GSG because of Schwartz?

[Batman]

No report described the meaning. That absolutely indicates ambiguity.

Mike

So the reference from Swanson was that because the graffiti was ambiguous he decided that it was to throw suspicion on Jews???

Swanson is not the one confused over any ambiguity.

[Wickerman]

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.

But he was already inside an entry, an enclosed space. Some think this was even written on an inside wall, others (myself) on the jamb of the entryway.
It's not like he was out in Piccadilly Square.

[The Good Michael]

So the reference from Swanson was that because the graffiti was ambiguous he decided that it was to throw suspicion on Jews???

Swanson is not the one confused over any ambiguity.

You need to cool your jets. I asked you to show me a report in which the meaning of the graffiti was detailed. I didn't ask what results the graffiti's interpretations could cause. Everyone knows what Warren thought could happen. I want you to show me an official's exact interpretation of the graffiti. You can't do that. So you cannot dispel message ambiguity. You think there's only your way to see things, and that's annoying. Show us the reports detailing meaning, and you win your argument. If you can't, ambiguity rules. Of course you won't be able to.

Mike

[Jon Guy]

But he was already inside an entry, an enclosed space. Some think this was even written on an inside wall, others (myself) on the jamb of the entryway.
It's not like he was out in Piccadilly Square.

He was, and the jamb dictated how big the writing was to be.

[Batman]

You need to cool your jets. I asked you to show me a report in which the meaning of the graffiti was detailed. I didn't ask what results the graffiti's interpretations could cause. Everyone knows what Warren thought could happen. I want you to show me an official's exact interpretation of the graffiti. You can't do that. So you cannot dispel message ambiguity. You think there's only your way to see things, and that's annoying. Show us the reports detailing meaning, and you win your argument. If you can't, ambiguity rules. Of course you won't be able to.

Mike

They didn't have to explain its literal meaning. It's just cockney dialect.

[pinkmoon]

If the police really thought this message was written by our killer then it would have been photographed the fact it wasn't speaks volumes.

[gnote]

If the police really thought this message was written by our killer then it would have been photographed the fact it wasn't speaks volumes.

Did Warren (or other high ranking officers) truly believe at the time it was written by the killer? Warren's motivation for having it removed seems clear but not his belief about its authenticity. At least to my knowledge. That's why i ask.

One possibility is if he did believe it was the Ripper's writing, a photo wasn't necessary. Maybe he thought having it written down was good enough? Time was of the essence, it would be daylight soon and so on. He was balancing the investigation with politics.

[The Good Michael]

They didn't have to explain its literal meaning. It's just cockney dialect.

And as we all understand Cockney, it shouldn't be an ambiguous message. Yet it is. Thank goodness someone of your mental prowess is here to tell us what it means.

Mike

[lynn cates]

possibility

Hello Harry. Thanks.

I suppose another possibility is that some local felt ill used in a transaction and--failing to win redress--lashed out in graffiti.

Cheers.
LC

[Batman]

Hello Harry. Thanks.

I suppose another possibility is that some local felt ill used in a transaction and--failing to win redress--lashed out in graffiti.

Cheers.
LC

Martin Fido developed this explanation in his book Crimes and Trials of.

To accept this means...

1) To reject the police view that if done that day it would have been rubbed out by the locals.
2) One has to play the coincidence card that following the anti-semitic riots of the leather apron scare related to Chapman's murder by JtR he just happened to throw the bloody apron coincidentally under a graffiti that could cause another anti-semitic riot.
3) That the anti-semitic behaviour of Schwartz being called Lipski at Strides murder that evening is also coincidence.

All one needs to do is accept JtR wrote it and the convoluted problems with rejecting it end... and likely so do Jewish suspects unless you accept Robert House's position about a Jew vs Jews.

[Wickerman]

I'm sorry Batman I think your barking up the wrong tree with those objections.

Point 1:
Graffiti doesn't get rubbed off by people passing does it?, you know this and I know this.
Are you able to negotiate walkways and paths without bumping into or sliding along any walls?
I'm sure you can, so can I, and believe it or not, so do other people.

Point 2:
Unless you can demonstrate that this example of graffiti was unique then your argument is mute, graffiti could have been quite prevalent in the Jewish sector. East Enders were quite annoyed at Jews for a number of reasons.
We do have photographic samples of graffiti on walls in general in this period so we are not able to claim that this was a special case.

Point 3:
It was never established who "Lipski" was addressed to, or why. Abberline tells us himself that Schwartz was not certain about this.

It is not that the evidence has only one interpretation, it is that the evidence is only being interpreted from one perspective.

In order to agree with you I would have to believe that people in general brush against walls while walking, that no other examples of graffiti existed in Goulstone St. or any other entryway, and that Schwartz was certain "Lipski" was addressed directly to him.

Neither appears to be the case.

[Batman]

By rubbed off Halse meant deliberately removed because of its location. He also said it was fresh. I think it was meant to be found. Not an accident.

[Natasha]

Hi All

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

[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.

[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".