The apron was dropped...

[Scott Nelson]

Edward Spooner lived at 26 Fairclough street

Who said anything about Edward Spooner?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Who said anything about Edward Spooner?

Matthew Packer

[NotBlamedForNothing]

The GSG as well as the Lusk letter, in my opinion, are the two sole communiques from our man.
Their linguistics have to be considered from the POV of the "character" adopted by the perpetrator.
Semantics is one thing; psychology is another; the desired effect is the most crucial.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the chalked message is genuine.
Now if the writer were trying to point the finger at members of the Berner street club, the text has an interpretation similar to this...

The men of the Socialist club will not be blamed for nothing
I just happen to have a section of the victim's apron, to prove I'm kosher

Which is of course is rather ridiculous.
Alternatively, suppose the writer is himself of the Berner street club...

We men are the Anarchists and Socialists who will not be blamed for nothing

Which is absurd.
For the writer to legitimately point the finger of blame at the club, he must at least have some sort of relationship with the killer - the killer himself being a member of the club, but the writer not. A good candidate for this identity is the Batty Street Lodger.
Of course there are other interpretations, including one I have put forward myself.
However, I'm now leaning toward another party being responsible for both the writing on the wall, and the correspondence with the police.
Why would a hoaxer be writing a JtR letter in 1896, and send it to the police rather than the press, and include a non-copied (inaccurate) rendition of the graffito?

"Someone, somewhere shared Jack the Ripper's guilty secret..."

- Walter Dew

[Scott Nelson]

Matthew Packer

So where does Packer mention Spooner?

I was talking about the Batty Street lodger (or customer to be more precise) suspected by police of living in the immediate area.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

So where does Packer mention Spooner?

I think he mentions him implicitly.

I was talking about the Batty Street lodger (or customer to be more precise) suspected by police of living in the immediate area.

Okay. Well the BSL seems to have been a German, but the suspect living in the area does not seem to have been the BSL...

Echo, Oct 18: The supposed clue on which the police are now working is said to relate to a man living in the locality, but not to the visitor to Batty-street.

[Lipsky]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the chalked message is genuine.
Now if the writer were trying to point the finger at members of the Berner street club, the text has an interpretation similar to this...

The men of the Socialist club will not be blamed for nothing
I just happen to have a section of the victim's apron, to prove I'm kosher

Which is of course is rather ridiculous.
Alternatively, suppose the writer is himself of the Berner street club...

We men are the Anarchists and Socialists who will not be blamed for nothing

Which is absurd.
For the writer to legitimately point the finger of blame at the club, he must at least have some sort of relationship with the killer - the killer himself being a member of the club, but the writer not. A good candidate for this identity is the Batty Street Lodger.
Of course there are other interpretations, including one I have put forward myself.
However, I'm now leaning toward another party being responsible for both the writing on the wall, and the correspondence with the police.
Why would a hoaxer be writing a JtR letter in 1896, and send it to the police rather than the press, and include a non-copied (inaccurate) rendition of the graffito?

"Someone, somewhere shared Jack the Ripper's guilty secret..."

- Walter Dew

I think that we are confusing here two different speculations:
1. Was the GSG (and by extension, any other communique, incl. the Lusk letter) by the killer?
2. Was the message in any of the authentic communiques to be taken at face value?

1. I think that time and circumstance point out towards a very authentic communique as per GSG. This is in complete alignment with the sites of the Double Event, both Jewish-related, and both deliberate, if assumed the killer knew the victims before-hand. A pre-arranged meeting, a swift move between the two sites, executed by military precise by an expert, ruthless "hired hand". There's plenty of time to write the message, drop the apron and hide in the vicinity of the neighbourhood in a perfect safe-house.

2. If the man is a professional "hired hand", distraction is part and parcel of the plan. Antisemitism was already on the rise in London (and sadly elsewhere), the selection of the sites incriminates (amidst speculation) both classes of the Jewish emigre populace. The Police's incredibly stupid idea to not provide a specific write-down of the message itself has only added to the notoriety. The infamous "double not" (pun intended).

