The Goulston Street Apron

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Here's a transcript of an 11th October 1888 memo sent by Sir Charles Warren to Godfrey Lushington at the Home Office.



After suggesting the idiom might "be that of an Irishman speaking a foreign language", or that of "Spain or Italy", Warren states that "The spelling of 'Jews' or 'Jewes' is curious."

He then concludes by giving a rendition of the GSG as it appeared to him on the dado/archway/wherever, in which the operative word is spelt "Juwes."

Small wonder we're confused.

Regards,

Simon

[curious4]

Haha!

Does surprise me that the writer didn't have time to end his message with "haha" though!

C4

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Put it this way. If you came home or went out and there was some ridiculous schoolboy scribbling in chalk on the black bricks at the entrance to your home, would you:

a) not even see it there?
b) pay no attention?
c) make a mental note to remove it if your religion didn't allow you to do so immediately?

All I'm saying is that as nobody ever said afterwards that they had seen the writing there, before PC Long's first recorded sighting at 2.55am, I find it unlikely that it could have been there since before sundown on the Saturday. Possible, but unlikely. And of course there is no evidence that it was.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.
Its all a matter of context. If I lived at Harewood House I'd be damned if I'd tolerate graffiti on the walls, but if I lived on the Chatsworth Estate, I'd likely never even notice it.
I made the same point as you do above in my dissertation all those years ago, but I do recognise that this writing being so small may have gone unnoticed.
Much is made of this single example but how much more graffiti was on the walls, or in the neighborhood, we just cannot say. We may be making a mountain out of a mole hill.

.

[caz]

...or indeed a mountain of graffiti when there is no evidence that the entrances to the recently built Model Dwellings were frequently daubed with it.

I'm just not sure why people argue for the writing to have been there for some time, when there is simply not a shred of evidence for it. Often it's the same people who demand evidence in every other situation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Wickerman]

Caz, I don't know that the residents were ever asked about it.

The City Police did make a diligent search but where does it say the residents were questioned about the graffiti?

"When Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of any one who was likely to have been the murderer."

Should we assume they asked about the graffiti, the same graffiti they wanted to keep hidden from public view?
Why erase it if you are going to go from door to door telling everybody what was written?

.

[Cogidubnus]

Hamming it up

I rather like the idea that whilst the graffito was writ the residents of Goulston Street were asleep perchance to dream...there indeed Caz is the rub...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Should we assume they asked about the graffiti, the same graffiti they wanted to keep hidden from public view?
Why erase it if you are going to go from door to door telling everybody what was written?

Hi Caz.
Continuing...

Curiosity got the better of me, the Graffiti was first made public on 11th Oct. at the Inquest. I have been unable to find any mention in the press of chalk writing seen where the portion of apron was found before this date.
(If anyone can correct me on this?)

Knowing how hungry the press are for anything controversial, don't you think that if any of the residents had been asked about this graffiti then reporters would have found out about it?

I think so, but not a sausage.....

If there were any dissenting voices after the inquest they must have been ignored. The public are caught up in a good mystery, who listens to a handful of naysayers...

.

[Michael W Richards]

I was just thinking that it seems likely that it was a policeman who wrote into the Police a few years later referring to the chalk writing almost verbatim. Since our understanding of their perspective leads us to believe that the killer was either institutionalized or committed suicide, the only person who would have known of the contents of the writing in addition to the police, was apparently indisposed at the time that message was received.

It did cause a stir at the time. Which leads me to suspect that they did in fact take both the apron section and the writing to be from the same miscreant.

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Curiosity got the better of me, the Graffiti was first made public on 11th Oct. at the Inquest. I have been unable to find any mention in the press of chalk writing seen where the portion of apron was found before this date.
(If anyone can correct me on this?)

Hi Jon

Wasn't a slightly shortened version quoted in the Star of 8th October 1888:-

The Central News Agency, which first gave publicity to the original "Jack the Ripper" letter and postcard now resuscitates the rumor - which has already been dismissed as false - that on a wall, within a few yards of the spot where he blood-stained part of an apron was found, were written the words, "The Jews shall not be blamed for nothing." The Agency adds that those who saw this writing recognised the same hand in the letter and postcard. The Agency declares that a third communication has been received, which it is deemed prudent to withhold for the present.

