The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

That apron piece was almost certainly left there by Kates killer, and if so, it leads one to conclude the killer likely lived in the North West part of East London.

Why does no investigator ever address this at the time?

Swanson did - or, at least, his memo showing the area of intensive police inquiries after the "Double Event" makes it clear that the police made extensive enquiries in the Northwestern part of the East End, predominantly Whitechapel and Spitalfields. The map below indicates roughly the area covered by the enquiry, bounded by a red line:



The blue polygon in the map below shows that same area in the context of the entire East End:

Sam and Ben,

I agree that its possible the apron piece might have been casually dropped on the way home, or that it was placed there while heading home, to implicate the Jews. On the second scenario, I would think the chalk message should also be linked with that apron piece.

But Im not so sure they did know where he was based, in fact we have quotes from senior investigators suggesting that they had no clue as to who he was, or where he lived.

That apron piece was almost certainly left there by Kates killer, and if so, it leads one to conclude the killer likely lived in the North West part of East London.

Why does no investigator ever address this at the time, or in memoirs later? It seems to me, if they thought he was heading home when he dropped it, then this is the most important clue of all 5 cases. You have Martha, Annie, and Marys' murders being in that specific area, and I believe Alice's, ... with Kates in close proximity.

Yet you have investigators claiming in private and in public comments, that they had no idea where he was based. Technically, if the apron wasnt dropped before 2:20...he could have lived near Mitre in the city, and bypassed the hullabaloo when going back out sometime before 3.

It appears to me that some of them suspected the apron piece was not there at 2:20am, and that gap in time from quarter to 2, until almost 3am, is probably an indicator he could have stashed the organs and placed that apron piece where he wanted to...not just casually dropping it on route to his home.

Best regards.

[Dan Norder]

Hi John,

Am I mistaken or was it reported at another of the JTR murder sites that a piece of bloodstained envelope or paper anyway, was found.
And was it speculated that this paper had been used to wipe blood from the knife?

A lot of things that never actually happened were reported in the papers, so it's possible this may have been claimed somewhere. However the only envelope mentioned in police records at any crime scene was at the Chapman murder, and it had not been used to wipe off a knife.

Was grafitti located at that site too?

There were false reports that a message from the killer was found at the Chapman murder either on the wall or on an envelope. There was writing on the envelope that was there, but it was only a fragment of the address that had been written on it, not a message. But it wouldn't take much for story to get garbled in the retelling and turn into claims of a message from the killer, which seems to be how this whole confusion came about.

There were other false reports of messages at crime scenes (some reports claimed a message was found at the Kelly murder, for example) as well as copycat chalk messages written around the East End as a result of these inaccurate news reports of the Chapman murder. It could be argued either that the whole reason for the Goulston Street Graffito in the first place was that the killer had heard rumors of the messages and decided to make one for real, marking it with the piece of apron to prove it was from him. Of course it could also be argued that the graffito had nothing to do with the apron piece and the police only thought that the two were connected because of the already well publicized idea that the killer would write messages.

For more details, see this article.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

If true as you offer, then the Police also had within their grasp a particlular area of the East End to isolate as the likely lair.

If the apron and/or message was used as deliberate subterfuge to implicate the already "scapegoated" Jewish community, as I believe, it would potentially have disguised the fact that it was diposited en route home.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

If true as you offer, then the Police also had within their grasp a particlular area of the East End to isolate as the likely lair.

Given that there were tens of thousands of people crammed into such a small radius that wouldn't have been much of a clue. Besides, the police already believed that the killer was most likely a local man and were actively searching the area, so one dropped apron was hardly going to change matters one way or another.

Hi Mike,...which I believe is precisely what he did.

Of course you may be right Gareth,... no surprise, I cant recall having found the need to ever accuse you of being outright wrong...

But.......that implies the killer treated both the apron piece, and the leaving of a trail in the direction of his home, as just unimportant incidentals.

I might accept the first point, but I see nothing in any of the other cases to suggest to me that he is the type of individual who is unconcerned with an evidence free egress from murder sites. If true as you offer, then the Police also had within their grasp a particlular area of the East End to isolate as the likely lair. That doesnt synch with the opinions of his possible home location offered by contemporary Investigative officers. Many were'nt even sure he resided in the East End.

Unless of course it was used to mis-direct, ......but that would be the behaviour of a man who was concerned about leaving an accurate trail.

All the best Gareth.

[Johnr]

Hello All,
Am I mistaken or was it reported at another of the JTR murder sites that a piece of bloodstained envelope or paper anyway, was found.
And was it speculated that this paper had been used to wipe blood from the knife?
If that is so, perhaps it is a mini glimpse of a modus operandi.
Was grafitti located at that site too?
I have read some of the postings arguing different positions here and elsewhere about the GSG and all I get from the written chalk message is a
double-negative anti Semitic cribble - in chalk.
If the apron and the graffiti were linked, I would assume that similar things would have occurred at the other sites.
If it was a symbolic message from the killer, I think it failed because few understood what JTR was on about. JOHN RUFFELS.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

If this is the killer that took Annies organs, surely the cloth isnt for cartage, which leaves us with to be used later, or to wipe s*** from his hands. If its the second, its seems we likely have him tossing it aside while on his way home...

...which I believe is precisely what he did.

