The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[perrymason]

Hi Michael

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, especially in this crazy world!

I am not against anyone who believes the GSG was written by JTR, I personally feel that it wasnt...

May one of you go forth and seek the truth in this matter and put us all right!

?.......... .......All I can say at this point is that at least one of the most senior investigators with high levels of responsibility for the Ripper cases thought the removal of the writing constituted the erasure of a solid clue from the killer at large known as Jack. He stated he would not be responsible for his inability to capture the man due to this and other, negligent treatment of important evidence.

My emphasis.

He did confuse the details of one other named incident though.

All the best Sarah

[Shelley]

I voted NO As i would hardly think it likely that JTR would be scrawling a chalked message in the Dark in the early hours of the morning, between chalked messages & avoiding policemen on their beat....I'd go with more concentration on getting away from police on their beat.

[Monty]

?.......... .......All I can say at this point is that at least one of the most senior investigators with high levels of responsibility for the Ripper cases thought the removal of the writing constituted the erasure of a solid clue from the killer at large known as Jack. He stated he would not be responsible for his inability to capture the man due to this and other, negligent treatment of important evidence.

My emphasis.

He did confuse the details of one other named incident though.

All the best Sarah

And I will add that only one police offical express his belief that the killer wrote the wall writing upon the case file.

The rest stated it was their belief whilst the official line was neither to confirm nor deny as, quite rightly, there is NO convincing evidence supporting either view.

Monty

[Cap'n Jack]

If he chalked a message on a wall after one event, surely he would have done so again, or before, after other events when he had a lot more chalk on his hands?

[Nurse Sarah]

I agree with you there Shelley...

[Aristocles]

Greetings to all! My first post. . .

Warning:

What follows is a vacuous quip from a complete 'newb' masquerading as an opinion.

I think that the 'scrawler' murdered Eddowes but have no idea if it was JTR. Hm, guess I can't vote. . .

Warned you. Neither discursive nor entertaining.

Good to be here

[perrymason]

If he chalked a message on a wall after one event, surely he would have done so again, or before, after other events when he had a lot more chalk on his hands?

Which other reported writing incidents piqued your interest AP, there are several....or was it on paper you were referring to? Always nice to see you by the way.

My best regards

[perrymason]

Greetings to all! My first post. . .

Warning:

What follows is a vacuous quip from a complete 'newb' masquerading as an opinion.

I think that the 'scrawler' murdered Eddowes but have no idea if it was JTR. Hm, guess I can't vote. . .

Warned you. Neither discursive nor entertaining.

Good to be here

Welcome Aristocles, and your opinions are welcomed as well.

You do raise an interesting angle or two that is available here, meaning that it works within the known data....and that is that neither death was the work of Jack the Ripper. But both clues found at the Goulston Street entrance to the Model Homes were by the man or men that killed both women.....or perhaps just Kate....Kidney is still a viable for Liz I think.

All we can surmise based on the odds alone, is that the man that killed Kate left the apron piece there. Is that man Jack the Ripper....did he also pen the writing, and does the message and apron address one or both deaths that night?

Only by seeing the killer and the killings within the proper context will we have that answer is my opinion...knowing which specific victims were his and what his ultimate objectives may have been is that context....which means I think its only solvable at this point after we can name the culprit.....in retrospect.

All the best Ari

[Aristocles]

Welcome Aristocles, and your opinions are welcomed as well.

You do raise an interesting angle or two that is available here, meaning that it works within the known data....and that is that neither death was the work of Jack the Ripper. But both clues found at the Goulston Street entrance to the Model Homes were by the man or men that killed both women.....or perhaps just Kate....Kidney is still a viable for Liz I think.

All we can surmise based on the odds alone, is that the man that killed Kate left the apron piece there. Is that man Jack the Ripper....did he also pen the writing, and does the message and apron address one or both deaths that night?

Only by seeing the killer and the killings within the proper context will we have that answer is my opinion...knowing which specific victims were his and what his ultimate objectives may have been is that context....which means I think its only solvable at this point after we can name the culprit.....in retrospect.

All the best Ari

perrymason:

I am burdened by numerous preconceived notions, re: JtR.

Honestly, I have no real knowledge concerning the frequency of murders or murders with mutilation going on in the area during the period.

Regards

[Jane Welland]

I voted 'Yes'

The idea that the graffito was incidental, random or unrelated just doesn't work for me. Taken by itself, I would still treat as of potential significance, taking into consideration the other events of the night. It's discovery with a piece of Eddowe's apron renders it more so - or what? The graffito and the apron appearing together is coincidence? No, I don't think so.

Shelley - to address your point regarding the unlikelihood of JTR stopping to write the graffito in the dark with the police patrolling: Well, somebody did, didn't they? I would say, firstly, that we don't know what the graffito looked like - There is no photographic record. It may have looked as if it had been scrawled in the dark, for all we know. All we can be reasonably certain of is that it was legible to the people who saw it.

Actually, it would be an interesting experiment to try - if somebody out there hasn't already - try it in the dark (so to speak!) and see what it looks like. I bet it isn't easy.

Anyway, moving on, JTR, whoever he was, appears to have had no problem working quickly in the dark. I don't see that as a barrier or problem to his authorship. And, also, have we considered that the graffito itself may have been intended as a distraction? It could have worked in more than one way - by directing attention towards the 'Juwes', obviously, but also by the fact that it was obviously inflammatory - to direct attention towards itself and away from what else was occurring in the locale. If that was the case, then it appears to have worked. It did claim the attention of the police.

It's out there, I know, but maybe that was it's purpose - particularly if the same man really was responsible for the 'double event'. Killing two women in short succession in a small area is risky, to say the least, if you want to evade capture.

