The Goulston Street Apron

[The Good Michael]

once the story of the finding of the apron got out, and would jump to the conclusion that a Jew was somehow to blame, even though the message, if it were written by the killer, sounds more like a gentile saying "the Jews made me do it," than an admission by a Jewish killer of his guilt.

Right. It doesn't matter what the message meant and it is absolutely 50/50 about intent. What does matter is that the police were afraid it was going to be construed as "A Jew did it, and is proud if doing it." And this regardless who the author was.

Mike

[RivkahChaya]

As frustrating as it is not to know exactly what the writing said, or what it looked like, we could be sitting here discussing whether or not the person who got lynched that night had indeed killed the two women, or either one of them, and whether Mary Kelly was an entirely unconnected crime, or possibly done as a deliberate copycat by someone who wanted to show that the person who had been lynched was innocent.

If you don't think such things happen, I refer you to the Leo Frank/Mary Phagan case (yes, it's Wikipedia, but I'm familiar with the case, and it's pretty much as stated).

[Michael W Richards]

This would NOT have been a valid reason for erasure. Only a message that would implicate Jews in the murder would be a valid enough reason. An anti-Jewish message would have been just another anti-Jewish message. If someone believed a Jew was pointed out as a murderer by the writer (killer or not), then the police had to fear something much worse than the earlier Pizer incident.

Cheers,

Mike

And yet.....it is the reason given by some officials Mike. I believe that the evidence within some of those statements indicates that the police, or at least the ones who were the most responsible for Law and Order...(like a Warren for example, though not specifically)....believed that the grafitto was an unspecified condemnation of male Jews for something which they had done but were claiming that they were blameless.

My thinking, since the night it is found there plenty of Jews on the scene of a murder, and since it is one they claimed no responsibility for before the apron or grafitto were ever found.... is that the message referred to the killing on Berner Street.

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

What you and Rivkah are suggesting Mike is that either the Police or the general public would, could or did interpret the writing as inciting ill feelings towards the Jews....which is what Ive been saying. The difference seems to be that you both seem to feel that the Police and the general public would immediately associate the cloth and message as being from this unknown Phantom Jack, even if it was written by someone unrelated to any of the crimes,... and that he was Jewish?

As Rivkah mentioned, the ONLY transparent interpretation is that the Jews were being left blameless for something they may have done. It seems to me that if the cloth was taken from the deceased by a Jewish killer we wouldnt see the section appear at Jewish tenanted Model Homes under a message that to most people, seems to suggest Jewish responsibility for something... at that time, they were not blamed for.

If thats whats being suggested let me be the first to say it makes no sense.

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

As Rivkah mentioned, the ONLY transparent interpretation is that the Jews were being left blameless for something they may have done.

It doesn't make any sense that a Jewish killer would write "The Jews are being blamed for something they didn't do." On the other hand, it really doesn't make sense that a Jewish killer would write "The Jews are being blamed-- with good reason." In fact, it doesn't make sense that a Jewish killer would leave any kind of a note like that at all.

Now, a gentile killer, knowing that the police had previously suspected a Jew, might take advantage of the situation, and write "The Jews are being blamed-- with good reason." Or, a gentile killer, who, like a lot of serial killers (or, felons in general), blame everyone but themselves, might be saying somehow, "The Jews made me do it." What he means by that is part of some paranoid delusion that probably has no truth in it, so there's no more to it than "he had paranoid delusions." Maybe he lost a business because a Jewish immigrant was better at the same sort of business, and he went under after the "Jews arrived," and losing his business was the last stressor that finally broke him, before he gave into his violent fantasies, but you can see for yourself how that in no way really adds up to "Jews made me do it." I've heard people claim things like that, though-- not about serial killing, but the reason they started drinking, or something.

However, I regard the last bit as pretty far-fetched-- not nearly as likely as the idea that the graffito just happened to be there.

What's true, or even plausible, and what people might believe in the heat of the moment, are different things, though.

[Michael W Richards]

It doesn't make any sense that a Jewish killer would write "The Jews are being blamed for something they didn't do." On the other hand, it really doesn't make sense that a Jewish killer would write "The Jews are being blamed-- with good reason." In fact, it doesn't make sense that a Jewish killer would leave any kind of a note like that at all.

Now, a gentile killer, knowing that the police had previously suspected a Jew, might take advantage of the situation, and write "The Jews are being blamed-- with good reason." Or, a gentile killer, who, like a lot of serial killers (or, felons in general), blame everyone but themselves, might be saying somehow, "The Jews made me do it." What he means by that is part of some paranoid delusion that probably has no truth in it, so there's no more to it than "he had paranoid delusions." Maybe he lost a business because a Jewish immigrant was better at the same sort of business, and he went under after the "Jews arrived," and losing his business was the last stressor that finally broke him, before he gave into his violent fantasies, but you can see for yourself how that in no way really adds up to "Jews made me do it." I've heard people claim things like that, though-- not about serial killing, but the reason they started drinking, or something.

However, I regard the last bit as pretty far-fetched-- not nearly as likely as the idea that the graffito just happened to be there.

What's true, or even plausible, and what people might believe in the heat of the moment, are different things, though.

