Does the Goulston Street Graffito eliminate Jewish Immigrants as suspects?

[Newbie]

Newbie- interesting piece on the double negative. Many thanks.

I wonder if the fact that the door jamb was black and
chalk was white aided the killer? It also strikes me that the lettering height was only one-half inch in height!

Would someone with time and in daylight, if they were trying to incite protests or riots against Jews write that small? In a place clearly not that visable from the street? Or would someone trying to write a message in the dark have to look closely at the black jamb and with white chalk write a message? Obviously someone who could write and with chalk at one half inch heights? This person appears to be fluid with writing in chalk.

I personally think the double event is less coincidence than calculating.

Kill Stride in Metro like all other murders to date and next to an Immigrant Jewish Socialist Club? Implication?
Head to London ( his home?) and find Eddowes and murder ( the only time in London) and head back to Metro?
Head back to Metro and dispose the Apron and leave a message implicating Jews...again on the same night? And also making police believe he lived in Metro?

The immigrant Jews were prime suspects during this time. A calculating murderer would be smart to use that as an advantage. On the night of September 30 the killer appears to possibly have done this twice. The Working Mens Club and Goulston Street. Coincidence or Calculated on the move?

We dont know of course but Mary Kellys death was in Metro not far from Chapmans so the killer returns to Metro to murder after Eddowes. Why? Because he lived in London and would not be followed out of Metro jurisdiction??

There were a lot of Jews in Whitechapel, one would have to try very hard to avoid their proximity.
Jews only come into prominence with the double event, particularly if you include the graffito as being authored by the ripper;
otherwise, that theme has no prominence elsewhere.

I'm somewhat agnostic as to the involvement of JtR in the graphito. It certainly would make things more interesting if he had done it.


What we do know is that the police were extremely sloppy in handling and providing details concerning the layout of the evidence.
Was the graffito two lines or three?
Warren said that the graffito was visible from the street, others said no.

Since the police were sloppy in these duties, I have doubts as to the meticulous nature of their questioning of the residents.
How many of the tennants spoke english, wanted to open up to the police, or could read the message?
Did the police bring a long an interpreter: someone who spoke Yiddish?

Record the position of the apron, photograph the graffito, get an interpreter and thoroughly ask the tennants, if it should take a few days, as to anyone seeing the graffito ... it being the ripper's work and then immediately washed off, the expectation would be no.
Instead, they probably got mostly quizzical looks and head shrugs, and then gave up once the graffito was gone .... hence, didn't learn anything.

Crime scene 101, but that was too much for them. What can be deduced with the evidence all tainted?