Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Greenway View Post

    For all you or anyone else knows Queen Victoria could have written the message - Like the police at the time, I believe the killer wrote it.

    All the best
    For all I know, Queen Victoria may have been a man, but my instincts suggest otherwise.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
      The GSG writing looked fresh per Halse. As Eddowes's had many rags for wiping the hands/knife, Trevor's experiment that it could not have been used for carrying organs, most likely, also helps in pointing to the apron being used for another purpose, for sending a message, for writing the graffito.
      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

      Comment


      • 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
        You may need to sit down first Trevor but…..I tend to agree with you on this particular point. I’m undecided on whether the GSG was written by the killer but as you say chalk writing written 2, 3 or more days ago wouldn’t look any different from the same written 2 or 3 hours ago. If he simply meant that no one had brushed against it and blurred or erased any part of it then I think we could assume that locals were capable of walking past a wall without rubbing against it. As I say, the GSG may have been written by the killer but I don’t think that Halse’s description of how it looked helps us either way.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          hi greenway and welcome! The ripper intentionally cut away the apron and left it with the GSG (which he wrote) to sign it. And considering the events of that evening and the ripper being disturbed/seen/interupted by Jew/s that night and the meaning of the gsg being disparaging to jews I think its fairly obvious the ripper was giving a little pay pack to said jews and some obsfucation to the police. It was also a mainy jewish residence and one of the residents would have surly wiped it off if it had been their any length of time and seen-that writing never saw the light of day.
          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.

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


            • 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.

              Comment


              • 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.

                Comment


                • 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.


                  Comment


                  • 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?

                    Comment


                    • 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.

                      Comment


                      • 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.



                        Comment


                        • 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.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



                          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • 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.

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • 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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X