the Goulston St Graffiti

[DVV]

David:

"Were there many "graffiti-decorated doorways" in Goulston Street ?
All as strange as the GSG ??"

THAT would be odd in the extreme, David. A more reasonable guess would be that the graffiti differed from doorway to doorway.
...but as you know, we cannot tell how much graffiti was about, where it was and what it said. But reasonably, it was about in many places, saying many things, some of them "strange" and others more straightforward things.

If you differ, it would be interesting to hear in what way!

The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fish

indeed I differ, as did all the police in 1888.
And just like most of them, I'm of opinion the JtR killed twice that night (hence, I suppose, our disagreement re the GSG/piece of apron).

Amitiés mon cher !
David

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I really don't see why it has to be all or nothing when it comes to the amazingly reasonable suggestion that the killer may have sought to deflect suspicion in the direction of the Jewish community when the opportunity arose. I fear that some have the idea that unless the killer was seeking to implicate the Jews all the time in a very blatent manner, he can't have been doing so at all. I struggle to see how this makes sense."

I think that if he DID take that road after having killed Eddowes, I would have expected to see it carried on in Millerīs Court -just as I would have expected him to communicate after the GSG if that was his doing. He had loads of time on his hands in Dorset Street, presumably.
Itīs not that this MUST have been, of course, but the suggestion is a very reasonable one, I think.

If we satisfy ourselves with clues attaching just to the one murder, then we may just as well assume that Nicholls was killed to throw guilt on the horse-knackers, and that Chapman was slain to point to catīs meat men being the guilty party. And Kelly? What about chandlers for that one?

It is and always reamins a question of density of the ones we want to point out. And Jews were abundant in Whitechapel! It has been said many a time before, but it deserves to be repeated: If Jack the Ripperīs main concern had been NOT to point a finger in the direction of the Jews in any way, then he would not have killed in the East end. And if it was the other way around, he could have been a whole lot clearer, one would think.

The odd lightning bolt, Ben, just like you suggest, along the lines "Wait a sec - this gives me a chance to implicate the Jews" may - of course - have been there. But it will remain totally impossible to prove that this was his mindset, and as such, as long as we do not find any material to strengthen it, it remains an avenue of research that should be trodden very carefully, in my mind.

"If the killer's intention was to implicate the most popular scapegoat around, it wouldn't have made any sense to engage in any Jew-implicating antics at the Tabram or Nichols murders, since they occured before the "Leather Apron" fun commenced in ernest."

They did, Ben - but scapegoating Jews is a much older racist hobby, so that does not pose much of a problem either way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"I doubt it that the one who discarded the piece of apron didn't happen to see the graffito."

It was dark, Maria, and I think that a suggestion that the killer was in a hurry is a ver useful one. The doorway was none too deep, and he could well have flung the rag into it without even stepping in there. In fact, why would he step into the doorway at all, heading for his bolthole?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

"...I differ, as did all the police in 1888.
And just like most of them, I'm of opinion the JtR killed twice that night"

Well then, David, hereīs to evolution!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Wait a sec - this gives me a chance to implicate the Jews" may - of course - have been there. But it will remain totally impossible to prove that this was his mindset, and as such, as long as we do not find any material to strengthen it”

But we’ve got plenty of material to strengthen it, Fisherman,

The double event murders were both committed in close proximity to two Jewish clubs, and in Mitre Square there was also synagogue not far away (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.

Already, this is militating very heavily against "random coincidence", but when taken in conjunction with the fact that a Jewish-related message was found in the most concentrated Jewish hotspot in the district and accompanied by Eddowes' apron remnant, the "coincidence" angle is rendered even more unlikely.

Impossible to prove – yes, but very easy to make an incredibly persuasive case for, especially with Donald Swanson, Charles Warren and Henry Smith all endorsing the suggestion that the killer wrote the message with the intention of casting suspicion in a Jewish direction. More recently, Philip Sudgen offered the following:

"...Martin Friedland's suggestion that the murders were carefully contrived to throw as much suspicion as possible on the Jewish community deserves better than it has received by modern commentators. The murder of Elizabeth Stride next to the International Working Men's Education Club, the apparent hailing of an accomplice by the name "Lipski", the murder of Kate Eddowes close to another club (The Imperial) frequented by Jews, and the message "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" chalked in the entry of a house of Jewish tenements - these signify little by themselves but, taken together, begin to a make a persuasive case"

“I think that if he DID take that road after having killed Eddowes, I would have expected to see it carried on in Millerīs Court -just as I would have expected him to communicate after the GSG if that was his doing.”

I’m not sure why these expectations are really necessary, but as you know, I believe the killer may well have re-instigated his Jew-implicating antics in connection with the Miller’s Court murder.

Have a good weekend.

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

I would like to add that the Police officials Ben mentioned expressed person opinion and not official opinion regarding the writing. They mention nothing in their reports.

The only official mention in the case files stating the killer wrote the writing comes from a report by DCI Henry Moore on 18th October 1896 who states the message was 'undoubtedly' from the killer, yet Moore does not cite his evidence supporting this. The main reason being he cannot, there is valid doubt.

So to state the Police felt the writing was from the killer is misleading. To state some of the senior officers felt Jack wrote it is fair, yet they do not cite evidence, its purely gut feeling.

