Apron placement as intimidation?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi HS
I don't know-maybe someone better versed can answer. but to me its kind of a moot point-they basically mean the same thing.

Hi Abby

Yeah, it's not a significant point (unless of course you're a 'Masonic conspiracy' believer). Perhaps just a curiosity that we accept one version over the other?

Regards
Herlock

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

I immediately thought of this letter when you posted this. I copied it directly from Casebook and it says few researchers believe this letter to be real, but....

6 October 1888 -- this letter was received by a local paper and is believed to have been intended for either Israel Schwartz or Joseph Lawende, both of whom believe to have witnessed the Ripper and gave descriptions of the man they saw to the police. Few researchers believe this letter to be real.

{Transcription)
You though your-self very clever I reckon when you informed the police. But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you. Now I known you know me and I see your little game, and I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you. It no use your trying to get out of my way. Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up. Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

PS You see I know your address

Hi Jerry
Thanks. yes ive seen it. and yes it does go along with the killers GSG re being pissed off at being interrupted by jews that night.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I've always thought so and nothing that I've read since really pushes me in the direction of 'a chance discarding next to a random message.'

There's one thing that I've being wondering about so opinions would be welcome. Out of Long and Halse, Long seemed the less certain of the exact wording of the message. Why do we appear to trust the 'Long' version?

Regards
Herlock

Hi HS
I don't know-maybe someone better versed can answer. but to me its kind of a moot point-they basically mean the same thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm a little confused. Also, why me?

The cloth was part of Eddowes apron. The message can be interpreted in various ways (even masonically if someone is inclined that way; I'm not). There is nothing specific that links the message to the apron apart from location. The message was either written by someone with not great literacy skills or someone who wished to appear so. The latter might be feasible when considering the fact that the writing apparently showed signs of decent penmanship. It seems that there was an inexplicably large time gap between the time the ripper left Mitre Square and the earliest time that the rag could have been placed/discarded in Goulston Street. This might be explained by the fact that the ripper went to secrete the body parts that he'd removed. This would further imply that he then went back out to deposit the apron increasing the likelihood that he had purpose in doing this. The writing appears to have been written quite low down on the wall. There was a street lamp reasonably close to the doorway. Two police officers (Long and Halse) gave slightly different readings of the message.
The writing was erased on the orders of Arnold confirmed by Warren.
Can't think of much else Pierre. I'm sure that I'm missing loads.

Regards
Herlock

[Pierre]

Hi Abby,

I've always thought so and nothing that I've read since really pushes me in the direction of 'a chance discarding next to a random message.'

There's one thing that I've being wondering about so opinions would be welcome. Out of Long and Halse, Long seemed the less certain of the exact wording of the message. Why do we appear to trust the 'Long' version?

Regards
Herlock

Herlock,

try to think about the apron and the writing (without thinking about jews) and write down here everything you can think about them.

I am not asking another person to do it now. I am asking you.

Regards, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

exactly.

The ripper probably hadn't predicted that he would be interrupted by a bunch of jews that night, and therefore probably hadn't brought chalk to leave a message incriminating them.

I imagine he went to his bolt hole, got cleaned up dropped off his goodies and knife and then headed back out with apron piece and chalk. Hence the time lapse.

remember, in his mind the killer probably knew he had been seen well, at least by Schwartz, who had "a heavy jewish appearance", and be well soon giving the police HIS description. what better way to obsfuscate than incriminate the very people who may be talking to police about you.

plus ive never put much stock in the argument of theres graffiti everywhere and it was just discarded under some by chance. wheres it say on record that there was any more graffiti in the immediate area? considering the events of that night-whats the chance it just happened to be discarded under graffiti that implicates jews? cmon.

The GSG never saw the light of day I would also posit. Had it been there in daylight hours one of the many jewish residents of that new building would have seen it and quickly washed it off.

it was written by the killer. and signed by the apron.

Hi Abby,

I've always thought so and nothing that I've read since really pushes me in the direction of 'a chance discarding next to a random message.'

