Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

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

  • Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post

    Bravo! I fully support these conclusions. As was pointed out in many previous threads, the double event simply contains too many references to Jewish locations to be coincidental.
    1) Dutfields Yard and the international working mens eductional club
    2) The great synagogue at Mitre square (most obvious spontaneous choice after plan A failed)
    3) Goulston Street (already planned to drop hint there on way back home)
    The logical conclusion is that the Ripper, influenced by the newspaper reports about Leather Apron, set out to put a clear spotlight on the Jewish community that night.
    The inference is, that the Ripper himself was not a Jew. Moreover the grammar of the GSG suggests that his native language was French (Les juifs ne sont pas des gens qui seront blames pour rien - makes perfect sense in French)
    Do you suppose that joke about Leather Apron gave him real fits (if you take my meaning)?

    Synagogue parade - A procession of Jewish unemployed and sweaters' victims will be held on Saturday, March 16, 1889, and will proceed to the Great Synagogue, where the Chief Rabbi will deliver a sermon to the unemployed and sweaters' victims. The procession will start at half-past twelve from 40, Berners [sic] Street, Commercial Road, E. We demand work to buy bread, and the hours of labour to be eight per day. Come in large numbers, and bring your friends with you.

    Are you sure it weren't someone(s) from within the Jewish community putting a clear spotlight on society?
    If you are sure, how well did they succeed in what you suggest?
    Did the double event/graffito cause significant social unrest?
    Why wasn't the murderer seemingly concerned with politics in the case of the other murders?
    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DJA View Post

      Doubt anyone really reckons Hutchinson was living there 40 days before the other "Mary Ann Kelly"s demise.
      That's if he lived there at all.

      Thanks just the same Buddy.
      Maybe. maybe not. "the place where I usually stay was closed"-hutch referring to the Victoria home.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

        Do you suppose that joke about Leather Apron gave him real fits (if you take my meaning)?

        Synagogue parade - A procession of Jewish unemployed and sweaters' victims will be held on Saturday, March 16, 1889, and will proceed to the Great Synagogue, where the Chief Rabbi will deliver a sermon to the unemployed and sweaters' victims. The procession will start at half-past twelve from 40, Berners [sic] Street, Commercial Road, E. We demand work to buy bread, and the hours of labour to be eight per day. Come in large numbers, and bring your friends with you.

        Are you sure it weren't someone(s) from within the Jewish community putting a clear spotlight on society?
        If you are sure, how well did they succeed in what you suggest?
        Did the double event/graffito cause significant social unrest?
        Why wasn't the murderer seemingly concerned with politics in the case of the other murders?
        Thanks for your questions, i am trying to answer them below:

        Are you sure it weren't someone(s) from within the Jewish community putting a clear spotlight on society? -> you mean a member of the Jewish community wanting to highlight that the serial killer on the loose was a Jew and thereby trying to cause a mob unrest against the Jews? That is quite a stretch for my imagination. Much more likely it was the murderer trying to divert suspicion as far away from himself as possible
        If you are sure, how well did they succeed in what you suggest? -> had the graffito not been erased, there could have been unrest and a clear conviction in the public opinion that the killer was a Jew, which the murderer was not
        Did the double event/graffito cause significant social unrest? -> it did not because it was erased. it could have caused unrest had it not been erased.
        Why wasn't the murderer seemingly concerned with politics in the case of the other murders? -> he was simply an opportunist. the double event took place shortly after heated public debate / suspicion that the killer might have been a Jewish butcher

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          Maybe. maybe not. "the place where I usually stay was closed"-hutch referring to the Victoria home.
          You have been around long enough to know Hutchinson only used the Victoria Working Men's Home to hold court with the press.

          Where did you lift your quote from?
          Trust it wasn't "The Star"
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • Originally posted by caz View Post
            ...given that the message was both small and ambiguous? How many passers-by would have read it and 'got' the message, before the police found it and erased it for fear that it would cause a public disturbance, despite the fact that the apron piece was removed before that could have happened?
            Hi Caroline,

            I doubt that the writer cared one iota how many passers-by would stop to read it. It could have been an exercise in penmanship or a simple form of self expression.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

              Hi Caroline,

              I doubt that the writer cared one iota how many passers-by would stop to read it. It could have been an exercise in penmanship or a simple form of self expression.
              lol. youre kidding right?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post

                Thanks for your questions, i am trying to answer them below:

                Are you sure it weren't someone(s) from within the Jewish community putting a clear spotlight on society? -> you mean a member of the Jewish community wanting to highlight that the serial killer on the loose was a Jew and thereby trying to cause a mob unrest against the Jews? That is quite a stretch for my imagination. Much more likely it was the murderer trying to divert suspicion as far away from himself as possible
                No, I meant more along the lines of G.B. Shaw's Blood Money to Whitechapel...

                SIR,-- Will you allow me to make a comment on the success of the Whitechapel murderer in calling attention for a moment to the social question?

                I very much doubt Shaw meant Jack was literally a social reformer though, although I'm not sure.

                As for your point about the murderer diverting suspicion away from himself, I'm not sure what you mean.
                He can write on that wall as much as he likes - however, he has the bloody apron! I don't understand your logic.

                If you are sure, how well did they succeed in what you suggest? -> had the graffito not been erased, there could have been unrest and a clear conviction in the public opinion that the killer was a Jew, which the murderer was not
                Same problem as above - the logic of the killer with the apron, blaming Jewish men, is short-circuiting.

