The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Michael W Richards]

To all above,I am using evidence.The evidence of Long.Long places himself in the building.That is evidence of opportunity.That is the only evidence needed.Whoever wrote the the graffiti had to be in the building,It is the only evidence against the ripper writing the message.The Ripper had to be in the building. Everything else is supposition,no matter who is considered responsible.Did Long carry a piece of chalk?Did the Ripper cary a piece of chalk.Etc .As far as evidence is concerned,opportunity is the only element that can reasonably be considered,and Long,in that respect comes ahead of the Ripper,for while the apron piece does not conclusively place the Ripper in the building,he could have thrown it there,Long unquestionably,by his(Long)own testimony does place himself inside.So if the Ripper,as some suggest,could have written the message,then so could Long.

Jon,
You make the claim that the summary I took from the A-Z came from press sources.You have evidence of that?

Since he knew about the murder in Mitre before he made his 2:20 pass, why didn't he write the message then? Your suggestion seems to suggest that Long took the apron piece as well, since there is NOTHING in the known evidence that eliminates 1 man placing both there at the same time ...which come across to me as fanciful thinking and wholly unwarranted.

[John G]

Well, he was there alone, and it's only his word we have to describe what happened. As evidence goes, that doesn't get us very far. If we applied the same criteria to the rest of the case then John Davis possibly killed Annie Chapman, Louis Diemschutz possibly killed Liz Stride and Harry Bowyer possibly killed Mary Kelly.

All are "possible", but - as with the idea of Long's writing the graffito - the mere fact that they had an "opportunity" has very little explanatory value.

Isn't this also pretty much the Lechmere argument in a nutshell?

[Sam Flynn]

Isn't this also pretty much the Lechmere argument in a nutshell?

No comment

[Wickerman]

It is only in your last post(Wickerman please note) that I accept you used newspaper sources as a basis.It doesn't indicate,in your book that newspapers were the source..Which brings another question.What newspaper source states Long denied knowing of Eddowes murder? Many posters appear to believe the opposite to be the case.

Harry.
Several sources have been posted of PC Long's reply to the coroner where he asserts that he only heard of the City murder before he left for the station. Which is after he searched the stairs.

From this it is not unreasonable for the A-Z to offer that "he did not know of the Eddowes murder" at the time of the search.
It doesn't need to be definitively stated, it can be deduced from the testimony.
There is nothing to pursue here.

It appears to me that anyone who supports Trevor's statements that there are alternatives are in for a torrent of disapproval.How childish that supposedly educated and intelligent people could,because of personnel dislike,act that way.

It is not because of any personal feelings. It is because these alternative scenario's are not supported by the evidence, be it physical or testimony.

[PaulB]

PaulB
I have never stated that I believe Long wrote the message,or had evidence that he did.I said there was an oportunity for him to do so,and only that,and I have presented evidence supporting that opportunity.
It is only in your last post(Wickerman please note) that I accept you used newspaper sources as a basis.It doesn't indicate,in your book that newspapers were the source..Which brings another question.What newspaper source states Long denied knowing of Eddowes murder? Many posters appear to believe the opposite to be the case.
John G,
The same argument doesn't apply.Long had a lamp.

It appears to me that anyone who supports Trevor's statements that there are alternatives are in for a torrent of disapproval.How childish that supposedly educated and intelligent people could,because of personnel dislike,act that way.

Harry,
I did not say you believed that PC Long wrote the message, I said that you postulated the possibility that he had, and this is you doing it: "Long unquestionably, by his (Long) own testimony does place himself inside. So if the Ripper, as some suggest, could have written the message, then so could Long." (Post 2303)

I was pointing out, however, that this isn't an alternative scenario. It's nothing more than a "what if". We sometimes should postulate "what ifs", and test them to see if the evidence of the sources support them. But without supporting evidence, a "what if" has no value. It's the starting point of fiction.

And I do not wish to be rude, but I think it rather naive to think that Trevor's ideas receive a torrent of dispproval because people either resent his alternative scenarios or simply because they dislike him.

