Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I think Simon might be thinking of Mark Fuhrman and a certain blood-soaked glove found in Rockingham, but maybe I'm mistaken.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

      "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.
      Why do you apply a plural (Jews) to a singular event?

      For instance, if he was interrupted by Diemschitz, it was only one Jew.
      Or, if BS-man killed Stride and was interrupted by Schwartz, he was also only one Jew.

      Yet, the graffiti clearly makes a point that Jews (plural) are to be blamed - which Jews is the killer talking about?
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Hi RJ,

        You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

        Stay well.

        Simon
        Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          Hi RJ,

          You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

          Stay well.

          Simon

          I second this


          "the graffiti clearly makes a point that Jews (plural) are to be blamed"


          No , it clearly makes a point that Jews (plural) are not to be blamed



          The Baron

          Comment


          • That’s a relief, Simon. Or I think it is.

            For those that don’t know to what I was referring, when L.A. Detective Mark Fuhrman was called to the double-homicide of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman in 1994, he canvased the crime scene with a flashlight, and found a man’s glove at Goldman’s feet.

            No one witnessed the discovery, but the glove certainly wasn’t Goldman’s.

            A little later that night, Furham drove to the home of O.J. Simpson, the estranged ex-husband of the female victim, jumped the fence, and by a stroke of great luck found the matching glove in the side-yard—with both victims’ blood on it. The most damning evidence one could hope to find.

            The trouble is, at trial, when asked to recount his discovery of the first glove, Goldman referred to the glove as “them.” Plural. “I saw THEM.”

            Oops.

            Although few now doubt that Simpson was guilty of the murders, more than one observer had an uneasy feeling that Furhman, in his zeal, had taken a glove (“them”) from the crime scene and planted it at Simpson’s house. This was just an accusation, however; it was never proven.

            It didn’t help matters that, later on, Fuhrman was caught on tape making racist statements. (Simpson was black, of course). And it REALLY didn’t help matters when, asked in court whether he planted evidence, Furhman invoked his 5th Amendment right and did not answer the question. Indeed, Fuhrman’s behavior singly-handedly insured Simpson’s acquittal.

            For those that might wonder if part of Eddowes’ apron was planted in Goulston Street, it would be difficult to explain how this could possibly have happen without a great many people being ‘in the know.’ (The same argument was used by Furhman’s supporters; any police conspiracy would have involved too many cops). Nor was Long in Mitre Square.

            I merely ponder every conceivable angle. I don’t endorse it as a working theory.


            As for the message, I don't consider the meaning 'clear.' The writer could be defiant: 'us Jews will not be blamed for things we didn't do'; or he could be accusatory: "the Jews will never admit their guilt."
            Last edited by rjpalmer; 08-26-2020, 06:33 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
              That’s a relief, Simon. Or I think it is.

              For those that don’t know to what I was referring, when L.A. Detective Mark Fuhrman was called to the double-homicide of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman in 1994, he canvased the crime scene with a flashlight, and found a man’s glove at Goldman’s feet.

              No one witnessed the discovery, but the glove certainly wasn’t Goldman’s.

              A little later that night, Furham drove to the home of O.J. Simpson, the estranged ex-husband of the female victim, jumped the fence, and by a stroke of great luck found the matching glove in the side-yard—with both victims’ blood on it. The most damning evidence one could hope to find.

              The trouble is, at trial, when asked to recount his discovery of the first glove, Goldman referred to the glove as “them.” Plural. “I saw THEM.”

              Oops.

              Although few now doubt that Simpson was guilty of the murders, more than one observer had an uneasy feeling that Furhman, in his zeal, had taken a glove (“them”) from the crime scene and planted it at Simpson’s house. This was just an accusation, however; it was never proven.

              It didn’t help matters that, later on, Fuhrman was caught on tape making racist statements. (Simpson was black, of course). And it REALLY didn’t help matters when, asked in court whether he planted evidence, Furhman invoked his 5th Amendment right and did not answer the question. Indeed, Fuhrman’s behavior singly-handedly insured Simpson’s acquittal.

              For those that might wonder if part of Eddowes’ apron was planted in Goulston Street, it would be difficult to explain how this could possibly have happen without a great many people being ‘in the know.’ (The same argument was used by Furhman’s supporters; any police conspiracy would have involved too many cops). Nor was Long in Mitre Square.

              I merely ponder every conceivable angle. I don’t endorse it as a working theory.


              As for the message, I don't consider the meaning 'clear.' The writer could be defiant: 'us Jews will not be blamed for things we didn't do'; or he could be accusatory: "the Jews will never admit their guilt."
              I dont think the graffiti was written by the killer for a number of reasons all previously stated, but a more plausible interpretation of the graffiti is one I have postulated previous that being "The Jurors are the men" The writing of the word Juwes is consistent with the writer not being able to spell jurors correctly but wrote the words how the word jurors is pronounced.

              To add further flame to this explanation in 1888 all criminal trials that took place were made up of all men!

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                Aside from the fact that no-one saw Israel or heard anything of what he says he saw including a BSM...there is no definitive understanding of who that phrase was supposedly directed towards. As for understanding those times Caz, lets not forget that of the 12 or 13 unsolved murder cases in that file only 5 were alledged to have been done by Jack. Despite the fact that knives were also used in most of those murders. the cry of "another murder" is obviously an attempt to suggest that Liz Strides murder was done by the mutilator at large, who to that point was only have assumed to have killed 2 people...and in very, very similar fashion,. in less than 2 weeks. Both with abdominal mutilations. To assume that a woman who is found with just her throat slit fell victim to a multiple mutilating murderer who has apparently not killed for almost a month is to me, intentional deflection.
                Hi Michael,

                I strongly disagree. There had been three unsolved murders locally, all of women out alone in the hours of darkness, between 6th August and 8th September. Pretty much unheard of anywhere, even in the Whitechapel area. And the most recent victims both had their throats slit. So the cry of "another murder", when Stride was found with her throat slit on the last day of September, was no more than one would expect in the circumstances. It was another murder, whether or not this woman had been mutilated. But how would they have known she had suffered no mutilations? Nobody realised Nichols had been mutilated while she was lying in Buck's Row, did they? The club members were very naturally agitated by the fact that a fourth woman had just been brutally murdered, this time on their premises.