                Did the double event/graffito cause significant social unrest? -> it did not because it was erased. it could have caused unrest had it not been erased.
                We can actually put that notion to the test:

                Did the text of the graffito end up in the papers? Yes
                Did the publication of the graffito cause social unrest? No

                When what 'could' or 'might' happen is used as the basis for making important decisions, almost anything can be justified.

                Why wasn't the murderer seemingly concerned with politics in the case of the other murders? -> he was simply an opportunist. the double event took place shortly after heated public debate / suspicion that the killer might have been a Jewish butcher
                A few weeks later.
                The problem for the notion that the murderer is trying to divert suspicion, in the case of the DE and GSG, is that the other murders don't support this.
                If the murderer is an opportunist, he behaves as such, and therefore his diversionary plan is going to fail immediately, due to a lack of consistency in his approach.
                Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                Comment


                • I think the apron was placed to draw attention into that entranceway, the message would then be seen as a result. It didnt have to be as big as a billboard. PC Long stated "it was not there" on his earlier pass, referring only to the apron, so... taken at face value, it then suggests he actually looked at that spot the first pass after the murder. That would also suggest that the person who left the apron section could reasonably expect someone passing to see it.

                  Its like getting called discreetly into an alley and then being told something semi-secretive. The Jews.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Its like getting called discreetly into an alley and then being told something semi-secretive. The Jews.
                    The size of the letters is surely significant - it's not like some billboard with big provocative text on it.
                    It's more like a little secret is being whispered, and the term 'Goulston Street Graffito' is damaging to that understanding.
                    That crude signifier has to go!

                    The question of who wrote it is far from obvious, though. The killer is in no position to do any blaming.
                    Who is blaming the Jewish men, and why?
                    The identity of the author cannot be considered separately from the purpose of the apron.
                    The organs left Mitre Square in something. In what, if not the apron? Where had they gone when the apron was found?

                    Why didn't Long and Halse see the apron on their last pass through?
                    Perhaps the apron was missed due to it being wrapped up (possible), or the killer hung around awhile before depositing it (unlikely), or maybe the changeover occurred earlier (about 2am), and the recipient decided to leave a little hint, when the apron was later disposed of.
                    The last option makes sense, because it can explain why the apron took a while to show up, and gives us an identity who, while far from innocent themselves, can logically point the finger at the killer and his accomplices.
                    Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                    Comment


                    • The apron was not there until some hour or so after the murder in Mitre Square, it was therefore not simply discarded while the killer fled. That specific location then becomes a clue. When he could choose any location within a 30 minute walk radius, why this location? One that can be readily accepted as a predominantly Jewish location. Its because the message he wanted to leave was about Jews. And his belief they were evading blame, or erroneously overlooked for some blame.

                      That same night a while earlier Jews were blaming a mutilating phantom for a simple 1 cut murder of a woman on their property, while 30 or so Jews were there, and were the only people known to be in the vicinity.

                      So the message is sarcastic.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                        That same night a while earlier Jews were blaming a mutilating phantom for a simple 1 cut murder of a woman on their property, while 30 or so Jews were there, and were the only people known to be in the vicinity.

                        So the message is sarcastic.
                        You mean that blame will be avoided?

                        By the way, did you just blame one of those 30 for the murder, or am I misreading you?
                        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                          As for your point about the murderer diverting suspicion away from himself, I'm not sure what you mean.
                          He can write on that wall as much as he likes - however, he has the bloody apron! I don't understand your logic.
                          If the murderer was a gentile, firm public conviction that the murderer was a Jew would help avoiding to come onto the polices radar in the first place. I believe that would have been the reasoning behind the choice of locations for the double event.

                          Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post
                          We can actually put that notion to the test:

                          Did the text of the graffito end up in the papers? Yes
                          Did the publication of the graffito cause social unrest? No
                          I believe the intention of the murderer was to cause an unrest against the Jews in the morning of the next day, had the bloodied apron been discovered by the public and not by police underneath the chalk writing. Chances are there would have been quite a commotion. The way the newspapers reported about it later, stressed more the ambiguity and cryptic nature of the message, so that the takeaway from the newspaper reports was not a clear blame on the Jews, not in the same way than if it had been discovered by members of the public and all hell might have broken loose.


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            The apron was not there until some hour or so after the murder in Mitre Square, it was therefore not simply discarded while the killer fled. That specific location then becomes a clue. When he could choose any location within a 30 minute walk radius, why this location? One that can be readily accepted as a predominantly Jewish location. Its because the message he wanted to leave was about Jews. And his belief they were evading blame, or erroneously overlooked for some blame.

                            That same night a while earlier Jews were blaming a mutilating phantom for a simple 1 cut murder of a woman on their property, while 30 or so Jews were there, and were the only people known to be in the vicinity.

                            So the message is sarcastic.
                            Hello Michael,

                            But the apron had to be dropped somewhere did it not? It had to have a physical location. Couldn't we draw a conclusion from anywhere that it was dropped?

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                              Hello Michael,

                              But the apron had to be dropped somewhere did it not? It had to have a physical location. Couldn't we draw a conclusion from anywhere that it was dropped?

                              c.d.
                              What Im suggesting cd is that due to the fact that it is not dropped, but rather placed, then ANYWHERE its placed had significance to the person placing it. In this case, I believe the significance is insinuated by the GSG.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

                                You mean that blame will be avoided?

                                By the way, did you just blame one of those 30 for the murder, or am I misreading you?
                                I mean they were trying to evade blame, and yes, I believe Strides killer was on the property. He neednt be anyone prominent in the clubs activities, like for example Diemshitz or Eagle. But both those men made statements that are directly refuted by multiple people, all who affirmed each others observations.
                                Michael Richards

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X