Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[joelhall]

On the other hand, the message was quite small and if it hadn't been for the apron it is doubtful it would even have been seen or noticed. If the killer wanted to make a written statement, why not write a message that actually makes sense and is less open to personal interpretation? And why write in a neat handwriting so small that he couldn't be absolutely sure of that it would be spotted?Sure, it was its connection with the apron that made it explosive, but that doesn't mean he still couldn't have made the message more clearer in its wording and easier to spot. Alfred Long only managed to spot it because he found the apron and shone the rest of the wall with his bull's eye lantern.
Just because the apron in connection with the anti-Jewish could have sparked antisemtic tension, doesn't mean that it was necessarily related to the murders.

I have to admit I still find it amazing that some people are prepared to buy into the idea that the Ripper, on the run from a murder scene, would stop in a building entrance and waste time by chalking a message in a small neat handwriting and with a meaning that is unclear to say the least, when he once had the opportunity to actually make his mark.
There is nothing in the message itself that points towards it being related to any of the murders. All we know is that the Ripper passed through Goulston Street and dropped the apron. How, why or when the writing was done, or by whom remains a speculation, but I serioulsy doubt that it was connected with the murders at all.

All the best

true...

although it was prominent to be discovered on the night by a piece of evidence, on the killers known route. this gives a prima facie case for it.

there is of course nothing murderous in the message - but it is a message! not a simple piece of graffitti, but an obscure communication. it cannot be dismissed out of hand, nor can it be accepted as fact.

its certainly possible it was by the killer, equally possible that it was not. we simply dont know.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Sorry, Joel, I do agree with much of what you say here but all in all, to me it's not a message - just pure graffitti. And since its only credible link to the murder(s) is the apron, I see no reason to accept it as a clue related to the Ripper and to overlook the numerous problems with it.
But you're right - we will never know.

[joelhall]

Sorry, Joel, I do agree with much of what you say here but all in all, to me it's not a message - just pure graffitti. And since its only credible link to the murder(s) is the apron, I see no reason to accept it as a clue related to the Ripper and to overlook the numerous problems with it.
But you're right - we will never know.

come, come now, never say never

theres a possibility we may find out, though the chance is small.

one thing ive always puzzled over is its physical location.... why not big and on the wall for all the various conclusions?

[Observer]

Hi Chris

Hello Observer

I think Israel Shwartz almost definitely would have known about the Israel Lipski murder case and events surrounding it. He would have had to have had his head under a rock to not have known about it. I think the Lipski case would have been pretty current conversation in the Jewish community, on its different levels of social strata, both Anglo-Jewish establishment and immigrant Eastern European etc.

All the best

Chris

Yes it was a high profile case, and with Pizer being an early Ripper contender I'd say there was a lot of anti Semetic feeling rebounding around the East-End at that time. I'd be surprised if Schwartz was not aware of the implication the name Lipski carried.

This is very presumptious of me, but I wonder if the Jews of that time were not above using the insult "Lipski" towards their own kind? In short, we should not rule out the possibility that Stride's assailant was a Jew on the grounds that he uttered the Lipski insult. I believe that certain American's with African ancestry, are not averse to using the N word when addressing, or indeed insulting each other, I say this with the greatest respect of course.

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

If the killer wanted to make a written statement, why not write a message that actually makes sense and is less open to personal interpretation? And why write in a neat handwriting so small that he couldn't be absolutely sure of that it would be spotted?Sure, it was its connection with the apron that made it explosive, but that doesn't mean he still couldn't have made the message more clearer in its wording and easier to spot. Alfred Long only managed to spot it because he found the apron and shone the rest of the wall with his bull's eye lantern.
Just because the apron in connection with the anti-Jewish could have sparked antisemtic tension, doesn't mean that it was necessarily related to the murders.

Regardless of who wrote the message it made perfect sense to it's author, and I'd reckon he believed it would make sense to anyone who might read it. I don't think the double negative was intended as a cipher, more the work of someone lacking the nessesary grammer. An immigrant perhaps?

Also it was prominent enough for Long to notice it via the apron, so if it was written by Eddowes murderer, and he intended to use the apron as a pointer then he achieved his objective. All very speculative of course.


If the killer wrote the message, who's to say he intended it for a patrolling policeman? His intention might have been for the apron and message to be found the next morning, in the full light of day

all the best

Observer

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

[Observer]

Hi Glenn

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.

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.

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

It's highly likely that Chapman's killer(as he was throttling her) was aware of Cadosh in the next Yard, he did not flee. Nichols was murdered in the close proximity of dozens of sleeping people. Despite being seen by three witnesses, the killer nevertherless took Eddowes the short distance to the corner of Mitre Square and killed her. Going on the former, I can't see the killer being unduly worried about a short stop in Goulston Street to write a little message.

all the best

Observer

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It's highly likely that Chapman's killer(as he was throttling her) was aware of Cadosh in the next Yard, he did not flee. Nichols was murdered in the close proximity of dozens of sleeping people. Despite being seen by three witnesses, the killer nevertherless took Eddowes the short distance to the corner of Mitre Square and killed her. Going on the former, I can't see the killer being unduly worried about a short stop in Goulston Street to write a little message.

Hi Observer,

Well the difference is, that in those instances he was committing murder and doing what he obviously was obsessed about doing.

Yes, the Ripper was a risk taker in order to be able to commit his crimes. But I don't see him as someone wasting time and taking unnecessary risks in order to do something beyond that.
As I said, even if he'd choose to leave a message, he could have left one that wasn't ambigious once he had the once. Why waste the opportunity. And why on earth write it so small and waste unnecessary time by use very small letters in a neat hand instead of simply chalk it up big and quick?

Now, if the Ripper really wanted to leave a message, he could have sent a package containing the piece of apron attached with a letter.

The most reasonable conclusion is that the Ripper simply - on the run from a murder scene - dropped the apron in the doorway after having wiped off his hands and knife with it, and that the garffitti was there already. Whether he knew about it or not, has to be a matter of speculation.
This is of course my personal view, but I will never accept the thought of the Ripper writing that nonsense graffitti.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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.

Well, with that you could practically 'explain' anything - including the most bisarre scenarios, and needless to say I will never accept such arguments as valid.

All the best

[Observer]

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

all the best

Observer

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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".