Apron placement as intimidation?

[Harry D]

Jack could have been saying : there's even been a murdered women found in the yard of a Jewish club yet the Jews still seem immune from blame.

Surely it was far too soon for him to make that assertion?

[Mark Adam]

[QUOTE=Pierre;401805]

Wrong. Learn this, Fisherman, and everyone else here:

1) A handwritten paper from an inquest is a primary source. A transcription from such a source is not a secondary source but a transcribed primary source which can be compared to the handwritten source.

2) An article is edited. It is composed using handwritten primary sources for what journalists thought and wrote. Its position as primary or secondary can therefore be extermely difficult to determine.

3) Both primary sources in handwriting or transcription and edited material can be narrative sources. But the narrative in edited material is less reliable than the narrative in non edited material.

4) There is a source hierarchy. A clerk at an inquest has no interest in the process but journalists from various newspapers may have specific interests in the issues presented. Therefore the source produced by the clerk is more reliable.

Do not again give us the very ignorant an uneducated idea that newspaper articles per definition are "correct primary sources".

Pierre

... and who are you to be able to teach anyone here........?????
...AHHHHHH I know the still uncredited and unproven historian
or as i would call it
THE MOST ANNOYING LOUDMOUTH AROUND HERE.....even more annyoing than Trevor .... *brrrrrrrr*:

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely it was far too soon for him to make that assertion?

You're probably right there Harry. But I think it's just possible. Maybe. Slightly.

Regards
Herlock

[ohrocky]

[QUOTE=Pierre;420306]

It was not discarded but placed there.

This is my understanding of the sources about a piece of fabric.

Cheers, Pierre

Would be appreciated if you could direct me to the sources that have led you to conclude that the fabric was not discarded but "placed there".

Thank you

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ohrocky

Just from my own point of view the alternatives 'discarded' or 'placed'. I'd say that there's no definate way of deciding which was the case.

For me it's down to what reason we accept for Jack removing the cloth from Mitre Square in the first place. If someone believes that it was just to wipe his knife or hands, or to bandage a cut then it could have been just discarded. If he took away body parts it seems likely to me that it was placed. Alternatively of course he could have taken it away purely to signpost a message that he intended to leave. Or as some kind of intimidation as has been recently postulated.

Regards
Herlock

[ohrocky]

Hi Ohrocky

Just from my own point of view the alternatives 'discarded' or 'placed'. I'd say that there's no definate way of deciding which was the case.

For me it's down to what reason we accept for Jack removing the cloth from Mitre Square in the first place. If someone believes that it was just to wipe his knife or hands, or to bandage a cut then it could have been just discarded. If he took away body parts it seems likely to me that it was placed. Alternatively of course he could have taken it away purely to signpost a message that he intended to leave. Or as some kind of intimidation as has been recently postulated.

Regards
Herlock

I certainly do not disagree with you.

But Pierre has says that "the sources" have told him that the piece of cloth was "placed" there. This suggests that it was a deliberate, conscious act to place the piece at precisely that location. Pierre's "sources" also tell us that it was not "discarded" which I take to mean being recklessly just thrown away with no consideration of the location.

I just want to know where I can find Pierre's "source" that has led him to that conclusion.

(Just between you and I Herlock, I do not believe Pierre's source for this assertion actually exists as I am sure that I would have been aware of it by now. We shall see!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

I certainly do not disagree with you.

But Pierre has says that "the sources" have told him that the piece of cloth was "placed" there. This suggests that it was a deliberate, conscious act to place the piece at precisely that location. Pierre's "sources" also tell us that it was not "discarded" which I take to mean being recklessly just thrown away with no consideration of the location.

I just want to know where I can find Pierre's "source" that has led him to that conclusion.

(Just between you and I Herlock, I do not believe Pierre's source for this assertion actually exists as I am sure that I would have been aware of it by now. We shall see!)

I'm certainly unaware of these sources. You read the evidence and make you're choice. I tend toward placed but I could be wrong. If only I was Sherlock Holmes instead of Herlock Sholmes!

Regards
Herlock

[Bridewell]

Would be appreciated if you could direct me to the sources that have led you to conclude that the fabric was not discarded but "placed there".

Thank you

I take it that you're asking Pierre and not me?

[Sam Flynn]

If only I was Sherlock Holmes instead of Herlock Sholmes!

Don't underestimate yourself. He's probably thinking the same thing.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=ohrocky;420850]

I certainly do not disagree with you.

But Pierre has says that "the sources" have told him that the piece of cloth was "placed" there. This suggests that it was a deliberate, conscious act to place the piece at precisely that location. Pierre's "sources" also tell us that it was not "discarded" which I take to mean being recklessly just thrown away with no consideration of the location.

Since the location had an advantage: the dado.

I just want to know where I can find Pierre's "source" that has led him to that conclusion.

In the National Archives in Kew and in the California Digital Library.

Regards, Pierre

(Just between you and I Herlock, I do not believe Pierre's source for this assertion actually exists as I am sure that I would have been aware of it by now. We shall see!)

[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!

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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