The Goulston Street Apron

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, even if you are absolutely certain in your interpretation, you would make far better contributions by challenging ideas based on the facts at hand, not based on your theory.

For your information, Errata, it is Phil who claims that I am absolutely certain, whereas, if he had read my posts a bit more carefully, he would know that I am no such thing.

Here is what Phil "concluded":

"I called you egotistical because you wrote: "I have no fears in that department myself." (Which implies a certain sense of confidence in your position)."

My lack of fears alluded to fears of not being able to see if other theories than the one I believe in - I am very open to such things, and therefore I have no such fears. I used to believe Stride was probably not the Ripperīs; information came along and I changed my mind. It is no harder than that. I have changed my mind on many other things too, Tabram being one example. I am anything but locked to a belief.

Phil again: "And then; "And therefore I need not dabble with my convictions, which is a relief." (To me that suggests you now have a fixed position which you see as unchallengable.) Hence egotistical in my numble opinion, since the logiocal conclusion is that "I (Fisherman) am satisfied I am right, so no one else is."

This is just totally wrong. I need not dabble with my convictions, since I am perfectly able to alter them when anything comes along to necessitate that. It has nothing at all to do with any fixed position at all - quite the contrary.

I DO however think that the Lechmere theory is the genuine answer to the Ripper riddle, and for me to say anything else - well, that WOULD be to dabble with my convictions. I could of course sneak with it and mumble that Lechmere perhaps could be the Ripper, or deny that I think he is - but why on earth would I do that?
I DO think he is, and that may be wrong and it may be right. My best guess is that it is right, and thatīs why I stay true to my conviction until Iīm proven wrong. That does not mean that I fail to see the value of other propositions. Kosminski has been proven to have had a connection dwellingwise to Berner Street. That strengthens his case. Thatīs how it works.

Devil's advocate is far more useful position than that of a lobbyist.

Perhaps so. And I apply that angle from time to time. But I wonīt lie about what I believe.

Essentially, you have a choice. You can be right, or you can be useful.

I can actually be both. That is not up to me solely, though - it is to some extent up to the willingness of other theorists to allow for suspect-based beliefs and accepting that the ones who hold them can STILL make useful contributions.

You are a smart man with a lot of knowledge, and I for one would welcome your insight on any theory I had. As long as you don't dismiss it because it doesn't agree with yours. I would hate to see you become one of "those" guys.

Then you can leave those fears aside, Errata. The equation is a simple one: As long as I cannot prove that I am correct, I cannot be sure that others are not. That, however, does not mean that I cannot be - and SHOULD be - critical towards theories that I find lacking in some sense. If somebody wants to interpret that as a total unwillingness to see the value of their thinking - and some people seemingly do - then so be it. That wonīt make me go "Ah yes, X or Y is just as good a suspect as Lechmere", unless I really think so, just to keep people happy. I would not want that kind of meek confrontational tactics on behalf of those who judge my thinking. I want straightforward, honest answers.

Nor am I perfect in any way, and if either of you feel the need to point out my flaws, you are welcome to do so. And after that, maybe we can get back to the apron? Because I still don't know why he thought he needed that big a swatch of fabric.

Maybe because he was in a hurry, and just chopped of a piece in a jiffy. If he had the means to conceal it, it mattered little if it was perfectly sized for his purposes. It is not easy to cut fabric with a knife, and most people would prefer too big over too small.


The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

The juresdiction had no baring on Eddowes being murdered.

The laws remain the same. After all the City and Met had, up until 88, worked together on numerous cases for 49 years.

The reason a photo wasn't taken rruns deeper than a disregard for a potential clue.

Monty

[Phil H]

Errata - a very sensible, sane post - thank you for the corrective.

...but jurisdiction is what to me sets Kate apart. First off she really has no reason that we know of to head toward the city line, and I believe the fact that she is killed there speaks to the possibility that her killer was either based within the city or conducted some late night business there.

Michael - I don't know how familiar you are with London. In 1888 (and even today) the change from Whitechapel/Spitalfields to City would have been very subtle - police uniforms in slight ways (shape of the helmet); lamp-posts (City one's may have had a dragon on the pedestal - but on the ground almost nothing. And Mitre Square is only fractionally within the City boundaries. So I'm not sure how anything special would have been arranged or why. On the streets you would hardly know you were in one or the other - the "line" of demarcation is practically invisible.

