Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 09:29 am |        |
Hi All,
Nick, that's pretty much my take on the apron, too. It was a piece of physical evidence that would have definitely linked the Ripper to the murder of Eddowes had he been discovered with it on his person. For that reason, he would not have carried it around for very long, discarding it at the first available opportunity. It follows then that the place where he went to ground was very near the point where the apron was found.
All IMHO, of course.
Jim |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 17 March 2000 - 10:47 am | |
| Since the apron was probably to carry the organs , and Jack discarded the apron when he had safely stored the organs , given that the apron was probably then discarded within 100 yds or metres from his house - who would that then implicate ? |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 12:00 pm | |
Simon--Try Isaac Kosminski in #76 Goulston Street(find a relationship to Aaron and win a big prize).
Or consider Barnett in Miller's Court... (remembering the empty bottles of ginger beer found after Mary Kelley's death and mentioned in the 'Dear Boss' letter...)
Or better yet, find a connection to both Kosminski and Barnett and really throw the case into a tailspin. (Clue: Martin Kosminski's wife's maiden name was Barnett. Joseph Levy (one of the 3 Jewish gentleman who saw the man with Catherine Eddowes) helped Martin Kosminski apply for naturalization in December 1877).
cheers,
RJP |
Author: R.J. Palmer
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 12:06 pm | |
| P.S. Does anyone know what happened to Dorset Street where Michael Kidney lived? Did it suffer a name change? |
Author: The Viper
Saturday, 18 March 2000 - 03:45 pm | |
| Yes, R.J.P. Dorset Street was renamed to Duval Street in 1904. The street name disappeared altogether at the end of the 1960s. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 07:27 am | |
| According to Sugden , Michael Kidney actually lived in Devonshire Street. I think I may have posted something about this before : his address was incorrectly printed in the newspapers as Dorset Street and Kidney wrote a letter correcting this. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 07:32 am | |
As to the Goulston Street writing , if you still believe a semi-illiterate , dribbling madman wrote it then try this : What the writer actually intended to write was not ' Jews ' but 'Jewish ' , but he incorrectly spelt it as ' Juwes(h implied)'. Thus the text of the message should read ' The Juwesh men will not be blamed for nothing '. |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 07:39 am | |
Or try this if you are a super-cool cat who believes in the Conspiracy Theory : There is a connection between Dr William Gull and the word ' Goulston ' as Dr Gull regularly gave a Goulstonian lecture as part of his job as being a high standing physician ( from Andy and Sue Parlour ). Thus the reference is ironic ; the message is a Goulston Street lecture. |
Author: Peter R.A. Birchwood
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 11:39 am | |
Simon:
Let us treat our deranged brothers with some understanding. Only a minority of the clinically loony dribble and are semi-illiterate. Most of them are post-modernist artists or work for Curry's.
Peter |
Author: Diana
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 07:18 pm | |
| I wish I had been the one to realize that "Juwes" could have meant "Jewish". Congratulations. |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 20 March 2000 - 09:10 pm | |
Simon wrote---
"According to Sugden, Michael Kidney actually lived in Devonshire Street. I think I may have posted something about this before: his address was incorrectly printed in the newspapers as Dorset Street and Kidney wrote a letter correcting this."
Can anyone give chapter and verse verifying that Kidney wrote the newspapers?
Sugden's Chapter 10 reads:
"In a statement to the Central News Agency he (Kidney) explained that he lived with Elizabeth 'at 35 Devonshire Street down to five months ago, when they moved to No. 36 in the same street.'
I interpeted this to mean the newspapers interviewed Kidney orally & wrote down what he said. Sudgen's footnote for the above is:
"Statement of 'old artillery man' (Kidney), 2 October 1888, DN, 3 October. That sounds like the Daily News quoted from Kidney's inquest testimony--printing it in their next day's issue.
I'd be most appreciative if anyone with access to copies of the original newspapers can clarify this point for me.
Thanks,
Janice |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 07:32 am | |
| I interpreted it , Janice , as Kidney writing to the Central News Agency to correct them , but of course this need not be the case. He may have visited them in person , or someone may have written a letter for him , or a reporter may have visited him instead and taken his statement for him. I seem to have accidentally opened a can of worms here , I would much appreciate it if someone could clear this up. Thanks. |
Author: The Viper
Tuesday, 21 March 2000 - 09:44 am | |
As Sugden points out on p195 of his book, there has been some confusion about whether Liz Stride ever lodged in Dorset Street. The general consensus now is that she didn't.
The belief that she had done may stem from the comments of Coroner Baxter in his summing up at the inquest. To quote the Daily Telegraph, "For the last two years the deceased had been living at a common lodging-house in Dorset-street, Spitalfields, with Michael Kidney...".
At the time of the inquest, Kidney was certainly lodging in Dorset Street, though the precise address varies according to source. The Daily Telegraph gives number 38, the Daily News, 35 and the A-Z (which I believe relied on The Times) has 33.
Regards, V. |
Author: alex chisholm
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 08:41 pm | |
Further to Viper’s information above, the Times coverage of Stride’s inquest concurs with that of the Telegraph in giving Kidney’s address as 38 Dorset-street.
Best Wishes
alex |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Wednesday, 22 March 2000 - 11:45 pm | |
Simon,
"The Jewish are the men that won't be blamed for nothing." ???
Wolf. |
Author: The Viper
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 03:37 am | |
Thanks for that correction Alex. With no source listed in the A-Z, The Times was a guess on my part based on a reference in the 'Uncensored Facts', also by Paul Begg and which mentions 33 Dorset Street too. Perhaps someone else knows where that address came from?
Regards, V. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 23 March 2000 - 05:11 am | |
I don't believe Kidney ever lived in Dorset Street ! This is what Sugden says by the way : " Elizabeth spent her last three years with a waterside labourer named Michael Kidney. Their address is of some import. For press versions of Kidney's inquest testimony give it as 38 Dorset Street...But Kidney was misreported. In a statement to the Central News he explained that he lived with Elizabeth ' at 35 Devonshire Street down to five months ago, when they moved to no. 36 in the same street ' . That Devonshire Street , close to the river where Kidney worked , is the correct address is substantiated by other evidence. In May 1886 when applying for relief from the Swedish Church Elizabeth gave her address as Devonshire Street , Commercial Road and Catherine Lane , who lodged with Elizabeth at 32 Flower and Dean Street in 1888 also heard her say she had once lived in Devonshire Street. " ( Sugden p195 ) Thus the notion that Stride ever lived in Dorset Street is a mistake , she neither lived at no.38 or no.33. Bizarrely , Rumbelow gives the address for the couple as Fashion Street ! I believe we should assume the couple's address to be Devonshire Street unless other primary evidence is brought to light to prove otherwise. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 04:54 am | |
G'day Simon,
Bruce Paley says: 'From time to time, she (Stride) would go off on her own, often returning to the lodging house at 32 Flower and Dean Street.'
He also says that: 'In the three years preceding her death, Stride had been living on and off with Micheal Kidney at 38 Dorset Street, no more than a couple of dozen yards from where Barnett and Kelly were then living'.
They could have lived together or seperately at Devonshire Street, at some time. He could have gave his official address at the inquest, and gave a 'white-lie' address to reporters. Dorsett Street didn't have a very good reputation, I believe.
Leanne! |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 24 March 2000 - 06:04 am | |
| Its possible that Kidney and Stride lived at Dorset Street or Fashion Street but there is no evidence to prove it : the Devonshire Street address is at least confirmed by other evidence. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 04:18 pm | |
Lets discuss the Goulston Street Graffitti on this board again !
My main argument to the theory that the piece of apron was left under an already exisiting piece of graffitti is this :
Imagine I am walking along the road when I come across a piece of graffitti on a wall ; this bold epistle is commenting on the poor state of the English soccer team. Now what is more likely ? Example 1 :ENGLAND ARE SH*T Or Example 2 :The English are the team that will be blamed for not being good Do you see what I am getting at ? The second statement , which is close in syntax and grammar to our Goulston Street Graffitti , does not feel like graffitti. And a second point is that graffitti usually refers to a current event ; in the example above , the poor performance of England at the European football championships. The Goulston Street message is not specific enough to refer to a current event.
'Remember Bloody Sunday ! ' would have been , its specific in that it mentions the Trafalgar Square Riots and refers to a then-current (1887) event. The meaning is clear.
The questions I am asking are then :
(i) Why did the writer write the Goulston graffittti in the way that he did ?
(ii) Which ' Juwes ' is he refering to ?
Simon |
Author: Oliver Franz
Thursday, 13 July 2000 - 04:38 pm | |
Good point, Simon - quite funny actually :-).
to (i): Because he wanted to distinguish his writing from the usual scribble?
Oliver |
Author: Diana
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 07:56 am | |
| Because English was his second language and he came from a linguistic tradition where that sort of expression was more normative or alternatively he had not yet mastered enough English to know how to put it succinctly. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 01:01 pm | |
As Cockney's can be heard to refer to troublesome kids...as...."Those kids will not be blamed for nuffing" or something like that.
Which simply means they wont take the blame for anything. This is not the speach of a foreigner, but a local reasonably educated person.
Whether it contains a double negative, said to be typically cockney, or not is still under dispute.
But I suggest the meaning is as stated above.....the 'Juwes/Jewes/Jeuwes' will not take the blame for anything.
Which could have been written by anyone ticked off at the Jews in general, or one Jew inparticular.
