The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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:

[Monty]

The MET search area.

Sam,

As you mention, Swanson lays out the Met polices search area in his overview report (HO144/221/A49301C, ff 148-159), which was predominantly on Strides murder. To be fair, he doesnt mention his reasons why this area was searched and I think its a tad misleading to say Swanson took to that area solely due to the apron. That said, it must have been a factor and I agree with your logic.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Monty,

As you mention, Swanson lays out the Met polices search area in his overview report (HO144/221/A49301C, ff 148-159), which was predominantly on Strides murder.

True - although the section in that overview that mentions the questionnaires and the house-to-house interviews seems to be a general "What we've been doing to date", rather than majoring on the Stride case specifically at that point. It's a bit like Abberline's later memo that accompanied the Hutchinson statement, which also covers more than one area of interest.

To be fair, he doesnt mention his reasons why this area was searched and I think its a tad misleading to say Swanson took to that area solely due to the apron.

I was just answering Mike's question about why didn't the police didn't suspect that the killer came from the Northwest of the East End - I didn't claim that the discovery of the apron had all that much to do with it.

[Rob Clack]

I did this a while back on the Met search area. Which I think is reasonably accurate.



Rob

[Sam Flynn]

I did this a while back on the Met search area. Which I think is reasonably accurate.

Certainly moreso than mine, which was a little curtailed at the top - your map shows even better that it was indeed the Northwestern extremity of the East End that was the primary focus of the enquiry at that time. Thanks, Rob.

[Monty]

Gareth,

Fair point.

Rob,

Too much time with the marker pens? Seriously, beneficial.

Thanks.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

Rob,

Too much time with the marker pens?

Clacky's lucky, Neil - they only let me use crayon

[Monty]

Hey, youre luckier than Jack. Some say he was only allowed chalk.

Monty.

[perrymason]

Hi Sam, Monty and Rob,

I appreciate the feedback gentlemen, and as Monty said... even if not implicitly mentioned as having any influence on focussing the search, perhaps the apron piece did.

Im not sure if that satisfies my curiosity about this issue though, being as I am very open to it having arrived at its location just before 3am. I would say though that if he dropped it casually on the way home as you suggest Sam, I believe that would be close to 2am. And for me, that would decrease the chances that he took time to write a message also. If he is "fleeing"....either a brisk pace, walking or crawling, that is what would be on his mind I would think. Until such time that he has no incriminating evidence on his person, anyway.

If he leaves the apron piece, I would surmise it did not hold organs....because it seems a useless gesture, ridding himself of only the "bag" but not the contents...so I would go with Sams notion of "de-excrementation".

But. If the apron was not there until almost 3...it could have held organs, was definately placed there, and need not be left in a direct path towards his home from Mitre Square.

I admit it...the second time just feels more right to me. I dont think he did anything casually while on kill night adrenaline, and I think a bad experience carring organs in a pocket before, might have made him seek alternatives this go round. And I cant imagine that he would casually lead investigators closer to his home.

And in the second scenario....I think the writing is more likely from him, as the apron piece was purposefullly placed there... due to the hour lapse......and it related to the nights events somehow.

Best regards.

[Ben]

because it seems a useless gesture, ridding himself of only the "bag" but not the contents...so I would go with Sams notion of "de-excrementation".

Hi Mike,

It would make perfect sense to "rid himself of only the bag but not the contents" if he was close to home, especially if the "bag" was likely to give off incriminating pongs when he arrived back home (probably not in single, private accomidation). I'm not sure what the objection is to the notion that the killer deposited the apron en route home. This is the most reasonable explanation by miles. If he dumped it in a well-known Jewish enclave (and possibly wrote a Jew-implicating message at the same time), it was more than likely to take the focus off his path of retreat home, since the initial investigative focus would have fallen on the immediate locality of the GSG - a heavily Jewish enclave.

As for the "time-lapse", I've always considered it far more likely that the apron was deposited en route home, and that it was missed by Long first time around.

Regards,
Ben

[adamkle]

on "Juwes"

Perhaps it's nothing new (well, I'm new)... I've just read in "Middle English Dictionary" (letter J, page 382, available on books.google.com) that "Juwes" was a variation of word "Jews", used - as I understand - in John of Trevisa's English translation (1387) of "Polychronicon". Originally it was written in Latin by Ranulf Higdon, no more than ninety years after the expulsion of Jews, ordered by Edward I.
I don't suggest that JTR was a scholar or medievalist. Or even that he hated Jews and read a lot about it. I just think that there is nothing mysterious in "Juwes". It could be jargon or some archaic form (there are so many of them!), that JtR could know.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

If he dumped it in a well-known Jewish enclave (and possibly wrote a Jew-implicating message at the same time), it was more than likely to take the focus off his path of retreat home, since the initial investigative focus would have fallen on the immediate locality of the GSG - a heavily Jewish enclave.

As for the "time-lapse", I've always considered it far more likely that the apron was deposited en route home, and that it was missed by Long first time around.

Regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,

I agree that tossing it aside, if it didnt carry organs....a point Im unsure about,... is just ridding himself of a hand cleaning cloth. If it was there and Long missed it...another point Im unsure about, it was likely en-route home.

If it wasnt there until 3am, then we may have a calculated placement of it, using your rationale on its location that I bolded in your quote.

I believe if Long missed seeing it first pass by, the issue is only did he also write the message....but If he didnt miss it, and it wasnt there until almost 3, that could change the possible answers dramatically.

All the best Ben.

[Billy Bulger]

Tom, I must say I think you might be on to something with this idea- it certainly seems more feasible than many theories that still abound today.

Is it just me or does the grammar of the graffiti read very poorly; as if written by a foreigner?
I may be wrong here but the GSG always struck me as being poorly worded.