The Goulston Street Apron

[Errata]

I don't know how I never noticed this before, but the graffito has a meter. Not an immediately recognizable one like a limerick or a sonnet, but it has a meter. And oddly enough, that might explain the strange double negative. Without the extraneous "not", it loses it's meter. Iambic, if you're curious. I think it's supposed to be read
The Juwes
Are not the men
Who will be blamed
For nothing.

Not that it particularly matters, but not a lot of people think in meter. Except kids. They are drilled in recitation in meter.

[lynn cates]

dirty

Hello Colin.

"How white was it though? It was an old apron, probably dirty before the murder, and certainly thereafter spattered with blood and smeared with faecal matter."

It has been described as almost black--I presume from dirt. Jane Coram has elsewhere speculated that hopping could have caused the discolouration.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Had Eddowes booked into Mile End Casual Ward, all her clothes would have been "baked for the purpose of disinfecting them and destroying vermin" in the regulation manner.

The Mile End Casual Ward was not a launderer or dry cleaner.

Following a period of "hopping" in Kent, Eddowes' apron would have been anything but pristine white on the morning of her demise.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

something white would show up in the dark.

You might over-estimate how much. Modern streetlights fluoresce, which is to say, they've been chemical, and not heat lights, for a really long time (because incandescent light break when they get wet) chemical lights make anything white actually glow. I don't know whether Goulston had streetlights, but if it did, in 1888, they were gaslights. Those aren't going to make white objects pop out the way modern lights do.

Aside from the good points already made about the fact that it was bloody, and maybe not all that white to begin with.

FWIW, was it white to begin with? there's not actually a rule that aprons have to be white, and going by the list of things she was wearing, it doesn't actually list an apron, torn or otherwise, and doesn't say she was wearing anything white, other than a man's vest.

I don't know how I never noticed this before, but the graffito has a meter. Not an immediately recognizable one like a limerick or a sonnet, but it has a meter.... Iambic, if you're curious.

English lends itself to iamb. That's why iambic verse plays can be spoken so naturally by good actors, and why something written in trochee sounds so creepy. Shakespeare reverses his usual iamb for trochee in the witches' "Double, double, toil and trouble...." and it's famously used to give people shivers in Poe's "The Raven." It's also what's so unnerving about the really stupid Song of Hiawatha (which is the original fake Native American kitsch made by white people, something I didn't realize until I actually sat down and read it about 10 years ago).

[curious4]

Hello all,

Having grown up in Kent I think I can say with certainty that the hoppers would protect their clothing with sacking aprons - either potato sacks or hop sacks. A white apron was a badge of respectability (something like Terry Pratchett's religious potato) - if you wore a white apron, you were respectable (at least in your own eyes). See Dickens, Oliver Twist, Nancy kitted out in a white apron, with a basket with a key in it to play Oliver's "respectable sister".

I don`t know how clean Kate`s apron was - it was described as a dirty white apron - but nevertheless white. I think it would have stood out in the dark, don't forget people had much better night vision then than we have now.

Yes, never disguised the fact that I favour a "posh" Jack. However, I do lean a little towards John Richardson at times. Judging by the film "Frenzy", I rather think Hitchcock did too. Close to his strictly religious mother, (not so sure she was the kindly old lady she was pictured as). A shrewd businesswoman too - rented out "her" rooms to the last inch and was quick to point out her prayer meetings and "charity" - I bet the poor old lady in the attic was pushed off to the workhouse as soon as she was no longer useful. Not a "cuddly" mum, then. And all the business of the knife - chopping up carrots for the rabbit one minute and then sharp enough to cut off a piece of leather from his shoe? Why mention the knife in the first place? The authorities were very trusting in believing that the blunt knife he showed them was the genuine article. And many "Johns" are known as "Jacks".....

Best wishes,
C4

[Phil Carter]

If the killer wanted to leave a message, wouldn't he have emblazoned it across the wall where it could be easily seen from a distance?

The writing was not even an inch tall, the capitals were about 3/4 of an inch. The whole graffiti was so small it clearly was not intended to attract attention.

.

Hello Jon,

Seems to me.. using a pencil here at home, that writing in capital letters less than an inch tall indicates a person who wrote the chalk writing had never held a piece of chalk to write with before.. because in order to write than small in capital letters it is far easier to write as if one writes with a pencil or pen, as opposed to writing with chalk (on a blackboard for example). Watch kids in a classroom and ask them to write with chalk.. they write "a la pencil".. it is actually a different style to hold chalk and write capital letters with it than the style of holding a pencil.

Just an observation.


