Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Glenn,
the piece of apron is the most important clue ever left by the ripper, if not the only one, and the words "not be blamed for nothing" can refer to something that happened and is to be blamed...such as a murder with mutilations...No?

Since, I think, you discard Stride as a Ripper victim, your scenario would be:
-by coincidence, two murders by knife, the victims being both prostitutes from JtR area, occured within the same night (after 3 weeks without murders).
-by coincidence, the first murder takes place near to a Jewish-club, and after the second one, the murderer, by sheer luck, left his bloody clue near to an anti-Jewish graffito, or more coincidentally even, to a place where a graffito would soon be written...

May be so, yes.
But are you sure this scenario is really more likely than the speculation you dismiss so categorically?

Amitiés,
DVV (broken-English poster)

Hi DVV,

Firstly, I am not sure I discard Stride with certainty - I think it's about 50-50 or 40-50 chance it was a Ripper crime but I am not more convinced than that. What I do feel rather certain of is that the 'Lipski' man most likely wasn't the Ripper, judging from his behaviour. If she was killed by the Ripper, then she met another offender after this incident. Of course, the Schwartz story could also have been a load of bollocks.
But since I find it very likely that that man was her killer - that is, if he existed at all - then I'd figure it was not a ripper crime.

Secondly,

As for the coincidences of Jewish elements on several sites - it would be VERY hard to find anything that wouldn't in some way concern the Jews in East End during this time! This was an area with mostly Jewish or Eastern European immigrant population, so I don't see Jewish elements in a number of murders as that strange a coincidence - far from it, it doesn't surprise me at all.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Of four 'spillages' attributable to our man (Nichols's body, Chapman's body, Eddowes's body, apron), and three others, possibly attributable (Tabram's body, Stride's body, Kelly's body); we have one instance of graffiti, of which any notice was taken.

You may need to tighten up on your definition of "spillages", Colin. I'm not sure we can compare bodies found in the open air with a fragment of apron liberated from one such body, later to be found near the foot of some communal stairs.

[joelhall]

Hi Joel,Neither, of necessity, would the chalk message or the apron piece have been "destined" to be noticed by police. In fact, where the apron was lying would have made it marginally more likely to have been noticed by a resident, than a beat constable swanning past a narrow doorway around 2AM on a damp night.

precisely what i was getting at

[Graham]

Yes, Colin, I expect you are somewhat fatigued after writing that mass of nonsense you just posted.

G

But why the Ripper? Only because he was there? Or because someone had to be writing it? What kind of reasoning is that?

"But why the Ripper?"

A very good question, Glenn !!!

Those who point to Eddowes's murder have very little, on which to base their assumptions:

- Proximity; which could be purely coincidental (odds are: it is !!!)

- Reference to "Blame"; which also could be purely coincidental (odds are: it is !!!)

That said; I will readily admit that my inclination is to believe that Eddowes's murder did write the graffito upon placing the apron. But my earlier post does not suggest in any way, shape or form that his candidacy for authorship should be considered any more likely than that of anyone else who might have had occasion to enter the doorway in question, in the 24-36 hours prior to the discovery of the apron. It merely insists that his candidacy should not be considered any less likely than that of the other possible authors.

Again: ... that his candidacy should not be considered any less likely than that of the other possible authors.

My inclination to believe (i.e., my "gut feeling") that Eddowes's murderer did write the graffito, is based on my personal perception that the apron 'completes' the message. The message's perceived inanity - albeit; not its ambiguity - is diminished by the inclusion of the apron. I could continue, but ...

Again: "But why the Ripper?"

Why Not ???

- He never attempted to communicate previously, in such a manner ??? We don't know that to be the case !!!

- Too risky ??? Eddowes's murderer was anything but the epitome of prudence !!!

- Too ambiguous ??? Why should the writings of Eddowes's murderer be any less ambiguous than those of anyone else ??? Why on earth would we presume that his writings could be held to a higher standard ???

- Too inane ??? Same as above !!!

- One graffito amongst a mass of graffiti in the general area ??? We don't know that to be the case !!!

I can't help feeling that, if Jack had dropped the apron further down the street, we'd be disputing the meaning of "Jacob's crackers" or "Free Aire".

Right !!!

- And if "Jack" had left Nichols's body further down the street, we'd be disputing the meaning of "George Davis is Innocent"*, as opposed to the meaning of the graffiti found plastered all over the gate, just above Nichols.

- And if "Jack" had left Chapman's body in the next back yard, we'd be disputing the meaning of "Tucker's Ruckers ain't no Suckers"*, as opposed to the meaning of the graffiti found plastered all over the fence, just above Chapman.

- And if "Jack" had left Eddowes's body in the next square, we'd be disputing the meaning of "You'll Never Take the Chicken Run"*, as opposed to the meaning of the graffiti found plastered all over the wall, just above Eddowes.

