The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Leanne]

Please.

I am working on it.

[APerno]

RE the graffito: was there, just days after the murder, already a whiff of conspiracy/cover-up in the air?

This following exchange intrigues me.

D Halse testifying

Jury Foreman: Why was the writing really rubbed out? - Witness: The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground.

What I find interesting, before fielding this question D Halse had just finished explaining, to Mr. Crawford and the Coroner, in detail, why he thought the missive had been erased. During those comments D Halse is quite wordy and uses first person over and over, making himself part of the investigation.

Then with the issue seemly settled the Jury Foreman suddenly cracks out with this question (his only question) which has a serious tone of accusation attached to it.

Halse, who up this point, has been quite wordy and friendly when replying to Crawford and Coroner suddenly becomes uncooperative, dropping first person he disconnects himself and brushes off the Foreman with a curt reply. "The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground."

The tone of both men's comments suggest to me that the exchange was a tense moment.

I can only conclude that the Foreman, in using the word "really" was calling Halse a liar.

The Foreman would only ask the two officers, Halse and Long, one question each, and both questions sound very aggressive.

With Halse it is the use of the word "really," but earlier on with PC Long he is no less impatient/rude when he also expresses doubt about Long's testimony, (The Foreman: Where is the pocket-book in which you made the entry of the writing?) at which point he makes PC Long return to HQ and retrieve his pocket-book and return for more questioning at a later time. And again this is the only exchange he has with PC Long.

I can't help but feel that the Jury Foreman was thinking that both Halse and Long were somehow lying.

I get this image of an angry Jury Foreman sitting with his arms folded and a sour look on his face, not saying much, but when he does finally speak they are accusations of dishonesty and incompetence.

So was there already an air of cover-up stinking up the inquest? This Jury Foreman doesn't seem "on board" with the police.

[DJA]

The foreman was also into Robinson and Hutt concerning Eddowes sobriety when arrested and discharged.

[Joshua Rogan]

RE the graffito: was there, just days after the murder, already a whiff of conspiracy/cover-up in the air?

This following exchange intrigues me.

D Halse testifying

Jury Foreman: Why was the writing really rubbed out? - Witness: The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground.

What I find interesting, before fielding this question D Halse had just finished explaining, to Mr. Crawford and the Coroner, in detail, why he thought the missive had been erased. During those comments D Halse is quite wordy and uses first person over and over, making himself part of the investigation.

Then with the issue seemly settled the Jury Foreman suddenly cracks out with this question (his only question) which has a serious tone of accusation attached to it.

Halse, who up this point, has been quite wordy and friendly when replying to Crawford and Coroner suddenly becomes uncooperative, dropping first person he disconnects himself and brushes off the Foreman with a curt reply. "The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground."

The tone of both men's comments suggest to me that the exchange was a tense moment.

I can only conclude that the Foreman, in using the word "really" was calling Halse a liar.

The Foreman would only ask the two officers, Halse and Long, one question each, and both questions sound very aggressive.

With Halse it is the use of the word "really," but earlier on with PC Long he is no less impatient/rude when he also expresses doubt about Long's testimony, (The Foreman: Where is the pocket-book in which you made the entry of the writing?) at which point he makes PC Long return to HQ and retrieve his pocket-book and return for more questioning at a later time. And again this is the only exchange he has with PC Long.

I can't help but feel that the Jury Foreman was thinking that both Halse and Long were somehow lying.

I get this image of an angry Jury Foreman sitting with his arms folded and a sour look on his face, not saying much, but when he does finally speak they are accusations of dishonesty and incompetence.

So was there already an air of cover-up stinking up the inquest? This Jury Foreman doesn't seem "on board" with the police.[]

I think your question contains the answer; Halse was part of the investigation that he was describing initially, but was not party to the decision to erase the writing. So, with the question from the foreman, he is being asked to speculate on the motives of the Met.
Personally, I don't think the foreman is accusing Halse of lying, but I do suspect he found the reason given for erasing the writing a bit thin. Halse may have felt this too, but he wisely decides simply to repeat the explanation given to him.

The question to Long on the whereabouts of his notebook was brought on by the previous questions from Crawford;

"Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book.
Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have."

The foreman sensibly wanted to go back to the original source, rather than the (presumably later) report being used by Long in court, to check the wording he recorded at the time.

So I don't find that comment particularly aggressive. The jury do seem to think Met PC Long made a mistake not searching the building thoroughly when he found the apron, though, and Crawford (City police solicitor) is quick to point out that the City police did so when they learned of it.

[Michael W Richards]

She made that repair herself because she intended to sell it. What was she doing putting it back on?

She is selling an old repaired apron, while wearing a new jacket? Who said she was going to sell it?

[Sam Flynn]

She is selling an old repaired apron, while wearing a new jacket? Who said she was going to sell it?

To Leanne -

Please answer on that other thread you said you'd set up. Can't see how this has any bearing on the authorship of the GSG.

[Michael W Richards]

To Leanne -

Please answer on that other thread you said you'd set up. Can't see how this has any bearing on the authorship of the GSG.

Sam, every topic here has tangential aspects, so....is it your intention to source out every single detail that people include in their posts and chastise them for including ones that are provably false, misleading or sheer presumption, ...or just the people who point that out?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, every topic here has tangential aspects, so....is it your intention to source out every single detail that people include in their posts and chastise them for including ones that are provably false, misleading or sheer presumption, ...or just the people who point that out?

We've only just moved one tangential topic to another thread, and along comes yet another. I'm not chastising anyone, just asking for a little common sense and restraint to be exercised, that's all.

