The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[perrymason]

Hi there Colin,

Ive never really considered that the blood on the apron was symbolically Eddowes murder he was suggesting they committed, simply by enraging him.....thats interesting.

I dont however see any evidence that Liz Strides murderer was interrupted at all, so I cant subscribe to the idea myself.

I suggested that one or more of the Intentional Club may have lived in those Model Homes, does anyone know if there is a tenant roster for that time and if a Club Roster exists for that period?

Cheers Colin, all.

[Sam Flynn]

Ive never really considered that the blood on the apron...

Don't forget there was other stuff on there as well. If Jack's placement of the apron was indeed symbolic, then any allusion to sh_t on anyone's hands presumably referred to the sh_t on his own.

[perrymason]

Don't forget there was other stuff on there as well. If Jack's placement of the apron was indeed symbolic, then any allusion to sh_t on anyone's hands presumably referred to the sh_t on his own.

Maybe he just left them their own bloody sh***y mess to clean up.

Never really considered that both the writing and the apron refer to Eddowes....Interesting idea really.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe he just left them their own bloody sh***y mess to clean up.

Never really considered that both the writing and the apron refer to Eddowes....Interesting idea really.

Just to point out that it wasn't my idea, Mike. My point was simply that, if people want to read any "symbolism" (God, how I hate that word in the context of this case!) into the blood on the apron, they had better remember that there was faecal matter on it as well.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam,

When discussing this issue I tend to keep some of the most vital factual evidence at the forefront regardless of what suggestive circumstantial evidence there is.....and in this case, it abundantly clear that it does not require any kind of "Ripper" to have killed Liz Stride. Im not sure with respect to Kate personally....but as anyone can see nothing about Liz's murder suggests or insinuates "Jack the Ripper". She is killed on the same night and a brief walk from where a woman is probably killed by the actual"Jack the Ripper", so many just assume "mutilatum interruptus" and that he would in fact kill 2 on some nights if unable to mutilate his 1st victim.

He was able to mutilate his first in the streets under very dangerous circumstances...and the evidence with Liz suggests she may have been cut quite a bit before Diemshutz arrival.....so how he suddenly loses his nerve while having the time is something I suppose some of you can understand, by the opinions given.

I dont see it....therefore to me, the most suspect inclusion of that night, is Stride.

So, why would I assume that he killed the victim that appears to be nothing like a Ripper murder and not have killed the second victim who by all accounts seems to be most probably a Ripper victim? Seems counterproductive to crime solving myself.

All the best.

[Shelley]

Why is my name at times written in ' RED ' it's been weeks since i came on casebook and all i can say is..........I't pathetic messing around with emboldened highlighted names in RED.




Whatever appeals to small minds i suppose! So who ever you are who does this your TRULY PATHETIC!!!


Shelley...

[Sam Flynn]

Why is my name at times written in ' RED ' it's been weeks since i came on casebook and all i can say is..........I't pathetic messing around with emboldened highlighted names in RED.




Whatever appeals to small minds i suppose! So who ever you are who does this your TRULY PATHETIC!!!

When you do a "Search This Thread" search, the text you enter in the search box is automatically highlighted in any matching posts in bold, red font. I just did a search on the word "emboldened", and this is what came up:



Nobody's been writing your name in red font at all, Shell.

[JTRSickert]

SHELLEY IS THE BLOGGER WHO WILL NOT BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING.

[thegaff]

SHELLEY IS THE BLOGGER WHO WILL NOT BE BLAMED FOR NOTHING.

TRULY PATHETIC.

[JTRSickert]

Just a joke.

P.S. I'm not the one who was highlighting the name in red.

[Sam Flynn]

P.S. I'm not the one who was highlighting the name in red.

Nobody was - the message board software does it automatically when you use the "Search This Thread" facility.

[caz]

Interesting thread.

Why doesnt the message address Liz if the apron addresses Kate?
Or does it?

Hi Perry,

I think it may do, especially if it could have been written shortly before the first murder that night (not that this is necessarily my preferred theory) by a Gentile Jack who intended to pick on the first woman who appeared to be soliciting Jews. Think about it: ‘The Jews {who use our prossies} will not be blamed for nothing’. In short, ‘when the next one is ripped the Jews will get the blame again {and this time I intend to make it stick}’.

