sighting was undoubtedly the ripper in between the dutfield yard and mitre square murders, and he was seen wiping his hands. probably with a rag he brought out with him originally. and since he had to use that before the eddowes murder, he needed something to use to put her organs in, which is probanly why he took a piece of her apron. he gets home with his goodies, but still pissed about being seen by a bunch of jewish witnesses he heads back out with some chalk for a little pay back and writes the gsg and leaves the apron. worked like a charm.

the rest of your post is either irrelevant or makes no sense and not worth commenting on.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

I presume you mean the Enon Chapel Abby? That place had a grim history, definitely worth reading about. Just not over lunch.

[Abby Normal]

I presume you mean the Enon Chapel Abby? That place had a grim history, definitely worth reading about. Just not over lunch.

hi al
never heard of enon. i was referring to the anonymous (anon) church street sighting of the ripper, acting suspicious..sitting on some steps, wiping his hands and trying to hide his face. this was in between in time and place between the stride and eddowes murders.
Sugdens all over it in his book.

[Fiver]

Question: post Polly-does anyone know what route to work Cross took afterwards? Did he continue to take Buck's Row?

Based on the testimonies of Robert Paul and Charles Cross, they traveled together for a significant way. Heading west on Buck's Row, it ended in a T intersection, with Montague. Turning right, they went a block north on Montague, where they encountered PC Mizen near the corner of Montague and Hanbury Street.

From there, Cross and Paul walked west in Hanbury to Corbett's Court, a distance of several blocks. Paul worked as a carman for some firm there, though we do not know who. To the immediate west was Spitalfield's Market.

Charles Cross would have continued west an slightly south from there towards the Broad Street Station, though we do not know by what route.

The total distance that Paul and Cross traveled together appears to be roughly 15 blocks.

[Fiver]

I presume you mean the Enon Chapel Abby? That place had a grim history, definitely worth reading about. Just not over lunch.

He means Church Lane, one of the three ways to access Mitre Square.

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat." - The Star, 1 October, 1888.

We also have the following from the same issue of the Star, where PC Watkins.

"Sometimes I go into Mitre-square through the Church-passage, but last night I entered from Mitre-street. It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen." I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do, turning my lantern light in every direction. I am positive there was nothing wrong at that time."

"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

"Had you met any person on your rounds?"

"Not a soul."

The story of the man in the sailor's hat is second hand. If this is the Ripper, it means that he waited half-an-hour after murdering Stride before wiping the blood off his hands. I also mean that within 4 or 5 minutes, the killer went from being afraid that one man would get a look at his to not caring if three men - Joseph Lawende, Joseph Levy, and Harris Harris - saw his face while he was talking to a woman he was about to murder.

That leaves me very doubtful that Sailor Hat was the same man seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris.

[Varqm]

He means Church Lane, one of the three ways to access Mitre Square.

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat." - The Star, 1 October, 1888.

We also have the following from the same issue of the Star, where PC Watkins.

"Sometimes I go into Mitre-square through the Church-passage, but last night I entered from Mitre-street. It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen." I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do, turning my lantern light in every direction. I am positive there was nothing wrong at that time."

"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

"Had you met any person on your rounds?"

"Not a soul."

The story of the man in the sailor's hat is second hand. If this is the Ripper, it means that he waited half-an-hour after murdering Stride before wiping the blood off his hands. I also mean that within 4 or 5 minutes, the killer went from being afraid that one man would get a look at his to not caring if three men - Joseph Lawende, Joseph Levy, and Harris Harris - saw his face while he was talking to a woman he was about to murder.

That leaves me very doubtful that Sailor Hat was the same man seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris.

On the first story it could be Backchurch Lane.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

hi al
never heard of enon. i was referring to the anonymous (anon) church street sighting of the ripper, acting suspicious..sitting on some steps, wiping his hands and trying to hide his face. this was in between in time and place between the stride and eddowes murders.
Sugdens all over it in his book.

Hi Abby,

Yeah, I was just curious about your turn of phrase, the Enon Chapel being a bit out the way. Anon/Enon.

I've always found the Church Lane sighting interesting. If it's not Strides killer, it's a fool way to carry on in that climate, and likewise, it demonstrates that people were looking out and reporting things, highlighting the atmosphere the killer operated in. It's much like the "I am not the murderer" statement overhead that same night. Odd goings on in East London.

[Harry D]

There is the idea that the GSG was chalked and the apron dropped as a way of taunting the police. That does fit the Saucy Jack persona, but as I have stated I think the Ripper persona was created by newspapermen to sell more newspapers and not a reflection of the personality of the real serial killer. Even then, the wording of the GSG does not match the style of any of the Ripper letters.

So while I cannot completely rule out the idea that the GSG was chalked by the killer, it seems wildly unlikely that it was.

I see what you're getting at, Fiver.

I also struggle to accept the GSG. It could be argued that all it needed was an oblique reference to Jews and a bloody rag to cause a fracas, but I try to see it from the profile of the killer. Many suppose that the guy seen manhandling Stride outside the club was the ripper. The same brute yelling racial epithets in the street is now writing cryptic messages in cursive handwriting? Had the words "LIPSKI" been written or something to that effect, I could get on board with it. As such, I don't know what was going through the killer's mind.

Abby Normal makes the point that the killer had a grudge with the Jews. But the same killer who risked venturing out into the street with bloody evidence to cause a race riot never bothered in Miller's Court with time on his side? Did the killer have an agenda against the Jews or not? Were his anti-semitic tendencies only inflamed that particular night?

