The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Jon Guy]

And would a jewish immigrant write in cockney double-negative?

Why have you added immigrant But, yes, an immigrant who learnt English in London. But there were many British Jews living in the area.

[Jon Guy]

You'll have to take that up with messieurs Begg & Skinner:

Thank you. I`ll have to dig deeper myself to see the source for this entry.

[Jon Guy]

Nowhere is it said that the apron piece was "directly" below the graffito. Indeed, Long only discovered the writing as he searched the passage for signs of blood after finding the apron, which suggests that the two items weren't in the same field of view.

Long saw the apron, then the GSG, AND THEN he searched the passage.
1. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house.
2. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
3. I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else.

[FISHY1118]

The results of police report enquiries follows 2.30am 31st Aug 88 Mrs Nichols was last seen alive at 2.30am Aug 88 in state of drunkenness at the corner of osborn street and whitechapel rd by Ellen Holland. she was then alone and going in the direction of bucks row by whitechapel rd. an hour and a quarter afterwards the body was found at bucks row.

Enquiry was then made at common lodgings houses and statements of persons taken but no person was able to say that they had seen her alive more recently than Ellen Holland. the police were unable to learn from any source that any person was seen with her or with a person, or with a person supposed to be with her after that hour. coffee stall keepers, prostitutes, and night watchman in winthrope st a street parallel to bucks row were questioned but the were unable to help the police in the slightest degree.

They not seen the women nor had they heard any screams or noise.

IM SURE THE POLICE WOULD IN NO WAY DO THE SAME FOR CHAPMAN . ....YER RIGHT .

[Sam Flynn]

Long saw the apron, then the GSG, AND THEN he searched the passage.
1. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house.
2. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
3. I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else.

Re point 3, Long's referring to searching the staircase, as opposed to the doorway/passage. Furthermore: "He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood. His light was on at the time. His attention was attracted to the writing on the wall while he was searching" - The Times, 12 Oct 1888. Likewise the Telegraph of the same date: "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."

So he didn't clock the writing straight away, which he surely would have done if it was directly in line with the apron.

[Jon Guy]

So he didn't clock the writing straight away, which he surely would have done if it was directly in line with the apron.

Not at all.
It was very dark and he naturally first looked around the floor, as he was looking for blood. But the impression he gives is that he shone his torch around the floor and then raised it to discover the writing.
And, with stating above it must have been in very close proximity to the GSG (above it), because he would have stated if it was nowhere near the rag.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The results of police report enquiries follows 2.30am 31st Aug 88 Mrs Nichols was last seen alive at 2.30am Aug 88 in state of drunkenness at the corner of osborn street and whitechapel rd by Ellen Holland. she was then alone and going in the direction of bucks row by whitechapel rd. an hour and a quarter afterwards the body was found at bucks row.

Enquiry was then made at common lodgings houses and statements of persons taken but no person was able to say that they had seen her alive more recently than Ellen Holland. the police were unable to learn from any source that any person was seen with her or with a person, or with a person supposed to be with her after that hour. coffee stall keepers, prostitutes, and night watchman in winthrope st a street parallel to bucks row were questioned but the were unable to help the police in the slightest degree.

They not seen the women nor had they heard any screams or noise.

IM SURE THE POLICE WOULD IN NO WAY DO THE SAME FOR CHAPMAN . ....YER RIGHT .

You are seeing mystery where none exists purely to try and shoehorn a conspiracy into place. The police found no one that saw Nichols after 2.30. No one saw Chapman between the last sighting of her and the time that she was killed. How is this important? If the police had interviewed every single person in Whitechapel but still drawn a blank then that would have been strange. But as they couldn’t possibly have done that the fact that no one saw her isn’t even interesting. Many people would have seen her but wouldn’t have known that she was the same woman found in the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street so they would have had no reason to come forward. So unless she’d walked around in orange robes singing Jerusalem and carrying a sign saying - my name is Annie Chapmen - then she wouldn’t have drawn any attention.

Take the conspiracy goggles off Fishy.

No meaningful answer to the Gull stroke.

No response to my point about your intentional misinterpreting of Halse’s words.

And, despite asking you to post your non-existent evidence which supposedly disproves Simon’s rebuttal of the Knight fantasy, you have posted nothing. Unsurprisingly. Because you know as well as we all do that your evidence doesn’t not exist.

[Harry D]

Why have you added immigrant But, yes, an immigrant who learnt English in London. But there were many British Jews living in the area.

Because there were a lot of Jewish immigrants in the neighbourhood. How many of them were literate, had "round schoolboy" handwriting and wrote in cockney double-negatives?

I think we have three options:
1. The author was a goy writing an antisemitic message
2. The author was a goy writing a pro-semitic message to implicate the jews
3. The author was a jew writing a pro-semitic message

#3 seems highly unlikely in this circumstance.

[Sam Flynn]

But the impression he gives is that he shone his torch around the floor and then raised it to discover the writing.

