Apron placement as intimidation?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I believe, that in this instance, the length of the message dictated how big the graffiti was going to be.
Imagine having to write the GSG in letters 2ft high!?!
How long would that take to write, how much chalk would it use...

good point.

[Abby Normal]

It's by no means a fact that Stride's killer was the Ripper, however, and many of the proposed motivations for JTR to have written the GSG rely on his having been annoyed by Jews interrupting him at Berner Street. Even if this had been the case, the GSG was generic to the point of banality. If it had been more strongly worded, ideally referring directly to the murders themselves (what better opportunity to coin the phrase "Double Event"?), there would be a better case to be made. As it is, any old anti-Semite could have written it.
That's immaterial to the question of whether it was actually written by the killer or not. Their guess/opinion is about as good as ours.

Hi Sam

Even if this had been the case, the GSG was generic to the point of banality. If it had been more strongly worded, ideally referring directly to the murders themselves (what better opportunity to coin the phrase "Double Event"?), there would be a better case to be made.

yes, of course I agree with this. but then again, you are back to the fallacy of discounting something based on what YOU think the killer should or shouldn't have done.

As it is, any old anti-Semite could have written it.

but why would any old anti-Semite also write something ambiguous? "jews are pigs" "Cohen is an ass" "don't buy from Levy". would be more like it.

plus any old anti semite just happens to write it above where the bloody apron was found? on a night where all the witnesses were jews?
too many "coincidences" for me.

That's immaterial to the question of whether it was actually written by the killer or not. Their guess/opinion is about as good as ours.[/

what?!? of course its not. the police were there at the time, living it, investigating it. of course there views are material.

[Jon Guy]

what?!? of course its not. the police were there at the time, living it, investigating it. of course there views are material.

They also interviewed the tenants of the building, so who knows what they asked and what they were told. The obvious question being had anyone seen the writing previously ?

[Abby Normal]

This is a valid point, Sam, and one worth repeating. The GSG was apparently written in the wee hours, inside a darkened doorway, by a psychopath who had no qualms about butchering women in the street, but he was too cautious to write in more than a tiny scrawl.

I also don't believe the claim that it would've been scrubbed out had it been written earlier. While people were busying themselves with their day, would the local immigrants really have stopped to notice a little chalk graffiti, let alone understand its ambiguous wording?

HI Harry

IMHO any resident walking past that graffiti would have taken the little time to rub it off. even if it meant using there sleeve to obscure the anti jewish sentiment of it.

its a new building, the residents were mostly jewish its written in the doorway, clearly visible in daylight. that graffiti never saw the light of day.

[Abby Normal]

They also interviewed the tenants of the building, so who knows what they asked and what they were told. The obvious question being had anyone seen the writing previously ?

bingo. no reports of it being there earlier. no reports of any other graffiti in the immediate area either.

[Abby Normal]

The problem there is sample size, Abby. Unless someone had an interest in it, then I doubt that too many photographs of Victorian graffiti would have been made, still less survived.

I see no reason why graffiti should have been any smaller in the past; indeed, I've seen plenty of examples of small-sized graffiti even to this day. I even wrote some myself, on a lamp post, where it stayed for years.

I suspect that graffiti has come in all shapes and sizes for as long as hominids have been able to write/draw on walls. And that's a long time

I see what your saying sam, but most graffiti today is written large and bold. with the use mainly of spray paint.

back then its chalk. harder and takes longer to write large in chalk.

and despite its size, its signed by the bloody apron. found by the first person to see the apron.

[c.d.]

I have to agree with Sam. The opinion of the police was simply their opinion as they were not the author of the GSG.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

They also interviewed the tenants of the building, so who knows what they asked and what they were told. The obvious question being had anyone seen the writing previously ?

Right, but why should there be any expectation that residents would see it, given the small size?
PC Long only noticed it because he was looking for blood spatter on the bricks with his lamp. We shouldn't expect any residents to read the walls as they pass in and out.

Clearly the police didn't want the message made public, which is why the Met. washed it off. So, what would they ask the residents?

Officer: - "Did you see the chalk graffiti on the wall downstairs?"
Resident: - "which graffiti, what did it say?"
Officer: - "I can't tell you what it said".
Resident: - "Well, how would I know if I saw it?"

End of discussion, pretty much.

[Abby Normal]

I have to agree with Sam. The opinion of the police was simply their opinion as they were not the author of the GSG.

c.d.

They also weren’t the originators or authors of any of the evidence, so since they weren’t , we can’t take there opinions on anything evidence related?

[Wickerman]

A scrawl of letters 3 or 4 inches high would have been good enough, and more impactful, compared to the 0.75 inch letters that comprised most of the GSG. Writing that small and neat would have required a bit more concentration, skill - and time! - to achieve.

The writer could have written one word per brick, which would have produced a much larger sample.
However, as the wall was painted black then the writing surface would have been consistent even across the cement lines. Like writing on an uneven blackboard, so the cement lines may not have limited his writing space as the bricks & cement were all painted black.

[c.d.]

They also weren’t the originators or authors of any of the evidence, so since they weren’t , we can’t take there opinions on anything evidence related?

I didn't dismiss the opinion of the police regarding the police. Of course it should be considered. I simply pointed out that it was their "opinion" and therefore has no bearing as to whether the GSG was pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish or whether or not the GSG was written by the killer.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Right, but why should there be any expectation that residents would see it, given the small size?
PC Long only noticed it because he was looking for blood spatter on the bricks with his lamp. We shouldn't expect any residents to read the walls as they pass in and out.

Clearly the police didn't want the message made public, which is why the Met. washed it off. So, what would they ask the residents?

Officer: - "Did you see the chalk graffiti on the wall downstairs?"
Resident: - "which graffiti, what did it say?"
Officer: - "I can't tell you what it said".
Resident: - "Well, how would I know if I saw it?"

End of discussion, pretty much.

Yes we would expect the residents to see it, during daylight as it was written in the entrance of the doorway.

And obviously you can ask the residents if they had seen it. If they had seen it they would know what it said already. Besides either way the police can ask if they’d seen any writing on the doorway, and the resident would most likely answer a simple yes or no.

[Abby Normal]

I didn't dismiss the opinion of the police regarding the police. Of course it should be considered. I simply pointed out that it was their "opinion" and therefore has no bearing as to whether the GSG was pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish or whether or not the GSG was written by the killer.

c.d.

It’s no different than any other potential evidence. The police were there, they know better than anyone the situation.

You just don’t want to give credence to there opinion in this instance, because you don’t think it was written by the killer.

[c.d.]

It’s no different than any other potential evidence. The police were there, they know better than anyone the situation.

You just don’t want to give credence to there opinion in this instance, because you don’t think it was written by the killer.

First of all, I have no dog in the GSG debate. I don't think it was written by the killer but I am not wedded to that belief. Mainly because it is a moot point in that I don't think the GSG really tells us anything.

I repeat that I am not dismissing their opinion but again it is an OPINION. Not a FACT. Their opinion has no ability whatsoever to change whether or not the message is pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish or whether or not it was actually written by the killer. How can I make that any clearer?

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

First of all, I have no dog in the GSG debate. I don't think it was written by the killer but I am not wedded to that belief. Mainly because it is a moot point in that I don't think the GSG really tells us anything.

I repeat that I am not dismissing their opinion but again it is an OPINION. Not a FACT. Their opinion has no ability whatsoever to change whether or not the message is pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish or whether or not it was actually written by the killer. How can I make that any clearer?

c.d.

Of course it doesn’t, but when we asses evidence or possible evidence in the ripper case, you weigh the police at the time ideas into it whether things or not are relevant or not. Not just blow off their opinion just because you don’t agree with it!!!

If they had said it wasn’t written by the killer, would you still say it’s just there opinion, it doesn’t matter? I think not.