The Goulston Street Apron

[Wickerman]

Thankyou Debs, Simon.

Interesting that the graffiti was first erroneously associated with Berner St., which to some degree justifies the denial by police.

.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure what point you were trying to make here. Whether a hundred people were asked or nobody at all, there would still be no evidence - not a single solitary shred - that the message had been there for any passer-by to find, until shortly before PC Long found it at 2.55am.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz.

When you pointed out that there is no evidence of the graffiti before it was found by PC Lamb, I had to wonder what in your mind constitutes evidence. Obviously not a photograph, but quite possibly you were meaning that the residents never said it was there before. I deemed this was the evidence you must be talking about.

I don't see how the police could ask the tenants about this graffiti without telling them what it said, then the cat is out of the bag. Everybody would know what the police did not want them to know in the first place.
Therefore, isn't it likely that the tenants were never asked about it?

.

[Errata]

Hi Caz.

When you pointed out that there is no evidence of the graffiti before it was found by PC Lamb, I had to wonder what in your mind constitutes evidence. Obviously not a photograph, but quite possibly you were meaning that the residents never said it was there before. I deemed this was the evidence you must be talking about.

I don't see how the police could ask the tenants about this graffiti without telling them what it said, then the cat is out of the bag. Everybody would know what the police did not want them to know in the first place.
Therefore, isn't it likely that the tenants were never asked about it?

.

I don't think they were trying to keep it a secret, I think they were trying to not draw more attention to it. It's one thing to hear what a piece of graffiti says, it's quite another to see a swarm of cops hovering over it, taking pictures, pointing and muttering significantly. And then if anyone asked why they were hovering around the graffiti, they would get an answer like "We cannot comment on evidence in an ongoing investigation" which makes it seem like a super huge deal, and then because it's obvious why they are circling the graffiti like sharks people get pissed off that the cops are trying to "hide" it.

It's cliche for a reason. It is freakishly predictable. And sure maybe they had some concerns about an anti Jewish mob, but I think the real fear was an anti Police mob. You know the expression that one ******* ruins it for the rest of us? There's one in every crowd. He becomes absolutely certain that the graffiti refers to someone in that building, that the cops are protecting him, therefor the cops are protecting the Ripper. Madness ensues, and then the cops have to shoot their way out, it's a mess, and then everyone gets fired. It probably wasn't that evolved a thought, but I think he asked himself if he wanted people to see his men hanging out at the scene as dawn rolled around, and the answer was decidedly no.

[Cogidubnus]

Yes, the GSG started life as the BSG.

Which is presumably why the Star on 8th October refers to the rumour being "resuscitated"...not being funny, we hear much of the grafitti prevelant in the East End at the time...is there any real evidence of a BSG preceding the GSG?

All the best

Dave

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hi Caz.

When you pointed out that there is no evidence of the graffiti before it was found by PC Lamb, I had to wonder what in your mind constitutes evidence. Obviously not a photograph, but quite possibly you were meaning that the residents never said it was there before. I deemed this was the evidence you must be talking about.

I don't see how the police could ask the tenants about this graffiti without telling them what it said, then the cat is out of the bag. Everybody would know what the police did not want them to know in the first place.
Therefore, isn't it likely that the tenants were never asked about it?

.

It is not a necessity to reveal the content of the writing to ask the tenants of the building if there had been any there previously.

[caz]

Hi Caz.

When you pointed out that there is no evidence of the graffiti before it was found by PC Lamb, I had to wonder what in your mind constitutes evidence. Obviously not a photograph, but quite possibly you were meaning that the residents never said it was there before. I deemed this was the evidence you must be talking about.

I don't see how the police could ask the tenants about this graffiti without telling them what it said, then the cat is out of the bag. Everybody would know what the police did not want them to know in the first place.
Therefore, isn't it likely that the tenants were never asked about it?

.

Goodness me, Jon. I thought I had explained all this. It makes no difference whether they were asked or not. I'm saying that when the residents and everyone else in the vicinity learned (from the papers, local rumours, whatever) that a policeman had found a message at the entrance to that building, possibly from the murderer, which had been quickly washed off, nobody then came out and said "wait a minute, that writing was already there for some time before the murders were even committed that night". Had they done so, I've no doubt the police would have been delighted to announce the lack of any apparent connection between killer and message.

Do you see now?

No evidence either way, but why do many people today believe it was probably there before sundown on the Saturday? That's what I can't grasp.

Love,

Caz
X

[Chava]

Just as a matter of interest, how visible would it have been in daylight? What colour was the wall behind the chalk writing? It shows up when someone shines a light right on it at night, but natural light is different, and it was on the inside wall of the entrance, right? So you don't see it from a distance and if you aren't actually turning to look at it chances are you don't notice it when you go into the tenements unless it is blindingly obvious. And this seems to have been fairly small and low-down as well. So not at eye-height. I'm not so sure it would have been noticed beforehand even if it was there.

[RivkahChaya]

Did the have much in the way old directional lights? Were there lamps or torches of any sort that you could point toward something, the way lamps and flashlights now have conical shades, so you can point them at something?