I don't see that this impression is given at all.

And, with stating above it must have been in very close proximity to the GSG (above it)

"On the wall above it", in other accounts. Which could easily have meant "on the same side", as opposed to the opposite wall.

because he would have stated if it was nowhere near the rag.

I'm not suggesting that it was nowhere near, I'm just pointing out that the words "directly/immediately above" are not used, although they do creep into later narratives as if they were.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Because there were a lot of Jewish immigrants in the neighbourhood. How many of them were literate, had "round schoolboy" handwriting and wrote in cockney double-negatives?

I think we have three options:
1. The author was a goy writing an antisemitic message
2. The author was a goy writing a pro-semitic message to implicate the jews
3. The author was a jew writing a pro-semitic message

#3 seems highly unlikely in this circumstance.

I’d add one Harry but I’ll understand if people say - Herlock’s trying to shoehorn Druitt into the picture. I’m honestly not, it’s something that I’ve thought for years. Someone mentioned it years ago but I can’t recall who.

I think that the graffito might have been written by a well educated man trying to give the impression of being poorly educated.

We have the round schoolboy hand - taking into consideration that it’s perhaps difficult to write neatly on certain surfaces, this appears to show that the writer had some schooling in penmanship.

We have two words which I think we would have to say would have been difficult to someone of a poor educational level - blamed and nothing.

then we have....

A very obvious double negative

And a relatively easy (especially in that area) word spelled incorrectly - Jews as Juwes.

No certainties here of course Harry but I think it’s another option.

Just to add (and now I will get accused of Druittism) why then would anyone, in a graffiti, seek to disguise his level of education unless his level of education put him well above the level of your average local?

And, could this possibly point to some better off but unbalanced mind entering Whitechapel, part of the capital of the British Empire, and seeing the degradation which in his mind had been caused by immorality (prostitutes) and immigrants (Jews?)

[Trevor Marriott]

Because there were a lot of Jewish immigrants in the neighbourhood. How many of them were literate, had "round schoolboy" handwriting and wrote in cockney double-negatives?

I think we have three options:
1. The author was a goy writing an antisemitic message
2. The author was a goy writing a pro-semitic message to implicate the jews
3. The author was a jew writing a pro-semitic message

#3 seems highly unlikely in this circumstance.

The person who wrote the graffiti was not able to spell one of the words but wrote that word as it sounded. The word he got wrong was Juwes, he intended to write the word "jurors"

If you roll around on your tongue the words juwes it sounds the same as jurors.

The significance of that word, and its relevance to the writing is that in 1888 in all jury trials, the juries were all made up of men

"The Jurors are the men that will be blamed for nothing!"

Not connected to the murders

Another part of the ripper mystery now solved

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Because there were a lot of Jewish immigrants in the neighbourhood.

Yes, Supt Arnold tells us in his report that there many of the Jewish Sect living in the area.

How many of them were literate, had "round schoolboy" handwriting and wrote in cockney double-negatives?

The one`s who were schooled and learnt English in London.
Do you honestly think the author didn`t just use the double negative because that`s the way he spoke.
It`s a bit like The Beatles using aeolin cadence`s in their songs, and when asked about it, they laughed and said they thought aeolin cadences were some sort of bird of paradise.

I think we have three options:
1. The author was a goy writing an antisemitic message
2. The author was a goy writing a pro-semitic message to implicate the jews
3. The author was a jew writing a pro-semitic message

#3 seems highly unlikely in this circumstance.

I don`t know. #3 could very well be a gloating Jew. In fact, the more I think about it. No 3 is the strongest possibility.

Which do you think is the most likely?

[Jon Guy]

I'm just pointing out that the words "directly/immediately above" are not used, although they do creep into later narratives as if they were.

Later narratives by whom ?
Us or the police ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The person who wrote the graffiti was not able to spell one of the words but wrote that word as it sounded. The word he got wrong was Juwes, he intended to write the word "jurors"

If you roll around on your tongue the words juwes it sounds the same as jurors.

The significance of that word, and its relevance to the writing is that in 1888 in all jury trials, the juries were all made up of men

"The Jurors are the men that will be blamed for nothing!"

Not connected to the murders

Another part of the ripper mystery now solved

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

1. How can you possibly know that for certain?

2. Why would a person write graffito about jurors?

3. Juwes would be pronounced the same as Jews and absolutely nothing like jurors!

[Trevor Marriott]

1. How can you possibly know that for certain?

2. Why would a person write graffito about jurors?

3. Juwes would be pronounced the same as Jews and absolutely nothing like jurors!

I dont know that for certain I am putting forward a more plausible explanation for the graffiti other than the misguided belief that it was written by the killer.

If the writer of the graffiti had sat on a jury and had been responsible for finding someone guilty, and other persons connected to that person had later confronted or assaulted him he might have felt obliged to write that on a wall.

I think you need to play around with the word Jurors and realize that ordinary working class people dont speak posh, and that the two words can easily be as one

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk