Apron placement as intimidation?

[GUT]

Just above the graffiti is a larger note which provides some location details. This note does not address the piece of apron, I think it refers to the location of the graffiti.

It seems to say:


2 Doors from Wentworth street

& no 3 on the right . . . . 4 Blocks
(alt: The 3rd on the right . . . . 4 Blocks)

about 30'0 on right hand side

doorway about 20'0 from Lamp

found inside entrance to Model Dwellings from

108 To 119




The line that interests me is the third line:
about 30'0 on right hand side

In looking at a Goads Map, the doorway identified in these notes is not 30 ft from anything of importance. It is not clear what this line refers to, if I read it correctly.

The first two lines accurately describe the doorway in question.
Wentworth Model Dwellings was four blocks of flats/apartments, the second door from the left is also the 3rd from the right.

But as the 20' is from a lamp the 30' could be from near on anything that was a permanent fixture.

[c.d.]

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.

"Almost certainly" seems like quite a leap of faith since the message can also be interpreted as being pro-Jewish. Also, even if we had conclusive proof that the message is anti-semetic we still could not be certain that it wasn't written by a Jewish killer in an attempt to put the police on the wrong trail. And of course we will never know for sure whether the killer actually wrote the damn thing. So all in all, we might want to slow the JTR wasn't a Jew bandwagon down a bit.

c.d.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;421975]

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

The only reason is that I am a bit impressed with your thinking. Generally. So I want to see how you think here. And you wrote:

The cloth was part of Eddowes apron.

And I wrote in my previous post: "try to think about the apron and the writing (without thinking about jews) and write down here everything you can think about them."

Your comment above, Herlock: That is indeed the common knowledge.

But is that all you can think about the apron if you think all by yourself? What can you think about it, if you think every thought possible?

(Sorry about the bold, but I think this is important!).

And then you wrote about the GSG:

The message can be interpreted in various ways (even masonically if someone is inclined that way; I'm not).

Indeed also common knowledge. Already known. So we move on:

There is nothing specific that links the message to the apron apart from location.

That is the common knowledge about a connection between item a and b: "There is no connection".

But this is a question about connection and I am just asking you about the items individually. So letīs leave the connection and go on with your comments:

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.

If I understand you correctly, you think someone wanted to appear less skilled in writing?

Possible, but it is a question about validity which we can not answer. So we move on if you donīt mind, hope thatīs OK. And you wrote:

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.

This thinking of yours is about the time gap and the hypothesis is very interesting since it indicates that the killer purposely was in Goulston street with the apron and a piece of chalk after the murder of Eddowes. I am not at all familiar with the data about the time gap and this is interesting so I will look into it (I know others have done so).

And then you write about the position of the GSG:

The writing appears to have been written quite low down on the wall.

Perhaps it was, since it was written on the dado. I donīt know the maximum height of those in that time and place and can not confirm whether is was a limiting factor in the height of writing or not. I think the question is very important.

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.

This of course is also common knowledge. But you say you are sure you are missing loads. I donīt think you are missing anything as to the common knowledge.

So if you yourself are free to think yourself about the apron and the GSG what would you say?

Best wishes, Pierre

[Wickerman]

But as the 20' is from a lamp the 30' could be from near on anything that was a permanent fixture.

I have wondered if the 30'0 is a misreading, that we see only one tick between the zeros because the other has faded.
Maybe it should read 30''0, and the subsequent word "doorway" is to be attached to this line.
In other words, did he mean:
"about 30 inch on right side doorway", which cannot refer to the apron but must then indicate which side the graffiti was actually written.

The graffiti being written about 30 inch up from the ground on the right side of the jamb?

Fosters version of the graffiti is written just to the side of this note.

[c.d.]

"and yes it does go along with the killers GSG re being pissed off at being interrupted by jews that night."

Hello Abby,

This statement assumes a couple of things which may or may not be true. First, that Schwartz was telling the truth. And even if he was, there is the possibility that the B.S. man was just some drunk on his way home and not Jack.

As for Lawende and his friends, it assumes that Jack was aware that he was being looked at so much so that he was able to determine that they were Jewish. If so, it then begs the question of why he would go on to kill Eddowes so soon after being seen.

c.d.

[Pierre]

I think I should withdraw that above, I have just been enlarging what is written on the drawing and it is looking like a different version entirely. Not confirming either Long or Halse.



