The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

But isn't this largely incidental? Surely if they'd noticed the graffiti they would have mentioned it, irrespective of whether they understood its meaning.

If you see Hebrew writing on a wall, do you report it?
Why would you, if you can't read Hebrew, what is there to report?

[pinkmoon]

I believed this message true for a very long time I now have changed my mind.....why didn't he mention something about the two women he had just killed.

[Wickerman]

For those who still 'believe' in the graffiti it will always say something it doesn't.

[Batman]

If you see Hebrew writing on a wall, do you report it?
Why would you, if you can't read Hebrew, what is there to report?

Basically what this boils down too is if the investigators where intelligent enough to ask all the questions we ask here. If you read Swanson's report it comes across like they did.

All they had to ask was did anyone see writing exactly there... Not could they comprehend/interpret it.

[Wickerman]

The thing is, at the time of the discovery the police did not want anyone else knowing what was written.
We know the police went door-to-door in the tenement making enquiries, but the police cannot ask about the graffiti without letting them know it was there.

Constable: Did you see any graffiti in the entryway?
Tenant: Which graffiti, what did it say?
Constable: I can't tell you.
Tenant: Why?
Constable: We don't want anyone to know what it said.
Tenant: Well, show me where it is
Constable: Can't do that either.
Tenant: Why?
Constable: We washed it off.

Does anyone see a Monty Python sketch in the making?

One predominant criticism has been made, that once the wording was made public the tenants would have come forward to say if they had seen it there previously.
The reality is, literacy was not widespread, even if the local Jews had seen some scribble they may not have known what it said. Speaking English is one thing, but reading English is another matter entirely.

[Dane_F]

I believed this message true for a very long time I now have changed my mind.....why didn't he mention something about the two women he had just killed.

The common assumption from those who believe the GSG is that the piece of bloody apron was thought to be enough to "sign" it.

Personally I think it is real, or at the least that he agreed with that message, for one simple reason. . .Why would he carry the bloody apron one second further than he needed to if not to mark the message? After cleaning his hands he could have easily discarded it in any dark doorway before that one. Yet it was held until that doorway and then tossed at its foot.

[Rosella]

I believed this message true for a very long time I now have changed my mind.....why didn't he mention something about the two women he had just killed.

Perhaps it was enough for him that it cast aspersions at the Jewish community. I believe Jack was an anti-Semite.

[John G]

If you see Hebrew writing on a wall, do you report it?
Why would you, if you can't read Hebrew, what is there to report?

Hi Jon,

Perhaps I've misunderstood. However, the point that I was making is that, when the police were making their enquiries, if a local were asked if they'd seen the graffiti before even if they couldn't read English they would surely answer along the lines of: "Yes, there has been chalk writing on the wall for some time. However, as I don't read English I couldn't say what it actually said."

But as far as I'm aware no one actually answered in such a way.

[pinkmoon]

Perhaps it was enough for him that it cast aspersions at the Jewish community. I believe Jack was an anti-Semite.

Wouldn't the message have a lot more impact if there was no doubt it was from the killer also by writing that message our killer increases his chances of been caught.

[Dane_F]

Wouldn't the message have a lot more impact if there was no doubt it was from the killer also by writing that message our killer increases his chances of been caught.

I would assume ripping women in the open streets, spending time mutilating some, carrying away organs, and taking a bloody apron would all increase his chances of being caught too. For some reason I don't think he would have felt some graffiti too big a risk.

[Abby Normal]

The common assumption from those who believe the GSG is that the piece of bloody apron was thought to be enough to "sign" it.

Personally I think it is real, or at the least that he agreed with that message, for one simple reason. . .Why would he carry the bloody apron one second further than he needed to if not to mark the message? After cleaning his hands he could have easily discarded it in any dark doorway before that one. Yet it was held until that doorway and then tossed at its foot.

Exactly Dane.

If all he wanted to do was wipe his hands of blood he could have done it on her clothes at the scene. Or, like you said, if he did cut it off to wipe his hands, surely he would have done it, and gotten rid of it much sooner than Goulston st.

The only reason why I can see why he would take it away (other than the reason of "signing" the message he wrote) and carry it that far was that perhaps he cut himself and wanted to use it as a bandage.

However, all things considered, it seems to me he was rather pissed at all the jews that were getting in his way that night so he took the apron and wrote the GSG, at a location he probably knew had a lot of jews living there, as a way of getting back and delecting suspicion.

[Abby Normal]

Wouldn't the message have a lot more impact if there was no doubt it was from the killer also by writing that message our killer increases his chances of been caught.

Hi pink
it does not matter one bit what we or anyone else thinks he "should" have written. It was perfectly clear in his own mind what and why he did.

[Abby Normal]

I would assume ripping women in the open streets, spending time mutilating some, carrying away organs, and taking a bloody apron would all increase his chances of being caught too. For some reason I don't think he would have felt some graffiti too big a risk.

Bingo, again Dane.

compared to what he was used to doing, it was peanuts.

[Batman]

One predominant criticism has been made, that once the wording was made public the tenants would have come forward to say if they had seen it there previously.
The reality is, literacy was not widespread, even if the local Jews had seen some scribble they may not have known what it said. Speaking English is one thing, but reading English is another matter entirely.

Do we have to second-guess the investigators though? It seems to me on this front that between Long and others, as reported by Swanson, they questioned people living there enough to draw the conclusion that it was likely connected to the murders and needed to be removed before starting yet another anti-Semitic riot. So they seem to have been asking the questions that they should have asked.

For example, if we say - oh how many people could read English there? Isn't the answer - well, the investigators would have reasoned this at the time during their questioning of people living there. Otherwise our second-guessing them is also saying that they where incompetent.

So if someone raises a question about evidence surrounding the graffiti, isn't the answer - well the investigators did their job and drew the conclusion of a connection. Why should it be – no they didn't ask the question I am about to ask now so they drew the wrong conclusion. If we can say that here, then we can say that anywhere and everywhere else giving zero confidence to anything we read coming from investigators.

[The Cenci]

This is what I meant by adding to the exhilaration. Two murders, organ in bag, a clean knife and now to stick two fingers up to the locals and the police.