Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[Graham]

Hi Nats.

My own theory re: the "Double Event" (if indeed that's what it was...) is that the Ripper came very, very close to being caught in Mitre Square. So close, that he legged it, and legged it as fast as he could go. Doesn't matter if the piece of apron was taken from the scene deliberately or by accident, he was a scared man and he used it to wipe his hands, after which he discarded it in the nearest opportune spot - which just happened to be the entrance to the Model Dwellings. Given that scenario, the Ripper, abnormal or otherwise, would simply not have hung around long enough to chalk up some odd message on the wall. He'd have carried on hot-footing it. It just doesn't make sense that he'd have left a nice little message for posterity.

I also happen to think that the Ripper, whoever he might have been, was to all intents and purposes perfectly 'normal' to those whom he encountered in his everyday, humdrum life. He just had this strange urge to kill a woman every so often...

Cheers,

Graham

[joelhall]

You know Glenn,the Ripper whoever he was was not a very well cookie!If someone isnt quite right in the head they will surely have a rather different take on what is "normal behaviour" than you or me!It may have all made perfect sense to him,from the tiny slits he made over Kate Eddowes eyes to the apron dropped in the doorway, to the message in chalk above the apron-all neat,tidy and terribly bonkers!
Cheers

haha

now thats logical best post on this thread by far in my opinion

[Natalie Severn]

Nonsense, observer,

Although the combination of the apron and the message would have been kind of explosive, there is no reason why he couldn't have written a message that was much clearer and less ambiguent.
The apron could have worked as an authentication, but it doesn't explain the meaning of the message.

In addition, I stand by my notion that I find the idea that the killer would waste time and unnecessary taking risks by stopping in the entrance, writing an ambigous message in a tidy, neat and very small handwriting as totally ridiculous. It just doesn't make sense.
One can argue whether the Ripper knew about the graffitti from earlier scouts in the area and thus decided to place the apron there or if it was a oure coincidence, but I certainly do not believe for a moment that he wrote it.

All the best

You know Glenn,the Ripper whoever he was was not a very well cookie!If someone isnt quite right in the head they will surely have a rather different take on what is "normal behaviour" than you or me!It may have all made perfect sense to him,from the tiny slits he made over Kate Eddowes eyes to the apron dropped in the doorway, to the message in chalk above the apron-all neat,tidy and terribly bonkers!
Cheers

[Graham]

Gentlemen,

Insp. James McWilliam wrote that "Lawley and Hunt informed me of the finding of the apron & the writing on the wall, the latter of which I ordered to be photographed and directed the Officers to return at once & seach the "Model" dwellings & lodging houses in the neighbourhood."

Because it was important. No other statement by any policeman or official or anything we say today changes that.

Roy

(underlne mine)

Yes? And?

Graham

[Roy Corduroy]

Gentlemen,

Insp. James McWilliam wrote that "Lawley and Hunt informed me of the finding of the apron & the writing on the wall, the latter of which I ordered to be photographed and directed the Officers to return at once & seach the "Model" dwellings & lodging houses in the neighbourhood."

Because it was important. No other statement by any policeman or official or anything we say today changes that.

Roy

(underlne mine)

[Cap'n Jack]

'As I said, it is possible that the author of the message fully believed(at the time of writing) that the message would be understandable to those who read it.'

Nicely done, Observer, that is my own view.

[Graham]

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".

Or, in more recent times, "Clapton is God".

Cheers,

Graham

[Graham]

Hi Graham,

Well although the last point regarding Miller's Court 13 could be explained by the fact that the Ripper might not have been the murderer at that site (you probably know my view on this), I perfectly agree with you regarding the GSG. Because that is probably what it was: a graffitti - nothing more, nothing less, which happened to be connected with the murders due to the placing of the apron.

All the best

Hi Glenn.

Long time since we crossed tracks.

Like you, I've never been totally convinced that he who killed MJK is the same as he who killed the others.

Since my last post, I've been looking at a website in which the graffiti of Belfast was featured, and it seems that in that city just about every available square foot of wall is (or was) covered in political graffiti. Some of it is easily understood (like "**** England"); some of it is more obscure but obviously meaning something to whoever wrote it and to whoever reads it.
The East End of around 1888 was a similar political hot-bed, and then as now the easiest way of putting across one's political point is to chalk it up on a wall for all to see. I would suggest that whoever wrote the GSG (whatever it might have meant) chose the place carefully where it would be seen by everyone who lived in the Model Dwellings - they were nearly all Jewish, and would see it as they passed in and out of the place. Presumably it meant more to them in 1888 than it does to us in 2008. But written by Jack the Ripper? - no way.

