The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[etenguy]

Various American newspapers—

“The Pall Mall Gazette charges that the words ‘I have murdered four and will murder sixteen more before I surrender myself to the police,’ written by the supposed Whitechapel murderer upon a shutter of a house adjoining the one in the yard of which the body of one of his victims was found, were erased by order of Sir Charles Warren, chief of the London police force, before the authorities had the opportunity to photograph them.”

Regards,

Simon

Interesting that it is again Charles Warren who is charged with having the words erased before they could be photographed. And this before the GSG was discovered adding credence to the report. Fodder for conspiracy theories.

[FISHY1118]

Writing on the wall done the ripper , apron left on the ground next to writing on the wall also done by the ripper. . Eddows apron was proof if was written by the murderer, otherwise how else would people know if was from him ..... Thats is the end of that .

[Leanne]

Writing on the wall done the ripper , apron left on the ground next to writing on the wall also done by the ripper. . Eddows apron was proof if was written by the murderer, otherwise how else would people know if was from him ..... Thats is the end of that .

Eddowes apron was not proof he wrote it. Eddowes apron was proof he passed the spot. His crime was murder not graffiti writing. Why would he want to leave a clue?

[FISHY1118]

Eddows apron was dropped to draw attention to the writing which the killer wrote.

[Leanne]

Why the hell would he? He's murdered. He's out of there. He's headed for wherever. Why would he pull a piece of chalk out of his pocket and start writing cryptic crap? Jack was a busy boy. Goulston St wasn't Jack.

Why would he carry a piece of chalk in his tool kit?

[FISHY1118]

People carried all sorts of things in there pockets and on their person just because you ask... why, doesn't mean he didnt have the chalk on him . He wrote the message, the apron proves it

[etenguy]

People carried all sorts of things in there pockets and on their person just because you ask... why, doesn't mean he didnt have the chalk on him . He wrote the message, the apron proves it

The apron does not prove the ripper wrote the graffitti, it just brings it into view. I find Charles Warren's behaviour a more convincing reason to believe the writing was written by the murderer. A senior police officer could easily have kept the writing covered until there was a photographer on the scene. He didn't, he had it erased. A clue (the only one the police had). I wonder if the words did have meaning to Warren.

[Sam Flynn]

The idea that the words had some significance such that Warren wanted to erase them isn't congruent with the fact that the full text was freely published in the papers.

[Leanne]

people carried all sorts of things in there pockets and on their person just because you ask... Why, doesn't mean he didnt have the chalk on him . He wrote the message, the apron proves it

how does the apron prove it?????

[FISHY1118]

Ok seeings how you asked i will endeavor to explain it to you , now pay attention.

[FISHY1118]

Firstly ,only an idiot would murder Eddowes, cut a piece off her apron, carry it some 1500 feet and drop it inside the door way of Goulston st and carry on his merry way . and jack was no idiot. so in this scenario lets say there no writing on the wall . whats he achieved? his simply led the whole of the London and metro police to his front door, or the area which he was last at . very very unlikely. now second scenario , jack leaves the apron inside the doorway of Goulston st and writes the message above it on the wall , then leaves. but the writing could have been written by anyone or could have been there for a day or even a week before that night i hear you ask .well lets take this into account

There has never been any doubt that the portion of apron came from Catherine Eddowes. Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City Police Surgeon stated on the first day of the Inquest, held on Thursday October 4th, that "......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"....just so were in agreement the apron was eddowes



We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:

'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.' ok thats pretty straight forward.

P.C. Long reported ' ....about 2.55am I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk - the jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...'getting warm now.Notice how he says above the wall.



Now we have a better idea of why P.C. Long stated quite firmly at the inquest '...I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2.20am the apron was not there when I passed then'

Also Detective Halse said at the inquest '...about 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything' 'notice how he says ''i did not notice anything '' that means the writing wasnt there at 2.20 .

At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said '...the writing had the appearance of being recently written...', then in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, in response to a question of "why did you say it seemed to have been recently written?" Halse responded, "it looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing...


What is unsettling to me is this.....in these low income neighborhoods, where people never roam more than a street or two, they know everything about their immediate surroundings, all the neighbors, all the gossip and because they pass in and out of this doorway several times a day, they will be intimate with the graffiti.

Det. Halse: '....when Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of anyone who was likely to have been the murderer...'

And City Solicitor, Mr Crawford: '...as to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make a diligent search in every part of the tenements, the moment the matter came to their knowledge....'

This aside from the Met. police search and the obvious newspaper hounds interviewing and chasing the public for any leads,.....why didn't any one of those locals, or anyone living in the building tell the police or the press that the graffiti was there yesterday, or it had been there a couple of days, or it was there last week?

Not one comment to the police or press from anyone......we might ask ourselves, why?
so there we have it, all the searching and questioning about the apron and graffiti to the police and press and no one said a thing . all this put together proves.....and a school boy could work out, that the writing was from the ripper no doubt about that and the apron was certainly left there to bring attention to it . now the motive behind the writing .. well thats another topic but im happy to enlighten you on that if your stuck. footnote... not one person came forward at the official inquest to mention the writing was there before that night . like i said a schoolboy could work this out . but hey people will still believe it had nothing to do with the murder, thats cool . but there the ones still searching for jack .

[etenguy]

The idea that the words had some significance such that Warren wanted to erase them isn't congruent with the fact that the full text was freely published in the papers.

This is true if Warren had control of what was published - but point taken. Too many people knew for it not to be mentioned at the hearing, but there was some confusion about the words and spelling, such that we are still not sure what the message stated with certainty. Poor writing that could be misinterpreted or poor observation by the police or deliberate obfuscation?

[Leanne]

ONLY AN IDIOT WOULD CARRY A PIECE OF CHALK IN HIS "MURDER KIT".
He cut off the piece of apron to carry away her kidney.
The writing could have been put there just before the Ripper threw the apron down, by someone else. Why would the murderer stop, remember the piece of chalk he had in his murder kit, search his pockets, and stop to write it???? Was he that desperate to give police a clue??????

[Leanne]

The real graffiti writer wouldn't have owned up to it fearing that would make him a suspect in the case.

[Sam Flynn]

This is true if Warren had control of what was published

He could have had a word with the coroner and/or his officers who gave evidence not to labour the "Juwes" spelling, if he believed that it had some masonic significance, as was (much) later alleged.