The meaning of the GSG wording

[Abby Normal]

Whichever way we look at it, two unfortunates lay dead that night with fatal knife wounds to the throat. Part of one woman's apron was found in Goulston Street, along with a chalked communication on the wall above.

This was no ordinary night, but many minimalists insist - without a shred of actual evidence - that we treat this communication as a perfectly ordinary one, with a perfectly ordinary structure and meaning (if only we could all agree on the latter), that simply happened to be discovered at an awkward time and place - for the minimalists, I hasten to add. I find it intriguing rather than awkward.

I wish someone could finally explain to me, after yet another long debate on this supposed irrelevance, why 'ordinary' is the more logical stance to adopt here, and why the message could not have been one more 'out of the ordinary' discovery that night.

Love,

Caz
X

Exactly.

To beleive that the apron and GSG are unrelated, one would have to beleive in a set of circumstances that are far more unlikley than that of the killer writing the message IMHO:

The apron just happened to wind up directly underneath the writing.
The apron just happened to wind up below the only graffiti in the immediate area.
The apron just happened to wind up under graffiti that just happened to only be there for one night only.
The apron just happened to wind up under graffiti that implicates jews, who just happen to have been the witnesses that evening.
The police all just happened to be in error that there was a connection.


I think maybe this scenario is more likely:

A dog attracted to the scent of blood picked up the apron in mitre square and wanders away with it and while in Goulston street stops to read some writing on the wall and drops the rag. So bewildered by the words meaning the dog wanders away befuddled, leaving the rag. : )

[Fleetwood Mac]

The apron just happened to wind up directly underneath the writing.

Glad you posted this Abby, as I've been trying to work out exactly where the apron was in relation to the writing.

Can you just explain the whereabouts of the apron, please?

Thanks in advance.

[Monty]

Can someone explain what they mean by 'Mininalist' in this field.

Its not about ordinary, or extraordinary, its about fact and evidence and drawing a conclusion based on probability and possibility.

Fine, question and draw you conclusion. Just give me some sound evidence or conjecture instead of the 'what if' and twisted testimony.....oh, and false accusations with so far no foundation.

Monty

[lynn cates]

good

Hello Caz. Good points all. (And spoken in the Queen's English, I might add.)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

This was no ordinary night, but many minimalists insist - without a shred of actual evidence - that we treat this communication as a perfectly ordinary one,...

Caz.
Proximity does not constitute evidence. Association must be demonstrated, or better, proved. Remember the leather apron in the yard at No. 29 Hanbury St.? Just because another artifact lays close by does not mean we should assume a connection.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Its not about ordinary, or extraordinary, its about fact and evidence and drawing a conclusion based on probability and possibility.

Fine, question and draw you conclusion. Just give me some sound evidence or conjecture instead of the 'what if' and twisted testimony.....oh, and false accusations with so far no foundation.

You mean as I have done? Oh, and you, my good sir, are a minimalist.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Can someone explain what they mean by 'Mininalist' in this field.

By “minimalist“ they mean that one isn't willing to “lean out the window“ and express a theory further than the basic bare facts, Monty. You know, the way they say “the interior decorating in my crib is on the minimalist side“ when one's sleeping on a matress on the floor, with cartons for furniture, eating out of a paper bag. :-)

[Monty]

You mean as I have done? Oh, and you, my good sir, are a minimalist.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I see,

So you would be a fantasist.

Monty

[Monty]

[ QUOTE=mariab;196396]By “minimalist“ they mean that one isn't willing to “lean out the window“ and express a theory further than the basic bare facts, Monty. You know, the way they say “the interior decorating in my crib is on the minimalist side“ when one's sleeping on a matress on the floor, with cartons for furniture, eating out of a paper bag. :-)[/QUOTE]

Wow, its like people know me.

Someone has to bring the factual content, otherwise the reality will be left at the mercy of those who replace fact with theory.

Monty

[Phil H]

Buffoonery and selective reasing are the comments i wouldmake on many posts in this thread.

