Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[joelhall]

Definitely Joe,but in order to get David Cohen in the frame,you have to make a lot of it up as you go along-----

ooops. i actually meant to imply the personality/mental issues line not the suspect haha.

sorry for not making that clearer im with you that he was clearly disturbed. i believe he most probably wouldnt appear normal as the degree of mutilation shows a marked level of anger and violence.

joel

[Graham]

Well Graham,
some of us go for the ripper as mentally ill and some go for the ripper as you do.I happen to think he was most likely mentally ill,like Cutbush was.
I am not saying it was Cutbush,but he did have a history of violent behaviour,whereas Kosminski,also in an asylum did not.
Incidently,there was a gap of an hour between the murder and the rag being found----so he was in a queer kind of "hurry"!
Cheers
Norma

Joe
Thanks!

Nats,

The piece of apron may have been lying in the door way of the Model Dwellings for the best part of an hour, so far as we know. It was, after all, discovered purely by accident at around 2.55 am by PC Long, about 70 minutes after Eddowes' body was found. By which time the Ripper was probably tucked up in beddie-byes.

Cheers,

Graham

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Graham and all,

Yes my point was, picture you are Insp. McWilliam. You hear of this writing at the spot of the apron and you order it photographed. Your first instinct is this is important. No one can ever change that he had that reaction. It does not prove the killer wrote it. I agree 100%. But sometimes your first instinct is the right one. The only one that matters.

Thanks again,

Roy

[joelhall]

Nats,

The piece of apron may have been lying in the door way of the Model Dwellings for the best part of an hour, so far as we know. It was, after all, discovered purely by accident at around 2.55 am by PC Long, about 70 minutes after Eddowes' body was found. By which time the Ripper was probably tucked up in beddie-byes.

Cheers,

Graham

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, else it would be in a more obvious place, somewhere he knew theyd look (such as by the synagogue if possibly trying to incite reactions against the local jewry).

on the other hand, this might be precisely why it was in this place, so there was time to write without being disturbed, whilst half the police were flocking somewhere else.

theres also the possibility this message was not intended for the police but someone else.

also does anyone here speak lithuanin? probably nothing but juwes got some hits in lithuanian but i couldnt translate it. just to be on the safe side i like to check all avenues.

oh one last thing (not sure why i feel awkward/embarrassed saying this haha) but its joel not joe

cheers

joel

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

This is from the Pall Mall Gazette, 11th October 1888—a story about Warren ordering the erasure of the GSG.

"It is now stated that the erasure was made by the express orders of Sir Charles Warren, who personally superintended the operation! The City police attached the greatest value to this clue, and decided to have the inscription photographed in order that it might be compared with 'Jack the Ripper's' letters."

If this last sentence ['letters' plural aside] is true, it means that on the morning of the double-event the City Police had knowledge of "Dear Boss", which had only been received at Scotland Yard the previous day.

The City Police didn't mention that.

Regards,

Simon

[Septic Blue]

... why didn't the Ripper leave similar messages at or near the scenes of his earlier murders?

How can we be certain that he didn't ???

We can't: We plainly and simply cannot !!!

And either way; why didn't the 'Ripper' nick the faces of any of his earlier victims ??? Are we to conclude that Eddowes's face was nicked by someone else, either before or after her murder ???

The graffito was written by someone:

- In all its ambiguity; it was written by someone

- In all its perceived inanity; it was written by someone

- In its "schoolboy hand"; it was written by someone

- In a particular doorway, in which other graffiti may or may not have been visible; it was written by someone

- (In a particular doorway), on a particular street, in which other graffiti may or may not have been visible; it was written by someone

Someone: One of the denizens (perhaps 200-300 in number (?)), who had occasion to step into, or perhaps through the doorway, in the 24-36 hours preceding the discovery of the apron.

Given the circumstances surrounding the apron and its discovery; we can be nearly certain that our man was worthy of the distinction "someone": i.e., someone who was there; someone who could have written the graffito. So why is his candidacy for authorship any less likely than that of all of the others worthy of the distinction "someone" ???

Please don't respond with the same old recycled arguments that have appeared on this and countless similar threads, time and time again. They share a common feature indicative of the reason this debate continues: They Are Not Convincing !!!


Colin

[perrymason]

How can we be certain that he didn't ???

We can't: We plainly and simply cannot !!!

And either way; why didn't the 'Ripper' nick the faces of any of his earlier victims ??? Are we to conclude that Eddowes's face was nicked by someone else, either before or after her murder ???

The graffito was written by someone:

- In all its ambiguity; it was written by someone

- In all its perceived inanity; it was written by someone

- In its "schoolboy hand"; it was written by someone

- In a particular doorway, in which other graffiti may or may not have been visible; it was written by someone

- (In a particular doorway), on a particular street, in which other graffiti may or may not have been visible; it was written by someone

Someone: One of the denizens (perhaps 200-300 in number (?)), who had occasion to step into, or perhaps through the doorway, in the 24-36 hours preceding the discovery of the apron.

Given the circumstances surrounding the apron and its discovery; we can be nearly certain that our man was worthy of the distinction "someone": i.e., someone who was there; someone who could have written the graffito. So why is his candidacy for authorship any less likely than that of all of the others worthy of the distinction "someone" ???

Please don't respond with the same old recycled arguments that have appeared on this and countless similar threads, time and time again. They share a common feature indicative of the reason this debate continues: They Are Not Convincing !!!


Colin [ATTACH]2355[/ATTACH]

Hi Colin,

Its also interesting to me that the height of the message on the wall/dado/jamb...makes it unlikely to read clearly when a man of say 5'6-8' is standing erect, but when PC Lamb bent down to pick the apron up, it would have been at almost his eye level.

Im with you....we know the man who dropped the apron, and recently killed Catherine, was at that location that night. We know he left the apron near the writing. We dont know when either was at that location specifically, but both were there when the apron was spotted.

Best regards Football Dad.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

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

[Graham]

"Please don't respond with the same old recycled arguments that have appeared on this and countless similar threads, time and time again. They share a common feature indicative of the reason this debate continues: They Are Not Convincing !!!"

Frankly, I couldn't care less if you think my arguments are convincing or not. Likewise, I am not and never will be convinced that Jack the Ripper wrote the GSG, but I am not so arrogant that I would request others to stop saying so.

These are open boards, and hopefully will remain so.

Graham

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[perrymason]

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.