The apron was dropped...

[Michael W Richards]

How are those quotes and sources coming along?

Since I already told you that everything that Ive posted on this point is available right on this very site, and since the logical reasonable extrapolation from that data is that no-one aside from the young couple and Goldstein are seen on that street between 12:35 and 1am, and since Fanny stated that "if someone had come out from the club I would have seen them", the overwhelmingly obvious answer is the murderer was on club property during that period of time.

I believe your repeated desire to have some linear representation of the argument is actually an intentional attempt to manipulate me. And I dont like that.

So....as I said, I dont care what people believe, but Ill keep correcting falsehoods as they appear.

[Michael W Richards]

Let's break this range into 3 possibilities.

1. 1:00 - PC Lamb arrives at the yard before 1am
2. 1:06 - PC Lamb arrives at ~1:03, just 3 minutes after Diemschitz saw the clock. This is even though the search for police did not start on Commercial Rd. This also places Smith last on Berner St at ~12:38. So Fanny is then conceivably on her doorstep from 12:40 to 12:50.
3. 1:12 - Smith is last in Berner St at 12:45. Fanny on her doorstep around 12:47-12:57. Smith sees Stride with 'parcel man'. Fanny sees nothing unusual.

So it would seem that either Diemschitz' 'exactly 1am' has to go, or Schwartz' 12:45 incident has to go.

Why not both? Neither has any substantiation, and one of these is directly refuted by 4 corroborating witness accounts.

Lets be clear on Israel....his story is in no way entered into any officially conducted inquiry, in any form, in any fashion.

[Abby Normal]

No offence but it's all a bit silly, isn't it?

So, the murderer wasn't harvesting organs for his own sick fetish, he was doing it for a client?

And he left a small, ambiguously-written message scrawled in chalk to explain his rushjob?
He couldn't have waited until the next day? Or perhaps written something a little less cryptic?
You're only supposing the client would correctly interpret the graffito because it suits your theory.

How exactly were Lawende & co. responsible for the time-pressure in Mitre Square? It's not like there was anything out of the ordinary going on or they had interrupted the killer or arrived on the scene after the murder.

its worse than silly. its bonkers

[Curious Cat]

Since I already told you that everything that Ive posted on this point is available right on this very site, and since the logical reasonable extrapolation from that data is that no-one aside from the young couple and Goldstein are seen on that street between 12:35 and 1am, and since Fanny stated that "if someone had come out from the club I would have seen them", the overwhelmingly obvious answer is the murderer was on club property during that period of time.

I believe your repeated desire to have some linear representation of the argument is actually an intentional attempt to manipulate me. And I dont like that.

So....as I said, I dont care what people believe, but Ill keep correcting falsehoods as they appear.

Well, you need to substantiate that one.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

No offence but it's all a bit silly, isn't it?

So, the murderer wasn't harvesting organs for his own sick fetish, he was doing it for a client?

The term 'client' may over-simplify the nature of the relationship.
Having said that, the arrival of an organ client on the scene, may explain an altering of modus operandi.
In 1888, when does Francis Tumblety first arrive in London?

And he left a small, ambiguously-written message scrawled in chalk to explain his rushjob?
He couldn't have waited until the next day? Or perhaps written something a little less cryptic?
You're only supposing the client would correctly interpret the graffito because it suits your theory.

Firstly, please read (or reread) this post of mine...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/739627-the-apron-was-dropped?p=741057#post741057

IMHO, a Ripperologist should have a clue as to the purpose of the apron.
Did JtR really walk from Mitre Square to Goulston St, while wiping bodily fluids off his hands with it? LOL!
Alternatively, if the apron is meant to 'flag' the chalked message as his, why does he write something so cryptic that no one can understand it?
Neither explanation makes much sense, so let's look at a third possibility - the apron's purpose is to wrap up the removed organs.
What does this option explain?

Baxter: Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?
PC Long: I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
Baxter: Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
PC Long: It was not.