Best regards,

Graham

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No doubt, Sam. No doubt.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

a graffitti - nothing more, nothing less, which happened to be connected with the murders due to the placing of the apron.

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".

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I used to get really hot under the collar whenever I saw anyone associate the GSG with the Ripper. I'm calmer now. However, I'll just say that the discovery of the GSG on the night of the Double Event was pure coincidence. Walter Dew stated that there was similar graffiti chalked up all over the walls of the East End, that the GSG was just one of them, and he didn't believe any of them. And if our Ripper was given to chalking up cryptic messages after a murder, how come 13 Miller's Court wasn't liberally plastered with same? After all, he had the time.

Cheers,

Graham

Hi Graham,

Well although the last point regarding Miller's Court 13 could be explained by the fact that the Ripper might not have been the murderer at that site (you probably know my view on this), I perfectly agree with you regarding the GSG. Because that is probably what it was: a graffitti - nothing more, nothing less, which happened to be connected with the murders due to the placing of the apron.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Only by putting the events of the entire night together can we truly understand the Graffito, in my opinion.

The killer did four things that night.

(1) He murdered a woman in Berner St.
(2) killed another in Mitre Sq
(3) then carried the bloody apron, a piece of incriminaing evidence, to Goulston St.
(4) and wrote the message where he dropped it.

In terms of boldness the first two were extremely bold, the third less so, but still dangerous, and as to the fourth, not nearly as bold in a criminal sense, but, if he hadn't gotten that far, why not leave his message. His proclamation. And what exactly was he proclaiming? If he was a Jew, the message is easy to understand.

You want to blame Jews for things? I will give you something, then. Look what I have done! Don't just blame Jews for NOTHING.

A bold, criminal type of man. A man who killed in spite of witnesses getting a glimpse of him would have no compunction at shouting Lipski! to scare away the bystanders on Berner St. He could easily be a man who despised his own kind and would rob the more affluent of his group. He could be a co-religionist, or play any number of tricks and scams.

If he was recently infected with syphilis, his murderous revenge would be directed at the female anatomy of the most defenseless victims he could find.

Roy

Roy,

You speak as if those four points were actual facts or absolutes, which they of course are not.

Firstly, it is not an absolute ascertained fact that the killer 'murdered a woman in Berner Street'.
Nor is it an ascertained fact that he wrote the message.

Secondly, if they message was so clear in its meaning as you boldly state, then why would its content create so much speculation both today and back in 1888?
Again, if he wanted to leave a message he could have done this in more effective ways, even in Goulston Street. If it wasn't for the apron, the graffitti wouldn't have any connection with the murders at all. Yes, I believe it's a graffitti that incriminates the Jews but there is no reason to assume that it was related to the murders, since there is nothing in the writing itself that even indicates it. There could have been numerous writings incriminating the Jews in those areas of East End.

And no, I definitely don't think the man who shouted Lipski (or something similar) fits the Ripper's profile one bit.

[Graham]

I used to get really hot under the collar whenever I saw anyone associate the GSG with the Ripper. I'm calmer now. However, I'll just say that the discovery of the GSG on the night of the Double Event was pure coincidence. Walter Dew stated that there was similar graffiti chalked up all over the walls of the East End, that the GSG was just one of them, and he didn't believe any of them. And if our Ripper was given to chalking up cryptic messages after a murder, how come 13 Miller's Court wasn't liberally plastered with same? After all, he had the time.

Cheers,

Graham

[Roy Corduroy]

Only by putting the events of the entire night together can we truly understand the Graffito, in my opinion.

The killer did four things that night.

(1) He murdered a woman in Berner St.
(2) killed another in Mitre Sq
(3) then carried the bloody apron, a piece of incriminaing evidence, to Goulston St.
(4) and wrote the message where he dropped it.

In terms of boldness the first two were extremely bold, the third less so, but still dangerous, and as to the fourth, not nearly as bold in a criminal sense, but, if he hadn't gotten that far, why not leave his message. His proclamation. And what exactly was he proclaiming? If he was a Jew, the message is easy to understand.

You want to blame Jews for things? I will give you something, then. Look what I have done! Don't just blame Jews for NOTHING.

A bold, criminal type of man. A man who killed in spite of witnesses getting a glimpse of him would have no compunction at shouting Lipski! to scare away the bystanders on Berner St. He could easily be a man who despised his own kind and would rob the more affluent of his group. He could be a co-religionist, or play any number of tricks and scams.

If he was recently infected with syphilis, his murderous revenge would be directed at the female anatomy of the most defenseless victims he could find.

Roy

[Observer]

No problems Glenn, that's what I like about this forum people speaking their minds.

all the best

Observer