Also, this was pretty late at night-- isn't it possible that the writing was there for an hour or so, and no one saw it? The PC who found the apron may have noticed the writing, because the apron caused him to take a closer look, but no matter how certain he is, he might have missed the writing the first time around.

No one actually saw someone writing, then dropping a piece of cloth, and as such, I am skeptical that they really showed up together.

If JtR wanted to make sure that the apron and writing were associated, why didn't he draw an arrow, sign the graffito, mention the apron in the context of the graffito, or write his message on the apron itself?

Why didn't he, for example, write "Jews never own up to what they've done" on the apron itself, and mail it to the police?

[Errata]

I think one of the problems a lot of us have with the GSG is that despite appearances, it really isn't good theater. And there are many of us who believe that Jack would have been capable of very good theater had he been inclined. Like I can think of about 50 different ways to make it better theater that would cost no more time and energy, and in many ways would be easier.

[Chava]

I think one of the problems a lot of us have with the GSG is that despite appearances, it really isn't good theater. And there are many of us who believe that Jack would have been capable of very good theater had he been inclined. Like I can think of about 50 different ways to make it better theater that would cost no more time and energy, and in many ways would be easier.

I don't think he was concerned with effects beyond his display of the victims. That was great theatre. But then I'm of the opinion that he just got rid of the cloth and ran without stopping to chalk an enigmatic little message. If he's got this evidence on him I can see him dropping it on the ground and kicking it into a handy doorway so that it's not obvious. It's the kind of thing you'll still see someone do today when they want to drop a large piece of rubbish and don't want it to just sit there on the street where it's highly visible and someone could yell at you for littering.

[Errata]

I don't think he was concerned with effects beyond his display of the victims. That was great theatre. But then I'm of the opinion that he just got rid of the cloth and ran without stopping to chalk an enigmatic little message. If he's got this evidence on him I can see him dropping it on the ground and kicking it into a handy doorway so that it's not obvious. It's the kind of thing you'll still see someone do today when they want to drop a large piece of rubbish and don't want it to just sit there on the street where it's highly visible and someone could yell at you for littering.

I agree. But I always figure that if you ARE going to take the time to write out a message, go big or go home. This was not big. And the double negative makes it's meaning murky at best. And why put it at a height so you are framing a 10 year old kid for the graffiti? I mean, if you are going to make it mysterious go all out. Draw a giant cartoon of a monster pointing at an upside down horse. Or a complex code that when deciphered by the finest minds in the land turns out to be a juvenile dirty joke. The GSG isn't specific enough to point to any reason for writing it, but isn't obscure enough to be the product of madness. It's like Oliver Twist hated Jews. Which is just bad theater.

[Chava]

I agree. But I always figure that if you ARE going to take the time to write out a message, go big or go home. This was not big. And the double negative makes it's meaning murky at best. And why put it at a height so you are framing a 10 year old kid for the graffiti? I mean, if you are going to make it mysterious go all out. Draw a giant cartoon of a monster pointing at an upside down horse. Or a complex code that when deciphered by the finest minds in the land turns out to be a juvenile dirty joke. The GSG isn't specific enough to point to any reason for writing it, but isn't obscure enough to be the product of madness. It's like Oliver Twist hated Jews. Which is just bad theater.

I agree. I don't think he wrote it either. Could have been a kid writing it for that matter. He gets rid of the cloth and runs like hell. The GSG is just (another) distraction.

[caz]

Just as a matter of interest, how visible would it have been in daylight? What colour was the wall behind the chalk writing? It shows up when someone shines a light right on it at night, but natural light is different, and it was on the inside wall of the entrance, right? So you don't see it from a distance and if you aren't actually turning to look at it chances are you don't notice it when you go into the tenements unless it is blindingly obvious. And this seems to have been fairly small and low-down as well. So not at eye-height. I'm not so sure it would have been noticed beforehand even if it was there.

Fine Chava, but that isn't evidence that it was there, which is my only point. However, didn't someone describe it as being visible from the street?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Also, this was pretty late at night-- isn't it possible that the writing was there for an hour or so, and no one saw it? The PC who found the apron may have noticed the writing, because the apron caused him to take a closer look, but no matter how certain he is, he might have missed the writing the first time around.

No one actually saw someone writing, then dropping a piece of cloth, and as such, I am skeptical that they really showed up together.

Yes, but they were found together at the same time. So while it's absolutely possible that the writing was 'there for an hour or so, and no one saw it', or that PC Long 'might have missed the writing the first time around', there is no evidence for this, nor for the apron and writing arriving at different times.

We should be allowing for both possibilities, instead of which some people have concluded, for reasons best known to themselves, that the writing was there first, unconnected to the apron, and can therefore be disregarded as a potential clue to the killer's state of mind.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

If JtR wanted to make sure that the apron and writing were associated, why didn't he draw an arrow, sign the graffito, mention the apron in the context of the graffito, or write his message on the apron itself?

Why didn't he, for example, write "Jews never own up to what they've done" on the apron itself, and mail it to the police?

Well we don't know what the message meant regardless of who wrote it. If it was just to cause mischief it achieved its aim, apparently thanks to the apron which caused PC Long to look up and find the writing. It could have been belt and braces for the killer - just another thing to keep the attention on the dwellings and away from where he was spending the rest of the night.

Love,

Caz
X