I don't think the fact of the graffito 'message', or even the fact of the graffito itself, should indicate a desire to communicate. Not necessarily. It may have been self-consciously left for another purpose. A red herring, if you like.

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

I had to vote NO because I don't think he wrote. I think he read it, remembered it, and it made sense to him as some sort of Semitic rallying cry, and that's why he left the apron there. In a sense, it was his words, but he didn't write it.

Cheers,

Mike

[Johnr]

Phew! So many twists so few solutions.
So are the " JTR was the one to be blamed for something " school arguing that Jack performed a different mind-boggling trick after each murder?
What were the others? Or why only for this one?
In my opinion, it is an impossiblity to prove JTR wrote the GSG.
What can be admitted is that the portion of apron, found nearby, did come from the victim (Eddowes' ) clothing.
And also what cannot be conclusively proven is that JTR carried the apron the whole way and placed it in that Goulston Street Model Dwellings doorway.
I also think if JTR was trying on some very clever little trick with the GSG, he would not have been snapped up by Saatchi & Saatchi's 1888 equivalent advertising agency.
Why not write the GSG upstairs? It would have frightened the life out of any Model Dwelling occupant. JOHN RUFFELS.

[Monty]

Jane

The experiment was carried out, by How Brown if I recall, and it came out legible and fairly well written.

Whilst there was no photo we do have descriptions of the writing, and Warren has it transcribed and constructed as it was on the jamb...which is a more favourable position than inside the stair well.

For any author I add.

Monty

[FrankO]

Well, somebody did, didn't they?

Hi Jane,

Indeed somebody did, but if it wasn't the Ripper, he or she wouldn't have been carrying a bloody piece of apron with him or her.

Anyway, moving on, JTR, whoever he was, appears to have had no problem working quickly in the dark. I don't see that as a barrier or problem to his authorship.

Indeed, the Ripper seems to have worked quickly and efficiently in the dark: he was quite to-the-point. However, the graffito obviously wasn’t to-the-point at all. Whatever it was meant to mean, I’m sure he could have written it in less than those 12 words. He could have left out “are the men” and he could have written “won’t” instead of “will not”. “The Jews are bad news” (thought up by Caz) or “It’s a Jid who did it” would have been to-the-point.

And, also, have we considered that the graffito itself may have been intended as a distraction? It could have worked in more than one way - by directing attention towards the 'Juwes', obviously, but also by the fact that it was obviously inflammatory - to direct attention towards itself and away from what else was occurring in the locale. If that was the case, then it appears to have worked. It did claim the attention of the police.

I have some remarks here, Jane.

Firstly, as the police didn’t have a clue to begin with and this was well known to the public, it seems to me that no distraction was needed.

Secondly, if he actually wanted to direct blame towards the Jewes, he did a rather poor job by remaining so obscure in his message.

Yes, it did claim the attention of the police, but I think that was only because they just had to consider the possibility that there was a link between apron piece and message. Just like they had to take each and every confession, letter or other possible lead seriously.

But in the end, regardless of anything else, it seems to me that the graffito could never lead the police anywhere. And it didn’t. There’s no clear clue whatever in it.

It's out there, I know, but maybe that was it's purpose - particularly if the same man really was responsible for the 'double event'. Killing two women in short succession in a small area is risky, to say the least, if you want to evade capture.

It sure was risky, even if he only did for Eddowes. I can imagine him not being too far from Mitre Sqaure yet and hearing George Morris’s whistle blowing as a sign that they had found his latest victim and would soon be on his heels. That’s one reason why I doubt the Ripper would have taken time to risk writing the message. He proved to be willing to risk his life for killing and mutilating women, but would he risk his life for scrawling some obscure message?

I don't think the fact of the graffito 'message', or even the fact of the graffito itself, should indicate a desire to communicate. Not necessarily. It may have been self-consciously left for another purpose. A red herring, if you like.

That’s something I don’t get. From whichever angle you look at it, the very fact of putting chalk to public wall, to me, is an indication of a desire to communicate. Perhaps not in the sense that it needed to have been an important message, but a desire to communicate nonetheless. The fact that we don’t see any other indications of the Ripper trying to communicate in the normal sense (by writing something), is another reason for me to doubt that the GSG was his.

Well, I guess you get what I voted?

All the best,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Jane,

It's discovery with a piece of Eddowe's apron renders it more so - or what? The graffito and the apron appearing together is coincidence? No, I don't think so.

Assume, for one moment, that graffiti appeared on an 1880s Spitalfields wall once every 50 metres - on average. The distance from Mitre Square to the Goulston/Wentworth Street junction is a little under 500 metres, therefore we would expect Jack (in this scenario) to have passed 10 items of graffiti en route. If we arbitrarily slice up the journey into 1 metre-wide strips, then the odds of any given metre along the way containing a graffito would be 10:500, or 1 in 50. As far as "coincidences" go, odds of 50:1 aren't particularly startling.

It should be pointed out that, of the 500 metres, a significant chunk would have been occupied by non-residential buildings, thin air (i.e. roads and other spaces without walls on which to write), etc., so the 10:500 guesstimate might be too pessimistic to begin with, and the odds somewhat better than 50:1 as a consequence.

The odds would be further improved if - as would appear to be the case - Jack were looking for a recessed doorway (e.g. to clean his knife/hands), and bearing in mind that ad-hominem graffiti, of its very nature, would tend to be written in tenement doorways rather than in other areas. Indeed, at one extreme, we might be looking at odds-on probability that the apron was bound to end up in close proximity to a graffito - although I'd hesitate in going that far. What I will say, however, is that the idea of the apron/graffito combo being a "coincidence" is nowhere near as scary as one might at first think.

Note that the above doesn't pretend to be definitive, but at least it gives us a rough idea of what we might be dealing with, and how one might go about quantifying it.