The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[FISHY1118]

‘No CCTV I’m afraid. If you are trying to make a mystery out of somebody wandering around Whitechapel for 3.5 hours and having no one mention seeing her then you’re barking up the wrong tree. These people had more on their minds that a spot of idle people watching. It means zilch. Besides, did they question every single person around at the time? Nope. If they had done then someone would have seen her. You are simply trying to find something that fits your conspiracy theory.


just showing you how ridiculous your above post was . you just keep chasing that Gladstone bag man .

as is your post about the medical experts time of death . which is even more ludicrous

[Sam Flynn]

Later narratives by whom ?
Us or the police ?

Anyone really, Jon. Mainly us, though.

[Harry D]

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.

It's possible, Herlock. I know that similar theories have been mooted about some of the Ripper letters, notably that the author was affecting a certain accent. It could be that the killer was trying to throw off the police by writing in a chosen style.

But what is the GSG trying to say? What relevance does it hold to the murders? As far as we know, the killer never communicated before. The GSG was a one-off. It was the killer's chance to communicate to the world, and what does he have to say for himself? Some vague message about "the juwes". In a lot of serial killer communications the content will be about the murders, the victims, or the killer himself (see Son of Sam, Zodiac etc.) If the gsg author was the killer, he had no such inclination.

I guess it's possible he just had a beef with the Jews that night, after his encounters with Schwartz/Lawende, and wanted to get it out his system, but what's the point leaving the apron there? What does legitimising that particular message achieve?

[FISHY1118]

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.

seriously Trevor ? i think it was far from misguided as far as the police of the day were concerned . i think your way off the mark with this statement.

i think you should read his inquest testimony again.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby, stopping-by to see where the boards are at

I'm inclined towards the "too much coincidence" argument also. What's the lifespan of chalk graffito? I know that the board has discussed how the writing woulda-shoulda been erased by a resident Jew almost immediately. But, I'm also thinking that chalk is not spray paint; meaning, the natural elements of the weather and population are going to dissolve the chalk material away more instantaneous than the type of King Robbo or Banksy graffito that we are accustomed to in the 21st century. And yes, I am aware that there writing was written in a semi-exposed area, not fully given to the rain; still, the "newness" of chalk has a short lifespan. I think of children who make chalk drawings on the pavement and outside walls; and, how those scribbles and sketches appear faded the very next day even tho the only element that they were exposed to being the outside air.
What we have is a comprehensible sentence written in its' entirety. Although the verbiage is debated, there was no remark of a letter or word being "eroded" (to suggest that the grafitto had been long standing and had time to suffer some form of destruction). Whether it was ever explained or not, I get the impression that the grafitto was recent, something that had been written within hours (not days nor weeks) of finding the bloody piece of apron. So, for me, this raises the "coincidence" flag.

What makes it too much coincidence is the bloody apron being found directly below the grafitto. It could be easier to dismiss the coincidence IF it had been reported that the bloody piece had been found under an archway and the grafitto was written (further up the staircase OR on a wall opposite from where the piece was found OR just elsewhere in general). But, to find the apron directly under the writing just means that Jack the Ripper just happened to randomly discard a piece of evidence in such an incidental way so that it happened to perfectly and directly land under a grafitto which may be (mis)interpreted as anti-Semitic lingo within a neighborhood commonly known for its' Jewish markets...

I think I'll stick with "Jack the Ripper wrote it". Hope all's well, been a while since I've shared my two pence

Bingo devil
add to that that the building was relatively new and comprised of Jewish residents. If it had been there for some time surely one of the residents would have wiped it off.

that graffiti never saw the light of day and was undoubtedly written by the ripper.

[Abby Normal]

Hard to say, I don't know how prevalent this kind of graffiti was, Abby. The late Martin Fido hypothesised that the graffiti was left by an angry patron who felt he'd been swindled by a Jewish trader. The apron just happened to be found there.

