The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not exactly. The Ripper had no need to either wipe his hands on the apron nor wrap the tiny organs in it, although he may have done the latter for convenience sake. And he didn’t stop in the street. You forget that 45 minutes or so passed between the murder and his dropping the apron off in Goulston Street, so he went somewhere relatively nearby where he deposited the organs and knife, cleaned up, probably changed clothes, and left again with the apron piece and a piece of chalk, then just waiting for a clear coast to write his wit. This is what the evidence says. In order to fit the idea that you have outlined, you have to accuse PC Long of lying, which is not something the evidence compels me to do. If your argument requires Long to have been lying or mistaken, you’ve lost the debate right there. You’re dealing with a very organized killer here, not one who depended on mere luck to murder all these women in the open and not get caught. The Ripper is unique for a reason.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Or Detective Halse was mistaken.

Dealing with a very organised killer?

I really don't see that. The opposite applies.

The search begins at 2.05ish, starting with the immediate area before spreading out. 2.20 Detective Hales goes past; 2.55 the apron is found. There is a decent chance the police are active around Goulston St/Wentworth Street/Whitechapel Road etc between 2.20 and 2.55.

Taking the risk of venturing out of safety and into the danger zone simply isn't organised at all. If he's caught with that cloth then he has some explaining to do. Organisation would be getting a night's rest and then working out in the morning what to do to get the message across.

I think it's fair to say you have master criminal himself General Le Grand in mind, Tom, and the opinions are fitting the man.

Something is missing in all of this; something we're not aware of.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would also add that the impetus for leaving the apron/GSG was that he was seen/interupted by jews that night and was pissed off about it, but of course not knowing this would happen before he set out, did not have chalk on him.

The writing speaks of a prophecy to me, as opposed to a commentary on who is to blame for Eddowes' murder.

It sounds like some religious prophecy to me. All that's missing is: "and when the Lord casts judgement, the Jews are the men etc". It seems to me to be talking of the whole Jewish religion/people as opposed to a few club members who have stumbled upon a murder.

It's a grand statement with a grand idea forecasting a grand schism, not a commentary on a minor event taking up seconds of someone's time.

The author has a bigger fish to fry than the murder of a prostitute.

[Sally]

Ah yes..

But in an age when education would have included a substantial religious element, might it not be less a grand statement than the consequence of that education?

It seems to be somewhat assumed that he made it up on the spot - whoever wrote it - but why? It could as easily be a familiar phrase to the writer which happened to suit the occasion. It could as easily have been planned (to one extent or another) as spontaneous.

The message in itself cannot take us further than circular speculation, because in and of itself it is ambiguous.

Nonetheless. It appeared in proximity to the apron, as a fact, and it certainly could be taken to indicate blame directed at the Jews for the murder of Eddowes, if not the whole sequence to that point. It remains a possibility that the message was written by the doing the rounds lunatic. There it is.

[niko]

The writing speaks of a prophecy to me, as opposed to a commentary on who is to blame for Eddowes' murder.

It sounds like some religious prophecy to me. All that's missing is: "and when the Lord casts judgement, the Jews are the men etc". It seems to me to be talking of the whole Jewish religion/people as opposed to a few club members who have stumbled upon a murder.

It's a grand statement with a grand idea forecasting a grand schism, not a commentary on a minor event taking up seconds of someone's time.

The author has a bigger fish to fry than the murder of a prostitute.

I like the idea of a religious prophecy, I myself have also thought this many a time, but I ask myself if the graffito was a religious prophecy would it still be linked with the Whitechapel murder's ? All the best, Ague.

niko

[Scott Nelson]

[Fleetwood Mac]

Nonetheless. It appeared in proximity to the apron, as a fact, and it certainly could be taken to indicate blame directed at the Jews for the murder of Eddowes, if not the whole sequence to that point. It remains a possibility that the message was written by the doing the rounds lunatic. There it is.

Except:

The murderer must have lived in those dwellings?

The organs must have been dropped/hidden somewhere nearby?

It just doesn't follow that the two are connected simply because one is near the other.

