The Goulston Street Apron

[Errata]

Isn't significance in this instance dictated by rarity? If that was the only piece of graffitti in a ten block radius, then throwing the apron in that doorway is probably significant. If one in five buildings had anti Jewish graffiti on them then doesn't the significance of that particular doorway diminish?

[Cogidubnus]

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.

In my humble opinion one of the better thought out comments...

Thanks Chava

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

In my humble opinion one of the better thought out comments...

Thanks Chava

Dave

+1

Also, to answer Errata, we had some posts in another thread where someone who knew the history said that graffiti was pretty common.

I have another question: how common were stray dogs? a stray dog is, in my opinion, a pretty likely way for the piece of apron to have made it from the crime scene to Goulston Street very quickly, but without design. If the ripper cleaned his knife off at the scene, and cut the apron either accidentally or on purpose in the process, and dropped it right there, then a dog could have picked it up, because I can tell you that no matter how well-fed they are, and no matter how many expensive toys they have, they will find smelly trash attractive. If the dog found something "better" on Goulston St., he'd have dropped the apron.

[Chava]

I have another question: how common were stray dogs? a stray dog is, in my opinion, a pretty likely way for the piece of apron to have made it from the crime scene to Goulston Street very quickly, but without design. If the ripper cleaned his knife off at the scene, and cut the apron either accidentally or on purpose in the process, and dropped it right there, then a dog could have picked it up, because I can tell you that no matter how well-fed they are, and no matter how many expensive toys they have, they will find smelly trash attractive. If the dog found something "better" on Goulston St., he'd have dropped the apron.

Great minds think alike! I suggested this exact possibility in another apron thread and how everyone laughed. But a dog would have been drawn to the smell of that cloth and may well have picked it up and subsequently dropped it. As RivkahChaya points out,hat's the kind of thing dogs do and I'm sure, based on my recollection of the East End when I was living in London, that there were plenty of dogs running free in that area. They may not even have been strays. When we had a dog in the 50s and early 60s we let him out to roam as did everyone else we knew who had a dog. Now, of course, I realize that is an exceptionally dumb thing to do. But in those days it was done all the time. And would have been done in the East End in the 1880s I'm certain!

[Abby Normal]

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.

except for the fact the police at the time thought it was written by the killer and that the ripper was seen/interupted by several jewish witnesses that night.

[Chava]

except for the fact the police at the time thought it was written by the killer and that the ripper was seen/interupted by several jewish witnesses that night.

Yeah, I also thought that maybe he was trying to get back at the Jews because of the Berners Street stuff. But that lasted about five minutes about 3 years ago and dissipated after a couple of minutes thinking. There were Jews all over the East End at that time. The odds were excellent, if he was witnessed, it would be by a Jew or by many Jews. Whatever else he was, the Ripper was a bright lad. He wouldn't have wasted time or chalk in some dumb attempt to point the police at the Jews.

Also, with great respect, the police at the time were as much use as a chocolate tea-pot. Just because they believed it was Ripper-related doesn't mean we should.

I see the graffito as the non-human equivalent of the man Hutchinson. Turns up in the discourse, makes a mess, retreats for a while, then turns up again...

[Abby Normal]

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?

It might have made perfect sense to the killer.

To me the most likely interpretation of the GSG is: the jews wont take the blame for anything.

if the killer thought the jews interupted him on the first victim and caused two murders that night specifically, and/or he hated Jews (and whores for that matter) in general, and thought that they were greedy bastards who took money from him and were ruining society- then he could be saying that they should be to blame,they deserve it.

And of course, i am sure it also probably crossed his mind that it could also throw the police off into beleiveing a jew actually did do it-the murders and the writing.

[Abby Normal]

Yeah, I also thought that maybe he was trying to get back at the Jews because of the Berners Street stuff. But that lasted about five minutes about 3 years ago and dissipated after a couple of minutes thinking. There were Jews all over the East End at that time. The odds were excellent, if he was witnessed, it would be by a Jew or by many Jews. Whatever else he was, the Ripper was a bright lad. He wouldn't have wasted time or chalk in some dumb attempt to point the police at the Jews.

Also, with great respect, the police at the time were as much use as a chocolate tea-pot. Just because they believed it was Ripper-related doesn't mean we should.

I see the graffito as the non-human equivalent of the man Hutchinson. Turns up in the discourse, makes a mess, retreats for a while, then turns up again...

Unless of course, they are very relevant.

And since you brought up Hutch. What were the only two pieces of evidence that implicated Jews? Thats right-the GSG and Hutch.