If I was a killer who ducked into an alleyway, and my murder weapon was found under some graffiti, would that automatically mean they were connected?



Supt Arnold thought it was unconnected but still had it scrubbed as a precaution.

Well of course the idiots who wiped off a potential clue are going say it was useless as evidence!!!!

[Abby Normal]

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 author was a goy local Englishman ripper who after being disturbed by Jew/s that night, as exemplified by the angry shout of lipski , a Jewish slur at the time, decided on pay back and a little obsfucation.

[Abby Normal]

I don't see that this impression is given at all."On the wall above it", in other accounts. Which could easily have meant "on the same side", as opposed to the opposite wall. 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.

Yeah because “above” isn’t close enough for you minutia master? Lol

[Abby Normal]

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

I do believe you stole that from Pierre.

[Abby Normal]

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?)

But why would druitt try to make it look uneducated? Why disguise it all?

[Abby Normal]

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




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 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?

Hi jon
I read once where an expert on Victorian cockney said that the most likely interpretation is the Jews won’t accept blame (guilt) for anything.
And that the author because of the good schoolboy hand and cockney double negative, was more than likely a local Brit.

this is a general slur against Jews that’s been leveled against them for ages.

[Jon Guy]

The author was a goy local Englishman ripper who after being disturbed by Jew/s that night, as exemplified by the angry shout of lipski , a Jewish slur at the time, decided on pay back and a little obsfucation.

Last night whilst I was trying to find the source for Supt Arnold stating that the GSG and rag were unconnected (I couldn`t), I`m sure I read that the police thought the person calling out Lipski would also have been Jewish.

[Jon Guy]

Hi jon
I read once where an expert on Victorian cockney said that the most likely interpretation is the Jews won’t accept blame (guilt) for anything.
And that the author because of the good schoolboy hand and cockney double negative, was more than likely a local Brit.

this is a general slur against Jews that’s been leveled against them for ages.

Hi Abby, but even a local Brit could be Jewish.
I think the GSG is saying the Jews are the men that the men that will not be blamed for nothing ;-)
It`s a gloating Jew in response to the goy mobs of Sept 8th, and possibly hoping to start another, bigger riot (as Supt Arnold suspected)

[Sam Flynn]

Yeah because “above” isn’t close enough for you minutia master? Lol

Ah, but "above" isn't enough to give us licence to add the words "directly" or "immediately" into the narrative as if it were certain. Unfortunately, it isn't.

Referring to the question asked of PC Long "How came you to observe the writing on the wall?", I'd suggest that, if the graffito had been directly above the apron, it would have been more natural for Long to respond along the lines of: "As I examined the apron, I lifted my eyes and saw the writing there", or "It caught my eye as I bent to inspect the apron". Instead, he makes the more general statement that he "saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about" which, to me, suggests that the two items weren't directly juxtaposed.

[Harry D]

This post by Alan Sharp from the CB archives summarizes my thoughts:

The point is that the apron was found, and as such it had to be found somewhere. And wherever that somewhere was, people would read some significance into it, regardless of how the apron got there.

The message on the wall was not unique. There were many messages on many walls. There is nothing in the message which specifically relates to the Ripper murders. Therefore the only connection between the message and the apron is their proximity. If the apron had been in the proximity of something else, anything else, people would try to read meaning into whatever that something was.

That isn't to say that the Ripper did not write the message. Just that you cannot conclude that he did solely from the fact that the two items were close together. You have to come up with something which links the two together.

David Radka for instance states that the message is the key to the whole thing. Although he doesn't give away his thought processes, that plainly means that he has seen a specific meaning in the message, and that specific meaning is his corroborating evidence which links the message to the crimes.

If you can find similar corroborating evidence, then you can argue for linking the two things. If not, then you have to accept that it is more than just a 1% possibility (in fact by the law of averages it would be a 50-50 possibility) that the two things just happened to be near each other.