GSG because of Schwartz?

[Batman]

If that type of graffiti was everywhere then they would have dismissed it on the spot. Why didn't they just say 'oh look another piece of local goulston graffiti just happens to be here so let's wash it away in case it causes problems'. Don't you think at least one of them would have drawn a comparison to all the graffiti elsewhere?

Also what are the chances of randomly throwing a rag that just happens to land directly under some antisemitic graffiti? If the answer is high then why didn't the police say that by pointing to all the other graffiti of the same that make those odds high?

Why did Halse say it was fresh if the above was true?

[pinkmoon]

I think he did not .

[Scott Nelson]

Some would argue he did just that.

[pinkmoon]

If our killer wrote the message why didn't he mention what he had just done in it surely he would if he had written the message.

[Rosella]

No, as we wouldn't be able to change history, I'd leave that pleasure to others. I would just want to know if it was Jack who wrote it.

[Harry D]

It's frustrating that we are never likely to know the truth about the GSG. If time travel is ever possible I will book a trip back to 1888 and be loitering nearby from about 2:20am onwards on the 30th..!

Rather than Buck's Row on the 30th August?

[Rosella]

It's frustrating that we are never likely to know the truth about the GSG. If time travel is ever possible I will book a trip back to 1888 and be loitering nearby from about 2:20am onwards on the 30th..!

[The Good Michael]

I don't think it likely that a man leaving a murder scene would stop to write ambiguous graffiti on a wall. The discarding of the apron piece suggests haste; the writing of the graffito suggests the opposite. I conclude that the most likely scenario is that the two are unrelated save for their proximity.

Well, Batman says the writing was unambiguous to Warren, though he presents no evidence for this argument. I stand in the middle here. I say the apron and writing are not the work of the same person, but are related via murderer's interpretation of the writing.

Mike

[John Malcolm]

I don't think it likely that a man leaving a murder scene would stop to write ambiguous graffiti on a wall. The discarding of the apron piece suggests haste; the writing of the graffito suggests the opposite. I conclude that the most likely scenario is that the two are unrelated save for their proximity.

This is definitely not an unreasonable suggestion, but I can see a couple of things differently (actually applying this reasoning): first, would it be likely for a man whose purpose is to murder, to stop to carve designs in the victim's face and carefully "nick" her eyelids (of course after taking the time to pull out her insides and take a souvenir), in a public place, frequently patrolled? The unlikelihood of either event (mutilations/writing on the wall after a murder) taking place at all makes me think that it would take a person devoid of a fear of being caught (in either scenario), and one who is not in a rational state of mind, either; then, taking into consideration the proximity, to me it seems that it can't be a coincidence, do you follow me? And I've always felt that had the writing been there previous to the night/morning of the murder that all it would have taken to dispel the connection entirely would have been for even a single resident of the building (assuming all would have been questioned) to say so. Could all involved have been so blind? I doubt it. Another coincidence? I have a hard time wrapping my head around serial coincidence...

[Wickerman]

In regards to the apron.....
Also if the ripper did leave it there, then why were there only spots of feces and blood? Wouldn't there be smudges, hand prints, patches etc instead of just spots.

There were other stains, the Times, along with a few other publications noted:

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it."

It was also wet in places, consistent with it carrying organs perhaps.
It would be rather bizarre for the killer to bring along this large piece of bloodstained cloth to wipe his hands, etc. but carry the wet organs in his pocket. Does he care more about the cleanliness of his hands than his clothes?
I think not.

[Natasha]

In regards to the apron.

I think perhaps Eddowes left the apron there, or at least her customer did after cleaning up after 'connection'. This could explain the lost 30 minutes.

The doctors did not detect 'connection', but what are the chances that the ripper was the first 'customer' before every murder?

Also if the ripper did leave it there, then why were there only spots of feces and blood? Wouldn't there be smudges, hand prints, patches etc instead of just spots.

[Bridewell]

I don't think it likely that a man leaving a murder scene would stop to write ambiguous graffiti on a wall. The discarding of the apron piece suggests haste; the writing of the graffito suggests the opposite. I conclude that the most likely scenario is that the two are unrelated save for their proximity.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

If JtR was interrupted by Schwartz and made the racial slur 'Lipski' would this not explain the second anti-semetic statement, the GSG, as a comment about Schwartz?

Basically JtR is saying in the GSG that Jews (like Schwartz) are ignorant and to blame.

I don't doubt Schwartz. I think he saw what he said he saw.
BUT
I don't think he saw Stride's killer.
I'm not sure the man shouted "Lipski".

[Hakeswill]

There's a passage in 'People of the Abyss' that stuck with me; when JL is with walking with the two companions and they pick up grapestalks to chew. It makes me suspect that the streets were probably much cleaner (certainly than today) as people would have been much more aware of anything loose that could potentially be useful. It makes me more confident in Long's claim (assuming he wasn't covering up for a mistake) that the apron wasn't there earlier when he passed.
It could have been deposited elsewhere and ended up in the doorway (animal or wind transported), or thrown there through happenstance, but I find this less likely than it being deliberately dropped or placed in the doorway. Unless it was being dropped to avoid being caught with an incriminating piece of evidence (in which case why risk still holding it?) it was placed there deliberately. Either the location or the message, or both, were relevant. Given Jack's 'luck' in leaving few clues it doesn't seem to fit that something was thrown away so carelessly.

[Natasha]

Hi All

Perhaps the GSG was directed at the Jewish members of the vigilance committee.