The apron was dropped...

[Fisherman]

So it all boils down to people believing so much in their own personal interpretations that this must mean that the GSG is truly significant? And it potentially holds so many messages, obscured to us today, that we may safely rely on how the infernal killer lay behind it? And if we agree that the police believed that the message could cause unrest, and that they based this belief on how they thought that the message was likely anti-semitic to some larger or smaller degreee - then we MUST agree that the location where the message was found is likely relevant...?

I īm sorry, but that is just nonsensical. Personal interpretations are nothing more than that: personal takes on things, where others have other takes on the same matters. Apart from how we disagree, nothing else is proven by it.

Hidden messages are only interesting when they can be lured out of their hiding places. Before that happens, they are not messages at all, they are speculation.

And I agree that the police thought that the message could cause unrest. I even consider it a proven thing that they did. I also consider it a proven thing that the type of unrest they spoke of would have been of an anti-semitic character. But that does not automatically mean that I must accept the the place where the GSG was written was "likely relevant"! The mere idea is preposterous, since by itīs very character it rules out the possibility that the text was written before the Eddowes murder and by somebody who had nothing at all to do with the murders. And if we rule these options out we are either fools or too biased to realize where we are going wrong.

It is not until we can link the writing to the murders that we can start speaking of a link between the rag and the GSG. And although we may suggest that the message was likely crystal clear to the writer, it remains that as long as it is anything but crystal clear to us, it cannot be ruled important in any way at all. Once again, and forever if required, this does NOT mean that the GSG must have been unrelated or that it must have been unimportant. It only means that it must be TREATED as unrelated and unimportant until otherwise proven. If we treat it as related and important, we put ourselves at risk to mislead things rather wildly. Admittedly, if we treat it as unrelated and unimportant, we run the risk of missing out on a factual clue - but that is nevertheless how things must be done.

It can only be said in so many ways, and I think I have used them all by now. Hope it helps.

[miakaal4]

The apron was undoubtedly left by the killer (or an accomplice) Considering the time span between the kill and the drop, it is probable that JtR didn't pound the pavements with bits of Eddowes and his blooded knife. Perhaps after the previous murder when he removed the organs from Chapman, he realised he needed something to carry them, so nicked a bit of apron. This has already been suggested and makes sense. He takes the organs somewhere, then goes to Goulston street. He may actually wait for the beat copper to pass, then drops the apron and chalks the message. Okay. So how did he know about the wall? In the time between he could have walked to Piccadilly and back, so not much there, but lastly, what was Warren doing jumping out of bed and visiting a wall which belonged to a murder in the City, instead of going to Stride murder scene outside a Jewish socialist club? (Because he was so worried about Jews being abused.) There had been 2 murders of women who were seen on the same level as Aborigines and African baggage handlers, and yet when a 3rd is killed, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police jumps out of bed and travels through cold dark streets in his wagon, to visit Whitechapel for the first time? Eddowes was not his problem, 3 whores Abberline and Reid on the case yet Warren gets involved?

[Wickerman]

Possibly, we don’t know. We do know there were at least three different transcripts of which the one we are led to believe is the correct may not be so. There is nothing not true with that statement.

There might be three (or more) versions, but I don't see the distinction you are making. Three different ways of saying the same thing?

Halse version receives confirmation from no-one:
"The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing."

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

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

Shelton/Foster: "The Jews are not the men to be blamed for nothing"

Regardless which you prefer, or what meaning you attach to it, the meaning is the same

I do however subscribe to the belief it was some kind of message claiming Stride and in reference to Leather Apron and the interruption he suffered that night. At it’s heart a reference to stop giving Jews the credit for his work.

I don't see "stop blaming the Jews" in any of the four versions.

[Curious Cat]

Do we know the actual size of the apron piece that was cut?


Also, does the killer cut the apron piece before, during or after conducting the mutilations?

[Wickerman]

Who says its not clear...it was in the mind of the author Jon, its just that we don't know its intentions.

But that's the point Michael, it is argued that it was left for police, so it must be clear in it's meaning, but it isn't.
All it says to me is, that Jews will not take blame for anything. so how does that relate to two murders? - it doesn't.

Time is not a factor, if there are various interpretations available today, then the same situation existed when it was found.
The police wouldn't even know if the intent of dropping the apron was to draw attention to some graffiti, or to the premises.

You would agree that the wiping of the GSG was because the authorities deemed it dangerous to leave up? You would agree that its interpretation was that it contained some kind of Anti-Semitic message? If you agree to those 2 points then you also have to agree that its specific location is likely relevant too.

