Antisemitism as a diversionary tactic

[Batman]

I remember three photo's, but this is the link with hoards of late 19th century photo's.

http://spitalfieldslife.com/category/street-life/

It's finding them that takes time.

Take a look at these two pics...

http://spitalfieldslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/7.jpg

http://spitalfieldslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2.jpg

The GSG was only 1.5" tall, so you wouldn't even see examples of that in these contemporary photo's.

Thanks.

[Observer]

How could Long be making a mistake if he has said he is adamant he checked this spot and didn't see the bloody apron?

https://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h246/drifter_03/goulstone5.jpg

The apron piece was right there below where that graffiti is.

How can you miss that when looking?

Another view of a spot he was checking as part of his job.

https://www.casebook.org/images/goul2.jpg

Also, aprons back then were the size of a full dress almost and even a small one would be considered big by today's domestic standards. I doubt he cut away a tiny tissue 'litter' size but a good portion to wipe a very bloody knife down to hide from staining his pocket. Almost the size of a wrap. Otherwise, what good would a little tiny thing be?

How do you miss something that size in that exact spot?... and bloody?

You would have to blind and ignorant at the same time.

The photos pretty much tell me it's near impossible to miss a bloody rag there. Especially if you are a PC. Even a trainee. It's blood in the middle of the Ripper murders. Blood + litter no biggie yeah?

You do realise that at the time of the murders there was a metal railing at the front of the Model Dwellings? Goulston Street was also a market street, do you think that the apron section was the only piece of rubbish lying in the streets. As Long passed at 2:20 a.m. if he passed at 2:20 a.m. it was just another night on the beat. Do you suppose he took notice of every bit of street litter he came across at that time? No, he over looked it first time around and didn't want to appear negligent in his duty, so stuck to his guns, and remained adamant that it wasn't there at 2:20 a.m.

[Observer]

I remember three photo's, but this is the link with hoards of late 19th century photo's.

http://spitalfieldslife.com/category/street-life/

It's finding them that takes time.

Take a look at these two pics...

http://spitalfieldslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/7.jpg

http://spitalfieldslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2.jpg

The GSG was only 1.5" tall, so you wouldn't even see examples of that in these contemporary photo's.

Wasn't there some anti-Semitic graffitti chalked on the wall of the Artisan Buildings somewhere near Mitre Square in 1889?

[Observer]

I remember three photo's, but this is the link with hoards of late 19th century photo's.

http://spitalfieldslife.com/category/street-life/

It's finding them that takes time.

Take a look at these two pics...

http://spitalfieldslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/7.jpg

http://spitalfieldslife.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/2.jpg

The GSG was only 1.5" tall, so you wouldn't even see examples of that in these contemporary photo's.

It wasn't Anti-Semitic it was this

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6988

[c.d.]

"Proponents of the GSG are not making the claim that graffiti that was anti-semitic in nature was all over these Jewish quarters at the time. The burden of proof is on those who think it is just a coincidence to demonstrate that the probability of throwing something down that would land next to anti-semitic graffiti is high."

I would think the burden of proof lies with those who claim the graffiti is anti-semitic in nature. "The Jews are tired of being blamed for things they did not do" is certainly a reasonable interpretation is it not?

Stating that the police at the time believed it to be anti-semitic is not proof seeing as how they did not write it and were only guessing.

And even if it can be shown with absolute certainty that it is anti-semitic it does not confirm that the writer was a gentile. It could have been a ruse.

And finally what the hell does it mean?

c.d.

[packers stem]

Everyone bar Warren felt it was connected
The big questions are ....
What was Halse doing there at 2.20 ?
Any killer could have fled in any direction from Mitre Square yet he was trotting aimlessly up Goulston Street

Why did Long pick up half an apron with blood on it, which could just as easily have been a discarded sanitary item ,and leg it to the station if he wasn't convinced immediately of the importance of the message

just how big was the writing
3/4 inch capitals makes the rest unbelievably small to be written in chalk on a wall

[Batman]

"Proponents of the GSG are not making the claim that graffiti that was anti-semitic in nature was all over these Jewish quarters at the time. The burden of proof is on those who think it is just a coincidence to demonstrate that the probability of throwing something down that would land next to anti-semitic graffiti is high."

I would think the burden of proof lies with those who claim the graffiti is anti-semitic in nature. "The Jews are tired of being blamed for things they did not do" is certainly a reasonable interpretation is it not?

Stating that the police at the time believed it to be anti-semitic is not proof seeing as how they did not write it and were only guessing.

And even if it can be shown with absolute certainty that it is anti-semitic it does not confirm that the writer was a gentile. It could have been a ruse.

And finally what the hell does it mean?

c.d.

I am considering that chalking up something there could well have been a cover for JtR as was he was making his way out of the murder scene. It would have been raining. There is the doorway. If a plain-clothed officer had stopped him he could claim he was sold a lemon and giving a Jews a piece of his mind. That could be one reason why it's jibberish because it's only semi-planned. He would have to look the part also to get away with it.

I think even GSG doubters believe it is anti-semitic. That there was lots of that and therefore a random chance event.

I go with the idea he wasn't a Jew and was playing up the Jewish hysteria. How would a Jew even be able to move alone like that at night? Lewende is in a group of several men.

