The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Abby Normal]

That's the way to play the game, "This is mt suspect so how can I twist the evidence around to fit him".

Well it's the most common method.

uh oh-no no no. I put an "if" in that statement.

[Batman]

From the moment the graffiti was found to the scenes playing out surrounding it to the reports and writings after it, was there any change of position over what they thought the purpose of it was? Given the details of how fresh they noted it was and how one of the most important business districts for Jews would go in flames because of it - how can this be reconciled with just any old graffiti in area that happened to just be near some murder evidence?

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.

Hi Cenci
Re Millers court: If you believe like I do and many others that George Hutchinson may have been the ripper then he did speak his mind-by directly implicating a jew in his description of his suspect Aman.

But if that Jew was identified, and cleared, what does that do for the idea of a Jew as a scapegoat, and also what does it do for a Hutch-the-Ripper theory?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.


But if that Jew was identified, and cleared, what does that do for the idea of a Jew as a scapegoat, and also what does it do for a Hutch-the-Ripper theory?

Honestly-It would undermine both ideas.

But even if Aman was real, which I seriously doubt, I don't see any way he could be cleared.

By hutches own admission, the man was alone with Mary for at least 45 minutes, probably more, no one saw him leave. Apparently the police was still looking for Aman several days later so it's not like they found him immediately and can check him for blood, weapon etc.

How could they have possibly cleared him, even if he was real?

[RockySullivan]

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.

If the interpretation of the graffiti as blaming the Jews is accurate wouldn't that make it more logical for the writer to be a gentile? Therefore the graffiti is supposed to be a gentile blaming Jews and if the writer was attempting to cast suspicion on a gentile it would be logically a Jewish author diverting suspicion. So if the writer is attempting to make an obvious illusion to a gentile blaming jews throwing the police off the fact that the writer was actually Jewish...it's more likely the writer was a gentile pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a gentile pretending to be a Jew. Or was the writer jewish pretending to be a gentile pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a gentile?

[Batman]

He thought he would be caught soon

If the interpretation of the graffiti as blaming the Jews is accurate wouldn't that make it more logical for the writer to be a gentile....Or was the writer jewish pretending to be a gentile pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a gentile?

What you have is a note beside murder evidence saying the Jews did it, to cast suspicion on the Jews to incite the antisemitic people in the Whitechapel public to take action. It is obvious to the investigators that the writer was trying to stir the pot which could have resulted in the burning down of an important Jewish business district. It appears the author was not satisfied with just throwing the apron there but had to emphasize its meaning in relation to Jews. So why reveal himself to be a gentile?

The answer seems to be that he thought himself already outted as a gentile. Why? Because that evening a Jew saw him in Berner St., where he threw an antisemitic curse word at him and three more Jews saw him in Mitre square in his sailor looking garb. He probably thought he was on his last legs before being identified and the noose awaiting, so went all out in trying to bring Whitechapel to its knees with riots.

[lynn cates]

pretense

Hello Rocky.

"If the interpretation of the graffiti as blaming the Jews is accurate wouldn't that make it more logical for the writer to be a gentile? Therefore the graffiti is supposed to be a gentile blaming Jews and if the writer was attempting to cast suspicion on a gentile it would be logically a Jewish author diverting suspicion. So if the writer is attempting to make an obvious illusion to a gentile blaming Jews throwing the police off the fact that the writer was actually Jewish...it's more likely the writer was a gentile pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a gentile pretending to be a Jew. Or was the writer Jewish pretending to be a gentile pretending to be a Jew pretending to be a gentile?"

I don't pretend to know. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

"The graffiti was a slant against Jews regardless who wrote it, or when, or what the true meaning was."

Apologies for disagreeing, but that's not entirely the case.

Monty

And best wishes to you today.

[Wickerman]

Honestly-It would undermine both ideas.

But even if Aman was real, which I seriously doubt, I don't see any way he could be cleared.

By hutches own admission, the man was alone with Mary for at least 45 minutes, probably more, no one saw him leave. Apparently the police was still looking for Aman several days later so it's not like they found him immediately and can check him for blood, weapon etc.

How could they have possibly cleared him, even if he was real?

Well, Ben claimed it was impossible for him to be cleared, but in reality it was not impossible.
Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan, which is why he conducted very searching enquiries about his movements on the night of Nov 8th.

If Abberline's belief was correct, the only person I can think of who could give Astrachan the all important alibi would be his landlady.

Certainly Astrachan had been with Kelly for about 45 minutes, but as Hutchinson left about 3 o'clock, Astrachan could have left minutes later and still arrived back in Paternoster Row a minute or after that. He could have been home by 3:10 am, possibly confirmed by Mrs Cusins.

If the police were guided by the times given of the cry of 'murder', roughly between 3:30 - 4:00 am, then Astrachan/Isaacs was back home at that time.

Abberline has nothing to connect Astrachan to the murder.
If Mrs Cusins insists her tenant was in his room just after 3 o'clock, ie; prior to the assumed time of the murder, Abberline cannot charge him.

