The meaning of the GSG wording

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I do think it would be highly ironic (and frankly unlikely) if a disgruntled Jew wrote the message on the brand spanking new wall of the model dwellings (which housed mainly Jewish residents),

But the brand spanking walls of brand new council estates are often defaced very quickly with graffiti, by residents 'disgruntled' with the rest of the world.

Clearly not inconceivable to many, Heinrich, which kind of makes it your loss and their gain, to have this extra potential clue to the killer's psyche. Dismiss it as no clue at all and you have one less clue to work with

.
The graffiti might have had nothing whatsoever to do with the killer, yet it remains a 'potential clue to his psyche, because he hung on to the apron piece long enough to drop it there. There is absolutely no way for us to decide whether that was by accident or design, so the possibility will always exist that it was by design. If it was by design, then the killer was trying to make a point.

The point could have been linked to the graffiti -but just as easily linked to the building (which as you say "housed mainly jewish .residents"), if he didn't know that the graffiti was there. I don't see how we will ever know which was the case...but whichever, it remains a potential clue.

Heinrich -given the above, it is pretty silly not to be interested in the GSG and dismiss it as 'balderdash'. You are fixed on Joe Barnett
as JTR, so presumably you think that Joe dropped the apron piece under the graffiti (I take it that you do accept that the killer dropped the apron piece there ??). How can you possibly unilaterally decide that the apron piece was dropped in that particular spot by pure accident ? If it wasn't pure accident (go on, accept the possibility), then how does that clue fit in with how you perceive Joe Barnett ?

If you think that MJK was a copycat 'Domestic' -then why are you so sure that the killer of Eddowes couldn't possibly have chosen, on purpose , to leave the apron piece where he did ?

I'm very intrigued in hearing your theory, and just why you are so sure...?

[Fleetwood Mac]

My hunch is that it wasn't written by Jack.

The apron, though, that has me wondering.

In the doorway: makes me wonder if his intention was to enter the dwellings and exit out the back, and there was something on the other side that meant once he exited the building he felt there was a chance his hands may have given him away.

[curious]

My hunch is that it wasn't written by Jack.

The apron, though, that has me wondering.

In the doorway: makes me wonder if his intention was to enter the dwellings and exit out the back, and there was something on the other side that meant once he exited the building he felt there was a chance his hands may have given him away.

UMMMMMM, now that is interesting. What was at the back of the buildings? do any of the map experts here know that?

Of course, it has been "supposed" that the apron was taken to wrap the trophies, so why cut through the buildings that would lead out somewhere that might get him in trouble?

curious

[caz]

But the brand spanking walls of brand new council estates are often defaced very quickly with graffiti, by residents 'disgruntled' with the rest of the world.

Hi Rubyretro,

You stopped halfway through my point and only addressed the first bit, which makes your response rather meaningless, if factually true.

The bloody apron was needed to bring my whole point to life.

Love,

Caz
X

[ChrisGeorge]

I do think it would be highly ironic (and frankly unlikely) if a disgruntled Jew wrote the message on the brand spanking new wall of the model dwellings (which housed mainly Jewish residents), to mean: "we Jews can't always be expected to take the blame", and it managed to remain perfectly intact and legible for some time before the highly incriminating apron was dumped underneath in the entrance - for all the world like it was saying: "Ahem, I beg to differ".

What a cruel joke that would have been, whether by accident or design.

Well except that Jews are used to taking the blame, as shown in that poem "The Great Conversion" by Israel Zangwill (writing under the pseudonym "Marshallik"), that Chris Phillips kindly posted in the Zangwill thread. It would not therefore be inflammatory for a Jew to scrawl on a wall, ho hum, here we are being blamed once again.

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

In the doorway: makes me wonder if his intention was to enter the dwellings and exit out the back, and there was something on the other side that meant once he exited the building he felt there was a chance his hands may have given him away.

That is a very interesting thought. First new and viable idea I've seen put forth regarding the GSG since...well...since I put forth new and viable ideas on it. I believe there's a photo of the back of the building, and I think an old Ripperologist article, possibly by Monty, maybe by Gavin Bromley, discussed the exit door and back of the building, though I'm damned if I can remember any more right now.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

It's certainly a new idea, and new ideas are always welcome, but I can't see the point of JtR doing that. As I recall, there was only an alley on the eastern(ish) side of the Wentworth Model Dwellings. If he wanted to get to the alley, he could have entered it to the south of the building, wiped his hands, discarded the bit of apron, and been off. And, if that was where he was going, why would he linger in the doorway (I still can't believe that he wrote the graffito) where there was a better chance of his being seen, and then make his way through the building?

[Malcolm X]

written by the killer as an antisemetic attack, just like the description of Hutchinson's LA DE DA, JTR is saying that the killer is a JEW,

he also shouted ``Jew `` earlier that night, didn't he !!!

[Heinrich]

...
The graffiti might have had nothing whatsoever to do with the killer, yet it remains a 'potential clue to his psyche, because he hung on to the apron piece long enough to drop it there. There is absolutely no way for us to decide whether that was by accident or design, so the possibility will always exist that it was by design. If it was by design, then the killer was trying to make a point.

And if not, we are led into a cul de sac by devoting attention to a chalk mark. I don't believe that someone as demented as Jack the Ripper would carry the piece of apron to a graffito message.