There are three lines, or more accurately two lines, plus a word.
The last word at the bottom left is "nothing".
The second line seems to say:
"Men to be blamed for"

The last three words on the top line seem to read:
"are not the"

So, what I can see is"
xxx xxxxx are not the
men to be blamed for
nothing

The second word on the top line that should be "Juwes" seems to begin with a "J", and end with an "s", but the precise spelling is not clear.
The first word begins with a capital "T" and is followed by a "ne", the vertical line for the "h" is faint, so what we see is consistent with "The".

Interesting. I can not see the J.

Pierre

[Wickerman]

Interesting. I can not see the J.

Pierre

If you look at the second line, the first three words "Men To be", then you can see a line running from the left end of the capital "T" upwards diagonally to the word above.
This is consistent with the downward sweep of either a "y", "g" or a "J".

[Pierre]

If you look at the second line, the first three words "Men To be", then you can see a line running from the left end of the capital "T" upwards diagonally to the word above.
This is consistent with the downward sweep of either a "y", "g" or a "J".

I see it now. Good description. Thanks!

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Pierre;422055][QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;421975

So if you yourself are free to think yourself about the apron and the GSG what would you say?

Best wishes, Pierre[/QUOTE]

To be honest I thought that I'd already said it Pierre. I can't really think of anything else.

I get the impression that your sort of leading me somewhere but I'm unclear about the direction.

Regards
Herlock

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,



Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;422079]

To be honest I thought that I'd already said it Pierre. I can't really think of anything else.

I get the impression that your sort of leading me somewhere but I'm unclear about the direction.

Regards
Herlock

OK! So letīs try this:

Everything you think there is to know about "apron" and "GSG".

What about their:

definitions

functions

and so on and so forth.

And: What can we know about such things?

Pretend I am from outer space and you want to describe and explain them to me.

Cheers, Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think I should withdraw that above, I have just been enlarging what is written on the drawing and it is looking like a different version entirely. Not confirming either Long or Halse.



There are three lines, or more accurately two lines, plus a word.
The last word at the bottom left is "nothing".
The second line seems to say:
"Men to be blamed for"

The last three words on the top line seem to read:
"are not the"

So, what I can see is"
xxx xxxxx are not the
men to be blamed for
nothing

The second word on the top line that should be "Juwes" seems to begin with a "J", and end with an "s", but the precise spelling is not clear.
The first word begins with a capital "T" and is followed by a "ne", the vertical line for the "h" is faint, so what we see is consistent with "The".

Hi Jon

It's a pity that this part isn't as clear as the other but from what I can see I think that you've got it right. You would expect a high level of attention to detail from an architect. Long said that it was in 3 lines. So is it likelier that the message read:

The J***s are not the
men to be blamed for
nothing.

You would think that it wouldn't be beyond the capibilities of 3 people to correctly copy a simple message! To be honest I would have expected Foster to even make a decent fist at copying the handwriting too.

Regards
Herlock

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

It's a pity that this part isn't as clear as the other but from what I can see I think that you've got it right. You would expect a high level of attention to detail from an architect. Long said that it was in 3 lines. So is it likelier that the message read:

The J***s are not the
men to be blamed for
nothing.

You would think that it wouldn't be beyond the capibilities of 3 people to correctly copy a simple message! To be honest I would have expected Foster to even make a decent fist at copying the handwriting too.

Regards
Herlock

Well, if you lined up all four sources (Long, Halse, Warren, Foster), and made me pick thee most trustworthy source for accuracy, I would say Foster, hands down!
But, as the Coroner had this drawing in front of him at the inquest (he scribbled a note of his own on the side), then I wonder why he didn't ask Foster for his version of what was written?

[Robert St Devil]

short of the chalk being found in her apron OR him hating aprons im stumped too herlock. looks like the diabolical work of... the riddler!

[Joshua Rogan]

Well, if you lined up all four sources (Long, Halse, Warren, Foster), and made me pick thee most trustworthy source for accuracy, I would say Foster, hands down!
But, as the Coroner had this drawing in front of him at the inquest (he scribbled a note of his own on the side), then I wonder why he didn't ask Foster for his version of what was written?

Hi Jon,
Is there any evidence that Foster was in Goulston St before the message was erased? Or could he have simply recorded someone elses version of the writing when noting it's position?