The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

I can’t see why it’s surprising or suspicious that it was found by someone that was actually paid to be vigilant?

...most of the time, at least Waspish comment aside, your point is entirely valid, Herlock.

[Wickerman]

Two police witnesses in Goulston Street at approximately the same time and place. Yet neither reports seeing the other,.....

You should take a walk down Berner st. between 12:30 and 1:00..

[Harry D]

Yep.

The writing is completely and utterly immaterial. Taking a photograph of it is a pointless act. It’s use is non-beneficial.

Monty

At least we'd know what it actually said.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m sure many of the old hands here recognise this circular debate. It’s interesting to note the posts above are almost identical from those made in 2002.

The writing is immaterial in terms of evidence.

Holds no insight whatsoever.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Might it not have potentially held some handwriting evidence should a suspect have been arrested? As we don’t know what the handwriting looked like might there not have been some idiosyncrasy in the formation of the letters?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Harry,

Two police witnesses in Goulston Street at approximately the same time and place. Yet neither reports seeing the other, the piece of apron, or the chalked message. Yet, within the hour, one of them discovers the chalked message and piece of apron, and a little later at the mortuary the other is first to notice that a piece of apron is missing from the deceased.

Yes, it's one of many BS stories that make up the WM.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Isn't the word approximately relevant here?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Monty,

Might it not have potentially held some handwriting evidence should a suspect have been arrested? As we don’t know what the handwriting looked like might there not have been some idiosyncrasy in the formation of the letters?

My take on that is that one's "vertical" handwriting doesn't much resemble the horizontal. My writing on a wall or whiteboard is very, very different from my "normal" writing, and I write so infrequently on a vertical surface that there's little consistency in my writing from one whiteboard to the next.

In addition, the GSG was written in a "round", neat hand, implying that whoever wrote it was taking his/her time. All a suspect would have to do - if arrested and asked for a sample - would be to write more quickly, and chances are the result wouldn't look much like the GSG. (I'd imagine that it would be fairly easy to disguise one's writing under such circumstances in any case.)

[Michael W Richards]

Yep.

The writing is completely and utterly immaterial. Taking a photograph of it is a pointless act. It’s use is non-beneficial.

Monty

I would disagree with that Monty, although Im sure you know the letter of the law better than I do. It seems to me that until such time as the author of the message was identified and a time for its appearance could be established....it remains possibly connected to the physical evidence relating to a murder based on their discovery time and proximity to one another alone. Any message content is therefore a potential clue.

Since its been 130 years and we still don't know who wrote it or when, it should have been properly recorded verbatim at least.

[Abby Normal]

Yep.

The writing is completely and utterly immaterial. Taking a photograph of it is a pointless act. It’s use is non-beneficial.

Monty

then why did many of the police at the time think it was also a mistake to erase?

[Sam Flynn]

It seems to me that until such time as the author of the message was identified and a time for its appearance could be established....it remains possibly connected to the physical evidence

The apron piece proved that the killer was there at some point, and - because it matched the remainder of Eddowes' apron - it connected him to the crime. The graffito did neither definitively so, as a clue, it was redundant at best.

[Sam Flynn]

then why did many of the police at the time think it was also a mistake to erase?

Presumably because they thought it could be identified, as per the decision to publish copies of Dear Boss/Saucy Jack. That was unlikely to succeed in the case of the GSG, unless the killer were a teacher/lecturer whose vertical, chalked writing was sufficiently consistent and familiar that a student, or fellow teacher, would recognise it.

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Might it not have potentially held some handwriting evidence should a suspect have been arrested? As we don’t know what the handwriting looked like might there not have been some idiosyncrasy in the formation of the letters?

Matching up handwriting samples is notoriously difficult. Especially when considering ones handwriting alters naturally, and is dependant of surface texture and angles.

However if one did manage to match the samples, then what? It’s proof as to the suspect being in Goulston Street but does not put a knife in their hands, nor clarify a time.

Monty

[Monty]

then why did many of the police at the time think it was also a mistake to erase?

Not many, a few.

Halse was against the erasure because, I suspect, of the reason Herlock states. A potential lead. However more evidence than that would have been required to gain a trial.

However it wasnt Halses patch, it was Arnold. Halses remit it detection, Arnold prevention. Arnold’s manor, Arnold’s call.

Monty

[Monty]

I would disagree with that Monty, although Im sure you know the letter of the law better than I do. It seems to me that until such time as the author of the message was identified and a time for its appearance could be established....it remains possibly connected to the physical evidence relating to a murder based on their discovery time and proximity to one another alone. Any message content is therefore a potential clue.

Since its been 130 years and we still don't know who wrote it or when, it should have been properly recorded verbatim at least.

I speak purely in terms of trial. It may have some benefit as an investigatory tool, as Herlock points out. So yes, ‘potential’ in that sense.

Monty

[Monty]

At least we'd know what it actually said.

True, but it’s interpretation is entirely subjective.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

Not many, a few.

Halse was against the erasure because, I suspect, of the reason Herlock states. A potential lead. However more evidence than that would have been required to gain a trial.

However it wasnt Halses patch, it was Arnold. Halses remit it detection, Arnold prevention. Arnold’s manor, Arnold’s call.

Monty

Hi Monty
Thanks! But couldn't a photo of it have been used at trial as a comparison to the suspects handwriting?