Hi Rivkah, Based on your first paragraph ...I thought Id been clear when I stated that this seems to be to be the work of a gentile...meaning the murder in Mitre Square, the section drop off and likely the writing. The early murder is addressed by the author in the grafitto, or he uses it as such, and as the man who should know more than anyone who and how many people he killed that night, he leaves the apron section as a claim tag for Kate. And as an antisemite who heard on the street that some anarchist Jews are blaming The Ripper for a murder on their property...the same Ripper he imitated poorly in Mitre Square with Kate, he decides to point an accusing finger at the Berner Street Jews for that club murder. And maybe the earlier ones too....as the man that killed Kate Eddowes likely didnt kill the first 2 women, in my opinion. I wonder, If this was really the Phantom Menace, and he did kill the first 2 women, why didnt he leave one of Annie rings with the cloth and writing as proof of them all?

I think these issues are much easier when you factor in and understand fully the dynamic of that small section of town ethnically, politically, morally, philosophically.....the amount of disenfranchised people crammed into that stinky, dirty...at the time...crime ridden ghetto had grown to frightening proportions as evidenced by the requirement of thousands of troops mobilized by Warren to quell the Trafalgar riot, and its no secret that "locals"...whatever that means, English, from the UK....I dont know, but local gentiles saw the influx as the reason for job and decent housing shortages, work stoppages like Strikes that cost everyone money. And the Government and the Police saw the growing numbers of activists as a real danger.

Before the first murder this area was on the verge of street demonstrations and riots, by the 2nd they started blaming the immigrants, of which a large percentage were Jewish.

Best regards

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah, Based on your first paragraph ...I thought Id been clear when I stated that this seems to be to be the work of a gentile...meaning the murder in Mitre Square, the section drop off and likely the writing. The early murder is addressed by the author in the grafitto,

I don't think that makes sense. The apron refers to the Eddowes murder. The graffito therefore, if it is connected at all to the apron, means that whatever the thing for which blame is being placed, is the thing the apron stands for, which is either Eddowes murder alone, or all the murders by the person who killed Eddowes, which could include Stride, but may not necessarily.

It does not make sense, though, at least to me, for the graffito to address assigning blame for the Stride murder only, and then leave a stand-in object for the Eddowes murder.

[Chava]

There is nothing to suggest that the Ripper wrote the Goulston Street graffito except for the proximity of the apron-piece. He could have dropped the apron, kicked it away with his foot, and it landed in the entryway of a tenement almost exclusively inhabited by Jews which in that area wouldn't be hard to do. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a local gentile chalked that piece of nonsense up there some time that evening. It's not like there aren't any number of 'Pakis Out!!!' inscriptions near areas of East Asian immigration today. What no one seems to have considered--and what I believe would be difficult now to ascertain--is the number and placement of other anti-semitic or quasi anti-semitic graffiti in the area at the time. It's entirely possible that there were other nasty little messages on the walls of the tenement and the other tenements like it that were not so open to interpretation as this one so no one paid attention to them. As has been noted, the Jews were arriving in droves and the nature of the area was changing dramatically. The locals probably didn't appreciate the influx of my grandparents-in-law and the other residents of Brest-Litovsk and points east. I've always been of the opinion that the evidence that counted at the tenement was the piece of apron. I think the graffito is a total dead-end.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think that makes sense. The apron refers to the Eddowes murder. The graffito therefore, if it is connected at all to the apron, means that whatever the thing for which blame is being placed, is the thing the apron stands for, which is either Eddowes murder alone, or all the murders by the person who killed Eddowes, which could include Stride, but may not necessarily.

I think it might make better sense if you consider that the apron section would be standalone evidence from the killer of the murder in Mitre Square, his confirmation, and the writing, a separate standalone inference for the true guilty party for the murder at the International Club.

The apron section validates that the person who left it killed Kate, there is no need for further confirmation on that point...the message, if from the same person, combined with the section tells a story.....I killed the Mitre Square woman, and since I did not kill the woman at Berner Street..(because the club members promoted the idea that "the killer on the loose" did that murder, and almost everyone assumes the first and second killing were by the same man,) "you" should look at the people who are attempting to shift the blame onto someone else for the guilty party.

The "you" in quotes could be the general public or the police specifically.

I believe it makes sense.

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

There is nothing to suggest that the Ripper wrote the Goulston Street graffito except for the proximity of the apron-piece. He could have dropped the apron, kicked it away with his foot, and it landed in the entryway of a tenement almost exclusively inhabited by Jews which in that area wouldn't be hard to do. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a local gentile chalked that piece of nonsense up there some time that evening. It's not like there aren't any number of 'Pakis Out!!!' inscriptions near areas of East Asian immigration today. What no one seems to have considered--and what I believe would be difficult now to ascertain--is the number and placement of other anti-semitic or quasi anti-semitic graffiti in the area at the time. It's entirely possible that there were other nasty little messages on the walls of the tenement and the other tenements like it that were not so open to interpretation as this one so no one paid attention to them. As has been noted, the Jews were arriving in droves and the nature of the area was changing dramatically. The locals probably didn't appreciate the influx of my grandparents-in-law and the other residents of Brest-Litovsk and points east. I've always been of the opinion that the evidence that counted at the tenement was the piece of apron. I think the graffito is a total dead-end.