There's one thing that I've being wondering about so opinions would be welcome. Out of Long and Halse, Long seemed the less certain of the exact wording of the message. Why do we appear to trust the 'Long' version?

Regards
Herlock

[jerryd]

exactly.

The ripper probably hadn't predicted that he would be interrupted by a bunch of jews that night, and therefore probably hadn't brought chalk to leave a message incriminating them.

I imagine he went to his bolt hole, got cleaned up dropped off his goodies and knife and then headed back out with apron piece and chalk. Hence the time lapse.

remember, in his mind the killer probably knew he had been seen well, at least by Schwartz, who had "a heavy jewish appearance", and be well soon giving the police HIS description. what better way to obsfuscate than incriminate the very people who may be talking to police about you.

plus ive never put much stock in the argument of theres graffiti everywhere and it was just discarded under some by chance. wheres it say on record that there was any more graffiti in the immediate area? considering the events of that night-whats the chance it just happened to be discarded under graffiti that implicates jews? cmon.

The GSG never saw the light of day I would also posit. Had it been there in daylight hours one of the many jewish residents of that new building would have seen it and quickly washed it off.

it was written by the killer. and signed by the apron.

Abby,

I immediately thought of this letter when you posted this. I copied it directly from Casebook and it says few researchers believe this letter to be real, but....

6 October 1888 -- this letter was received by a local paper and is believed to have been intended for either Israel Schwartz or Joseph Lawende, both of whom believe to have witnessed the Ripper and gave descriptions of the man they saw to the police. Few researchers believe this letter to be real.

{Transcription)
You though your-self very clever I reckon when you informed the police. But you made a mistake if you though I dident see you. Now I known you know me and I see your little game, and I mean to finish you and send your ears to your wife if you show this to the police or help them if you do I will finish you. It no use your trying to get out of my way. Because I have you when you dont expect it and I keep my word as you soon see and rip you up. Yours truly Jack the Ripper.

PS You see I know your address

[Abby Normal]

Watkin discovers Eddowes at 1.44. Long discovers the apron at 2.55. He'd last passed the doorway at 2.20. If the apron was just inside the doorway at the base of the jamb he might not have noticed it at 2.20, especially as he didn't know about the Eddowes murder (or Stride I assume). If it wasn't actually there then we have around 40 minutes for the killer to leave Mitre Square and drop the apron in Goulston Street. As we know, this is a hell of a long time. So what was he doing? This was,after all, a guy carrying body parts and a large knife! Isn't it likely that he'd gone to wherever he was staying (or lived) to deposit the body parts? If we accept that, and I'm not saying that everyone necessarily should, doesn't it indicate that the Ripper went back out with the cloth when he had absolutely no need to. Therefore it's more than likely that the apron was deliberately placed where it was found.

Regards
Herlock

exactly.

The ripper probably hadn't predicted that he would be interrupted by a bunch of jews that night, and therefore probably hadn't brought chalk to leave a message incriminating them.

I imagine he went to his bolt hole, got cleaned up dropped off his goodies and knife and then headed back out with apron piece and chalk. Hence the time lapse.

remember, in his mind the killer probably knew he had been seen well, at least by Schwartz, who had "a heavy jewish appearance", and be well soon giving the police HIS description. what better way to obsfuscate than incriminate the very people who may be talking to police about you.

plus ive never put much stock in the argument of theres graffiti everywhere and it was just discarded under some by chance. wheres it say on record that there was any more graffiti in the immediate area? considering the events of that night-whats the chance it just happened to be discarded under graffiti that implicates jews? cmon.

The GSG never saw the light of day I would also posit. Had it been there in daylight hours one of the many jewish residents of that new building would have seen it and quickly washed it off.

it was written by the killer. and signed by the apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Watkin discovers Eddowes at 1.44. Long discovers the apron at 2.55. He'd last passed the doorway at 2.20. If the apron was just inside the doorway at the base of the jamb he might not have noticed it at 2.20, especially as he didn't know about the Eddowes murder (or Stride I assume). If it wasn't actually there then we have around 40 minutes for the killer to leave Mitre Square and drop the apron in Goulston Street. As we know, this is a hell of a long time. So what was he doing? This was,after all, a guy carrying body parts and a large knife! Isn't it likely that he'd gone to wherever he was staying (or lived) to deposit the body parts? If we accept that, and I'm not saying that everyone necessarily should, doesn't it indicate that the Ripper went back out with the cloth when he had absolutely no need to. Therefore it's more than likely that the apron was deliberately placed where it was found.