It is very strange to try and take the message itself literally. No the man was not necessarily member of a club or Jewish or .. whatever. He wanted to direct the mob against Jews and increase the chaos that a "double event" was certain to trigger anyway. The man is taunting not because he has no composure, but because he knows how to distract, this is a black-op style murder spree of someone who is clearly not in his right mind, but not some unchecked lunatic or maniac as the police wrongly believed. Contemporary scholars (a few) tried to apply different psychiatric approaches and were reprimanded. To me, they were on the right track. This is a deranged mind but hired, skilled, and ruthless at his game.

Taunting the Lusk committee and the man himself was also part of the strategy dyring the "Detente" following the Double Event and prior to the MJK carnage. Lusk was dirt and in on some sinister "behind-the-scenes" schemes that involved the victims (and future star victim MJK) and the killer was in on it too, though , as I said, as a hired -hand, he was on orders from his employer: the original blackmail victim back in early '88. The Lusk letter, written "in character", tells us about the psyche of this dangerous person not because it needs be taken at "Face value" but because, in order to create that "persona", the writer/killer reveals glimpses of his amoral, criminal mindset. "From Hell" indeed.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

1. I think that time and circumstance point out towards a very authentic communique as per GSG. This is in complete alignment with the sites of the Double Event, both Jewish-related, and both deliberate, if assumed the killer knew the victims before-hand. A pre-arranged meeting, a swift move between the two sites, executed by military precise by an expert, ruthless "hired hand". There's plenty of time to write the message, drop the apron and hide in the vicinity of the neighbourhood in a perfect safe-house.

Organization and accomplices - quite possibly - but hired hand? Hired by who and for what purpose?
Further on you say...

He wanted to direct the mob against Jews and increase the chaos that a "double event" was certain to trigger anyway.

That is no 'hired hand' - it's a man with his own agenda. Which one is it?

2. If the man is a professional "hired hand", distraction is part and parcel of the plan. Antisemitism was already on the rise in London (and sadly elsewhere), the selection of the sites incriminates (amidst speculation) both classes of the Jewish emigre populace. The Police's incredibly stupid idea to not provide a specific write-down of the message itself has only added to the notoriety. The infamous "double not" (pun intended).

The double event sites may indeed incriminate both classes of Jews, but only if there is no graffito.
That is, if the graffito means "the Jews did this", then it is immediately self-negating, simply because it would be clear that the guy with the apron is much more likely to have been the culprit, than the group he is pointing his finger at!
Alternatively, if the culprit is a Berner street club Jew, the graffito then means "we Jews did this".
How ridiculous is that though - why would the murderer incriminate not only his own people, but given the location of the first murder, narrow the guilty down to his own club members, and therefore himself?
There is a third possibility, however - make the writer of the graffito an accomplice to the killer.
Now, "the Jews did this", expands to "I am in cahoots with the Jews that did this".
So this man is implicating his conspirators, in the crimes. What a sneaky bugger!
To be fair though, he did give warning...

You will soon hear of me with my funny little games.

Taunting the Lusk committee and the man himself was also part of the strategy dyring the "Detente" following the Double Event and prior to the MJK carnage. Lusk was dirt and in on some sinister "behind-the-scenes" schemes that involved the victims (and future star victim MJK) and the killer was in on it too, though , as I said, as a hired -hand, he was on orders from his employer: the original blackmail victim back in early '88. The Lusk letter, written "in character", tells us about the psyche of this dangerous person not because it needs be taken at "Face value" but because, in order to create that "persona", the writer/killer reveals glimpses of his amoral, criminal mindset. "From Hell" indeed.

Either that, or it was a hoax.
As for the Lusk conspiracy, perhaps you could point to some evidence?...

[Lipsky]

Organization and accomplices - quite possibly - but hired hand? Hired by who and for what purpose?
Further on you say...


