The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[c.d.]

I still have trouble following the prevailing logic here:

1. Jack is apparently thwarted by people on the street;

2. Those people are apparently Jewish;

3. Therefore in Jack's mind their Jewishness had something to do with his plans being interrupted even though those people were simply out walking the street like everybody else;

4. Nobody does that to our boy Jack so he risks writing them a mild rebuke.

And yes, I too, like "Schwarted."

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

4. Nobody does that to our boy Jack so he risks writing them a mild rebuke.

Mild, and somewhat generic. The kind of rebuke that any non-Schwarted person might have written at any time.

[etenguy]

Mild, and somewhat generic. The kind of rebuke that any non-Schwarted person might have written at any time.

And yet it is a strange piece of graffiti whoever wrote it. It is either very cleverly worded (such as a murderer might taunt the police with), or completely the opposite. Perhaps it was even worded to send a message to certain police officers, but not convinced of the temple of Solomon connection. I wonder if it references something else that was equally convoluted and if we knew the connection it would make more sense. If it does mean "I blame the jews" or "it's all the jews fault" - why not simply say that with fewer words and more directly.

[DJA]

And yet it is a strange piece of graffiti whoever wrote it. It is either very cleverly worded (such as a murderer might taunt the police with) Perhaps it was even worded to send a message to certain police officers.

Kindly excuse my editing.
Reckon you have it sorted.

[Trevor Marriott]

exactly! or any number of scenarios similar.

perhaps not knowing he was going to be bothered by a bunch of jews that night he dosnt have any chalk with him, so when gets back to his bolt hole with his goodies and apron piece, he decides what hes going to do to get back at them, , and grabs a piece of chalk with the apron and heads back out to goulston street.

So why write it at a location where it might never have been found? The same applied to the apron piece. If the killer did ever write any of the letters and I do not believe he did, then he could have said what he wanted to say in a letter to the police accompanied by the apron piece.

So with that in mind did the killer write the graffiti and place the apron piece?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

So why write it at a location where it might never have been found? The same applied to the apron piece. If the killer did ever write any of the letters and I do not believe he did, then he could have said what he wanted to say in a letter to the police accompanied by the apron piece.

So with that in mind did the killer write the graffiti and place the apron piece?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What if the intended reader was a Jew that lived in the model homes? A subtle message telling him that the author knew what this person was trying to get away with. A killer taunting a liar?

Just a what if, but I believe there was at least one International Club member living there.

[John G]

good point re lave. also diemshitz had to light a match to get a better look at stride.
also good point re modern light pollution.
Point taken.

Thanks Abby!

[John G]

I think Neil also makes some other good points in his analysis. Firstly, at the time of the Eddowes murder there had been 100% cloud cover, and this would still have been around 50% when the graffiti was found. Secondly, there were some very tall buildings opposite the dwelling entrance, which presumably would have blocked out much of the available light. He also notes that Whitechapel generally was a very dark place: see

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881005.html

The relevant section is entitled "Street Lighting in the East End."

[Sam Flynn]

If it does mean "I blame the jews" or "it's all the jews fault" - why not simply say that with fewer words and more directly.

True, but never underestimate the capacity of colloquial speech to use one or two more words than it really needs. Take this from the Morning Advertiser report of the Mary Kelly inquest:

Joseph Barnett was the first witness called. When the Testament was handed to him he at once kissed it, and on being checked by the officer he said, "Oh, well, I don't know nothing about such things."

[John G]

So why write it at a location where it might never have been found? The same applied to the apron piece. If the killer did ever write any of the letters and I do not believe he did, then he could have said what he wanted to say in a letter to the police accompanied by the apron piece.

So with that in mind did the killer write the graffiti and place the apron piece?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

There are, however, problems with this argument. Firstly, it could be argued that he merely entered the passageway in order to clean himself up; the chalk writing being merely an afterthought. Secondly, we cannot know that he intended anybody to read the graffiti; it might simply have been written for his own amusement.

[Sam Flynn]

Secondly, there were some very tall buildings opposite the dwelling entrance, which presumably would have blocked out much of the available light.

Plus, the moon was "behind" Wentworth Modern Dwellings, and rather low in the eastern sky... to say nothing of its not being even half full, and given the cloud cover. Little light out front, little light out back; the doorway was dark, all right.

[John G]

Plus, the moon was "behind" Wentworth Modern Dwellings, and rather low in the eastern sky... to say nothing of its not being even half full, and given the cloud cover.

Good points. Thanks Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Little light out front, little light out back; the doorway was dark, all right.

Come to think of it, a very handy place to duck in off the street to clean himself off before proceeding further. If he heard someone coming down the stairs, he could quickly step out into the street, presumably whistling an innocent tune; if he heard someone coming down the street, he could nip up the stairs out of the way.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Trevor,

There are, however, problems with this argument. Firstly, it could be argued that he merely entered the passageway in order to clean himself up; the chalk writing being merely an afterthought. Secondly, we cannot know that he intended anybody to read the graffiti; it might simply have been written for his own amusement.

Since Longs testimony includes his unambiguous answer as to when the apron section was at that location, in that "It was NOT" there when he passed about 2:20am, then the assumption he ducked into an alleyway to clean himself up could not realistically be the case. If he came from Mitre Square directly, and your scenario took place, then the apron would have been there well before 2:20.

Longs statement makes it clear it wasn't at 2:20. Sure, lots of folks just assume he missed it, despite the fact he answered a direct question under oath with some conviction.

[Sam Flynn]

Longs statement makes it clear it wasn't at 2:20. Sure, lots of folks just assume he missed it, despite the fact he answered a direct question under oath with some conviction.

Perhaps an instance of "rectum protectum" on his part, to use the technical term? Besides, he may genuinely not have noticed it the first time round; not everything that lands on the eye registers in the brain.