The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[tji]

Hi all

I don't think that the gsg has anything to do with the killings. Would anybody have noticed the graffitti if the apron hadn't been underneath it. (Not directly under either if I remeber correctly!)

Why couldn't it just have been the rambling of a drunken semi-literate person on their way home from a night of drink?

tj

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mr. E:

I'm sorry you took my comments the wrong way...and I don't blame you in retrospect. I didn't mean any disrespect to you or to the other 3 individuals mentioned along with you who disagree with the Goulston Street Message's provenance....just soapboxing in the other direction and it came out wrong

I seem to remember that we had a discussion on another website 5 years ago about the location of the message... ( Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you stated your opinion at that time that the message was on the archway of the building ( brickwork) and not in the recess of the entrance of the building.. on the jamb of the door next to the stairs on its left.... If the message and apron were found there on the inside of the entrance,the message probably would not have been affected by inclement weather. It would have made little sense for the author of the message to attempt to write on the exposed brickwork...the archway,considering that it had rained. Stranger things have happened in the history of serial killing than taking 30 seconds or so to place a message on a wall,as I am sure your experience in police work for 30 years will attest to.

Halse's opinion is not necessarily "obviously biased" as you posit...but perhaps a case of a superior police officer ( He was a detective,not a patrolman and a patrolman under a different thumb ) taking the message into account ( its wording and its characteristic of "freshness") where another officer didn't do quite as good a job with the same available facts.

The fact that Halse was a City detective probably played a role in the way he appears more sure of himself and what he observed. He was attempting to tie the last murder on City turf with the apron found on Met turf. Who's to say whether Long wasn't going with the flow,so to speak,and being influenced by his boss Warren's decision, was less inclined to argue against the decision to remove it and remember things in the manner Halse did based on the Inquest deposition they provided? So do we assume Halse had a bias or do we assume he did a better job than Long based on his definitiveness in relation to information available to both men at the same time ? In any event,I apologize for being heavy of hand in the previous post. I know you are merely giving your opinion as to the message's provenance....even though I, ahem, believe you are wrong.

All the best,sor...

[The Good Michael]

I have to agree with How on one point, and this is something that was discussed on the old boards, and in my mind is, and was, an important factor in leaning to the GSG as a message from JTR, if not in his own handwriting necessarily. It was not grafitti. It was a message written neatly by someone who probably was not a grafittist, and as such was different from the work of a normal grafittist.

Why was it not bold and vibrant? If JTR wanted to have a look-at-me message, surely he would have made it outstanding, yes? Not necessarily. It may have been his first such effort. If he had an occupation that caused him to always write small and neat, it would make sense that he would write this way the first time. It's possible that he wrote it earlier in the evening, or when there was available light, liked what he saw, and thought that he would add to it later if possible (meaning tossing a souvenir down). He also could have read it and liked it though it was someone else's handiwork. Yet I don't think two men, the writer and JTR would have made the same mistake with 'Juwes' or 'Jewes'. Another possibility is that he added to the writing or subtracted something from it.

Anyway, I'm getting away from my initial point and from the point of the thread. I think it was a Jew who was fed up (or someone pretending to be a Jew who was fed up) and this is the same thought the police had and why they wanted it removed.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Paul Emmett writes:

"Hi, Fisherman.

But all this is based on your assunption that he wrote primarily to be recognized, which, of course, is possible. But it is also possible thar he wrote to play with the police--or the world. It could have been 40% recognition, 50% play and 10% something else. He could have been showing off his clever, personal style.

Upon reflection, maybe these answers aren't so different. They both entail being recognized; it's just a matter of being recognized for what!"

They are different, alright, Paul. Let´s assume that Jack threw the apron on the ground and then proceeded to write "Jimmy Gibbons is in love with Alice Grayling".
Now, do you think that would have gone down as a mystical message from Jack? Nor do I.

Therefore, if he wanted recognition, there was no way he was going to ensure it by being vague - he could not afford to write something that need not have anything to do with the killings. He simply had to be at least clear enough, or run the risk that the scribblings were left unrecognized,

The only reason that we are concerned with the lines today, is that they are a possible clue in arguably the world´s most famous (and infamous) murder case. It is a case where the interest is vast enough to make people spend months and years trying to establish the pattern of the wallpaper of somebody who lived merely fourteen doors away from one of the murder sites.

Jack would not have known all of this. To him, it would have been vital to be clear enough to get his message across. I think we can rule out the possibility that he was up to subtle games, risking to deprive him of the recognition that he sought IF HE WROTE THAT MESSAGE.

Incidentally, he did not, if you ask me...

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[Stewart P Evans]

Opinion

My most detailed analysis of the wall writing appeared in Jack the Ripper Letters From Hell. If you consult this book you will see that it is clearly only my opinion that the wall writing was not done by the murderer. I actually write, "...may not even have been written by the killer." I always try to keep an open mind.

Halse was actually quizzed by a juryman as to why he thought the writing was fresh and he replied to the effect that 'He assumed that the writing was recent, because from the number of persons living in the tenement he believed it would have been rubbed out had it been there for any time.' [emphasis mine]. It was also obviously a jurisdictional clash between the City Police and the Metropolitan Police. The evidence (the piece of apron, and by extension possibly the message) related to a City murder whilst the location was well into Metropolitan jurisdiction. The one force wanted the writing to remain, for photographing, whilst the other wanted it erased to avoid possible social unrest. To any modern observer, of course, the writing should have been protected and photographed. Halse had no authority and the two senior Metropolitan officers, Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Warren, wanted it erased. No contest.