Regards, Jon
Far too much is being read into this graffiti. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 14 July 2000 - 06:21 pm | |
Jon
Good point. My brother studied English at Oxford many years ago as a student and his MA project was on cockney rhyming slang (believe it or not). I will ask him. |
Author: Diana
Monday, 17 July 2000 - 09:32 am | |
| I really posted this on the wrong thread last week. It is an aspect I had not thought of before and tends to suggest that Jack may have been the writer after all. In response to Leather Apron's question about the behavior of wet surfaces and chalk I think I may have something to contribute. If a surface is dry such as a dry classroom chalkboard, a swipe with an eraser is all that is necessary to remove chalked writing, however application of water and a sponge or water and a rag will remove both the writing and the excess chalk which tends to cling to the board in smudges and swaths though the writing itself is utterly obliterated. Most classroom chalkboards are cleaned in this manner at the end of the day. If writing was already there and it was subjected to a driving rain I would tend to think it would most probably come off. A light mist or drizzle where you might get drips running down the wall would probably result in the writing being partially removed contiguous with the lines of drip. What most people don't know is that if a surface is already wet you can write on it quite easily with chalk. In fact the result is semi-permanent. A damp sponge or rag is needed to remove it. It will not come off with an ordinary eraser or a dry rag. Teachers who want to put lines on the board as guides to keep writing level and straight will first dampen the board and then use a yardstick to apply the lines. After the board has dried they can write on the lines. The writing can be erased using a dry eraser and the lines (applied when the board was wet) will remain so that they can be reused. I suppose that wet brick and a classroom chalkboard would not be exactly identical. A wet brick that was glazed would be nearly impossible to write on due to lack of porosity, but the same problem would exist if it was dry. If the rain that night was very heavy I would think that would increase the possibility of the writer being Jack because anything written before the rain would have had a good chance of being washed off or at least streaked. The fact that a sponge was ordered to remove the writing might mean that Warren was not very erudite about chalk (not needed for his job) or that chalk on brick will not be removed as easily as chalk on chalkboard or it might mean that someone took a swipe at it with their sleeve and discovered that it wouldn't come off indicating that it was applied after the rain but while the brick was still wet. (More likely was Jack then, because it would be less time for the writing to appear after the rain.) |
Author: tyrant tyrant
Thursday, 07 September 2000 - 02:02 pm | |
| The Judges are the men that won't be blamed for nothing.They acuss,they can't be acussed.Logic? |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Monday, 08 October 2001 - 10:50 am | |
Hello all,
Here are a couple of thoughts I recently had,concerning Jack's flight from Mitre square and the Goulston street graffito.
Firstly,I think that when Jack fled Mitre square after murdering Eddowes,the route he took was not necessarilly the quickest one home.I think police presence in the surrounding areas could have caused him to modify his route home,even if it ment going in the oposite direction from where he lived.
I think it is likely,as he was never caught,that jack had a good knowledge of the various different police beats and probably narrowly escaped being caught as he darted into the doorway in Goulston steet,smudging some Graffito with his back as he stood there and dropped the bloody piece of apron! |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 08 October 2001 - 10:45 pm | |
All of that is possible, except the graffito wasn't smudged.
Tom Wescott |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 02:46 pm | |
Hello Tom,
I don't really Know quite what to say here other than - It was! |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 09 October 2001 - 11:49 pm | |
You can say that three times and tap your heels together and the graffito will still not have been smudged.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:17 am | |
Hi Arfa,
How do you know it was?
Hi Tom,
How do you know it wasn't?
Caz the confused |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 07:48 am | |
OK Tom,
To be fair I will re-check my sources.
Regards,
Dorothy. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 09:03 am | |
Tom,
Swanson, in a report to home office states that the graffito was smudged.
Arfa,
DC Halse claims the graffito was fresh.
Caz,
You're confused ?!?!
Monty
 |
Author: Arfa Kidney
Wednesday, 10 October 2001 - 11:27 am | |
Thanks Monty,
I knew I'd read it somewhere.
Regards,
Mick. |
Author: John Robert Fogarty
Friday, 12 October 2001 - 09:19 pm | |
Wot's all this about an Isaac Kosminksy living at #76 Goulston? Is this for real? If so, I'd think it would bear some looking into.
Thanks,
JRF |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 08:54 am | |
John,
Isaac Kosminsky ?? Who he??
Ive heard of Aaron, Martin and Wolf Kosminski, Ive heard of an Isaacs Kozebrodsky, Ive even heard of an Joseph Issacs but I have never heard of an Isaac Kosminsky.
Have you all been hiding this from me ???
Monty
|
Author: graziano
Saturday, 13 October 2001 - 02:52 pm | |
Hello Monty,
from recollection: Census 1881 or 1891:
somewhere in Goulston street:
Isaac Kozminsky (Kosminsky): head of family, shoemaker.
As for Wolf, there is only one: Vanderlinden (cachous specialist), the others on the case are all Woolf or Woof.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Monty
Sunday, 14 October 2001 - 08:34 am | |
Graziano,
Thanks old chap.
Monty
|
