The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Ben]

Therefore the writing may or may not have been authored by the one who left the apron in that place. End of story. Flip of coin.

That's just ridiculous.

Flip of a coin?

So the police officials who stated in no unambiguous terminology that they believed that the message was both ripper authored and designed to implicate the Jewish community did so only out of a huge elaborate pretense at actually having an opinion on the matter when they secretly didn't? Funny then that two otherwise sparring police officals from two different police forces came to the same specific conclusion after flipping that coin.

Come on. There are perfectly valid objections to the GSG being Jack-authored without having to resort to that one.

The killers wish to discredit jews and socialists was anything but evident, in spite of Warrens wording, and the same goes for the GSG

Well, Charles Warren clearly thought differently when he penned that report to the Home Office, and it is more than possible that he detected additional evidence of Jew-implicating antics from the double-event, as referenced above, thus permitting his "evidently" inference. In which case, it wouldn't be "nothing else to go by". Donald Swanson and Henry Smith also thought the evidence pointed in that direction, and so do some modern authorities on the case, and you'd be doing them all a disservice to claim that were working only from coin flips and gut feelings. Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're getting at, but you just need to re-think your terminology. If someone had written to them with a "Hey, seniority of combined investigative police personell, aren't you getting carried away on the basis of meagre evidence?" I doubt they would have invested much stock in it, and for good reason.

[perrymason]

edited to add that this is likely a revealing look into the antisemitism that was probably rife throughout the forces at the time...Perry Mason.

Mike:

Prove that statement with one document that says otherwise....or one action which demonstrates police procedure singling out foreigners for less than savory treatment.

Hi there Howard, thanks for the earlier reply too,.....If I could produce a single confirmation of my suspicions at this stage I would gladly do so.....but you folk far more deeply informed about these issues know there isnt one readily available.

I dont think its an unwarranted assumption in some cases and with some individuals, some with senior roles. Its a huge factor in that area to begin with...they almost make a safe bet when they suggest hes a Polish or European Jew.,.....there were 10's of thousands there.

The tone of the discussion of the immigrant Jews in Parliament, a few snippets that are unsavory like suggesting people would hide Jack the Ripper...Ill look for one but I dont think Im out of line raising the question.

When it comes to erasing the GSG....perhaps it was a fear of this poor Jewish mass turning on them, the police,.....not gentiles on Jews or Jews on Jews.

My best as always Howard.

[Ben]

Hi Smez,

Time is a quantifiable property that can be used to gauge efficiency. Less time taken to accomplish a task being more efficient than more time taken.

Speed isn't always a gauge of efficiency, though, least of all in the surgical sense in which medical professionals are trained to work slowly and methodically. One might observe that he acted quickly, but that may have derived from a lack of concern for efficiency or surgical prowess. The problem with using Phillips to infer surgical proficiency on the part of Eddowes' killer lies with Phillips' own funny ideas as to which killer was responsible for which victim. He believed that Eddowes' killer had no anatomical knowledge and that Eddowes herself didn't even fall victim to Chapman's killer.

The "hidden" rag was only a suggestion. It could also have been something that was very much in evidence, such as an external apron. As for why he later ditched his mode of organ transportation, the likely explanation is that the "worst" of the adherent gunk had transferred to the apron and/or he was in close proximity to his home or bolt hole. I agree that he wouldn't have carried them exposed. More likely, he placed the wrapped organ bundle directly into his pockets to prevent them from getting sullied.

We have no idea if he took any of Chapman's garments.

I don't see the message as cryptic so much as clumsily phrased and lacking in education.

Best regards,
Ben

[Howard Brown]

Mike:

Using Anderson's recollections from well after the period of say, 1888 to 1894, is hardly evidentiary of police practice against any specific group in 1888. A comment or honestly spoken sentiment about an ethnic group...and I do that 1,000 times per day ...is not practicing or acting out towards an ethnic group...and everyone knows it.

