GSG/DB/SJ.. all mean nothing?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

There at least 6...yup SIX official versions of the Goulston Street Graffiti.. all from witnessing policemen. Different spellings, different wordings etc.

And it was recorded thus by these fair minded men only.


Now... exactly how many policemen does it take to get one tiny bit of writing observed correctly? I mean, you would have thought that they would have at least had a pow-wow and reached some sort of same conclusion?... But no...oh no... and then along comes Big Chief Warren and it gets rubbed off... and here's the punchline...


Exactly HOW, pray tell me, IF the Goulston Street Graffiti was written by the killer, (as was supposed by the police at the time), can anyone from this intrepid bunch identify said graffiti and compare it, by REMEMBERING it please note.... with the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack handwriting.. that was posted all over the place in large posters promoting said killer's handwriting... and say it was by the same hand?....without a photograph? and without a solid memory (which by the above 6 variations shows was totally non-existant anyway)???... and what type of hand was the description of the GSG???? It certainly wasn't the same type of hand that wrote Dear Boss and Saucy Jack!!.. (schoolboy hand?????)

You see... it is impossible to have one load of policemen saying that the killer was the writer of the Goulston St graffiti and another lot saying that the writer of Dear Boss and Saucy Jack was the killer. So all had to say that all three bits of scribble were from the same hand... but it isn't brain surgery....

...it is seriously impossible to say that!!..... given there was no definitive record of the GSG!.... and the types of writing, by known description.....schoolboy hand......vis a vis DB and SJ... don't match at all!
The only conclusion that I can come to is that the GSG and the DB and SJ have nothing to do with each other... and if the GSG isn't the author of the DB letter, or the SJ author... then the GSG wasn't written by the killer.... can't have been.

If the DB and SJ were journalistic inventions, as regarded almost certainly as so after the fact by the police... then they weren't written by the killer either.

Ipso facto. All three are red herrings.





Phil
__________________

[lynn cates]

on hold

Hello Phil. Thanks for starting this thread.

Frankly, I take none of these three seriously. At best, I place them in brackets awaiting further information.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Point of fact

The police never felt the Goulston St writing was genuine.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

The police never felt the Goulston St writing was genuine.

Monty

I would have to disagree with that, Neil.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

I think there is ample evidence to suggest that the consensus of police opinion was that the Goulston Steet graffiti was at the very least an important clue. While at the same time it could not be said with certainty that it was written by the culprit.
To suggest the police consensus was that it was not by the culprit is at best misleading.

[Barnaby]

The only conclusion that I can come to is that the GSG and the DB and SJ have nothing to do with each other... and if the GSG isn't the author of the DB letter, or the SJ author... then the GSG wasn't written by the killer.... can't have been.

If the DB and SJ were journalistic inventions, as regarded almost certainly as so after the fact by the police... then they weren't written by the killer either.

Ipso facto. All three are red herrings.

Phil
__________________

I agree that the three writings may have nothing to do with one another, but I don't understand your logic when you state that if the author of the GSG isn't the author of the DB or SJ letters, then the GSG wasn't written by the killer.

Why not? DB and SJ could be journalistic creations as you state and GSG could have been written by the killer.

[GUT]

G'day Phil

The only conclusion that I can come to is that the GSG and the DB and SJ have nothing to do with each other... and if the GSG isn't the author of the DB letter, or the SJ author... then the GSG wasn't written by the killer.... can't have been.

I'm sorry I just don't follow your reasoning just because Dear Boss and Saucy Jack are fake doesn't follow that GSG must be too. Likewise if they are genuine it doesn't authenticate the graffiti does it?

[Mr Lucky]

All three are red herrings.

Hi Phil,

This may well be true, if so, surely the goulston street red herring is the genuine red herring and the other two are just hoax red herrings

[Monty]

There is only one entry, Moores, in the official files, where he personally claims the killer wrote the 'Graffito'. All other comments made by Police officials are also personal and made either in private correspondence or publications

There is no official police conclusion which states the killer did or did not leave writing at Goulston Street, and most certainly not "at the time".

It seems some are confusing the individual with the investigation. As Ed states, it was a clue to be innvestigated, not a belief.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

Hello all,

There at least 6...yup SIX official versions of the Goulston Street Graffiti.. all from witnessing policemen. Different spellings, different wordings etc.

And it was recorded thus by these fair minded men only.


Now... exactly how many policemen does it take to get one tiny bit of writing observed correctly? I mean, you would have thought that they would have at least had a pow-wow and reached some sort of same conclusion?... But no...oh no... and then along comes Big Chief Warren and it gets rubbed off... and here's the punchline...


