Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    That's true, yet the Halse version was not verified. Long's was, in so far as he had his inspector read his note and correct the spelling.
    So, two officers read Long's version, which is why it tends to be the version most repeated.
    Who gave final approval on Long's version?
    "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
    - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by erobitha View Post

      - Evidence to link Eddowes murder found by police. Jack never left any such "careless" clues before
      And that is consistent with my view. As he never did before, then why suggest he is now?
      Special Pleading?

      - It is left under a legible but not overtly large chalk message on a wall. On the face of it not making much sense
      Intentional, or coincidental?
      That's the question.

      - Nothing clearly anti-semtic in the known message? But clear enough apparently to Warren
      There's a difference between general anti-semitic prose, and downright blaming the Jews for a murder.
      Even today, theorists cannot agree on what it means.

      - Stride was murdered next door to a Jewish working mens club but there is a chance due to lack of mutilation he wont get the credit.
      There were Jewish businesses, synagogues, schools, clubs, graveyards, almost on every street. It wasn't hard to find a Jewish building in the East End.

      - It is his way of letting the police know he committed the Stride murder and don't be blaming the Jews.
      Really, so it didn't mean - Blame the Jews (who disturbed me the first time) for the body in Mitre Square?
      Members have been playing with - simple to convoluted, meanings for that graffiti for decades.

      - Within that message he spells jews Juwes. A word well known to Warren
      Just out of pure interest, back around 1999/2000 I addressed this point. I looked up English speaking Jewish websites in Israel and read through various posts to see just how Jews spell the word. I found, and posted a line on Casebook, from one post where a teenage girl had been complaining how Juwes are treated in her neighborhood.
      That post alone convinced me the spelling is not as unique as some try to make out.

      I simply do not buy Warren's argument one bit and anyone with a rational brain canot either.
      Officials are known for their 'over-the-top' rationale, it still happens in corporations and government departments today. It isn't an indication of conspiracy, unless you want it to be.

      I stand by the fact there was likely more to the graffiti than we will even know for certain.
      Right, you've made your mind up, your not being open minded, I get it. You're not willing to look at other options.
      This whole "Juwes" conspiracy nonsense came about with Stephen Knight & Walter Sickert, it has no more value that the useless 'Dairy' nonsense.
      Both these fringe theories are a constant cloud over serious Ripper research.



      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        And that is consistent with my view. As he never did before, then why suggest he is now?
        Special Pleading?



        Intentional, or coincidental?
        That's the question.



        There's a difference between general anti-semitic prose, and downright blaming the Jews for a murder.
        Even today, theorists cannot agree on what it means.



        There were Jewish businesses, synagogues, schools, clubs, graveyards, almost on every street. It wasn't hard to find a Jewish building in the East End.



        Really, so it didn't mean - Blame the Jews (who disturbed me the first time) for the body in Mitre Square?
        Members have been playing with - simple to convoluted, meanings for that graffiti for decades.



        Just out of pure interest, back around 1999/2000 I addressed this point. I looked up English speaking Jewish websites in Israel and read through various posts to see just how Jews spell the word. I found, and posted a line on Casebook, from one post where a teenage girl had been complaining how Juwes are treated in her neighborhood.
        That post alone convinced me the spelling is not as unique as some try to make out.



        Officials are known for their 'over-the-top' rationale, it still happens in corporations and government departments today. It isn't an indication of conspiracy, unless you want it to be.



        Right, you've made your mind up, your not being open minded, I get it. You're not willing to look at other options.
        This whole "Juwes" conspiracy nonsense came about with Stephen Knight & Walter Sickert, it has no more value that the useless 'Dairy' nonsense.
        Both these fringe theories are a constant cloud over serious Ripper research.


        I find how you class "fringe" theories as "a constant serious cloud" over "serious" ripper research fascinating. Like this is some kind of sacred study that must only be peer reviewed by experts and analysts and until the academic masses accept the facts by all those who study it. It isn't sacred - depsite the elitism shown by many. It was murders committed by a serial killer 130 years ago. An unsolved "mystery". In the how many years on this site has anyone agreed with anyone on anything? So what is the point of trying to solve a crime by committee?

        I have been open minded to reach my own conclusions. They are based on what I believe to be logical and rational thinking. I share them, no to be peer reviewed, but so readers can see a different perspective and make their own judgments.