Regards
Herlock

[Michael W Richards]

Indeed. It could be reasonably argued that the apron was merely discarded, just happening to be in reasonable proximity to a piece of antisemitic graffiti; surely something not uncommon in the vicinity. It's worth noting that the majority of reports don't explicitly indicate a significant link between the apron and the graffito anyway, over and above their happening to be in the same passageway.

In terms of implicating the Jews, it would have been difficult to jettison an apron in Goulston Street, or many of the surrounding streets for that matter, without its landing in a dwelling heavily occupied by Jews.

Actually Sam the evidence as it exists suggest that its quite possible the cloth was left there purposefully. PC Long stated clearly that "it was not there" when he made his first pass by the entrance after Kates murder, which makes its arrival more than an hour later. The fact that it may well have been purposefully placed couple with proximity of the writing lends more strength to an idea that the writing and apron were connected, and used to communicate a message. one that, by the reactions to it, suggested anti semetic notions which were though to have the potential, in that neighbourhood, to cause riots.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all.

I don't personally think that the apron was used to intimidate any individual but it could have, as has been mentioned before, been used for anti-Semitic reasons or even just to confuse the investigation. I think that I've mentioned this elsewhere but maybe the ripper was referring to Berner Street. In effect saying ' us Jews can even murder someone next to one of our own clubs and we still won't get blamed.' By posing as a boastful, murdering Jew he sought to inflame feeling against Jews.
Just a thought...

Regards
Herlock

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry Pierre. As I quoted, you state that the piece was placed at the location and was not discarded at the location.

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

Indeed. It could be reasonably argued that the apron was merely discarded, just happening to be in reasonable proximity to a piece of antisemitic graffiti; surely something not uncommon in the vicinity. It's worth noting that the majority of reports don't explicitly indicate a significant link between the apron and the graffito anyway, over and above their happening to be in the same passageway.

In terms of implicating the Jews, it would have been difficult to jettison an apron in Goulston Street, or many of the surrounding streets for that matter, without its landing in a dwelling heavily occupied by Jews.

[Abby Normal]

More likely placed to incriminate a Jew and keep stirring the anti-Semitic pot which was working in his favour. Which is why you have the writing. Almost certainly related to JtR encountering Jews twice during the double murder. Lipski being shouted at a witness and then the men who saw him again at Mitre Square. Two of the best JtR witnesses for what's it worth.

Which means JtR wasn't a Jew. Which really impacts a lot of popular suspects.

bingo!

[Batman]

More likely placed to incriminate a Jew and keep stirring the anti-Semitic pot which was working in his favour. Which is why you have the writing. Almost certainly related to JtR encountering Jews twice during the double murder. Lipski being shouted at a witness and then the men who saw him again at Mitre Square. Two of the best JtR witnesses for what's it worth.

Which means JtR wasn't a Jew. Which really impacts a lot of popular suspects.

[ohrocky]

Sorry Pierre. As I quoted, you state that the piece was placed at the location and was not discarded at the location.

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

Surely for your assertion to stand up there would have to be a witness to <whoever> placing the piece and not merely discarding it? Otherwise how could you make that statement if there was no witness?

Once you can explain how you can know for sure that it was placed and not discarded we can then interrogate the information provided by that witness.

Look, we both know that there was no witness to when the piece was placed / discarded. It may well suit the purpose of your (never to be revealed) "suspect" to contrive the scenario that the piece was deliberately placed where it was found. But this is the problem, and always has been, with suspect lead research. Pick a suspect then try to squeeze what little evidence there is to fit that suspect. It hasn't worked yet!