Apron placement as intimidation?

[ChrisGeorge]

I am uncertain whether either the apron or the graffito could have been left for intimidation, given that the "message" either might convey was uncertain.

[Charles Daniels]

I am uncertain whether either the apron or the graffito could have been left for intimidation, given that the "message" either might convey was uncertain.

Amazed to see this still going

My thinking is that the message is unclear to us, but may have been clear to the intended recipient of the message.

Not necessarily something as complex as a code or anything fancy like that.

For example, what if I had a strong suspicion or had witnessed the murderer doing something? Something damnable.

If the murderer knew me, and I knew the murderer, and then after a kill he dumped the bloody apron on my doorstep -- I might take that as a threat against me, or a message of "I could get you too."


I think this thought was, frankly, something better left for a plot point in a crime fiction novel, than anything that would seriously inform my view of the case.

But I like to think out loud sometimes. Amazed that it's echoed across 46 pages or what have you.

[etenguy]

My thinking is that the message is unclear to us, but may have been clear to the intended recipient of the message.

If the murderer knew me, and I knew the murderer, and then after a kill he dumped the bloody apron on my doorstep -- I might take that as a threat against me, or a message of "I could get you too."

This is just a what if, but what if the apron wasn't left at Goulston street by the murderer, but someone who knew where the murderer lived. Perhaps they were scared to come forward and so left the apron there after picking it up when it had been discarded earlier and after following him home. Maybe they witnessed the murder, or its aftermath. Possibly they even left the GSG as a clue to the police. Do we have the Ripper's address?

Not a theory - just a thought game.

[Abby Normal]

This is just a what if, but what if the apron wasn't left at Goulston street by the murderer, but someone who knew where the murderer lived. Perhaps they were scared to come forward and so left the apron there after picking it up when it had been discarded earlier and after following him home. Maybe they witnessed the murder, or its aftermath. Possibly they even left the GSG as a clue to the police. Do we have the Ripper's address?

Not a theory - just a thought game.

Interesting.
IMHO the ripper got pissed because he was interrupted by Jews that night, and being a local who knew the buildings were mostly Jewish residents, left the apron and signed it with the Jew incriminating graffiti.

[c.d.]

I just don't see anger at the Jews in general for being interrupted that night. First of all, that assumes that the B.S. man was Stride's killer which I don't think he was. But even if he was, Schwartz's interruption didn't stop him from killing Stride. As for anger at Diemschutz for possibly interrupting the mutilation of Stride, how does Diemschutz being Jewish enter into it? Was he driving his cart in some sort of Jewish way that took it into the path of the Ripper or was it driven as part of some sort of Jewish ritual? As for Lawende and his companions, how did they interrupt the plans of the Ripper? Did they look at him in some sort of Jewish way or approach him and say hey we are Jews and we don't like the way you are looking at that woman don't you dare go on to kill her? That really seems like a stretch. And finally, if the Ripper were really filled with anger at the Jews and wanted to intimidate them why write such an ambiguous message that could also be interpreted as being pro-Jewish? And even if the message is anti-Jewish surely he could have done better than what seems like a mild rebuke.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I just don't see anger at the Jews in general for being interrupted that night. First of all, that assumes that the B.S. man was Stride's killer which I don't think he was. But even if he was, Schwartz's interruption didn't stop him from killing Stride. As for anger at Diemschutz for possibly interrupting the mutilation of Stride, how does Diemschutz being Jewish enter into it? Was he driving his cart in some sort of Jewish way that took it into the path of the Ripper or was it driven as part of some sort of Jewish ritual? As for Lawende and his companions, how did they interrupt the plans of the Ripper? Did they look at him in some sort of Jewish way or approach him and say hey we are Jews and we don't like the way you are looking at that woman don't you dare go on to kill her? That really seems like a stretch. And finally, if the Ripper were really filled with anger at the Jews and wanted to intimidate them why write such an ambiguous message that could also be interpreted as being pro-Jewish? And even if the message is anti-Jewish surely he could have done better than what seems like a mild rebuke.

c.d.

