The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Michael W Richards]

The GSG doesn't refer to the victims, and it doesn't refer to murder. It needs some sort of ingenious logic to make it relate to either - e.g. the "nothing" refers to Eddowes, because she gave her name as "nothing" when jailed; "Juwes" refers to the three masonic ruffians; Jack wanted to deflect blame onto the Jews; Jack had been frustrated by the Jews of Berner Street and/or was irked that Lawende and co had seen him; etc. These aren't exactly daft - well, apart from the masonic one - but they are rather convoluted compared to the idea that it was just a mildly racist rant that someone else had scrawled.

The 2 most probable answers for me are 1), that it was a general grunt by a local about Jews, or 2), since its right above a piece of cloth that had over an hour earlier been on an apron of a murder victim, it may be 1 of a 2 part "communication".

[Harry D]

The GSG doesn't refer to the victims, and it doesn't refer to murder. It needs some sort of ingenious logic to make it relate to either - e.g. the "nothing" refers to Eddowes, because she gave her name as "nothing" when jailed; "Juwes" refers to the three masonic ruffians; Jack wanted to deflect blame onto the Jews; Jack had been frustrated by the Jews of Berner Street and/or was irked that Lawende and co had seen him; etc. These aren't exactly daft - well, apart from the masonic one - but they are rather convoluted compared to the idea that it was just a mildly racist rant that someone else had scrawled.

And that's the most frustrating/fascinating thing about the Ripper, there are too many unknowns. We can back-and-forth on the GSG till the cows come home, it won't prove anything. We have a vague, cryptic message that may or may not have been written by the killer. If it was the killer, it's interesting that he chose to write graffito, instead of mailing the bloody apron with a message (like the Zodiac did with Paul Stine's shirt). That could support the idea that he wanted it to be public knowledge. See? It's so easy to get into all of this idle speculation, none of which will uncover the truth.

[Abby Normal]

The GSG doesn't refer to the victims, and it doesn't refer to murder. It needs some sort of ingenious logic to make it relate to either - e.g. the "nothing" refers to Eddowes, because she gave her name as "nothing" when jailed; "Juwes" refers to the three masonic ruffians; Jack wanted to deflect blame onto the Jews; Jack had been frustrated by the Jews of Berner Street and/or was irked that Lawende and co had seen him; etc. These aren't exactly daft - well, apart from the masonic one - but they are rather convoluted compared to the idea that it was just a mildly racist rant that someone else had scrawled.

sam I really don't know the point you are trying to make. we were discussing writings left by killers re ambiguous vs obvious and the possibility that a killer could leave an ambiguous message as opposed to an obvious one. Like the obvious type examples that Harry D provided and then my counter example that they can leave ambiguous ones too.

[Abby Normal]

And that's the most frustrating/fascinating thing about the Ripper, there are too many unknowns. We can back-and-forth on the GSG till the cows come home, it won't prove anything. We have a vague, cryptic message that may or may not have been written by the killer. If it was the killer, it's interesting that he chose to write graffito, instead of mailing the bloody apron with a message (like the Zodiac did with Paul Stine's shirt). That could support the idea that he wanted it to be public knowledge. See? It's so easy to get into all of this idle speculation, none of which will uncover the truth.

of course you are correct-somewhat. What if some researcher were to find something where a suspect (or anyone around at the time for that matter) had written jews as juwes? or the police had waited for the photog to arrive to take a picture so it could be compared to other suspected handwriting?
The GSG, cryptic as it was (not really to me though), could still be of evidential value.

[Sam Flynn]

or 2), since its right above a piece of cloth that had over an hour earlier been on an apron of a murder victim

Ah, but it wasn't said that the graffito was "right above" the cloth, and the fact that Long only noticed the graffito while he was searching the passage indicates that the writing wasn't in the same field of view as the apron. If the graffitist had drawn a whopping great arrow pointing to the apron, or chalked a message in big letters on the floor alongside it - both of which he could have easily done, let's face it - there'd be no doubt. However, a few words of mild racist moaning written four or more feet above the apron, and quite possibly displaced along the "X" axis to boot, doesn't persuade me of any deliberate linkage between the two.

[Sam Flynn]

sam I really don't know the point you are trying to make.

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.

[Michael W Richards]

Ah, but it wasn't said that the graffito was "right above" the cloth, and the fact that Long only noticed the graffito while he was searching the passage indicates that the writing wasn't in the same field of view as the apron. If the graffitist had drawn a whopping great arrow pointing to the apron, or chalked a message in big letters on the floor alongside it - both of which he could have easily done, let's face it - there'd be no doubt. However, a few words of mild racist moaning written four or more feet above the apron, and quite possibly displaced along the "X" axis to boot, doesn't persuade me of any deliberate linkage between the two.