And, the author could have chosen a much better way of connecting 'the Jews' with the murder, as seen by differences of opinion on this board 120 years later.

Edited to add:

The writing in no way is linked to this murder. It's simply a commentary on 'the Jews', and we don't even know if it was a Jewish fella in defensive mode or someone with a grude to bear; unless one is going to jump through hoops to suggest he was anti-Semitic, or he really believed by writing: "your man is a Jew", that that would be enough to swing it.

Someone talked about evidence and logic. Well, here's a spot:

1) Does the author mention the murder?
2. No.
3) Therefore we can conclude the writing is not related to the murder.

Simple.

It is only when one then makes assumptions regarding deflecting suspicion or a nearby apron that it can be concluded that the murder and writing are related.

The evidence suggests they weren't; assumptions related to the evidence may say otherwise.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Jolly Jack, peeved at events in Berner Street, slices up Catherine Eddowes in quick-smart time, wraps the excised organs in part of her apron and scuttles off into the night. Presumably he's heading home to preserve the organs in a jar of spirits.

Notwithstanding the fact that by this time two police forces are running around the area like blue-arsed flies, Jolly Jack again ventures out onto the streets, miraculously avoiding any wandering cops, dumps the piece of apron in a Goulston Street doorway and next takes a moment to compose an enigmatic chalked ditty on the adjacent brickwork before once again returning home for a well-earned six-week break.

Unless you believe in fairies, this is the most preposterous scenario in history.

Regards,

Simon

[Sally]

Except:

The murderer must have lived in those dwellings?

The organs must have been dropped/hidden somewhere nearby?

Eh? What?

It just doesn't follow that the two are connected simply because one is near the other.

No. It isn't certain that there's a causal relationship, I grant you (and I haven't said so, either) But it certainly isn't impossible.

And, the author could have chosen a much better way of connecting 'the Jews' with the murder, as seen by differences of opinion on this board 120 years later.

But you have merely illustrated your own point - that's your opinion. You don't see a connection. Others do. Whether in fact the connection between the message and the apron was causal or casual cannot now be determined beyond doubt.

Edited to add:

The writing in no way is linked to this murder. It's simply a commentary on 'the Jews', and we don't even know if it was a Jewish fella in defensive mode or someone with a grude to bear; unless one is going to jump through hoops to suggest he was anti-Semitic, or he really believed by writing: "your man is a Jew", that that would be enough to swing it.

I don't think you can categorically state that the writing was in 'no way' linked to the murder, with respect. You may believe that to be the case, of course.

Someone talked about evidence and logic. Well, here's a spot:

1) Does the author mention the murder?
2. No.
3) Therefore we can conclude the writing is not related to the murder.

Simple.

It is only when one then makes assumptions regarding deflecting suspicion or a nearby apron that it can be concluded that the murder and writing are related.

With respect, it isn't simple. It isn't simple because you cannot determine intent - you don't know what the intent of the writer was, and so you cannot possibly state that the author wasn't the killer and didn't intend to leave the message on those grounds.

As for making assumptions - what do you think you're doing?

[Sally]

Presumably he's heading home to preserve the organs in a jar of spirits.

Ginger Beer

[Roy Corduroy]

Let me see if I've got this straight.

Jolly Jack, peeved at events in Berner Street, slices up Catherine Eddowes in quick-smart time, wraps the excised organs in part of her apron and scuttles off into the night. Presumably he's heading home to preserve the organs in a jar of spirits.

Notwithstanding the fact that by this time two police forces are running around the area like blue-arsed flies, Jolly Jack again ventures out onto the streets, miraculously avoiding any wandering cops, dumps the piece of apron in a Goulston Street doorway and next takes a moment to compose an enigmatic chalked ditty on the adjacent brickwork before once again returning home for a well-earned six-week break.

Good afternoon Simon,

Yes you've got it straight. Jack was sort of an exhibitionist. Like a streaker but with clothes on.

Roy

ps: In fact, you wrote that so good, I do say, was Miss Jane (Hathaway) taking dictation?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

In the immortal words of countless deadbeat politicians, "I have never known that woman."