Maybe he set out that night with his freshly sharpened knife and a piece of chalk, intending to leave a Jewish looking trail from the Berner St club back to his GSG, but because he didn't get to rip the woman he found alone at the entrance, he had to improvise and hot foot it somewhere he knew he could quickly find an easier or more willing victim (St Botolph’s for instance), and then took her apron for his trail to the message. This scenario would avoid the somewhat illogical: ‘far too risky and irrational for him to have written anything on a public wall after committing yet another risky and irrational mutilation murder in a public place’ argument.

This man specialised in the risky and irrational, so who knows what he would have considered to be a dangerous or pointless exercise? If he chalked the message at night, but on his way out to commit murder, and close to where he would have to return later to sleep in any case, the risk would have been no greater than for any other graffiti artist. And it wouldn’t have been the end of the world if it had been seen and erased before he could get back to it. As it was, the message survived long enough for him to have done so.

A general point to all: PC Long saw the message after picking up the apron, and it was evidently considered visible and legible enough at the time for any subsequent passer-by to notice it and make trouble. I think it’s reasonable to conclude that Jack would most likely have seen it too, when dropping the apron, if he didn’t write it himself. We know his night vision must have been reasonably good, assuming he didn’t carry his own light source. So I think it’s just a bit too coincidental, whether the message itself jumped out at him and inspired him to drop the incriminating cloth close to it, or he dropped it there incidentally and saw the message in passing. This bit of cloth was the only physical clue we know he took from a murder scene and chose to discard at some distance from it. In short, he still had it with him on this particular night when passing this specific spot, where an ambiguous message had supposedly just been sitting there doing no harm - until he temporarily underlined it, turning it into a significant threat to law and order.

It was always just another potential clue to the killer’s character, so I don’t see the sense in discarding it today, like an unfashionable pair of flared jeans, just to keep up with the recent skinny and minimalist trend.

Like Monty, I don’t think they feared that the Jewish community would go nuts, but rather the Gentile part, if they discovered new clues that might point to the Jews as possibly being involved in the ghastly murders. After all, the message was written in a neighborhood mainly inhabited by Jews, which very soon would be 'very much crowded by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London', as Warren wrote.

We were not there to see how many other similar messages were surviving intact on nearby walls, but I have seen no actual evidence that there were any of this nature. Logically, if it was considered so inflammatory, even after the apron had been removed from the scene (and how would subsequent passers-by know about said apron and the murder connection unless the police were daft enough to announce the fact??), how likely is it that scores of similarly inflammatory messages - equally sans apron - would have been allowed to hang around the area indefinitely throughout September, despite the whole Leather Apron business kicking off? Why would exactly the same problem not have presented itself earlier that month, and been dealt with accordingly, preventing such graffiti from proliferating by the end of it? As Roy wrote:

There was a riot against the Jews over the murders. It happened after the Chapman murder and the Met police moved in to stop it. And police officers posted at crime scenes advised Jews to move along and not linger lest they become targets of abuse. These incidents are documented in Sugden's book.

Now, once again, where is the evidence that similar graffiti could be found everywhere one looked at the time the GSG appeared? Either such messages were removed in the interests of public safety wherever a beat policeman came across them, just like the GSG was, or it's a myth that every other doorway was sporting examples when Jack passed that way.

...if he did, why not make a short and clear statement and why not make it clearly yours while you're at it? If he wrote it with the purpose of getting the police focus their attention on 'the Jewes', then communication sure wasn't his thing.

Well Frank, it worked rather well as far as Anderson was concerned. He died absolutely convinced that his attention had rightly been drawn to the Jews.

Also, while Jack may have had an ego as large and fragile as the Crystal Palace, and a brain the size of a pea, how subtle or credible would he have considered it to write: “Please blame me for all this (see apron below), signed A. Jew”? I never understood the argument that this would have communicated much more clearly to the police that they needed to look for a Jewish homicidal maniac who had chalked the God’s honest truth on that wall. Anything that unsubtle - even Fishypoo’s: “Death to the gentile whores” ‘punchline’ (his own word) - would surely have been seen through immediately as a sick joke and not taken literally by anyone in authority.

