The apron was dropped...

[Curious Cat]

good analysis curious.

a couple of things that IMHO negate your number one and point to two. first of all would a cunning killer be so stupid to leave a major clue on his own doorstep? I think not. and two, the events of the night of the double event and the shouting of the insult Lipski at the jewish Schwartz by the ripper suspect points to the killer not being jewish, and that he a a beef with jews interupting him that night and or in general.

and people saying the GSG is useless as evidence are just plain wrong. a picture should have been taken of it to compare handwriting and spelling (especially the word jews which was apparently spelled wrong) to known suspects-especially if they were ever to get a strong suspect. or compare to other suspected letters from the killer. of course it wasnt useless as evidence, which is why warren got so much flak for erasing it.

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?

[c.d.]

Shamefully, yes, when it was first published.

Don't feel too bad, Wick. I admit to watching an interview with Patricia Cornwell which is what got me interested in the case.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

It seems this thread is taking a pivot from the dropped apron question to the GSG question.

Michael, it's like that last thread about Kozminski, why did it drift off topic? - There's only so much you can say. I seem to recall that question was answered in the first week of posts, so then what do we do?.
Now this one, what more can be said about a dropped apron, that hasn't already been said a thousand times over?

[Wickerman]

I suppose the two are always going to be linked, so it's not such a drastic detour. Given that the thread started along Masonic lines, it's doing remarkably well. Has anyone read Stephen Knight?...

Shamefully, yes, when it was first published.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

It seems this thread is taking a pivot from the dropped apron question to the GSG question.

I suppose the two are always going to be linked, so it's not such a drastic detour. Given that the thread started along Masonic lines, it's doing remarkably well. Has anyone read Stephen Knight?...

[Michael W Richards]

It seems this thread is taking a pivot from the dropped apron question to the GSG question.

[caz]

When did Central News stop treating the letter as a joke and start taking it seriously?

Why did Dolly Williamson take it seriously?

Good questions.

I could see someone at Central News suddenly waking up, as another Whitechapel weekend approached, and saying: "Look here, we'd better get this in the hands of the police sharpish, considering the sick joker claims to be 'down on whores' and 'shant quit ripping them' and what have you. Joke or not, if we do as he says and 'Keep this letter back', and only 'give it out straight' when the killer of Tabram, Nichols or Chapman strikes again, we'll be right in the s***. Let the police have the headache.

Could anyone involved in the decision to erase the writing on the wall have already been aware of this letter, and the warning it contained?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz, hope you are well....

Very well, thanks Jon. I trust you and yours are too.

From reading their memo's, both Arnold & Warren, don't clearly associate the graffiti with the murders. It isn't so much our argument or anyone's argument, but a simple interpretation of their stated views. By their actions, or intentions, they seem to want to distance the hard evidence from the graffiti, with no attention being payed to the timing involved. Perhaps, finding fault with the timing is just being too clinical?, for what was afterall an attempt at being proactive.

A fair point.

I can't say for sure obviously but, perhaps a PC was to be stationed at that doorway for the rest of the day, after the apron was removed. Police do this, if you recall two officers at Millers Court long after the body had been removed. I know that Millers Court was a murder scene and not an evidence scene, but the police had never found evidence before.

Again, a fair point. Seeing a PC stationed there until the message could be photographed, the passers-by would certainly have been alerted to something going on, but once the apron was gone there'd have been nothing to connect his presence with the murder of Annie Chapman, back on September 8th. How many passers-by, as the markets began to burst into life, would already have known that two more potentially related murders had been committed in the early hours, and would automatically have connected them to the copper on sentry-go outside the Model Dwellings?

If this was the expected procedure then anyone passing can ask the constable if this is where the apron was found, and will notice the graffiti close by. The association will be immediate all day Sunday, Market Day. The stalls are put up all along the street and the street crowded.
I honestly don't know, I can only offer suggestions.

You see, this is where you've lost me, Jon. How would anyone passing by know about an apron being found by the police, and why would the police indulge anyone's curiosity by saying: "Yes, it was found right 'ere, below this 'ere chalked message"? When did news of the apron first appear in the papers?

True, but you may also find that what we view as a "typical serial killer" did not exist in the late 19th century, it is a phenomena that has evolved as society has progressed. Comparing actions & intentions of the 19th century killer with those of today is a common mistake.

Hmm, I'm not so sure the human condition alters or evolves in line with the progress of society in general. It's like saying paedophilia did not exist a century ago, or that gay women did not exist in Queen Victoria's England, because both 'conditions' were swept under the carpet. The phenomenon of serial killing - the desire by certain individuals to act out their violent fantasies again and again - must always have existed, but was not well known until the newspapers cottoned on to the profits to be made from sensationalising such crimes for the latest generation of newly literate adults. I don't hold with the theory that violent or pornographic fiction breeds killers who would not have hurt a fly if they had only read Boy's Own.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Chatting to Keith Skinner about this thread in passing, he raised the question of whether Scotland Yard knew of the existence of the 'Dear Boss' letter when the writing on the wall was erased. It was received by Central News on September 25th, and forwarded to Williamson on Saturday September 29th, but when was the Yard first aware of it? Any thoughts?

Sorry folks, I meant to say the letter was dated 25th; received by Central News on 27th; then forwarded to Williamson on 29th.

The murders, of course, happened in the wee small hours of Sunday 30th.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

I think if Long is correct...and I dont see compelling reasons for doubting...then the apron section reveals a few details that could be crucial.....if it arrived between his first and second pass through Goulston, the A) The location is not indicative of his route from Mitre Square, B) He could live within a radius of almost a half hour on foot, (C) Its likely he chose that particular location, and that the occupants of the Model Homes there were almost 100% Jewish..(see GSG), and D) He was out again on the streets within an hour of the murder, which suggests that he felt strongly about placing, not dropping, nor losing while walking, but placing that section in the spot it is found. One of the things that for me suggests both apron and writing are by the same man.

[Simon Wood]

When did Central News stop treating the letter as a joke and start taking it seriously?

Why did Dolly Williamson take it seriously?

[Wickerman]

Thanks chaps, seem to have mislaid my copy (hopefully it's been filed away in a box in the attic and not permanently lost).
I was under the impression that it was the double event which prompted the CNA to forward the letter to the police, but (as Simon says) that didn't take place until the early morning of Sunday 30th.
Can some kind soul with a copy handy please confirm that it is my memory that is at fault, rather than the Ultimate....then you can get back to the meat of the discussion.

Confirm?

Do you mean the dates?


Courtesy of The Ultimate, by Evans & Skinner, pg 191.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

DC Halse testified that the message looked recently written, PC Long could not form an opinion as to when it was written. Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Sir Charles Warren did not offer their opinions.

London's Finest really dropped the ball that morning.

Simon

[Wickerman]

As far as is known, Chief Inspector Swanson was not in Goulston Street on the morning in question, yet in his 6th November 1888 report he described the chalked message as “blurred."

Stay well,

Simon

Hi Simon, yes I noticed that.
Swanson didn't get everything right, he's only working from reports that cross his desk.

Keep safe.

[Joshua Rogan]

Etenguy's source is in the Ultimate, hardback page 191, or about 8 pages from the end of chapter 9.

Thanks chaps, seem to have mislaid my copy (hopefully it's been filed away in a box in the attic and not permanently lost).
I was under the impression that it was the double event which prompted the CNA to forward the letter to the police, but (as Simon says) that didn't take place until the early morning of Sunday 30th.
Can some kind soul with a copy handy please confirm that it is my memory that is at fault, rather than the Ultimate....then you can get back to the meat of the discussion.