[John G]

PaulB
I have never stated that I believe Long wrote the message,or had evidence that he did.I said there was an oportunity for him to do so,and only that,and I have presented evidence supporting that opportunity.
It is only in your last post(Wickerman please note) that I accept you used newspaper sources as a basis.It doesn't indicate,in your book that newspapers were the source..Which brings another question.What newspaper source states Long denied knowing of Eddowes murder? Many posters appear to believe the opposite to be the case.
John G,
The same argument doesn't apply.Long had a lamp.

It appears to me that anyone who supports Trevor's statements that there are alternatives are in for a torrent of disapproval.How childish that supposedly educated and intelligent people could,because of personnel dislike,act that way.

Perhaps, although as Monty's YouTube clip demonstrates, bullseye lamps gave out relatively little light, which might explain why there are different versions of the graffiti.

[harry]

What I have done is accuractly take,word for word, a passage from a book.Ivé never questioned the honesty of what was written.Any explanation should be directed at those that did challenge the wording.It makes no difference whatsoever,to me or my later comments about Long,at what time Long became aware of Eddowes murder.I was challenged to provide evidence.I did so,and posters still complain,and question.
I say again,Long,by his own admission,and it is the only evidence to be had,claims he(Long)was in Wentworth building that night,and I say,if that were true,he had the opportunity to write the graffito.I do not state he did write it.
No Sam,it is not the same.Those you mentioned were at the scene of a crime,Long wasn't.
Michael Richards,if you could post your message coherently,I might be able to reply.If you suggest i'm linking Long to the murder,youré wrong.
Jon,
If there is nothing to pursue,it's idiotic for you to try.

[Wickerman]

What I have done is accuractly take,word for word, a passage from a book.Ivé never questioned the honesty of what was written.Any explanation should be directed at those that did challenge the wording.It makes no difference whatsoever,to me or my later comments about Long,at what time Long became aware of Eddowes murder.I was challenged to provide evidence.I did so,and posters still complain,and question.

So have we clarified the issue now?

I say again,Long,by his own admission,and it is the only evidence to be had,claims he(Long)was in Wentworth building that night,and I say,if that were true,he had the opportunity to write the graffito.I do not state he did write it.

Where, exactly, was this going?
Was there a point that you have yet to share?

Jon,
If there is nothing to pursue,it's idiotic for you to try.

Given that I was trying to follow your line of argument, you may be right.

[Sam Flynn]

No Sam,it is not the same.Those you mentioned were at the scene of a crime,Long wasn't.

The "crime" in this instance is the writing of the graffiti,and the "scene of the crime" is the Goulston Street doorway. Long was just as much alone at the scene of this crime as were Davis et al.

[harry]

Jon,
It would have went nowhere had it not been challenged.

What crime is the writing Sam? So far as I know it has not even been linked to a crime.It is just that,writing on a wall.

[Sam Flynn]

What crime is the writing Sam? So far as I know it has not even been linked to a crime.It is just that,writing on a wall.

Technically, graffiti is vandalism, hence a crime in its own right. But that wasn't my point, which is why I put the word in quotation marks.

[Elamarna]

Maybe it's the background that some posters have that leads to a particular type of thinking.
It seems as if former police officers have a very different take on sources to most other posters, and a very different appreciation of what is evidence.

A good example is the two ex police from the USA who published that Tuthankamun was murdered, and even named the murder based on very slim evidence which as since be shown to be completely without foundation (the supposed damage to the skull, which is not actually there.)

This is no attack on any poster, just an observation that some have a completely different perspective on things.

One question for Harry, you said that you were not aware the entry in the A-Z was based on the newspaper reports, given it was not stated as such in the book. Can I ask what you assumed it was based ?

