The Goulston Street Apron

[RivkahChaya]

Why would he have written the graffiti? There wouldn't have been time after the deed, and writing it beforehand would have meant risking being seen writing it. The apron is associated with the graffiti because a lucky drop right at the base of the writing seems unlikely. Authorship of the writing has nothing to do with that.

Mike

I've having trouble parsing your third sentence, but I think we are actually saying pretty much the same thing.

The graffito and apron are associated because of juxtaposition that is assumed not to be accidental, although we don't really have any way of knowing how they came to be together.

[The Good Michael]

I've having trouble parsing your third sentence, but I think we are actually saying pretty much the same thing.

The graffito and apron are associated because of juxtaposition that is assumed not to be accidental, although we don't really have any way of knowing how they came to be together.

The difference is (I believe) that I am saying the placement of the apron is NOT accidental and that the murderer didn't write the graffiti.

Mike

[RivkahChaya]

OK, we have two different things: one is placement of the apron in Goulston St.; the other is juxtaposition of the apron to the graffito.

Then we have deliberate placement by the killer, and deliberate placement by someone else.

I am not sure what you are suggesting. If you don't think the killer wrote the graffito, are you saying he nonetheless paused to read it, and left the apron as a sort of "thumbs up," or are you saying that he was unaware of the graffito, and just left the apron either to let police know which way he went, or to drop a red herring, because after he dropped it, he went back, and took another way?

Or, are you saying that someone else wanted to associate the killer with the graffito and stole a piece of apron in order to do that?

[lynn cates]

questions

Hello Mike.

“The apron was not seen when PC Long passed the spot at around 2:20-:30, he stated that clearly, "It was not there." So...that leaves too much time to believe that the man that cut the apron piece kept it on him and stayed outdoors until almost 3am.’

But what if he missed it earlier? Long was from another division and was not familiar with his beat.

“That being said...isn’t the apron far more valuable as a possible killer egress route than it is as part of a package deal with the grafitto?”

But would this not still have the difficulty that the piece was there a long time before deposit?

“Since we know the piece was taken from Mitre Square and lain where it was found, and we don’t know when the grafitto was there, isn’t it possible that the piece was left there by the killer to suggest his ultimate destination?”

You mean the model dwellings?

“Maybe he added the grafitto...maybe he utilized the anti-semitic interpretation of it.”

You mean, if it was pre-existing?

“When added, the message then becomes more interesting, since the entranceway led to almost exclusively Jewish tenants within the Model Homes.”

Of course, the message is ambiguous. If anti-semitic, it was a bit puerile—in my estimation.

“And don’t we have a connection with the Berner St Club and someone living in those model homes?”

Possibly. Is the suggestion that he did it or was the recipient of a “frame”?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

2 points

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

Yes, I can sympathise with the problem you indicate.

Tactical considerations aside:

1. What does the GSG REALLY mean?

2. Why would one write it? I can understand a frame. But if the killer wrote it . . . ?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Why not?

Hello Michael.

"Why would he have written the graffiti? There wouldn't have been time after the deed."

Well, if it were within, say, 10 minutes, why not?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

OK, we have two different things: one is placement of the apron in Goulston St.; the other is juxtaposition of the apron to the graffito.

Then we have deliberate placement by the killer, and deliberate placement by someone else.

I am not sure what you are suggesting. If you don't think the killer wrote the graffito, are you saying he nonetheless paused to read it, and left the apron as a sort of "thumbs up," or are you saying that he was unaware of the graffito, and just left the apron either to let police know which way he went, or to drop a red herring, because after he dropped it, he went back, and took another way?

Or, are you saying that someone else wanted to associate the killer with the graffito and stole a piece of apron in order to do that?

I believe he lived in that very housing and that he knew about the writing and that he agreed with what he thought it meant and the apron was a thumbs up. I also believe had the graffiti not been removed, there would have been a few locals who would have said, "Oh the writing. Yeah I saw that the day before." But did he kill only Eddowes? That I don;t want to hazard a guess on.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael.

"Why would he have written the graffiti? There wouldn't have been time after the deed."

Well, if it were within, say, 10 minutes, why not?

I would include the time it took to think it up, the somewhat dark conditions, and the impression that I have that it was a neat bit of writing. I have never killed anyone (that I can speak about), but I don't know if I'd have stopped to write such a thing if I felt I was going to be pursued any second, or that I could have done a neat job of it and I write many lines of chalk every day because white boards aren't available here. Yet, he may have been a cool customer.

Mike

[RivkahChaya]

“And don’t we have a connection with the Berner St Club and someone living in those model homes?”

