Goulstan Street Graffito.

[Michael W Richards]

It's here on Casebook

Thats a resource here I under use, the images. Thanks....I didnt want to copy it at Alamy without paying.

[DJA]

It's here on Casebook

[Michael W Richards]

Thats the one DJA, obviously you have seen it.

[DJA]

From Famous Crimes Past and Present 1903 sans masthead.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive seen the Bowyer sketch, the one I referred to was an Alamy property with a policeman being shown the GSG by a woman.

[DJA]

From Famous Crimes Past and Present 1903.

Here's another you would recognize.

[Michael W Richards]

I just saw an Alamy stock photo of a woman pointing out the GSG to a copper and there is no attribution, anyone seen that image before?

[Michael W Richards]

Can we be definitively sure that the cloth wasn't there on Long's first pass? I am not sure that we can.Personally I don't have any theories, I prefer to stick to the what is known, question where there is potential doubt and avoid filling in the gaps with supposition. Its amazing how one missing piece of evidence or information can open up a door to so many wild conspiracy theories. I totally get the urge to turn something so mundane and straightforward in to something fantastical; that surely there must have been more than meets the eye, that it can be that simple. But unfortunately nine times out of ten it is and in all likelihood there is a simple, mundane, straightforward explanation for these murders. A deeply psychologically damaged man killed five, possibly more socially and economically vulnerable women and due to the limitations of the police at the time, he was able to avoid apprehension.

Unfortunately as it is 132 years later and we don't have access to all the facts and key information, everything relating to the case is open to speculation and always will be.

I really respect your passion Michael and your knowledge on the topic is second to none but I am sorry but respectively, I cannot bring myself to buy into some of your theories that really push the bounds of probability.

I appreciate your kind words at the end of that quote Losmandris, and take no offense in the last line. The thing about solving any of these murders is that there must be a reason determined for the kill. In Jacks murders..whichever they actually are... the founding reason is his madness...its not a rational act. Its impulsive, its reactive. Can you say with certainty that the motivation or driver for all of the Canonical murders seems to be based on his, or their, uncontrolled madness? Do we have enough evidence to rule out conventional motives...greed, hatred, anger, profit, passion,...remembering with that last point that no less than 3 women seem somewhat estranged from their longtime beaus just before their murders? And 1 Canonical bears no injuries one would consider as Ripperesque.

[Michael W Richards]

Can we be definitively sure that the cloth wasn't there on Long's first pass? I am not sure that we can.Personally I don't have any theories, I prefer to stick to the what is known, question where there is potential doubt and avoid filling in the gaps with supposition. Its amazing how one missing piece of evidence or information can open up a door to so many wild conspiracy theories. I totally get the urge to turn something so mundane and straightforward in to something fantastical; that surely there must have been more than meets the eye, that it can be that simple. But unfortunately nine times out of ten it is and in all likelihood there is a simple, mundane, straightforward explanation for these murders. A deeply psychologically damaged man killed five, possibly more socially and economically vulnerable women and due to the limitations of the police at the time, he was able to avoid apprehension.

Unfortunately as it is 132 years later and we don't have access to all the facts and key information, everything relating to the case is open to speculation and always will be.

I really respect your passion Michael and your knowledge on the topic is second to none but I am sorry but respectively, I cannot bring myself to buy into some of your theories that really push the bounds of probability.

from The Inquest,..

"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.

He doesnt profess to be sure how Jews was spelled, nor does he protest when a suggestion is made that he may have placed the word "not" in a different order than the actual message..but "It was not there" is definitive. Its up to you really. Does he sound ambiguous?

[Varqm]

Im always amazed how many people wish away evidence when it doesnt fit their own theories. Over an hour passed before the cloth was left there, it WASNT there at Longs earlier pass as he emphasized, so to imagine that both appeared at that time solves your problems. He went back out after dropping off his loot somewhere. He went to a specific place to place the cloth. He didnt drop it while fleeing, he placed it after more than an hour had passed. Easy to acquire chalk then. And your assumption that the same man that left the cloth also killed Mary is just speculating for the hell of it. No evidence links those 2 murders at all. Just supposition, myth, and people who like a spooky story. If the same man wrote the message, which seems very likely considering the deliberate placement of the cloth, then he killed Kate. Thats all he claimed...by virtue of that cloth. And he spoke negatively about Jews, who were the hosts of another murder that night. Which they attempted to evade blame for.

People make this evidence so hard to suss out...and it really isnt.

I agree with the bold-ed statement.Too long to be carrying it around,he could have thrown it in any building crevice.But if he had a bolt hole/hiding place near it would be too close.My speculation is he did not want to escape to Spitalfields/Whitechapel immediately,hid for awhile,so he waited.I believe he was headed to the Spitalfields market as trade started at 3:00 AM in the summer-as testified to by the market lease holder,and by habit,perhaps,autumn too.

