The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Batman]

At no time does any police official say the killer wrote it, but by the same token neither does anyone say the killer did not write it.
All your huffing and puffing will not change that.

So long as the provenance was never established, it was never described as connected with the murder. It was just 'there'.

All I care about is what the people who where there thought.

They thought they had evidence. They where extremely worried about destroying this evidence. Warren wrote an apology over it. They had to give reasons for wiping out evidence.

Modern views about it not being evidence or related have this to contend with.

There are no coequal interpretations between it being evidence or not in the contemporary.

That's a modern view that is a response to forwarding a Jew as a suspect. Just like dropping Stride.

How could it be considered evidence and not connected?

Is Warren apologizing for nothing?

Sorry that I rubber out something that wasn't evidence?

Anything else about it not being evidence in their eyes is just new age religion, IMO.

[Monty]

Warren wrote no apology, he wrote an explanation of his reasons.

The writing was a potential line of enquiry at best, and that was limited. I cannot see how it could be used in a conviction either, due to the fact the time of its appearance could not be ascertained.

Monty

[Wickerman]

The reason Warren gave for erasing the graffiti is applicable regardless who put it there, or how long it had been there. The problem was, this message was too close to where the apron was found and as such it would attract undue attention.

Nowhere in the explanation to the Home Office does Warren describe the writing as 'evidence', nor does he apologize for erasing 'evidence'.

Viewing the graffiti as critical evidence in the murder is your take, not Warren's, nor the belief of the police apparently.

[Sorry Neil, I didn't see your reply.]

[Batman]

By omitting this as evidence you open the door to the Jew butcher whatever Jewish, hypothesis. So let's not play it like its inconsequential.

Accepting it as evidence directly contradicts the Jewish hypothesis. It eliminates every single poor Jew who was ever tied to these murders.

It's in cockney. JtR was likely an Englishman or close. Not an import or if one, fluent enough to write cockney.

Anyhow I don't see how anyone can dismiss this as evidence given the overwhelming weight of their feelings on destroying said evidence. If it was nothing, they would have made nothing of it anymore than the sweetie wrapper on the ground or the so called similar graffiti around. The investigators regarded it as evidence and NEVER once downgraded its relevance as evidence.

Show me where they changed its status as evidence. References please.

[GUT]

By omitting this as evidence you open the door to the Jew butcher whatever Jewish, hypothesis. So let's not play it like its inconsequential.

Accepting it as evidence directly contradicts the Jewish hypothesis. It eliminates every single poor Jew who was ever tied to these murders.

It's in cockney. JtR was likely an Englishman or close. Not an import or if one, fluent enough to write cockney.

Anyhow I don't see how anyone can dismiss this as evidence given the overwhelming weight of their feelings on destroying said evidence. If it was nothing, they would have made nothing of it anymore than the sweetie wrapper on the ground or the so called similar graffiti around. The investigators regarded it as evidence and NEVER once downgraded its relevance as evidence.

Show me where they changed its status as evidence. References please.

How is it cockney??

[Wickerman]

By omitting this as evidence you open the door to the Jew butcher whatever Jewish, hypothesis. So let's not play it like its inconsequential.

It's inconsequential to me, I don't believe he was a Jewish butcher either.

Accepting it as evidence directly contradicts the Jewish hypothesis. It eliminates every single poor Jew who was ever tied to these murders.

Ok, then maybe this is your agenda?

It's in cockney. JtR was likely an Englishman or close. Not an import or if one, fluent enough to write cockney.

Sure, I'm good with that. I believe the killer was this already, without writing anything.

Anyhow I don't see how anyone can dismiss this as evidence given the overwhelming weight of their feelings on destroying said evidence. If it was nothing, they would have made nothing of it anymore than the sweetie wrapper on the ground or the so called similar graffiti around.

No-one is dismissing anything, the graffiti never had the chance to be investigated, it was removed before it could become "evidence".

The investigators regarded it as evidence and NEVER once downgraded its relevance as evidence.

Show me where they changed its status as evidence. References please.

Which investigators?
You have not established it was regarded as evidence, so no change has taken place. In fact it is you who are insisting on changing the status, without a shred of "evidence" that any investigator regarded the graffiti as "evidence" in the first place.

Why are we going round in circles?

[Batman]

You have not established it was regarded as evidence, so no change has taken place. In fact it is you who are insisting on changing the status, without a shred of "evidence" that any investigator regarded the graffiti as "evidence" in the first place.

Why are we going round in circles?

