Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    The fact that the killer never left any other written clue in combination with any of his other murders is indicative of him not having written the GSG either. It is not as if it would somehow be the other way around.
    Hello again, Fisherman,and good to see you in a very different thread to our last conversation.

    I agree with you. As far as we know, before the double event, the killer had left no messages for the police - or anyone else, which would argue against him having written the GSG. Though also, as far as we know, he did not discard items related to a murder in the street before the double event.


    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    All we know is that he brought a piece of EddowesŽ apron along with himself as he left the murder scene, and that he dropped it in Goulston Street. Those are the facts, the rest is speculation. Simple, complicated, random or not.
    I won't argue against your facts, but that is not all we know. We also know:

    1. The graffito was written in an unusual way incorporating an unusual spelling of Jews, if indeed Juwes was correctly transcribed and referred to Jews.
    2. The writing was fresh, so could have been written by the killer (though of course not necessarily).
    3. Charles Warren ordered the writing erased before it could be photographed (potentially allowing something to be hidden).
    4. Charles Warren ordered that any future ripper crime scenes were not to be disturbed until he arrived at the scene.
    5. The Lusk letter and kidney portion was sent (not definitely by the killer, but the only time an organ is used in an attempt to legitimise a communication - is this the same principle as the apron being used to legitimise the GSG?)
    6. The murders ceased immediately following Charles Warren's resignation.

    None of the above 6 points prove anything about the GSG, but taken together it is intriguing and maybe begins to suggest this may have been a message from the killer.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by erobitha View Post

      Like he wouldn’t have used another piece of clothing instead?
      Exactly, like a scarf worn by Chapman, that she was described as wearing before the murder, but not listed among her possessions, after the murder.
      He may have left the scarf somewhere, but no-one made the connection.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • #93
        Several authors above have acertained that JtR had not left any clues up until the GSG. Well, he had left his face and voice with Matthew Packer, he had shown all that he wasn't some half crazed nutcase by the calm facial mutilations of Eddowes face. He had shown with all 3 murders that he was into ritual, and that the mutilations would get worse. The GSG was erased on a flimsy whine by the Metropolitan police about anti semitic rioting, while a mile or so down the road their officers were rousting a Jewish working club in full view of anyone who happened along!! If that didn't start a pogrom, why would a few lines of chalk? Come on guys, Warren was hiding something.

        Comment


        • #94
          The GSG is kind of like being a kid at Christmas and being handed a beautifully wrapped present. In your mind you are thinking boy oh boy is this going to be good. You frantically rip the paper off only to discover -- a pair of socks. The GSG is basically a tease in that it simply doesn't live up to our expectations. Even if we can say with absolute metaphysical certainty that the killer wrote it, nobody knows what the hell it means. In that regard, it is pretty much just a pair of socks.

          c.d.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by etenguy View Post

            Hello again, Fisherman,and good to see you in a very different thread to our last conversation.

            I agree with you. As far as we know, before the double event, the killer had left no messages for the police - or anyone else, which would argue against him having written the GSG. Though also, as far as we know, he did not discard items related to a murder in the street before the double event.




            I won't argue against your facts, but that is not all we know. We also know:

            1. The graffito was written in an unusual way incorporating an unusual spelling of Jews, if indeed Juwes was correctly transcribed and referred to Jews.
            2. The writing was fresh, so could have been written by the killer (though of course not necessarily).
            3. Charles Warren ordered the writing erased before it could be photographed (potentially allowing something to be hidden).
            4. Charles Warren ordered that any future ripper crime scenes were not to be disturbed until he arrived at the scene.
            5. The Lusk letter and kidney portion was sent (not definitely by the killer, but the only time an organ is used in an attempt to legitimise a communication - is this the same principle as the apron being used to legitimise the GSG?)
            6. The murders ceased immediately following Charles Warren's resignation.

            None of the above 6 points prove anything about the GSG, but taken together it is intriguing and maybe begins to suggest this may have been a message from the killer.
            We also know that the lamp in Mitre Square was malfunctioning . Basically, what I meant is that what we know will not enable us to tell who wrote the GSG, why the GSG was written, when it was written and so on. I think a humongous amount of time, effort and work has been spent on the matter to no avail whatsoever. It has gotten us nowhere, and it will get us nowhere.

            Sorry if I sound disheartening.
            Last edited by Fisherman; 08-17-2020, 08:59 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
              The GSG is kind of like being a kid at Christmas and being handed a beautifully wrapped present. In your mind you are thinking boy oh boy is this going to be good. You frantically rip the paper off only to discover -- a pair of socks. The GSG is basically a tease in that it simply doesn't live up to our expectations. Even if we can say with absolute metaphysical certainty that the killer wrote it, nobody knows what the hell it means. In that regard, it is pretty much just a pair of socks.

              c.d.
              Golf socks. With eighteen holes inŽem. Thanks for the laugh, C. D!

