The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[perrymason]

One can't say that "anything goes" just because Jack might have killed two women that morning, Mike. The "Double Event" should be treated as logically separate from the writing of the GSG - to do otherwise is to presuppose that Jack really did kill both Stride and Eddowes. If Jack didn't, then the night wasn't an "anomaly" from his perspective anyway. In either scenario, the events of that night could not have altered the probability that the graffito was there all along.

I think you missed my point Sam, because without any doubt, that night was indeed an anomaly either way. The killer still at large who killed women recently in Whitechapel prior to Liz Strides murder was being accused of committing Liz's murder by the Club members, indirectly. "Another woman has been killed."

On no other Canonical night is the killer blamed for more murders than he might have actually committed....aside from this night.

Conversely, on no other night is he thought to have killed 2 women, which its believed he did.

Context is usually everything....particularly in this instance I believe.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

I think you missed my point Sam, because without any doubt, that night was indeed an anomaly either way. The killer still at large who killed women recently in Whitechapel prior to Liz Strides murder was being accused of committing Liz's murder by the Club members, indirectly. "Another woman has been killed."

You're still assuming that the killer would have known about that at the time he dropped the apron. There's no reason to suppose that the killer even knew that Stride had been killed, still less that the Club members were saying that "Jack did it".

Context is usually everything....particularly in this instance I believe.

You first need a context in which Jack definitely knew about the events at Dutfield's Yard even after his departure - assuming he was ever there in the first place.

[perrymason]

You're still assuming that the killer would have known about that at the time he dropped the apron. There's no reason to suppose that the killer even knew that Stride had been killed, still less that the Club members were saying that "Jack did it".You first need a context in which Jack definitely knew about the events at Dutfield's Yard even after his departure - assuming he was ever there in the first place.

According to what is known, the apron piece was not seen where it was found until over an hour after Kate was found..despite 2 officers traipsing by the location in the interval.

Thats loads of time to discover what happened in Berner Street, if, as many believe, he lived in the immediate area.

If the apron was not left there until just before its found, thats a tilt away from a proposition that he casually discarded it on the way home. The delay might justify linking the writing and the cloth, because theres little reason to surmise he went out again specifically to that entranceway to just leave the cloth..."casually".

All the best Sam

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

So if Jack wrote something about Jews, and left an apron piece from his victim as proof, then the Police will turn their gaze upon the Jewish populace. Cos Police, like sheep, is stupid.

Charles Warren, Donald Swanson and Sir Henry Smith all believed that the message was written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, so whether that makes them stupid or sheep-like for thinking so is perhaps a moot point. Fact is, they thought so, and both Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland recognise the merit in the suggestion too. I disagree that diverting suspicion in a false direction is pointless. Serial killers do it quite often, and often to successful effect. I have no idea if he wrote the thing, but if he did, the above explanation is the one I favour.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:

"The killer still at large who killed women recently in Whitechapel prior to Liz Strides murder was being accused of committing Liz's murder by the Club members, indirectly. "Another woman has been killed."

My feeling is that such an exclamation would be very likely to be spout out by anyone that saw a woman lying on the ground with her throat cut in them months, Michael - that is, I fail to see who would NOT cast suspicions in Jack´s direction with such a scenario.
But that need absolutely not mean that the exclamation would have been used to throw the police of any scent, as far as I´m concerned. Not even coming from the IWMEC members.


Ben writes:

"Charles Warren, Donald Swanson and Sir Henry Smith all believed that the message was written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, so whether that makes them stupid or sheep-like for thinking so is perhaps a moot point. Fact is, they thought so, and both Philip Sugden and Martin Friedland recognise the merit in the suggestion too."

Of course it does not make them sheep-like or stupid - it simply tells us that they read a message that could be interpreted as "Jews will never take the blame for what they do" as exactly that.
What it does NOT tell us is whether there was any true merit in such a suggestion, since the wording is so dubious that 121 years of brooding upon it has not produced any clarity. Nor does the suggestion that a derogatory meaning about jews lay behind the message in any way prove that it was connected to Jack, and if any of the gents above was of the meaning that such a connection could be proven or even implied by the actual wording of the message, THEN I would surely ponder a title of "slightly sheepish" for the responsible party.

Let´s face it; the area was swarming with jews, and anybody who had a grudge against them would have made a wise choice when he/she decided to chalk away in Goulston Street. Plus, if it was Jack - and this has been said a million times before - he sure knew how to get an easy enough message muddled up beyond recognition.

Not that it in any way makes the suggestion that there was some sort of scapegoating against the Jews going on unviable - but I genuinely feel that if this was the case, then the killer ought to slap himself for missing out on the obvious "Death to the gentile whores" punchline. It would have saved him both some time, some chalk and 121 years of being misunderstood.

The best,
Fisherman

[smezenen]

I dont think Jack wrote the GSG.
I dont think Jack took Kates apron to wrap her organs in either.

I believe Jack had at least a rudimentry plan when he went out. He knew the area he was going to operate in, he studied the police patrol paterns to determine the likly times and places when he would not be seen, he knew what pieces and parts he was after.
Thats why he is able to kill, take specific organs with surgical efficiency, and get away without being seen.

Haveing said that, I believe that Jack would have brought with him, a container large enough to store his targeted organs. Possibly a sack or bag easily folded and hiden in a coat pocket.
If he had used the apron to carry the organs then he must have transfered them to another container, left them close by when he discarded the apron or continued waking down Goulston street with his prize in his hand.
1-Why stop and transfer the organs to another container?
2-No organs are found nearby.
3-Walking down the street with a handfull of womb and kidney would have been very risky.

It is more likely that he used the apron to wipe the blood and faecal matter from his hands and the dark doorway in Goulston street was just a convient place to toss it as he walked by. He probably didnt even see the grafity.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

What it does NOT tell us is whether there was any true merit in such a suggestion

Perhaps not, but it is interesting, at the very least, to observe that at least three of the highest ranking police officials from the combined City and Met forces concurred with that view, and that some of the most respected modern authorities on the Whitechapel murders also recognise its merit. As Philip Sugden observes "these (Jew implicating antics) signify little by themselves but, taken together, begin to make a persuasive case". Yes, for the record, the police officals referred to were of the view that the content of the message suggested an intention to implicate the Jews, and it wouldn't make them "slightly sheepish" for thinking so.

A major objection to the Jack-as-author premise was originally voiced by Walter Dew in his memoirs - that the killer was unlikely to have taken the time to write such an extensive message with the police in hot pursuit. However, I don't consider its lack of clarity to be an insurmountable problem. If the killer was uneducated or even foreign, it would neatly account for a more ponderously phrased, especially if it contained the odd local affectation of speech.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Smez,

First off, there's really no compelling reason to think that the organs were excised with "surginal efficiency". I'm also uncertain as to why he would need to bring a container with him when there were free rags secreted about the victim's person for that very purpose. Indeed, the fact that he removed a segment of Eddowes' apron suggests rather strongly, to me at least, that its intended function was that or an organ-wrapper. That's not to eradicate the possibility that it doubled up as a hand and knife-wiper once he got to Goulston Street.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Yes, for the record, the police officals referred to were of the view that the content of the message suggested an intention to implicate the Jews, and it wouldn't make them "slightly sheepish" for thinking so."

But were they all convinced that the message was written by Jack, trying to implicate the jews - or did they just entertain such a possibility? Was it not more of the same thinking that you represent yourself; that IF the message was Jack´s , then it could be argued that he may not have taken kindly to jews?
These are the salient question to my mind. These, and the one about "Death to the gentile whores" ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I have no idea as to the actual extent of their convictions with regard to the GSG, but it was certainly a view they subscribed to at the time. That is dependent, of course, upon whether Jack wrote the message, but it's fairly clear that the three officials referred to believed he did.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

...which makes it a case of "Well, as my guess is that the killer wrote the text, it would seem that he was throwing guilt upon the jews".

Meaning that they tried to make something useful of a combination that was made using gut feeling only. And of course, the gut feeling of the men involved in the case should not be mocked, but the fact remains that other guts have come to a very different conclusion, just as another fact remains: beyond that gut feeling and the fact that they were found in the same space, there is no link at all inbetween the message and the apron that we can use to connect them. And the gut feeling and the common space both share the inherent quality of being potentially false links.

It would, moreover, be slightly strange if a choice like this, of a fifty-fifty per cent character, did not draw votes on both sides; you either believed it was the work of the killer or you didn´t. The same has applied ever since, which can be read from the poll at the beginning of the thread. And let´s not forget that the police was an organization under pressure and with a distinct hierachical thinking - if a senior officer suggested that choice A applied in a certain case - no matter if this suggestion rested on gut feeling only - then I would not be too surprised if an official line started to form in the errand early on.

As long as we have nothing pointing to any specific reason for these officers to choose option A over option B, there is very little to refute the suggestion that the choice may even have been made because it would look very unbecoming if the force had no opinion at all. Cynical? Yes, of course, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

which makes it a case of "Well, as my guess is that the killer wrote the text, it would seem that he was throwing guilt upon the jews".

None of the police officials in question communicated their view as a "guess", and I'd be inclined to avoid wrapping a made-up phrase in quotation marks or else those new to the case might fall under the mistaken impression that it came directly from a contemporary police official. Rather than a "guess", it's more reasonable to surmise that they came to the conclusion that the GSG was ripper-authored because that's where they felt the evidence pointed - that's the "specific reason". Others may disagree - I might, even - but I'd give them a little more credit than assuming they flipped a coin in the air and decided on a whim whether they wanted it to have been written by Jack the Ripper or not.

I don't consider it plausible either that Donald Swanson would simply adhere to the views of Charles Warren like a hapless sponge. This was the man in overall investigative charge of the Whitechapel murders, and his view was that the message was intended to "throw the blame upon the Jews". Argue against it by all means, but it's just not plausible that he parrotted the views of Warren. Henry Smith belonged to the seniority of a different police force. He was openly critical of Warren on other matters, so he wouldn't have simply nodded in complience on the Jew-implicating issue unless he harboured strong feelings of his own on the issue.

there is very little to refute the suggestion that the choice may even have been made because it would look very unbecoming if the force had no opinion at all. Cynical?

I'd say it's more unrealistic than cynical - the idea that they didn't have any personal opinions of their own, but were forced to pick one at random to impress the public. Not very convincing, especially when we know they were very much divided on other issues.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'd give them a little more credit than assuming they flipped a coin in the air and decided on a whim whether they wanted it to have been written by Jack the Ripper or not."

I would too, Ben. And that is why I don´t speak of a "whim" but of gut feeling, recognizing that such things should not be mocked.
Other than that, a flipped coin was about all they had to go on if you ask me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Other than that, a flipped coin was about all they had to go on if you ask me.

They had to go where they felt the evidence pointed at the time, Fish.

No eeny meeny miny mo about it.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

And, interestingly, just as I did not speak of "whims", nor did I speak of any "eeny miny mo" - that was you, Ben.

The evidence pointed in the same direction at that time as it has done since; towards a flipable coin.
If there was any other evidence about, I´d be interested to hear about it.

The best,
Fisherman