The apron was dropped...

[Michael W Richards]

Again with perhaps intentional argumentative fervor..

Whether it was customary for people to gather in the alley after the club closed is immaterial, what matters is whether there was anyone there that night.

The only people who said it was empty are club affiliates, employed or housed by the club.

The club appears to have closed about 11:30, according to secretary Wess. Clearly, the killer was not present then.

Read it again...the meeting ended at 11:30, and almost 30 club attendees were still there at 1.

So are we to believe some club members gathered in the alley, and stood talking for over an hour, 'before' the killer arrived with Stride, yet he went ahead and attacked her anyway?
That's preposterous Michael.

Where do you get this stuff,...its surely not from any post I made.

According to secretary Wess, the yard was empty at 12:15 when he left.
Eagle saw no-one in the yard at 12:40,
I don't see how you can win with this argument, all the evidence speaks against it.

Again with the club staff reports.....just listen carefully Jon......NO CLUB STAFF HAVE ANY OUTSIDE CORROBERATION FOR ANYTHING THEY CLAIM. Not one.

Take that back, one does....Issac K works for the club and he says he was by the dying woman at around 12:40...what, dont you like his story? Oh yeah, it agrees with 3 other witnesses, and you like unsubstantiated over the corroborated.

[Michael W Richards]

Im thinking you must have misunderstood Jon.

Any story concocted by Jewish club members had not been aired by the time the graffiti was found. So I fail to see the relevance, the killer had yet to become aware of any Jewish story.

They were heard calling "another" murder when first seeking help.

So you're saying Jack was a member of this Jewish club? - you are saying he was a Jew?
A Jew complaining about Jews?


Im saying Liz Strides murderer likely came from that club Jon, thats all.

Lets not "invent" what I said, ok?

[caz]

Doctor Blackwell arrived in Dutfields Yard at 1.16 am.

He estimated that Stride had died “From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived."

This put her death somewhere between 12.46 and 12.56 am.

Doctor Blackwell also told the coroner—

"She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed.”

This put her attack at an earlier time than 12.46 or 12.56 am.

How could Diemschitz have disturbed the killer at 1.00 am?

Yet the official version of events has Stride being attacked at the exact moment Eddowes left Bishopsgate police station.

Time of death estimates can be almost as unreliable today as they were in 1888, Simon, although at least we know that today - or we should.

Without reliable 'last sighting alive' and 'first sighting dead' witness accounts, the medical men may as well have worn blindfolds, like that copper in the Punch cartoon.

If Stride was cut at 1.00 am, and pronounced dead at 1.16 am, would you not think that 16 minutes would have been a comparatively long time for her to have bled to death? Sounds horrendously long to me, but then I only got an O level in biology.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

Lloyd's Weekly News, commenting on the Frances Coles murder in February 1891.

"In previous crimes of this nature, writings have been found on walls in the vicinity, but in the present case no marks of any kind were observed."

This is hardly authoritative, but it makes it sound as if it would be unusual not to find graffiti near a murder scene.

Forbes Winslow also reports going around and recording various 'Ripper' graffiti chalked up around East London. So it doesn't sound like it would have been particularly rare.

I found one report, albeit dating to the early 20th Century, where London Jews themselves frequently chalked up messages on the outside of their buildings. They were 'moved along' so frequently, or had to change lodgings so frequently, that it became a sort of unofficial billboard system to communicate with people who might try to locate them after they had moved. 'Rosenberg is now in Birmingham.' This wouldn't fit the Goulston Street message, of course, but no doubt local troublemakers might mock this system of communication with messages of their own.

[caz]

Superintendent Arnold also overreacted. He had an officer standing by the message with water and a sponge, whereas a quick swipe with licked fingers would have done the job just as well.

Or even a quick swipe of three words.

The ... are the ... who will be ... for nothing.

Job done. Riot prevented.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Even if we could be certain that our interpretation is correct and that the message expresses hatred of the Jews and assigns blame to them, how can we be certain that the writer was not in fact a Jew himself? A classic red herring.

c.d.

I thought a classic red herring was something that had been proved to be an entirely irrelevant distraction, c.d.

If we can't be sure whether the writer was a Jew, defending Jews, or a gentile blaming them, how can we recognise the message as a red herring?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

But making the same mistake as you did

The bottom line is, ....in order to have any value, the meaning must be incident specific, if you agree it is only a general comment, then it has no value as evidence.
That's the challenge you both have to overcome.

I don't have to 'overcome' any challenge. See my last post, Jon.

Everyone has tried to make the message 'incident' specific in one way or another, whether it was your 'last straw' analogy to one too many noisy parties; being swindled in Jews' Market [another name for Middlesex Street/Petticoat Lane]; or some other perceived offence(s) specifically being blamed on a certain group.

Maybe it was chalked by someone who had never had cause to blame anyone Jewish for anything specific, but was merely expressing a prejudice against all Jews everywhere, but there is no evidence either way, is there? And if that had been the case, would you not have expected more examples in the same hand, on walls of other Jewish establishments in the area, as opposed to what appears to have been a one-off venting of this individual's spleen?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

It's just a potential clue, which might not be a clue at all.

Couldn´t put it more succinctly if I tried to.

[caz]

A couple of questions for Abby and Caz:

1. If the text had read "The zulus are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" or "Polar bears should not be allowed on the London streets", would you consider it likely to have been written by the killer? In other words, is the proximity itself enough for establishing a link, or does a link demand a message that gives away that it was written by the killer? Not that it COULD have been written by the killer, mind you, because ANYTHING can be written by anybody who can write.

2. Assuming that you admit that the text is what ultimately governs the likelihood of the killer being the guy/gal with the chalk, how does the text at hand give away that it was written by the killer?