Hi Mike,...but why not "I killed her... there is her body"? There was no need to leave the cloth equivalent of a paper-chase when he'd left such a severely butchered body behind. And why premeditatedly take a fragment of apron with the intention of "flagging-up" a piece of graffiti he had planned on writing, when he could simply have written a more explicit message without the cloth?

Hi Sam....I hope youre feeling better, Ive been off more than on the past few days.

I agree with you, there is little sense if its all premeditated, but Im not so sure it was. If this is the killer that took Annies organs, surely the cloth isnt for cartage, which leaves us with to be used later, or to wipe s*** from his hands. If its the second, its seems we likely have him tossing it aside while on his way home, why hold on to something so offensive....then the apron piece was already there at the 2:20am pass....

Maybe he took the apron piece to be used when sending a note later on, as a way to authenticate himself, but he became aware of something on the way home, that of a murder that preceeded his but was added to his roster, might he alter his "plan", and use the apron piece as part of a message, after cleaning himself more fully and popping the organs in spirits.

I personally just dont buy him heading North East to his home, and leaving it on the way there, while still holding organs, and surely with some blood on him.

The message is about or to Jews, and it involves blame, or the lack of it. September 30th was easily the most "Jewish" night of them all. Certainly coincidental that it was right near the apron, and seems to address the missing element that I mentioned earlier....the apron is about Kate, as is the kidney,.....so maybe the GSG is about The International Working Mens Club witnesses, and the Jewish private property that a murder occurred on.

We dont have something from Liz, because he wasnt there.

Its just a hunch obviously Gareth, but I think it fits some of the parameters.

Cheers Amigo.

[Christine]

Hi Mike,...but why not "I killed her... there is her body"? There was no need to leave the cloth equivalent of a paper-chase when he'd left such a severely butchered body behind. And why premeditatedly take a fragment of apron with the intention of "flagging-up" a piece of graffiti he had planned on writing, when he could simply have written a more explicit message without the cloth?

Perhaps because anyone short of an idiot would understand the obvious meaning of his brilliant gesture. After all, doesn't it touch on the most important things in the world? (Juwes? Aprons? Blame? Walls? Goulston Street?) There's a good chance that he was projecting his thoughts anyhow, and of course "they" were doing everything they could to read his mind and naturally "they" would know what all this meant. Or maybe it wasn't meant to be understood by normal folks like us, maybe only the elite were supposed to get it.

Alas, even from that perspective I can't make much out of it, except that Juwes had something to do with it.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

The apron section is just that, clear, concise. I took it.....I killed her, here is her blood and cloth.

...but why not "I killed her... there is her body"? There was no need to leave the cloth equivalent of a paper-chase when he'd left such a severely butchered body behind. And why premeditatedly take a fragment of apron with the intention of "flagging-up" a piece of graffiti he had planned on writing, when he could simply have written a more explicit message without the cloth?

Just for the sake of argument, if it was The Ripper that did leave the apron and then the writing, or vice versa, I would think the most signifigant "clue" is the lack of acknowledgement of the Dutfield Yard slaying in any clear and concise manner. The apron section is just that, clear, concise. I took it.....I killed her, here is her blood and cloth.

Just like the kidney is in a little more than 2 weeks....I took the kidney, I killed her, here is some.

Best regards.

[Mitch Rowe]

To me, the biggest argument against the GSG being written by Jack is that we have no other communications from him in the case before or after the GSG. (I am assuming that he wrote none of the letters.) So if Jack was the author, he decides to communicate for the only time at the worst possible time with regards to his own safety. And to boot, he decides to make that communication so ambiguous that no one can understand it.

c.d.

We dont really know if JTR didnt write other graffiti. Stuff that was ignored/ect. There were other cases of strange graffiti but most of it was just mentioned by news in passing.
I personally dont think any of it was written by JTR as I dont see him as too concerned with what others thought. But thats just a hunch not based on anything but who i feel JTR was.

[Christine]

I can think of so many ways to fit the misspelling to so many scenarios.

1) Jack was a Jew, but an anti-Semitic Jew who made a distinction between modern, anglicized Jews like himself and old fashioned Jews who dressed funny and refused to work on Saturday. He called those people "Juwes" and assumed that everyone else did too, because his brilliant thoughts were being broadcast all the time and could control the minds of lesser beings.

2) Jack was educated, but not well enough to know how to spell.

3) Jack thought it was funny to misspell things.

4) Jack was hearing impaired, which made spelling really hard for him, despite being reasonably educated.

5) Jack saw the graffito and was disgusted by it, so he threw the filthy apron at it as a sort of editorial comment. Obviously anyone short of a complete idiot would understand his brilliant intent.

6) Jack saw the graffito and was impressed by it, so he dropped the token of his godly work by it as a sort of editorial comment. Obviously anyone short of a complete idiot would understand his brilliant intent.

I'll stop at six, I'm sure you can come up with others. I think that the usefulness of the thing lies primarily in its location, and secondarily its handwriting (if we had it), its general indication of education level, and its sign of interest in Jews. But even that is questionable. It's quite possible Jack never even saw it.

[c.d.]

To me, the biggest argument against the GSG being written by Jack is that we have no other communications from him in the case before or after the GSG. (I am assuming that he wrote none of the letters.) So if Jack was the author, he decides to communicate for the only time at the worst possible time with regards to his own safety. And to boot, he decides to make that communication so ambiguous that no one can understand it.

c.d.