Unless, of course, Mary Kelly was killed by someone else, but on the balance of probabilities that's extremely unlikely.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

He means Church Lane, one of the three ways to access Mitre Square.

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat." - The Star, 1 October, 1888.

We also have the following from the same issue of the Star, where PC Watkins.

"Sometimes I go into Mitre-square through the Church-passage, but last night I entered from Mitre-street. It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen." I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do, turning my lantern light in every direction. I am positive there was nothing wrong at that time."

"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

"Had you met any person on your rounds?"

"Not a soul."

The story of the man in the sailor's hat is second hand. If this is the Ripper, it means that he waited half-an-hour after murdering Stride before wiping the blood off his hands. I also mean that within 4 or 5 minutes, the killer went from being afraid that one man would get a look at his to not caring if three men - Joseph Lawende, Joseph Levy, and Harris Harris - saw his face while he was talking to a woman he was about to murder.

That leaves me very doubtful that Sailor Hat was the same man seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris.

Hi Fiver,

Like I posted to Abby, it's another one of the curious parts of the pictures.

[Abby Normal]

I see what you're getting at, Fiver.

I also struggle to accept the GSG. It could be argued that all it needed was an oblique reference to Jews and a bloody rag to cause a fracas, but I try to see it from the profile of the killer. Many suppose that the guy seen manhandling Stride outside the club was the ripper. The same brute yelling racial epithets in the street is now writing cryptic messages in cursive handwriting? Had the words "LIPSKI" been written or something to that effect, I could get on board with it. As such, I don't know what was going through the killer's mind.

Abby Normal makes the point that the killer had a grudge with the Jews. But the same killer who risked venturing out into the street with bloody evidence to cause a race riot never bothered in Miller's Court with time on his side? Did the killer have an agenda against the Jews or not? Were his anti-semitic tendencies only inflamed that particular night?

Unless, of course, Mary Kelly was killed by someone else, but on the balance of probabilities that's extremely unlikely.

hi Harry
one only has to see burys thuggish brutish behavior and then look at his beautifully contructed and handwritten confession letter to know how an individual can, given the circs, act/appear as in polar opposites.

and yes i think the ripper had a thing about jews, but as they were all up in his face the night of the double event, he used the opportunity of having the bloody apron to throw some shade and blame their way. not neccesarily to start a race riot, but put police on their trail and not his. he must have realized these jews were going to be talking to police about his description. and of course, with leather apron and the police leading theory about a jewish killer was probably fresh in his mind.
and re mary kelly, who knows why serial killers do or do not do, should have could have etc. just look at the evidence. and if youd have it, a certain someone did implicate a jew after her murder.

[Abby Normal]

He means Church Lane, one of the three ways to access Mitre Square.

"From two different sources we have the story that a man when passing through Church-lane at about half-past one, saw a man sitting on a door-step and wiping his hands. As every one is on the look out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor's hat." - The Star, 1 October, 1888.

We also have the following from the same issue of the Star, where PC Watkins.

"Sometimes I go into Mitre-square through the Church-passage, but last night I entered from Mitre-street. It was just half-past one when I turned out of Aldgate and passed round the next corner into the square. At that time there was nothing unusual to be seen." I looked carefully in all the corners, as I always do, turning my lantern light in every direction. I am positive there was nothing wrong at that time."

"And when did you pass through the square again?" asked the reporter.

"At about a quarter before two."

"Had you met any person on your rounds?"

"Not a soul."

The story of the man in the sailor's hat is second hand. If this is the Ripper, it means that he waited half-an-hour after murdering Stride before wiping the blood off his hands. I also mean that within 4 or 5 minutes, the killer went from being afraid that one man would get a look at his to not caring if three men - Joseph Lawende, Joseph Levy, and Harris Harris - saw his face while he was talking to a woman he was about to murder.

That leaves me very doubtful that Sailor Hat was the same man seen by Lawende, Levy, and Harris.

witnesses are notoriously off on times, the important clue is that church lane man was also wearing a peaked cap, same as lawendes man and every other suspect seen by witnesses that night. it was more than likely the same man and the ripper.

[Harry D]

hi Harry
one only has to see burys thuggish brutish behavior and then look at his beautifully contructed and handwritten confession letter to know how an individual can, given the circs, act/appear as in polar opposites.

Yes, that is true, however, there's a different temperament between someone pumping with adrenaline after a kill, and a beaten man resigned to his fate in a jail cell.

and yes i think the ripper had a thing about jews, but as they were all up in his face the night of the double event, he used the opportunity of having the bloody apron to throw some shade and blame their way. not neccesarily to start a race riot, but put police on their trail and not his. he must have realized these jews were going to be talking to police about his description. and of course, with leather apron and the police leading theory about a jewish killer was probably fresh in his mind.

And that's one of the problems. The writer was either blaming jews for an unknown offence or trying to set them up. We cannot say what he meant.

I wonder if the graffito was unfinished? We talk about the killer being interrupted with Nichols & Stride... but what if he'd also been disturbed in Goulston Street? That could explain why the writing was small enough to fit on two or three bricks? He had planned to write more below it.

and re mary kelly, who knows why serial killers do or do not do, should have could have etc. just look at the evidence. and if youd have it, a certain someone did implicate a jew after her murder.

Good point, Abby. Perhaps if Hutchinson was the killer he ruled if the graffito wouldn't do the trick he'd "identify" a jewish suspect and insert himself into the investigation at the same time? I'm not saying I subscribe to that belief but worth entertaining, no?