The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[JennyL]

If Jack didn't write it, then it seems to me there are only two alternatives:

-He happened to drop the only significant piece of evidence from one of his crimes directly in front of preexisting graffiti that (let's be honest) strongly seems to refers to those same crimes

-or-

-After he paused there, wiping his knife/hands on the torn apron/taking out the enclosed uterus, tossing the fabric down and running away, someone else who'd observed him there, doing those actions, stepped up in the minutes after the ripper's departure and wrote the graffiti as a tattle on the man they saw, guessing he'd done murder (given knife, breathlessness, bloody cloth, weird flesh in apron exposed/running away)and managed to leg it themselves before police arrived--not staying around to be interrogated due to a fear of being mistaken for the killer/unwillingness to be involved with authorities/fear of the killer himself.

Obviously Option #2 is a stretch but isn't it somewhat possible? I'll admit here that as I write this I'm unsure of exactly how many minutes elapsed between when people think the ripper dropped the apron and when it was discovered there.

Personally I tend to the explanation that the murderer did write the graffiti.

[Monty]

JennyL,

Take away the apron and view the writing on its own.

How does it seem refer to any crime whatsoever?

Monty

[perrymason]

JennyL,

Take away the apron and view the writing on its own.

How does it seem refer to any crime whatsoever?

Monty

It could be said Monty that the writing is a sarcastic accusation directed towards Jewish Men,.....and there were maybe 28 of them that night in The International Club....where the least likely Canonical Ripper victim is found in their yard....

It has always had at least one literal translation....it just depends on whose translation you are hearing I guess.

Cheers Monty

[Monty]

Michael,

Indeed, however my question remains unanswered.

Cheers

Monty

[perrymason]

Michael,

Indeed, however my question remains unanswered.

Cheers

Monty

I should have thought my post addressed that, but perhaps you meant from the source you queried.

It refers to Blame... either appropriately or inappropriately applied towards Jewish Men...blame for what you ask.....well that would be a matter of logical extension rather than literal expression......nowhere does it suggest "blamed for murder".

Thats where the other piece of evidence found near to it can be used, logically,.....as evidence that the man that left the apron killed only ONE of the 2 women that night for sure.

Even From Hell addresses ONLY Kates murder. Saucy Jack suggests 2.....but who cares cause Jack never wrote that or Dear Boss.

All the best Sir Monty.

[Monty]

So on its own, it doesnt refer to any crime.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

It could be said Monty that the writing is a sarcastic accusation directed towards Jewish Men,.....and there were maybe 28 of them that night in The International Club

... as well as several thousand living in and around Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Apart from which Goulston Street itself, and the adjacent Wentworth/Middlesex Streets, were famous as busy trading posts for Jewish street vendors. If anyone wanted to have a "go" at the Jews in general, for whatever reason, the region around Goulston Street would have been a logical place (perhaps the most logical place in the whole of England) to have written antisemitic graffiti on a wall. It is against this backdrop that one must assess the possible significance of the GSG - not, I'd suggest, against any assumed, tenuous linkages with the murders of that night.

[JennyL]

... as well as several thousand living in and around Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Apart from which Goulston Street itself, and the adjacent Wentworth/Middlesex Streets, were famous as busy trading posts for Jewish street vendors. If anyone wanted to have a "go" at the Jews in general, for whatever reason, the region around Goulston Street would have been a logical place (perhaps the most logical place in the whole of England) to have written antisemitic graffiti on a wall. It is against this backdrop that one must assess the possible significance of the GSG - not, I'd suggest, against any assumed, tenuous linkages with the murders of that night.

True, true...I know many more wise than I have grappled with the possibile significance of the GSG. I'm inarguably handicapped by my general lack of knowledge of the style of c.1888 anti-semitic epithets( though"Lipsky" I've learned here at least), but as written it's such a non sequiter.

"Blame Jews"-being in essence what it says-as applied to...nothing in particular? Blame them for what? The hoary old Christian trope regarding Christ? For being 'greedy Fagins'(I'd think given the poverty of the jews of Whitechapel being jewish wouldn't engender a lot of envy but again I have to read up more about that)? If it read "Up the Jews" or [blank] jews" etc. it would have an obvious meaning of simple hatred...but when you word it as done with the GSG it really just seems to be referring to something in particular and moreover is suprisingly restrained for wall writing if meant as general slagging.
If it was meant to attribute blame for the murders it's just such a hell of a coincidence it was where it was--and for not very long, supposedly, correct?
Mind you, just floating bubbles here.

[Sam Flynn]

If it was meant to attribute blame for the murders it's just such a hell of a coincidence it was where it was

Not so sure, Jen. I mean, if a piece of a murder victim's clothing had been thrown into a Belfast tenement's doorway in the 1970s, with a graffito saying "F*** the Pope" found in its immediate vicinity, I doubt that anyone would have been too confident in attributing its authorship to the killer.

and for not very long, supposedly, correct?

