Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Varqm
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

    The apron may have been used to bind a wound that he may have suffered when cutting Eddows - handle gets wet and slippery and hand slids forward. This being an unforseen event, he would not have come prepared for that eventuality. The blood was described as being mainly in one corner.

    When thinking about whether the graffiti would have been erased by the residents, bear in mind that it was located down very low on the wall (shin high) and the capitals of the "schoolboy hand" were only 3/4" high, with the other letters in proportion.

    Cheers, George
    There were rags to be had, no need to cut the apron. And what did he use for carrying the organs? Meant he came prepared or used one of the rags.
    The implication is the graffito was written the immediate previous night, in daylight it would have been seen.

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Varqm View Post

    I think one can't at least in the span of hours especially inside that stair opening covered from from the wind/weather. We'll the point is it's a combination of things. Chances were that the dwellers of Wentworth MD would have erased the graffito if they saw it as they went up the stairs. The chalk was fresh meaning it was still bold as opposed to faded.
    But it's this point mostly, what was the purpose then of JTR bringing the part-apron with him if it was not for carrying the organs and wiping his hands or blade?
    All these gave it a good chance that JTR wrote the graffito.
    The apron may have been used to bind a wound that he may have suffered when cutting Eddows - handle gets wet and slippery and hand slids forward. This being an unforseen event, he would not have come prepared for that eventuality. The blood was described as being mainly in one corner.

    When thinking about whether the graffiti would have been erased by the residents, bear in mind that it was located down very low on the wall (shin high) and the capitals of the "schoolboy hand" were only 3/4" high, with the other letters in proportion.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Varqm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I would question the statement that the Graffiti was fresh, and suggest that this comment made by Halse is unsafe.

    How can anyone tell by simply looking it at whether it was made 1 hour previous or one day previous?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    I think one can't at least in the span of hours especially inside that stair opening covered from from the wind/weather. We'll the point is it's a combination of things. Chances were that the dwellers of Wentworth MD would have erased the graffito if they saw it as they went up the stairs. The chalk was fresh meaning it was still bold as opposed to faded.
    But it's this point mostly, what was the purpose then of JTR bringing the part-apron with him if it was not for carrying the organs and wiping his hands or blade?
    All these gave it a good chance that JTR wrote the graffito.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aethelwulf
    replied
    Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

    The Lusk letter, too. You have to be a fairly long way from illiterate to know that 'knife' has a silent 'k', whatever the silliness you then give way to regarding the 'e'.

    M.
    knif
    kidne
    juwes
    sellar

    Leave a comment:


  • c.d.
    replied
    Personally I lean towards the GSG being unrelated to the murder and a mere coincidence.

    I'm not married to that notion, but on balance, that's my take on it.


    Yeah, that is pretty much my take on it. I just don't see the source of this supposed anger directed toward the Jews. All Schwartz apparently did was simply walk down the street. Nothing really Jewish about that. As for interrupting the B.S. man, the B.S. man didn't let that stop him from killing Liz if indeed he did so. And would the Ripper have been aware of Lawende looking in his direction? And finally the message itself seems pretty half ass for someone so angry and upset. Seems more like some commonplace graffiti for that area.

    Still, the apron and message cannot be dismissed. So you pays your money and takes your chances.

    c.d.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

    The Lusk letter, too. You have to be a fairly long way from illiterate to know that 'knife' has a silent 'k', whatever the silliness you then give way to regarding the 'e'.

    M.
    I agree, Mark.

    I have often pondered this point.

    Equally though, I'd have thought that a literate person trying to give the impression of illiteracy would also drop the silent "k" and retain the "e", so we're right back where we started......!

    Personally I lean towards the GSG being unrelated to the murder and a mere coincidence.

    I'm not married to that notion, but on balance, that's my take on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mark J D
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
    I might get accused of making this about Druitt but that certainly not my intention but I’ve always had the impression that the graffiti might have been written by an intelligent, educated person trying to appear the opposite. Nothing cast iron of course. Just an impression.
    The Lusk letter, too. You have to be a fairly long way from illiterate to know that 'knife' has a silent 'k', whatever the silliness you then give way to regarding the 'e'.

    M.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    I might get accused of making this about Druitt but that certainly not my intention but I’ve always had the impression that the graffiti might have been written by an intelligent, educated person trying to appear the opposite. Nothing cast iron of course. Just an impression.

    Leave a comment:


  • Meet Ze Monster
    replied
    I don't believe the killer wrote the message for a couple of simple reasons;

    A: How likely is it that the Ripper would be carrying chalk on his travels?
    B: He deposited the apron - hard evidence - in his travels. What would possess him to hover around in its presence writing a vaguely aggressive slogan, running the risk of drawing attention to himself?
    C: The two things do not feel related at all. The graffito echoed growing anti Jewish sentiment. It was a sign of social unrest and nothing more.



