The Halse version

[Monty]

That they felt this need, rightly or not, is hardly a proof that the piece of apron wasn't purposely left near to the graffito, Neil. Why did they feel the need to copy it, then ?

Because its a possible clue.

Not that its an ascertained one.

The only reason the writing is in the equation is due to the apron piece, thats hardly proof either.

Monty

[DVV]

Obviously the Met felt the need to remove it due to public staftey, as they state.

That they felt this need, rightly or not, is hardly a proof that the piece of apron wasn't purposely left near to the graffito, Neil. Why did they feel the need to copy it, then ?

[Monty]

Really David? On what basis do you draw that?

Most here view the removal from the dection aspect rather than prevention. Obviously the Met felt the need to remove it due to public staftey, as they state.

Perfectly reasonable when taking the writing in context, in other words there is no immediate value.

Monty

[DVV]

Regardless of whether or not the killer actually wrote it, the fact that the wording is still subject of debate 123 years after the event is testament to the stupidity of Warren & Arnold in having it erased before it could be photographed. We know (Walter Dew) that such graffiti was commonplace, so why the haste in removing this particular example, if it was, indeed, unconnected? It was IMHO sheer stupidity to assume as they did, that the writing was not connected, when there was even a faint possibility that it might be. There is also no point in doing so to prevent the stirring of anti-semitic feelings when both versions were brought to the attention of the public during the Eddowes inquest a few days later. I see no difficulty in screening the script from view, photographing it and then erasing it before it was seen. A probationer fresh out of training school would see this decision as
monumentally stupid, and would be entirely right in so doing.

Having erased the graffito, and knowing that they would be blamed for that, the Met would have logically tried its best to ascertain that it had been chalked before Sept 30, and was therefore unconnected, or at least not from the killer's hand. (We know that they have interrogated the people who lived there, in Wentworth Model Dwellings.)
But it seems they couldn't find evidence that the message had been written before the murder, for had it been the case, they would have been too happy to clamour it.

[Monty]

Multiple killers working a small area with nigh on the same base characteristics?

Oh dear.

Monty

[lynn cates]

He groaned deeply in his spirit.

Hello Neil. Victimology? Oh please.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

That's partly the reason why I don't see this small, neat, legible and complete sentence as the work of your average graffiti artist. This was no 'scribble'.

That's certainly not how modern graffiti artists work, but is it true of their 19th century equivalents? I don't know

Another point is that all the words are spelled in correct English apart from 'Juwes'. How likely is it that any Jew who could write English as well as that would not be able (or willing) to spell the word 'Jews' correctly? Unless perhaps it was a Jew pretending to be a Gentile? Now that's a suggestion I don't recall seeing before.

Nor me. It's a good point, but would a Jew pretending to be a Gentile not choose a more obviously Gentile site than the stairway to a tenement inhabited predominantly by Jews?

The meaning, as ever, depends much on what the individual would like it to mean.

And upon who wrote it. If not the killer, can it have any relevance at all?


I wonder if Don Rumbelow still thinks the killer wrote it. He did a few years back when I was on his walk.

Love,

Caz
X

As for the meaning, the Halse version is the only one which could make sense of Robert D'Onston Stevenson's "Juives" theory. (Tee hee!)

Regardless of whether or not the killer actually wrote it, the fact that the wording is still subject of debate 123 years after the event is testament to the stupidity of Warren & Arnold in having it erased before it could be photographed. We know (Walter Dew) that such graffiti was commonplace, so why the haste in removing this particular example, if it was, indeed, unconnected? It was IMHO sheer stupidity to assume as they did, that the writing was not connected, when there was even a faint possibility that it might be. There is also no point in doing so to prevent the stirring of anti-semitic feelings when both versions were brought to the attention of the public during the Eddowes inquest a few days later. I see no difficulty in screening the script from view, photographing it and then erasing it before it was seen. A probationer fresh out of training school would see this decision as
monumentally stupid, and would be entirely right in so doing.

Sorry, that became more of a rant than I originally intended!

[Monty]

Hello Neil. Well, I've never seen a shred of evidence that it was one.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Cheers.
LC

Bridewell,

Popular? Pop-u-lar?

Nope, sorry, no idea what that word means.

DB,

You're too late, Trevor Marriott has already claimed it happened.

Monty

[D.B.Wagstaff]

I've see many posts from Simon making the claim Jack as a sole killer is a myth, he never exsisted yet I have not seen one with supporting evidence.

As Scroobious Pip once said "Throw enough $hit at the wall and some of it will stick but make no mistake your walls still covered in $hit".

I'd wait with baited breath if it wasn't for the fact I'd pass out.

Monty

Is there any evidence that Jack threw faecal matter on the wall during or after the Eddows murder, either at the scene or near the Ghoulston Street Grafitti? If so, did it stick?

Just kidding . . .

[Bridewell]

Facts

MO, victimology, location, body position, wounds.

I guess you're right Lynn.

Monty

Monty, you're introducing evidence and facts onto a forum where both are subordinate to speculation. You're right, of course, but you won't be popular with some.

Yours Aye, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Hello Neil. Well, I've never seen a shred of evidence that it was one.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Cheers.
LC

MO, victimology, location, body position, wounds.

I guess you're right Lynn.

Monty

[lynn cates]

new prime suspect

Hello Neil. Hmm, not well known; lives in the area? Oh no! A local unknown!

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Thank Christ for Google eh Simon?

He isn't a well know Ripperologist, though does live in the area. I guess that's why he has a better grasp on the case than some.

Please don't bother, my notes read "please do no resuscitate". I had it placed in there should Marriotts theories ever become accepted as mainstream.

Monty

[lynn cates]

Take a gander at this.

Hello Neil. Well, I've never seen a shred of evidence that it was one.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Scroobious Pip, eh? The well-known hip-hop Ripperologists, no less.

Don't worry, pal, I'll resuscitate you when it's all over and safe to come out.

Regards,

Simon