Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

[c.d.]

I would say the answer to that question is definitely no.

1. We don't know if the killer wrote the GSG.

2. We don't know if the message is meant to be pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish. Take your pick.

3. Assuming the killer did write the message, we have no way of knowing whether he was a Jew or a Gentile. Even if we were certain that the meaning is anti-Semetic, it doesn't necessarily follow that the writer was a Gentile. He could have been using the message as a red herring.

4. Nobody other than the author of it knows what the hell it means.

I don't think the killer wrote it.

c.d.

[DJA]

There is no evidence that states that the GSG was found directly above the apron. We get "above it on the wall", "on the wall above it", or even "in the same building" (rather vague that), but there's nothing that states that there was a direct, or "perpendicular", relationship between the two. In fact, if we take our two best witnesses, the apron was found "lying in the passage leading to the staircase" (PC Long), and the graffito was specified as being on the door-jamb (Warren); not directly above the apron at all.

Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
[Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion.
[Coroner] Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling-house? - I went into the staircases.
[Coroner] Did you not make inquiries in the house itself? - No.
The Foreman: Where is the pocket-book in which you made the entry of the writing? - At Westminster.
[Coroner] Is it possible to get it at once? - I dare say.
Mr. Crawford: I will ask the coroner to direct that the book be fetched.
The Coroner: Let that be done.

[Sam Flynn]

4. Nobody other than the author of it knows what the hell it means.

That's a biggie. I'm sure that, if the killer had written the message, he'd have written a rather more punchy message than the GSG, in bigger letters, and with little regard for neatness.

[Sam Flynn]

Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

"Above on the wall", doesn't mean "directly above". You'll find other sources that with different wording including the Illustrated Police News which says that it was "in the passage leading to the stairs", which I referred to earlier, but no source says "directly above". Not one.

[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall?
[Long] I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.

Mark that well. If the writing was "directly above" the apron, he'd surely have said so in response to that question. PC Long only found the writing whilst he was looking around for blood stains, he didn't merely lift up his gaze from the apron he'd just found, which is what you'd expect if the apron and graffito were perpendicularly arranged.

[c.d.]

As for the idea that the GSG was in response to Jews interrupting the Ripper that night, what exactly would they have been guilty of? Schwartz didn't attempt to interfere and Lawende and his friends simply glanced in his direction. I don't see how this could be sufficient to cause such anger that the Ripper would run the risk of stopping before he reached home in order to vent his anger. And really, if he was that angry against Jews wouldn't the message reflect that? It seems kind of tame to me.

c.d.

[DJA]

"Above on the wall", doesn't mean "directly above". You'll find other sources that with different wording including the Illustrated Police News which says that it was "in the passage leading to the stairs", which I referred to earlier, but no source says "directly above". Not one.

Mark that well. If the writing was "directly above" the apron, he'd surely have said so in response to that question. PC Long only found the writing whilst he was looking around for blood stains, he didn't merely lift up his gaze from the apron he'd just found, which is what you'd expect if the apron and graffito were perpendicularly arranged.

Casebook Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 7,779
Casebook Supporter
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
If it was written on the thin part of doorway(jamb) why didn't Long notice it earlier?
Long would only have had the doorway in his field of vision for a second or two, assuming his eyes weren't looking elsewhere as he passed. Even if they weren't, it's all too easy to overlook something as mundane as some chalk scrawled on a wall. In Long's defence, he worked for the Metropolitan Police, not the Borough Cleansing Department
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4923/18921.jpg

[c.d.]

That's a biggie. I'm sure that, if the killer had written the message, he'd have written a rather more punchy message than the GSG, in bigger letters, and with little regard for neatness.

Hello Sam,

Yes, and if the GSG were so important to him that he was willing to take the risk of being seen only to have his message erased by the police I would expect him to be mucho pissed off. So why not follow it up with a message at Millers Court where he had way more time?

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Casebook Supporter

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 7,779
Casebook Supporter
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
If it was written on the thin part of doorway(jamb) why didn't Long notice it earlier?
Long would only have had the doorway in his field of vision for a second or two, assuming his eyes weren't looking elsewhere as he passed. Even if they weren't, it's all too easy to overlook something as mundane as some chalk scrawled on a wall. In Long's defence, he worked for the Metropolitan Police, not the Borough Cleansing Department
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)


http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4923/18921.jpg

What has that got to do with this discussion?

Do you think it contradicts anything I've just said? It doesn't.

Are you trying to make me look stupid or inconsistent? I'm neither.

And/or are you just trolling because I challenged your claims that the victims/Jack were known to each other? I suspect you are.

[DJA]

You take one line out of my posts and ignore the remainder.

You are consistent.

[Sam Flynn]

Do you think it contradicts anything I've just said? It doesn't.

On that point, I might get your drift, in that I've expressed doubts that the writing was on the jamb. Whether I believe it or not, the fact of the matter is that this is what indeed what Warren said. Either way, it does not detract from my point that there is no evidence that the writing was directly above the apron, and that, given that Long only found the graffito whilst he was searching around for blood after having found the apron, there's every indication that the two items were not in direct proximity to one another.

[Sam Flynn]

You take one line out of my posts and ignore the remainder.

You are consistent.

You quoted my post, and responded with a direct, unformatted, copy and paste of a previous exchange between me and Herlock Sholmes, with no supporting explanation or comments of your own. How was I to understand what you were getting at?

[Herlock Sholmes]

As for the idea that the GSG was in response to Jews interrupting the Ripper that night, what exactly would they have been guilty of? Schwartz didn't attempt to interfere and Lawende and his friends simply glanced in his direction. I don't see how this could be sufficient to cause such anger that the Ripper would run the risk of stopping before he reached home in order to vent his anger. And really, if he was that angry against Jews wouldn't the message reflect that? It seems kind of tame to me.

c.d.

Hi c.d.

Maybe it was about Diemschutz rather than Schwartz or Lawende? Just a thought but has anyone ever suggested that the ripper could have written the GSG in anger directly after Berner Street and later on dropped the apron near to it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a biggie. I'm sure that, if the killer had written the message, he'd have written a rather more punchy message than the GSG, in bigger letters, and with little regard for neatness.

That's a good point Sam. The message is a little vague and written in small letters. You would expect something more direct but if he was intentionally trying to sound poorly educated he may have thought that the Jews would get the gist?

[DJA]

What has that got to do with this discussion?

Do you think it contradicts anything I've just said? It doesn't.

Are you trying to make me look stupid or inconsistent? I'm neither.

And/or are you just trolling because I challenged your claims that the victims/Jack were known to each other? I suspect you are.

Like your posts on this thread,very little.

The question is "Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?"

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, and if the GSG were so important to him that he was willing to take the risk of being seen only to have his message erased by the police I would expect him to be mucho pissed off. So why not follow it up with a message at Millers Court where he had way more time?

Or with a message written anywhere else at any time, which he could have written at his leisure, without having just stirred up a hornets' nest of police on his trail. Alternatively, he could just have written some letters, like hundreds of other hoaxers seem to have done on his behalf.

Despite the (disputed) possibility that one or two "Ripper Letters" could have been written by the killer, he doesn't seem to have been particularly keen on communication, so the idea of his hanging around to write a neat, yet somewhat vacuous, message on a wall doesn't appear to be in character.

The fact that he didn't follow it up at the next crime scene, as you point out, nor that he foreshadowed it at Hanbury Street for that matter, is another reason to doubt that he was the author of the GSG.