The meaning of the GSG wording

[Wickerman]

but with the cloth from Eddowes it means quite a lot.

So what you're saying is, that if the scribble had read, "Kilroy was here", the police would be hunting down every Kilroy in town?

[Monty]

Not at all. We know the police were thorough about interviewing neighbors. The fact that the police came away accepting the graffiti as a potentially valid clue means that they could not prove the opposite - that the graffiti had been there prior to the murders, for example, which would have been known to any of the inhabitants who came home, say, around 1am. If the graffiti had been there at 1am, then it wasn't written by the killer. If the wall was blank at 1am, then it almost certainly was written by the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

The individual Officer, and not the force, expressed their belief the writing was authored by Jack. However the cite no evidence for this, so yes, its a hunch and not a conclusion based on fact.

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

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.

Thank you. This is the most sensible, concise explanation for the writing on the wall that I've ever seen.

[Malcolm X]

the graffiti with no bloody cloth means nothing....

``the jews are the men that will not be bamed for nothing``...... yea' well what, what are you trying to say, who cares..... the graffiti has no frame of reference, it's just a silly comment.

but with the cloth from Eddowes it means quite a lot.

[Tom_Wescott]

Soooo, to quote them as support for the killer writing it is actually quite baseless on anything other than a feeling.

Not at all. We know the police were thorough about interviewing neighbors. The fact that the police came away accepting the graffiti as a potentially valid clue means that they could not prove the opposite - that the graffiti had been there prior to the murders, for example, which would have been known to any of the inhabitants who came home, say, around 1am. If the graffiti had been there at 1am, then it wasn't written by the killer. If the wall was blank at 1am, then it almost certainly was written by the Ripper.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

No worries Cris

Monty

[Hunter]

I know what the police considered Cris, I was commenting on the opinion of others here.

There is no evidence within the writing to support the killer wrote it. Therefore the official file will not hold, other than Moores opinion, the statement that its author and Eddowes killer is one in the same. Therefore Warren et al must be expressing personal opinion, a hunch, rather than anything based on fact. Soooo, to quote them as support for the killer writing it is actually quite baseless on anything other than a feeling.

My point with the apron in Hanbury Street is exactly as you mention. A piece of evidence investigated to a conclusion.

Monty

Sorry, Neil. It was written under my post so I made an incorrect assumption. I agree, when it comes to this episode, there is no way for anyone -then or now- to base any opinion - either way- on facts, other than the coincidence that occurred.

[Monty]

Hey Ben,

Indeed.

Bottom line is there's the official files, and then there's conjecture.

Unless Warren or whichever Police official you side with can produce the supporting evidence to their claims (and if memory serves me right none do re the writing) then we have little alternative but to take there claims as just that, claims....not fact.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

Soooo, to quote them as support for the killer writing it is actually quite baseless on anything other than a feeling.

It is interesting to observe that when I employ this exact line of reasoning on other threads, the standard response is usually that the police officials in question were experienced professionals who were "there at the time", and that their opinions are therefore invaluable, even if they didn't have the goods to convert them into solid facts. I think both of these arguments have merit (yours and the one I've just outlined), provided that people are consistent in applying them. There are various other case-related documents that contain police "opinion" only, and which may also be "quite baseless on anything other than a feeling".

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

I know what the police considered Cris, I was commenting on the opinion of others here.

There is no evidence within the writing to support the killer wrote it. Therefore the official file will not hold, other than Moores opinion, the statement that its author and Eddowes killer is one in the same. Therefore Warren et al must be expressing personal opinion, a hunch, rather than anything based on fact. Soooo, to quote them as support for the killer writing it is actually quite baseless on anything other than a feeling.

My point with the apron in Hanbury Street is exactly as you mention. A piece of evidence investigated to a conclusion.

Monty

[Hunter]

So everyone focuses on the wall writing and assume the Police must have thought the killer wrote it.

No, Neil. As evidence, they considered that the murderer might have written it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have considered it evidence.

The apron at Hanbury St. was checked out and dismissed. There was never an official confirmation or dismissal of the graffiti; thus it would naturally be left for individual interpretation at a later date. At the time, the concern (at least for the Met) was over the possible public reaction to it and the perceived ramifications of that. Warren, Arnold, Swanson...etc. would have been reluctant to stoke that fire by claiming they believed it to be written by the murderer, if they ever did; which we do not know. We do know that those three officials considered it an attempt to blame the Jews for something, whether by accident or design in conjunction with the apron.

[Monty]

The Police were collecting evidence at the scene.

They did this at Hanbury Street with the Leather Apron, Swallows Garden with the coins wrapped in newspaper behind the drainpipe. The former was accounted for, the latter not. However because it isnt 'sexy' enough the latter is rarely debated.

So everyone focuses on the wall writing and assume the Police must have thought the killer wrote it.

No, they did not. Individuals who worked on the force may have believed so however its interesting to note these claims are all made in books or articles.

Not once has it been noted that on the Police file that the Killer wrote the writing and evidence for that statement provided.

Hence the reason their personal views, and thats all they are, were aired in various mediums yet wont be seen on Official Case File.

Monty

[Hunter]

Hi Jon.

Point taken.

One still wonders what all the ruckus was about with the City Police wanting to photograph the GSG, Warren's consternation over what to do with it and the City Police response to his actions when he went to the Old Jewry to explain them.

Someone, that very morning, must have thought that the killer just might have written it.

[harry]

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.

[Wickerman]

Tom, I was having a little fun with Hunter because I saw it as a point of amusement.

Getting back the real point, please look back and you (and Hunter) will see that Abby commented that "the Police at the scene made the connection", which I took to mean the police present at Goulston St.

Therefore, my response was only concerned with the opinions of the police who were present at the scene. This means Sept, 30th 1888, do I need to be any more specific than that?
I don't move goal posts Tom, Abby set the parameters by saying "at the scene", not I.

Apology accepted...

Regards, Jon S.