The Goulston Street Apron

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Pic received today.



Yep, the letter was from MEPO 1/48.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

nice work

Hello Simon. Nice work.

Good luck with any new information.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Curiouser & Curiouser

I also believe that the message was an antisemitic complaint that the Jews who were likely involved with a murder that occurred on their property that night and yet wouldnt be blamed for it.

I dont believe the apron section and writing has anything to say about the Mitre Square murder...I do believe the section was left because the author believed that most everyone, including the Jews at Berner Street, would be assuming BOTH murders were committed by the Phantom Menace. So in essence, it states that the killer of Mitre Square believed that the Jews were responsible for the Berner Street murder. He claimed the one he committed by leaving the section, and used the acquired pulpit to accuse the Jews of the first murder...

...I think its probable that the killer knew what ethnic group lived there and perhaps even that a brother of one of the club members lived there. I think the spot was chosen, not random, and it was due to a murder that was committed on Jewish anarchists property. Also, Goulston Street was well known to Immigrant Jews, Ive heard that some marches for them began at that point.

So basically, Mike, you believe that the man who met Eddowes at some point between 1am and 1.30, went with her into Mitre Square and murdered her there, leaving again by 1.45, took away the apron piece specifically to place it in Goulston St and chalk the message there because he had already heard that not only had another woman been murdered on the club's premises in Berner St shortly before 1am, but also that the Jewish members were busy trying to shift the blame onto him and were therefore probably responsible for that murder?

And I thought the timing of the two murders was already tight enough!

Have you thought this one through from a logistical angle? When exactly was Eddowes's killer meant to have been in a position to hear about all the goings on at the club from 12.45 that night, and formulate this cunning plan to use cloth and chalk to his advantage? And why would he have bothered going to such convoluted and ambiguously worded lengths to try and deny the earlier murder, if he wasn't, as you often speculate, the Phantom Menace who had done for Nichols and Chapman? How does it all fit together if Eddowes was this killer's first victim?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

So basically, Mike, you believe that the man who met Eddowes at some point between 1am and 1.30, went with her into Mitre Square and murdered her there, leaving again by 1.45, took away the apron piece specifically to place it in Goulston St and chalk the message there because he had already heard that not only had another woman been murdered on the club's premises in Berner St shortly before 1am, but also that the Jewish members were busy trying to shift the blame onto him and were therefore probably responsible for that murder?

Two words: Passenger Pigeon...and that means an accomplice AND a conspiracy. It all fits together nicely.

Mike

[caz]

Two words: Passenger Pigeon...and that means an accomplice AND a conspiracy. It all fits together nicely.

Mike

And I'd almost believe this was a serious post if it had the other Mike's name above it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I wonder if someone should have asked Charles Warren to find out from his 'Dear Fraser' if the victims could have been hoaxers, faking their own deaths, or even suffering from mass hysteria. I mean, these are obvious questions if the killer can rightly be described as a 'Phantom' menace. Not really a menace at all then.

Perhaps the ladies should have taken an aspirin and pulled themselves together.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

I wonder if someone should have asked Charles Warren to find out from his 'Dear Fraser' if the victims could have been hoaxers, faking their own deaths, or even suffering from mass hysteria. I mean, these are obvious questions if the killer can rightly be described as a 'Phantom' menace. Not really a menace at all then.

Perhaps the ladies should have taken an aspirin and pulled themselves together.

Love,

Caz
X

That was very funny, and possibly even "Sarcastic Post of-the-Month." However, I did want to note that Michael probably intentionally borrowed the term "Phantom Menace" from the movie, which is hilarious in itself (I lol'd, out loud), and it was probably suggested by the thread on the Texarkana "Moonlight Murders," in which case, the killer really was referred to by people at the time as a "phantom" killer, or slayer.

I would, also, like to thank you, Caz, for supporting my position, however indirectly, that George Lucas did not know what the word "phantom" meant. He seemed to think it meant "stealthy," or "insidious."

I also think he didn't know that "parsec" was a real word, and thought he was tossing in something that sounded good into the first movie. When it turned out to be a real word, albeit, a unit of distance, not a unit of time, he made up that whole convoluted story about good smugglers not needing to be so evasive, or double back, etc., instead of saying "I didn't know it was a real word." Or, the backstory I would have used, if it'd been me: "'Parsec' doesn't mean the same thing on Tatooine that it means on earth."

[caz]

Hi Rivkah,

Thanks for that. I always learn something from your posts, even if we don't always agree on the topic in question.

I was of course thinking of Mike's 'Phantom Menace' in the same context as a phantom pregnancy, and had a little giggle. Happens often around here.

It's a crying shame that the victims didn't know about the latest ripping parlour game. It's called: "If we all shut our eyes really tightly we can make the nasty man go away".

It wouldn't have helped them much though, as several nasty men would have sprung up to replace him - assuming the women were not self-mutilating.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah,

Thanks for that. I always learn something from your posts, even if we don't always agree on the topic in question.

Star Wars is so ubiquitous here, I assumed that anyone who speaks English would get a reference, even to one of those three movies I like to pretend don't exist. Sorta the way nearly all Americans know a shilling is some kind of old British money, even if most have know idea what the value was (and, then, some probably think you still use it).

I mean, I guess I expect Brits to know a lot more about American pop culture than people from other countries, but there are probably gaps in places that would surprise me. It would probably surprise you what things British, Americans go for. Harry Potter, no big surprise, but the Duchess of Cambridge's pregnancy has pushed the Kardashians off the front page of the tabloids (albeit, they insist on referring to her as "Kate," like they went to high school with her, or something).

Now, It's not like I'm not grateful not to be looking at the Kardashians in the lines at Walmart, but I really don't understand the fascination Americans have with British royal minutiae. People want to read about how many times the Duchess of Cambridge puked yesterday, but there's not one story about Richard III being discovered under a parking lot. And it's not like Americans go wild for any royalty. Most Americans can't even name another country with a royal family (except maybe Korea), they just go crazy for the English, the very ones we supposedly fought a war to be independent from. It's just ironic.

[Michael W Richards]

So basically, Mike, you believe that the man who met Eddowes at some point between 1am and 1.30, went with her into Mitre Square and murdered her there, leaving again by 1.45, took away the apron piece specifically to place it in Goulston St and chalk the message there because he had already heard that not only had another woman been murdered on the club's premises in Berner St shortly before 1am, but also that the Jewish members were busy trying to shift the blame onto him and were therefore probably responsible for that murder?

And I thought the timing of the two murders was already tight enough!

Have you thought this one through from a logistical angle? When exactly was Eddowes's killer meant to have been in a position to hear about all the goings on at the club from 12.45 that night, and formulate this cunning plan to use cloth and chalk to his advantage? And why would he have bothered going to such convoluted and ambiguously worded lengths to try and deny the earlier murder, if he wasn't, as you often speculate, the Phantom Menace who had done for Nichols and Chapman? How does it all fit together if Eddowes was this killer's first victim?

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz,

Just because I offer you a suggestion that doesnt imply that it is my preferred answer to the question, very often its done to show the Devils Advocate position....but if I need explain this idea, I feel that Kates killer killed only once within the so-called Canonical Group, and that after he left Mitre Square with the apron piece that was used to carry his take away organs. He went somewhere to clean up and leave the materials taken. Instead of leaving the apron section with the organs... (which he may have dropped off into spirits), something he may have correctly assumed could be matched exactly to the piece taken from Kates apron if found, he took it out with the intention of disposing of it...maybe around 2:20-2:30, wherever he was was within "commotion" range of Berner Street. This is after all more than an hour and a half after Strides murder. He decides to leave the apron section near Jewish residences, and either uses a scribbled message he finds on a wall, or he writes one with some chalk, and leaves the section near that writing....at the entrance to dwellings almost 99% occupied by the same kind of Immigrant Jews found on Berner Street at the club.

Why? Because he is like many of the locals, an antisemitic. And also because he is likely the only person that knows Jack the Ripper didnt kill Kate Eddowes and claims made by the Jewish Club members indicating this mad killer Jack was responsible.....Eagle and Diemshutz yelling "another woman" has been murdered...were likely an attempt to avoid any possible blame for her death. Its for that reason I feel its more probable that he wrote the message himself, it seems less "co-incidental", something that seems not to bother some folks but it usually does bother me.

Liz Strides murder on a night that someone killed a woman in a manner very similar to the killer of Polly and Annie would also be coincidence, I realize that, but her murder is so different from any other Canonicals' that the timing may be a factor here.

