The Goulston Street Apron

[Michael W Richards]

A couple of them wrote it down. The message was preserved if not the handwriting. The clue was still there, even if it had been erased. What do they do about it? Did they question everyone in the neighborhood to see if they could figure out when it first showed up? Did they question the residents of the building to see if they had any psychotic enemies? Did they comb the East End looking for similar messages in a similar handwriting? There's no evidence they did any of that. There's no evidence that they pursued the graffiti as a lead. It's unlikely they all just forgot about it. If they thought it was significant, what did they do about it?

You would think that if a few officers copied the writing verbatim we wouldnt have so many different versions of it Errata...I think the fact that they didnt even take the time to make one official copy of the wording and the layout of the phrase....(5 lines or 4?)....let alone take a photo is that they didnt take the possibility that the man who left the apron also wrote the message seriously enough.

Cheers

[Phil H]

Errata - a very sensible, sane post - thank you for the corrective.

...but jurisdiction is what to me sets Kate apart. First off she really has no reason that we know of to head toward the city line, and I believe the fact that she is killed there speaks to the possibility that her killer was either based within the city or conducted some late night business there.

Michael - I don't know how familiar you are with London. In 1888 (and even today) the change from Whitechapel/Spitalfields to City would have been very subtle - police uniforms in slight ways (shape of the helmet); lamp-posts (City one's may have had a dragon on the pedestal - but on the ground almost nothing. And Mitre Square is only fractionally within the City boundaries. So I'm not sure how anything special would have been arranged or why. On the streets you would hardly know you were in one or the other - the "line" of demarcation is practically invisible.

In which case, why make the effort with the cloth and not leave a message as well....why the effort to put the cloth there and what would only the cloth in and of itself suggest? That the murderer went "thataway"....it is perceived as a bread crumb trail.

Is it not prefectly possible that the murderer took the cloth, used it, and discarded it absent-mindedly? He would not afterwards have recalled where it was left. He simply balled it up and tossed it into a convenient entry out of sight and mind.

I wonder whether a Victorian (especially an immigrant) before TV crime series, detective novels or mass communication would have realised they were leaving a potential clue.

Phil

[Monty]

The juresdiction had no baring on Eddowes being murdered.

The laws remain the same. After all the City and Met had, up until 88, worked together on numerous cases for 49 years.

The reason a photo wasn't taken rruns deeper than a disregard for a potential clue.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, even if you are absolutely certain in your interpretation, you would make far better contributions by challenging ideas based on the facts at hand, not based on your theory.

For your information, Errata, it is Phil who claims that I am absolutely certain, whereas, if he had read my posts a bit more carefully, he would know that I am no such thing.

Here is what Phil "concluded":

"I called you egotistical because you wrote: "I have no fears in that department myself." (Which implies a certain sense of confidence in your position)."

My lack of fears alluded to fears of not being able to see if other theories than the one I believe in - I am very open to such things, and therefore I have no such fears. I used to believe Stride was probably not the Ripperīs; information came along and I changed my mind. It is no harder than that. I have changed my mind on many other things too, Tabram being one example. I am anything but locked to a belief.

Phil again: "And then; "And therefore I need not dabble with my convictions, which is a relief." (To me that suggests you now have a fixed position which you see as unchallengable.) Hence egotistical in my numble opinion, since the logiocal conclusion is that "I (Fisherman) am satisfied I am right, so no one else is."

This is just totally wrong. I need not dabble with my convictions, since I am perfectly able to alter them when anything comes along to necessitate that. It has nothing at all to do with any fixed position at all - quite the contrary.

I DO however think that the Lechmere theory is the genuine answer to the Ripper riddle, and for me to say anything else - well, that WOULD be to dabble with my convictions. I could of course sneak with it and mumble that Lechmere perhaps could be the Ripper, or deny that I think he is - but why on earth would I do that?
I DO think he is, and that may be wrong and it may be right. My best guess is that it is right, and thatīs why I stay true to my conviction until Iīm proven wrong. That does not mean that I fail to see the value of other propositions. Kosminski has been proven to have had a connection dwellingwise to Berner Street. That strengthens his case. Thatīs how it works.

Devil's advocate is far more useful position than that of a lobbyist.

Perhaps so. And I apply that angle from time to time. But I wonīt lie about what I believe.

Essentially, you have a choice. You can be right, or you can be useful.

I can actually be both. That is not up to me solely, though - it is to some extent up to the willingness of other theorists to allow for suspect-based beliefs and accepting that the ones who hold them can STILL make useful contributions.

