the Goulston St Graffiti

[mariab]

Ben wrote:
For some reason it appeared odd for the two to be juxtaposed like that ("Jewish ecclesiastical"), as the latter is more commonly used in reference to the Christian church.
Isn't there some Christian script called The Ecclesiast? (Apologies, not terribly acquainted with religion...)

[Ben]

Thanks, Claire and Maria.

For some reason it appeared odd for the two to be juxtaposed like that ("Jewish ecclesiastical"), as the latter is more commonly used in reference to the Christian church.

'Twas late!

[DVV]

My theory is still the best

Indeed Mike. And there's no place like home.

Amitiés mon cher !

[The Good Michael]

My theory is still the best: The killer didn't write the graffiti but agreed with the sentiments as he interpreted the meaning, and left the apron there for that reason. In essence, it is his graffiti. That is a very simple, direct idea and provides for lateral authorship.

Mike

[mariab]

Yeah, the one's Greek, the other's Latin (from the same etymology as “relictum“?), and, by the by, I like the sound of “Qoholeth“. Is that from where “co-host“ came out? (Just kidding for the latter...)

[claire]

Mm. Ecclesiastical is etymologically correct, Ben. Ekklesiastes (Gr.) to 'Qoholeth' (Hebrew), meaning speaker in an assembly. At least one detail not to sweat

[mariab]

To Ben:
They're just about the same thing, only “ecclesiastical“ sounds more “intellectual“. (sic!)

[Ben]

Whoops.

Don't know quite where I plucked "Jewish ecclesiastical establishment" from!

Religious establishment is what I meant, of course.

[Ben]

Fisherman:

“I do, I´m afraid. I´ve considered these arguments so many times, and they have never made much sense to me. There were just too may Jewish establishments around for it to have any appeal to my taste”

I said, “if you disagree, that’s fine”, not repeat the original objection as though it were never addressed in extensive detail already. I’ve explained a number of times why the “too many Jewish establishments around” does not apply in this case, and I hope this latest attempt will suffice at explaining why:

The double event murders were both committed in close proximity to two Jewish clubs, and in Mitre Square you had a synagogue not far away to boot (anyone unfamiliar with the distance between Mitre Square and Duke Street ought really to consider the negligible distance - try a 25 second walk!) Now, although you had Jewish establishments dotted around the locale, it wouldn't be at all true to say that Jewish clubs were all over the place. Clubs are significant in that, unlike many Jewish establishments, they were active in the small hours; the killer's hours, which means that a Gentile committing murders in close proximity to Jewish clubs would enable the obvious inference that the killer might have been one of the club attendees, which wouldn't have been feasible if a Jewish ecclesiastical establishment or a Jewish shop was targeted, for instance.

…Or I may be forced to repeat this many more times, if necessary. It depends, as ever, on who wants to go round and round in circles on an issue that has been debated ad nauseam already.

“On the other hand, I am sometimes amazed at the fantasy and inventorship displayed on the threads”

Would this be the same “fantasy and inventorship (?)” that senior police officials Donald Swanson, Charles Warren and Henry Smith engaged in when they too suggested that the message was written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews? And of course, we must include authors Sugden and Friedland as abettors to that same fantastic “inventorship”.

“How do we know that the killer would look upon throwing the guilt on the jews as "a treat"?”

“Missing a treat” is an expression that refers to a failure to take advantage of an opportunity, and the act of fuelling suspicion in the direction of an already targeted community belongs, most assuredly, in that category.

“anybody is entitled to his or hers convictions!”

Great, well this is mine, although I’m somewhat deflated at the clumsily phrased gainsaying and accusations of “fantasy”.

If people wish to pursue this angle further, this might be the thread for it:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=336

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"which is why the killer would have been missing a treat had he not taken the decision to pluck those "fiddlestrings" when there were glaringly convenient opportunities to do so."

How do we know that the killer would look upon throwing the guilt on the jews as "a treat"? What indicators can we use to point to any other "treats" in his actions than those of eviscerating?
I can´t find a single one.

"...if you still disagree, that's also fine."

I do, I´m afraid. I´ve considered these arguments so many times, and they have never made much sense to me. There were just too may Jewish establishments around for it to have any appeal to my taste. Likewise, as I´ve said, I fail to see any clear indicator in any case, and I fail to see why the killer would have lacked any sort of functioning fantasy and inventorship, had he been determined to point to the Jews.
On the other hand, I am sometimes amazed at the fantasy and inventorship displayed on the threads, when it comes to interpreting everyday matters and ludicruously uninterpretable messages as clear indicators of an enterprising scapegoater.

