GSG because of Schwartz?

[Wickerman]

The only time I have read Stride-denial or GSG-denial is because of a Jewish suspect.

Do I make the assumption that by "Stride-denial" you mean anyone who does not believe Stride was a Ripper victim?

I'm sort of on the fence in that, though for the longest time I was a firm believer that she wasn't.

Equally then you appear to suggest by "GSG-denial" as aimed at those who do not believe the graffiti was written by the killer.

Circumstantial evidence aside, I see no reason to be convinced that it was.

How many of the GSG-denial folk have a Jewish suspect?

Not in my case, I have no idea who the killer was, - and I don't see why you make the connection.

That said, I have noticed someone who, if it is the same person, is coincidentally present in the background at two of the murders, and was identified elsewhere accosting women.
So he is a Person of Interest to me, and he is described as "...an Englishman right enough".

He may have even been Thompson, but equally he may have been Druitt, or someone else entirely.

[Batman]

Do I make the assumption that by "Stride-denial" you mean anyone who does not believe Stride was a Ripper victim?

I'm sort of on the fence in that, though for the longest time I was a firm believer that she wasn't.

Equally then you appear to suggest by "GSG-denial" as aimed at those who do not believe the graffiti was written by the killer.

Circumstantial evidence aside, I see no reason to be convinced that it was.

I read Fido's Crimes and Trials while in secondary school because I found it at the local city library and that's a long time ago. So up until not so long ago I was convinced she wasn't all along. I suspect most of those who accept Fido's findings are in this position. They also reject the GSG because it doesn't fit with a Jewish suspect. Whatever way about it, Fido's explanation of it being unrelated is used by more than just Kozminski believers.

So looking back over the Stride/GSG incident it becomes glaringly obvious that this was set aside by Fido for good reason. These are parts of the JtR narrative where JtR displays some Jewish anti-semiticism if we accept Stride and the GSG.

There are several factors that must be deemed coincidental to dismiss the GSG.

1. Halse said the writing was fresh and it would have been removed by locals there.
2. There is an hour between Eddowes murder and the apron discovery. What did JtR do in this time? One good explanation is that he went home and came back out to cause a jewish problem because they gave him problems that night. What problems? See next.
3. Schwartz reported being called the racist slur Lipski by a man seen assaulting stride just before she died. That was anti-semitical.
4. Eddowes and JtR were probably spotted again by Jews in passing (Lewende).
5. The only JtR letter that might be legit is the From Hell lusk letter with the kidney. The writing is cockney and scrawled. It is hard to read. If the same hand this could explain the problems transcribing what he wrote on wall because the hand writing/litracy is poor. It appears to be semi-literate.
6. It's a piece of bloody apron. It was a bloody apron that caused the anti-semetic riots after Chapman. This point I think is what it's all about. JtR decided to actually give the Jews a bloody apron to worry about this time for getting in his way.
7. The placement of the apron was done to get the attention of people there. It was not simply thrown aside.

[Harry D]

I don't believe the Ripper wrote the GSG, for the simple reason that if he wanted to make a statement that night, why scribble down a small, almost inconspicuous message, like something you'd see on a toilet wall, rather than scrawling it out in big letters?

[Batman]

I don't believe the Ripper wrote the GSG, for the simple reason that if he wanted to make a statement that night, why scribble down a small, almost inconspicuous message, like something you'd see on a toilet wall, rather than scrawling it out in big letters?

The point is this, regardless of subjectivity over if just under an inch per letter is 'big' or 'small', (btw - one time I believed it to be quite large until Halse corrected me) the investigators on the scene and in reports stated it was in an obvious place where inhabitants and people who use that stairwell/wall would have noticed it. Noticed it enough to rub it out according to Halse. So this isn't really about size at all. It's about location. That's why both the apron and the graffiti being there in that particular spot is likely not coincidence or accident, but deliberate.

[The Good Michael]

I don't believe the Ripper wrote the GSG, for the simple reason that if he wanted to make a statement that night, why scribble down a small, almost inconspicuous message, like something you'd see on a toilet wall, rather than scrawling it out in big letters?

I agree with this logic, however, I believe he used this graffiti.

Mike

[lynn cates]

ambiguous

Hello Michael, CD, Harry.

Harry, you said;

"I don't believe the Ripper wrote the GSG, for the simple reason that if he wanted to make a statement that night, why scribble down a small, almost inconspicuous message, like something you'd see on a toilet wall, rather than scrawling it out in big letters?"

Quite. And, above all, IF he had wished to say something truly anti-Semitic, surely he could have said something unambiguous?

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

The point is this, regardless of subjectivity over if just under an inch per letter is 'big' or 'small', (btw - one time I believed it to be quite large until Halse corrected me) the investigators on the scene and in reports stated it was in an obvious place where inhabitants and people who use that stairwell/wall would have noticed it. Noticed it enough to rub it out according to Halse. So this isn't really about size at all. It's about location. That's why both the apron and the graffiti being there in that particular spot is likely not coincidence or accident, but deliberate.

I'm just trying to put myself in the killer's shoes. If I had murdered a woman that night and wanted to blame Jew/Gentile, I wouldn't bend down and scratch a tiny message on the wall. I'd want to make sure in no uncertain terms what I meant. If the apron wasn't found there, or Long hadn't glanced up at the time, I bet nothing would've come of the graffito. It all came out in the press anyway, and lo and behold, no mass riots.

You argue that it's too coincidental that no sooner does a Jew witness Stride being attacked that a piece of graffiti relating to Jews is left after the next victim. And I agree, it's not a coincidence, because both incidents took place in Jewish neighbourhoods.

I agree with this logic, however, I believe he used this graffiti.

Hello, Mike. So the Ripper escapes into Goulston St and stops to clean up, spots the graffito and decides to leave it there on the off-chance the police connect the two? It's a possibility, I guess.

I want to believe the graffito was penned by the Ripper, I really do, because there's few enough leads to go on as it is, but I think if the killer really wanted to communicate that night, there were better ways of doing it.

[Jon Guy]

I don't believe the Ripper wrote the GSG, for the simple reason that if he wanted to make a statement that night, why scribble down a small, almost inconspicuous message, like something you'd see on a toilet wall, rather than scrawling it out in big letters?

If I was the killer I wouldn`t want to risk been seen writing 3 foot high letters all over a wall whilst holding a piece of a victim`s clothing.
Besides, how long would it take to write it all out in huge letters ?

[Harry D]

Quite. And, above all, IF he had wished to say something truly anti-Semitic, surely he could have said something unambiguous?

Hello, Lynn. Indeed. I like the idea that it was actually written by some kid who'd probably heard his parents moaning about the local Jews, hence the obvious typo, double-negative, and tentative nature of the message.

Is it not possible that the ambiguity of the GSG could be down to a primitive form of gang code?

[The Good Michael]

Hello, Mike. So the Ripper escapes into Goulston St and stops to clean up, spots the graffito and decides to leave it there on the off-chance the police connect the two? It's a possibility, I guess.

Not exactly, Harry. I think it's likely the ripper or at least the murderer of Eddowes lived exactly in that neighborhood, and that he saw the graffiti before he left and either it struck a chord in him i.e., meant something to him at that moment, or he recalled it later, and either way, wanted to punctuate the remark with something...a trophy. He was saying, "take that." That's what I suggest.

Mike

[Batman]

Hello Michael, CD, Harry.

And, above all, IF he had wished to say something truly anti-Semitic, surely he could have said something unambiguous?

Cheers.
LC

Nobody has demonstrated from the facts that the police where in confusion over it's meaning. Instead we read detailed reports on it and what it meant. So ambiguity is not contemporary but a modern confusion of some.

If it's ambigous in the contemporary investigation, then one should show where they are talking about this.

[Wickerman]

If I was the killer I wouldn`t want to risk been seen writing 3 foot high letters all over a wall whilst holding a piece of a victim`s clothing.
Besides, how long would it take to write it all out in huge letters ?

The counter to that predicament is that the killer, if he was the messaging kind, would be brief and to the point.
Write it large, make it brief, and make it clear.

[Wickerman]

So ambiguity is not contemporary but a modern confusion of some.

If it's ambigous in the contemporary investigation, then one should show where they are talking about this.

Good point.

[Jon Guy]

The counter to that predicament is that the killer, if he was the messaging kind, would be brief and to the point.
Write it large, make it brief, and make it clear.

I don`t think writing it large was an option for someone who would want to remain unseen.

My view, is that it was written small because the message was tied up with the apron. Basically, if you were reading the message, you were aware of the apron.

[The Good Michael]

Nobody has demonstrated from the facts that the police where in confusion over it's meaning. Instead we read detailed reports on it and what it meant. So ambiguity is not contemporary but a modern confusion of some.

If it's ambigous in the contemporary investigation, then one should show where they are talking about this.

No report described the meaning. That absolutely indicates ambiguity.

Mike