Exactly HOW, pray tell me, IF the Goulston Street Graffiti was written by the killer, (as was supposed by the police at the time), can anyone from this intrepid bunch identify said graffiti and compare it, by REMEMBERING it please note.... with the Dear Boss and Saucy Jack handwriting.. that was posted all over the place in large posters promoting said killer's handwriting... and say it was by the same hand?....without a photograph? and without a solid memory (which by the above 6 variations shows was totally non-existant anyway)???... and what type of hand was the description of the GSG???? It certainly wasn't the same type of hand that wrote Dear Boss and Saucy Jack!!.. (schoolboy hand?????)

You see... it is impossible to have one load of policemen saying that the killer was the writer of the Goulston St graffiti and another lot saying that the writer of Dear Boss and Saucy Jack was the killer. So all had to say that all three bits of scribble were from the same hand... but it isn't brain surgery....

...it is seriously impossible to say that!!..... given there was no definitive record of the GSG!.... and the types of writing, by known description.....schoolboy hand......vis a vis DB and SJ... don't match at all!
The only conclusion that I can come to is that the GSG and the DB and SJ have nothing to do with each other... and if the GSG isn't the author of the DB letter, or the SJ author... then the GSG wasn't written by the killer.... can't have been.

If the DB and SJ were journalistic inventions, as regarded almost certainly as so after the fact by the police... then they weren't written by the killer either.

Ipso facto. All three are red herrings.





Phil
__________________

the dear boss letters and GSG could have been written by the same hand-the killers. they didn't take a picture so you cant compare the handwriting. "Good school boy hand" description is not inconsistent with the style of the dear boss letter.
both are connected to the crimes and were thought as possibly as clues by the police as written by the killer.

The biggest myth in ripperology is that the term jack the ripper was "invented" by the press.

[Dr. John Watson]

Neither the "Dear Boss" letter or the "Saucy Jacky" letter was accompanied by a bloody article of clothing from one of the victims. A bloodstained piece of cloth torn from Catherine Eddowes' apron was found immediately below the Goulston Street graffito, lending the chalk message slightly greater credibility than the others. However it's true that most police officials discounted all three writings.

John

[GUT]

Neither the "Dear Boss" letter or the "Saucy Jacky" letter was accompanied by a bloody article of clothing from one of the victims. A bloodstained piece of cloth torn from Catherine Eddowes' apron was found immediately below the Goulston Street graffito, lending the chalk message slightly greater credibility than the others. However it's true that most police officials discounted all three writings.

John

G'day Dr John

So where does that leave "From Hell" GSG had the apron near it, From Hell came packaged with half a "kidne" that could have been a victim's.

[Dr. John Watson]

The key words here are "could have been." Without the investigative tool DNA now gives us, authorities and physicians then were unable to match the kidney with a ripper victim. Similar problem with the GSG: The bloody piece of apron can definitely be connected with Eddowes; what's lacking is proof the message on the wall was written by the same individual who left the bloody apron.

John

[GUT]

The key words here are "could have been." Without the investigative tool DNA now gives us, authorities and physicians then were unable to match the kidney with a ripper victim. Similar problem with the GSG: The bloody piece of apron can definitely be connected with Eddowes; what's lacking is proof the message on the wall was written by the same individual who left the bloody apron.

Exactly!

[packers stem]

I suspect if any of the letters purporting to be from JTR were genuine,the lusk one was by far and away most likely.Seemed to me to be an attempt to frighten Lusk,can't think of any other sensible reason to send it to him rather than try to gain maximum publicity by sending it to the central news agaency as with the dear boss letter. Not signing it Jack the ripper also as if he was not happy with someone else coming up with the name.Not sure how many others were sent in with a human kidney.
And yes ,ripperology being what it is,others will have another opinion such as a prankster medical student with too much time on his hands but the likelyhood is,it is genuine.
Reminds me of when the crop circles first started and a professor was on tv trying to tell us that they were all caused by a 'wind vortex'.Fell of the chair laughing thinking are we supposed to believe that just because you're a professor.Have you seen the different shapes and patterns,aliens far less far fetched than wind.Luckily we found out the truth that it was 2 farmers and a plank of wood lol.
As for gsg my own feeling again due to the apron(which surely no-one is disputing came from eddowes...yet) is that the likelyhood is it was written by the ripper.It would have been unlikely to have been on the wall before dusk without someone removing it or at least removing the top line in disgust.Clearly in my view written by a reasonably well educated person due to the grammatical structure and wording ,one 'possible' spelling mistake although the word juwes did exist whether anyone wishes to believe that or not and there have been endless discussions on that before.
I'd be more inclined to believe the whole anti-jew stuff if the message read
its all the jews fault
its the jews whats dun it
the jews wont be blamed for nuffin etc
I'd also suggest presuming the author of gsg had a reasonable education the most unlikely spelling mistake would be juwes for jews.The word would have been in the papers on a daily basis,probably on posters,shops ,clubs etc but spelt 'nothing' correctly rather than nuffin hmmmm
All the best