        To try and solve these murders, we may never do, but it also does not require a permission slip from the state elders of ripperology to share theories.
        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

        Comment


        • #64
          It seems to me absolutely certain that the message on the wall was for the police to find. It was also erased by Warren because it linked the killer to the Free Masons. Warren knew it and that is why he erased it. All the twaddle about upsetting the Jews was just that, twaddle. The message was printed in the News a short time after and no-one reacted at all. The killer knew Warren would recognise the word Juwes and he did. What the hell was he doing erasing evidence to a murder that happened in the City anyway? Can you imagine a Met officer now destroying evidence to do with a murder in the City now? On the flimsy excuse that it might upset the locals? And far from protecting the Jewish community, it wasn't long before some cop was suggesting the Jews spell it that way, so it must be a Jew! Perhaps the way the message was presented was another give away, which is why Warren wanted it all off. The City police were disgusted and rightly so. It could have been shielded and photographed, but it wasn't. Because it was Free Mason. And he was intending to continue.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
            This has probably been well covered already, but it seems that the killer dropped Cate Eddows apron in front of the "JUWES" writing so that the police would see it. This allows me to ask your views on two things; 1. Could he have written the message BEFORE the murder? Perhaps writing on a wall after the balloon had gone up, so to speak was a bit risky? 2. If he wanted the police to read it, then there must be a cryptic message within? I cannot believe it was an antisemitic rant or a political statement.
            1. No more risky than mutilating a women after killing 3 others in a public area within police beats, the possibility of strangers stumbling into the square and commencing his murder in a square where a nightwatchman was actively working and where serving and retired PC's were living.

            2. No. It didn't have to be cryptic to get the police's attention. It just had to be linked in some way to the murder. The bloodstained apron served that purpose. PC Albert Long discovered it and Warren himself was on the scene.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Sleuth1888 View Post

              1. No more risky than mutilating a women after killing 3 others in a public area within police beats, the possibility of strangers stumbling into the square and commencing his murder in a square where a nightwatchman was actively working and where serving and retired PC's were living.

              2. No. It didn't have to be cryptic to get the police's attention. It just had to be linked in some way to the murder. The bloodstained apron served that purpose. PC Albert Long discovered it and Warren himself was on the scene.
              But I say again if the killer deposited it how did he know it would be found at such an out of the way location?

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But I say again if the killer deposited it how did he know it would be found at such an out of the way location?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                It was just inside Met Police territory. He understood the boundaries of the police forces. He wanted the Met to get the message not City of London. Once inside that territory I don’t think he cared too much on what street it would be found and the message left. Opportunity became the aim at that stage. He may have even known that an officer was due to pass shortly.
                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                  Who gave final approval on Long's version?
                  I didn't say it was approved by anyone, only that it seems to be the version most often repeated.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    What is the proof that Long found the apron piece at that building?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      If the GSG was intended for Warren, how did Jack know that Warren would be there in person? At the right time? He could have gone to Berner St first, then his office, say. Lucky thing he turned up on the sole occasion a message is directed at him. Also, if Warren hadn't been present that morning, which was a real possibility, would the GSG still be interpreted as a message for him?

                      As for Warren destroying the message, he didn't really, he had it noted down first. As is pointed out, it made its way into the papers. It was unfortunate that the scene wasn't photographed, but his actions do seem to be that of a worried official looking to avoid another riot on his watch.
                      Thems the Vagaries.....

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                        If the GSG was intended for Warren, how did Jack know that Warren would be there in person? At the right time? He could have gone to Berner St first, then his office, say. Lucky thing he turned up on the sole occasion a message is directed at him. Also, if Warren hadn't been present that morning, which was a real possibility, would the GSG still be interpreted as a message for him?

                        As for Warren destroying the message, he didn't really, he had it noted down first. As is pointed out, it made its way into the papers. It was unfortunate that the scene wasn't photographed, but his actions do seem to be that of a worried official looking to avoid another riot on his watch.
                        By placing the message in Met territory he knew Warren at some point would get to see it. He had no idea old Charlie would come down and see for himself. Bonus!
                        What riot would have ensued? If most of the Jews couldn’t read English and the message was not clearly anti-Semitic why would they riot? As you said it made the paper - were there riots then?
                        Warren did not want this to be photographed but he did sign off Long’s transcription and yet we still have a different transcription from City of London Police. What was it he didn’t want us to see or know?
                        These strange actions by the highest ranking officer of the Met were about controlling the narrative and about NOT getting that picture taken.
                        "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                        - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
                          The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell.

                          Edward Watkin, No. 881 of the City Police, said :
                          I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when I discovered the body lying on the right as I entered the square. The woman was on her back, with her feet towards the square. Her clothes were thrown up. I saw her throat was cut and the stomach ripped open. She was lying in a pool of blood. I did not touch the body.


                          Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
                          [Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

                          At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.
                          Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." [Coroner] Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."
                          [Coroner] Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.
                          [Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	Juives.jpg
Views:	143
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	739880
                          Last edited by DJA; 08-17-2020, 07:29 AM.
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            I didn't say it was approved by anyone, only that it seems to be the version most often repeated.
                            The answer is Charles Warren.
                            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by erobitha View Post

                              The answer is Charles Warren.
                              It's not thee answer, it's your answer.
                              In reality, there was no approval.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                It's not thee answer, it's your answer.
                                In reality, there was no approval.
                                So the PC Long transcript which was part of the report submitted by Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office was not in effect his final approved Met Police version?
                                "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                                - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X