Seems to odd a coincidence on the night of the double event where several Jewish witnesses, including one who had a heavy Jewish appearance, saw and possibly interrupted the ripper that anti Jewish graffiti just happened to be found with evidence from a crime scene and on a predominantly Jewish residence.

Just my opinion.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

But as I pointed out in my post, how did their being Jewish factor into it?

Calling the message anti-Jewish in nature is an opinion. It can be interpreted as being pro-Jewish as well. Only the author knows what was actually intended.

And even if we accept the premise that the message was intended as a response to his being interrupted why does it seem so mild in nature? More along the lines of a Jewish butcher being caught with his thumb on the scale.

c.d.

[c.d.]

I should have added that even if we knew with absolute certainty that the killer wrote the message and that it was in fact anti-semitic, we still could not be sure that it was simply not a ruse on the part of the killer. He could have been a Jew and wrote the message to put the police on the wrong track.

c.d.

[Harry D]

I should have added that even if we knew with absolute certainty that the killer wrote the message and that it was in fact anti-semitic, we still could not be sure that it was simply not a ruse on the part of the killer. He could have been a Jew and wrote the message to put the police on the wrong track.

c.d.

Hello CD,

While you are correct in your assessment that the Goulston St graffito is open to interpretation, we need to apply a little critical thinking here.

1. Would a local Jewish immigrant write in cockney double-negative?
2. Racial tensions were high at the time, and it's much likelier the graffito was anti-semitic rather than pro-semitic
3. The police were already suspicious of der Juden, and had tried to collar one Jew for the murders (Pizer). There wasn't any need for the killer (if he was a Gentile) to deflect the blame.
4. The antisemitic sentiment of the GSG is one that has been prevalent throughout history, i.e. that the Jews never take responsibility for their crimes.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Harry

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I'd just point out that double negatives aren't exclusively Cockney, nor peculiar to the English language for that matter.

[Abby Normal]

Hello CD,

While you are correct in your assessment that the Goulston St graffito is open to interpretation, we need to apply a little critical thinking here.

1. Would a local Jewish immigrant write in cockney double-negative?
2. Racial tensions were high at the time, and it's much likelier the graffito was anti-semitic rather than pro-semitic
3. The police were already suspicious of der Juden, and had tried to collar one Jew for the murders (Pizer). There wasn't any need for the killer (if he was a Gentile) to deflect the blame.
4. The antisemitic sentiment of the GSG is one that has been prevalent throughout history, i.e. that the Jews never take responsibility for their crimes.

good post harry

There wasn't any need for the killer (if he was a Gentile) to deflect the blame.

not sure what you mean by this though. IMHO that's at least part of what the ripper was doing by writing the GSG.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Harry

Whilst I agree with most of what you say, I'd just point out that double negatives aren't exclusively Cockney, nor peculiar to the English language for that matter.

hi Sam
I'm pretty sure it was probably predominantly cockney.

and in the context of the events of that evening-right in line with a non jewish writer. ie-"lipsky!"

[Harry D]

not sure what you mean by this though. IMHO that's at least part of what the ripper was doing by writing the GSG.

Hello Abby,

My point is that the killer didn't need to deflect blame onto the Jews because the police already suspected he was one of them.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

My point is that the killer didn't need to deflect blame onto the Jews because the police already suspected he was one of them.

gotcha-thanks

[Sam Flynn]

hi Sam
I'm pretty sure it was probably predominantly cockney.

Double-negatives are, and have probably long been, commonly used by English speakers throughout Britain; often, but not always, in the everyday speech of the working classes. They are also found in other languages like French, Polish and Russian (amongst others), so it's not inconceivable that a non-native English speaker could inadvertently create a double-negative by "translating" what's in their heads.