The apron was dropped...

[Curious Cat]

Is it? Basic, I mean? Would it not have been even more "basic" if the killer left the rag in the doorway of the Great Synagogue, adjacent to Mitre Square, and wrote on the wall there?
There were around 45000-50000 Jews in Whitechapel only in 1888. Out of around 250000 dwellers, these made up a fifth of the population there. So there was always going to be a pretty fair chance that the apron ended up in Jewish quarters.
In 2011, the Asian part of the Whitechapel population was between 49 and 50 per cent. If a contemporary murderers rag ended up in one of their doorways, would it be "basic" that the killer had something to say about Asians?

Sorry, I meant basic as in it's basic to conclude that as the apron piece was placed deliberately in the doorway of a predominantly Jewish occupied dwelling that it would be to implicate someone Jewish in the murder. To place the apron piece outside or by somewhere as prominent as a Synagogue is just too obvious as being a set up. That's not the killer's intention. They wanted to create the impression of the killer being within the walls of that building, even if that impression didn't last particularly long.

Whether the killer in more recent times or today would've targeted the Asian community in the same area we'll never know, but the Jewish community was the target in this instance. In that regard, the killer was either after saying something about Jewish people or was using them to a high degree as a deflection.

[Abby Normal]

Which is the direction I was leaning towards.

As they are the only two scenarios on offer and the first is unlikely it leaves the obvious attempt of setting up a sense of guilt by association. In this case, pinning it on someone within the Jewish community. The pointing towards the Jewish community only really comes in after the double event so it's now a question of did the killer always intend to have the murders attributed to someone the Jewish community - specific or random - or did it just occur to them that night?

hi curious
imho it occured to him that night and the catalyst was all those pesky interuptions. he went back to some bolthole cleaned up a bit dropped off goodies amd the knife and grabbed some chalk, which took a little bit of time and why long didnt see it the first time around.

[Wickerman]

If we are to agree that the actual killer is not likely to drop a major piece of evidence in his own doorway, then how is it that the police couldn't come to the same conclusion?
If it is so obvious to us, shouldn't it be just as obvious to him, and to the police equally?
Also, it's not like this was someone's doorway, it was an entrance to 12 dwellings.

I do agree that the best fit for the evidence that has come down to us is, that the killer used the apron to carry away the organs. That (with Abby) he dropped them off with the knife, and returned to the street.
Whether he intentionally chose that doorway, or he was being approached by a constable in the distance and ditched it randomly is debatable, but I don't accept he wrote the graffiti.

The intent of the graffiti - that the Jews will not accept blame for anything, has no bearing on the supposition that Diemshutz interrupted the killer.

[etenguy]

The intent of the graffiti - that the Jews will not accept blame for anything, has no bearing on the supposition that Diemshutz interrupted the killer.

Hi Wickerman

Is that what it means though? If the Ripper was interrupted when killing Elizabeth Stride, could he be blaming the Jews at the club for him having to find another victim - so he could fulfil either his needs or if you believe the Dear Boss letter was from the killer, to cut off a piece of ear. That is if he wrote it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Wickerman

Is that what it means though? If the Ripper was interrupted when killing Elizabeth Stride, could he be blaming the Jews at the club for him having to find another victim - so he could fulfil either his needs or if you believe the Dear Boss letter was from the killer, to cut off a piece of ear. That is if he wrote it.

See what I mean?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

Is that what it means though? If the Ripper was interrupted when killing Elizabeth Stride, could he be blaming the Jews at the club for him having to find another victim - so he could fulfil either his needs or if you believe the Dear Boss letter was from the killer, to cut off a piece of ear. That is if he wrote it.

Hi Etenguy

It reads pretty straight forward to me, though I know there are a number of variations.

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

To arrive at a direct meaning we merely remove "are the men that", those words add nothing to the meaning.
We are then left with - "The Jews...will not be blamed for nothing".
Ergo, the Jews will not take blame for anything.

If I was to write some message implying a second victim had to die needlessly, because I had been interrupted the first time. That phrase is about the last choice of words that would come to mind.
The suggestion is, that the killer is on the run, so we are not talking about someone who had time to sit and create prose & innuendoes.

Of all the suggested meanings I've read over the past two and a half decades, that is the most direct meaning I have seen posted.
The most direct meaning dictates to me that the graffiti is unrelated to the crimes.

[etenguy]

See what I mean?

Indeed. And it gets worse in my next post.

[c.d.]

I have never understood this supposed anger towards the Jews as the basis for writing the GSG. Assuming an interruption (s) as the cause.

We have no way of knowing if Jack even saw Lawende looking at him and even if he did it did not stop him from killing Eddowes.