That is no 'hired hand' - it's a man with his own agenda. Which one is it?


The double event sites may indeed incriminate both classes of Jews, but only if there is no graffito.
That is, if the graffito means "the Jews did this", then it is immediately self-negating, simply because it would be clear that the guy with the apron is much more likely to have been the culprit, than the group he is pointing his finger at!
Alternatively, if the culprit is a Berner street club Jew, the graffito then means "we Jews did this".
How ridiculous is that though - why would the murderer incriminate not only his own people, but given the location of the first murder, narrow the guilty down to his own club members, and therefore himself?
There is a third possibility, however - make the writer of the graffito an accomplice to the killer.
Now, "the Jews did this", expands to "I am in cahoots with the Jews that did this".
So this man is implicating his conspirators, in the crimes. What a sneaky bugger!
To be fair though, he did give warning...

Either that, or it was a hoax.
As for the Lusk conspiracy, perhaps you could point to some evidence?...

1. A hired hand introduced in the scheme of things ... maybe a little bit after his arrival in the great London area (January '88)... let's say one month later? The attacks begin with the first offensive of the first blackmail group in March - April '88 , followed by what i call "the first detente" and the mysterious disappearance of a street rat-trickster-wiseguy known with the alias "Freddy Fingers".

A hired hand that goes solo and uses his own personal acquaintance with these prostitutes who are also in the employment of some greedy landlords...who generously allow them to stay behind their rent so that they can use them as "messengers" of a blackmail scheme... hinted at an "upper" person... a socialite whose sexual "vices" could destroy his public position.

2. The GSG is meant to "include" Jews so that the mob would have a named enemy. The mob mentality would not bother with details of whether the "author" of the graffiti is the perpetraror or an accomplice or...an eye witness? ("LIPSKY" cry -- I didnt choose the nickname randomly).

The whole concept is to have a "name" attached to what was only a "ghost" -- a leather apron. Antisemitism was so high that the mere inclusion of the word "Jews" would cut it.

3. Our man was a sole perpetraror but he had a circle of acquaintances that he could "use", even without their own knowledge. The weird movements of Eddowes prior to her murder confirm to this.

4. The Double Event is the sole witness that gathers so much fragmented information surrounding it -- witnesses, located conveniently around Jewish sites.
And who indeed cried "Lipsky"? -- and at whom? this is a direct confrontation relating to a murder victim.

5. Similar self-conflicting sightings and eye-witnesses (?) re-emerge also in the latter (but not last) case: MJK.

6. The hired hand was employed to clear house of the blackmail teams : one major offensive in sprin ' 88, one more brutal in autumn '88 and "clearing house" in '91. Around that time, some landlords in Whitechapel "did business" and joint forces (business/family) and moved on. The signal was given out: the blackmail's over. Our man lays low.. for some decades..

7. Lusk was dirt - we have established thus far by now. Most "vigilantes" are, anyway, in for a scam or two. Mishter Lusk was privvy to some inside "stuff" going on in his hood and wanted in on the deal. Our man learnt of this and decided to taunt Mishter Lusk. This is a personal trigger more than a threat. These dear victims were over their head in a scheme that had some other male scum directing them. Lusk offered to "help" -- at a good price, of course. He needed the money and what better way as to create a "vigilante" front to justify his involvement in this case. Not that his committee did anything worthwhile -- that wasnt the purpose anyway.

Convenient how Lusk, the landlords, and all other shady male street thugs disappeared after MJK's slaughter and went on about their lives even after '91 and the last murders.

"Freddy Fingers" should get you started -- the spring ' 88 offensive had one survivor whose tellings were ....well.. telling!

[Michael W Richards]

I have suggested numerous times that with the proper context...the location, the Jews blaming Jack for a murder that night, the apron section..this isnt such a complex riddle. Its being made so by improper context.

[Scott Nelson]

7. Lusk was dirt - we have established thus far by now.

We have?

