The apron was dropped...

[Michael W Richards]

Is there really any justification for an argument that reads, the killer dropped the apron in a doorway intentionally because he wanted the police to find a message that was not clear in its meaning?
Where is the logic in that?

Who says its not clear...it was in the mind of the author Jon, its just that we dont know its intentions. The context. You would agree that the wiping of the GSG was because the authorities deemed it dangerous to leave up? You would agree that its interpretation was that it contained some kind of Anti-Semitic message? If you agree to those 2 points then you also have to agree that its specific location is likely relevant too. That for me suggests strongly that both the apron section and the message are by the same individual. And I see physical evidence left at the scene for only the second murder that night. And a message that suggests Jews should be blamed for something, when earlier that night at a location occupied 95% plus by Jewish immigrants a woman is found on the property with a slit throat. Their initial cries for help include the word "another". Since Liz Stride in no way is in the condition of either of the 2 alleged prior murders, a presumption that a killer who to that point always mutilates after killing seems to me very misleading. And if Kates killer is this fellow named Jack, might he be miffed if he hears on the streets that Jack killed in Berner Street that night? Particularly if he is an Anti-Semite, and has knowledge of that club.

I believe the GSG and the apron piece off Goulston represent an acknowledgment of guilt, and a denial.

I think Kates killer was trying to say that " I done the Mitre square lady, but you need to look at the Jews for that other one." I believe at least 1 International Club member lived in those Model Homes, and from what I understand, poverty marches were launched from Gouston St in the past. Marches that were populated in large measure by immigrants. Of whom many were Jewish. It seems like a spot identifiable as a Jewish area at that time. Since the cloth was stated as "not there" when Long passed after 2, the placer of it had time to pick a spot. Someplace meaningful in conjunction with the message.

[erobitha]

Ah, so your theory is not based on what was written, but on what no-one knows was written?

Possibly, we don’t know. We do know there were at least three different transcripts of which the one we are led to believe is the correct may not be so. There is nothing not true with that statement.

I do however subscribe to the belief it was some kind of message claiming Stride and in reference to Leather Apron and the interruption he suffered that night. At it’s heart a reference to stop giving Jews the credit for his work.

[Wickerman]

..... There may well have been other markings that Warren noticed but other officers did not for all we know.

Ah, so your theory is not based on what was written, but on what no-one knows was written?

[Abby Normal]

Is there really any justification for an argument that reads, the killer dropped the apron in a doorway intentionally because he wanted the police to find a message that was not clear in its meaning?
Where is the logic in that?

i read it that the ripper was pissed off at and or wanted to blame jews so he signed the grafitti with the bloody rag leaving both at the entrance to a well known jewish inhabited building after being interupted/ seen that night while trying to do his thing.

[erobitha]

Is there really any justification for an argument that reads, the killer dropped the apron in a doorway intentionally because he wanted the police to find a message that was not clear in its meaning?
Where is the logic in that?

If you subscribe to the belief what Warren claims was written on the wall which was included in his report sent to Home Office five weeks later to be 100% accurate, then your theory is sound. I do not subscribe to that view. There may well have been other markings that Warren noticed but other officers did not for all we know.

[Wickerman]

Is there really any justification for an argument that reads, the killer dropped the apron in a doorway intentionally because he wanted the police to find a message that was not clear in its meaning?
Where is the logic in that?

[Wickerman]

It is more messy, but I think it is best approached as unknown rather than assuming a connection or not.

Sorry Etenguy, I'm inclined to think "unknown" would mean no known connection.
We can only have "no known connection" until one is established.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi etenguy,

We did have Broad Shoulders calling out "Lipski!", which could support your observation.

Love,

Caz
X

Aside from the fact that no-one saw Israel or heard anything of what he says he saw including a BSM...there is no definitive understanding of who that phrase was supposedly directed towards. As for understanding those times Caz, lets not forget that of the 12 or 13 unsolved murder cases in that file only 5 were alledged to have been done by Jack. Despite the fact that knives were also used in most of those murders. the cry of "another murder" is obviously an attempt to suggest that Liz Strides murder was done by the mutilator at large, who to that point was only have assumed to have killed 2 people...and in very, very similar fashion,. in less than 2 weeks. Both with abdominal mutilations. To assume that a woman who is found with just her throat slit fell victim to a multiple mutilating murderer who has apparently not killed for almost a month is to me, intentional deflection.

[Simon Wood]

Hi etenguy,

A potential connection was never established.

Letter from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser, Commissioner of the City of London Police, 3rd October 1888—

“I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer. In order to do this, it is necessary [to discover] if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.”

Stay well.

Simon

[etenguy]

I don't think a potential connection has been ruled out. It's just that the arguments offered in support of a potential connection are not wholly convincing.

I guess it is a matter of judgement, but I would argue that a potential connection has been established. I would agree that whether or not there is an actual connection is yet to be established and can quite understand why some might not find the arguments for that convincing.

Any default position must surely rest on the assumption that there is no connection, unless one is established.

It is more messy, but I think it is best approached as unknown rather than assuming a connection or not.

[Wickerman]

I don't see how anyone could rule out a connection, or why they would want to do so.

I don't think a potential connection has been ruled out. It's just that the arguments offered in support of a potential connection are not wholly convincing.
Any default position must surely rest on the assumption that there is no connection, unless one is established.

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron was unique to the second murder that night.

To be politically correct the apron piece was only linked to the victim !

How it got there, and who placed it there, and when, is nothing more than conjecture.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

Hi Caz.

It could be argued that it only becomes a coincidence if the message directly refers to the murders.
If it refers to something else (a general comment about Jews), as I see it, then there is no coincidence.

However, that aside, it's a coincidence that some graffiti, complaining about Jews, was found written in a Jewish entryway close to where the rag was found.

We have posted a few old photo's with graffiti in the background, the problem is no-one in the late 19th century appears to have made a career out of photographing graffiti in the streets.
Are we to suppose graffiti is a modern phenomena?, the few photo's we have tend to suggest otherwise.
Alternately, anti-semitic graffiti may have been more common in the entry of Jewish tenements?


Or, the Ripper was the journalist?
Any takers?

Graffiti was found in Pompeii and been found on many medieval church walls so definitely not a modern phenomena. Although, they tend to be scratched into stone to make a permanent mark. The graffiti in Goulston Street was made in chalk in a passageway passed in close proximity by people going in and out the building, so it was always intended to be temporary. A stone - or knife - could have etched the graffiti into the paint/brickwork to last longer.

I have leaned on the idea of a journalist being involved. As it stands, I'm neutral on the idea for now.

[Fisherman]

It could be argued that it only becomes a coincidence if the message directly refers to the murders.
If it refers to something else (a general comment about Jews), as I see it, then there is no coincidence.

Bravo, Jon, very succinctly put! I totally concur.

[Fisherman]

I don't see how anyone could rule out a connection, or why they would want to do so.

Well, as for me, I am not ruling out a connection, I am saying that until that connection can be proven, the GSG lacks any value as a clue.

And when it comes to wanting to rule the GSG out, I harbor no such wish. In fact, the more genuine clues we have, the better. But elevating something that may or may not be connected to the case to a genuine clue cannot be done, and so - annoying though it may be - the GSG stays well away from any influence on my way of looking at the crimes. Meaning that I am not for a second buying that we have verified information that tells us something about the killers view of Jews. We effectively donīt.