Yes, but accepting both those conclusions still does not necessitate it being written by the killer.
It could just as easily have been written by some disgruntled citizen who was complaining about Jews in general.

I think Kates killer was trying to say that " I done the Mitre square lady, but you need to look at the Jews for that other one."

Too vague Michael, there is no way the police can assume the writer is referring to Berner St. from that graffiti.

[Wickerman]

Do we know the actual size of the apron piece that was cut?


Also, does the killer cut the apron piece before, during or after conducting the mutilations?

Halse was quoted as saying:
'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut."
The Ripper File, Jones & Lloyd, pg 126.

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Is a darkened doorway at night the most obvious place to plant a clue? It was found, so was that luck, or good planning. If it was a plant, what if it had been missed on the night and found that morning as the market was coming to life? If a resident found a bloody rag, it's more than likely they'd fetch a copper. Would anyone notice the graffito? Answers on a postcard.

[Curious Cat]

Halse was quoted as saying:
'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut."
The Ripper File, Jones & Lloyd, pg 126.
https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...-graffito.html

Do you happen to know the original source of the quote?

[Simon Wood]

“[I] accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing.”

Halse: Eddowes’ Inquest Records, London Metropolitan Archives.

[Michael W Richards]

Too vague Michael, there is no way the police can assume the writer is referring to Berner St. from that graffiti.

"The Jewes...on Berner Street are not the men who will be blamed without good reason...". The Juwes are the men that will not be (get) blamed for nothing", The Jews are the men that will not be blamed without cause". As I said the context is everything, and we dont know which to apply to those lines. What he refers to may have seemed crystal clear to him when he wrote it. We dont know enough to say what he meant to say, only what he said.

[Michael W Richards]

Do we know the actual size of the apron piece that was cut?


Also, does the killer cut the apron piece before, during or after conducting the mutilations?

As I recall Curious it was somewhere around 2'x2' or even a bit larger. 1 of the tie strings was still attached...I can envision it was used to wrap the bundle when leaving the square. I remember being surprised at the size when I first learned of it, it was not just a corner piece. Which adds another head shake to this murder, if he is the organ thief at large why isnt he better prepared...why do we see cuts made that were not intended to access anything, or excise anything. In Annie Chapmans case the line "there were no meaningless cuts" comes instantly to mind.

Kates killer traces around the navel, he makes marks on her face and almost cuts her nose off, he cuts a 2 ft colon section out and tucks it between her arm and body, releasing feces, and cuts and tears some of her clothing to carry off his spoils. ...."there were no meaningless cuts" is a way of saying that all the cutting was purposeful and served what appears is the final objective...in Annies case, it appears he wanted to obtain her uterus. Can we say all Kates cuts were so he could obtain her kidney? Partial bladder and partial uterus?

Annies killer didnt need anything from the victim to carry off spoils.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Mr "Prosector" Weston Davies makes a really good point on the whole navel tracing in his podcast. Leans towards a surgical knowledge, which doesn't suit his own theory. Suits Henry Sutton though. Kidney expert. And disease of the eyes and lips. Worth a thought eh?

[Wickerman]

Do you happen to know the original source of the quote?

A number of quotes in the book are referenced, but not all. Unfortunately, this is among those that are not.
I've searched all through the BNA, but without success. I do know there are some London papers still not listed on BNA yet.

[etenguy]

Hi etenguy,

A potential connection was never established.

Letter from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser, Commissioner of the City of London Police, 3rd October 1888—

“I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer. In order to do this, it is necessary [to discover] if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.”

Stay well.

Simon

Hi Simon.

Thanks for that quote, it is rare that alternatives to the killer taking the apron to Goulston Street is discussed. We do now know that the bloodied rag was indeed a piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron. We do not know for certain someone else did not drop the apron segment there - I remember one poster in another thread suggesting it was PC Long who planted it there so he could look good by finding it.

However, that it potentially (and overwhelmingly likely) was the killer who dropped it there and possibly wrote the GSG is established. There might in future be evidence that proves otherwise, but at this time I think no-one could definitively state the potential does not exist.

[etenguy]

Sorry Etenguy, I'm inclined to think "unknown" would mean no known connection.
We can only have "no known connection" until one is established.

You and I are not likely to agree on this one in the near future, I respect your position, but still feel the Scottish verdict of unproven works best here. Some reason to think a connection possible but insufficient evidence to prove a connection.