Phil

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Jon,

Seems to me.. using a pencil here at home, that writing in capital letters less than an inch tall indicates a person who wrote the chalk writing had never held a piece of chalk to write with before.. because in order to write than small in capital letters it is far easier to write as if one writes with a pencil or pen, as opposed to writing with chalk (on a blackboard for example). Watch kids in a classroom and ask them to write with chalk.. they write "a la pencil".. it is actually a different style to hold chalk and write capital letters with it than the style of holding a pencil.

Just an observation.


Phil

Hi Phil,

The writing was referred to have had the appearance of "good schoolboy" handwriting, I believe what that means is that the words worked across in a reasonably horizontal line and that the letter sizing was roughly uniform.

So not only would the author have to hold the chalk differently than he would a pen or pencil he would have also needed to view his sentences at eye level to ensure some kind of horizontal consistency. It was said to be broken into 5 sentences, perhaps that was to meet the above objective easier.

It does seem to me that we likely have someone crouching when writing this, and taking some care to make it neat and legible.

Heres a question...if this is a full grown man and the writing is NOT associated with the killer, why would he have crouched down to write it?

best regards

[Errata]

Hi Phil,

The writing was referred to have had the appearance of "good schoolboy" handwriting, I believe what that means is that the words worked across in a reasonably horizontal line and that the letter sizing was roughly uniform.

So not only would the author have to hold the chalk differently than he would a pen or pencil he would have also needed to view his sentences at eye level to ensure some kind of horizontal consistency. It was said to be broken into 5 sentences, perhaps that was to meet the above objective easier.

It does seem to me that we likely have someone crouching when writing this, and taking some care to make it neat and legible.

Heres a question...if this is a full grown man and the writing is NOT associated with the killer, why would he have crouched down to write it?

best regards

I think the writing is actually higher than a crouching man's eye level. I think he would have been writing about 6 inches above his head had he been crouching. If it was a full grown man, I think he would have to be leaning over at like a 20 degree angle. I could do the math on that, but I never do math unless lives depend on it, so I'm gonna pass for now. Anyway there's nothing wrong with him leaning, people do it all the time. The only thing is that people only lean when necessary. Now it's entirely possible that there was some architectural feature that would screw up the writing. My old apartment building had large rough cut stones built in at the bottom and about the five foot mark, making a decorative feature around the building. Writing on rough cut granite doesn't work. If I was writing on my old apartment, I'd have to bend over to write under that stonework.

But one thing that strikes me is that the graffiti is in an odd place for what it says. There were public Jewish establishments. Synagogues, clubs, businesses. My synagogue gets spray painted with swastikas and Klan slogans a couple times a year. But I've only ever heard of someone tagging a residence once. And the guy who tagged the house knew the occupants. Its odd that it's on a residential building. Graffiti is a little like terrorism in some ways. Someone who hates Jews hates all Jews. Not just one. So they target all Jews, not just one. A terrorist uses a bomb instead of a gun because he doesn't just want me, he wants me and as many others like me as he can get. The guy who wrote on the building wanted to target the residents of that building. But why not the other buildings? Why not the whole community? I think it was personal. I think it was someone who knew a resident of that building. I think the tagger wanted to scare the hell out one guy. So not a terrorist. The author may not have liked Jews, but he hated one. Someone in that building. That message was for that man, not the community at large. It's on the inside wall. It wasn't a public message. It was a private one.

[curious4]

Hello,

Wasn't the writing at "shoulder level?. Judging by the regulation height of the police at the time, would it be possible to work out roughly how high up it was on the wall?

Best wishes,
C4

[RivkahChaya]

I don`t know how clean Kate`s apron was - it was described as a dirty white apron - but nevertheless white. I think it would have stood out in the dark, don't forget people had much better night vision then than we have now.

Say what? I would think that the generally poorer nutrition of the time, especially in an area like the East End, meant they had worse night vision, at least on the whole, because loss of night vision is a symptom of vitamin A deficiency.

It wasn't a public message. It was a private one.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that we have just one segment of an exchange, and if we had the comments surrounding it, it would be perfectly clear. It's like seeing one text of an IM exchange.

I have no proof that people made graffiti exchanges in London in 1888, but I know they did in New York in the 1970s-2001, in Moscow in 1977, and in college bathrooms all over Indiana, at least two schools in Chicago, and various coffee houses I have been to on both coasts in the US, and in the Midwest. I'm pretty sure I remember reading about some in ancient Greece and Rome when I took Latin in high school.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi again,

errata, there is quite an extensive dissertation on here by Howard Brown where he states that the height of the writing from the ground was between 36 and 48 inches, or 3 or four feet. If a full grown man of the period, say 5'8"?, was to kneel or crouch down low and write at eye level I believe it might explain those approx measurements.

Even if we are talking about bending at the waist to write it, or any of the variations Ive suggested, why not write at eye level standing up?

Does this small detail suggest that the writing was done after the cloth was left at that spot? Seems to me that would explain its location, and it would suggest whomever wrote the message intended it to be seen along with the apron section.

Best regards

[Bridewell]

Warren was concerned that the graffito would be easily seen by anyone passing by (forgive me for not quoting his exact words, but I think that was the gist). To me that is suggestive of writing at or near adult eye level; if it was significantly lower, the chances of its being noticed would be significantly reduced IMO.

[Errata]

Warren was concerned that the graffito would be easily seen by anyone passing by (forgive me for not quoting his exact words, but I think that was the gist). To me that is suggestive of writing at or near adult eye level; if it was significantly lower, the chances of its being noticed would be significantly reduced IMO.

I think Warren was worried that people who came to gawk at where a piece of apron was found would be able to see it, but not some random passerby. Not that random passers by couldn't see it even if it were at knee level, but it's another one of those heightened awareness scenarios. It's like when you have a stain on your shirt and you know it, and you're self conscious about it and you can't imagine how anyone else can't see it. But just because something is available to be noticed doesn't mean it is, no matter what height it is or how big. Warren saw it, and he couldn't imagine people not seeing it, especially given the context. It's perfectly normal, but it doesn't mean it's an accurate reflection on it's visibility.

[Wickerman]

Hi again,

errata, there is quite an extensive dissertation on here by Howard Brown where he states that the height of the writing from the ground was between 36 and 48 inches, or 3 or four feet.

He does?
(are you sure?)

The only reference to the height of the graffiti was that it could have been brushed by the shoulder of anyone passing by it.

No-one gave a dimension to the press.

.

[Errata]

Hi again,

errata, there is quite an extensive dissertation on here by Howard Brown where he states that the height of the writing from the ground was between 36 and 48 inches, or 3 or four feet. If a full grown man of the period, say 5'8"?, was to kneel or crouch down low and write at eye level I believe it might explain those approx measurements.

Even if we are talking about bending at the waist to write it, or any of the variations Ive suggested, why not write at eye level standing up?

Does this small detail suggest that the writing was done after the cloth was left at that spot? Seems to me that would explain its location, and it would suggest whomever wrote the message intended it to be seen along with the apron section.

Best regards

Now you're gonna make me do the math?

Okay. My sister is exactly the typical Victorian male. And we know this because when the state museum gets Reconstruction and New South era patterns, they call her in and fit those patterns to her to make clothes for exhibits. Evidently men have gotten taller but shorter in leg and longer in torso. Not so my sister. So....

My sister is 5ft 8. The important measurement here is the leg, and she is proportional leg to torso (I am very not) so she can be our dummy. Since I just made her something I have the appropriate measurements. Her legs are 32 inches long inseam 36 outside. Ankle to floor is 3 1/2 inches, thigh circumference is 23, calf circumference is 13.

So the height of a squat is torso + ankle + an inch or two. So Liz squatting is... oh god I hate math... 3 ft 4 inches? About. Eye level would be at the 3 foot mark. There are two types of kneeling, a standing kneel and a sitting kneel. A standing kneel is everything from the knees up sitting kneel is when your butt is on your feet. So a standing kneel is about 4 1/2 feet (4 ft 2 inches at eye level) which works but tends to be unsustainable, and a sitting kneel requires me to find the hypotenuse of a triangle which I am not going to even attempt in my advanced years, but we'll say it's about the same as a squat. And Liz would have to lean over at an almost 90 degree angle to write at the 3 1/2 foot mark, which seems a little gymnastic.

I don't think this guys kneels, I think he squats, because trying to run away starting from a kneeling position is a stooges film waiting to happen. Plus the knees of his pants then get soaked with blood. So I think he squats. Which for our Average Victorian Male and my sister, is too low. Writing the top lines would have been ridiculously handicapped. If he were kneeling it would be a little high, but this is where penmanship comes into play. It's described as neat schoolboy writing. Which means he was taught how to write from a primer, meaning moderately educated. But he was not so educated that he wrote enough to do it without thinking. When we get to that point, our handwriting goes downhill. Rapidly. Doctor scrawl is a symptom of this. Which is why you never see calligraphers writing while watching tv or talking on the phone. They can't not pay attention. So whoever wrote this took a little time. Not a LOT of time, but a couple of minutes. I might kneel on rainy stone for 15 seconds or so, but not a couple of minutes. It's painful to kneel on rock. People start shifting their weight or rolling back in a squat pretty quickly which is why the Catholic church does the whole kneeler and pillow thing.

Hey maybe thats why he left the apron. He was kneeling on it to cushion his knees.