[Losmandris]

Im always amazed how many people wish away evidence when it doesnt fit their own theories. Over an hour passed before the cloth was left there, it WASNT there at Longs earlier pass as he emphasized, so to imagine that both appeared at that time solves your problems. He went back out after dropping off his loot somewhere. He went to a specific place to place the cloth. He didnt drop it while fleeing, he placed it after more than an hour had passed. Easy to acquire chalk then. And your assumption that the same man that left the cloth also killed Mary is just speculating for the hell of it. No evidence links those 2 murders at all. Just supposition, myth, and people who like a spooky story. If the same man wrote the message, which seems very likely considering the deliberate placement of the cloth, then he killed Kate. Thats all he claimed...by virtue of that cloth. And he spoke negatively about Jews, who were the hosts of another murder that night. Which they attempted to evade blame for.

People make this evidence so hard to suss out...and it really isnt.

Can we be definitively sure that the cloth wasn't there on Long's first pass? I am not sure that we can.Personally I don't have any theories, I prefer to stick to the what is known, question where there is potential doubt and avoid filling in the gaps with supposition. Its amazing how one missing piece of evidence or information can open up a door to so many wild conspiracy theories. I totally get the urge to turn something so mundane and straightforward in to something fantastical; that surely there must have been more than meets the eye, that it can be that simple. But unfortunately nine times out of ten it is and in all likelihood there is a simple, mundane, straightforward explanation for these murders. A deeply psychologically damaged man killed five, possibly more socially and economically vulnerable women and due to the limitations of the police at the time, he was able to avoid apprehension.

Unfortunately as it is 132 years later and we don't have access to all the facts and key information, everything relating to the case is open to speculation and always will be.

I really respect your passion Michael and your knowledge on the topic is second to none but I am sorry but respectively, I cannot bring myself to buy into some of your theories that really push the bounds of probability.

[Michael W Richards]

I think in many ways the GSG has been responsible for the development of a lot of the conspiracy theories relating to the case. I just don't buy it, that it was written by the murderer. Did he have some chalk in his pocket? Why was there no other graffiti or messages later on? Surely the murder of MJK would have been the perfect opportunity to write something else?

Tristan

Im always amazed how many people wish away evidence when it doesnt fit their own theories. Over an hour passed before the cloth was left there, it WASNT there at Longs earlier pass as he emphasized, so to imagine that both appeared at that time solves your problems. He went back out after dropping off his loot somewhere. He went to a specific place to place the cloth. He didnt drop it while fleeing, he placed it after more than an hour had passed. Easy to acquire chalk then. And your assumption that the same man that left the cloth also killed Mary is just speculating for the hell of it. No evidence links those 2 murders at all. Just supposition, myth, and people who like a spooky story. If the same man wrote the message, which seems very likely considering the deliberate placement of the cloth, then he killed Kate. Thats all he claimed...by virtue of that cloth. And he spoke negatively about Jews, who were the hosts of another murder that night. Which they attempted to evade blame for.

People make this evidence so hard to suss out...and it really isnt.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Re 'Juwes'

I love overthinking things, Abby!
Recently I've been overthinking the misspelling of 'Jews'.
It occurred to me that the misspelling may have been due to a lack of mastery of English, so that the not fully inhibited first language of the writer is hinted at.
More specifically - the misspelling is due to a sort of 'neural interference' effect - the writer is not yet fluent in English, and ends up writing words that blend their English with their first language.

graffito:	Juwes (DC Halse)
Polish:	Żydzi
German:	Juden (masculine)
Hungarian:	Zsidók
Russian:	Евреи
Russian:	Yevrei (anglicised)

The German 'Juden' seems a good candidate for the hypothesis, especially given that this is the masculine version of 'Jews' in that language, because it would seem to fit nicely with the men of the graffito...

The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing
The Juden are not the men that will be blamed for nothing

The anglicised Russian version works fairly well against the Home Office spelling...

The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing
The Yevrei are the men that will not be blamed for nothing

An extra letter, but one can imagine the 'vr' being mistaken for a 'w' ... Jevres
No wonder the spelling couldn't be agreed on.

Note that the pronunciation of 'Jews' in each of these languages is with two syllables - as one might pronounce 'Juwes'.

Anna beats Andy...

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-witnesses-evidence/27097-juwes#post27097

The next step is to realize who wrote the message; it was not JtR - it was The Lodger.

[Losmandris]

Hi Tristan,

If the message was a tongue-in-cheek comment relating to the recent Leather Apron kerfuffle, it could simply be that by November the killer had moved on, as had the papers, and it was no longer a burning issue. If the killer wrote it, he clearly did have some chalk in his pocket and intended to use it on that occasion. He may have considered the scene he left in Kelly's room was message enough for anyone.

Love,

Caz
X

Very true. I suppose that we will just never know.

Tristan

[caz]

I think in many ways the GSG has been responsible for the development of a lot of the conspiracy theories relating to the case. I just don't buy it, that it was written by the murderer. Did he have some chalk in his pocket? Why was there no other graffiti or messages later on? Surely the murder of MJK would have been the perfect opportunity to write something else?

Tristan

Hi Tristan,

If the message was a tongue-in-cheek comment relating to the recent Leather Apron kerfuffle, it could simply be that by November the killer had moved on, as had the papers, and it was no longer a burning issue. If the killer wrote it, he clearly did have some chalk in his pocket and intended to use it on that occasion. He may have considered the scene he left in Kelly's room was message enough for anyone.

Love,

Caz
X