Which suggests the Central News Agency got the story out even earlier...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Wasn't a slightly shortened version quoted in the Star of 8th October 1888:-

Which suggests the Central News Agency got the story out even earlier...

All the best

Dave

Thankyou Dave.
An interesting choice of words in that clip:

"The Central News Agency......... now resuscitates the rumor - which has already been dismissed as false - that on a wall,..."

So a rumor was going around town, but was being denied, by whom? - presumably the police?

Those words, if true, put an intriguing perspective on the issue.
We can naturally accept that a rumor would evolve if the police were not talking openly about what they removed. But, that the existence of the writing (or the exact wording?), was being denied in the weeks between its discovery and the inquest is an interesting turn of events.

Thankyou for that.

.

[Beowulf]

Are there any theories as to what happened to the apron piece? It had to have been confiscated by the police.

Think it may be somewhere and will turn up someday?

[caz]

Caz, I don't know that the residents were ever asked about it.

The City Police did make a diligent search but where does it say the residents were questioned about the graffiti?

"When Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of any one who was likely to have been the murderer."

Should we assume they asked about the graffiti, the same graffiti they wanted to keep hidden from public view?
Why erase it if you are going to go from door to door telling everybody what was written?

.

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. Whether a hundred people were asked or nobody at all, there would still be no evidence - not a single solitary shred - that the message had been there for any passer-by to find, until shortly before PC Long found it at 2.55am.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz.
Continuing...

Curiosity got the better of me, the Graffiti was first made public on 11th Oct. at the Inquest. I have been unable to find any mention in the press of chalk writing seen where the portion of apron was found before this date.
(If anyone can correct me on this?)

Knowing how hungry the press are for anything controversial, don't you think that if any of the residents had been asked about this graffiti then reporters would have found out about it?

I think so, but not a sausage.....

If there were any dissenting voices after the inquest they must have been ignored. The public are caught up in a good mystery, who listens to a handful of naysayers...

.

Again, I'm not sure why this is in any way relevant to the question of how long the message could have been there before PC Long found it.

But don't you think those same hungry reporters would have used their own initiative to ask the residents directly what they knew, if anything, about the message?

And yet not a sausage... indicating that nobody had known a thing about it before PC Long shone his light on it.

In short, when the press finally got hold of the story and mentioned the message, not one person jumped up and down to say they had seen it some hours before the second murder that night. So on balance I do think all the residents were most probably indoors for the night by the time it was written.

Love,

Caz
X

[Debra A]

Thankyou Dave.
An interesting choice of words in that clip:

"The Central News Agency......... now resuscitates the rumor - which has already been dismissed as false - that on a wall,..."

So a rumor was going around town, but was being denied, by whom? - presumably the police?

Those words, if true, put an intriguing perspective on the issue.
We can naturally accept that a rumor would evolve if the police were not talking openly about what they removed. But, that the existence of the writing (or the exact wording?), was being denied in the weeks between its discovery and the inquest is an interesting turn of events.

Thankyou for that.

.

Daily News oct 3rd 1888

A similar story was also reported in the Morning Post of 4th Oct-including the extra detail that the rumour involved chalk writing written at the time Liz Stride was being murdered and was of a religious nature-so,presumably when inspecting the bricks to test the rumour they were probably looking in the area Stride was found-the wrong place. It seems they had half a tale, at least.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

Yes, the GSG started life as the BSG.

Echo, Tuesday 2nd October 1888—

"ONE OF MANY CANARDS

"Among the many discredited rumours current in the neighbourhood is the assertion that Sir Charles Warren on visiting the yard on Sunday morning last discovered some writing on the wall in chalk, which gave expression to very objectionable sentiments of a religious character, and which was supposed to have been the handiwork of the murderer. This was alleged to have given such great offence that Sir Charles, fearing a disturbance in the neighbourhood, directed the writing to be washed out. Investigation, however, has proved, so far as can be judged, the absolute fallacy of the story. A careful examination of the brickwork in the yard this morning has revealed beyond dispute the fact that there has been no effacement of chalk marks on the walls, certainly within recent date."

I think this is the first reference to Warren having ordered what turned out to be the GSG erased.

Regards,

Simon