Possibly. Is the suggestion that he did it or was the recipient of a “frame”?

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. Having the apron, and a mention of "Juwes" together allows for a greater assumption that the double event was indeed such. Apron = Eddowes; "Juwes" = Stride.

Tactical considerations aside:

1. What does the GSG REALLY mean?

2. Why would one write it? I can understand a frame. But if the killer wrote it . . . ?

Well, if you want to believe that the killer wrote it, then it's a reference to the killer of Stride, in which case, it means something like "It's not without good reason that the Jews are being blamed." It's still enigmatic, but it either means "A Jew did it," or "The Jews made me do it."

If it's the former, then it's beyond puerile, because someone who claims not to have done something he hasn't been accused of, is the first person you suspect, and that includes people who volunteer evidence against another person before being asked (aside from people who were clearly witnesses). I think it's puerile enough to dismiss, because I just don't think the killer is that stupid. You don't have to be a genius to see how that kind of finger-pointing will backfire. You just have to older than about seven, and not mentally retarded (a term which I use with its intended meaning, not pejoratively).

"Someone else made me" is classic serial killer/rapist/spouse-child abuser response. It's also, from what I understand, something you hear from addicts a lot, who are never responsible for their behavior. But I think we're going in the wrong direction to begin with that interpretation, and work back to the killer. I think that interpretation is too forced to attribute to the quote without knowing for certain that it was written by the killer; otherwise it is just more question begging.

I think it's actually pretty clear that it means something along the lines of "A Jew cheated me, not for the first time, won't admit it, and other Jews just take his side." I think the odd phrasing is a gentile trying to make fun (not successfully) of a Yiddish accent, but that last bit is my own theory, which I have never seen anywhere else. The redundant predicate nominative "The Juwes are the men," is characteristic of ESL speakers whose first language is Yiddish. The ambiguous double negative "not be blamed for nothing*, if it were really said by a Yiddish speaker, would be "not for nothing be blamed," but the dialectic double negative catches the writer up. In my theory.

If I'm right, then it's just someone expressing dissatisfaction with someone he did business with in the Jewish section of town. If the graffito was really located at the place on the wall where it was in one speculative recreation I saws (posted here some place), then it is written right where a mezzuzah would be, and so whoever wrote it may have been suggesting that not taking blame, no matter what, was words Jews live by.

*It's ambiguous because it sounds like a double negative that is characteristic of certain dialects of English, like the one spoken in the East End, but it also reflects a Yiddish expression "Not for nothing," (נישט גאָרנישט "nisht garnisht"), which means "there's a reason."

[RivkahChaya]

I believe he lived in that very housing and that he knew about the writing and that he agreed with what he thought it meant and the apron was a thumbs up.

So, you think a Jew agreed with the graffito, and gave it a thumbs up? in that case, what do you think it meant?

[Supe]

Lynn,

Are you saying that the faecal matter would cause one to have a seizure? (heh-heh)

That groaner may have given me a relapse, LOL.

And yes, your scenarios are consonant with my suggestion, which is fairly open-ended.

Don.

[lynn cates]

Who dunnit?

Hello Michael. thanks.

"I would include the time it took to think it up"

Well, if the killing was done to make a point, surely that would have been in place before hand?

"the somewhat dark conditions"

That should have little effect.

"and the impression that I have that it was a neat bit of writing."

Perhaps he was some kind of professional?

"I don't know if I'd have stopped to write such a thing if I felt I was going to be pursued any second, or that I could have done a neat job of it"

Nor yet I. And that makes me doubt whether the killer did it.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

plausible

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. Having the apron, and a mention of "Juwes" together allows for a greater assumption that the double event was indeed such. Apron = Eddowes; "Juwes" = Stride."

Well, that's one possibility--one that looks a bit of a stretch to me.

"If I'm right, then it's just someone expressing dissatisfaction with someone he did business with in the Jewish section of town."

Eminently plausible.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Once 'pun a time.

Hello Don. Thanks.

Knew a race car driver once. He didn't do it right the first time, so he had relaps. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

"Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. Having the apron, and a mention of "Juwes" together allows for a greater assumption that the double event was indeed such. Apron = Eddowes; "Juwes" = Stride."

Well, that's one possibility--one that looks a bit of a stretch to me.

Sorry: forgot my [/sarcasm] tag.

"and the impression that I have that it was a neat bit of writing."

Perhaps he was some kind of professional?

Does "neat" mean "clever" in that context? We can't know whether it's clever unless we know who wrote it, and what exactly it meant in the first place.