The meaning of the GSG wording

[caz]

Hello Caz,

You are connecting the killer with the message and we don't know for sure if that is the case.

Not quite, c.d. I said - and I quote:

It 'almost seems like' the killer was having a laugh - relishing the thought of how Jew and Gentile would choose to interpret the words.

Taken by itself, the message could certainly be interpreted as being pro-Jewish.

Yes, but then how ironic that the killer comes along and undermines in such a spectacularly specific way a general complaint about Jews being blamed for something (anything) they didn't do. You couldn't make it up.

Or maybe you could.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz,

Is it really hard to imagine that graffiti existed as a regular occurrence in the LVP? Humans tend to communicate and walls and chalk were readily available. All it would take would be a few instances and then monkey see monkey do.

If I am not mistaken didn't they find some graffiti in the city of Pompei?

c.d.

Yes, but if you seek to compare the GSG with other examples of graffiti in Whitechapel in 1888 and declare it as nothing out of the ordinary (in style, size, language use and sentence construction - bugger the walls and chalk) you first have to produce some of these other comparable examples.

There is simply no point in arguing that you can't be expected to do that because nobody would have bothered photographing any, or mentioning any in the press (even after our GSG grabbed the headlines). That may or may not be true, but it's not evidence that they existed, never mind that they were all over the place.

I wonder why it is that those who argue for the apron being there at 2.20 when there is no evidence for it; and for similar graffiti being nearby when there is no evidence for it, are often the ones who argue for no connection between apron and GSG, thus lessening their options regarding the killer's behaviour and mindset.

I see the apron as a definite clue of sorts, and the message as a potential clue. That's all. I suppose I find it hard to understand why anyone would want to rub either or both of them out as if they have no possible insights worth offering in connection with this extremely clue-challenged murder case.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hello Caz,

I would say that the obvious explanation is that the apron differentiated this message from all others. Pretty much anything in proximity to the apron if it could be construed as being related to the killings would draw the interest of the police. Even if the police removed the apron people would still wonder what they had been doing and would take a look. Even if they erased the J word they might have worried that somebody could fill in the blank.

c.d.

But the police didn't erase the message because there had been a bloody apron beneath it, connected with a murder. That would have been cause to preserve it, in case it was in the killer's handwriting. They erased it because they feared the words by themselves could cause public disorder. That is my point, c.d. How many passers-by do you think had seen PC Long with the apron, or were aware at the time that the killer had left it as a calling card? The police were hardly going to advertise the fact. Besides, we have been told over and over that to anyone passing it would just have appeared like a bit of dirty old rag - litter in fact.

Love,

Caz
X