[Wickerman]

Because that evening a Jew saw him in Berner St., where he threw an antisemitic curse word at him and three more Jews saw him in Mitre square in his sailor looking garb. He probably thought he was on his last legs before being identified and the noose awaiting, so went all out in trying to bring Whitechapel to its knees with riots.

He thought he was "identified" by Lawende & Co., but he went on anyway to kill Eddowes???

Are you serious?

[Batman]

He thought he was "identified" by Lawende & Co., but he went on anyway to kill Eddowes???

Are you serious?

Yes. There is a history of offenders who having been identified went on to kill in a short time after.

Ted Bundy even gave them his real name 'Ted'. Duh! for him. See the lake incident.

They are bold because they think themselves above everyone else. They make mistakes. Sometimes the reason why there is a serial killer at all is because they should have been stopped long ago if it wasn't for the investigative process having internal issues over data management or something like that. Really, that simple.

[The Good Michael]

If the interpretation of the graffiti as blaming the Jews is accurate wouldn't that make it more logical for the writer to be a gentile?

Getting past that first if is where the rest of any argument fails because that itself is a huge leap of logic when there's no clarity in the message. What clarifies the message to people are what they believe are the environments around it, but that cannot be the way to go. Here is how it should be done (imo): First the message must be interpreted and then situations used to support the interpretation. Yet, that isn't how it's done. The normal way is this: First comes the idea of who the killer was (so either a suspect or an archetype is selected), and then the understanding of time/space relationship to the killer and grafitti (leaving out the apron), and finally the interpretation is factored in (forced in, I should say). I interpret first and don't care about the rest, and I still may be wrong.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Abby's observations countering the notion of an "Astrakhan alibi" are spot on, and to be honest, it is rather distressing to see "Isaacstrakhan" surface on an even less appropriate thread than usual.

Abberline believed Isaacs was Astrachan

No, he did not.

He absolutely did not.

Nor did he conduct "very searching enquiries about his movements" (as opposed to doing a half-arsed job with the rest, presumably?). He conducted standard enquiries that yielded the revelation that Isaacs was in prison during the Kelly murder, prompting him to being dropped as a suspect, but still hauled over the coals for his recent theft of a watch.

If the police were guided by the times given of the cry of 'murder', roughly between 3:30 - 4:00 am, then Astrachan/Isaacs was back home at that time.

"Roughly"...exactly.

In order to give Astrakhan a "Mary Cusins" ear-witness alibi, the police would have been obliged to dismiss:

a) The possibility of Dr. Bond's suggested time of death being correct.

b) The possibility of Prater and Lewis being slightly late in their estimation of the time; understandable as both had been dozing prior to the alleged "murder" cry.

c) The possibility of Mary Cusins being mistaken in her estimation of the time.

This is after they had somehow "proved" (?!?) that Isaacs had definitely been in Kelly's room just a few minutes earlier, to the apparent exclusion of any necessity to explore alternative Astrakhan identity theories ever again (?!?). Unless this happened, and unless these possibilities had indeed been dismissed by the police, it is ludicrous to even contemplate the notion of Isaacstrakhan having an alibi.

If Mrs Cusins insists her tenant was in his room just after 3 o'clock, ie; prior to the assumed time of the murder, Abberline cannot charge him.

The problem isn't one of not being able to "charge" him. For your theory to work, the police would need to be in a position to prove his identity as Astrakhan man and then exonerate him of murder, never to mention him again.

This never happened, and couldn't possibly have happened.

Meanwhile, straight back on topic we go...

Regards,
Ben

[Jon Guy]

Getting past that first if is where the rest of any argument fails because that itself is a huge leap of logic when there's no clarity in the message. What clarifies the message to people are what they believe are the environments around it, but that cannot be the way to go. Here is how it should be done (imo): First the message must be interpreted and then situations used to support the interpretation.

Absolutely, Mike.

Here`s my logic:

1) After the Chapman murder, locals marched around Spitalfields beating up Jews and shouting "Blame the Jews".

2) After Eddowes murder a message appears alongside a piece of the victims clothing stating that the Jews will not be blamed for nothing.

3) Arnold suggested the writing be erased immediately, based on the threat of a repeat of point number 1.

[Batman]

Contemporary investigators think its clear...

Getting past that first if is where the rest of any argument fails because that itself is a huge leap of logic when there's no clarity in the message.

The message being 'unclear' is a new modern view of the writing. Nobody has provided evidence that the contemporary view of the investigators was confused over what the writing said or meant. Not only are they clear about it, but the Old Jewry chimed in by saying they agreed with the investigators on what it meant and what its purpose was.

"To cast suspicion on the Jews". Warren, Smith, Swanson, Long, Halse all provide us with this view and based on the investigation there and then at the time, it appears they come up with this NOT after, but maintained it throughout.

The view, nor the writing itself, has ever been reduced in status in the contemporary. If you can show so, please do, but we have no less than five investigators, 3 of whom as seniors officials, clearly understanding it and explaining it to us.

I think it can only be considered 'evidence' in light of the above and can only loose this status in a modern interpretation (i.e - you can't understand it, it could mean x or y. It's a coincidence. etc.).