The meaning of the GSG wording

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wickerman, you're moving the goal posts. The police, individually and collectively, were not in a position to go about telling their opinions. But Henry Smith, Macnaghten, Moore, and others are on record later with their opinion that the graffiti was legit. Warren and Swanson both infer this opinion in reports at the time of the murders, but don't explicitly state 'the graffiti was written by Jack'. It's interesting, is it not, that they asked some of the men who saw it if the handwriting resembled the 'Dear Boss' letter.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Certainly, it would all be opinion- yay or nay- but Jon, in an earlier post, said, "No policeman claimed that the killer wrote it, you know that, I know that, we all know that."

Inspector Moore, in an Oct. 18, 1896 report said that the GSG was, '...undoubtedly by the murderer...'

Thankyou Hunter, but there is a kind of time limit on these issues. :-)
I would appreciate you finding Insp. Moore's opinion in 1888, not a change of heart 8 years later!

My mistake, I should have said specifically "at the time of the murders".

P.S., if a policeman said that today, would you count that too!
:-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil H]

You could be anyone off the street.

But aren't we all, always? Unless confined to an asylum or a home of some sort.

Phil

[Carol]

Carol

This might surprise you - but I agree with everything you say.

I'm pleased to hear it.

So how would you structure your attempt to "speculate and 'juggle about'"?

phil

Hi Phil,
I'm afraid I can't divulge my methods of detection without knowing who I am talking to. You could be anyone off the street.
Carol

[Jonathan H]

No, and nor should I

You're missing the point of my role here.

If I do not put Macnaghten's point of view, as he claimed it to be in 1913/1914, nobody will -- ever.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Jonathan,

Are you capable of discussing the case, or any areas of it, free of your suspect bias?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[drstrange169]

...Druitt was a teacher (who inevitably carried chalk)...

I'm old enough to have had many a blackboard cleaner thrown at my head by irate teachers, nary a one carried it or chalk with them outside the classroom.

[Jonathan H]

To Tom & Hunter

Macnaghten is such a slippery and enigmatic source that it's hard to tell what he really believed about this particular aspect of the case.

Perhaps knowing -- as I argue he undoubtedly did -- that Druitt was a teacher (who inevitably carried chalk) this was, Mac sincerely believed, the murderer's whinge against the Jewish trio for nearly spoiling his night.

As I argue that Druitt confessed to his crimes before he took his own life, being responsible for the graffiti may have been a detail of the confession relayed to Macnaghten 'some years after'.

On the other hand, the sub-theme of his chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper' is a polemic against Anderson, and the latter's tale of a Jewish suspect and a treacherous Jewish witness. That the murderer, quite the contrary, was a 'Simon Pure' Gentile and the only witness was a [presumably] Gentile cop -- and he saw nothing of consequence.

Thus the anti-Semitic graffiti all too neatly serves that polemical purpose.

Because, of course, the story Mac tells here is a semi-fictional mishmash, one which elevates the graffiti, while exonerating the Jews of that night -- who might appear to have acted less than heroically -- and ruthlessly obliterates the real Jewish witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, from existence altogether.

[Hunter]

Certainly, it would all be opinion- yay or nay- but Jon, in an earlier post, said, "No policeman claimed that the killer wrote it, you know that, I know that, we all know that."

Inspector Moore, in an Oct. 18, 1896 report said that the GSG was, '...undoubtedly by the murderer...'

[Tom_Wescott]

Macnaghten, in his 1914 memoirs, asserted that the graffiti was definitely written by 'Jack'.

He asserted his opinion. Not trying to be nitpicky, but there is a difference.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

'Writing on the wall'

Macnaghten, in his 1914 memoirs, asserted that the graffiti was definitely written by 'Jack'.

After claiming credit for identifying the journalist who concocted the 'Dear Boss' hoax letter, Mac writes:

"When public excitement then was at white heat, two murders-unquestionably by the same hand-took place on the night of 3oth September. A woman, Elizabeth Stride, was found in Berners Street, with her throat cut, but no attempt at mutilation. In this case there can be little doubt but that the murderer was disturbed at his demoniacal work by some Jews who at that hour drove up to an anarchist club in the street. But the lust for blood was unsatisfied. The madman started off in search of another victim, whom he found in Catherine Eddowes. This woman's body, very badly mutilated, was found in a dark corner of Mitre Square. On this occasion it is probable that the police officer on duty in the vicinity saw the murderer with his victim a few minutes before, but no satisfactory description was forthcoming. During this night an apron, on which bloody hands had been wiped, was found in Goulburn Street (situated, if my memory is correct, about half-way between Berners Street and Mitre Square). Hard by was a writing in chalk on the wall, to the effect that " the Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." The apron gave no clue, and the chalk writing was obliterated by the order of a high police official, who was seemingly afraid that a riot against the Jews might be the outcome of this strange "writing on the wall:' This was the only clue ever left behind by the murderer."

Macnaghten is arguing that the murderer was a Gentile, who was blaming the Jews, specifically the three hard-working ones who interrupted the first murder -- and thus nearly saved the life of a Gentile woman -- and so 'Jack' had to satiate his mutilation lusts on another harlot that same night.

Oddly, the graffiti -- allegedly 'the only clue ever left behind by the murderer' -- goes completely unmentioned in both versions of Mac's 'Home Office Report'?

[Phil H]

Carol

This might surprise you - but I agree with everything you say.

I'm pleased to hear it.

So how would you structure your attempt to "speculate and 'juggle about'"?

phil

[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!
This might surprise you - but I agree with everything you say. I'm obviously not very good at explaining myself!
Love
Carol

[Phil H]

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

[Carol]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;193831]That is not a connection, it would be if someone 'knew' it was written at the same time. As it is obvious that no-one did know this then all we have is circumstance. There is no connection.

Hi Wickerman,
Ah - but what about my little thought that the murderer could have noticed the graffiti earlier, thought he could use it later, and then laid the bloodied piece of apron under it after his last murder. That would give it a connection wouldn't it?

Of course, this is pure speculation, but perhaps there is some evidence we have missed that could be explained by 'speculation'. 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.
Love
Carol