Best regards

[caz]

This is after all more than an hour and a half after Strides murder. He decides to leave the apron section near Jewish residences, and either uses a scribbled message he finds on a wall, or he writes one with some chalk, and leaves the section near that writing....at the entrance to dwellings almost 99% occupied by the same kind of Immigrant Jews found on Berner Street at the club.

Why? Because he is like many of the locals, an antisemitic. And also because he is likely the only person that knows Jack the Ripper didnt kill Kate Eddowes and claims made by the Jewish Club members indicating this mad killer Jack was responsible.....Eagle and Diemshutz yelling "another woman" has been murdered...were likely an attempt to avoid any possible blame for her death. Its for that reason I feel its more probable that he wrote the message himself, it seems less "co-incidental", something that seems not to bother some folks but it usually does bother me.

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the additional explanation, which would at least make it possible for Eddowes's killer to have heard what had been going on at the Berner St club between leaving Mitre Square and writing on the wall in Goulston St.

I'm still not sure why he would have felt the need, if he assumed the 'mad killer' was responsible for Nichols and Chapman and had no idea who had killed another woman just before he killed Eddowes. He would surely have been happy as long as his own murder was seen as one more by this 'mad killer', who was believed by so many to be Jewish anyway, following all the Leather Apron publicity. If he really thought the people at the club were pulling the same trick with Stride, hoping that she would similarly be 'lumped in' with the others , so what? How would that have been any skin off his nose? How could he even have known by then that Stride had not been mutilated, even a little bit, or that she wasn't just another victim of the 'mad killer'?

Incidentally, I don't see how any significance whatsoever can be read into Stride being described as "another woman" who had been murdered. It would have been the most natural thing in the world for anyone to say in the circumstances. Such events were and are extremely uncommon, and since early August there had been three other women knifed to death outdoors in the vicinity during the early hours. People were expecting more and they got more.

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

I couldn't figure out which pieces of that really long post to snip, but in sum: the theory is that the person who killed Eddowes did not kill Stride, Nichols, or Chapman, and is for some reason very concerned that he not be blamed for the murder of Stride, but not especially concerned about whether or not he is blamed for the murders of Nichols and Chapman?

He is concerned, because he is very anti-Semitic, and thinks a Jew killed Stride, and does not want "his" murder credited to a Jew, not does he want to be blamed for the murder committed by a Jew? So, in spite of the fact that the police at the time had been looking for a Jewish suspect in connection with the Nichols-Chapman (and Tabram, for a time) murders, the killer writes graffito that will let people know that he is 1) not Jewish, and 2) killed Eddowes, and Eddowes only, and leaves the apron as proof?

That's pretty dicey for several reasons. The first is that he doesn't secure the apron in any way, and doesn't know that it won't blow away, or get taken by an animal, and he doesn't mention it in the graffito, so he takes a chance that someone will find it, and make the connection to Eddowes.

The second is that is suggests some foresight in taking the apron, but he couldn't have known about the murder before he killed Eddowes, or if he did, then maybe, if he was so concerned about not being confabulated with the killer of Stride, he should just have waited until another night. He isn't concerned, it seems, with being mixed up with the killer of Nichols and Chapman.

The last is, if that was his concern, why didn't he just say that? The graffito should have said "I'm not Jewish, and I killed the Mitre Square woman, but not the woman who was killed outside the Jewish club. She was killed by Jews. There's a piece of the Mitre Square woman's apron right below, if you don't believe me."

The graffito is slightly cryptic, because it is generic. We don't know exactly what it is in reference to. I think it must have either been a reply to earlier graffito, that was already erased, or a public statement, that was well-known, and that the writer hadn't the courage to refute to the speaker's face, but that people who lived in the area would understand when they read it. It was probably readily understandable to either the immediate residents, or to a particular individual for whom it was intended. The fact that it seems cryptic to us, and to the police, suggests to me that it wasn't relevant to the case.

I think the decision to erase it immediately shows that it wasn't considered relevant. If the Warren thought there was even a possibility the killer wrote it, I think he would have covered it with a sheet, and then had it photographed, before erasing it; the "Dear Boss" letter had already been received, so there was good reason to want a sample of the killer's writing, or anything that might be the killer's writing.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Rivkah, Caz,

To respond to both your concerns Ill use Rivkahs post to answer some points made...