I’m not convinced that the actual message left was not some sort of wind up at the expense of the Jews and/or the authorities, albeit a much less ‘in your face’ one, which maybe only a deranged killer high on adrenaline could be expected to see the point in executing. Any lack of clarity for the reader was presumably not an issue for the writer - whoever he was.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz asks:

"how would subsequent passers-by know about said apron and the murder connection unless the police were daft enough to announce the fact??"

They would not, Caz. But as long as there was a small hoard of policemen standing about in that doorway, looking at a bloddied piece of apron, ANYBODY who passed by and started asking questions was a potential fuse to the much dreaded bomb.
My belief is that it was the connection apron-blood-Jack-Jew that posed the threat, not so much because the average man on the street WOULD spot that connection, but because they wanted to avoid the risk of any unaverage man putting two and two together.
If they could have left the premises unheard and unseen and with the apron safely tucked away, they may well have left the message unerased. When the connection could no longer be made, I suspect that chalked message was no more inflammatory than any other chalked message saying derogatory things about jews OR gentiles - and I feel pretty sure that such messages were about, written by people who had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ripper scare. The GSG, I believe, may well have been one of them!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Caz

Point of fact.

Long spotted the apron and the writing with the aid of a lamp.

Doesnt mean that Jack didnt though, however Long is clear in stating he spotted it with the lamp.

Monty

[perrymason]

Point of fact.

Long spotted the apron and the writing with the aid of a lamp.

Doesnt mean that Jack didnt though, however Long is clear in stating he spotted it with the lamp.

Monty

One might imagine that he had that lamp out at arms length when he passed dark doorways on his beat Monty.

Although I can see why Caz might suggest that the writing was noticed and used to accompany his "message" of the apron section but not necessarily created by the killer in Mitre Square, there is in my mind a delay in when that section is left off Goulston, and that delay could address any smaller issues like why the killer would have chalk on him, where the organs were that he took out of the apron section...(my guess for its use)..what it wont tell us is which direction he came from to come back out and leave the section. Nor which direction he immediately went from Mitre Square.

The apron had fecal matter on it as well as blood, Im sure that would qualify as something he wouldnt desire to keep as souvenir...but if he did take it for cartage, then it would likely be used until he had carted it to where he would no longer need it to hold the organs. Since he has had coat pockets to use since he was in Mitre Square, and he chose to rip and cut an apron from a woman he has just killed and mutilated in a square where any noise would carry easily, I would imagine he felt the apron section was needed.

But not desired as a keepsake, clearly.

So he uses it until he can place the organs taken somewhere where they will be safe when he goes back out to rid himself of the apron, (so he cannot leave them in a ward style lodging setting).....and in my opinion, he casts a shadow of suspicion on Jews for that nights events at a location he knows that Socialist Jews live.

Seems to me that only one murder is committed on Socialist Jews property with many Jewish Club members still onsite at the time of the murder.

And I found a report that says a member named Gilleman came upstairs to tell the members about the woman in the passageway at 12:55am. Eagle hears this and then tumbles pell-mell down the stairs to see a dead body of a woman he apparently didnt know, despite his acknowledged fear of blood. Kozebrodski is said to have been with him.

If Gillemans time was accurate, does this suggest that details of the yard and their immediate actions upon discovering the woman were falsified? Why would some 28 or 30 Socialist Jews belonging to a club the police thought was full of anarchists lie about when she was found, how she was found, and what was done immediately after she was found? (Assuming that no club member that night killed Stride).

To save the club from closure, to save themselves from suspicions of murder, to create circumstances that suggest its likely if anyone was in that yard after Eagle it was someone from outside the club on the street.

Seems Israels story adds that bit of color to the tale.

If the club members lied about anything that has to done with Liz Stride or her death...or kept silent about knowing who she was... if they did that, then they surely would be the men that will not be blamed for nothing, wouldnt they?

Cheers Monty