The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Graham]

David,

Well, I don't have a clue when he wrote it really. I would guess that it was at night after most folks had retired for the evening. He would have needed a little light and a little time. I think it could have been done before Stride, so I don't think that would have made a difference. Are you suggesting that it would have been too much time between his writing it before Stride's death and coming home after Eddowe's because it would have been wiped off? Again, the size of the text appears to be uncharacteristically small, as if it would have been difficult to have seen in the evening. Long didn't see it until he was searching for drops of blood. Was it written small for the reason of obscurity until he could get a trophy and put it down near the GSG? I don't know. I'm still on the fence if he wrote it or just saw it and liked it, but I believe in a connection between it an Eddowes if nothing else. I don't believe it makes a difference whether or not Stride was his victim too as far as the graffito remaining intact goes. I don't see a precedent that he would have seen regarding a premature erasure, that would cause him to think he was in some kind of mad hurry. I suppose he might have thought that, beginning at 5 or 6am there might be a lot of traffic coming through the entryway that might rub it off, but I don't know why he would think that without some prior experience in that regard.

Cheers,

Mike

My God....

Graham

[Observer]

Hi David

Hi Ben and Observer,
what does this mean exactly, at last?
Who said "Eddowes companion" was a Jew?
A witness? Or was it Anderson, years after, who said or wrote: "A witness said that..."

Amitiés,
David

Anderson years later, and then Swanson in the margin of Andersons book. What we have to consider here though is whether two high ranking police officers were accurate in their description of what actually transpired. I can't see any reason why they would lie.

all the best

Observer

[The Good Michael]

David,

Well, I don't have a clue when he wrote it really. I would guess that it was at night after most folks had retired for the evening. He would have needed a little light and a little time. I think it could have been done before Stride, so I don't think that would have made a difference. Are you suggesting that it would have been too much time between his writing it before Stride's death and coming home after Eddowe's because it would have been wiped off? Again, the size of the text appears to be uncharacteristically small, as if it would have been difficult to have seen in the evening. Long didn't see it until he was searching for drops of blood. Was it written small for the reason of obscurity until he could get a trophy and put it down near the GSG? I don't know. I'm still on the fence if he wrote it or just saw it and liked it, but I believe in a connection between it an Eddowes if nothing else. I don't believe it makes a difference whether or not Stride was his victim too as far as the graffito remaining intact goes. I don't see a precedent that he would have seen regarding a premature erasure, that would cause him to think he was in some kind of mad hurry. I suppose he might have thought that, beginning at 5 or 6am there might be a lot of traffic coming through the entryway that might rub it off, but I don't know why he would think that without some prior experience in that regard.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

I still believe that it was done before the murders of course.

Hi Mike,
an interesting idea.
But how long before (if Jack wrote it, I mean )?
If one thinks Stride to be a JtR victim, I doubt JtR could have time enough to go to Goulston Street, chalk the graffito, then come back to Mitre Square/Church Passage, meet Eddowes, kill and mutilate her.
So your suggestion works better, I think, once we put Stride out of the frame.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Oops Looking back at my post I have to correct something. I should have put in part 3 that I believe it could have been someone besides the Ripper that did the GSG, and that the Ripper liked what he saw. Please don't hold me to 'The Ripper didn't do it.' That would be silly of me.

Let me add this: If JTR did it, perhaps he kept it small so that it would escape notice for a time until he could leave something there. I still believe that it was done before the murders of course.

And in answer to Scott's comment, why would the writer/killer think the GSG would be erased by the time he got back? What precedents would he have had to tell him this?

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Ben and Observer,
what does this mean exactly, at last?
Who said "Eddowes companion" was a Jew?
A witness? Or was it Anderson, years after, who said or wrote: "A witness said that..."

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Point is we have a witness who identified Eddowes companion as being a Jew

True, although the witness in question was almost certainly the one that identified Gentile Grainger subsequent to Kosminski, thereby casting considerable doubt on the latter identification.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Mike - let's not talk here about what was on the apron, whether it was smeared with whatever, whether the cloth was folded or "scrunched", or anything else to do with it per se.

This thread is about the graffiti and what it might have meant.

It was described by Dr Brown as appearing "as if a bloody hand or knife had been wiped on it". Wiping = smears. The Irish Times explicitly reports PC Long deposing that he found a "piece of apron with smears of blood on it".

We're straying dangerously into "apron" as opposed to "graffiti" territory here, Mike. Now, back to chalk.

It relates to the chalk Sam, and there is no mention of "feces" on it. Nor is there mention that it was "scrunched", as any person wiping their hands with a cloth would do if it was to be discarded. It could have been staged with a smear of blood, for all we know.

And since when does the Ripper need something to wipe off blood? He had his hands in Annie, no issue apparently. And Kates clothing was not "feces" smeared.

The more casually the article is described, the more credence to a casual discard,...but I dont see that, so the article may have been left there, not discarded there.

If the apron was purposely left there, and a message is near, makes sense to consider them as potentially from the same source.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Was the apron piece ever said to be "smeared" with feces and blood.

It was described by Dr Brown as appearing "as if a bloody hand or knife had been wiped on it". Wiping = smears. The Irish Times explicitly reports PC Long deposing that he found a "piece of apron with smears of blood on it".

We're straying dangerously into "apron" as opposed to "graffiti" territory here, Mike. Now, back to chalk.

Was the apron piece ever said to be "smeared" with feces and blood, or was it "stained" as most reports Ive seen? And was its scrunched up, or just loosely laying there? Im phrasing in that manner because A), I am time pressed tonight and dont have time to look it up...and secondly, B), if the cloth was simply to wipe his hands with, I believe smeared and scrunched up, followed by a casual toss aside would be the result. And far sooner than Goulston.

Best regards all.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Observer,

Where in Lawende's description does he specify a Jew or Jewish appearance?

Thanks in advance,
Ben

He doesn't, my mistake, although according to Anderson, and Swanson the witness who saw Kate Eddowes shortly before her death with a man apparently revealed that he was a fellow Jew.

Point is we have a witness who identified Eddowes companion as being a Jew

all the best

Observer

[Monty]

Plan b, Jack woz ere.

[Sam Flynn]

Thank God the Graffiti was still there when Jack returned with the piece of apron. If it had been erased, his plan would have been foiled. I wonder where he would have deposited the apron piece then?

I guess he'd just have jettisoned it anywhere, Scott, after having wiped his hand(s) and/or knife on it - which he seems to have done anyway. The wiping, I mean, if not the "jettisoning it anywhere" bit.

[Scott Nelson]

My belief is that JTR, who may have been living in that housing area, saw the Graffiti when he left to kill, or when he came home from the pub, or whatever, and liked what he read (even if he only thought he understood), and was determined to leave a calling card by the words he agreed with

Thank God the Graffiti was still there when Jack returned with the piece of apron. If it had been erased, his plan would have been foiled. I wonder where he would have deposited the apron piece then?