It´s just not there when I look upon it, but - just like you say - anybody is entitled to his or hers convictions!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Rubyretro

Maybe he had really good night vision. Seriously. If the person who killed Catherine Eddowes et. al. was also the Goulston Graffiti Artist he doesn't seem to have had much trouble in the dark. If he could see what he was doing, even just a bit, then I don't know that it would have taken so very long to write that message. I might have a go, see how hard or easy it is.

Whoever did write it was literate, had been educated. We simply cannot know what kind of grasp on written language they had. However that was, I doubt that any writer spent ages pondering their sentence construction.

Graffiti is most usually a furtive act, even if the effect is almost always intended for public display. By its nature its execution should usually be swift - being caught in the act spoils all the fun.

And its always a personal statement, whether that's immediately obvious or not - so it tells us more about the wrtier than the subject. This writer wanted to talk about the Jews in the entrance to a building inhabited by Jews. Take one piece of apron, two violent murders - throw in a Jewish club for good measure, and what do you get? I know what I get, and random sequencing isn't it.

Best regards

Sally

[Rubyretro]

I've been reading this thread with interest and there are a few things that I'd like to reiterate :
a) the murders known as the Double Event took place in close proximity to Jewish Clubs
b) the soiled fabric piece definitely came from Catherine Eddowes's apron after her murder
c) the Wentworth Model dwellings were mainly inhabited by Jews
d) it is extremely unlikely that any person would spend time in the pitch black
writing a fairly long and complicated sentence on a brick wall in chalk -let alone someone in a hurry to distance themselves from a murder they've just committed, from a piece of incriminating evidence, and most likely not possessing a fluent command of the written word.

Ergo, I think that a)b) and c) are linked, but not neccessarily d).

That is not to say that -given that the graffito was fairly fresh (new or blurred as you prefer)-the killer did not write it at some earlier time, or had read it (which means that he could have seen it from any direction and in daylight).

What it mean't is not important -if it was written by a jew and is not 'anti-semite', the apron bit could still be trouble stirring comment (Jews not to blame ? oh, no ? -then deal with this !).

I think that it was on the murderer's way home from Mitre Square and he wanted to get rid of the rag that he'd used to clean himself, and he took advantage of the opportunity to stir even more **** by choosing the location
where he threw it.

[DVV]

But, of course, we don't know which route the killer actually took - not exactly - of course, because we can't.

Sally

Right, Sally, we even can't say he took the shortest or the more logical route. To begin with, we don't know when and where he was when he decided to head towards Church Passage/Mitre Square. (Not to mention the theory of a premeditated double murder.)

Amitiés
David

[Sally]

More Ifs And Buts..

Although if the killer had taken the most direct route to the GSG location, he would have emerged at the northern end of Goulston Street from New Goulston Street, the eastern entrance to which was bang opposite the Wentworth Model Dwellings. In this event, there was no obvious or logical choice as to which side of the entrance the message should be scribbled on.

Hi Ben

Well, indeed. I was merely speculating, as are you - 'the most direct route'? According to whom? The most logical route, perhaps, if (as I love to do) you want to draw that straight line from A-B.

But, of course, we don't know which route the killer actually took - not exactly - of course, because we can't.

But anyway, perhaps the choice to put the message on the south side and not the north was random; perhaps he was coming that way; perhaps it was raining - or he thought there was a chance of further rain; and the prevailing wind meant that if he chalked the message on the north side of the entrance it would quickly be washed away.

All entirely possible. I personally prefer empircal stuff and nice, hard evidence. It's fun to venture down the softer ground of the murky back alleys of Speculation City sometimes, all the same.

Best regards

Sally

[Ben]

The police were tense as fiddlestrings when it came to racially infected topics involving Jews

Exactly, Fisherman, which is why the killer would have been missing a treat had he not taken the decision to pluck those "fiddlestrings" when there were glaringly convenient opportunities to do so. I've already explained what I perceive to be the siginificance of clubs, as opposed to any other Jewish enterprise, and why the argument that there were lots of Jewish-associated places everywhere does not, accordingly, apply. But if you still disagree, that's also fine.

Hi Sally,

I like Barnaby's scenario, works for me. It would also explain why the graffiti was on the south side of the door - the killer was going south, not north.

Although if the killer had taken the most direct route to the GSG location, he would have emerged at the northern end of Goulston Street from New Goulston Street, the eastern entrance to which was bang opposite the Wentworth Model Dwellings. In this event, there was no obvious or logical choice as to which side of the entrance the message should be scribbled on.

All the best,
Ben