In which case, why make the effort with the cloth and not leave a message as well....why the effort to put the cloth there and what would only the cloth in and of itself suggest? That the murderer went "thataway"....it is perceived as a bread crumb trail.

Is it not prefectly possible that the murderer took the cloth, used it, and discarded it absent-mindedly? He would not afterwards have recalled where it was left. He simply balled it up and tossed it into a convenient entry out of sight and mind.

I wonder whether a Victorian (especially an immigrant) before TV crime series, detective novels or mass communication would have realised they were leaving a potential clue.

Phil

[Michael W Richards]

A couple of them wrote it down. The message was preserved if not the handwriting. The clue was still there, even if it had been erased. What do they do about it? Did they question everyone in the neighborhood to see if they could figure out when it first showed up? Did they question the residents of the building to see if they had any psychotic enemies? Did they comb the East End looking for similar messages in a similar handwriting? There's no evidence they did any of that. There's no evidence that they pursued the graffiti as a lead. It's unlikely they all just forgot about it. If they thought it was significant, what did they do about it?

You would think that if a few officers copied the writing verbatim we wouldnt have so many different versions of it Errata...I think the fact that they didnt even take the time to make one official copy of the wording and the layout of the phrase....(5 lines or 4?)....let alone take a photo is that they didnt take the possibility that the man who left the apron also wrote the message seriously enough.

Cheers

[Errata]

None? Halse, the detective, thought it was special enough to need photographing. However inflammatory the writing was perceived, by Warren & Arnold, to be, the fact remains that within a very short period of time the content was in the public domain - and no-one rioted.The graffito would probably never have come to notice had it not been for the proximity of the apron but, because of that proximity, it should, in my view, have been photographed. Especially so as there was, inexcusably, no consensus as to the content.

I don't think it has any connection to the murderer at all, and I think it was special enough to photograph. It might have been completely unconnected, it might be a sentiment the Ripper agreed with, so he drew attention to it with the apron, and yes, he might have written it. It was uniquely located. That was it's specialness. Yes. You photograph that because it might be evidence. It might be connected. Every part of a crime scene gets photographed, whether you think it's significant or not, because you might be wrong. Of COURSE Halse thought it should be photographed. It should have been.

But when a detective who worked the Lipski case says this could cause a riot, you listen. When anti Semitic sentiment was at the highest point in 50 years, you take that into account. And it's true that nobody rioted. It is not true that there was no violence or crimes committed upon the revelation of this statement, but there were no riots. It was a tough call. If there had been a way to photograph it without calling attention to it, I think they would have. But there wasn't. And they chose to not risk Jewish lives over a piece of graffiti that may or may not prove significant. And I don't think they were wrong. Now granted, I'm Jewish. I'm not gonna lie, there is a bias there, but I'd like to think I'd feel the same way if the graffiti was maligning the Irish or blacks.

So they didn't get their photograph. A couple of them wrote it down. The message was preserved if not the handwriting. The clue was still there, even if it had been erased. What do they do about it? Did they question everyone in the neighborhood to see if they could figure out when it first showed up? Did they question the residents of the building to see if they had any psychotic enemies? Did they comb the East End looking for similar messages in a similar handwriting? There's no evidence they did any of that. There's no evidence that they pursued the graffiti as a lead. It's unlikely they all just forgot about it. If they thought it was significant, what did they do about it?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Folks,

Just to add to the discussions, Phil was correct in pointing out that Strides murder site is truly the square peg in terms of North/South orientation and Whitechapel Street, but jurisdiction is what to me sets Kate apart. First off she really has no reason that we know of to head toward the city line, and I believe the fact that she is killed there speaks to the possibility that her killer was either based within the city or conducted some late night business there. Whereas, the kills that took place in Whitechapel/Spitalfield were apparently the women snatched from the streets that they usually worked on, and those murders were committed by someone with... in the opinion of the medical expert who saw all of the first 4 women in death, no knife skills or knowledge, anatomically speaking.

If the above thinking is roughly accurate, then the apron section should have been discarded within the city limits, and the fact that its is taken to a spot in the aggrieved district may well represent a determined effort on the part of the killer.

In which case, why make the effort with the cloth and not leave a message as well....why the effort to put the cloth there and what would only the cloth in and of itself suggest? That the murderer went "thataway"....it is perceived as a bread crumb trail.

Maybe the message indicates the killer sought to offer more clues, even if they are false.

Best regards

[Bridewell]

None of the cops thought it was special, it was just uniquely located.

