The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[DVV]

Is the simplest explanation not the most probable?
The Graffiti is just that and the fact that the apron piece was found in the vicinity is just a coincidence.

Hi String,
this seems by no means the "most probable" explanation.
Not only because "coincidence isn't the most likely thing where murder is concerned", as Michael said, but also because it was not the habit of the murderer to leave clues behind him.

Also, why did JtR cut and take away a piece of Eddowes' apron? If he had to wipe his hands, or knife, he could do it in Mitre Square.
Plus, if he wanted to get rid of this piece of apron before getting home, it was so easy to throw it in a garbage place. Noboby would have found it. Of course, he could also put it in his pocket - that would not have incriminated him more than a human kidney.

Amitiés,
David

I will suggest that this exact type of graffiti, in neat letters, in uncommon language, and in small size ...

... on the walls of a relatively pristine four-year-old model dwelling, inhabited by comparatively orderly people and situated in a recently re-developed street ...

... was very rare. That alone makes it worth remarking on in my book.

Colin

[The Good Michael]

String,

What does proliferation of graffiti mean? Does it mean that there was writing on every stoop and every wall? On every door? On every shop? Do you envision chalked letters everywhere one turned? What did the proliferate graffiti look like, and what did it say? I will suggest that this exact type of graffiti, in neat letters, in uncommon language, and in small size was very rare. That alone makes it worth remarking on in my book.

Cheers,

Mike

[String]

Yes but because Det Halse said at the Eddows inquest that:
"Graffiti of all kinds was not unusual, in fact it had proliferated since the murder of Annie Chapman, so there is no reason to think of this as anything special."
If the apron was dropped or placed somewhere else there would have been a good chance it was found near another message.

[The Good Michael]

Is the simplest explanation not the most probable?
The Graffiti is just that and the fact that the apron piece was found in the vicinity is just a coincidence.

Coincidence isn't the most likely thing where murder is concerned. It is a possibility, however.

Mike

[String]

Is the simplest explanation not the most probable?
The Graffiti is just that and the fact that the apron piece was found in the vicinity is just a coincidence.

[The Good Michael]

Let's get back to the question for a moment:

If the Ripper didn't write the message, but thought he got it, then the real question is: What did the GSG mean to the Ripper? I think a scenario of the Ripper being someone who lived in the area, saw and agreed with his interpretation of the GSG, and left a calling card later that evening, is quite workable. In essense what I'm saying is that the Ripper could have been just as confused about the meaning of the message as many are today, if he sat and analyzed it. He perhaps read it, took it at face value, and liked it.

This scenario makes sense if we look at the placement of the apron. A man quickly hurrying past after murdering someone, and perhaps with blood on his hands for which he used the apron, and perhaps for which he took the apron, wiping his hands as he hurried, could have just simply tossed it against the wall in the general vicinity of where he had earlier read the grafitti. That it wasn't carefully placed or nailed up or anything, is a testament to the haste in which he was in to get to his apartment, or brother's house, or whereever he was going.

The meaning may not have been understood, though I think it was.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Well now! here I was thinking that if it looked like a duck, quacked like a duck, walked like a duck, laid eggs, had feathers, a bill and flew, it must be a duck.

All I saw was mock duck soup. No feathers in that else I wouldn't have eaten it.

Mike

Wow! I just sounded like AP!

[Investigator]

Well now! here I was thinking that if it looked like a duck, quacked like a duck, walked like a duck, laid eggs, had feathers, a bill and flew, it must be a duck. I would be relieved if you had said it was a camel, but instead you tell me it’s an illiterate, fake duck blaming chickens for something he doesn’t know.
It seems that the GSG debate is doomed for recirculation due to the time warp of stereotypical thinking. Carry on round the track, all the best. DG

[DVV]

Fair enough, Stephen.
Then your post 321 was your Parthian shot...?

Amitiés,
David

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi David

As Dan said, it would be best to continue this discussion on an Anderson thread.

[DVV]

Hi Stephen,
Anderson's theory precedes Anderson's suspect, we know this from Anderson's own words...

Amitiés,
David

[Stephen Thomas]

Anderson said a Jew was responsible based upon "moral evidence" and not actual evidence.

Oh dear,

What garbage you speak, Danny boy.

[Fisherman]

Now, THERE`S a thought...!

All the best, Claire!

Fisherman

[claire]

Sheesh. Note to future SKs: Ditch a bit of evidence next to random graffiti. Ensure the next 120 years spent developing abstruse and arcane theories to divert attention from main tasks...