Was he a slumlord?

[Lipsky]

We have?

Was he a slumlord?

Haven't we?

Define #slumlord#. I say dirt. In for some cash. Make name for himself. Maybe settle scores or -- god forbid -- debts.

Very few people who had some fame in this case were innocent of wrongdoings or mishandlings or -the greatest guilt of all- motive and efficiency.

Of course -- apart from the victims.

[Bridewell]

It seems to me that the meaning of the GSG, whether or not relevant to the murders, is entirely dependent on the ethnic origin of the writer. If he or she was a Gentile then it is a vitriolic and sarcastic criticism; if, however, the writer was Jewish I would perceive the intent to be one of open defiance directed towards the Gentile majority.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

It seems to me that the meaning of the GSG, whether or not relevant to the murders, is entirely dependent on the ethnic origin of the writer. If he or she was a Gentile then it is a vitriolic and sarcastic criticism; if, however, the writer was Jewish I would perceive the intent to be one of open defiance directed towards the Gentile majority.

I'm inclined to neither of those, for a couple of reasons, and one is quite simple...

The writing is so small that it's size could be considered to be a clue as to the intent of the message.

He is speaking to us very quietly … the Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing

It's the Goulston Street Whisper, and the GSW is a hint.

[Michael W Richards]

It seems to me that the meaning of the GSG, whether or not relevant to the murders, is entirely dependent on the ethnic origin of the writer. If he or she was a Gentile then it is a vitriolic and sarcastic criticism; if, however, the writer was Jewish I would perceive the intent to be one of open defiance directed towards the Gentile majority.

As Ive stated ad infinitum,the message when viewed within the context of that specific nights events, isnt rocket science, its a direct accusation at Jews for some Blame, something they seem to be avoiding to the author, and the only Jews I know of that night who were attempting to avoid Blame were the International Club staffers. The apron section below likely serves as a signature, that the person with that opinion killed in Mitre Square but not in Berner St.

I still think its ludicrous that without any supporting evidence people still believe a serial mutilating "Ripper" killed Liz Stride. There is no evidence of any interruption, there is no evidence the victim was even touched after a single throat cut, theres no recordable attempt to put the victim on her back, theres no evidence that anyone was on that street anywhere near those gates other than a young couple up the street, theres no evidence anyone left via the gate from 12:50 until 1, and theres no evidence anyone arrived "precisely" at 1. There is corroborated evidence that quite a few Jews were gathered around a body around 12:40-:45, which is a scant minute earlier than Blackwells guess at an earliest cut time, and there is evidence another medical expert thought she may have been cut as early as 12:30.

Woman killed on property owned and at the time occupied by 30 or so Jews, without any real street traffic after 12:35. The killer was one of the men onsite. The fact that some Jews went running out shouting "another murder" has been committed, thereby presumably linked with some other earlier murders by someone unknown, is the Jews attempt at evading Blame.

The Mitre Square killer, likely anti Semitic, drew attention to that and maybe thought he could infer they also did the Mitre Square murder. There is little doubt that the location of that message, and the placement of the apron section, were both in reference the ethnicity of the tenants of the Model homes at that location.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

As Ive stated ad infinitum,the message when viewed within the context of that specific nights events, isnt rocket science, its a direct accusation at Jews for some Blame, something they seem to be avoiding to the author, and the only Jews I know of that night who were attempting to avoid Blame were the International Club staffers. The apron section below likely serves as a signature, that the person with that opinion killed in Mitre Square but not in Berner St.

I shot the sheriff
But I didn't shoot no deputy

He can do all the blaming he likes. Who's gonna believe him?
Besides, if the MS killer were an anti-Semite, why not write nothing on the wall, and hope to see "the Jews" take the blame for both murders?
There are other problems with your analysis, like how does this guy know the ethnic makeup of the club, how does he find out so quickly (the 1am grapevine?), and why the coincidence of timing, or did he kill just so he could write the graffito?