The meaning of the GSG wording

[mariab]

I'd love to see the other transcriptions as well.
By the by, the capitalization in the beginning of the lines as transcribed by Warren does not pertain to verse structure. He even destroys the symmetry by starting a new line with “be Blamed“. This can easily happen if one's jotting down hastily in the dark.

[Wickerman]

..... I'm willing to bet that the original said “won't“ – otherwise the verse effect is gone.

In spite of Long's inquest testimony?
In spite of the Inspector double-checking his notes?
In spite of Halse also making a copy?

However, it's also possible that the original GSG was entirely in capitals and that the police omitted transcribing this, not thinking it was an important detail.

Halse:
"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboys round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"

Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Three lines, ey? Hmmmm.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

If it was “will not“ vs. “won‘t“, then my GSG-as-verse theory goes down the drain. Or maybe he tried, but did not manage a verse. :-)

Halse:
"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboys round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"

Hmmm. So NO entire capitalization. Still, Tom's Juwes/Jewes=Imwes theory might have a chance.

Writing the SGS in 3 lines would also totally depend on wall space available.

[Wickerman]

Anyone else feel like playing "nip & tuc", to make the evidence fit their theory?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. I hope you aren't referring to me. I make a point of doing the opposite, although admittedly some evidence has more than one interpretation, such as the graffiti.

DC Halse spent the most time of anyone with the graffiti. He recorded that it was three lines (and we have his notes of exactly how these three lines appeared), but Warren's has four lines. So again, I submit that modern researchers who claim that Warren's version was intended to be an almost photographic representation of the graffiti are quite possibly mistaken.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

DC Halse spent the most time of anyone with the graffiti. He recorded that it was three lines (and we have his notes of exactly how these three lines appeared), but Warren's has four lines.

Hi Tom.
I thought Warren's version was quoted most often because it reflects PC Long's version, they are compatible. As for layout or structure I did not think anyone was pushing for five lines offset like Warren writes, but maybe I missed a post or two.
My guess is that the police had not reached that particular level of accuracy. Simply reproducing the words as they were spelled was sufficient for the 1880's.

Regards, Jon S.
(P.S. - No, I was not referring to you, but that doesn't give you a blank cheque.....I'm watching you!!)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick. Chris George suggested as much earlier in this thread, and most modern Ripper books also seem to accept as fact that Warren's note represents exactly how the graffiti appeared. It wasn't PC Long who wrote that down. No one's sure who it was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

knowledgable man

Hello Tom.

"DC Halse spent the most time of anyone with the graffiti. He recorded that it was three lines (and we have his notes of exactly how these three lines appeared), but Warren's has four lines. So again, I submit that modern researchers who claim that Warren's version was intended to be an almost photographic representation of the graffiti are quite possibly mistaken."

Completely agree. I think Halse knew more about the apron and GSG than any many alive. I'd be entirely shocked otherwise.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Completely agree. I think Halse knew more about the apron and GSG than any many alive. I'd be entirely shocked otherwise.

Except, of course, for the man who wrote the graffiti and left the apron..unless you're suggesting it was Halse himself? To allow Met police into the investigation? Is that the suggestion here?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick. Chris George suggested as much earlier in this thread, and most modern Ripper books also seem to accept as fact that Warren's note represents exactly how the graffiti appeared. It wasn't PC Long who wrote that down. No one's sure who it was.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

This (below) is what we are talking about, yes?



If this was all that existed then we might be compelled to believe it is a faithful representation, the fact is though we have no idea when it was written. At Goulston St.?, later that same day?, anytime after?

The words reflect PC Long's version, as opposed to that of DC Halse.

Against the above we have to consider that DC Halse described the lines as "three lines", as opposed to the "five" shown above. Once again, uncertainty. It could be argued that at least Halse, who wrote his own notes, was present. This cannot be assertained about the writer of the "five lines" in the pic.

That said, it could be argued that the "five lines" writer was also jotting down from memory, likewise Halse, when he wrote the graffiti in his notebook, did he also break it up faithfully into several lines? or did he just write it out in one long line and remember when questioned at the inquest that it had actually been written in several lines, he recalls three, but was he remembering correctly?

So we have a degree of uncertainty, three lines or five? I don't think we can insist on either one.

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

suggestion box

Hello Tom.

"unless you're suggesting it was Halse himself? To allow Met police into the investigation? Is that the suggestion here?"

Moi? A suggestion? No, I suppose I'm not a suggestive chap. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wicker,

I agree, except that conventional Ripperology DOES state emphatically that the graffiti as represented in the image you posted is exactly how it appeared on the wall. I haven't found any authoritative reason to conclude that was the case (though perhaps it was) and there's evidence, via Halse, that it was not.

Hi Lynn,

Are you stating outright then that Halse was behind the graffiti and/or apron?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

I agree, except that conventional Ripperology DOES state emphatically that the graffiti as represented in the image you posted is exactly how it appeared on the wall.

"Conventional Ripperology"?

I wouldn't be too worried about that, as I've said elsewhere, "that which gets repeated, gets believed".

I'd be more concerned about a contemporary report stating that Warrens(?) note represented the arrangement of the actual graffiti.

Regards, Jon S.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

I'm always amazed at what a piece of luck it was that a disgruntled Jew didn't spot the graffiti in the couple of hours between its writing and erasure, assemble the Kosher Nostra and lay siege to Goulston Street.

Regards,

Simon