Steve

[etenguy]

Harry,
I did not say you believed that PC Long wrote the message, I said that you postulated the possibility that he had, and this is you doing it: "Long unquestionably, by his (Long) own testimony does place himself inside. So if the Ripper, as some suggest, could have written the message, then so could Long." (Post 2303)

I was pointing out, however, that this isn't an alternative scenario. It's nothing more than a "what if". We sometimes should postulate "what ifs", and test them to see if the evidence of the sources support them. But without supporting evidence, a "what if" has no value. It's the starting point of fiction.

And I do not wish to be rude, but I think it rather naive to think that Trevor's ideas receive a torrent of dispproval because people either resent his alternative scenarios or simply because they dislike him.

I think we have narrowed down the writer of the graffiti to anyone who was in Goulston Street, and was able to speak or copy English, during the few days before it was discovered. Progress

Given we have not seen the writing, nor do we have samples of writing of everyone who could have written it, we are left with the message itself and the policemen's notes of that message.

Is it likely that PC Long wrote the message? Not in my view. Why? Because he originally took down the message with the correct spelling of 'Jews'.

Did the murderer write the message? I'd like to think so, it would at least give us some clue, but we cannot know, the only links being the apron and PC Halse stating he thought the message was freshly written.

Did John Doe write the message - again we don't know, but given the circumstances it is a real possibility.

The most interesting thing about the message is the misspelling of Jew, perhaps if we knew precisely what Juwes meant (assuming it is not simply an error), we may get a step closer.

[Wickerman]

The most interesting thing about the message is the misspelling of Jew, perhaps if we knew precisely what Juwes meant (assuming it is not simply an error), we may get a step closer.

As you might imagine, this has been debated for years. Way back around 2000/2001 or thereabouts, I decided to look over a Jewish website, purely on a hunch.
I found a post from a Jewish girl who spelled the Jews as "Juwes" in her post. It struck me that if actual Jewish people can and apparently do, use that spelling, then we are wasting our time looking for a meaning.

I have always thought the GSG was written by some 'John Doe', and is nothing of consequence. There was a Jewish school just around the corner from where this graffiti was found.

[Wickerman]

Off-Topic

A good example is the two ex police from the USA who published that Tuthankamun was murdered, and even named the murder based on very slim evidence which as since be shown to be completely without foundation (the supposed damage to the skull, which is not actually there.)

You raise a very significant point Steve.

I have found that in many cases scholars, or professionals in their chosen field, can have a very narrow comfort window. Excavators are very knowledgeable in their field of archaeological excavations, but their abilities to interpret their finds in the broader historical sense is limited.

As opposed to lets say 'specialists' of style, form and provenance in pottery who have an encyclopedic knowledge of various wares, but have no appreciable experience of an archaeological site.

In some cases these experts have a different approach to logic, and how to process evidence.

I have learned over the years it is just as important to ask the "why", as well as the "what", of anyone who is a professional in their field.
Not only should we enquire the "what" of the subject, ie; "what do you think happened, etc.", but "why do you think that way?".
It is just as important to ask 'what is the reasoning behind your opinion' - sometime you will find the Achilles-heel of their theory.

Take for instance the famous excavator Claude Schaeffer, who excavated Ugarit. for the longest time he accepted that the Sea Peoples destroyed Ugarit. Then he came across an archived clay tablet from Ugarit. From the text he deduced that Ugarit was an enemy of Egypt.
Although his expertise was excavation, he decided that if Ugarit was an enemy of Egypt, then the Sea Peoples, who were also an enemy to Egypt, are not likely to destroy Ugarit. Perhaps he held to the idea that "an enemy of mine enemy, is my friend".
So, he published and promoted his belief that Ugarit was destroyed by an earthquake.

Thankfully, this interpretation has been overturned, but it held sway for many decades and historians across the globe were influenced by Schaffer's conclusions.
It was all wrong, he stepped out of his comfort zone and speculated on something he had no expertise in. His logic was compromised because he ignored what the archaeology was telling him.

Some people are very observant in recognising evidence, but they are limited when faced with interpreting that evidence. Others are better at interpretation, than recognition.
It is rare that an expert has the abilities to both recognise & interpret.