Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

We don't know the exact composition of the GSG. We don't know what was wrongly spelled or grammatically incorrect.

It's all guesswork based upon a pathetic example of evidence gathering by the cops.

All we have to go on are the various transcriptions of the City of London and Metropolitan Police officers.

Between them, they offered a bewildering combination of seven variations as to the GSG's spelling, grammar, capitalization and linage.

Who knows where the faults lay?

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

You are quite right about that but the key word is "opinion." And again, even if we knew with certainty that the killer wrote it what can we conclude?

c.d.

Not much. But maybe everything.

What are the only two pieces of direct evidence that specifically use and or implicate Jews?

The gsg and George Hutchinson's suspect. One following right after another.

NOt only that but I think the gsg and hutchs ostentatiously dressed Jewish suspect both exhibit signs of dislike, jealousy and blame.

[Varqm]

You can't profile since we do not know who wrote it.

The only way the police could have tested whether the graffito was written by the killer or not, was to have Long demonstrate what he did when he checked the Goulston doorway at 2:20 AM.,,where he shone the light,and whether there was a chance the graffito could be seen or not. Back from the police station,Long was in Goulston St. at 5:00 AM,the graffito was rubbed out at 5:30 am.
Otherwise they would have to wait till somebody admitted to writing it.Since nobody admitted writing it,that went for the killer having written it but that's about it.It was all just hunches.

Halse's "It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground" did not mean anything,since it's a doubt one could have determined if the chalk was used 1- to several hours before.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I completely agree that we can't accurately profile the writer of the GSG (whether he was Jack or not.) All I intended was an interpretation based on one particular viewpoint. Based on all viewpoints we could come up with several, what might be more accurately described as, mini-profiles.
This is why I suggested that Jack could have been a decently educated man who felt addrieved or angry that he had come down in the world and that he saw Jews and prostitutes as the reason that the area that he'd been forced to live in was such a horrible place. Many believe that the crimes were primarily sexual; maybe they weren't? Who knows?

[John G]

Hi John,

My original point was that you would have thought it likely, though not impossible of course, that someone who could spell 'nothing' and 'blamed' could be expected to spell 'jews' correctly. Therefore could the mis-spelling have been deliberate? Of course, it might not have been. But because I believe that on most occasions someone being able to spell the two longer words would be equally able to spell the shorter one I think that it's at least possible that the mid-spelling was intentional. If it was, then why?
If we dismiss the Masonic connection, and I do, all that I can think of is either that it was meant as insulting or dismissive of Jews, or that it was mis-spelt intentionally for another reason. The only one that I can come up with is to give the impression of being less educated than he actually was.

Hi Herlock,

I've seen even reasonably educated people make errors with simple words, such as using "to" when they mean "too." In fact, I'm prone to the odd spelling mistake myself, particularly if I'm writing quickly, although these days I can usually pass it off as a predictive text error!

It's possible that he was trying to present himself as less educated, but then why spell the other words correctly? And exactly how much of an advantage would that have given him? I mean, I'm sure the police wouldn't have excluded an educated suspect simply on the basis of the GSG.

It should also be remembered that Whitechapel was home to a sizeable immigrant population. We cannot therefore assume that English was the first language of the author.

[John G]

Hi All,

We don't know the exact composition of the GSG. We don't know what was wrongly spelled or grammatically incorrect.

It's all guesswork based upon a pathetic example of evidence gathering by the cops.

All we have to go on are the various transcriptions of the City of London and Metropolitan Police officers.

Between them, they offered a bewildering combination of seven variations as to the GSG's spelling, grammar, capitalization and linage.

Who knows where the faults lay?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

Yes, you make a very good point. And, of course, we don't even know that it was written by the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I've seen even reasonably educated people make errors with simple words, such as using "to" when they mean "too." In fact, I'm prone to the odd spelling mistake myself, particularly if I'm writing quickly, although these days I can usually pass it off as a predictive text error!

It's possible that he was trying to present himself as less educated, but then why spell the other words correctly? And exactly how much of an advantage would that have given him? I mean, I'm sure the police wouldn't have excluded an educated suspect simply on the basis of the GSG.

It should also be remembered that Whitechapel was home to a sizeable immigrant population. We cannot therefore assume that English was the first language of the author.

Hi John,

Of course I agree with everything you say there. Mine was just one interpretation among many other possible ones and it's not one that I'm particularly proposing. We can't even be sure that it was actually written by the ripper.

[MysterySinger]

Whatever happened to that piece of apron?

[Joshua Rogan]

Whatever happened to that piece of apron?

PC Long took it home as a present for his wife?

[Sam Flynn]

PC Long took it home as a present for his wife?

For her sake, I hope she had bad eyesight and no sense of smell.

[Joshua Rogan]

On the subject of the apron piece... Both Long and Halse refer to it as "a piece of apron". Neither of them, as far as I recall, ever said it was (for instance) "a piece of cloth, later found to be from an apron".

Were they just speaking with hindsight, or does this suggest it was immediately obvious that it came from an apron? In which case, what would have made it so obvious?

[GUT]

On the subject of the apron piece... Both Long and Halse refer to it as "a piece of apron". Neither of them, as far as I recall, ever said it was (for instance) "a piece of cloth, later found to be from an apron".

Were they just speaking with hindsight, or does this suggest it was immediately obvious that it came from an apron? In which case, what would have made it so obvious?

Maybe a string attached may make it obvious.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe a string attached may make it obvious.

There might have been a pocket on it, and/or its sheer size ruled out its being, say, a handkerchief.

Apart from that, I don't have a problem with the idea that the police were speaking with hindsight. Long had, after all, found a sheet of cloth "wet" with blood, discarded in a doorway since he last passed there on his beat. In addition, it would have been obvious that it was not a "finished item" (which would have had a hem/trimmings all around its border), and that it had likely recently been cut from a bigger piece of cloth. Whether he initially perceived it was an apron or not, it was certainly worthy of investigation.

[GUT]

There might have been a pocket on it, and/or its sheer size ruled out its being, say, a handkerchief.

Apart from that, I don't have a problem with the idea that the police were speaking with hindsight. Long had, after all, found a sheet of cloth "wet" with blood, discarded in a doorway since he last passed there on his beat. In addition, it would have been obvious that it was not a "finished item" (which would have had a hem/trimmings all around its border), and that it had likely recently been cut from a bigger piece of cloth. Whether he initially perceived it was an apron or not, it was certainly worthy of investigation.

I must say a pocket crossed my I'd after I posted too.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I didn't know until recently that some don't think that Eddowes was wearing an apron?

Well, when I say 'some' I think I mean just Trevor Marriott?