The meaning of the GSG wording

[Wickerman]

....and you agree the residents would have been questioned about the graffiti,

Policeman: Excuse me sir, have you noticed any graffiti down stairs anywhere?

Mr Goldberg: What graffiti, where do you mean?

Policeman: There's some words written on the wall downstairs, I need to know if they were there yesterday.

Mr Goldberg: What words, where are they, show me.

Policeman: I can't.

Mr Goldberg: Why not?

Policeman: We washed them off.

Mr Goldberg: Are you taking the pi$$ copper!!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Carol,

If you can think it, more than half the battle is done, the rest is just slapping words down. And I'd be useless without editors, let me tell you. LOL.

Monty,

You might have noticed what I wrote a few posts earlier...

The argument that it WAS written by Eddowes' killer is based on three solid facts with direct bearing upon the evidence, so in the historical context, it should be offered as a conclusion, but not a proven fact within and of itself, that Eddowes' killer wrote the graffiti.

So if we're on the same wavelength, and you agree the residents would have been questioned about the graffiti, and apparently not a one could attest to that graffiti having been there prior to the murders, then why are you still stuck on the notion that it was yet another coincidence? Aren't you uncomfortable with the sheer volume of 'coincidences' that have been left in the wake of the minimalistic approach to Ripperology that has been the trend the past 10 years or so?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Ah, it depends on the interpretation of the facts and how other facts impact on said initial facts.

Its not as simple as pinning as many facts as you can together and drawing a conclusion. Theory is theory, not conclusive.

Monty

[Carol]

Hi Carol. I agree with both you and Phil. Facts by themselves are just details. It requires piecing them together and intepretation for them to mean anything. I believe that the more 'facts' you have supporting your 'theory', the more weight your 'speculation' will carry. That's how I break my arguments down. They must start with 'FACTS' from which one forms a 'THEORY'. On the basis of this theory I may choose to 'speculate'.

Hi Tom,

It's plain to see that you are a writer and I'm not! You've put into words EXACTLY what I've been trying to explain.

Carol

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Harry. I think the killer would most certainly know that the police would be searching every nook and cranny in the area and that the bloodied apron would be found within hours, and the chalk writing read.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[harry]

If the apron was meant to compliment the writing,throwing it on the floor was not good thinking.It could have been picked up by anyone,kicked into a corner,or even moved by the elements,and a connection lost.The killer was not to know that an inquisative policeman would take an interest.If it had been anchored in some way to the message,that would have been different,and a more suitable place in which that could be achieved, could have been found at a later date.

[Monty]

I suspect the initial question would be 'have you seen chalked writing in the building, if so where, when, what did it say?"

Then did you see anyone write it?

Pure conjecture I know, based on experience. That's all.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

The reality is some things have to be inferred based upon what we do know. In this case, a police commissioner had a potential piece of evidence obliterated, so you can bet that any and every question would have been asked the residents of that builiding, and questions about the writing would have immediately followed the more pertinent question of 'did you see anybody?' We do know for a fact that they were questioned, and you seem to be accepting that they asked each resident if they saw a person there. Is that documented or are you just 'speculating'? Maybe they just knocked and asked what they had for dinner.

I'm not saying that to be a smartass, I'm just illustrating the point that it would be beyond comprehension if they didn't ask the residents if they saw a person there, and if they knew anything about the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

3) Anti-Semitic graffiti was not uncommon in the East End.
4) Questioning of the residents of the building did not provide evidence that the graffiti pre-existed the murder of Eddowes, or if it did, it was kept very silent by very few people within the police force.

...Fact #3 does not. The argument that the graffiti was not written by the killler is based on only this solid fact, which is not a direct fact.

I would take issue with that interpretation Tom, I don't think there is an 'argument' that it was not written by the killer.
The argument is, that there is no direct relationship between the graffiti & the apron, so no indication that they are related in any way except by speculation.
The point being, so long as no-one can make a connection between the two then there is no connection.
Remember the leather apron found in the same yard as Chapman's body? Proximity alone carry's no weight, the police knew this and you know this, the same rule applies here.
A relationship must be proven, or demonstrated, hence all the wild conjectures as to the meaning of the wording are attempts to do just this.