                How else would you have expected them to react?

                Love,

                Caz
                X


                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                  i read it that the ripper was pissed off at and or wanted to blame jews so he signed the grafitti with the bloody rag leaving both at the entrance to a well known jewish inhabited building after being interupted/ seen that night while trying to do his thing.
                  I agree, Abby, and in that heightened state I would not be surprised if a man who was deranged enough to commit such murders in the first place, would simply assume that everyone would immediately get the message.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Who says its not clear...it was in the mind of the author Jon, its just that we dont know its intentions. The context. 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. That for me suggests strongly that both the apron section and the message are by the same individual. And I see physical evidence left at the scene for only the second murder that night. And a message that suggests Jews should be blamed for something, when earlier that night at a location occupied 95% plus by Jewish immigrants a woman is found on the property with a slit throat. Their initial cries for help include the word "another". Since Liz Stride in no way is in the condition of either of the 2 alleged prior murders, a presumption that a killer who to that point always mutilates after killing seems to me very misleading. And if Kates killer is this fellow named Jack, might he be miffed if he hears on the streets that Jack killed in Berner Street that night? Particularly if he is an Anti-Semite, and has knowledge of that club.

                    I believe the GSG and the apron piece off Goulston represent an acknowledgment of guilt, and a denial.

                    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." I believe at least 1 International Club member lived in those Model Homes, and from what I understand, poverty marches were launched from Gouston St in the past. Marches that were populated in large measure by immigrants. Of whom many were Jewish. It seems like a spot identifiable as a Jewish area at that time. Since the cloth was stated as "not there" when Long passed after 2, the placer of it had time to pick a spot. Someplace meaningful in conjunction with the message.
                    Hi Michael,

                    Again, how could any of the club members have known that quickly that Stride had suffered no mutilations whatsoever?

                    How would Eddowes's killer have learned that quickly about the details of Stride's murder, if by another hand? He'd have been taking the greatest care to avoid other people at the time.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                      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.
                      My postcard...

                      The killer may have been hoping that the apron and the message would only be found when the market came to life and the skies lightened. If so, PC Long scuppered his plan to cause more mischief by finding both while it was still dark.

                      Is that why the writing was small? Less chance of anyone reading it in the dark and getting rid before the fun could start?

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Theoretically, the killer had at least one run-in with a Jew that night. Although that's a tad harsh, since Israel Schwartz was minding his own business and didn't try to help the damsel in distress, but that encounter alone might have been enough to perturb the killer. The East End was brimming with antisemitism at the time, and if the killer was a gentile, there's no reason why he wasn't part of it. But I still have problems accepting Schwartz's version of events, as they are not supported by the forensics.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Why do you apply a plural (Jews) to a singular event?

                          For instance, if he was interrupted by Diemschitz, it was only one Jew.
                          Or, if BS-man killed Stride and was interrupted by Schwartz, he was also only one Jew.

                          Yet, the graffiti clearly makes a point that Jews (plural) are to be blamed - which Jews is the killer talking about?
                          Hi Jon,

                          Could I jump in here?

                          Could it be the Jews attending the Berner Street club, whose comings and goings would have made the place too risky for Stride's killer to do more than cut and run?

                          Could it be the three Jews near Mitre Square, if they saw the killer with Eddowes and could possibly go on to describe him?

                          Could it be both?

                          Or could it simply be the Jewish residents of the Model Dwellings, who had annoyed the author of the message somehow?

                          However, if your view is that a specific Jewish resident may have swindled the author, he was still blaming 'the Jews' collectively for the offence, wasn't he? In which case, why could the same not apply to one man, Diemschitz, or one man, Schwartz, as the object of the author's ire?

                          It's the natural response of the bigot, to blame all members of a race, nationality, class or sex, for the real or perceived sins of individuals.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Why do you apply a plural (Jews) to a singular event?

                            For instance, if he was interrupted by Diemschitz, it was only one Jew.
                            Or, if BS-man killed Stride and was interrupted by Schwartz, he was also only one Jew.

                            Yet, the graffiti clearly makes a point that Jews (plural) are to be blamed - which Jews is the killer talking about?
                            hi wick
                            schwartz, dimeshitz, and lawende and co. at least five. could be just one or all five for that matter.

                            and its a moot point because even if it was just one it still makes sense:

                            I was pestered by a jew today. God I hate jews!

                            "Is all that we see or seem
                            but a dream within a dream?"

                            -Edgar Allan Poe


                            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                            -Frederick G. Abberline

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by caz View Post

                              I agree, Abby, and in that heightened state I would not be surprised if a man who was deranged enough to commit such murders in the first place, would simply assume that everyone would immediately get the message.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              bingo caz and its something ive also been saying all along when people say such things as its so cryptic, it dosnt make sense etc. it made perfect sense to the killer (and i dont really think its that cryptic anyway).
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                hi wick
                                schwartz, dimeshitz, and lawende and co. at least five. could be just one or all five for that matter.

                                and its a moot point because even if it was just one it still makes sense:

                                I was pestered by a jew today. God I hate jews!
                                Exactly, Abby! You put it more concisely than I did.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X