    Leave a comment:


  • Greenway
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    I've long believed the original spelling was "Jewes" and due to the cursive writing on a small brick jamb, the first "e" wasn't properly looped and became a "u". I think Jewes was a more prolific spelling than Juwes but don't quote me on that.

    With respect, Tom Wescott's theory is pretty farfetched. Was the club known by that acronym at the time, and would the killer have been familiar enough with it to use it?
    I agree the IWMEC interpretation is unlikely.

    All the best.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Greenway View Post
    Hi Harry - I wonder about the reading of the second word as 'Jews'. All the other words were reported as spelt correctly and I'm not sure that it's even the hardest word in the sentence to spell. The first hand reports didn't agree on the spelling, which suggests to me the word was ambiguous.

    Without a photograph it's probably pointless trying to come up with alternative readings, but Tom Wescott's idea that it could be a reference to the 'International Working Men's Educational Club' (IWMEC), thus the killer was associating the two murders, is an interesting one. At least it gives a logical reason for the apron and writing.

    All the best
    I've long believed the original spelling was "Jewes" and due to the cursive writing on a small brick jamb, the first "e" wasn't properly looped and became a "u". I think Jewes was a more prolific spelling than Juwes but don't quote me on that.

    With respect, Tom Wescott's theory is pretty farfetched. Was the club known by that acronym at the time, and would the killer have been familiar enough with it to use it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Hello, Abby.

    What do you think triggered that particular message, though?

    Why did the killer leave a vague message about the Jews not accepting blame? Why did his message have nothing to do with the murders or his motives?

    You say he might have been disturbed or seen by Jews that night. So, what? Although he might have been frustrated with how things went down with Stride, he was able to make up for it with Eddowes and then some.

    When I interpret the GSG, it's obvious to me what the author is getting at. Essentially, the Jews won't accept responsibility for their actions. It could be anything from selling overpriced wares (something the late Martin Fido theorized) to the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't think the author was trying to frame the Jews with this message at all.

    But it's still odd to me that the killer chose to leave a note on this single occasion. Particularly, when you consider the uninterrupted time he had in Miller's Court to sign off the murder.
    hi harry
    what do i think triggered the message? those pesky jews that kept interupting him that night and forced him to scuttle his first attempt, one which pissed him off so much he yelled a racial slur.

    re the vague message- i dont think its really that vague. i read once an expert on cockney say it should be read as... the jews wont take the blame for anything...as in... the jews wont take responsibility.

    but really for me trying to decipher the message or its motive is not really all that important. i always say if the motive is unclear, just go with the evidence. and the evidence is...it was found right above the apron, found at the same time, and the police believed it to be by the ripper. thats good enough for me.


    Leave a comment:


  • Greenway
    replied
    Hi Harry - I wonder about the reading of the second word as 'Jews'. All the other words were reported as spelt correctly and I'm not sure that it's even the hardest word in the sentence to spell. The first hand reports didn't agree on the spelling, which suggests to me the word was ambiguous.

    Without a photograph it's probably pointless trying to come up with alternative readings, but Tom Wescott's idea that it could be a reference to the 'International Working Men's Educational Club' (IWMEC), thus the killer was associating the two murders, is an interesting one. At least it gives a logical reason for the apron and writing.

    All the best
    Last edited by Greenway; 09-22-2021, 10:57 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Or the fact that no graffiti was found at any other crime scene

    www.trevormarriott.com
    Indeed, Trevor. The murderer appears to have let his killing do the talking, so for him to suddenly drop a message (and a vague one at that) seems peculiar. Not that I'm saying he couldn't have acted on an impulse this one time. I'm sure Abby will contend that he had a particular beef with the Jews that night and decided to get it off his chest, but even that message wasn't particularly scathing.

    I know that probability theory will dictate that the apron and graffito are connected but cases like this do turn up strange coincidences. People have often claimed that the graffito would've been scrubbed out had it been written earlier, but it wasn't discovered until 3am. There was plenty of time for it to have been written earlier that night and gone undetected.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Harry D View Post

    Hello, Abby.

    What do you think triggered that particular message, though?

    Why did the killer leave a vague message about the Jews not accepting blame? Why did his message have nothing to do with the murders or his motives?

    You say he might have been disturbed or seen by Jews that night. So, what? Although he might have been frustrated with how things went down with Stride, he was able to make up for it with Eddowes and then some.

    When I interpret the GSG, it's obvious to me what the author is getting at. Essentially, the Jews won't accept responsibility for their actions. It could be anything from selling overpriced wares (something the late Martin Fido theorized) to the crucifixion of Jesus. I don't think the author was trying to frame the Jews with this message at all.

    But it's still odd to me that the killer chose to leave a note on this single occasion. Particularly, when you consider the uninterrupted time he had in Miller's Court to sign off the murder.
    Or the fact that no graffiti was found at any other crime scene

    www.trevormarriott.com

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X