Does the Goulston Street Graffito eliminate Jewish Immigrants as suspects?

[Lewis C]

I'd go one better and suggest that the graffiti was never there in the first place.

A fabrication by the police to push the rhetoric; all the while making the police look like the heroes of the hour, by them actively rubbing the chalk message out before it could cause offense to anyone.

It was never photographed.

Has anyone ever considered that the police made it up?

Hi RD,

For me, that doesn't add up. I don't think that the police would have thought that erasing it would have made them look like heroes. And I don't know what rhetoric it would have been intended to push. If they were going to do that, I think they'd invent a message whose meaning was clear.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

For me, that doesn't add up. I don't think that the police would have thought that erasing it would have made them look like heroes. And I don't know what rhetoric it would have been intended to push. If they were going to do that, I think they'd invent a message whose meaning was clear.

I agree Lewis


I was just testing the water to see how it felt, and on reflection I concur with your thoughts here.

It doesn't add up, you're right.

Sometimes we have to flush out what doesn't feel right, to then hopefully end up with what does.

An emotional version of the classic "power of deduction."


I think the ambiguity of the GSG actually supports the idea that it was written by the Ripper, as with everything else (i.e. alleged written correspondences, and the way he appeared to have played and experimented with innerds) he comes across as a guy who liked to play sick games, or "funny little games."

If the Ripper did actually have a political agenda, then the GSG would have been clearer in terms of its intended meaning.
But instead, the author chooses (apparently) to deliberately make the GSG sound confusing and its meaning obscure.
That IMO indicates that the whole GSG thing was just a ruse intended to confuse, and just another way to show off what he could get away with without being caught.

Like a teenager pushing those boundaries and laughing in the face of authority.

[Geddy2112]

For me, that doesn't add up. I don't think that the police would have thought that erasing it would have made them look like heroes. And I don't know what rhetoric it would have been intended to push. If they were going to do that, I think they'd invent a message whose meaning was clear.

Hi Lewis

Do we know how many people, apart from the culprit actually saw the graffiti?

[Patrick Differ]

It strikes me that the grafitto would have different meanings depending on who wrote the message. By translation and cancelling the double negative " The Jews are the men who will be blamed"
or..the Whitechapel murders are committed by Jews.

Or the Jews are tired of being blamed for things they didn't do (written by a Jew and not related to the murders). I can't see how that can be ruled out.

c.d.

Hi c.d.- point well taken.

My only thought again is with regards to the Apron, definately left by the killer and the odds a message was additionally left for some purpose.

There Is another possibility that I think needs consideration. When I look at the Rothchilds and the Jewish Chronicle messaging regarding mass Jewish migration it illustrates conflict within the East End Jewish Community. The fear by Legacy Jews was that their quest to be Englishman had taken decades until Rothschild became an MP. With the mass migration of Jews from Eastern Europe the Legacy Jews were rightly concerned about the potential for setbacks.

The question here would be under what circumstances might a Legacy Jew..thinking himself an Englishman, the killer,write this message?

1. Frustration?- the Justice system will blame us anyway.
2. Pivot? - the Cops are focused on immigrant Jews so keep it that way.
3. Blame?- a gentile killer passing blame to Jews but then why use a double negative? Why not just say it?

The Blame question is interesting because it would likely exclude the Legacy Jews. Exclude because the focus was never on them as far as I can tell. " No Englishman could commit these atrocities"? It had to be an immigrant.

Would a gentile witness in the East End be able to distinguish between an immigrant or an East End born Jewish person? Was the description " foriegner" a generalization?

It could explain another reason the killer never got caught. The Police never considered a local English born Jew. Is this a true statement?

Food for thought!

[c.d.]

It could explain another reason the killer never got caught. The Police never considered a local English born Jew. Is this a true statement?

It is certainly possible that certain individuals in the force held that view but I sincerely doubt it was universal. I mean having that mindset is extremely piss poor police work.

c.d.

[Lewis C]

I agree Lewis


I was just testing the water to see how it felt, and on reflection I concur with your thoughts here.

It doesn't add up, you're right.

Sometimes we have to flush out what doesn't feel right, to then hopefully end up with what does.

An emotional version of the classic "power of deduction."


I think the ambiguity of the GSG actually supports the idea that it was written by the Ripper, as with everything else (i.e. alleged written correspondences, and the way he appeared to have played and experimented with innerds) he comes across as a guy who liked to play sick games, or "funny little games."

If the Ripper did actually have a political agenda, then the GSG would have been clearer in terms of its intended meaning.
But instead, the author chooses (apparently) to deliberately make the GSG sound confusing and its meaning obscure.
That IMO indicates that the whole GSG thing was just a ruse intended to confuse, and just another way to show off what he could get away with without being caught.

Like a teenager pushing those boundaries and laughing in the face of authority.

That's fine, RD. Sometimes I've done that too: said something that after someone responded, I had a different view. I was glad I said it though, because I had a better understanding after the other person responded.

I think the ambiguity of the GSG have been intentional or may not have been. If it was unintentional, it could be the writer was in a hurry and didn't take the time to say it clearly. Or maybe he just wasn't a good enough writer to express it clearly.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis

Do we know how many people, apart from the culprit actually saw the graffiti?

Hi Ian,

I had to look that one up. According to Begg's JtL: The Facts, pp. 180-182, PC Long saw it first, and summoned an unnamed PC 190 to the scene. Detective Halse had a different opinion from Long about what the GSG said. Long went to a police station, where he found a duty inspector whom he brought to the scene. Then Superintendent Arnold came, and thought the GSG should be washed off, but waited for orders from Charles Warren before doing so. He left an inspector (I presume a different one from Long's duty inspector) with a sponge in the event that Warren approved washing it off. Then Detectives Halse, Lawley, and Hunt came to the scene. Warren went to the scene before ordering it washed off. By my count, that's at least 9 people that saw the GSG.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Ian,

I had to look that one up. According to Begg's JtL: The Facts, pp. 180-182, PC Long saw it first, and summoned an unnamed PC 190 to the scene. Detective Halse had a different opinion from Long about what the GSG said. Long went to a police station, where he found a duty inspector whom he brought to the scene. Then Superintendent Arnold came, and thought the GSG should be washed off, but waited for orders from Charles Warren before doing so. He left an inspector (I presume a different one from Long's duty inspector) with a sponge in the event that Warren approved washing it off. Then Detectives Halse, Lawley, and Hunt came to the scene. Warren went to the scene before ordering it washed off. By my count, that's at least 9 people that saw the GSG.

That's pretty much conclusive then.

At least 9 people would ensure that at the very least, there was some form of chalked message that was written above where the apron piece was found.

Applying that same logic; how many people actually saw Schwartz?

2 senior officers and a Star reporter?

Is it recorded anywhere who actually saw Schwartz face to face?

[Lewis C]

That's pretty much conclusive then.

At least 9 people would ensure that at the very least, there was some form of chalked message that was written above where the apron piece was found.

Applying that same logic; how many people actually saw Schwartz?

2 senior officers and a Star reporter?

Is it recorded anywhere who actually saw Schwartz face to face?

I believe Abberline did. In addition to the ones you mentioned, his interpreter would have.

[Geddy2112]

By my count, that's at least 9 people that saw the GSG.

Thank you kindly...

[Scott Nelson]

The writer saw it -- 15-year-old Simon De Lafuente. That's up to 10.