Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

[c.d.]

Hello Herlock,

Here is the problem - did Diemschutz drive his cart in some Jewish way? The same goes for Schwartz and Lawende. How did their being Jewish factor in to what they did? If they were all known vegetarians would that be reflected in the GSG? It is possible that the killer was a raging anti-Semite and these actions only added to it. I could see it if a bunch of men ran out of a synagogue and yelled "hey, it's the Ripper" and started chasing him but trying to put a Jewish spin on the events of that evening seem like a stretch to me. And finally there is the message itself. Even if we can be certain that it is anti-Jewish, it seems to reflect somebody who is a bit put off by the Jews not somebody with intense rage against them.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

Like your posts on this thread,very little.

Enough of the ad hominem, please.

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

If the Ripper didn't write the GSG, then we clearly can't profile him based upon it. I'm trying to put the case that he may not have written the graffito, ergo it's useless for profiling purposes.

[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.

[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?"

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[DJA]

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

You are consistent.

[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.

[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.

[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.]

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.

[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.

[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.