The apron was dropped...

[Wickerman]

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.

'Objects scattered around her", not on her person Michael.

[Abby Normal]

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?

good analysis curious.

a couple of things that IMHO negate your number one and point to two. first of all would a cunning killer be so stupid to leave a major clue on his own doorstep? I think not. and two, the events of the night of the double event and the shouting of the insult Lipski at the jewish Schwartz by the ripper suspect points to the killer not being jewish, and that he a a beef with jews interupting him that night and or in general.

and people saying the GSG is useless as evidence are just plain wrong. a picture should have been taken of it to compare handwriting and spelling (especially the word jews which was apparently spelled wrong) to known suspects-especially if they were ever to get a strong suspect. or compare to other suspected letters from the killer. of course it wasnt useless as evidence, which is why warren got so much flak for erasing it.

[Wickerman]

In writing with chalk on a wall you use your arm & wrist muscles, fingers normally stay rigid. Writing on paper with a pen you use your finger muscles.
There's no comparison, except with spelling of course.
But yes, it should have been photographed, regardless.
I can't see why Halse said it looked fresh, unless he meant it was not smudged by anyone brushing against it as they entered the building.

[Fisherman]

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.

Is it? Basic, I mean? Would it not have been even more "basic" if the killer left the rag in the doorway of the Great Synagogue, adjacent to Mitre Square, and wrote on the wall there?
There were around 45000-50000 Jews in Whitechapel only in 1888. Out of around 250000 dwellers, these made up a fifth of the population there. So there was always going to be a pretty fair chance that the apron ended up in Jewish quarters.
In 2011, the Asian part of the Whitechapel population was between 49 and 50 per cent. If a contemporary murderers rag ended up in one of their doorways, would it be "basic" that the killer had something to say about Asians?

[Fisherman]

people saying the GSG is useless as evidence are just plain wrong. a picture should have been taken of it to compare handwriting and spelling (especially the word jews which was apparently spelled wrong) to known suspects-especially if they were ever to get a strong suspect. or compare to other suspected letters from the killer. of course it wasnt useless as evidence, which is why warren got so much flak for erasing it.

But no picture WAS taken, Abby. And so the GSG actually IS useless as evidence.

[Abby Normal]

But no picture WAS taken, Abby. And so the GSG actually IS useless as evidence.

hi fish
i still disagree. if something ever turns up of a suspects writings where they spelled the word jews as juwes then i think its a huge piece of evidence.

[Fisherman]

hi fish
i still disagree. if something ever turns up of a suspects writings where they spelled the word jews as juwes then i think its a huge piece of evidence.

The thing is, Abby, we donīt even know if the writing DID say Juwes. And the reason is that it was erased. So how can we tell? And where does it lead us? To a place where a suspect who did not have a very clear handwriting gets convicted...?

No, Abby, the GSG is a complete and utter waste of time, and I donīt think that is going to change anytime soon.

[The Baron]

Ahh, so if I want to know anything about the GSG, I know who to come to.....

At least we can agree on something here, and that is Druitt didn't write the GSG!



The Baron

[Scott Nelson]

No, it was a young Jewish schoolkid, Simon DeLafuente. Boy, was he scared afterwards.

[erobitha]

No, it was a young Jewish schoolkid, Simon DeLafuente. Boy, was he scared afterwards.

First I have come across that name. A quick Google search suggests he moved to New York at some stage according to US 1940 census, but would have been around 14 when this was done. I'm assuming you have some evidence to support this?

[etenguy]

hi fish
i still disagree. if something ever turns up of a suspects writings where they spelled the word jews as juwes then i think its a huge piece of evidence.

The thing is, Abby, we donīt even know if the writing DID say Juwes. And the reason is that it was erased. So how can we tell? And where does it lead us? To a place where a suspect who did not have a very clear handwriting gets convicted...?

No, Abby, the GSG is a complete and utter waste of time, and I donīt think that is going to change anytime soon.

I think it is fair to say that the GSG is significant and a potential piece of evidence, though I agree with Fisherman that it yields little of great value at the moment. If nothing else though, it raises an interesting question - why was the only potential clue to the ripper erased? Warren's letter explaining his actions is not at all convincing, especially the part where he suggests it could not be covered until the photographer arrived - utter nonsense.

[Fisherman]

I think it is fair to say that the GSG is significant and a potential piece of evidence, though I agree with Fisherman that it yields little of great value at the moment. If nothing else though, it raises an interesting question - why was the only potential clue to the ripper erased? Warren's letter explaining his actions is not at all convincing, especially the part where he suggests it could not be covered until the photographer arrived - utter nonsense.

How do we know that it is significant if it is only potentially a piece of evidence, etenguy? I agree that the commotion caused by itīs discovery is interesting per se, but that is another can of worms altogether.

[etenguy]

How do we know that it is significant if it is only potentially a piece of evidence, etenguy? I agree that the commotion caused by itīs discovery is interesting per se, but that is another can of worms altogether.

I think it is significant for the following reasons:
a) it may have been written by the murderer
b) it may have meaning that we are unable to confidently discern
c) it was the first potential physical clue left by the murderer
d) it caused a reaction that I would argue was both inappropriate and difficult to understand.

Even if the GSG was simply a coincidence of juxtaposition with the bloodied piece of apron, it tells us something through the reaction of Arnold and Warren to it - what it tells us is not entirely clear except it does imply a level of police fear, be that for the reasons Warren stated or some other currently unknown reason. I think this makes it a significant part of the story.

[Fisherman]

I think it is significant for the following reasons:
a) it may have been written by the murderer
b) it may have meaning that we are unable to confidently discern
c) it was the first potential physical clue left by the murderer
d) it caused a reaction that I would argue was both inappropriate and difficult to understand.

Even if the GSG was simply a coincidence of juxtaposition with the bloodied piece of apron, it tells us something through the reaction of Arnold and Warren to it - what it tells us is not entirely clear except it does imply a level of police fear, be that for the reasons Warren stated or some other currently unknown reason. I think this makes it a significant part of the story.

What this all boils down to is that IF the GSG WAS written by the killer, THEN it is significant. Which is the exact point I made: since we donīt know that it was, we cannot claim it IS significant.

Until we prove it as the killers work, whatever effort we spend on it is a waste of time. Once again, I am sorry to sound less than enthusiastic, but thatīs my take on things.

The rag is significant evidence, but thatīs as far as it goes. The fact that there were no other messages picked up on alongside the other murders and that the GSG does not in any shape or form mention the murder/s are both pointers away from it being related to the murder series. The one pointer for a relation is that it was found close to the rag, but if we accept that as proof of a connection, we are not on thin ice - we are in the water below the ice.

[erobitha]

What this all boils down to is that IF the GSG WAS written by the killer, THEN it is significant. Which is the exact point I made: since we donīt know that it was, we cannot claim it IS significant.

Until we prove it as the killers work, whatever effort we spend on it is a waste of time. Once again, I am sorry to sound less than enthusiastic, but thatīs my take on things.

The rag is significant evidence, but thatīs as far as it goes. The fact that there were no other messages picked up on alongside the other murders and that the GSG does not in any shape or form mention the murder/s are both pointers away from it being related to the murder series. The one pointer for a relation is that it was found close to the rag, but if we accept that as proof of a connection, we are not on thin ice - we are in the water below the ice.

I would completely buy that rationale if Charles Warren has not behaved in the manner that he did. The anti-Semitic argument is weak. Why was this the first scene he appeared at? Why did wipe the wall himself? Why did he refuse to wait an hour for a photograph? If he shared your view neither were particularly connected why do all those things? He could have simply stated in his view they were not connected and history would have been left as you describe. His actions and presence suggest something altogether different.