Your correct, it was "above", and that alone gives the idea that the item below came from the same source. They both were found at the same time...people might assume the message predated the apron but there is no evidence it did. And considering the message, and the fact that 2 of the 3 throat cuttings that night involved Jewish witnesses, anti-Semitically toned grafitti might well relate to the specifics of that same evening, rather than just a general grumble as Sam suggests. People used that entranceway all the time, no-one who walked past before Long did at 2:40ish noticed any writing or cloth, including himself.

[Abby Normal]

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.

no not ingenious at all (Im not that smart )-given that the victims bloody apron was found beneath it and the message incriminates/blames jews on a night the killer was interrupted and seen by jews that night. and jews were being blamed previously.

we need no such mechanisms if it was just another bit of graffiti written by someone other than the killer.

[/QUOTE]

no, but we would need incredible coincidence

[Sam Flynn]

no, but we would need incredible coincidence

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.

[Sam Flynn]

no-one who walked past before Long did at 2:40ish noticed any writing or cloth, including himself.

Doesn't mean that nobody saw either, and it doesn't mean that Long didn't miss it the first time round. It would only have taken a couple of seconds to walk past that doorway, and if Long's eyes - or mind - were elsewhere in that brief instant, then he wouldn't have noticed the apron at all. When asked later he could easily have rationalised it as "Well, I walked past there earlier, so it can't have been there then...". Such rationalisations are only human, and we've all experienced it at one time or another.

[Michael W Richards]

Doesn't mean that nobody saw either, and it doesn't mean that Long didn't miss it the first time round. It would only have taken a couple of seconds to walk past that doorway, and if Long's eyes - or mind - were elsewhere in that brief instant, then he wouldn't have noticed the apron at all. When asked later he could easily have rationalised it as "Well, I walked past there earlier, so it can't have been there then...". Such rationalisations are only human, and we've all experienced it at one time or another.

When Long says "it was not there" his first pass, which is a quote from him directly, then yeah Sam...., that means it wasnt there because he looked there.

[Sam Flynn]

When Long says "it was not there" his first pass, which is a quote from him directly, then yeah Sam...., that means it wasnt there because he looked there.

That was my point, though. We've all thought we've checked something only to find out that we weren't actually paying attention.

You know, this kind of thing: "I've found the key. It was on the kitchen table" - "Well, I looked there ten minutes ago, and I can tell you that it wasn't there then!". (And, NB, this relatively common scenario has someone actively on the look-out for something specific, unlike a copper pounding the beat down a dreary back-street on the lookout for crime and criminals, but less concerned about bits of cloth.)

[APerno]

Yes there is no evidence that the graffito predated the discovery of the apron, but there is also no evidence that it didn't. When confronted with those possibilities it is proper to start with the former and seek to prove the latter.

To start at the premise that there is a connection between the two, opens the door for any logical conclusion drawn to be nothing more than an intelligent (logical) sounding sophism.

The only empirical evidence that can be offered, that reaches towards a connection, is PC Long's statement that the writing wasn't there at 2:20 AM, but Long is a shaky witness.

Regarding PC Long's observation (or possible failure thereof) I would really like to know if those walls were full of graffiti, or if it was singular event and that the message visually stood out. If it is the latter then Long's statement gains currency, but amidst a wall filled with graffiti then his failure to observe it at 2:20 becomes just a likely event.

[Michael W Richards]

That was my point, though. We've all thought we've checked something only to find out that we weren't actually paying attention.

You know, this kind of thing: "I've found the key. It was on the kitchen table" - "Well, I looked there ten minutes ago, and I can tell you that it wasn't there then!". (And, NB, this relatively common scenario has someone actively on the look-out for something specific, unlike a copper pounding the beat down a dreary back-street on the lookout for crime and criminals, but less concerned about bits of cloth.)

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. I wouldnt first assume it was there but they just missed it. If I went in myself and saw it on the table, I would then assume this was someone who didn't check the table or that they couldn't remember seeing it there. so, I assume "it was not there" insinuates that he looked at the spot where he later found it and it wasn't there at 2:20.

Unless of course someone later proves that he missed it. Or that he had faulty memory.

[Sam Flynn]

Regarding PC Long's observation (or possible failure thereof) I would really like to know if those walls were full of graffiti, or if it was singular event and that the message visually stood out.

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".

On a different point, as I was double-checking what long said, I noticed in the Daily News that, at the end of the session, "the jury presented their fees to Mrs Phillips, daughter of the murdered woman". I hadn't read that before, but I'm glad I did, and what a nice thing to do.