As for Diemschutz and Schwartz, they were only guilty of driving a buggy and walking down the street respectively. Yes, they were both Jewish but I don't see how their being Jewish had any impact on their actions. It is not like their actions were connected to some sort of Jewish ritual. Now if Jack had been interrupted by say a Catholic procession honoring a particular saint then I see how a connection could be made. But to me, it seems a stretch to vent his anger towards Jews given the circumstances. Diemschutz and Schwartz were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. That had nothing to do with them being Jewish.

c.d.

[etenguy]

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

To arrive at a direct meaning we merely remove "are the men that", those words add nothing to the meaning.
We are then left with - "The Jews...will not be blamed for nothing".
Ergo, the Jews will not take blame for anything.

Of all the suggested meanings I've read over the past two and a half decades, that is the most direct meaning I have seen posted.
The most direct meaning dictates to me that the graffiti is unrelated to the crimes.

Yours is a perfectly plausible, even likely, interpretation of the GSG. But it is possible that the word nothing is being used in the sense of 'no reason' - that is not an uncommon usage.

[The Baron]

I have never understood this supposed anger towards the Jews as the basis for writing the GSG. Assuming an interruption (s) as the cause.

We have no way of knowing if Jack even saw Lawende looking at him and even if he did it did not stop him from killing Eddowes.

As for Diemschutz and Schwartz, they were only guilty of driving a buggy and walking down the street respectively. Yes, they were both Jewish but I don't see how their being Jewish had any impact on their actions. It is not like their actions were connected to some sort of Jewish ritual. Now if Jack had been interrupted by say a Catholic procession honoring a particular saint then I see how a connection could be made. But to me, it seems a stretch to vent his anger towards Jews given the circumstances. Diemschutz and Schwartz were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. That had nothing to do with them being Jewish.

c.d.

Allow me here Sir to praise your excellent post!



The Baron

[etenguy]

As for Diemschutz and Schwartz, they were only guilty of driving a buggy and walking down the street respectively. Yes, they were both Jewish but I don't see how their being Jewish had any impact on their actions. c.d.

I can quite imagine him allowing his frustation at being interrupted being directed at Diemschutz and the whole club - walking away blaming Jewish people for ruining his fun.

[erobitha]

I can quite imagine him allowing his frustation at being interrupted being directed at Diemschutz and the whole club - walking away blaming Jewish people for ruining his fun.

People are glossing over the fact that Chapman was regarded a victim of Leather Apron and therefore so was Nichols by implication. If anything was to stoke tensions with the Jewish community that incident would do it more so than the GSG. Jack wanted credit for all his kills. He was interrupted by Jews on Stride but don't go giving them the credit though. I believe that to be the crux of the message but the exact wording we will never know thanks to Warren. We are trying to interpret what the commissioner of the met wants us to see, which may not be what was written on the wall.

[Bridewell]

The only thing linking the GSG to the apron piece is proximity. Had the latter been dropped further along the road nobody would ever have given the GSG a second thought. That said, if Warren thought it relevant he should have preserved it or, at the very least, ensured that the content was agreed and accurately recorded.

[etenguy]

The only thing linking the GSG to the apron piece is proximity. Had the latter been dropped further along the road nobody would ever have given the GSG a second thought.

This is absolutely true. The question we struggle to answer confidently is whether or not that was deliberate (message from the murderer) or accidental/coincidental and the two are not linked at all.

That said, if Warren thought it relevant he should have preserved it or, at the very least, ensured that the content was agreed and accurately recorded.

This, for me, is the most intriguing part of the incident. It is hard for me to believe that Warren did not recognise the potential significance of the message, even if he himself considered it was not connected. He did not have to do much to secure the area until after the writing was photographed. The fact a photographer was called at all for this purpose is indicative of potential significance. As you say, at the very least an agreed version of the message should have been recorded. Was it simply a mistake? Though surely the sensational nature of these crimes would have assured special care.

[Abby Normal]

I have never understood this supposed anger towards the Jews as the basis for writing the GSG. Assuming an interruption (s) as the cause.

We have no way of knowing if Jack even saw Lawende looking at him and even if he did it did not stop him from killing Eddowes.

As for Diemschutz and Schwartz, they were only guilty of driving a buggy and walking down the street respectively. Yes, they were both Jewish but I don't see how their being Jewish had any impact on their actions. It is not like their actions were connected to some sort of Jewish ritual. Now if Jack had been interrupted by say a Catholic procession honoring a particular saint then I see how a connection could be made. But to me, it seems a stretch to vent his anger towards Jews given the circumstances. Diemschutz and Schwartz were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. That had nothing to do with them being Jewish.

c.d.

i guess the insult lipski shouted at schwartz had nothing with him being jewish either.