The location of the writing is still a matter of contention and I have always been impressed by Warren's description of, "The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.-" [HO 144/221/A49301C ff. 173-181] Superintendent Arnold places it at shoulder height, "...it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out of the building." [HO 144/221/A49301C ff. 197-198] This seems to me to make it more likely that it was where Warren located it, on the inner part of the jamb, rather than completely inside the doorway where it would be less likely to be rubbed by shoulders. This comment of Arnold's also supports the idea of it being recently done rather than days old.

[Monty]

How,

I suggest you read this...

....http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...gsgdebate.html

Monty

[Mike Covell]

First time I have ever read that Dissertation, its well done by all involved.

Just one question,
Is Bansky a Victorian Polish Jewish Banksy?

[Monty]

First time I have ever read that Dissertation, its well done by all involved.

Just one question,
Is Bansky a Victorian Polish Jewish Banksy?

Mike,

Did you ever wonder why How got excited as soon as Goulston Street was mentioned during the podcast?

Monty

[Mike Covell]

I did actually, I don't share Howards view on the GSG, I believe it was written by someone other than the person who dropped the apron.

I don't think the spot were the apron was dropped was intentional either, how often have you dropped a bit of rubbish when no one was looking??

[paul emmett]

Therefore, if he wanted recognition, there was no way he was going to ensure it by being vague

Hi, Fisherman.

What I had meant, and what I had said before the "upon reflection" part of my last post, was that you can't assume the JTR's main need was recognition. Last night I was reading THE MARK OF CAIN, a book on psychopaths which I find most helpful for JTR; in the Intro, Reid Meloy states that one of the "marks" of the psychopath is the need to feel that he is pulling the wool over the eyes of others, being too clever for them. That's all I was saying about JTR: there might well have been other motives for the GSG besides recognition--or, as I said in "upon reflection," he may have needed to be recognized as one subtle trickster.

I also agree with the Good Michael when he asks, "Why was it not bold and vibrant? If JTR wanted to have a look-at-me message, surley he would have made it outstanding, yes?" He goes on to give some reasons why it might not be, but I think the question itself is relevant to our discussin. If he's looking for recognition, why not?

Hi, Mike. As far as the apron being dropped randomly, one reason I'm not so sure about that is that I've never actually heard any other ultra-convincing reason for why it was dropped at all

[perrymason]

Thanks for the spelling of pillock Stephen...

There are most reasonably 2 variations on when the apron piece arrived at its final destination. One is that it arrived at, on, or shortly after 2am, and was discarded casually. The second is that it was not left there until perhaps 2:45am or thereabouts.

The second option does not seem to me a casual discard.

The first option is while the killer of Mitre Square is fleeing to The East End, the second option is a contrived placement likely.

Im inclined to think the apron piece was not there until shortly before its found, and therefore the writing is not as easily dismissed as being from the same man. If he planned to drop the bloodied section somewhere, and a message that may have been recently written is there as well....they do stand a good chance of having the same origins I think.

Best regards.

[Stewart P Evans]

Blurred

Another point that seems to get missed is Swanson's description of the chalk writing as 'blurred' rather than 'fresh' and as he would have discussed the matter closely with Warren and Arnold one can only assume that his source for saying this must have been good.



HO 144/221/A49301C f 189.

[perrymason]

Thanks for that post Stewart.

Wouldnt a chalk message written on a damp brick surface, maybe not as a result of direct rain but condensation or damp air, blur rather quickly? It was raining earlier.

Best regards

[Celesta]

I would be interested to know what others theories may be concerning the GSG and what it means assuming that JTR wrote it.

Right now I have four running theories about it. Ill list them in the order I feel most likely.

1: JTR was a Jew who has for some reason been rejected by his Jewish community. Could be some form of trauma he experienced as a child.

2: JTR was not a Jew and attemps to blame the Jews miserably.

3: The message was meant for Schwartz.

4: JTR was not responsible for all of the murders. He believes the person who is reponsible for the murders he did not commit, was a Jew.

They all open up the remote possibility that Strides murder was intended to point to a member of the IWEC.

Of course this is all assuming JTR wrote the GSG wich doesnt seem likely.

So.... Anyone else have a pet theory?

Hi Mitch,

I once had a friend who was a member of a minority. She was absolutely adamant in her rejection of this group of people. It has occurred to me that this might be possible with JtR, as well. Of course, there's not a hint of proof for this!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Paul,

I feel that if the legend comes from two corespondences, but a closer look at the larger picture gives other instances of playful and subtle, then that is another reason that the letters might be legit. They fit the pattern.

I'm arguing that the "pattern" of playfulness and subtlety is a largely modern perception, and that there's a danger that our view of his character may be distorted by looking at the case through modern eyes.

One of the biggest influences on our imagination was surely the "Joker" depicted in the "Maybrick" diary with its punning, badly-written "comic" rhymes and the tedious repetition of "funny little this" and "funny little that". Prior to this we had Steven Knight really laying it on thick, with his "Riddler" leaving convoluted clues wherever he could near the crime scenes. Added to which Knight regales us with the notion that the Riddler's buddy embedded similarly wacky messages in his paintings.

I've not read any popular books prior to those two that so heavily promoted the idea of Jack delighting in cryptic messages of one form or another. I'd wager that books such as these have had a huge influence on the way we've viewed the case in the past three decades or so.