Warren refused to conduct certain search procedures or manuevers because they violated the law. They violated the law,Mike...and if Warren wanted to conduct such searches, no one, until afterwards, would have been able to do anything about them.

Ask yourself why, Mike, if anti-foreigner ( Jews ain't the only foreigners in the area at the time, only the most visible ) sentiment was as wide spread as has been mentioned over and over, that there isn't one "action" to demonstrate otherwise ? No rousting of Die Juden at 2 AM in a mass Sunday morning shakedown in a dwelling loaded with 'em.....no street line ups, with 10 or so Jews congregrating on a corner being forced to kiss the stucco of Goldblum's Corner Store...none of that occurs...except in the mind of people who take SRA's comments years later...comments,by the way, not actions...and put 2 and 2 together and get some very bad kugel.

So much for this Myth of Police Anti-Anything in 1888. Mike. Its actually a blight on the efforts of the Police, who while not perfect people ( Like me, for instance ) did a better job than what most of us would have expected in 1888 and the subsequent years.

Later buddy.

[smezenen]

...."Regardless of weather or not he killed one or both women, in order for Jack to write a chalk message on a wall would require Jack to have chalk. Why would he have chalk?"

To the above my friend smezenen I would say one reason might be that he used it for work. Thats tailors, butchers, dockers, shopkeepers, street artists, and who knows who else.

Happening to have chalk on ones person in Londons East End in 1888 would not be considered a big deal I dont imagine.

I think when he dropped the organs off he intended to ditch the apron near where he knew Jews lived in concentrated numbers....maybe even an International Club member or two. I think he happened to have chalk and decided on the scrawl in addition to the apron while there. Thats why its in such an odd place, heightwise.

Cheers smez

OK,
I can see the tailor, shopkeeps, and artists, but why a butcher? I will agree that anything is possible and he maybe just happened to have a piece in his pocket left over from work. Im still of the opinion that Jack didnt do anything without planning it first and I dont think he planned to write anything. Of course not taking time to think it out may explain why the message contains the double negitive.

what are your thoughts on him using the apron piece to carry the organs?

Im thinking IF he was using it for that then he would have had to drop them someplace before leaving the apron. If he took them to his living quarters first then there is no reason to come back out that night with people now actively looking for the murderer of 2 women. Much safer to drop it the next night. The only other options I see are; 1-walking down the street with them in his pocket or 2-in plain sight in his hand, and 3- abandoning them with or near the apron. We assume 3 didn't happen becouse they where not found, but maybe they where carried off by dogs or something.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"So the police officials who stated in no unambiguous terminology that they believed that the message was both ripper authored and designed to implicate the Jewish community did so only out of a huge elaborate pretense at actually having an opinion on the matter when they secretly didn't?"

Hooray! That is the fourth time out of four possible you put words in my mouth - has to be at least some sort of a jubilee, I believe!

There is no further need to discuss this issue with you, I believe. For one thing, it is not very encouraging to have you own words remoulded into something that carries no resemblance with what you say, and for another, your own leading on that the police force knew exactly what they were doing at that did so on a firm foundation of extremely useful evidence remains every bit as unsubstantiated as it must do - given the common knowledge that there never was any evidence pointing in either direction when it came to who wrote the GSG.

If you find my terminology offensive, I am very sorry. Maybe I should have written that the police force, made up by a top of the line detectives and theorists, put all possible efforts into their work of determining whether the GSG was written by the killer or not. In the end and in spite of the scarcity of evidence and guided by their superior instincts, they came to decide that the message was a genuine clue, written by Jack the Ripper.

...but would that not be to dishonestly suppress the fact that they could just as well have flipped a coin?

Just be be very clear on this: I am not saying that the police was of low quality. I am not saying that they made the wrong decision on the GSG. What I am saying, though, is that this all is comparable to a scenario where a detective is following a man through a tunnel. If that tunnel is, somewhere along the line, split in two tunnels, and if there is no trace at all of what choice the fleeing man made and no equipment at hand to use to improve your chances of making the right choice, then - regardless of what qualifications and training and experience the detective has - there are only two things to use in order to make your choice. The first one is called gut feeling, and the second one is a shining coin in your pocket.

It can be argued in this case that most people who make a choice of two tunnels in such a situation would perhaps choose the right one, just like soccer keepers normally prefer to throw themselves on their right hand side at a penalty, owing to the fact that most people are right-handed - you feel more comfortable and prepared to fend off a hard fall in that manner. But in the case of the GSG, this parameter did never apply, and I genuinely fail to see whatever else could be used to improve the fifty per cent chance of getting things right. If you have any suggestions, I´d be interested to hear them.

The best,
Fisherman

[smezenen]

Hi Smez,



Speed isn't always a gauge of efficiency, though, least of all in the surgical sense in which medical professionals are trained to work slowly and methodically. One might observe that he acted quickly, but that may have derived from a lack of concern for efficiency or surgical prowess. The problem with using Phillips to infer surgical proficiency on the part of Eddowes' killer lies with Phillips' own funny ideas as to which killer was responsible for which victim. He believed that Eddowes' killer had no anatomical knowledge and that Eddowes herself didn't even fall victim to Chapman's killer.

The "hidden" rag was only a suggestion. It could also have been something that was very much in evidence, such as an external apron. As for why he later ditched his mode of organ transportation, the likely explanation is that the "worst" of the adherent gunk had transferred to the apron and/or he was in close proximity to his home or bolt hole. I agree that he wouldn't have carried them exposed. More likely, he placed the wrapped organ bundle directly into his pockets to prevent them from getting sullied.

We have no idea if he took any of Chapman's garments.

I don't see the message as cryptic so much as clumsily phrased and lacking in education.

Best regards,
Ben

1- I didn’t say speed is always a measure of efficiency only that it could be. When put into the proper context the word "efficiency" in my post was only meant to describe the speed with which the organs were removed, not the quality of his work. I think too much has been read into my post there and I’m sorry that my last posting didn’t clear that up for everyone.

2- I think if we re-read Dr. Philips post mortem report where he states "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed ". You will see where I got the idea that he thought the killer had anatomical knowledge.

3-As for the term Cryptic message, once again I think my post is taken too literally. I did not intend for anyone to assume that I thought the message was written in code. (the literal definition). Cryptic message in the context that I intended meant unclear or could be interpreted in more than one way. clumsy and not gramaticly proper are also words I would use to describe the message.

4-I would put forward that there were no reports of anyone seing someone carrying organs in an apron, or in anything else for that matter. Its an assumed fact by some but in the end its only assumed and untill anyone can prove with hard evidence that organs where wrapped in the apron we can just as easily assume they where carried in something else and that the apron was only used to wipe his hands and/or knife clean.

I hope I have cleared up any misunderstanding that anyone may have inferred from my wholly inadequate post.

[Monty]

How,

Monty, Holt was not Jewish and the problems he created cannot be linked to anti-foreigner sentiment, rather to him being a kook. Later buddy.

Firstly, how do you know Holt was not Jewish or of Jewish extraction?

Secondly, thats not my point. My point was that mob attacks did happen, contrary to Toms belief. In Holts case it was because he looked 'kooky'. That was why he was singled out, that was the catalyst. An ambigous piece of writing found next to the apron of a murder victim could, by some, be an indication the killer was Jewish...another catalyst.

The assault on George Cullen in early September 88 is an indication that mob attacks were happening in the area before the wall writing also. So these incidents were not ficticous at all. And the reasons varied.

I also leave you with Schwartz. 'Lipski' according to Abberline was derogatory term aimed at Jews. This coupled with the fear of attack was enough for ol Israel to scarper.

Monty

[Howard Brown]

Dear Monty:

Firstly, how do you know Holt was not Jewish or of Jewish extraction?-Monty Zooma


I will get Nina to look into that this evening and provide you with the religious or ethnic background to the best of her/my ability. I should not have said what I did as if I had the evidence in front of me and I know better,buddy. Holt, being a name common to English people, is a knee jerk response on my part..

Mobs perked up rather quickly in reaction to people's behavior or the perception they had of it...in what appears to be towards any background, not necessarily one or the other,Neil. If possible, I'll get her to look into Squibby's antecedents too...

Later amigo...

[Ben]

There is no further need to discuss this issue with you, I believe. For one thing, it is not very encouraging to have you own words remoulded into something that carries no resemblance with what you say

You don't give much room for creative interpretation when you refer to "coin-flips", since it implies that the police officials in question didn't really have any views on the subject but were forced to pick one at random anyway to appease press and public. I don't see how the phrase "coin-flip" can mean anything else, and yet the evidently strong views of the police officials suggested a bit more committment to the opinion than the "pick one, doesn't matter which" mentality you seem to be envisaging.

I don't find your terminology offensive so much as inapplicable. It's clear from their stong opinions that they felt the evidence pointed in the direction of Jack-chalkmanship, which is why Warren used the word "evidently". Why is anyone's guess, but Messrs Sugden and Friedland both subscribe to the view that the message would appear to tally with other evidence of Jew-implicating behaviour on the night of the double event, and I too recognise the merit in the suggestion. If the police officials referred to previously had thoughts along similar lines, then it would elevate their suspicions above and beyond those of gut feelings and coin flips, and Home Office reports are seldom intended to commuicate either of those things.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

If so you think, Ben, then stay with your conviction. You are probably right, as always.

You are probaly also corrrect to point me out as somebody who put very little trust in the police´s abilities and in the value of their gut feeling. Of course, I have at four occasion pointed out to you that I am of a different meaning altogether, but such trifles must of course always be inferior to the picture you wish to convey on behalf of my thoughts.

Think I need a coffee now. Or do I? Please tell me how to proceed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Please tell me how to proceed!

In response to me, as always!

[Fisherman]

That could have been a good joke, if it was not for ...

Fisherman

[Ben]

That could have been a good joke, if it was not for ...

Hmm, strange man.

But back on topic.

Hi Smez,

Nothing remotely inadequate about your post. I could just as easily have misread you on account of haste and tiredness. Clarifications appreciated though!

It was Dr. Brown, rather than Dr. Phillips, who made those observations about the supposed knowledge of the placement of organs within the abdominal cavity. He went on to state that such a knowledge could have been possessed by someone accustomed to cutting up animals. Unfortunately, Brown was effectively outnumbered by Drs. Phillips, Sequeira and Saunders who all detected little if any anatomical knowledge from the Eddowes mutilations and eviscerations.

It wouldn't surprise me if no witnesses spoke of a man carring a bundle. If the apron was used as an organ-transporter, he was arguably more likely to place the wrapped bundle in his pocket before making good his escape from the crime scene. If he wanted to wipe his hands and knife, he could have removed the worst of the gunk in as much time as it would take to remove the apron piece.

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Dear Monty:

Firstly, how do you know Holt was not Jewish or of Jewish extraction?-Monty Zooma


I will get Nina to look into that this evening and provide you with the religious or ethnic background to the best of her/my ability. I should not have said what I did as if I had the evidence in front of me and I know better,buddy. Holt, being a name common to English people, is a knee jerk response on my part..

Mobs perked up rather quickly in reaction to people's behavior or the perception they had of it...in what appears to be towards any background, not necessarily one or the other,Neil. If possible, I'll get her to look into Squibby's antecedents too...

Later amigo...

Blimey, you get your Mussus to do you research for you? Covells only makes his tea.

Mobs perked up rather quickly in reaction to people's behavior or the perception they had of it...in what appears to be towards any background, not necessarily one or the other,Neil

True, however any furthur fuel to their perceptions, like a lil Jewish comment, would result in antagonism, no?

Monty