Smith, Ibid., pp. 153, 161–2; report of Inspector McWilliam, 27 October 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C/8b, ff. 3–4; Warren, 6 November 1888, to Under Secretary of State, HO 144/221/A49301C/8c.

What did McWilliam tell Warren? McWilliam thought that he had made a mistake and told him so.

A mistake over what? Something they didn't consider evidence?

Why is Warren about to take all the blame himself for what he was about to do?

Why did they all write down a version if they thought it not connected?

[Wickerman]

What I have been trying to get across to you is put into words by Smith himself:

"It is just possible the words, if photographed, might have afforded an important clue."

MIGHT!

The words themselves obviously did NOT afford a clue, they were recorded independently, the police HAD a copy, but nothing came of the police investigation.

So as the police did have a copy, and it lead them nowhere then what on earth is this "evidence" you keep going on about?

[Batman]

Warren considered it ‘desirable that I should decide this matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility whether any action was taken or not’

The writing on the wall may have been written - and, I think, probably was written - to throw the police off the scent, to divert suspicion from the Gentiles and throw it upon the Jews. It may have been written by the murderer, or it may not. To obliterate the words that might have given us a most valuable clue, more especially after I had sent a man to stand over them till they were photographed, was not only indiscreet, but unwarrantable. - Smith.

Even modern views can't dismiss it as a clue without denying Stride is a victim and denying JtR called anyone Lipski.

To believe they made all this fuss at Goulston Street while the apron since long removed and in the hands of the pathologist is folly. You have them standing around debating over nothing in which Warren calls it so great a responsibility.

Swanson clearly wrote the writing did not match the letters. That means the killer likely didn't write the letters then. So even Swanson is giving useful value to it already.

Its value is immense especially because its a spanner in the works of the mad Jew hypothesis. Smith believed it to divert suspicion from the Gentiles and throw it upon the Jews. Swanson says as much.

[Wickerman]

You're what is called, treading water. You are not getting anywhere. I'm glad you posted the above quote, though you appear to have missed thee most important observation:
"It may have been written by the murderer, or it may not."
That is the all important point, because unless & until that is established, one way or the other, this graffiti is not evidence in this murder.

Neither is it a clue, if you are desperate to give it a name, to quantify it in relation to the investigation then Monty has already handed it to you.
It is a "Line of inquiry", that is all, nothing more. And it can hardly be denied that the police would have pursued it, which is why they took a copy, but this line of inquiry led nowhere. So, it did not turn out to be a clue, and in consequence, it was not evidence of anything.

[Batman]

To say it had no use is false.

The investigation was critized for not comparing the handwriting to the letters. Swanson then reinterviewed those that where there and concluded they where dissimilar.

In addition to that we have Smith, Warren and Swanson saying this message had a purpose. To cast suspicion on Jews and away from Gentiles.

It wasn't the nothing you are making it out to be which just renders them incompetent to know the difference between trash and evidence.

[Wickerman]

How can anyone determine it was meant to cast suspicion on Jews, IF.....they cannot find out when it was written, or who wrote it?

[Batman]

How can anyone determine it was meant to cast suspicion on Jews, IF.....they cannot find out when it was written, or who wrote it?

Because they had already realized there was a Jewish connection being made since Chapman, with the Jewish club on Berner Street and the club on Mitre square (with synagogue). They didn't treat the graffitti as just a coincidence anymore than they treated the above as coincidence. They even had their views compounded with the Schwartz account of the Lipski insult later.

There are no coincidences in something this rare. None.

[Abby Normal]

You're what is called, treading water. You are not getting anywhere. I'm glad you posted the above quote, though you appear to have missed thee most important observation:
"It may have been written by the murderer, or it may not."
That is the all important point, because unless & until that is established, one way or the other, this graffiti is not evidence in this murder.

Neither is it a clue, if you are desperate to give it a name, to quantify it in relation to the investigation then Monty has already handed it to you.
It is a "Line of inquiry", that is all, nothing more. And it can hardly be denied that the police would have pursued it, which is why they took a copy, but this line of inquiry led nowhere. So, it did not turn out to be a clue, and in consequence, it was not evidence of anything.

So evidence and clues in a case are only considered evidence and clues if the killer is caught and it's determined that they actually were clues and evidence later? Really ?


Your error is your presupposing it was not written by the killer, because it never lead anywhere.

[Wickerman]

So evidence and clues in a case are only considered evidence and clues if the killer is caught and it's determined that they actually were clues and evidence later? Really ?

Nope.