Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

    Well, I do understand your hypothetical Sam, but if someone told me that the key "wasn't there", I would initially assume that the person looked, and it wasn't there.
    So most of us would assume, but that doesn't mean the person actually did look or, if they did, whether they were paying attention or were distracted, during what was after all a fleeting instant as Long passed the doorway. It's variables such as these that account for things like keys "magically" turning up on kitchen tables even if we're adamant that they weren't there when we looked earlier.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 06-27-2019, 05:45 PM.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      There are plenty of those in ripperology. Besides, given the nature of the neighbourhood, it's hardly a "way out" coincidence that the apron would land near some antisemitic graffiti on a public wall.
      what was it some kind of dandelion seed blowing in the wind? ; )
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
        I doubt that the walls were festooned with graffiti, but given that Long only found the message as he was searching the passage for blood I don't think that it was a particularly stand-out graffito either. Also, I've always had a bit of a problem squaring Charles Warren's statement that the graffito was "on the jamb of the open archway visible to anybody in the street" with Long's saying that the apron was "lying in the passage".
        Clearly it wouldn't be 'festooned with graffiti' as if graffiti were common place it would have been ignored .... it would have been just a discovery of rag
        The fact that absolutely everybody at the time was 100% sure the author of the message dropped the rag should make it obvious to us that any chalk writings on walls were rarer than rocking horse dung .
        The whole obsession with trying to convince everyone that it was written previously is nothing more than an 80s ripperology claim and an attempt to pin the murders on an illiterate or semi literate
        You can lead a horse to water.....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          I thought it was clear enough: We need to find ingenious ways of linking the graffito to the murders; we need no such mechanisms if it was just another bit of graffiti written by someone other than the killer.
          I totally agree with you Sam

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            So most of us would assume, but that doesn't mean the person actually did look or, if they did, whether they were paying attention or were distracted, during what was after all a fleeting instant as Long passed the doorway.
            It's entirely possible that Long learnt of the Mitre Square murder between these two passes along Goulston Street, which may well have influenced his perception.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

              It's entirely possible that Long learnt of the Mitre Square murder between these two passes along Goulston Street, which may well have influenced his perception.
              That's a possibility, Josh, although (from memory) I think he found out a little later.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                So most of us would assume, but that doesn't mean the person actually did look or, if they did, whether they were paying attention or were distracted, during what was after all a fleeting instant as Long passed the doorway. It's variables such as these that account for things like keys "magically" turning up on kitchen tables even if we're adamant that they weren't there when we looked earlier.
                So, because its within the realm of possibility he did look and just didn't see the rag, or that he didn't look but said he did, we are to assume that his adamant position about whether he saw it at 2:20 or not should be discarded? In the scenario I described someone would have had to either know that the keys were on the table at the time the other party says they looked there but saw nothing, or they would have to have later verified that they were there after the first party says they didn't see them.

                There is no one here that can provide that information, no-one knows whether that the apron was there when he looked in at 2:20. There is only his statement, "it was not there" that we have to work with. I see no reason to assume he lied or missed it, why would I do that ? There is no evidence to suggest that...only the baseless presumption by some that it was left while the killer was still fleeing, instead of purposefully being left there over an hour later. Like the baseless presumptions such as mutilations missing due to interruptions....baseless, or escalation due to anger at being interrupted by an unsubstantiated interruption...baseless.

                This night had Jews figuring in prominently in both crimes, and in the first murder, it has Jews instantly blaming someone unknown for the dead woman found in their own passage,...(something they did without basis in any known facts also), so its highly coincidental that the same context would appear in the GSG, "Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing/Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"...or, in this case, without good reason.

                The fact that the GSG does have possible symmetry with that murder, and the fact that the apron section has direct linkage with that murder, it is not a huge leap of faith to surmise that the man that killed Kate may have left both things there. The predominance of Jews living in the model homes does seem a good location to let local Jews know that at least the author knew what some Jews did at Berner Street that night, despite their attempts at "blaming" others.

                Also, lets not forget the GSG was white chalk on a black dado. Hardly inconspicuous.
                Last edited by Michael W Richards; 06-28-2019, 12:08 PM.
                Michael Richards

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                  So, because its within the realm of possibility he did look and just didn't see the rag, or that he didn't look but said he did, we are to assume that his adamant position about whether he saw it at 2:20 or not should be discarded?
                  I refer to my key on the kitchen table example. We've surely all experienced being "adamant" that something wasn't there when we previously looked, when it obviously was.

                  At least Halse was honest: "At about 20 minutes after 2 he passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building" (The Times, 12th October 1888)

                  Also, lets not forget the GSG was white chalk on a black dado. Hardly inconspicuous.
                  Indeed. Then did he only notice it as he was "searching the passage" for blood, and not in his eyeline when he went to examine the apron?
                  Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                  "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    That's a possibility, Josh, although (from memory) I think he found out a little later.
                    As with all things, there is debate about it. Long wasn't asked when he heard of the murder, only whether he knew of the murders before leaving for the station, which he confirmed.

                    "Before proceeding to the station, had you heard of any murder having been committed? - Yes."

                    So he could have found out as late at 03:00. But he was subsequently asked;

                    "​​​​​​a Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building?​​​​​​"

                    That juror was certainly under the impression that Long had heard of the murder before finding the apron, and Long accepts this, or at least doesn't correct it if it's a misaprehension.