On your Fact 4), we do not know if the residents were even asked about the graffiti. I did refer to this point in my dissertation on this subject, and made the same comment as you have.
The police certainly will have asked about seeing anyone or hearing anything out of the ordinary. Yet without a direct statement from the police at the scene suggesting they accepted the two 'items' were related we cannot just assume the police included it as part of their investigation.
So in essence what you have in your 4), is an argument from silence.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Carol. I agree with both you and Phil. Facts by themselves are just details. It requires piecing them together and intepretation for them to mean anything. I believe that the more 'facts' you have supporting your 'theory', the more weight your 'speculation' will carry. That's how I break my arguments down. They must start with 'FACTS' from which one forms a 'THEORY'. On the basis of this theory I may choose to 'speculate'. I tend to blur the lines between the three in my posts, which might be a bad habit, but when I'm writing for publication I try to make it clear what I'm presenting.

In the case of the graffiti, here are most of the solid 'facts' we have...

1) Somebody wrote a message in Goulston Street.
2) A portion of Eddowes' apron was found under or near it.
3) Anti-Semitic graffiti was not uncommon in the East End.
4) Questioning of the residents of the building did not provide evidence that the graffiti pre-existed the murder of Eddowes, or if it did, it was kept very silent by very few people within the police force.

Now, of these facts, 1, 2, and 4 relate DIRECTLY to the writing. Fact #3 does not. The argument that the graffiti was not written by the killler is based on only this solid fact, which is not a direct fact. The argument that it WAS written by Eddowes' killer is based on three solid facts with direct bearing upon the evidence, so in the historical context, it should be offered as a conclusion, but not a proven fact within and of itself, that Eddowes' killer wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Carol]

Hello Carol,

You wrote:

You can't solve some crimes just on evidence - you have to speculate and 'juggle about'. You probably couldn't prove anything in court, but at least you would have the satisfaction of having solved a crime.

But surely, even if you wish to "speculate", you need some frame of reference, even "rules" against which to arrange and test your logic? You have to establish some way of saying "I accept this" but "I refute that" - in other words a consistent approach. Otherwise, one is simply "guessing".

As some of us have been discussing on other threads, there is an "historical method" which serves academics well.

Without that any solution would surely only satisfy those who agree, or "go along with" your guesses?

Phil

Hi Phil!

I've been rather confused by your reaction to my post quoted above. I've read it through several times to try and understand why and it is only since a couple of minutes ago that I think I now understand.

I wrote 'you can't solve some crimes just on evidence' - is that the problem? Perhaps I should have written 'you can't solve some crimes on evidence alone'. What do you think? Because I meant what I said that I agreed with what you had written yourself (as quoted above).

Sorry I teased you about 'off the street'. I was just rather put out by your reaction to my posts.

By the way, can you point me in the direction of the thread where some of you are discussing 'the historical approach'. I'm no academic but willing to learn! Thanks.

Carol

[Carol]

I might say,'The English are not the men"etc,and I would do so in a general manner, because I myself am English,and I would be writing a personnel opinion.So I believe the message to be written by a Jewish person,and relates to general matters,and not specific ones.I believe the apron was just thrown in passing,as I see the killer's main objective to be getting as quickly as possible,to a place of safety.

Hello Harry
Great thoughts! Keep them coming!
Love
Carol

[sleekviper]

It depends on the intelligence of the person that wrote it, I imagine to the police at the time, this very well could stand on it's own with or without the apron. Break this down into two parts, it actually could be viewed as quite clever. A group of men will not be blamed. Well, blamed for what? For nothing. Nothing in that sense could then become a meaning of nonexistence, a negation of being. If something transfers from positive to negative, it becomes extinct, it is nothing. What transferred from positive to extinct in the area where a group of men could have been blamed, but would not be? Stride is killed in the yard at the club. We can say, "There is nothing left of my lottery winnings", or, "There is nothing left from last nights meal", and it takes on this extinct transfer. Sure it could be a load of gibberish, but for a man that seems to care no more for human life than most would yesterdays news, it could be a statement that he had his double when the bit of apron is placed with the words.

[Hunter]

Warren's and Arnold's concerns were over what was written in that doorway and what the possible implications of that might be be. 'Kilroy was here' would not have had the same effect.

[harry]

Thank you Scott.