Goulstan Street Graffito.

[TheCuriousCat]

I live in a small city known for its relative cleanliness, and yet there is still graffiti everywhere. If you were intending to leave your signature next to a crime scene you would need to leave it with a couple of yards if you didn't want someone else's tag to be more noticeable than yours. It's hard to believe that 1888 Whitechapel didn't have graffiti aplenty. Also, if there was a photograph...how would that help? "Good schoolboy script" is practically the definition of generic handwriting.

[Trevor Marriott]

The above is why the apron section below the writing is likely part of that same message. Its a signature.

Signature killers leave their signature somewhere where the item whatever that item might be is going to be found, not in an archway some distance from the crime scene where it might never have been found.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Of course you did.

So your reply was essentially an agreement of what etenguy agreed with in my post? It seemed worded differently than that....

"We know that Warren was a military man and certainly not the kind of man that would accept or enjoy having his orders questioned. I can imagine an under-pressure Warren ordering a writing, containing the word Jews (however it was actually spelled) to be erased in a kind of panic perhaps picturing in his mind Jewish shops and homes being attacked and mobs on the street. He knew of the Vigilance Committee and so might have suspected that some might have sought to take justice into their own hands? And then when someone suggested preserving it he might have taken the “are you questioning my authority?” attitude. Later he might have regretted acting so precipitately but obviously he wouldn’t have wanted to admit to an error."

Etenguy was agreeing with something I said, and you posted his agreement with the above, which essentially supports again what the motive for washing it off was. Your adding your belief about Warrens ego in the above I didnt address.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You really need to adjust what your responses are in relation to the comments originally posted. I merely pointed out that what your argument was has essentially been addressed by citing anti-jew interpretations as being the reason for erasure.

Of course you did.

[Michael W Richards]

I've often wondered why the size of the actual graffiti is an argument for it not being by the killer, but by someone who had a grudge with Jews, possible someone ripped off in the market.
The point is, clearly the graffiti was written by someone who wanted it to be seen, and so the size argument goes both ways.

Regards

The above is why the apron section below the writing is likely part of that same message. Its a signature.

[Michael W Richards]

Still sulking I see

You really need to adjust what your responses are in relation to the comments originally posted. I merely pointed out that what your argument was has essentially been addressed by citing anti-jew interpretations as being the reason for erasure.

[spyglass]

I've often wondered why the size of the actual graffiti is an argument for it not being by the killer, but by someone who had a grudge with Jews, possible someone ripped off in the market.
The point is, clearly the graffiti was written by someone who wanted it to be seen, and so the size argument goes both ways.

Regards

[Herlock Sholmes]

All of which suggest he thought the message might incite anti-Jew factions...like we already stated.

Still sulking I see

[Michael W Richards]

We know that Warren was a military man and certainly not the kind of man that would accept or enjoy having his orders questioned. I can imagine an under-pressure Warren ordering a writing, containing the word Jews (however it was actually spelled) to be erased in a kind of panic perhaps picturing in his mind Jewish shops and homes being attacked and mobs on the street. He knew of the Vigilance Committee and so might have suspected that some might have sought to take justice into their own hands? And then when someone suggested preserving it he might have taken the “are you questioning my authority?” attitude. Later he might have regretted acting so precipitately but obviously he wouldn’t have wanted to admit to an error.

All of which suggest he thought the message might incite anti-Jew factions...like we already stated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree with you, Michael. Alas, the reason provided by Warren does not have credibility, particularly that the area could not be secured for an hour. And given the very high profile of the case, the pressure on the police to find the murderer and the lack of any evidence obtained by the police, to destroy potential evidence on such a flimsy excuse was either the height of incompetence or there is another reason that has not been shared.

We know that Warren was a military man and certainly not the kind of man that would accept or enjoy having his orders questioned. I can imagine an under-pressure Warren ordering a writing, containing the word Jews (however it was actually spelled) to be erased in a kind of panic perhaps picturing in his mind Jewish shops and homes being attacked and mobs on the street. He knew of the Vigilance Committee and so might have suspected that some might have sought to take justice into their own hands? And then when someone suggested preserving it he might have taken the “are you questioning my authority?” attitude. Later he might have regretted acting so precipitately but obviously he wouldn’t have wanted to admit to an error.

[Aelric]

I am pretty sure "graffito" is something of a recent label for it. At the time the writing on the wall was referred to as ... "the writing on the wall".

Indeed, but it is known as the GSG today so I thought it worth pointing out.

[Azarna]

Regarding how the GSG became known as a 'graffito' - isn't it merely the singular form of 'graffiti' in Latin? Is too much being read into what is simply a matter of grammar?

I am pretty sure "graffito" is something of a recent label for it. At the time the writing on the wall was referred to as ... "the writing on the wall".

[Michael W Richards]

in 1896 a new furor about the Ripper started when a letter was received by the Police, it referenced the GSG, so it was taken seriously.

[caz]

Do you not think it likely, NBFN, that this early rumour was based on the very real GSG, but the reporter concerned got the wrong end of the stick and thought it related to the Stride murder scene and Dutfield's Yard, where no evidence was found of any chalk writing, leading the reporter to the erroneous conclusion that the whole story was false?

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Reference to the same rumor in the Morning Advertiser, Oct 3, but this time with the reason for dismissing the rumor...

Another rumour alleged that the murderer at the same time that he took the life of "Long Liz" also availed himself of the opportunity to write with chalk on the brick wall some words calculated to provoke no small amount of exasperation in a certain quarter. Further, it was stated that Sir Charles Warren, when he saw the writing on the wall early on the Sunday morning after the murder, ordered it to be washed out; and that that direction was implicitly carried out by the police. A careful examination of the wall, however, has revealed the fact that the whole story is a fabrication, for the brickwork does not show any of those marks which would result from such an operation.

Can you believe it? It is not because the writing on the wall is strongly denied to have been there that the rumor is dismissed, but rather because the wall does not look like a wall with washed-out writing supposedly should!

And what do 'those marks' look like? Would not the wall have been sponged like the wall at Goulston street was, thus leaving very little if any visible trace?

And what's this about the direction from Warren being implicitly carried out by the police?
What's an implicit direction? Had he already ordered that any potentially provocative remarks at any murder scene, be immediately removed?
If not, then why would the rumor include this notion of implicit direction, if Warren is onsite to supposedly see it, and therefore be in a position to give explicit direction for it's immediate removal?