*obviously not of the era in question

Of four 'spillages' attributable to our man (Nichols's body, Chapman's body, Eddowes's body, apron), and three others, possibly attributable (Tabram's body, Stride's body, Kelly's body); we have one instance of graffiti, of which any notice was taken.

To compare the reasoning with the nicks on Eddowes face is just silly, because it is only sensible and obvious to assume that the same man who hacked and opened up her body also did the nicks in the face.

It was intended to be silly, Glenn. It was sarcasm !!!

It is more likely that that 'someone' was someone other than the Ripper.

On the basis of mathematical probability, that is indeed the case. But there is no tangible foundation - none whatsoever - for the argument that certain circumstances render Eddowes's murderer a less likely author.

Indeed, we can't KNOW if the Ripper wrote the message on Goulston Street, but I find it hardly unlikely that he did and to me it just doesn't make sense.

Does anything that this man did, make sense ???

As for the arguments against him writing it being unconvincing, I certainly don't agree. On the contrary, they are based on pure common sense.

They haven't convinced me; just as my arguments, I'm sure, haven't convinced you. The quality of being convincing is in the eye of the beholder; not the person making the argument. As such, this debate will continue until everyone is convinced one way or the other !!!

Common sense is also in the eye of the beholder, Glenn. I perceive your arguments in this case, as being complete nonsense; as I am sure you perceive mine in the same light. That's just the way it's going to have to be; unless one of us can come up with a more convincing argument.

Yawn !!!


Colin

PS - and this is for Perry Mason - where is it written that it was a mere "hanky", Mike?

Hi Sam,

I didnt say by dimensions it matched hanky size, I merely referred to it because the use for it, suggested as something to clean his hands, is evident here.

In fact the cloth was much larger than a hanky, and could easily have transported items wrapped in it.

I mentioned this earlier...if he is only 5 feet from his home, let alone 5 minutes from it, as he goes through the entranceway, and it is 2am, hand wiping makes some sense...assuming he didnt want to mask his exit route.

But if the cloth wasnt there until nearly 3,...its is improbable that its use was to wipe his hands that had shite on them for almost an hour, while he hid in alleys.

It is possible, and logical, to imagine that if he went back out on the streets after taking organs to his home, and brought with him an apron section that for whatever reason he kept on him until at home....like for transporting organs,....that the apron section was purposefully placed, leading one to suspect that a message found very near to it might also be purposefully placed.

Best regards Sam

[DVV]

Hello Mr Sam Flynn and all,
All right, and once again, may be so.

But if you add the Stride's murder location, the alledged shouting of "Lipsky!" and the strange reference to the Jews in the GSG, then the speculations one can make are not so wild.
Even if the GSG is not the work of JtR, and even if Schwartz is a liar, we have enough to understand why the police were misleaded by what appears to be rather astonishing coincidences, and why the problem, for similar reasons, is still debated.

So I'm just saying (or clumsily trying to say, as a foreign beginner) I find quite logical to give more relevance to GSG once you accept Stride as a Ripper victim. Her canonicity is certanly the most flimsy we have to deal with, but she has to be considered, at least, a possibleJtR victim.

In other words, and for the sake of discussion, if I make Stride canonical and believe Schwartz to have heard the murderer shouting "Lipsky!", then I would logically be inclined to look at the GSG as a genuine JtR's work.
And if I don't reach to this conclusion (or rather to this "feeling"), I must readily accept far too many coincidences.

At last, the GSG may not necessarily leads nowhere - in my hesitant opinion. More illegitimate speculations, in the case, are manifold. Don't you think?

Amitiés,
DVV (broken-English poster)

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Joel,

true, but of course the body wouldnt just be noticed by police.

Neither, of necessity, would the chalk message or the apron piece have been "destined" to be noticed by police. In fact, where the apron was lying would have made it marginally more likely to have been noticed by a resident, than a beat constable swanning past a narrow doorway around 2AM on a damp night.

the fact is that if the message were intended for them there, why not write it by the body.

Indeed - although there is time pressure to consider. I'd rather ask, given that he'd ripped a woman asunder already, why he felt compelled to write a message anywhere at all?

PS - and this is for Perry Mason - where is it written that it was a mere "hanky", Mike?

[joelhall]

Hi Joel,...he did, though. He left a steaming corpse, with its face deeply slashed and its intestines, smeared with faeces, thrown over its shoulder, in open view at Mitre Square. As statements go, that's a pretty powerful - and unambiguous - one to make, especially when one compares it with an obscure graffito, and a swatch of soiled cloth left in a covered doorway. The two "messages" don't even register on the same scale, whether one thinks of the content or the context.

true, but of course the body wouldnt just be noticed by police.

the fact is that if the message were intended for them there, why not write it by the body.

if we take the kelly murder, he was inside - why no message at the scene. the mutilations themselves show there was time.

we dont of course have evidence of other messages. but given the location it may have been intended for someone else, without trying to alert the authorities to his motive.

its plausible other messages may have been left and not noticed or even not reported through fear. just as its possible that the killer may have dropped the bloody rag by accident whilst writing and had to leg it before he had a chance to pick it up.