You are a smart man with a lot of knowledge, and I for one would welcome your insight on any theory I had. As long as you don't dismiss it because it doesn't agree with yours. I would hate to see you become one of "those" guys.

Then you can leave those fears aside, Errata. The equation is a simple one: As long as I cannot prove that I am correct, I cannot be sure that others are not. That, however, does not mean that I cannot be - and SHOULD be - critical towards theories that I find lacking in some sense. If somebody wants to interpret that as a total unwillingness to see the value of their thinking - and some people seemingly do - then so be it. That wonīt make me go "Ah yes, X or Y is just as good a suspect as Lechmere", unless I really think so, just to keep people happy. I would not want that kind of meek confrontational tactics on behalf of those who judge my thinking. I want straightforward, honest answers.

Nor am I perfect in any way, and if either of you feel the need to point out my flaws, you are welcome to do so. And after that, maybe we can get back to the apron? Because I still don't know why he thought he needed that big a swatch of fabric.

Maybe because he was in a hurry, and just chopped of a piece in a jiffy. If he had the means to conceal it, it mattered little if it was perfectly sized for his purposes. It is not easy to cut fabric with a knife, and most people would prefer too big over too small.


The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

My lack of fears alluded to fears of not being able to see if other theories than the one I believe in - I am very open to such things, and therefore I have no such fears. I used to believe Stride was probably not the Ripperīs; information came along and I changed my mind.

Christer,

What was the "information (which) came along" to cause you to change your mind about Stride being a Ripper murder?

[Michael W Richards]

The juresdiction had no baring on Eddowes being murdered.

The laws remain the same. After all the City and Met had, up until 88, worked together on numerous cases for 49 years.

The reason a photo wasn't taken rruns deeper than a disregard for a potential clue.

Monty

Hi Monty,

If not for the jurisdiction differences Kate would have been locked up for the entire night...so, to some extent they do have bearing on the subject.

All the best.

[Chava]

I hope that the police were all over the people living in those tenements. Because I think there is a pretty good chance that the linen was dropped by accident and the Ripper lived there. I agree that it was Shabbes, and just about everyone would have been indoors and in bed. But just because the inhabitants were Jewish, doesn't mean to say that all of them were that frum. A lodger could have been out and about and his landlords wouldn't have asked him too many questions on the premise that he wasn't their son.

[Phil H]

Fisherman - as you say, life's too short.

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

If not for the jurisdiction differences Kate would have been locked up for the entire night...so, to some extent they do have bearing on the subject.

All the best.

Not necessarily, the Met did release early if required.

The point is there is not reason to state the City juresdiction was targetted specifically.

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

Not necessarily, the Met did release early if required.

The point is there is not reason to state the City juresdiction was targetted specifically.

Monty

I dont believe I said that Monty, nor did I say anything that meant that, ..I merely said that the fact she is murdered in the city, in essence, a different district....is relevant. Whitechapel/Spitalfields seems to me to be where the killer works...and where 80% of the unsolved Ripper murders are based.

All the best Monty

[Phil H]

But the point is, Michael, that you could step from Whitechapel/Spitalfields into the City and be none the wiser, especially at night. the streets look the same, the roads continue on just the same.

The labyrinthine streets of east London (by which I mean that end of the City and the East End) could lead you from one area, into the other and back again, without you being aware of it.

So I just don't see how anyone could have worked a "plan" on that basis, 9or been sure it had been carried out.

Whitechapel/Spitalfields seems to me to be where the killer works...

Equally possible, or even more likely, he lived in the EE and worked in the City or its environs. Is there a specific point you are trying to make here.

and where 80% of the unsolved Ripper murders are based.

By that do you mean 4 out of the five canonicals; or are you suggesting some proportion of the murders have been solved?

I can perceive Berner St as across some sort of "boundary", or even some "home area" of the killer - what he was familiar with, but Mitre Square as essentially different to Dorset St or Hanbury St - on the grounds it was in a different governmental area - nah!

No doubt, if MJK had managed to go and gawp at the Lord Mayor's procession, she would have known she was in the City, but I doubt whether she would have known exactly when she crossed the invisible line, I doubt very much.

I asked earlier how familiar you are with london and especially that area. Unlike some N American cities, there is no grid plan and no corner markers clearly pointing out where one is. In London, street names were on cast iron, wall mounted "placards" (usually black lettering on white, which might be anything from 9" above ground level (say on the low base of an iron fence) to 15 feet high. I don't know whether, in 1888 such signs were different between the City and other areas - I think today City signs bear the heraldic arms of the City; but there has been a blitz since 1888.