And a very good afternoon to you, too.

Regards,

Simon

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sally,

Yes, you have quite rightly stated that this is a matter of opinion.

Now, the above isn't exactly transcending the barriers of earthly wisdom, so while I'm not quite sure why you're making that point, I do agree with you.

Seeing as that is out of the way:

There are two options here:

1) The writing does not mention the murder, so therefore the two are not related.

2) The writing does not mention the murder, but we have no idea what was in the murderer's mind and a piece of cloth from the scene is found nearby, so therefore it was written by the murderer.

I feel there are fewer variables to make 1 work when compared with 2, which makes 1 more likely. Which brings us neatly back to William of Ockham who does tend to inhabit these boards from time to time.

In short: 1 is an opinion built on stronger foundations than opinion number 2.

[Sally]

Sally,

Yes, you have quite rightly stated that this is a matter of opinion.

Now, the above isn't exactly transcending the barriers of earthly wisdom, so while I'm not quite sure why you're making that point, I do agree with you.

Ah, the patronising tack. Water off a duck's back I'm afraid.

There are two options here:

1) The writing does not mention the murder, so therefore the two are not related.

'Mention' is an inadequate word here, but since you chose to use it - doesn't it? What you mean is that the graffito doesn't state literally that it is by the killer. Or if you prefer, it doesn't claim authorship. It is anonymous. In addition to which it makes no reference to Eddowes, Stride, or the apron. Does that mean it doesn't refer to the murder? No, it doesn't. It doesn't because (and I think we've been over this before) the graffito may refer to the Jews in connection with the murder(s). It has been often interpreted as such, and it isn't an unreasonable interpretation, in the circumstances.

2) The writing does not mention the murder, but we have no idea what was in the murderer's mind and a piece of cloth from the scene is found nearby, so therefore it was written by the murderer.

I didn't remotely suggest that to be the case. Do you not understand? The possibility that the graffito was written by the murderer cannot be eliminated on the grounds that it does not literally 'mention' the murder of Eddowes. That doesn't mean that it certainly was written by the murderer. Just that the possibility cannot be ruled out on the grounds suggested by you.

I feel there are fewer variables to make 1 work when compared with 2, which makes 1 more likely. Which brings us neatly back to William of Ockham who does tend to inhabit these boards from time to time.

Splendid. Except there aren't, so it doesn't. This literal approach, whereby if a thing isn't written down unambiguously in black and white then it doesn't exist is simplistic, although I can see how it must be comforting.

If only it were that simple.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This literal approach, whereby if a thing isn't written down unambiguously in black and white then it doesn't exist is simplistic, although I can see how it must be comforting.

Which is not what I said, Sally.

I said that it makes option 1 more likely, as opposed to there is no other option than 1.

Seems you and I don't understand one another, Sally. No harm done, let's just agree to disagree.

[Tom_Wescott]

This is where the ‘Kidney killed Stride’ nonsense came from, and I’ve proved it all false.

Do I detect a note of "hubris"?

Tom you have PROVED nothing, you have advanced arguments and ideas. There is a difference.

Phil

You’re misunderstanding me. I didn’t say that I proved Kidney innocent…the police did that at the time. I said my essay proves the origin of the many myths associated with Stride’s murders, and proves them to have been false. Many of these myths have in turn been used to suggest Michael Kidney killed her. And yes, it’s quite possible to prove wrong the errors of modern writers.

I think it's fair to say you have master criminal himself General Le Grand in mind, Tom, and the opinions are fitting the man.

What does Le Grand have to do with anything when facts are facts? I do see you disputing the facts here, just moving pawns. First Long was lying, now Halse was mistaken. I don’t see myself disposing of evidence to suit my theories. I welcome the evidence. More of it, in fact. And incidentally, I’ve held these theories about the graffiti YEARS before I knew anything about Le Grand, short of the fact that he existed. The main reason I like Le Grand is that, alone of all the suspects, all of the inconsistencies, gray areas, and ‘coincidences’ suddenly fit into place when he’s placed into frame. Not the case with Koz, Druitt, or that tall gay guy.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott