The meaning of the GSG wording

[lynn cates]

By Apollo, not I

Hello Tom.

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

Most certainly not. I'd never make a statement like that; well, at least unless there was evidence, of course.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Juden Hetze

Hello Simon. Well, if Arnold White is to be believed, the East End was always on the verge of a pogrom. That could be a deterrent.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

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

I have a well-worn copy of 'Ultimate' too, Wick, and have thoroughly researched the graffiti, so I know exactly what Warren says. And what he does not say is that his note represents the appearance of the letters, i.e. what's capitalized and what's not.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A number of professional policemen could not agree upon the location, syntax, spelling or linage of the GSG.

What is wrong with this picture?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil H]

A number of professional policemen could not agree upon the location, syntax, spelling or linage of the GSG.

What is wrong with this picture?

Nothing - except human falliability and human error.

A photograph may not lie, but human perceptions can differ.

The writing on the wall may have been difficult to read (smudged?) and ungrammatical. It is logical that the police seeking to record it, transcribed it in different ways. One uses capitals, another mislocates a word... Maybe not all could get into the entry at the same time, if the graffito was "round the corner" as it were.

Also the C19th way of perceiving things was not as ours. Look at antiquarian illustrations of things or places that still exist and see how different they are. Egyptologists could not always copy inscriptions and reliefs exactly as they did not understand the artistic grammar.

How good was the spelling or grammar of the police constables involved? did they understand WHY they were copying the wording - or what the product of their labours would be used for? How much time did they have - as we know Warren wanted the writing rubbed out as quickly as possible?

There is no need to create difficulties here - the explanations are natural and simple.

Those of you who have to have some spurious link between killer, writing and apron-piece, or want to create conspiracies out of thin air, will naturally reject my matter-of-fact explanation. But none of these are necessary or appropriate. Human error and human falliability are enough.

Phil

[waterloo]

There is a bit of a conundrum here in that for whatever reason we all seem unable to really understand what the GSG is trying to say. Here is the problem. The police at the time thought that any person reading the GSG including market stall holders and everyday folk would turn to serious disorder and violence would take place. Now what would those people be seeing in the GSG which we are not?
It is hard to believe that those words alone would cause such a response.This is the key to solving what the GSG is saying.
I dont know the answer. I would suggest micro historical events in that close area. Wentworth buildings must be more significant than many think.
Well its a thought.
Sorry if I am rambling I am trying to get up to speed

Waterloo

[Fleetwood Mac]

It is hard to believe that those words alone would cause such a response.

You are entirely correct.

The CE scenario including apron, GSG and location were printed in the newspapers and no such riot took place.

The other important point is that the murder was 10 minutes away from the GSG. If the police had simply picked up the apron, photographed the writing, undertaken their search and left the area, then that writing would have been viewed as just another piece of writing among others. So why did they assume such a riot would take place? or did they?

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Phil H;196232

Maybe not all could get into the entry at the same time, if the graffito was "round the corner" as it were.

[/QUOTE]

Phil, according to Warren a large part of the reason for erasing the graffiti was that 'it was clearly visible from the street'.

[ChrisGeorge]

There is a bit of a conundrum here in that for whatever reason we all seem unable to really understand what the GSG is trying to say. Here is the problem. The police at the time thought that any person reading the GSG including market stall holders and everyday folk would turn to serious disorder and violence would take place. Now what would those people be seeing in the GSG which we are not?
It is hard to believe that those words alone would cause such a response.This is the key to solving what the GSG is saying.
I dont know the answer. I would suggest micro historical events in that close area. Wentworth buildings must be more significant than many think.
Well its a thought.
Sorry if I am rambling I am trying to get up to speed

Waterloo

Hi Waterloo

You wrote re the graffito, "It is hard to believe that those words alone would cause such a response."

You weren't there. Think of it, in the middle of a largely Jewish ethnic area, in the doorway to a tenement filled with Jews, with an inscription that seemingly blamed the Jews for the murders. At a time when there had been unrest in the streets of the East End during the Israel Lipski trial and execution of 1887 and following those events. I think there are definite reasons for Warren to have feared an anti-semitic riot.

Best regards

Chris

[Phil H]

And yet have I not seen that it was actually written on the inside of the arch support?

I must admit I have looked at so many reconstructions of the position of the writing that I may well be confused.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

And yet have I not seen that it was actually written on the inside of the arch support?

I must admit I have looked at so many reconstructions of the position of the writing that I may well be confused.

Phil

I think Warren states this in his letter to the Home Office.

[Phil H]

This link appears to suggest at least two positions for the writing - both of which would be "visible from the street".

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1699&page=13&highlight=graffiti

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

This link appears to suggest at least two positions for the writing - both of which would be "visible from the street".

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=1699&page=13&highlight=graffiti

Phil

Thanks for that, Phil, good visualisation.

Seems to me Jon's version ties in with Warren.....

"On the jamb of the open archway....."

Which begs the question: this is white chalk on black. Why didn't Long spot it as he entered the archway?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil H,

What makes you so adamant that "'Jack' killed Eddowes, cut off some material to clean himself up, discarded it in an open doorway and went home. End of story"?

Is it because you believe in "Jack" on the basis of some evidence, or simply that you want the story to be true?

Monty remarked earlier that "It amazes me how some dismiss the testimony of those who were at the scene."

Well, what exactly are we meant to accept? What is there for us to grasp in the testimonies of a group of policemen, from a humble PC to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who could not agree amongst themselves and even managed to bemuse a couple of Home Office mandarins?

You maintain that the explanations for their inconsistencies are natural and simple—"human fallibility and human error."

I respectfully choose to disagree, and without disappearing down a "conspiratorial rathole" [nice turn of phrase, by the way] will continue to question the widespread blind faith in the status quo which is keeping the mythical "Jack" alive-and-well long past his sell-by date.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

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