[Leanne]

To Leanne -

Please answer on that other thread you said you'd set up. Can't see how this has any bearing on the authorship of the GSG.

Sam, I am working on the opening post of a new thread using Microsoft Word, editing it and adding to it all day making sure it's as accurate as I can get it...…..asking what did she do during the thirty minutes it would took her to get from Bishopsgate Police Station to Mitre square, which should haven taken her only ten.

Did she sacrifice her own apron, hoping to sell it ?

[Leanne]

I also wonder if there is an appropriate thread already started that I can simply add to.

[Michael W Richards]

RE the graffito: was there, just days after the murder, already a whiff of conspiracy/cover-up in the air?

This following exchange intrigues me.

D Halse testifying

Jury Foreman: Why was the writing really rubbed out? - Witness: The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground.

What I find interesting, before fielding this question D Halse had just finished explaining, to Mr. Crawford and the Coroner, in detail, why he thought the missive had been erased. During those comments D Halse is quite wordy and uses first person over and over, making himself part of the investigation.

Then with the issue seemly settled the Jury Foreman suddenly cracks out with this question (his only question) which has a serious tone of accusation attached to it.

Halse, who up this point, has been quite wordy and friendly when replying to Crawford and Coroner suddenly becomes uncooperative, dropping first person he disconnects himself and brushes off the Foreman with a curt reply. "The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground."

The tone of both men's comments suggest to me that the exchange was a tense moment.

I can only conclude that the Foreman, in using the word "really" was calling Halse a liar.

The Foreman would only ask the two officers, Halse and Long, one question each, and both questions sound very aggressive.

With Halse it is the use of the word "really," but earlier on with PC Long he is no less impatient/rude when he also expresses doubt about Long's testimony, (The Foreman: Where is the pocket-book in which you made the entry of the writing?) at which point he makes PC Long return to HQ and retrieve his pocket-book and return for more questioning at a later time. And again this is the only exchange he has with PC Long.

I can't help but feel that the Jury Foreman was thinking that both Halse and Long were somehow lying.

I get this image of an angry Jury Foreman sitting with his arms folded and a sour look on his face, not saying much, but when he does finally speak they are accusations of dishonesty and incompetence.

So was there already an air of cover-up stinking up the inquest? This Jury Foreman doesn't seem "on board" with the police.

I think its more likely that you are seeing jurisdictional squabbles between some parties, what constitutes evidence from which murder...that this snippet from Halse speaks to "…As to the premises being searched, I have in court members of the City police who did make diligent search in every part of the tenements the moment the matter came to their knowledge. But unfortunately it did not come to their knowledge until two hours after. There was thus delay, and the man who discovered the piece of apron is a member of the Metropolitan police. A Juror: It is the man belonging to the Metropolitan police that I am complaining of."

Its a curious thing...having what was interpreted as an Anti Semitic and therefore dangerous message in chalk, due to its location in a predominantly Jewish enclave, ...found above what is definitely an artifact from a city murder that night. Both of which were not found until almost 3am. A "good schoolboy hand" writing 3 lines in white chalk on a black surface, capital letters and lower case...the capitals around 3/4", and what seemed to Halse to be "fresh". Halse also notes immediately copying the message in his notebook, Long had recorded what he read in his. Its for this reason I default to Halse's version. "..not the men who will be blamed for nothing"

That seems to me to be why they rubbed it out, because it read that there was reason to blame The Juwes. Just change "for nothing" to without cause....for no reason....without justification...

If correct, that seems to me to suggest that the author though that Jews would be blamed for something. Was he assuming that the International Club would be blamed...and for good reason...for something? Isnt that the most current possible criminal act that one might associate with Jews at the time of the writing and its discovery? Its seems probable that the message intended blame for something specific, not just some general misery about the large immigrant Jewish population there at the time, and all the troubles going on locally. What very recent event could Jews be possibly blamed for at the time of the writing?

[Sam Flynn]

Its seems probable that the message intended blame for something specific

The difficulty with that is that the graffito doesn't mention anything specific, and could easily be read to mean that the Jews (in general) won't take responsibility for anything (in general).

[Michael W Richards]

The difficulty with that is that the graffito doesn't mention anything specific, and could easily be read to mean that the Jews (in general) won't take responsibility for anything (in general).

No, it doesn't overtly Sam, but in the context of that evening, it could. Might be the equivalent of "The Men at the International Club will not be blamed without good reason". It is specific in terms of ethnicity...why would we assume its just a general gripe? Its pretty clear that the message was written sometime that night, it would not have lasted without notice throughout the day, and on that night...contextually...Jews were blaming someone other than themselves for a murder on their own property.

I think in context its possible translation can have literal meaning, not some general slur.

[Sam Flynn]

No, it doesn't overtly Sam, but in the context of that evening, it could. Might be the equivalent of "The Men at the International Club will not be blamed without good reason".

If the killer wrote the graffito and was responsible for the murder of Liz Stride, then what grounds would he have for believing that the members of the International Workingmen's club would or wouldn't be blamed for... for what, precisely? I think it's just as tenuous to try to link the wording of the GSG to the IWMEC members as it is to link it to Eddowes giving her name as "Nothing" at the police station.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't claim that the killer of Liz Stride wrote the message Sam. I don't believe one man killed both women. I do know that the killer of Kate Eddowes was there, he left the apron, so Im suggesting he wrote the GSG to blame the Jews for what happened on their property that night. he claimed responsibility for Kate by virtue of the cloth. Not trying to clear himself for Stride, just showing his anti-Semitic attitudes and his belief that the Jews were to blame for Strides death.