Think about it, those of you who want to complicate matters - contrary to Abby's utterly nonsensical post - wherever the apron-piece was found, it HAD to be in juxtaposition to SOMETHING be it a building or whatever. Had it been found under a poster pasted on a wall, or a street market stall, you'd be trying to show some link.

While there may be a link my point is that there is no proof that apron and writing did not come together accidentally, and in the absence of any conclusive link or even a concensus on the meaning of the words, the LOGICAL conclusion is to assume NO LINK.

As Jon S said:

Proximity does not constitute evidence. Association must be demonstrated, or better, proved. Remember the leather apron in the yard at No. 29 Hanbury St.? Just because another artifact lays close by does not mean we should assume a connection.

Caz:

I wish someone could finally explain to me, after yet another long debate on this supposed irrelevance, why 'ordinary' is the more logical stance to adopt here, and why the message could not have been one more 'out of the ordinary' discovery that night.

It is the right approach because it ASSUMES least.

There is NO PROVEN link between the murders of Eddowes and Stride beyond the day.

There is no PROVEN link between apron-piece and writing other than juxtaposition (and on that see my remarks earlier in this post).

The links you propose are circumstantial and suppositious - I would have less objection if you flagged them up as such and NOT as proven conclusions.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

I'd agree with Phil.

Anyone really going with the evidence would say:

a) Long should be taken as read.

b) The writing doesn't mentioned a murder and as such should be discounted.

c) There is no evidence that Jack went to clean up.

d) Meaning: Jack didn't leave the streets and dropped the apron between 2.20 and 2.55. Were we to concentrate solely on and accept witness testimony, that is what we're being told.

[Tom_Wescott]

I see,

So you would be a fantasist.

Monty

Not at all. That would be the other extreme. I'm in the middle. I suppose you'd call me a factist.

Fleetwood,

That's all well and good, but such a proposition lacks imagination.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Soothsayer]

Not at all. That would be the other extreme. I'm in the middle. I suppose you'd call me a factist.

Fleetwood,

That's all well and good, but such a proposition lacks imagination.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Oh, the irony ...

[Fleetwood Mac]

Not at all. That would be the other extreme. I'm in the middle. I suppose you'd call me a factist.

Fleetwood,

That's all well and good, but such a proposition lacks imagination.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

There's a reason why lawyers aren't trained in the creative arts, Tom.

[Abby Normal]

Buffoonery and selective reasing are the comments i wouldmake on many posts in this thread.

Think about it, those of you who want to complicate matters - contrary to Abby's utterly nonsensical post - wherever the apron-piece was found, it HAD to be in juxtaposition to SOMETHING be it a building or whatever. Had it been found under a poster pasted on a wall, or a street market stall, you'd be trying to show some link.

While there may be a link my point is that there is no proof that apron and writing did not come together accidentally, and in the absence of any conclusive link or even a concensus on the meaning of the words, the LOGICAL conclusion is to assume NO LINK.

As Jon S said:

Proximity does not constitute evidence. Association must be demonstrated, or better, proved. Remember the leather apron in the yard at No. 29 Hanbury St.? Just because another artifact lays close by does not mean we should assume a connection.

Caz:

I wish someone could finally explain to me, after yet another long debate on this supposed irrelevance, why 'ordinary' is the more logical stance to adopt here, and why the message could not have been one more 'out of the ordinary' discovery that night.

It is the right approach because it ASSUMES least.

There is NO PROVEN link between the murders of Eddowes and Stride beyond the day.

There is no PROVEN link between apron-piece and writing other than juxtaposition (and on that see my remarks earlier in this post).

The links you propose are circumstantial and suppositious - I would have less objection if you flagged them up as such and NOT as proven conclusions.

Phil

Think about it, those of you who want to complicate matters - contrary to Abby's utterly nonsensical post - wherever the apron-piece was found, it HAD to be in juxtaposition to SOMETHING be it a building or whatever. Had it been found under a poster pasted on a wall, or a street market stall, you'd be trying to show some link.

As opposed to your way of thinking if it had ben found undernieth writing that said I ******* did it it you woud say that it had nothing to do with it.