R:I couldn't figure out which pieces of that really long post to snip, but in sum: the theory is that the person who killed Eddowes did not kill Stride, Nichols, or Chapman, and is for some reason very concerned that he not be blamed for the murder of Stride, but not especially concerned about whether or not he is blamed for the murders of Nichols and Chapman?

M: The theory is that Kate Eddowes is a "one-of", and that the man that killed her believes that the earlier murder was committed by the Jews at Berner Street.

R: He is concerned, because he is very anti-Semitic, and thinks a Jew killed Stride, and does not want "his" murder credited to a Jew, not does he want to be blamed for the murder committed by a Jew? So, in spite of the fact that the police at the time had been looking for a Jewish suspect in connection with the Nichols-Chapman (and Tabram, for a time) murders, the killer writes graffito that will let people know that he is 1) not Jewish, and 2) killed Eddowes, and Eddowes only, and leaves the apron as proof?

M: He is concerned that these Berner Street Jews are attempting to invoke the Phantom Menace as the culprit and thereby avoid suspicion on themselves. At this point I dont think its important what he thinks about the previous murders to that night, only that he may well be like many in the area who leaped to blame Immigrant Jews for the crimes. Even some Senior Officials can be considered in this group.

R: The second is that is suggests some foresight in taking the apron, but he couldn't have known about the murder before he killed Eddowes, or if he did, then maybe, if he was so concerned about not being confabulated with the killer of Stride, he should just have waited until another night. He isn't concerned, it seems, with being mixed up with the killer of Nichols and Chapman.

M: I believe the apron section suggests lack of foresight Rivkah, because its my opinion that he took the organs with him in that torn section. I believe it was his intent to leave the corpse "rippered", so it would not appear as if it was a "one-of" killing, he used the hysteria and the automatic assumptive nature of the police who lumped women like Martha Tabram and Mary Kelly in the same killers spree. I dont think he gave a rats ass about being blamed for a murder he didnt commit....but it bugged him that "these jews" were trying to get away with murder.

R: The last is, if that was his concern, why didn't he just say that? The graffito should have said "I'm not Jewish, and I killed the Mitre Square woman, but not the woman who was killed outside the Jewish club. She was killed by Jews. There's a piece of the Mitre Square woman's apron right below, if you don't believe me."

M: I believe thats what he did Rivakah, just not in the literal language you seem to want to have here. He said, if the message and scrap of cloth were both his doing...."I killed the Mitre Square woman only, the Jews on Berner Street are likely to Blame for that other murder."

R: I think the decision to erase it immediately shows that it wasn't considered relevant. If the Warren thought there was even a possibility the killer wrote it, I think he would have covered it with a sheet, and then had it photographed, before erasing it; the "Dear Boss" letter had already been received, so there was good reason to want a sample of the killer's writing, or anything that might be the killer's writing.


M:It was erased because there was so much Anti-Jew sentiment already in the area they believed a message "Blaming" Jews would incite riots. So, they were afraid of what would happen if the general public saw it. Very relevant to Policing anyway. I think its important that the erasure is seen for what it really says.....the East End had many people who resented the huge influx of European Jews into the area.

Its really relevant on this particular night to understand the full measure of the relationship between the Jews and the locals, particularly the police. The powers that be believed that these poor Immigrants were growing in numbers that could one day threaten the government directly, in the form of revolution, this feeling is most evident just after Bloody Sunday in Trafalgar Square a year earlier.

The government, much to the delight of fictional character "V" in V for Vendetta, feared its people. And when you have a small geographical area stuffed to its limits with the poor and suffering you see the 2 elements that often spawn violence...Fear, and Prejudice.

All the best Rivkah, Caz

[The Good Michael]

M:It was erased because there was so much Anti-Jew sentiment already in the area they believed a message "Blaming" Jews would incite riots. So, they were afraid of what would happen if the general public saw it. Very relevant to Policing anyway. I think its important that the erasure is seen for what it really says.....the East End had many people who resented the huge influx of European Jews into the area.

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

[RivkahChaya]

I really think the police were thoughtful enough not to hastily erase a message they genuinely thought had been written by the killer. I have to assume they thought it was not, but on the other hand, thought other people would think it was, 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.