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                Golf socks. With eighteen holes inŽem. Thanks for the laugh, C. D!
                Hello Fish,

                Actually I was thinking more like tube socks.

                c.d.

                Comment


                • #98
                  I once read an expert on victorian cockney say it means the jews wont take any blame(responsibility) for anything.

                  Its not even really that cryptic. and its obviously disparaging to jews. in a doorway of a predominantly jewish building that was well looked after. it was written in chalk and appeared fresh. the first person who walked past it and saw who lived there would have rubbed it off in an instant-its not spray paint lol. That graffiti wasnt there long at all-another indicator it was written by the killer. Long didnt see the apron or the graffitti when he walked past an hour earlier. And many Police thought it was written by the killer.

                  In the context of the events of the night of the double event where the ripper was being pestered by jews when hes trying to do his thing it really is a no brainer the killer wrote it IMHO.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                    We also know that the lamp in Mitre Square was malfunctioning . Basically, what I meant is that what we know will not enable us to tell who wrote the GSG, why the GSG was written, when it was written and so on. I think a humongous amount of time, effort and work has been spent on the matter to no avail whatsoever. It has gotten us nowhere, and it will get us nowhere.

                    Sorry if I sound disheartening.
                    No, you are right, we don't know the who, why or when, or even precisely what it said. I quite like c.d's socks at christmas analogy. One thing we do know for sure though is the reaction it provoked, and that too is strange.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      A clue has never been found before, that is true, not that he never left any, that is different.

                      In this case the killer might have carried that portion of apron away, and thrown it in a doorway as he passed on seeing the lamp of an approaching policeman.

                      But what would he have done with his knife? A portion of apron would be less incriminating than a blood stained knife!
                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        But what would he have done with his knife? A portion of apron would be less incriminating than a blood stained knife!
                        The portion was described as stained with blood "as if a knife had been wiped clean" - or words to that effect.
                        Lots of people carried knives in the East end, I guess Jack was like many other people.
                        What are they going to arrest him for?

                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by miakaal4 View Post
                          Several authors above have acertained that JtR had not left any clues up until the GSG. Well, he had left his face and voice with Matthew Packer, he had shown all that he wasn't some half crazed nutcase by the calm facial mutilations of Eddowes face. He had shown with all 3 murders that he was into ritual, and that the mutilations would get worse......
                          Objects were found scattered around Eddowes, or arranged around Chapman. Current suggestions were that they are the possessions of the victims.
                          How sure are we that all those items belonged to the victims?
                          There's no theory behind this, I'm just saying there are thing we take for granted, that in truth, we just don't know.

                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                            No, you are right, we don't know the who, why or when, or even precisely what it said. I quite like c.d's socks at christmas analogy. One thing we do know for sure though is the reaction it provoked, and that too is strange.
                            ... and just as impossible to conclude anything at all from. Which should be very clear to anybody reading these boards. More and more, I tend to look at these matters as totally unproductive to our understanding of the case. IŽm only happy I arrived there from a stance of not thinking the GSG was written by the killer. If it had been the other way around, I suspect I would have been more frustrated by it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Objects were found scattered around Eddowes, or arranged around Chapman. Current suggestions were that they are the possessions of the victims.
                              How sure are we that all those items belonged to the victims?
                              There's no theory behind this, I'm just saying there are thing we take for granted, that in truth, we just don't know.
                              In Kates case, we do actually. Since we have the benefit of her person being searched and possessions inventoried when she was taken into the station.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Like the bodies, the piece of apron was meant to be found. A scarf or another item discarded by the killer wouldn't necessarily be attributed to belong to Catherine Eddowes, but a piece of apron that fitted exactly with one the items retained from the crime scene can only belong to the victim. The implication - by leaving it by the stairwell - is that the killer "dropped" it on their back to their base. Wentworth Dwellings on the corner of Goulston Street were well known to be predominately occupied by Jewish residents so again the implication is the killer is Jewish. This, of course, is very basic stuff.

                                But it is one of only two things.

                                1) The killer did live in those dwellings, which raises the chances of them being Jewish.
                                2) The killer was very determined to pin their killings on someone Jewish, either someone specific or literally just randomly someone Jewish.



                                The stairwell where the apron was found was on the Goulston Street side of the dwellings, but does anyone know if there was any entry/exit point on the Wentworth Street side or either of the other sides of the building?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X