the Goulston St Graffiti

[Sally]

I think it would always be too much of a coincidence, for the GSG will ever have the same wording and because the context, as you said, is king.

-

Exactly. Which is why a hypothetical scenario in which the graffiti message was entirely unrelated to the Jews is useful - it only serves to highlight the relevance of the actual graffiti to the events of the night.

Context is King.

Best regards

Sally

[mariab]

DVV wrote:
The Easyjet case is obviouly more complicated than JtR's.
Truer words were never spoken.
DVV wrote:
Enjoy your flight !
Easyjet is my nemesis-s-s-s. (Quoting a certain TV show.)

[DVV]

As I said, more or less. And of course, it wouldn't ALWAYS be too much of a coincidence, would it? If, to take one the examples being bandied about, the Goulston Street graffiti had instead read 'Which Nation Will Fight?'

Hi Sally

I think it would always be too much of a coincidence, for the GSG will ever have the same wording and because the context, as you said, is king.
I agree with the rest of your post (the problem of the direction is indeed essential in Barnaby's scenario).

Amitiés
David

[DVV]

Actually I didn't even change the ticket, I bought a new one cheaper! Easyjet online required over 100-€ to change the ticket, but just 60-€ for a new one. (?!) Where's the logic in that? )
Amitiés,
Maria

The Easyjet case is obviouly more complicated than JtR's.

Enjoy your flight !
David

[Sally]

two women murdered by knife in the same area, within one hour...a clue unecessarily left close to a message referring to Jews while the first victim had been dispached in a Jewish Club.....is too much of a coincidence to me.

As I said, more or less. And of course, it wouldn't ALWAYS be too much of a coincidence, would it? If, to take one the examples being bandied about, the Goulston Street graffiti had instead read 'Which Nation Will Fight?' I don't know what the authorities would have made of it. Probably very little. Probably they would have considered the fact of the graffiti in proximity to the apron piece as indicating that the killer had passed that way and nothing more - in other words, the graffiti wouldn't have taken on an special significance - would have been viewed as chance.

The reason that it wasn't was because it didn't say that, or anything else which appeared at the time to be unrelated to the events of the night. It is the context of the graffiti which made it significant then, and it's that same context which should alert us now. Context is King, as they say.

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. This rids us of concerns that he would have had to have stopped on his way north and turned around just to write the message. If this scenario is correct, he wouldn't.

[mariab]

Totally agree with you, DVV (David), especially on the possibility that the Goulston graffito might have referred to the Leather Apron affair AND express the Ripper's rage against the IWMC as proposed by Barnaby (in just one of many possibilities).
(By the by, I've just changed my flight to Paris from tomorrow to Wednesday evening, and I can breath a bit more easily now, being extremely behind in my schedule, but needing today to veg out. Actually I didn't even change the ticket, I bought a new one cheaper! Easyjet online required over 100-€ to change the ticket, but just 60-€ for a new one. (?!) Where's the logic in that? )
Amitiés,
Maria

[DVV]

What if the message had read "What nation can fight?". If it had read "Harry Soames is a pig"? If it had read "The Ripper is gonna get us all"?

Would it ALWAYS be "too much of a coincidence", no matter what the writing said?

Fisherman

Hi Fish,

No, it wouldn't be too much of a coincidence, I agree.
However, whoever chalked the graffito has crouched down to chalk it, puting the piece of apron closer to the message than one would have expected - thus enforcing the idea of a signature.
And the piece of apron was the only material clue ever left by JtR. It could then have been left purposely.

I again agree with you that the wording has no direct/clear connection to the JtR murders.
But it could also refer to the Stride murder (if Jack did it) or to Leather Apron.

Finally, two women murdered by knife in the same area, within one hour...a clue unecessarily left close to a message referring to Jews while the first victim had been dispached in a Jewish Club.....is too much of a coincidence to me.

