The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

I wish you would listen, and take note, you might just learn something and I dont make things up I deal in facts not wild speculation

Dr Brown " Yes it is blood.On the piece of apron brought on there were smears "on one side"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Slightly dishonest of you not to complete the sentence.

The full sentence explains itself, if left unedited.

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it."

Which apparently means there were no similar smears (as if by fingers or blade) on the other side, which says nothing about blood stains or spots of blood.

You also know the coroner was told this G.S. piece was spotted with blood.

Coroner - Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?
Dr. F.G. Brown - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Therefore, we know the G.S. piece was not only wet with blood, but was also smeared & spotted with blood.
And, nothing stated in testimony that day makes us any wiser as to the extent or to which side, either or both, it was stained with blood.
Much to your chagrin, that discarded piece of apron could have been used to carry away her organs.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't know, Sam - it is very polite for a 'hate' message. I would expect something more visceral. I don't remember seeing such polite graffitti in the east end, especially when insulting an ethnic group.

I wouldn't say "polite" - it clearly has a begrudging, if not insulting, tone. And let's not forget that we're talking about a different time; perhaps modern-day graffiti is more vulgar because modern people are vulgar.

Whatever the tone, it has never struck me as something a murderer would go out of his way to write. (The only time I thought it made sense as a Ripper message was when I - briefly - fell for Stephen Knight's masonic conspiracy guff when I read his book at school.)

[Trevor Marriott]

Slightly dishonest of you not to complete the sentence.

The full sentence explains itself, if left unedited.

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it."

Which apparently means there were no similar smears (as if by fingers or blade) on the other side, which says nothing about blood stains or spots of blood.

You also know the coroner was told this G.S. piece was spotted with blood.

Coroner - Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?
Dr. F.G. Brown - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Therefore, we know the G.S. piece was not only wet with blood, but was also smeared & spotted with blood.
And, nothing stated in testimony that day makes us any wiser as to the extent or to which side, either or both, it was stained with blood.
Much to your chagrin, that discarded piece of apron could have been used to carry away her organs.

Now who is being dishonest we have three different descriptions of the apron piece from Dr Brown and one from Pc Long

Pc Long " There appeared to be blood stains on it one portion was wet (no mention of wet with blood) Signed inquest testimony

Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Dr Brown “My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin.

Dr Brown " Yes it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears "on one side"

and suddenly by magic, your wet with blood turns into blood spots, and then again by magic, blood spots turn into smears all on one side !

How could Brown tell how the stains got there? he just made a guess, and you know what has been said about Victorian doctors opinions

If you have bloody hands having just been inside a blood filled abdomen then both of your hands will be bloodstained. To wipe those hands with any cloth you have two hold it using both hands, and therefore the blood from both hands would be transferred to both sides of the cloth.

Why would the killer bother to cut or tear a piece of her apron for that purpose or the purpose of wiping his knife. He could have done both on her clothing,and besides if he was disturbed as I believe he was by Pc Harvey he would not have had time to cut or tear the apron piece.

By definition there is no way organs were conveyed in that apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

"Jews won't take the blame for anything" is on a par with "Jews do whatever they like", "Jews get away with [metaphorical] murder", or "You just can't win with the Jews". It strikes me as a fairly standard kind of grumble/grudge aimed at a disliked ethnic group.

Id agree with that Sam, Its a general grumble. The implication is that the negative feelings go deeper than just a reaction to some minor incident that is riling the poor fellow. That Im sure is why you believe that it need not be linked with any activity that happened that night that had Jewish characters in the storylines. Clearly though both murders have links with Jewish locals, some Jewish locals that were not well thought of. No other alleged Ripper murder has that component. Nor has he felt the need to commit 2 murders, Nor has he felt the need to act within the city limits for that matter.

I think that the killer of Kate was more interested in assigning blame for what happened on the grounds of a Jewish Socialists club than he was claiming responsibility for killing Kate with the combination of artifacts, one confirming the authors identity...the apron section (he had no need to sign it as a result, its self evident), and the other distancing himself from the actions taken place on the International Mens Club soil. Whether he is Jack or not Im unconvinced, but I believe he didn't like the Jews portraying this as "another murder" and something they knew nothing about. We know by later evidence that the men there were capable of violence, even towards the police, I suppose many locals also knew that about them.

[Abby Normal]

I wouldn't say "polite" - it clearly has a begrudging, if not insulting, tone. And let's not forget that we're talking about a different time; perhaps modern-day graffiti is more vulgar because modern people are vulgar.

Whatever the tone, it has never struck me as something a murderer would go out of his way to write. (The only time I thought it made sense as a Ripper message was when I - briefly - fell for Stephen Knight's masonic conspiracy guff when I read his book at school.)

I wouldn't say "polite" - it clearly has a begrudging, if not insulting, tone. And let's not forget that we're talking about a different time; perhaps modern-day graffiti is more vulgar because modern people are vulgar.

but couldn't that apply to the killer also-which is why he didn't write-the jew pigs did it

[Sam Flynn]

I'd expect a killer intent on deflecting blame to have used less convoluted language, in a pithier message.

[Harry D]

The Lipstick Killer left the message: "For heavens sake catch me before I kill more, I cannot control myself"

The Manson Family (although not serial-killers) left the message: "Death to Pigs"

Zodiac Killer left the message on a victim's car: "Vallejo/12-20-68/7-4-69/Sept 27-69-6:30/by knife"

If anyone can think of more, it would be appreciated. In any case, there is little ambiguity about these messages. The GSG is really such a nothing message that it could've been written by anyone that night.

[Abby Normal]

The Lipstick Killer left the message: "For heavens sake catch me before I kill more, I cannot control myself"

The Manson Family (although not serial-killers) left the message: "Death to Pigs"

Zodiac Killer left the message on a victim's car: "Vallejo/12-20-68/7-4-69/Sept 27-69-6:30/by knife"

If anyone can think of more, it would be appreciated. In any case, there is little ambiguity about these messages. The GSG is really such a nothing message that it could've been written by anyone that night.

the killer of Rebecca Zahau wrote on the wall of the crime scene:

"She saved him, can he save her"

pretty ambiguous

[Abby Normal]

I'd expect a killer intent on deflecting blame to have used less convoluted language, in a pithier message.

maybe. maybe not

[Wickerman]

Now who is being dishonest we have three different descriptions of the apron piece from Dr Brown and one from Pc Long

Pc Long " There appeared to be blood stains on it one portion was wet (no mention of wet with blood) Signed inquest testimony

Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Dr Brown “My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin.

Dr Brown " Yes it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears "on one side"

and suddenly by magic, your wet with blood turns into blood spots, and then again by magic, blood spots turn into smears all on one side !

Why do you think it must be one or the other?, that piece of apron had spots & smears of blood, and one corner was wet with blood, not urine, not rain - blood!

How could Brown tell how the stains got there? he just made a guess, and you know what has been said about Victorian doctors opinions

He was guessing as he looked at it, you are guessing and not looking at it. Who is most likely to be right?

If you have bloody hands having just been inside a blood filled abdomen then both of your hands will be bloodstained. To wipe those hands with any cloth you have two hold it using both hands, and therefore the blood from both hands would be transferred to both sides of the cloth.

Isn't that guessing?

Why would the killer bother to cut or tear a piece of her apron for that purpose or the purpose of wiping his knife. He could have done both on her clothing,and besides if he was disturbed as I believe he was by Pc Harvey he would not have had time to cut or tear the apron piece.

He cut it off because he needed something to carry the organs in.

[Sam Flynn]

the killer of Rebecca Zahau wrote on the wall of the crime scene:

"She saved him, can he save her"

pretty ambiguous

It evidently refers to the deceased, however.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Lipstick Killer left the message: "For heavens sake catch me before I kill more, I cannot control myself"

The Manson Family (although not serial-killers) left the message: "Death to Pigs"

Zodiac Killer left the message on a victim's car: "Vallejo/12-20-68/7-4-69/Sept 27-69-6:30/by knife"

If anyone can think of more, it would be appreciated. In any case, there is little ambiguity about these messages. The GSG is really such a nothing message that it could've been written by anyone that night.

It should be noted that signature killers as described left these types of signatures at the crime scenes, not some distance away in a doorway where it may never have been found, and within that message absolutely nothing to point to it being written by the killer, or any reference to the murders. Another example of researchers desperately trying to prop up the old theory that the killer wrote the graffiti.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Leanne]

either or. why isn't this possibility discussed more. he did it accidently and didn't right the graffiti or he did on purpose and wrote the grafitti. if the latter this would bolster the claims of those who think it was written by a jew as the building was predominantly jewish.

WHY? BECAUSE EVERY RESIDENT WAS QUESTIONED AND CLEARED.
Maybe they were woken by detectives or were too young.

DANIEL HALSE - INQUEST:
".....when Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door at every tenement of the model dwelling house, but we gained no tidings of any one who was likely to have been the murderer."

[Abby Normal]

It evidently refers to the deceased, however.

So what? So does the zodiac and Manson writings that Harryd provided. We’re talking about ambiguous vs obvious writings left by killers.

[Sam Flynn]

So what? So does the zodiac and Manson writings that Harryd provided. We’re talking about ambiguous vs obvious writings left by killers.

The GSG doesn't refer to the victims, and it doesn't refer to murder. It needs some sort of ingenious logic to make it relate to either - e.g. the "nothing" refers to Eddowes, because she gave her name as "nothing" when jailed; "Juwes" refers to the three masonic ruffians; Jack wanted to deflect blame onto the Jews; Jack had been frustrated by the Jews of Berner Street and/or was irked that Lawende and co had seen him; etc. These aren't exactly daft - well, apart from the masonic one - but they are rather convoluted compared to the idea that it was just a mildly racist rant that someone else had scrawled.