The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Tom_Wescott]

Now, name me something in the writing that supports the idea its writer comitted any crime, let alone murdered Eddowes....or was Jack the Ripper.

Granted, the evidence is circumstantial, but compelling. You have a piece of graffiti that would be completely abmiguous and senseless if it came from anyone other than the Whitechapel murderer, and beneath this you find the torn apron piece from one of his victims.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DYLAN]

Granted, the evidence is circumstantial, but compelling. You have a piece of graffiti that would be completely abmiguous and senseless if it came from anyone other than the Whitechapel murderer, and beneath this you find the torn apron piece from one of his victims.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

A solid statement Tom, and in my opinion, a very accurate one.

DYLAN

[Monty]

Granted, the evidence is circumstantial, but compelling. You have a piece of graffiti that would be completely abmiguous and senseless if it came from anyone other than the Whitechapel murderer, and beneath this you find the torn apron piece from one of his victims.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Entirely my point Tom. The writing requires the apron and the writer needs the apron to remain in situ for a connection.

Therefore if it was removed the words have been lost. However if he was to place a reference in the writing then there would have been no doubt.

On its own it doesnt stand. Never has done.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

The writing requires the apron and the writer needs the apron to remain in situ for a connection.

If the killer wrote the graffiti, he clearly knew it would require the apron, which is why he left it there. It seems we're saying the same thing here, but not seeing it the same way.

Dylan,

Thanks for the kind words!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ianincleveland]

No i dont think he wrote it on the night of the double event,though i suppose its possible he wrote it a few days before,maybe a Jew interupted one of his killings as im sure JTR went out many times looking in vain for a victim.

Overall though i dont think he wrote the grafitti

[Septic Blue]

'Jack the Ripper' may have been many things; but ambiguous in his written communications, he most certainly was not! Right, Neil?

Isn't it nice to know that? Isn't it nice to know that while any number of other persons might have been capable of chalking an ambiguous message in Goulston Street; 'Jack the Ripper' most certainly was not!

Good ol' 'Crystal-Clear Jack'! He could always be relied upon to let people know exactly where he stood!

… thanks for the sarcasm, appreciated. It strengthens your arguement no end.

I agree!

Of course, clarity in the writing would have dismissed doubt. However clarity is missing, so the doubt remains. Damn

You, quite clearly, have no doubt whatsoever that someone other than Eddowes's murderer chalked the graffito!

---------

Only by the way of the apron. Take that away and what you get?

Huh ??? "Only by the way of the apron. Take that away and what you get?" ?????

What on earth is that supposed to mean? Why would you write something that is so ambiguous?

Oh, I see what happened! I accidentally took away the 'quote box' that was intended to be part of your communication:

And by way of the apron; the GSG can most certainly be interpreted as having made reference to the murder of Catherine Eddowes.

Only by the way of the apron. Take that away and what you get?

That's better! Now I understand the point that you were trying to convey.

You really should have fully expressed that communication yourself, Neil; rather than having relied on the 'symbolism' of a 'quote box' to complete your message. After all; you never know when someone's going to take away that 'quote box', and cast a shadow of doubt over the meaning and/or authorship of the statement you have made.

[Monty]

Colin,

Thank you for proving my point.

I should have been clearer, just like Jack.


Monty

[Monty]

If the killer wrote the graffiti, he clearly knew it would require the apron, which is why he left it there. It seems we're saying the same thing here, but not seeing it the same way.

If he wrote the writing yes but why rely on that? Why take the risk? and why doesnt he mention anything about the crimes?

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't see much risk here. The risk was in the murders, which he was clearly willing to take.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom,

Dont you start as well..

By risk I mean the removal of the apron from where he left it.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I can't imagine him stressing out over the bloody apron being found and not turned in. That's such a minor point. The odds would clearly be in his favor of the apron being found where he left it and recognized for what it was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Thats a fair point Tom but the whole element of risk could have been erased with one or two extra words.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

I suppose you're right, if we weren't talking about an irrational, self-obsessed maniac who had just butchered a woman and was trying to evade the authorities.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Maniac?


Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Let's not get into a war of semantics. You'd probably win. You can substitute 'maniac' with 'shitbag' if you'd like.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott