Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

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

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    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.
    What is the difference between placed and dropped? Are you assuming that it had to have been dropped because it was next to the GSG? If so, wouldn't dropped and coincidence explain that as well?

    c.d.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by c.d. View Post

      What is the difference between placed and dropped? Are you assuming that it had to have been dropped because it was next to the GSG? If so, wouldn't dropped and coincidence explain that as well?

      c.d.
      Im not sure whether you were really actually asking this, but the difference in dropping vs placement is intention. Dropped would be among the possibilities if it was there on Longs first pass after the murder, it wasnt, so the fact that the killer isnt escaping anymore and comes back out an hour later suggests that he chose where to leave it. So coincidentally where he chose to leave it had a message in chalk right above it about Jews not be blamed for something? Seriously?

      Michael Richards

      Comment


      • Originally posted by IchabodCrane View Post
        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.
        I doubt that very much. The public can have whatever firm conviction - the police however, are there to do a job and use the evidence at hand to attempt to identify the murderer. There is no way the police are going to fall for a simple trick, like supposing the murderer is Jewish, simply because of the locations of the DE murders.
        Evidently you see both the police and the supposedly volatile public, as being quite simple minded.

        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.
        The chances are that the people would have got on with their difficult lives.

        By the way, can you point to any evidence that the public where of the firm conviction that the murdered was Jewish, after the DE?
        For example, do letters to editors of the newspapers indicate this was the general public opinion?
        Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

          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.
          In that case the issue is; the killer is a single individual, yet 'they' is plural.
          Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

          Comment


          • Originally posted by NotBlamedForNothing View Post

            In that case the issue is; the killer is a single individual, yet 'they' is plural.
            Is your dispute with me referring to The Jews in broad terms? Are you suggesting if the killer was blaming The Jews he should have been blaming one man who actually did the crime? You do know that prejudice generalizes, and it doesnt matter if the man who wrote the message knew the specific name of the Berner Street killer or not...he knew The Jews were evading blame is the argument here. If you want a name for the killer Im afraid I dont have one, he certainly isnt the, or a, Ripper,... I only know that only the men still in attendance at the club are the ONLY men in the area at the time of the murder, unless you imagine the young couple did her in. Or that the mystery man slipped in and out. Id be interested to hear the times that happened at...as stated repeatedly, 4 men said they were by Louis and a dying woman around 12:40....which would make Morris a liar, Joseph a liar, and Louis a liar. 3 men among ALL those still there that had specific economic interests linked directly with the club. Joe lived in one of the cottages in the passageway, and Morris and Louis got paid to be involved there. So they are the men who would be most directly negatively impacted by any risk of closure. Which is why their stories dont surprise me a bit. Human nature mixed with murder investigations often find these kinds of issues. People lie to protect themselves. All the time.

            The 4 men that stated 12:40ish had no stake in any outcome there. 1 wasnt even from the club.
            Michael Richards

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Is your dispute with me referring to The Jews in broad terms?
              It's not a dispute, it's a question as to the meaning of the text.
              Men are being blamed, not a man - so we are probably looking at one of two scenarios:
              1. The writer is pointing the finger at men of the Berner St club
              2. It's vague political commentary

              Are you suggesting if the killer was blaming The Jews he should have been blaming one man who actually did the crime?
              This is an example of the sort of things said by people who like to say "it's not rocket science".
              If you think about it, the 'one man who actually did the crime', must actually be the killer!

              You do know that prejudice generalizes, and it doesnt matter if the man who wrote the message knew the specific name of the Berner Street killer or not...he knew The Jews were evading blame is the argument here.
              Pointing the finger at one or several Jewish people does not imply prejudice.
              If you disagree, think about this hypothetical...

              We're near the end of WW2, and I vehemently disagree with the recent bombing of Dresden, and think those involved with the decision will be found guilty of war crimes. Thus, I say...

              Those Englishmen will not be blamed for nothing

              Does that make me anti-English?

              If you want a name for the killer Im afraid I dont have one, he certainly isnt the, or a, Ripper,... I only know that only the men still in attendance at the club are the ONLY men in the area at the time of the murder, unless you imagine the young couple did her in. Or that the mystery man slipped in and out. Id be interested to hear the times that happened at...as stated repeatedly, 4 men said they were by Louis and a dying woman around 12:40....which would make Morris a liar, Joseph a liar, and Louis a liar. 3 men among ALL those still there that had specific economic interests linked directly with the club. Joe lived in one of the cottages in the passageway, and Morris and Louis got paid to be involved there. So they are the men who would be most directly negatively impacted by any risk of closure. Which is why their stories dont surprise me a bit. Human nature mixed with murder investigations often find these kinds of issues. People lie to protect themselves. All the time.
              Why do you start your analysis with the economics of the club and its (debatable) possible closure, and then proceed to work out why everyone is behaving the way they do?
              You're locking yourself in, too early. Everyone is framed and inconsistencies have to be ignored.
              I don't agree with your broad approach.
              Starting with the evidence of the murder is the right approach, and just let it take you were it does.
              If that happens to be coming to the conclusion that the killer was a Socialist immigrant Jew, so be it.
              Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by caz View Post

                Serial killer Levi Bellfield worked as a security guard and nightclub bouncer. I doubt that any establishment where he worked would have been at risk of closure and job losses if the people in charge there had suspected him of murder and rightly turned him in, saving more young women from the same fate. They'd have deserved medals, not condemnation. Imagine if it was found out later that they had conspired to protect the bastard, as one of their own, and deflect the blame elsewhere. Now that would have had bleeding obvious repercussions for all concerned.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                I wonder why Michael Richards completely ignored my post above?

                How many clubs or organisations would immediately and rightly suspect one of their staff members of a murder on their grounds, and then do everything they could to cover up for that staff member, because they would be worried about the repercussions to themselves?

                How would they know that this murder was not 'another' one, committed by the same man who has recently been picking off women out alone at night in the neighbourhood? What would inform them that the staff member they suspect couldn't also have murdered Tabram, Nichols or Chapman? How would they tell all that from merely seeing a woman lying there in the dark, bleeding from a wound to her throat?

                Hindsight is one thing, and we are all entitled to our opinions based on it. But the club members didn't have that gift, and when Stride's body was found they would have been as much in the dark as anyone else about who had, or had not attacked this woman, and the extent of her injuries. Yet Michael is claiming they somehow knew instinctively, within moments, that this was not 'another' murder by the unknown mutilator, but a one-off by one of their own, and launched themselves into a double quick damage limitation exercise.

                Of course, Michael will argue that the deceit worked perfectly, because Stride was considered by most people at the time - including the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard - to be 'another' murder by the same knifeman. But I doubt the clubmen had any influence over it. They would naturally have presumed the same as others have ever since, that the Whitechapel Murderer had struck again, this time - unfortunately for them - on their premises. If some members entertained doubts, it would surely have been later on, when they learned this victim had not been mutilated like the others.

                Love,

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


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  I wonder why Michael Richards completely ignored my post above?
                  I would suggest a general reason and a specific one.

                  The general reason is that the best posts tend to be ignored, because no one can answer them, and no one cares to admit as much.

                  The specific reason is that Michael can see inconsistencies in witness accounts that cannot easily be explained away (by pointing to unsynchronized clocks, for example).
                  This leads him in the direction of a truth that he doesn't want to be so, yet he does want to know the truth.
                  The security guard story is a way of dealing with that dilemma.

                  Having said that, I think Michael has begun to turn to the dark side.
                  Others would too, if they only knew the power of the dark side.
                  Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                  Comment


                  • Back to the apron....

                    Where I agree with Michael is that it appears to me to have been placed where it was by design, rather than by accident, with the ambiguous message written above.

                    I wonder if the killer intended it to be ambiguous, so that everyone who wanted him to be a Jew could still have their Jew in the morning, and if the Jews wanted him to be a Gentile they could still have their Gentile in the morning. One size fits all.

                    Was he amusing himself because everyone thought they knew something about him when they knew bugger all?

                    Was the message designed to muddy the waters even further?

                    Love,

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


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      I wonder why Michael Richards completely ignored my post above?

                      How many clubs or organisations would immediately and rightly suspect one of their staff members of a murder on their grounds, and then do everything they could to cover up for that staff member, because they would be worried about the repercussions to themselves?

                      How would they know that this murder was not 'another' one, committed by the same man who has recently been picking off women out alone at night in the neighbourhood? What would inform them that the staff member they suspect couldn't also have murdered Tabram, Nichols or Chapman? How would they tell all that from merely seeing a woman lying there in the dark, bleeding from a wound to her throat?

                      Hindsight is one thing, and we are all entitled to our opinions based on it. But the club members didn't have that gift, and when Stride's body was found they would have been as much in the dark as anyone else about who had, or had not attacked this woman, and the extent of her injuries. Yet Michael is claiming they somehow knew instinctively, within moments, that this was not 'another' murder by the unknown mutilator, but a one-off by one of their own, and launched themselves into a double quick damage limitation exercise.

                      Of course, Michael will argue that the deceit worked perfectly, because Stride was considered by most people at the time - including the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard - to be 'another' murder by the same knifeman. But I doubt the clubmen had any influence over it. They would naturally have presumed the same as others have ever since, that the Whitechapel Murderer had struck again, this time - unfortunately for them - on their premises. If some members entertained doubts, it would surely have been later on, when they learned this victim had not been mutilated like the others.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      I wasnt ignoring you Caz, its just that based on the physical evidence they knew almost immediately that the woman had not had her abdomen mutilated, which to that point is one of the only unique characteristics shown in prior murders. A woman has been murdered would be absolutely an appropriate thing to shout, "another" murder presumes far too much based on a single cut, unless of course it was intended to suggest another woman in general. I dont believe thats the case here.

                      I did note we agree upon placement vs dropped Caz, ...(once in while we meet in the middle)....although we differ on the ambiguity of the message.
                      Michael Richards

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by caz View Post

                        I wonder why Michael Richards completely ignored my post above?

                        How many clubs or organisations would immediately and rightly suspect one of their staff members of a murder on their grounds, and then do everything they could to cover up for that staff member, because they would be worried about the repercussions to themselves?

                        How would they know that this murder was not 'another' one, committed by the same man who has recently been picking off women out alone at night in the neighbourhood? What would inform them that the staff member they suspect couldn't also have murdered Tabram, Nichols or Chapman? How would they tell all that from merely seeing a woman lying there in the dark, bleeding from a wound to her throat?

                        Hindsight is one thing, and we are all entitled to our opinions based on it. But the club members didn't have that gift, and when Stride's body was found they would have been as much in the dark as anyone else about who had, or had not attacked this woman, and the extent of her injuries. Yet Michael is claiming they somehow knew instinctively, within moments, that this was not 'another' murder by the unknown mutilator, but a one-off by one of their own, and launched themselves into a double quick damage limitation exercise.

                        Of course, Michael will argue that the deceit worked perfectly, because Stride was considered by most people at the time - including the author of the Saucy Jacky postcard - to be 'another' murder by the same knifeman. But I doubt the clubmen had any influence over it. They would naturally have presumed the same as others have ever since, that the Whitechapel Murderer had struck again, this time - unfortunately for them - on their premises. If some members entertained doubts, it would surely have been later on, when they learned this victim had not been mutilated like the others.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        yup. and if anyone from the club did kill her, all they had to do was remove her body and dump a little ways away-they even had a cart right there. like theyre going to come up with this convoluted story/idea about bs man and schwartz on the spot, with everyone knowing what part to play. yeah right. its total nonsense.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post
                          Back to the apron....

                          Where I agree with Michael is that it appears to me to have been placed where it was by design, rather than by accident, with the ambiguous message written above.

                          I wonder if the killer intended it to be ambiguous, so that everyone who wanted him to be a Jew could still have their Jew in the morning, and if the Jews wanted him to be a Gentile they could still have their Gentile in the morning. One size fits all.

                          Was he amusing himself because everyone thought they knew something about him when they knew bugger all?

                          Was the message designed to muddy the waters even further?

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          of course it was. and throw blame on the men and make life difficult for the very people who interupted you and are going to the police with your description! the ripper was a clever SOB.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                            yup. and if anyone from the club did kill her, all they had to do was remove her body and dump a little ways away-they even had a cart right there.
                            That's right, and all they would have needed to do to stop blood spilling everywhere when they dumped her on the cart, was to first place her on an old blanket.

                            like theyre going to come up with this convoluted story/idea about bs man and schwartz on the spot, with everyone knowing what part to play. yeah right. its total nonsense.
                            That's right. Why would they wait until the last minute to come up with a plan?
                            Andrew's the man, that is not blamed for nothing

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                              yup. and if anyone from the club did kill her, all they had to do was remove her body and dump a little ways away-they even had a cart right there. like theyre going to come up with this convoluted story/idea about bs man and schwartz on the spot, with everyone knowing what part to play. yeah right. its total nonsense.
                              She couldnt be moved without blood evidence showing that had happened, and Schwartz's story isnt "on the spot" at all. Its given Sunday night. After more than 12 hours to come up with it and finding translator...who very well might have been Wess, Wess translated for Goldstein on Tuesday night.

                              The ONLY men in that immediate at the time of the murder are attendees and members. Almost certainly all Jews. I know youd, and others, would like to imagine the sleuth slipping in and out, I hope you find any evidence for that someday. No-one has yet though.
                              Last edited by Michael W Richards; 10-28-2020, 12:07 PM.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • if she was killed on their property and club member/s were involved (and this is even assuming they would all agree to conspire a cover up)they had all the time in the world to clean up, get rid of the body---they wouldnt even need to say anything to the police. "nope none of us heard a thing or know anything about it " end of.

                                That they would come up with this cockamamy conspiracy, instantaneously no less, is ridiculous on the face of it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X