Well thats it in a nutshell is it not? Actually we do not know that, at all. For all we know he could very easily have thrown that cloth into the doorway, in passing, without even pausing for breath.

I never say he knew the writing was there, or that he did write it Sox. "We know he left the apron by the writing"...as in we have close proximity. Thats all.

I would imagine that your suggesting of flinging it aside means you believe Long missed seeing it at his 2:20am pass by, because the only way the cloth would be "flung" is on his way home directly from Mitre Square. And it would suggest that you believe it was for cleaning hands, of wiping his brow...whatever.

Might be the case, if it wasnt for the organs. In any event, if not left until near 3am, then the hanky he made was almost certainly not used to merely wipe his hands.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

the piece of apron is the most important clue ever left by the ripper

That much is true, David, and in my view it's enough to leave it at that. The graffito is to my mind completely irrelevant, because:

a) the way it was written was ambiguous, as indicated by the different sentence construction - and spelling - noted by various witnesses;

b) its meaning is unclear (at least to some people) even to this day;

c) whatever its meaning, it doesn't relate specifically to Jack;

d) it was found in proximity to a fragment of a victim's apron anyway, in the doorway to a Jewish dwelling, so to that extent the message is redundant.

All the above apply, whether the graffito was written by Jack or not. Even if it were, it has added little or nothing to our understanding of the case over the years - quite the contrary, it has sent a number of theories spinning off into the realms of wild speculation.

[DVV]

Colin,

Personally, I am surprised that you of all people actually consider the possibility that the writing to have been made by the killer.
Yes, of course somebody must have written it.
But why the Ripper? Only because he was there? Or because someone had to be writing it? What kind of reasoning is that?


The only reason to ever suspect that the writing had any connection with the killings is the placing of the apron. Besides that there is not one word in its content that points in that direction!!!!! It can never be pointed out enough.


To compare the reasoning with the nicks on Eddowes face is just silly, because it is only sensible and obvious to assume that the same man who hacked and opened up her body also did the nicks in the face. You can't apply that same reasoning to the writing, based on the sole argument that 'we knew he was there' or that 'someone' wrote it. It was a building block full of occupants, the site lay in the middle of a very busy hawking industry and no doubt many people passed through and lived there on a daily basis. What does that prove? We can't even be certain of when the writing was made. It is more likely that that 'someone' was someone other than the Ripper.

Indeed, we can't KNOW if the Ripper wrote the message on Goulston Street, but I find it hardly unlikely that he did and to me it just doesn't make sense.
As for the arguments against him writing it being unconvincing, I certainly don't agree. On the contrary, they are based on pure common sense.

All the best

Hi Glenn,
the piece of apron is the most important clue ever left by the ripper, if not the only one, and the words "not be blamed for nothing" can refer to something that happened and is to be blamed...such as a murder with mutilations...No?

Since, I think, you discard Stride as a Ripper victim, your scenario would be:
-by coincidence, two murders by knife, the victims being both prostitutes from JtR area, occured within the same night (after 3 weeks without murders).
-by coincidence, the first murder takes place near to a Jewish-club, and after the second one, the murderer, by sheer luck, left his bloody clue near to an anti-Jewish graffito, or more coincidentally even, to a place where a graffito would soon be written...

May be so, yes.
But are you sure this scenario is really more likely than the speculation you dismiss so categorically?

Amitiés,
DVV (broken-English poster)

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Joel,

this again is a two-edged sword. the item being found by accident shows that the killer did not intend to leave anything for police

...he did, though. He left a steaming corpse, with its face deeply slashed and its intestines, smeared with faeces, thrown over its shoulder, in open view at Mitre Square. As statements go, that's a pretty powerful - and unambiguous - one to make, especially when one compares it with an obscure graffito, and a swatch of soiled cloth left in a covered doorway. The two "messages" don't even register on the same scale, whether one thinks of the content or the context.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nats,

Yes but Graham was also referring to Bundy ,like you were,Sam,and I dont see the Ripper and Bundy were after the same things at all. I tend to think the Ripper was "hearing voices" commanding him to do what he did.

In which case it apparently puts him in the same category as Peter Sutcliffe - another "Joe Average".

Anyhoo, off-topic. My apologies.

[Sox]

We know he left the apron near the writing.

Well thats it in a nutshell is it not? Actually we do not know that, at all. For all we know he could very easily have thrown that cloth into the doorway, in passing, without even pausing for breath.