[Abby Normal]

"Proponents of the GSG are not making the claim that graffiti that was anti-semitic in nature was all over these Jewish quarters at the time. The burden of proof is on those who think it is just a coincidence to demonstrate that the probability of throwing something down that would land next to anti-semitic graffiti is high."

I would think the burden of proof lies with those who claim the graffiti is anti-semitic in nature. "The Jews are tired of being blamed for things they did not do" is certainly a reasonable interpretation is it not?

Stating that the police at the time believed it to be anti-semitic is not proof seeing as how they did not write it and were only guessing.

And even if it can be shown with absolute certainty that it is anti-semitic it does not confirm that the writer was a gentile. It could have been a ruse.

And finally what the hell does it mean?

c.d.

Hi cd
I remember reading an expert on victorian laguage saying it most probably read- the jews dont take the blame for anything.

[Batman]

Everyone bar Warren felt it was connected
The big questions are ....
What was Halse doing there at 2.20 ?
Any killer could have fled in any direction from Mitre Square yet he was trotting aimlessly up Goulston Street

Right. This is important. I am very interested in Halse overall.

I read in one reference that he corroborated Long's account of nothing being there but I am not sure if it is correct at all so didn't mention it, but now you bring him up, is it the case?

Anyway, it's not this that I read about Halse that makes me interested but the very question packers stem asks.

[c.d.]

Hi cd
I remember reading an expert on victorian laguage saying it most probably read- the jews dont take the blame for anything.

Hello Abby,

But that is the problem. He is simply stating his opinion. It's like an art historian stating what he believes is behind the Mona Lisa's smile or an archeologist speculating as to why Stonehenge was built. The only person who can say what the meaning of the GSG is with absolute certainty is the person who wrote it. All other opinions are speculation.

c.d.

[Batman]

Hello Abby,

But that is the problem. He is simply stating his opinion. It's like an art historian stating what he believes is behind the Mona Lisa's smile or an archeologist speculating as to why Stonehenge was built. The only person who can say what the meaning of the GSG is with absolute certainty is the person who wrote it. All other opinions are speculation.

c.d.

The only one who knows what the Zodiac cryptic messages mean is the Zodiac for at least some of them, but we don't doubt they are from him.

He even did a piece of graffitio himself on the car door of two of his victims.

Ramirez had a thing about drawing pentagons in blood.

Lipstick killer. Have a guess where they got that name from?

However if you think the GSG is confounding... then how about HELTER SKELTER. A beatles song. Yet not. Took a whole book by Bugliosi to explain exactly what it actually meant in Manson's scenario. Yet there it was in blood at a crime scene.

Basically what I am saying is, that they write stuff and sometimes it is gibberish, but we still know they did it.

I think the GSG is simply an anti-semitic statement saying the "Jews won't take responsibility for anything." That simple.

[c.d.]

"I think the GSG is simply an anti-semitic statement saying the "Jews won't take responsibility for anything." That simple."

Hello Batman,

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that that is true, it still sounds like a statement made by someone who thought the butcher had his thumb on the scale not what somebody would write who had just killed two women on the same night. I am not saying that it shows that it could not have been written by the killer but that it simply seems very strange if indeed it did come from him.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

As I've said previously, Long was paid to be a police officer, not a litter warden. I wouldn't find it at all surprising if a piece of rag discarded inside a doorway hadn't registered with him the first time round.

True, but would you be so assertive that it wasn't there if you were not expected to notice rags in doorways?
Or, would you admit it could have been there?

[Wickerman]

It wasn't Anti-Semitic it was this

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6988

Thanks, yes now it rings a bell.

[Fisherman]

True, but would you be so assertive that it wasn't there if you were not expected to notice rags in doorways?
Or, would you admit it could have been there?

That is the pertinent question to ask, Jon, so thanks for that!

The very fact that Long did not stand to get criticized for not being able to tell is visible within the wording used by the coroner when Long was asked about the rag:

" (Coroner): Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?
(Long): I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
(Coroner): Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
(Long): It was not."

So we can see that the coroner freely allows for Long not having noticed (are you able, can you tell or not?) - just as has been pointed out, there may have been litter all around the place, generally speaking, and so it could be hard to establish on Longs behalf.

But! If the doorway was NOT littered, and if Long had been inside it and checked it at the early occasion only to later find a rag that he knew had not been there before, then he would be able to give the exact type of answer he gave the coroner: Yes I am able to say what applies, and no, the rag was definitely not there on the earlier occasion.

That is what applies here, and any effort to dissolve it must be regarded as a secondary, much less viable bid.

Observer tells Batman that he is welcome to accept Longs bid and ignore the rest of the evidence, and I think that is something that must be challenged for a very simple reason: there is absolutely no evidence putting the rag in the doorway at the earlier occasion. One can of course construct a storyline involving ingredients that speak for the rag logically being there - but it equally applies that one can also construct another storyline where the rag was NOT there for equally logical reasons.
Either of those approaches, however, rest upon conjecture. Longs adamant statement does not, it is the only piece of absolute evidence we have on the matter. And before any other evidence surfaces, it is what we must go by. It should not make us depressed; it is a clue that will fill itīs role in explaining what happened, and such clues are too valuable to throw away carelessly. It tells us that the killer was still around on the streets a significant amount of time after the Mitre Square strike, and just how odd is that? We know that he stayed on the streets after killing Stride (if we accept that he did so, and I for one do), and so we are not dealing with an anxious and nervous person but instead with a confident one, quite able and willing to take on whatever came his way.