Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[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.

[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?

[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)

[perrymason]

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

[Septic Blue]

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

[Graham]

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

G

[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

[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.

[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

[Roy Corduroy]

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.

Glenn, you make an astute obervation firmly grounded in historical study. Likewise, we must consider whether anti-semitism colored attitudes then. Having weighed all that, however, I feel I am in the mainstream right alongside Insp. Mcwilliam who, 120 years ago thought it important to have it photographed.

No it was not redundant to the apron. Like a wild animal marks his territory, so did Jack leave his sign. A statement in which he boldy, defiantly gives those that malign the Jews somthing to chew on. The murders.

It is an an important clue to interpet. Then we can begin to close the net around a suspect, or at least a suspect type.

Roy

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No it was not redundant to the apron. Like a wild animal marks his territory, so did Jack leave his sign. A statement in which he boldy, defiantly gives those that malign the Jews somthing to chew on. The murders.

It is an an important clue to interpet. Then we can begin to close the net around a suspect, or at least a suspect type.

Roy

Roy,

You are expressing yourself too much in absolutes, as if they were facts.

My personal opinion - and that is what it is, nothing more, nothing less - is that the writing had nothing whatsoever to do with either the apron or the murders. I don't see any factual evidence that points in that direction.

As I see it, it was not a clue at all, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have recorded it. Of course I agree on that it should have been photographed, since it was in the direct vicinity of THE important clue, the apron.
But again - that doesn't mean that it was a valid clue as such. Only that the Met failed in following necessary normal procedures for different reasons.

The only important clue here is the apron , since we know it came from Eddowes - the validity and authenticy of the writing, on the other hand, will always be a matter of debate.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Roy,

No it was not redundant to the apron. Like a wild animal marks his territory, so did Jack leave his sign. A statement in which he boldy, defiantly gives those that malign the Jews somthing to chew on.

...as if throwing an apron covered in gentile blood, piss and $hit into a Jewish doorway wasn't insult enough, he feels compelled to write a message with an ambiguous payload, seemingly saying something akin to "Cheating shirkers!".

Talk about ending on a weak note.

[Canadian Mari]

Thinking about the idea that JtR may/may not have written messages at the scenes of other murders, I don't remember ever reading about the police sending officers to search for more graffiti, can anyone correct me? With police working from the GSG being written by the Ripper, a search for further examples seems logical. (Yes, it was written in chalk and not lead paint, I accept it might not last long, however, it also could have lasted pretty well, so all things considered looking for it would be worth a go.)
Thanks,
Mari

[joelhall]

Thinking about the idea that JtR may/may not have written messages at the scenes of other murders, I don't remember ever reading about the police sending officers to search for more graffiti, can anyone correct me? With police working from the GSG being written by the Ripper, a search for further examples seems logical. (Yes, it was written in chalk and not lead paint, I accept it might not last long, however, it also could have lasted pretty well, so all things considered looking for it would be worth a go.)
Thanks,
Mari

not likely in autumn/winter. but of course if bad remarks were written in chalk someone would no doubt have cleaned them away. also, given this was not at the crime scene there wouldnt be much clue where to look or which graffitti was worth looking at out of all the other graffiti around whitechapel.

also if they did find any others, it would be very unlikely theyd discover when it was written... remember this example comes after the third/fourth murder (depending on who you believe was a victim).

however, was there not a rumour of some other graffiti, possibly berner street if memory serves? was this with any grounds, or corroborated, or merely a rumour in the press as i suspect?

[Observer]

Hi Graham

Joel,

I repeat my question from an earlier post: why didn't the Ripper leave similar messages at or near the scenes of his earlier murders?

Cheers,

Graham

Why didn't the Ripper arrange Nichol's belongings ala Chapman's, why did he rifle the pockets of Eddowes and instead of arranging her meagre belongings ala Chapman he left them willy nilly? You can't discount the message (as having been penned by the Ripper) on the grounds that he failed to leave any messaes at any of the other venues.

all the best

Observer