Piece of Apron and the 'Juwes'

[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

[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.

[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]

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

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

[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

[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?

[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]

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]

Following the Chapman murder the killer would have been aware of the widely reported rumours of blood stains been found in a neighbouring yard in Hanbury St or the bloodied newspaper found in Baileys yard.He would have been aware of the supposed chalk messages written by the killer that appeared in the vicinty.

The killer would have been aware of the feeling of the locals who gathered around the murder sites, as reported in Lloyds Weekly on the 9th Sept 88 :

The excitement in Hanbury-street and the surrounding neighbourhood still continues, and extra police have been employed to keep a course for the traffic of the evening, but in this they are very much hampered by noisy crowds of men and boys crying "Down with the Jews." Sometimes there is a show of resistance, but the strong force of police on the spot are equal to the occasion, and promptly separate assailants. Just as our correspondent was writing a gang of young vagabonds marched down Hanbury-street shouting "Down with the Jews!" "It was a Jew who did it!" "No Englishman did it!" After these the police were prompt, and whenever there was a stand they quickly, and without ceremony, dispersed them. There have been many fights, but the police are equal to it, as men are held in reserve under cover, and when there is a row they rush out and soon establish order. As the night advances the disorderly mobs who openly express antipathy to the Jews increase, and a request has been forwarded to headquarters for extra men. This request has been promptly attended to, and men have been sent.

In taking half Eddowes apron he was confirming the authorship of the "mis-spelt" message. He could have taken something else from Eddowes to carry or clean with,but he cut her apron and smeared it with blood so that there was no doubt as to the validity of the anti-semitic messages which appeared after the Chapman murder.

The writing was done on the jamb so that it would be seen, and the apron recovered to confirm it`s authorship.

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

[joelhall]

one wonders if they were other messages/graffitti written by the killer whilst fleeing that might have been missed or ignored...

perhaps this was to claim authorship. seems curious otherwise, except to lead police on the wrong trail?

[Jon Guy]

Following the Chapman murder the killer would have been aware of the widely reported rumours of blood stains been found in a neighbouring yard in Hanbury St or the bloodied newspaper found in Baileys yard.He would have been aware of the supposed chalk messages written by the killer that appeared in the vicinty.

The killer would have been aware of the feeling of the locals who gathered around the murder sites, as reported in Lloyds Weekly on the 9th Sept 88 :

The excitement in Hanbury-street and the surrounding neighbourhood still continues, and extra police have been employed to keep a course for the traffic of the evening, but in this they are very much hampered by noisy crowds of men and boys crying "Down with the Jews." Sometimes there is a show of resistance, but the strong force of police on the spot are equal to the occasion, and promptly separate assailants. Just as our correspondent was writing a gang of young vagabonds marched down Hanbury-street shouting "Down with the Jews!" "It was a Jew who did it!" "No Englishman did it!" After these the police were prompt, and whenever there was a stand they quickly, and without ceremony, dispersed them. There have been many fights, but the police are equal to it, as men are held in reserve under cover, and when there is a row they rush out and soon establish order. As the night advances the disorderly mobs who openly express antipathy to the Jews increase, and a request has been forwarded to headquarters for extra men. This request has been promptly attended to, and men have been sent.

In taking half Eddowes apron he was confirming the authorship of the "mis-spelt" message. He could have taken something else from Eddowes to carry or clean with,but he cut her apron and smeared it with blood so that there was no doubt as to the validity of the anti-semitic messages which appeared after the Chapman murder.

The writing was done on the jamb so that it would be seen, and the apron recovered to confirm it`s authorship.

[Chava]

Trust me, Michael, Schwartz would have spoken Yiddish like all the other Jews down there, although he would have spoken Hungarian as well. His neighbours may have come from Poland, Russia, Hungary, Roumania and all points East, but they would have all spoken the same language and the Lipski case would have been well-known and discussed avidly by all of them.

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

Hi Chris,

Nice to see you by the way. I wonder if Israel's lack of English would allow him to understand the relevance, unless explained to him in Hungarian. It is interesting that essentially an alley separates the two venues. And a Lodger Story.

As I indicated before, I think the timing of the apron piece's arrival is an essential variable that needs to be reconciled first. If it was close to 3, then both items in that entranceway could have been the work of one man more plausibly.

If he was so incensed at something that he felt the need to punctuate a "handkerchief" with a message, on the way directly from Mitre, one would think it would be clear rather than ambiguous.

But if he dropped it near three, then it may have been used to get organs home first, and it may have been an intentional placement of that apron, and the message then is more realistically tied with him and the apron section. And all the incriminating evidence is off his person as he leaves the apron.

Best regards Chris.

[Chris George]

Hi Chava



Wrong thread for this but

Would I be right in saying that cockney rhyming slang has some Yiddish elements? I think I read that once. Schmuter, is still used in the rag trade. Regardless of Jack having some Yiddish, Stride's assailant knew how to insult them. How long had Schwartz been in the Country? Would he have been aware that Lipski was an insult to Jews? Had he heard the insult before, had he been on the wrong end of a "Lipski"? This one revelation in Schwartz's statement inclines me to believe that he may well have witnessed Stride being attacked.

all the best

Observer

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