I humbly suggest that what you have is an observation that the Jews caused bad blood in many camps (a correct observation), another observation that Jews were close by the murders in Dutfields Yard as well as in Mitre Square (another correct observation) - but this in it´s turn does not mean that the text can be linked to the killer. We don´t even know that the text was critical towards Jews, and if we cannot even link it to antisemitism as such, then why would we conjure up an antisemitic killer with a piece of chalk in his pocket...?

Forget about the damn thing.

Okay, I will forget about it. It really doesn't bother me either way, Fishy.

It's just a potential clue, which might not be a clue at all.

I have already given my personal opinion on the 'coincidence' argument, and outlined what could point to it being no coincidence at all, but an attempt to wind up the neighbourhood and pick at the scab forming over the Leather Apron business. Up to others to agree or disagree.

No need for special pleading against a connection, any more than special pleading for one.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

I realized I should have referenced the Chapman case, I just assumed everyone would remember his estimate which conflicted with Richardson's evidence. I wasn't thinking about the Kelly murder.
I don't see it as a canard Christer, Richardson was there, Phillips was only guessing, and medical knowledge of the time was not sufficiently accurate enough to contest an eyewitness account.

No, Jon, Phillips was not "only guessing". He was using his vast experience to make an informed estimation about the body temperature. I advice very much against elevating witness testimony to facts. For example, you say that Richardson was there. You are, I take it, aware that there is absolutely no corroboration for it? If we were to do our ripperology like that, we would cordon off a lot of valuable alleys of research.

Richardson SAYS he was there. He SAYS that Chapman was not. Phillips estimate gainsays him.

And there we are.

Then again: wrong thread.

[Wickerman]

Jon, what you are holding onto is a presumption that the alley was empty, based on....yes, the uncorroborated accounts. When in fact the neighbors stated that often after meetings people would gather in that alleyway, smoking and discussing politics most likely, until long after 1am. On this night however, we have club affiliated witnesses saying no-one was there...even when 2 of them were there at the same times based on their own statements, and when 4 witnesses say they were by a dying woman. By the way, 4 independent witnesses giving almost identical times and details is corroboration defined. Claiming to see something, or nothing, with no other witness verifying your claim is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Whether it was customary for people to gather in the alley after the club closed is immaterial, what matters is whether there was anyone there that night.
The club appears to have closed about 11:30, according to secretary Wess. Clearly, the killer was not present then.
So are we to believe some club members gathered in the alley, and stood talking for over an hour, 'before' the killer arrived with Stride, yet he went ahead and attacked her anyway?
That's preposterous Michael.

According to secretary Wess, the yard was empty at 12:15 when he left.
Eagle saw no-one in the yard at 12:40,
I don't see how you can win with this argument, all the evidence speaks against it.

[Wickerman]

When you consider that Jews...plural...sought to construct a story making them seem innocent, the phrase "The Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing" makes sense as a accusatory message towards the members of the club. The gist of which is there is actually good reason to blame the Jews...again, plural.

Any story concocted by Jewish club members had not been aired by the time the graffiti was found. So I fail to see the relevance, the killer had yet to become aware of any Jewish story.

The club members are the only ones we know of on that site when Liz is killed, so its highly probable that her killer came from inside that alleyway. The idea that Jack slips into the picture then stops what he is doing because a cart and horse came up is possible if Jack was at that club. No-one slipped in and then out onto the street, Fanny Mortimer was at her door from 12:50 until 1am, and sporadically there from 12:30 until 12:50. She would have seen people on the street...and she did. The young couple, and Goldstein.

So you're saying Jack was a member of this Jewish club? - you are saying he was a Jew?
A Jew complaining about Jews?

[Curious Cat]

When you consider that Jews...plural...sought to construct a story making them seem innocent, the phrase "The Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing" makes sense as a accusatory message towards the members of the club. The gist of which is there is actually good reason to blame the Jews...again, plural.

The club members are the only ones we know of on that site when Liz is killed, so its highly probable that her killer came from inside that alleyway. The idea that Jack slips into the picture then stops what he is doing because a cart and horse came up is possible if Jack was at that club. No-one slipped in and then out onto the street, Fanny Mortimer was at her door from 12:50 until 1am, and sporadically there from 12:30 until 12:50. She would have seen people on the street...and she did. The young couple, and Goldstein.

You appear to be forgetting that the gates into the yard were open - which wasn't usually the case - so the yard, side of the club and printing room at the back were accessible to anyone passing the site. Members of the club would not have been the only ones with accessibility to the yard at the time of the murder.

[Michael W Richards]

When you consider that Jews...plural...sought to construct a story making them seem innocent, the phrase "The Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing" makes sense as a accusatory message towards the members of the club. The gist of which is there is actually good reason to blame the Jews...again, plural.

The club members are the only ones we know of on that site when Liz is killed, so its highly probable that her killer came from inside that alleyway. The idea that Jack slips into the picture then stops what he is doing because a cart and horse came up is possible if Jack was at that club. No-one slipped in and then out onto the street, Fanny Mortimer was at her door from 12:50 until 1am, and sporadically there from 12:30 until 12:50. She would have seen people on the street...and she did. The young couple, and Goldstein.

[Wickerman]

That old canard again? Jon, we do not know that Phillips´estmates were "way off target". He may instead have been - and in my view probably was - very much on target in the Chapman case.

I realized I should have referenced the Chapman case, I just assumed everyone would remember his estimate which conflicted with Richardson's evidence. I wasn't thinking about the Kelly murder.
I don't see it as a canard Christer, Richardson was there, Phillips was only guessing, and medical knowledge of the time was not sufficiently accurate enough to contest an eyewitness account.