                    Not that this shows whether the apron was or wasn't there on his earlier pass, of course, but it does, for me, provide a reason for an added level of vigilance on the 02:55 pass.

                    Incidentally, if the killer had gone straight to Goulston Street and dropped the rag, there was time for Long to have had three chances to spot it, not just two.
                    Last edited by Joshua Rogan; 06-28-2019, 01:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Also, lets not forget the GSG was white chalk on a black dado. Hardly inconspicuous.
                      Hi Michael

                      According to Halse "The writing was in the passage of the building itself and was on the black dado of the wall" - and of the apron piece "if it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building"...interesting that only Warren says it was on the entrance, and that was in a memo to the Home Office, justifying it's erasure; just about every other witness (with the exception of Arnold who tactfully glosses over the exact position) either says or implies it was inside the passageway.

                      Therefore, mightn't you instead have said "Also, lets not forget the GSG was white chalk on a black dado, in a dark passage. Hardly conspicuous"

                      Cheers

                      Dave

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post

                        Hi Michael

                        According to Halse "The writing was in the passage of the building itself and was on the black dado of the wall" - and of the apron piece "if it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building"...interesting that only Warren says it was on the entrance, and that was in a memo to the Home Office, justifying it's erasure; just about every other witness (with the exception of Arnold who tactfully glosses over the exact position) either says or implies it was inside the passageway.

                        Therefore, mightn't you instead have said "Also, lets not forget the GSG was white chalk on a black dado, in a dark passage. Hardly conspicuous"

                        Cheers

                        Dave
                        Warren had realised the outcry in the press that his imaginary riot scenario had created , he was a laughing stock .
                        He then tried to cover himself and make it's removal appear justified by making out it was visible from the street .... What he had forgotten is that it was supposed to be 3/4 inch capitals with the rest "in proportion" ( so half inch writing ) .
                        It could have been covered by a helmet for crying out loud , any passer by wanting to read it would have had to have walked right up to it and studied it .Why anyone would do that with a stationed Bobby standing in front and blocking it with his body is anyone's guess .
                        Warren's claptrap should be taken with a huge bucket of salt
                        You can lead a horse to water.....

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          I refer to my key on the kitchen table example. We've surely all experienced being "adamant" that something wasn't there when we previously looked, when it obviously was.

                          At least Halse was honest: "At about 20 minutes after 2 he passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building" (The Times, 12th October 1888)


                          Indeed. Then did he only notice it as he was "searching the passage" for blood, and not in his eyeline when he went to examine the apron?
                          On your first point, sure, we all have. On Halse, I don't see him presuming what Long could or could not see overriding what Long says he did see Sam...he didn't see anything judging by "it was not there". Would it help if I punctuated the phrase the way it could have been spoken..."It was NOT there." Sounds definitive in that context, who know how he actually did say it.

                          I believe that the writing was easier to make out when he crouched by the apron, sure,... but white on black is noticeable and I have no reason to imagine that on that night no-one who entered that passage before Long would see it. Im quite sure people did walk past that same spot, it was 2 in the morning and likely many if not all of the residents who were now sleeping in the Model Homes walked right past there earlier that same night. No-one came forward to say they saw any writing though.

                          So,...that leaves us with just 1 of 2 possibilities ...either every single person who walked in that entranceway before Long on that night also failed to notice white chalk on a black background, a number that may be in the dozens, or it was written between his passes.

                          One thing is indisputable, the apron section placement didn't precede Kates murder.
                          Last edited by Michael W Richards; 06-28-2019, 01:34 PM.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Warren was a complete arse about this, had a photo been taken it might have helped to prove or disprove that Jack had written it. I at first thought that it might have been old graffiti but, would the residents have left it on there for long? I think that Jack was a regular to the area, he could wander around without any suspicions being raised. I think he saw the graffiti and thought it a good idea to plant the apron to cause confusion or intrigue. So I don't believe he wrote it, I also don't believe that rubbish about it being seen from the street and, anyway, couldn't the police have sealed off that area until photos were taken, seems to me the Police in those days had very little idea as it seems crowds were allowed to get very close to the murder scenes if not tread all over them!

                            I'd imagine that it would be very hard to match handwriting to chalked scrawl on a bumpy brick wall, really, I'm just annoyed that the police couldn't simply copy down a message without messing it up - two different versions! Just shows how incompetent they really were, no wonder they didn't catch Jack and of course, it would have been great if we could've seen the actual writing - Warren was a real idiot.

                            Comment


                            • Warren must have felt that the GSG represented a threat to locals, so its kind of excusable in that context. But then......we know photos were taken at at least 1 crime scene, why wouldn't they record the actual message as it was on the wall with an image?
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Graffiti is large , eye catching and slang .
                                Few , if any , in that building would have been capable of writing it nor spelt blamed or nothing correctly .
                                The majority there probably struggled to speak English having recently arrived never mind writing an elaborate message in chalk ,a fine piece of chalk at that for it to be legible with half inch lettering .
                                Education was very new , kids in the area would have only just been finding themselves forced into schooling and even then they would have left school very early .
                                It wasn't written previously nor by a local.
                                Why is that we have difficulty accepting what was obvious to everyone who saw it ?
                                It drew attention and was deemed to be written by whoever dropped the rag because it was unusual and out of place for the area
                                You can lead a horse to water.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X