The "juwery" is still out on that one Besides, if a piece of a murder victim's clothing had been thrown into a Belfast tenement's doorway in the 1970s, with a relatively recent graffito... (you get the drift).

[perrymason]

So on its own, it doesnt refer to any crime.

Monty

Is any evidence found seen in complete isolation Monty, or is the context in which it is found also relevant? What if the message said the "police" are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...how would the apron section then suggest the message's context? Since we know that no fewer than 8 active or retired Policemen were in or near near Mitre Square when Kate is killed.

The apron section doesnt definitively incriminate the person who dropped it there either.....but it comes quite close when the context is applied.

All the best Monty

[perrymason]

... as well as several thousand living in and around Whitechapel and Spitalfields. Apart from which Goulston Street itself, and the adjacent Wentworth/Middlesex Streets, were famous as busy trading posts for Jewish street vendors. If anyone wanted to have a "go" at the Jews in general, for whatever reason, the region around Goulston Street would have been a logical place (perhaps the most logical place in the whole of England) to have written antisemitic graffiti on a wall. It is against this backdrop that one must assess the possible significance of the GSG - not, I'd suggest, against any assumed, tenuous linkages with the murders of that night.

As per the bold section....since only 28 or 29 Jewish men related directly to that evenings history in Berner Street, and 3 more in Mitre Street, I think we have reason to suspect that this nights "Jews" were the ones being referred to....assuming of course that the apron section dropper wrote the message.....since its very possible even probable by the evidence given by 2 PC's who didnt see either item before almost 3am....it could well be a message the apron leaver might have felt compelled to leave when both investigations were in full swing and his nights take was safe....over an hour after Kates murder.

That suggests premeditation if accurate, which would negate any casual discard theory....and which would, contextually, then make the messages' proximity and timing quite suggestive of an intention to communicate.

Neither was seen before nearly 3am,....and that will always mean that its possible both appeared within 20 minutes of each other at the latest.

A grafitto that just happens to get some crime scene evidence dropped under it within 20 minutes of the cloth being left, or some cloth that gets some graffitto placed over it within 20 minutes time of the priors arrival....which improbable answer do you prefer in this case?

The GSG was not proven to be or even strongly suggested to be something that they believed preceded the apron section, or they would have said that. They both were found at the same time, and neither was seen before they both were found.

Not one witness ever came forward to our knowledge when the public became aware of the message to say he had seen the writing before 3am on the 30th. Even with all those Jewish residents living right through that doorway, and all over that street. Not one sighting before they were found by the PC.

All the best Sam.

[Monty]

Is any evidence found seen in complete isolation Monty, or is the context in which it is found also relevant? What if the message said the "police" are the men that will not be blamed for nothing...how would the apron section then suggest the message's context? Since we know that no fewer than 8 active or retired Policemen were in or near near Mitre Square when Kate is killed.

The apron section doesnt definitively incriminate the person who dropped it there either.....but it comes quite close when the context is applied.

All the best Monty

All evidence should be, firstly, treated on its own merits Michael. If corrobating evidence is close by then fine, review it together, but initially it needs to be considered in itself.

The writing does not mention anything about the crimes nor the apron to say the least. Therefore it also needs to be viewed independently as well as in conjunction.

Its speculation, not ascertained fact....as is this.

Neither was seen before nearly 3am,....and that will always mean that its possible both appeared within 20 minutes of each other at the latest.

A grafitto that just happens to get some crime scene evidence dropped under it within 20 minutes of the cloth being left, or some cloth that gets some graffitto placed over it within 20 minutes time of the priors arrival....which improbable answer do you prefer in this case?

The GSG was not proven to be or even strongly suggested to be something that they believed preceded the apron section, or they would have said that. They both were found at the same time, and neither was seen before they both were found.

Not one witness ever came forward to our knowledge when the public became aware of the message to say he had seen the writing before 3am on the 30th. Even with all those Jewish residents living right through that doorway, and all over that street. Not one sighting before they were found by the PC.

However, Im being mean.

Free thought is fine, as long as it isnt being dressed up.

Monty

[Nurse Sarah]

I think the poll results speak volumes...

[Mascara & Paranoia]

I always thought it was Jack writing a bit of a disclaimer for himself, either saying he did or (more likely) didn't kill Stride. That's assuming he wrote it which I don't think is as implausible as it's made out to be. I'm not 100% convinced he did but I don't see why he couldn't have wrote it; it seems more likely than not that he did given a shred of Eddowes' clothing was conveniently found with it.

[Nurse Sarah]

Hi

That word convenient says it all though... thats the fact, its TOO convenient, so the apron and graffito are inextricably linked...