So what Jack doing between 1:50 and 2:20? Catching up with a friend who lived at the Wentworth Dwellings, perhaps?
Of course not - he had already come and gone.
Long missed the apron the first time, because it was wrapped around the organs and therefore not as immediately visible as when he came by the next time, when the apron was found unfolded (or as it appeared - dropped). The organs were then gone, of course.
It follows very logically that the chalked message was intended for the organ recipient.

The message only has meaning in context, and the context is just outside the entrance to Church Passage, Mitre Square.
It was Lawende & co. whose presence there, interfered with Jack's tight schedule.
These three men are the 'Juwes', and it is Jack himself who is doing the blaming.
In no sense is the message political and/or racial in nature.

This interpretation also supports the notion that the message cannot be regarded as graffito - it is not in a public place, and the writing is too small.

Long: 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 [...]
Halse: The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion.

If the message is not graffito, then once again - what is the purpose of the apron?
As for not waiting until the next day to spill the beans, what precludes Jack from doing both?
Regarding the client grasping the meaning, all that is required is that this person realizes that all did not go exactly to plan, which can be determined from the state of the organs and perhaps from the smelly and stained apron, also.

How exactly were Lawende & co. responsible for the time-pressure in Mitre Square? It's not like there was anything out of the ordinary going on or they had interrupted the killer or arrived on the scene after the murder.

This is complicated, and depends on analysis of the times reported by Watkins, Harvey, Lawende, Levy & Harris.
See these posts...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/catherine-eddowes/708544-jack-s-escape-from-mitre-square?p=733650#post733650

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/catherine-eddowes/708544-jack-s-escape-from-mitre-square?p=733669#post733669

[Abby Normal]

The term 'client' may over-simplify the nature of the relationship.
Having said that, the arrival of an organ client on the scene, may explain an altering of modus operandi.
In 1888, when does Francis Tumblety first arrive in London?



Firstly, please read (or reread) this post of mine...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/scene-of-the-crimes/739627-the-apron-was-dropped?p=741057#post741057

IMHO, a Ripperologist should have a clue as to the purpose of the apron.
Did JtR really walk from Mitre Square to Goulston St, while wiping bodily fluids off his hands with it? LOL!
Alternatively, if the apron is meant to 'flag' the chalked message as his, why does he write something so cryptic that no one can understand it?
Neither explanation makes much sense, so let's look at a third possibility - the apron's purpose is to wrap up the removed organs.
What does this option explain?

Baxter: Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?
PC Long: I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
Baxter: Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
PC Long: It was not.

So what Jack doing between 1:50 and 2:20? Catching up with a friend who lived at the Wentworth Dwellings, perhaps?
Of course not - he had already come and gone.
Long missed the apron the first time, because it was wrapped around the organs and therefore not as immediately visible as when he came by the next time, when the apron was found unfolded (or as it appeared - dropped). The organs were then gone, of course.
It follows very logically that the chalked message was intended for the organ recipient.

The message only has meaning in context, and the context is just outside the entrance to Church Passage, Mitre Square.
It was Lawende & co. whose presence there, interfered with Jack's tight schedule.
These three men are the 'Juwes', and it is Jack himself who is doing the blaming.
In no sense is the message political and/or racial in nature.

This interpretation also supports the notion that the message cannot be regarded as graffito - it is not in a public place, and the writing is too small.

Long: 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 [...]
Halse: The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion.

If the message is not graffito, then once again - what is the purpose of the apron?
As for not waiting until the next day to spill the beans, what precludes Jack from doing both?
Regarding the client grasping the meaning, all that is required is that this person realizes that all did not go exactly to plan, which can be determined from the state of the organs and perhaps from the smelly and stained apron, also.



This is complicated, and depends on analysis of the times reported by Watkins, Harvey, Lawende, Levy & Harris.
See these posts...

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/catherine-eddowes/708544-jack-s-escape-from-mitre-square?p=733650#post733650

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/catherine-eddowes/708544-jack-s-escape-from-mitre-square?p=733669#post733669

why go through all that trouble and risk to obtain an organ for someone else, only to do this kind of drop off where anyone could find it and so many other things could go wrong. you would meet discreet and hand it over. and why would an organ harvestor do all the extraneous cuts and mutilations to eddowes?
with all due respect Not, its bonkers.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

why go through all that trouble and risk to obtain an organ for someone else, only to do this kind of drop off where anyone could find it and so many other things could go wrong. you would meet discreet and hand it over. and why would an organ harvestor do all the extraneous cuts and mutilations to eddowes?
with all due respect Not, its bonkers.

Then how come I can explain the purpose of the apron, and you can't?

You're implying I see things like this...

Mild mannered Jack becomes Jack the Ripper and Procurer of Organs for a client

Actually it's...

Jack the Ripper begins procuring organs when he rips, for a client

The period between drop-off and pickup is short, and yes there would be a risk that someone would see and pick up the apron, but the recipient may have reasons for not wanting to hang around waiting, or be seen accepting the 'goods'. Or maybe they just arrived a few minutes late - say 2:05, instead of 2:00.

I believe you suppose Dear Boss and saucy jacky to be genuine.
Okay, so why does Jack write the cryptic message on the wall, also?
Is it really meant for the police?

Just in case you've forgotten...

The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you.
Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight.
My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance.

[c.d.]

Then how come I can explain the purpose of the apron, and you can't?

Anybody can come up with an explanation but just because you can doesn't mean that that explanation is correct.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Then how come I can explain the purpose of the apron, and you can't?

You're implying I see things like this...

Mild mannered Jack becomes Jack the Ripper and Procurer of Organs for a client

Actually it's...

Jack the Ripper begins procuring organs when he rips, for a client

The period between drop-off and pickup is short, and yes there would be a risk that someone would see and pick up the apron, but the recipient may have reasons for not wanting to hang around waiting, or be seen accepting the 'goods'. Or maybe they just arrived a few minutes late - say 2:05, instead of 2:00.

I believe you suppose Dear Boss and saucy jacky to be genuine.
Okay, so why does Jack write the cryptic message on the wall, also?
Is it really meant for the police?

Just in case you've forgotten...

The next job I do I shall clip the ladys ears off and send to the police officers just for jolly wouldn't you.
Keep this letter back till I do a bit more work, then give it out straight.
My knife's so nice and sharp I want to get to work right away if I get a chance.

hi not
IMHO I think he used the apron to sign the grafitti because he was pissed he got interupted by a bunch of jews that night and wanted to obsfucate and throw blame on jews.

and yes i think dear boss letters more than likely genuine and i dont think the GSG was cryptic at all. alot of the police thought he wrote and for the same reason I posted above.

[DJA]

Anyone else reckon that Eddowes/"nothing"/Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street had given the real Mary Ann Kelly's address to Jack and he was headed that way?

[Michael W Richards]

Anyone else reckon that Eddowes/"nothing"/Mary Ann Kelly of 6 Fashion Street had given the real Mary Ann Kelly's address to Jack and he was headed that way?

"Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street, dated September 28," was on the pawn ticket, she leaves Bishopsgate having given them a name and address of "Mary Ann Kelly, 6 Fashion Street".

Within those 2 aliases you have Mary Jane Kelly_6 Dorset Street.

I think that she was attempting to blackmail someone, and leaving an almost complete name and address trail to someone else should she disappear. If she was blackmailing someone you would have to think she would have shared that info with Kelly, so maybe its for him. This would of course insinuate that she knew Mary, but I dont think its necessary to imagine anything more than she knew OF Mary Jane Kelly at 26 Dorset Street. I believe its shared exposure to the Irish community locally that might have brought knowledge of one to the other. Or, maybe she did know Mary Jane.

[Observer]

"Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street, dated September 28," was on the pawn ticket, she leaves Bishopsgate having given them a name and address of "Mary Ann Kelly, 6 Fashion Street".

Within those 2 aliases you have Mary Jane Kelly_6 Dorset Street.

I think that she was attempting to blackmail someone, and leaving an almost complete name and address trail to someone else should she disappear. If she was blackmailing someone you would have to think she would have shared that info with Kelly, so maybe its for him. This would of course insinuate that she knew Mary, but I dont think its necessary to imagine anything more than she knew OF Mary Jane Kelly at 26 Dorset Street. I believe its shared exposure to the Irish community locally that might have brought knowledge of one to the other. Or, maybe she did know Mary Jane.

Seeing as you believe that Nichols, and Chapman were murdered by Isenshmid, it follows that as far as you are concerned Eddowes was attempting to blackmail an innocent party. Why then would that individual want to make Eddowes "disappear"?

[Observer]

Seeing as you believe that Nichols, and Chapman were murdered by Isenshmid, it follows that as far as you are concerned Eddowes was attempting to blackmail an innocent party. Why then would that individual want to make Eddowes "disappear"?

Just to clarify, upon reflection, I can't remember Michael whether you are of the opinion that Nichols, and Chapman were murdered by Isenschmid. What I do remember though is that you are of the opinion that Nichols, and Chapman, were not murdered by Eddowes killer. In effect, the observations above are still valid

[NotBlamedForNothing]

why go through all that trouble and risk to obtain an organ for someone else, only to do this kind of drop off where anyone could find it and so many other things could go wrong. you would meet discreet and hand it over. and why would an organ harvestor do all the extraneous cuts and mutilations to eddowes?
with all due respect Not, its bonkers.

Richard Jones has an interesting piece on his site about an article in the Dundee Courier, 26 Dec 1888.
In the article, there is a quote of a William P. Burr, of 320 Broadway, which includes this:

My own idea of the Whitechapel case is that it would be just such a thing as Tumblety would be concerned in ; but he might get one of his victims to do the work, for once he had a younger man under his control he seemed to be able to do anything with the victim.

So I share this idea - one of Tumblety's younger male 'victims', was saucy jacky.

hi not
IMHO I think he used the apron to sign the grafitti because he was pissed he got interupted by a bunch of jews that night and wanted to obsfucate and throw blame on jews.

and yes i think dear boss letters more than likely genuine and i dont think the GSG was cryptic at all. alot of the police thought he wrote and for the same reason I posted above.

Blame the Jews? Just all of them? And for what? Collectively killing the two women? Does that even make sense?

That interpretation would be slightly more sensical if the text was ...

The Juwes are not the people that will be blamed for nothing

... obviously because the Jews are a people, and not a bunch of men.

Even simpler;

The Juwes are not to be blamed for nothing

Less ambiguous and saves a few seconds with the chalk.

Why do you agree with me that the text owes it's meaning to JtR being interrupted (or delayed) by 'a bunch of jews that night', but not suppose that the men refers to the men responsible for the interrupting?

[Abby Normal]

Richard Jones has an interesting piece on his site about an article in the Dundee Courier, 26 Dec 1888.
In the article, there is a quote of a William P. Burr, of 320 Broadway, which includes this:

My own idea of the Whitechapel case is that it would be just such a thing as Tumblety would be concerned in ; but he might get one of his victims to do the work, for once he had a younger man under his control he seemed to be able to do anything with the victim.

So I share this idea - one of Tumblety's younger male 'victims', was saucy jacky.




Blame the Jews? Just all of them? And for what? Collectively killing the two women? Does that even make sense?

That interpretation would be slightly more sensical if the text was ...

The Juwes are not the people that will be blamed for nothing

... obviously because the Jews are a people, and not a bunch of men.

Even simpler;

The Juwes are not to be blamed for nothing

Less ambiguous and saves a few seconds with the chalk.

Why do you agree with me that the text owes it's meaning to JtR being interrupted (or delayed) by 'a bunch of jews that night', but not suppose that the men refers to the men responsible for the interrupting?

so dr t gets someone to harvest his organs for him? why the extraneous mutilations then?

I once entertained the idea that tumblety got chapman to do it for him. they were both in the medical field and con men and perhaps met. but again, why all the extra stuff if it was organ harvesting? so I ruled that type of thing out.

re the gsg. its not rocket science Not. the ripper was interupted and seen by a bunch of jewish men that night and was pissed off about it and decided to throw some shade there way. i think you may be way over thinking it.