Coincedence? Maybe.


Maybe not.

[Chava]

And your point is? That the killer was Jewish and I am protecting him because I'm Jewish? If he's Jewish he isn't gonna be writing that graffito on the wall of that tenement is he? He is gonna be writing 'The Goyim are the men who will not be blamed for nothing' on the wall of a tenement full of Gentiles. Hutchinson's evidence is, to me, unbelievable on its face. He's got more details on the guy than a CT scanner.

I'm on record as having said I think the killer could be a shochet--which means I do think he might have been a Jew. But the graffito doesn't mean a damn thing in my opinion and neither does Hutchinson's evidence.

[Michael W Richards]

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.

HI Bridewell,

I think the most frsutrating aspect of attempting to solve the riddle here is that we have alternate versions of the grafitto by DC Halse that were accepted by the City folks, and his version was 'The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing".

Although I support much of what PC Longs states as factual when he saw the writing there was not much light to view it with, my bet is Halse had a light source when he wrote down his version. He did write it down as "Jewes" initially I believe.

The spelling is key here, because if Halse was correct I see an even stronger argument for the writing pointing an accusing finger at the Berner Street fellows. Perhaps if emphasized as " The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing".

I think an antisemite Gentile who had come out to implicate the Jews with the piece of cloth learned that another murder, one he was unaware of while first dropping off the organs, happened at a Jewish Club on Berner Street, and that these people were blaming the Phantom Menace for the murder, which means that his will be viewed as hoped, a Ripper murder, but the Jews will be dodging a bullet for a murder that he feels they probably committed.

Best regards

[Michael W Richards]

For Chava,

The cloth didnt show up at Goulston immediately, so there seems to be some time for forethought.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

And your point is? That the killer was Jewish and I am protecting him because I'm Jewish? If he's Jewish he isn't gonna be writing that graffito on the wall of that tenement is he? He is gonna be writing 'The Goyim are the men who will not be blamed for nothing' on the wall of a tenement full of Gentiles. Hutchinson's evidence is, to me, unbelievable on its face. He's got more details on the guy than a CT scanner.

I'm on record as having said I think the killer could be a shochet--which means I do think he might have been a Jew. But the graffito doesn't mean a damn thing in my opinion and neither does Hutchinson's evidence.

And your point is? That the killer was Jewish and I am protecting him because I'm Jewish? If he's Jewish he isn't gonna be writing that graffito on the wall of that tenement is he? He is gonna be writing 'The Goyim are the men who will not be blamed for nothing' on the wall of a tenement full of Gentiles.

I am not sure how anyone could interpret what i wrote as saying i think the killer was a Jew. Oh well. But I will try to be more clear-IMHO the killer is not a jew and wrote the GSG because he blames/is trying to blame them.
Now do me a favor, take an advil, calm down and go back and reread my post and see if you can understand what my "point is".

Hutchinson's evidence is, to me, unbelievable on its face. He's got more details on the guy than a CT scanner.

OK. So he's lying. And that means.......?????

But the graffito doesn't mean a damn thing in my opinion and neither does Hutchinson's evidence.

Okey Dokey.

But the fact remains the GSG and Hutch's claim are the only two pieces of evidence in the whole case that implicates a Jew. My point is- May be there is a connection.

[Chava]

OK Abby. Then I will reply to your hypotheses which I misunderstood. Your point, as I interpret it now, is that someone is orchestrating the idea of a Jew being the Ripper via the handkerchief and possibly the Hutchinson evidence. Is that correct?

I can see the point of getting Hutchinson to describe a Jew as being the last person seen with MJK. But the graffito seems needlessly obscure. It's not blaming the Jews for anything specific at all. And if it's written by someone who wants to say 'a Jew did it' in that third-person kind of a way, that person would appear to have some specialized knowledge of the crimes that the police didn't have. It would be a real problem if someone said 'I recognize that handwriting, it's Michael Brown from down the yard'.

If the Ripper wants to blame someone else for the Ripper killings--let's say Michael Brown the gentile wants to blame a Jew--what does he write? Well, he could write 'I killed those women, they were polluting the earth, signed The Jew Hand of God. Or some variant thereof. He could chalk a Star of David somewhere. It wouldn't have been unknown to an East Ender, there were Jewish butchers all over the place with that sign clearly visible. He's got the length of cloth cut off the apron to back himself up and he leaves it there as proof it's the killer writing.

When it comes right down to it, I think, if he wanted the police to go after the Jews, he'd be more specific in that graffito. After all, the Hutchinson evidence is as specific as it gets.

[Abby Normal]

OK Abby. Then I will reply to your hypotheses which I misunderstood. Your point, as I interpret it now, is that someone is orchestrating the idea of a Jew being the Ripper via the handkerchief and possibly the Hutchinson evidence. Is that correct?

I can see the point of getting Hutchinson to describe a Jew as being the last person seen with MJK. But the graffito seems needlessly obscure. It's not blaming the Jews for anything specific at all. And if it's written by someone who wants to say 'a Jew did it' in that third-person kind of a way, that person would appear to have some specialized knowledge of the crimes that the police didn't have. It would be a real problem if someone said 'I recognize that handwriting, it's Michael Brown from down the yard'.

If the Ripper wants to blame someone else for the Ripper killings--let's say Michael Brown the gentile wants to blame a Jew--what does he write? Well, he could write 'I killed those women, they were polluting the earth, signed The Jew Hand of God. Or some variant thereof. He could chalk a Star of David somewhere. It wouldn't have been unknown to an East Ender, there were Jewish butchers all over the place with that sign clearly visible. He's got the length of cloth cut off the apron to back himself up and he leaves it there as proof it's the killer writing.

When it comes right down to it, I think, if he wanted the police to go after the Jews, he'd be more specific in that graffito. After all, the Hutchinson evidence is as specific as it gets.

Thanks Chava
And i apologize for being snippy.

Your point, as I interpret it now, is that someone is orchestrating the idea of a Jew being the Ripper via the handkerchief and possibly the Hutchinson evidence.

that 'someone' I am suggesting is Hutch himself. In this sceario-Hutch is the ripper, hutch wrote the GSG, Hutch lied about Astrachan jewish man to deflect away from himself (and cause hes trying to blame jews).

If the Ripper wants to blame someone else for the Ripper killings--let's say Michael Brown the gentile wants to blame a Jew--what does he write? Well, he could write 'I killed those women, they were polluting the earth, signed The Jew Hand of God. Or some variant thereof. He could chalk a Star of David somewhere. It wouldn't have been unknown to an East Ender, there were Jewish butchers all over the place with that sign clearly visible. He's got the length of cloth cut off the apron to back himself up and he leaves it there as proof it's the killer writing.

Of course-that would make more sense to US now 120 years later. But as I posted earlier, maybe it did make perfect sense to the killer at the time. He was interupted by Jews that night so perhaps his primary goal was that he was pissed off at the jews for that specifically and the GSG seems ambigous because his feelings were more ambiguous at that time. "They wont take the blame". Hes more expressing his feelings about jews here at this point than he is trying to send police looking for a Jew as a suspect.(although I am sure that has also crossed his mind)

When it comes right down to it, I think, if he wanted the police to go after the Jews, he'd be more specific in that graffito. After all, the Hutchinson evidence is as specific as it gets.

[/QUOTE]
At this point, knowing he has already (perhaps indirectly)implicated jews with the GSG, and that he had been seen at the scene of the Kelly crime (Sarah Lewis) his description of A-man as being jewish is more of a sending police looking for someone other than himself, thus much more specific and not ambiguous.

Thats my possible theory-i'm not married to it-just an idea.
Now what a shochet and whats your idea?

[Chava]

Now what a shochet and whats your idea?

A shochet is the man who kills animals for eating according to the Jewish laws of Shechita which are extremely specific. An animal is killed this way by having all the veins of its throat cut very quickly by an extremely sharp knife whose edge is inspected very very often to make sure there are no nicks or flaws that could drag and so hurt the animal unduly. This way, according to those laws, the animal suffers an extreme and immediate drop in blood pressure that renders it unconscious and dead in milliseconds. I've always thought that whoever the Ripper was, he had either practiced as a shochet or had watched it being performed. There were kosher abattoirs and butchers all over the place then. I'm sure it would have been easy for someone to witness this, and it would be a way of killing the women very quickly with no warning. I realize that a couple of them at least were strangled first which suggests to me an apprentice or a witness. Because a fully-fledged and experienced shochet could have done it extremely quickly with no problem at all and wouldn't have needed to strangle them.

Edited to add that my problem with Hutch is that he seems to be known the the neighbourhood and he's a little tall to fit other eye-witness accounts. That having been said, I think he lies like a rug and may well have been encouraged to do so by someone who does have the right height qualification to be the Ripper. If I thought it wasn't the Ripper but the Rippers, I'd have Hutch for one of them like a shot!