Amitiés
David

[DVV]

Either it's the effect of not having slept last night, or what Barnaby just said makes sense! (As one of many possibilities.)

Hi Mariab

I slept well....and Barnaby's scenario just makes sense to me.
I would add that the GSG could be a way of making fun of the Leather Apron affair.

Amitiés
David

[mariab]

Either it's the effect of not having slept last night, or what Barnaby just said makes sense! (As one of many possibilities.)

[Barnaby]

To my knowledge, no one has proposed that Jack wrote the Goulston Street graffiti immediately after the Stride murder and before the Eddowes murder, probably because the idea is ludicrous. But I've almost convinced myself that the idea should be considered for the following reasons.

1. Goulston Street is on the way from the Berner Street location to Mitre Square.

2. Jack may have been enraged at being interrupted by Jews outside a primarily Jewish club during the Stride murder. Perhaps, he hastily chalked some message "blaming the Jews" as a way of venting, not knowing that he would have another chance to kill that night.

3.Presumably, this anger about being interrupted would have been somewhat reduced after the Eddowes murder, making it less likely that he would be preoccupied with Jews and feeling compelled to chalk the message.

I can envision a scenario where, after he kills Eddowes, he returns home. Goulston Street is on the way/near his home so it is no big deal to return to the graffiti. He decides to "sign" his previous message by dropping the piece of apron next to it. Perhaps he means to convey that the Jews are responsible for Eddowes because they interrupted his work with Stride. The blood is on their hands; he is wiping his clean. (Of course, a similar interpretation of the meaning of the graffiti can be made regardless of when he actually wrote it.)

In this scenario, he isn't taking the time to chalk a message after murdering two women with the entire police force buzzing around. He chalked it earlier, when he thought he was done for the night. Dropping the apron during the flight home would take but a second.

I know, still unlikely.

[mariab]

So it was Martin Fido who came up with that theory? For a minute I wondered if it wasn't Rubyretro! But she most probably hasn't been posting that long on casebook.
To Fisherman:
Fish, I didn't imply that the Ripper wrote the graffiti (with bloody hands?) in the night of the double event. But very possibly he might have noticed the graffito from before. As for the light conditions on Goulston Street during the night of September 30, Monty's dissertation (with a link posted on a previous page of this thread) discusses this in detail.
PS.: Check me out spelling "Goulston Street" like a grown up nowadays!

[The Grave Maurice]

Ta, Monty. I wanted to give credit, but I couldn't remember whose idea it was.

[Monty]

There were popular street markets, run mostly by Jews, on Goulston and Wentworth Streets. Some of the stall owners probably lived in Wentworth Model Dwellings. A poster on the old boards posited the theory that the graffito was written by a disgruntled Gentile who believed that he had been cheated by a stall owner and had been refused a refund for shoddy goods. He wrote the message late Saturday night so that it would be seen the following morning when the markets opened.

It's a clever theory---simple, neat, and explains all the facts.

Thats actually Martin Fido who came up with that theory Grave.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"The graffiti was fresh."

Says some. Others say it was blurred. It´s anybody´s guess.
And no matter how we look upon it, it of course makes for a better story, if your hunch is correct. But I would have loved to read the sequel on the walls of No 13 Millers Court - in fact, I would have expected to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The Grave one:

"There were popular street markets, run mostly by Jews, on Goulston and Wentworth Streets. Some of the stall owners probably lived in Wentworth Model Dwellings. A poster on the old boards posited the theory that the graffito was written by a disgruntled Gentile who believed that he had been cheated by a stall owner and had been refused a refund for shoddy goods. He wrote the message late Saturday night so that it would be seen the following morning when the markets opened.

It's a clever theory---simple, neat, and explains all the facts."

It does, Maurice, and I remember it well. I much prefer it to speculating about etheric subtleties written in the dark by a hastening killer. It´s only problem is that it detracts from the sensationalist saga spun around "the double event" - but I can live with that.

The best,
Fisherman