None? Halse, the detective, thought it was special enough to need photographing. However inflammatory the writing was perceived, by Warren & Arnold, to be, the fact remains that within a very short period of time the content was in the public domain - and no-one rioted.The graffito would probably never have come to notice had it not been for the proximity of the apron but, because of that proximity, it should, in my view, have been photographed. Especially so as there was, inexcusably, no consensus as to the content.

[Errata]

Boys.. boys.. you're both pretty.

Perception can be challenged, argued, changed or even reversed. But only with the permission of the person who holds that particular perception. No perception is wrong. At worst it is merely uninformed. Phil, you are correct. An open mind requires one's perceptions to be challenged at every turn. It also requires the knowledge that not every perception comes from the same place as your own. There may seem to be "natural" boundaries in this case, but that is our perception, not the killer's. His boundaries may be dependent on entirely different factors. He may not want to wander into neighborhoods where he knows people, it could be dependent on the quality of lighting, for all we know he may not want to have to pass a graveyard. We can speculate, we may even accidentally hit on the answer, but we will never know for sure.

Fisherman has his own perception. It is as valid as any other, even if you do not agree. We all accept or reject evidence based on our own perceptions of the case, he is no different. Of course, this also means that your perception of him as being close minded and obstreperous to a certain extent is also valid. And may in fact be a popular opinion for all I know. There have been times when I have felt as though a thread was hijacked or even wrenched completely around by strange contortions in order to fit something to his theory. I just recognize it as one of those things that happens in a free idea market.

However Fisherman, even if you are absolutely certain in your interpretation, you would make far better contributions by challenging ideas based on the facts at hand, not based on your theory. Devil's advocate is far more useful position than that of a lobbyist. Essentially, you have a choice. You can be right, or you can be useful. And we all know people who have chosen the former and became the object of eye rolling exasperation and frankly, contempt. Their theories do not enjoy any kind of respect or intellectual curiosity. No matter how good a point they might make, their philosophy of "we play my game or I take my ball and go home" makes people not want to engage. So their theories not only get no respect, they don't get the factual and intellectual vetting process they deserve. You are a smart man with a lot of knowledge, and I for one would welcome your insight on any theory I had. As long as you don't dismiss it because it doesn't agree with yours. I would hate to see you become one of "those" guys.

Nor am I perfect in any way, and if either of you feel the need to point out my flaws, you are welcome to do so. And after that, maybe we can get back to the apron? Because I still don't know why he thought he needed that big a swatch of fabric.

[Fisherman]

Lifeīs too short, Phil.

Fisherman

[Phil H]

I did not insult you, I stated a fact - read what you wrote again.

Neither am I closed minded. I don't accept (embrace) your theory because while superficially attractive, it is based on the flimsiest of evidence.

Now, I have not cited anything as a FACT in connection with possible perceived boundaries. I was engaging with Michael seeking to explore his expressed assumption. But have not said the "Killer did this, or that". because I am not in a position to do so.

My remarks are no more a theory, than to say that certain pubs or certain streets keep cropping up in the investigation/case.

I don't accept the relevance of the No 39 in relation to JtR, but the coincidence is intellectually interesting and somewhat amusing.

Then, when I point out that the notion that Whitechapel Road could have been a barrier for the Ripper, is something that we could never know and therefore a notion we may need to be cautious about, you actually agree and say that "They key point here is not what makes sense to us, but how things might have been PERCEIVED by the killer."

With respect, we make such judgements all the time in this case - we sometimes refer to the East End, yet Mitre Square (technically) is in the City, though at the "east end" of the quare mile. So we Do make judgements about boundaries. there are whole (highly complex) exercises in seeking to define the Ripper's area and then narrow things down to where he might have lived. I do not think these (for all the work involved) tell us much, but they are of the same type of analysis as my remarks on potential boundaries.

Frabnkly, I don't see how some general remarks can involve any "risk-taking" at all. Does a discussion of whether the victims were all "prostitutes" or not involve risk taking - yet it is of the same ilk as my musings. It simply seeks to arrive at patterns which may (or may not) be relevant. No risk because no conclusions.

What I do not seem to have got across to you, is that I am peddling no theory here - just musing and discussing boundaries (real or imagined). End of story.

I called you egotistical because you wrote: "I have no fears in that department myself." (Which implies a certain sense of confidence in your position) And then; "And therefore I need not dabble with my convictions, which is a relief." (To me that suggests you now have a fixed position which you see as unchallengable.) Hence egotistical in my numble opinion, since the logiocal conclusion is that "I (Fisherman) am satisfied I am right, so no one else is."

In Ripperology I don't see how anyone can sanely possess such certainty.

Phil

[Fisherman]

There you are, Phil.

You pride yourself of being openminded.

Then, when I point out that the notion that Whitechapel Road could have been a barrier for the Ripper, is something that we could never know and therefore a notion we may need to be cautious about, you actually agree and say that "They key point here is not what makes sense to us, but how things might have been PERCEIVED by the killer."

But somehow you cannot bring yourself to accepting that this fully, and instead of embracing what I proposed and you actually accepted, you let yourself down by resorting to insults.

You cannot stomach having had it pointed out to you that your reasoning involves a lot of risktaking, and the outcome is that you call me egotistical.

I will let that speak for itself.

Over and out,
Fisherman

[Phil H]

Well, you can take it that i disagree with you, as usual, Fisherman.

A discussion of perceptions, without conclusions drawn can hardly be described as "methodology or be wrong.

If you "perceive" something then I can hadly say you are in error can I.

The point on which you criticise Michael for being in error is the one on which I am seeking clarification from him. A bit premature to criticise, I think. Also the idea of a Jewish connection may not be one you (or I) agree with, but one can hardly say it is in error. We simply don't know.

Your frenzied pursuit of your own theory, I think, means that you have turned into a predator in regard to all others - you must destroy. persdonally, I see no value in that. All one's eggs in one basket, as it were.

That depends on who does the thinking, Phil. I have no fears in that department myself. And therefore I need not dabble with my convictions, which is a relief.

I think that ranks as the single, most egotistical and foolish remark I have seen on Casebook so fat this year. Congratulations.

Phil

[Fisherman]

It is quite impossible to discuss anything with you, Fisherman.

I donīt know quite what to make of that. Should I be happy or discontent? Others successfully discuss with me, thatīs for sure. So maybe itīs just you ...?

"How can a discussion of PERCEPTIONS or potential perceptions possibly be in "error"?"

What Michael wrote was " a second is found very near the Great Synagogue and outside the borders of all the other kills". He expresses no doubt whatsoever that there were borders transcended by the Ripper at the Eddowes slaying. Thinking that this must be accepted is an error. On the whole, the concept of introducing barriers chosen by ourselves for where the Ripper may or may not have gone is also a methodology that invites errors. If it runs contrary to your thoughts, Iīm sorry, but there you are.

We have another thread on another forum going on, where it is evident that Reid offered the suggestion that the Princess Alice pub was the nave in the story.

What on earth is wrong with that?

Did I say that it was wrong? I donīt think so. What I said was that it is commendable and logical to follow the geographical clues, and then I exemplified that the police back in 1888 (at least some of them) had realized this too.

Myself, Iīve done my homework on the score, as you will know...

I know you do research, it is how the result is used that I question.

Mmmm. The result in the case at hand is that we have a man that had logical reason to pass through the district where Tabram, Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were killed, at the approximate times they were killed (save Chapman, but Iīve noticed that you want her dead at the time Lechmere would have passed by, so that should not be a problem), plus he had good reason to cross the Whitechapel Road barrier and be present in Berner Street at the approximate time Stride died and in Mitre Square when Eddowes died. We can also notice that he could have ducked into Pickfordīs for some time after these slayings, providing a good reason to why the apron (of this thread!) was not in place when Long first passed the doorway in Goulston Street.

How else should I "use it"?

Nowadays, the anomalies have found an explanation that satisfies me to a very large extent.

But hardly anyone else!!

Somebody has to be the first, Phil - tīwas alway thus.

I am not opposing this in any manner, Phil. Generally speaking, it will be true. But I think it has itīs dangers to try and identify barriers for people about whom we do not know where they lived and how they functioned! We run the risk of getting it very wrong.

What a very odd argument and a limited way of thinking.

How about changing limited for cautious?

Surely, if we can identify anything about the killer's "world-view" that might be helpful?

And have you?

No one is drawing conclusions here, so there is nothing to criticise ...

One can criticize methodology as well as conclusions.

... but of course your "theory" demands that such arguments be negatived as quickly as possible - as you confirm by your reference to "your man" and Pinchen St.

You are welcome to your arguments. If you donīt feel they are negated, be my guest. I do hope, "limited" in my reasoning though I am, that you allow me my view.

One of the reasons I no longer maintain one favoured theory in regard to JtR is that it closes the mind to other possibilities.

That depends on who does the thinking, Phil. I have no fears in that department myself. And therefore I need not dabble with my convictions, which is a relief.

All the best, Phil!
Fisherman

[Phil H]

It is quite impossible to discuss anything with you, Fisherman. Your conclusion to your post is at complete odds with the contents!!

How can a discussion of PERCEPTIONS or potential perceptions possibly be in "error"?

We have another thread on another forum going on, where it is evident that Reid offered the suggestion that the Princess Alice pub was the nave in the story.

What on earth is wrong with that?

Myself, Iīve done my homework on the score, as you will know...

I know you do research, it is how the result is used that I question.

Nowadays, the anomalies have found an explanation that satisfies me to a very large extent.

But hardly anyone else!!

I am not opposing this in any manner, Phil. Generally speaking, it will be true. But I think it has itīs dangers to try and identify barriers for people about whom we do not know where they lived and how they functioned! We run the risk of getting it very wrong.

What a very odd argument and a limited way of thinking. Surely, if we can identify anything about the killer's "world-view" that might be helpful? No one is drawing conclusions here, so there is nothing to criticise, butof course your "theory" demands that such arguments be negatived as quickly as possible - as you confirm by your reference to "your man" and Pinchen St.

That is why, I suspect, that your post is so contradictory.

One of the reasons I no longer maintain one favoured theory in regard to JtR is that it closes the mind to other possibilities.

Phil

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE]

I used the words "perception" or "perceived" in my post - that is all these barriers could be. It would be in the mind of the beholder.

Exactly so, Phil. We look at the maps, and we say "Hey, that deviates!" - but there may be any number of logical explanations to what we perceive as deviations. Therefore I donīt think we should invest much in these things.

I simply raise the point, to clarify Michael's meaning and perception.

It would seem he makes the same sort of error, yes.

In analysing the murders, I have looked carefully, over many years, at the locations and how they might fit together: what they might tell us.

Good on you - the geographical clues will prove very useful once we solve the case . We have another thread on another forum going on, where it is evident that Reid offered the suggestion that the Princess Alice pub was the nave in the story. He thought that the Ripper could have met his victims there, and killed them when walking away from the pub, in the directions he was led.
The suggestion is not to my taste, but it shows that the police too thought along the lines of connecting geographical dots and trying to make sense of them.
Myself, Iīve done my homework on the score, as you will know...

One striking feature is that only one murder - Stride's - is south of Whitechapel High St. That murder is different from the others - a more public location; no mutilation; the killing perhaps done in public or under near public view (Schwartz).
So it follows logically that the location of Berner St SOUTH of the thoroughfare COULD indicate a different hand or something else going on. I emphasise that it does not mean any conclusion can be drawn, but IMHO it is an interesting point.

It IS an interesting point. During my years as a Stride-was-probably-not-the-Rippers-spokesman I made use of the fact that there anomalies in her case. Nowadays, the anomalies have found an explanation that satisfies me to a very large extent.

A town planner in the UK once explained to me that some city features - in an old town (such as York, or Lincoln) a medieval gate spanning a street; a major intersection; an overpass; a park - can be PERCEIVED by people as a barrier. They walk up to that point and then turn. Accordingly, it can be a major consideration in whether a particular position is good for retail, or whether the position is in the "rain shadow" of the perceived barrier. Thus, to me, it is not impossible (I say no more) that "Jack" could have perceived Whitechapel High St as the southern boundary of his "territory". I agree that other "barriers" might exist in a man's mind (Commercial St would be one such).

I am not opposing this in any manner, Phil. Generally speaking, it will be true. But I think it has itīs dangers to try and identify barriers for people about whom we do not know where they lived and how they functioned! We run the risk of getting it very wrong.

Yet the most cursory glance at a map shows the obvious divide to be Whitechapel High St - (leaving aside Smith, Tabram, Mckenzie) only Stride is to the south. Yes, Pinchen St and Coles would be too, but most would not regard those as the work of "Jack".

True, true; but some would. The Pinchin Street business is a very open bid for my man - and for geographical reasons (but not only).

As I said earlier, the possible Kosminski connection to the Berner St area would be a possible explanation of that crime and its location.

Any geographical connection has a potential bearing, so exploring them is vital.

They key point here is not what makes sense to us, but how things might have been PERCEIVED by the killer.

A hundred per cent agreed!

All the best,
Fisherman