I think Chava when you have the juxtaposition... and the fact that on that night Jewish men were actively attempting to avoid Blame for Liz Strides death, one cannot ignore the message. Its relevance on that night is obvious.

All the best Chava, nice to see you.

[RivkahChaya]

There is nothing to suggest that the Ripper wrote the Goulston Street graffito except for the proximity of the apron-piece. He could have dropped the apron, kicked it away with his foot, and it landed in the entryway of a tenement almost exclusively inhabited by Jews which in that area wouldn't be hard to do. ... What no one seems to have considered--and what I believe would be difficult now to ascertain--is the number and placement of other anti-semitic or quasi anti-semitic graffiti in the area at the time.

I asked once how common graffiti was in general, and it took a while to get an answer, but apparently, it was common. It was impermanent, being very often written in chalk, as opposed to the spray paint people can use now, put if it hadn't been so easy to remove, building might have been covered in it. I was surprised, as I wasn't quite sure how literacy lent itself to graffiti, but it did.

Personally, I remember when I was small, and lived in New York, and there wasn't Twitter, or even alt-newsgroups, you could follow personal graffiti exchanges at certain locations. This is why I wondered if the GSG was one piece of a conversation, and wouldn't be cryptic to the people having the conversation.

I think it might make better sense if you consider that the apron section would be standalone evidence from the killer of the murder in Mitre Square, his confirmation, and the writing, a separate standalone inference for the true guilty party for the murder at the International Club.

I don't think that's the case, though. I don't think people would think the killer necessarily dropped the apron straight downward, or deliberately left it, if they did not believe he had stopped to write the graffito. I think without the graffito, all we would "know" from the apron is that the killer apparently removed a section, and Eddowes did not cut it off herself some time days or weeks earlier, and without the apron, the graffito would not be associated with the killer.

What's more, I'm not sure I buy the idea that in less than an hour after the Stride murder, the killer had got wind or the two being associated, especially since the "fiend," or "phantom menace" the Berner St. club members would have had in mind is the killer of Nichols and Chapman, who you say is not the person who killed Eddowes. I think it took the "double event" postcard for people to believe that the two events were by one person, and I don't think it was written by the killer of anyone.

[Bridewell]

I would suggest, though, that the presence of fecal matter, rather than what blood may have been absorbed, would cause anyone seizing upon it to later drop it as unwanted.

And immediately if it had faecal matter on it.

[Bridewell]

The apron section validates that the person who left it killed Kate, there is no need for further confirmation on that point...the message, if from the same person, combined with the section tells a story.....I killed the Mitre Square woman, and since I did not kill the woman at Berner Street..(because the club members promoted the idea that "the killer on the loose" did that murder, and almost everyone assumes the first and second killing were by the same man,) "you" should look at the people who are attempting to shift the blame onto someone else for the guilty party.

The "you" in quotes could be the general public or the police specifically.

I believe it makes sense.

Hi Michael,

Good point, but why not make it crystal clear what the meaning is, rather than talk in such vague terms?

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

could be a reference to almost anything.

"I only done one woman tonight. The Juwes done Berner St"

would take no longer to write and would remove any doubt as to what was being referred to. The presence of the apron piece, together with such an unambiguous message, would leave no doubt as to the fact that the author of the graffito was indeed the killer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Michael,

Good point, but why not make it crystal clear what the meaning is, rather than talk in such vague terms?

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

could be a reference to almost anything.

"I only done one woman tonight. The Juwes done Berner St"

would take no longer to write and would remove any doubt as to what was being referred to. The presence of the apron piece, together with such an unambiguous message, would leave no doubt as to the fact that the author of the graffito was indeed the killer.

I think that's the point.

It's difficult to say where exactly the writing was in relation to the apron, but "above on the wall" suggests it wasn't far away; and I suppose that is a point in favour.

But why write something as impenetrable as a South American rain forest?

[Chava]

One thing I'm sure about the Ripper. He didn't hang around. If he dropped that piece of cloth along Goulston Street, I don't see him staying there, fishing a piece of chalk out of his pocket, and writing an anti-Jewish graffito to point to a Jewish killer. He didn't have to. It's not like the police were hot on his trail. One of the reasons I believe he avoided capture was he never overplayed his hand. He picked a woman up, killed her, did his thing and left the scene. This is obviously just my opinion, but that piece of graffito has had far too much attention paid to it. The only reason the police looked at it was because of its proximity to the apron. That should tell us how important the apron is and of course the apron is important. It's the only piece of physical evidence in the case.

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Probably some local had a beef with some Jew who lived in those tenements and chose to scribble his unhappiness on the wall outside. A running Ripper threw away a piece of cloth which was no longer useful to him and which could swing him if found in his possession. It came to rest in a doorway in Goulston Street. If the police had spent more time looking around that doorway and environs for bits and bobs that might have been associated with the cloth or thrown away with the cloth, and less time assiduously destroying a piece of graffito that gets the investigation nowhere then or now, we might have been better off.