Heinrich -given the above, it is pretty silly not to be interested in the GSG and dismiss it as 'balderdash'. You are fixed on Joe Barnett as JTR, so presumably you think that Joe dropped the apron piece under the graffiti

No, Rubyretro. While I do believe Joseph Barnett could easily have been convicted of Mary Kelly's murder, I am not yet persuaded that she was a Ripper victim.

(I take it that you do accept that the killer dropped the apron piece there ??).

Yes, this has to be the case.

How can you possibly unilaterally decide that the apron piece was dropped in that particular spot by pure accident?

I'm inclined to believe the murderer dropped it there deliberately but the presence of the graffito strikes me as coincidental.

If it wasn't pure accident (go on, accept the possibility), then how does that clue fit in with how you perceive Joe Barnett?

It doesn't.

If you think that MJK was a copycat 'Domestic' -then why are you so sure that the killer of Eddowes couldn't possibly have chosen, on purpose, to leave the apron piece where he did?

At 1.45 a.m., Eddowes' mutilated body was found in the south-west corner of Mitre Square by the square's beat policeman PC Edward Watkins. The piece of apron was not found until 2.55 a.m. at Goulston Street where it had not been when P.C. Alfred Long passed there at 2.20 a.m. Also Detective Halse said at the inquest '...about 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything'. There is more than an hour between the discovery of the body and the finding of the piece of apron. I am not of the opinion, therefore, that the location of the piece of apron tells us, as The Daily Telegraph report of 4th October 1888 concludes, that it marks the direct route taken by the killer after he murdered Catherine Eddowes.
Organs were missing from Catherine Eddowes' body and it is suggested elsewhere in the Casebook by Jon Smyth that the killer used half of Catherine Eddowes' apron to carry away her left kidney and part of her womb. Then, in his own good time, discarding the bloody evidence at Goulston Street. But I cannot give an opinion for his choice of location other than to suggest it was in the opposite direction from the murder scene to his dwelling and not because he knew someone had chalked a message on a door jamb.

I'm very intrigued in hearing your theory, and just why you are so sure...?

There is no good reason to suppose the killer wrote the graffito. It has been suggested by others that such a message would not have been allowed to stay there long by Jews who lived in the area and the police said it looked fresh. It's not impossible it had been written that very night, even by the killer. For me, however, it is not a clue to the Ripper's identity or motive.

[caz]

Well except that Jews are used to taking the blame, as shown in that poem "The Great Conversion" by Israel Zangwill (writing under the pseudonym "Marshallik"), that Chris Phillips kindly posted in the Zangwill thread. It would not therefore be inflammatory for a Jew to scrawl on a wall, ho hum, here we are being blamed once again.

Chris

No problem with any of that, Chris.

But once again, I was simply highlighting the rather ironic coincidence, if a Jew was chalking ho hum, here we are being blamed once again (whether for the recent murders or something entirely unconnected) a few hours or days before the bit of bloody cloth was deposited beneath, as if to say, well if the apron fits...

Love,

Caz
X

[waterloo]

The whole business of writing on the glazed brickwork seems odd to me. Didnt a polioce officer say that the writing was about one and a quarter inches tall. This is very small. Surely someone in a state of stress, just murdered and every police officer in the area looking for him have some difficulty in writing so small. It must have been tiny or have I misread the report by the officer who describes it.

Forgive me if I sound a bit daft but I am quite new

[Wickerman]

The whole business of writing on the glazed brickwork seems odd to me. Didnt a polioce officer say that the writing was about one and a quarter inches tall. This is very small. Surely someone in a state of stress, just murdered and every police officer in the area looking for him have some difficulty in writing so small. It must have been tiny or have I misread the report by the officer who describes it.

Forgive me if I sound a bit daft but I am quite new

Hi Waterloo.
Neither daft nor misread. In pretty much every debate on the G.S.G. this fact has been brought up. Yet people still choose to believe that the same person who is bold enough to leave bodies carved up on the street, is then going to squiggle miniscule criptic messages across a couple of house bricks.

If the grafitti was as big & bold as the attitude of the killer then it should have been scrawled in a large hand across a wall in full view of anyone passing by.

The devil is in the details...

Regards, Jon S.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Waterloo.
Neither daft nor misread. In pretty much every debate on the G.S.G. this fact has been brought up. Yet people still choose to believe that the same person who is bold enough to leave bodies carved up on the street, is then going to squiggle miniscule criptic messages across a couple of house bricks.

If the grafitti was as big & bold as the attitude of the killer then it should have been scrawled in a large hand across a wall in full view of anyone passing by.

The devil is in the details...

Regards, Jon S.

Signature killers usually leave their signature at the scene of the crime so it can be easily found which links the killer to the crime. Or by taking something away from the crime scene and then sending it to the police at a later date.

Not nearly a mile away. Come on a screwed up piece of rag which the police officer just happened to come by and scribbled graffiti which has no direct meaning to any of the victims of the murders.

Ring out the bells and its not even christmas

[Wickerman]

Given the state of the body, do we think there was need of further 'signatures'?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Waterloo.
Neither daft nor misread. In pretty much every debate on the G.S.G. this fact has been brought up. Yet people still choose to believe that the same person who is bold enough to leave bodies carved up on the street, is then going to squiggle miniscule criptic messages across a couple of house bricks.

If the grafitti was as big & bold as the attitude of the killer then it should have been scrawled in a large hand across a wall in full view of anyone passing by.

The devil is in the details...

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
The grafitti was big enough to be seen by the police at the time who also thought it was written by the killer who left the bloody apron.

"size" of the grafiti ruling it out? c'mon.