Knowing or even telling that Mitre Square was in one adminstrative area, and Dorset St (say) in another would, in my view, have been quite a technical distinction.

Phil

[Fisherman]

Fisherman - as you say, life's too short.

As long as you realize that you misinterpreted me and ended up with a verdict of me being egotistical, I think life is long enough.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Christer,

What was the "information (which) came along" to cause you to change your mind about Stride being a Ripper murder?

Ah! I think I will need to be very careful here...

Liz Stride is the odd one out in many respects; she was not eviscerated, her cut to the throat was comparatively shallow, a case can be made for her not soliciting on the night, she fell prey south of the much discussed Whitechapel Road borderline, she was killed earlier than any of the other victims, she was seen accosted by a man who was potentially the killer (and who was rather reckless if this was the case), she was seen in the company of men that may have been one and the same - respectable looking men in dark clothing and a good case can be made for a domestic.

This was what had me believing that she was probably not the Rippers. Please notice that I never said that she could not have been - just that I thought that she was probably not.

Nothing has been added to these particulars afterwards. They still stand.

So what came along was something else: Lechmere. He did not change the crime scene or the details. But since Stride died along what can be suggested to have been Lechmereīs route to his mothers place, I accepted that this tipped the scales in a new direction.
Following the tracks of a serial killer is very much equivalent to following his everyday movements. Only the fewest will find their victims and kill them in places they never visit otherwise. Instead, they will normally do their business in areas where they feel secure and know the geography well.

In the case of Lechmere, we have a number of strikes alongside what would have represented his route to work. Some say that we donīt know that he ever used Old Montague Street, and thatīs correct - we donīt. But that does not detract from the fact that it was the seemingly fastest route to work for him. If somebody feels it must be discounted just the same, then Tabram is the only victim left out, so itīs not a huge deal.

Stride was killed at a time and place that tallies totally with a visit to his motherīs house, and therefore this must be weighed in. Furthermore, we must also ponder the possibility that the Pinchin Street torso was his - NOT because of the similarities (they were few!), but because when people die along tracks where a serial killer seemingly have been present at relevant hours, then the suggestion that these victims fell prey to that serial killer must be regarded as a useful and viable one.

So nothing was added to the Stride case - but she fits the routes Lechmere would have used, and by that alone we get a different ballgame. And I went from being more against the bid to being more for it. Like I say, I have no problems changing my opinions when I find that the surfacing material calls for it.

Stride may of course have been another killers prey, even if Lechmere WAS the killer. But the more probable thing is that she belongs to the tally if the carman was Jack.

So, what if Lechmere can be proven NOT to have been Jack? Well, then itīs back to stage two again (I started out as a believer of Stride as a Ripper victim many years ago, so I have changed my mind not once but twice!).

Some tell me that it is the evidence at the murder spot only that should rule our opinions on who killed the victims. To that I say that any woman who had been found floating dead in the Green River in the eighties, after having been shot through the sternum, would not be the perfect Ridgway victim. She would be like Stride; the right time and place but the wrong methodology to some extent.
But the moment we realized that she died along Gary Ridgways murder paths, we would all have a change of mind, I think; then she would turn into the deviating Ridgway victim - not somebody elseīs. Though God knows she COULD have been!

Hope that helped to show you where I come from, Colin!
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

None? Halse, the detective, thought it was special enough to need photographing. However inflammatory the writing was perceived, by Warren & Arnold, to be, the fact remains that within a very short period of time the content was in the public domain - and no-one rioted.The graffito would probably never have come to notice had it not been for the proximity of the apron but, because of that proximity, it should, in my view, have been photographed. Especially so as there was, inexcusably, no consensus as to the content.

Hi Bridewell
Agree. I just dont understand why so many people on this site over the years have said that none of the police ever said that they thought that the GSG was written by the killer. Of course they did, or something to that affect. You mention Halse. Off the top of my head both Anderson and Moore stated that it probably came from the killer. If anyone with better research and knowledge of this would like to add to the list, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Monty]

Only Moore, many years later, stated the writing was by the murderer in the Official Police files. This was personal opinion.

There is no reference to the writer being Eddowes killer in those files. No suggestion either way, this because it cannot be proven. And rightly so.

Halses insistance that it should be photographed should not be confused that he felt it was written by the killer. There's no evidence he thought that.

Monty