Finally I point out George Oldfield, who went on a gut feeling about the Wearside Jack tape during the Yorkshire Ripper hunt.

A fatal error.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Monty,

They mention nothing in their reports.

Swanson's observations concerning the message were expressed in his report on the Eddowes murder, and Warren made his feelings known in a report to the Home Office. It was only Smith who confined his comments to his memoirs only.

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Hey Ben,

I dont think I was clear.

Neither Swanson nor Warren expressed an opinion the killer wrote it, not that it wasnt mentioned at all, apologies.

Monty

[Sally]

I expect that graffiti was quite common in Victorian London. Here are some examples of graffiti in the 19th Century press:

http://catsmeatshop.blogspot.com/2010/09/victorian-graffiti.html

In the Goulston Street case I don't think it matters how common, or not, chalked graffiti was in general - although I think if it had been very rare, the fact of its very existence might have warranted comment. It was the perception of the message it carried at the time that made it significant in the minds of those who witnessed it. And what else could be expected?

It's the night of the 'Double Event' - it doesn't matter whether we personally think the two murders are linked or not from out modern day perspective - that was how it seemed at the time - It's the night of the Double Event; a known middle-aged prostitute has just been murdered outside a politically active Jewish club; shortly after which, another middle-aged prostitute is murdered in the area.

Following which, at a third location, a message is discovered on the entrance of a building predominately occupied by Jews, which apparently states that the finger of blame should be pointed at them.

Yes, we might reasonably ask what that blame was intended to be, exactly, with the benefit of hindsight: it could refer to several things - but it's hardly surprising that the graffiti was considered inflammatory in the circumstances.

Then, of course, there's the small matter of that piece of apron, which came from the body of Catherine Eddowes.

Again, we might want to question how it got there; but the link must have seemed pretty obvious at the time.

I'm in favour of straight lines, personally - quickest way from A-B. In this case I think that means that the graffiti was probably written by the killer of Catherine Eddowes.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"we’ve got plenty of material to strengthen it"

That would depend on how we define "plenty", Ben. Not that I donīt see where you are coming from, but I think that we often make the mistake to let the tenseness that was around back then rub off on ourselves. The police were tense as fiddlestrings when it came to racially infected topics involving Jews, and that was what got the GSG erased, for example. To me, there is no "plenty" about, only a very understandable occurence of Jewish buildings and establishments. And I honestly think that if we are arguing about it today, then that owes to the fact that there is clear indication about - and never was.

"as you know, I believe the killer may well have re-instigated his Jew-implicating antics in connection with the Miller’s Court murder"

Oh, I know, Ben! I think that there are very good reasons to believe that he did no such thing, but this is not the thread for it. I hope to create a brand new thread in the not to distant future, and add to this issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Here are some examples of graffiti"

Thanks for that, Sally - very useful. I particularly liked the "What nation can fight?" scribbling. One canīt help but to wonder what Warren et al would have made of that one 122 years ago! I feel less uncertain about what todays posters would have speculated, though ... (must have meant that the Jews were prepared to take their British hosts on, killing British prostitutes - thatīs why the rag was thrown into the doorway of a house swarming with Jews! Written by the killer, absolutely!)

By the bye - there are two schools on the issue about who gets a finger pointed at them, so maybe opting for the GSG having been written by the Ripper (in total darkness, in half-inch letters...?) is not all that straight a line.


The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Rag

Hi Fisherman

Well, I think basically you have two ways to go when considering how the rag got in the doorway of a building 'swarming with Jews' which also happened to have a freshly chalked message concerning the Jews and their culpability.

Either it got there as part of a totally random sequence of events; or it got there by design.

If it arrived randomly, well, that's the end of the line - it means nothing at all in terms of any anti-Jewish sentiment; attempts by anybody - killer, whoever - to implicate the Jews, etc.

If it arrived by design, then that requires somebody to do the designing.

This is more interesting for me personally, because I can see several possibilities.

So perhaps it was the killer. Simplest explanation in some respects. But, it might also have been an accomplice, if he had one. Or it may have been a set up - in which case who?

Ultimately, I'm inclined to think that this one is either as straightforward as it superficially appears - designed by the murderer for effect; or else it's been designed to look that way. Interesting from either perspective.

I favour design rather than accident. It's just too much coincidence all round.

[Fisherman]

Sally!

"The writing was in a good round hand, upon the black dado of the passage wall", was how the papers worded it. The writing was on the southern wall of the entrance to the building. And I think most people would agree that the killer would have passed that doorway heading north on Goulston Street.
If so, then that means that if the writing was there, then he would need to stop and turn around and look at the wall he had just passed, thus enabling him to see the writing. And we know that it took some light and a curious policeman to see the writing in the first place.
This is why I say that if the GSG was there as he passed, he would not have seen it. He would just have tossed the rag in and walked on by.

When we speak of coincidences, I agree that if the message had had any connotation to the Whitechapel killings, then we would be faced with a coincidence. But since there is absolutely nothing in it that ties it to the killings, what you say is that it was too much of a coincidence for ANY graffiti to be in place in the doorway he tossed the rag in, for it to be anything but a probable connection to the killer.

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?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Grave Maurice]

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.

[Sally]

Ifs and Buts....

Sally!

"The writing was in a good round hand, upon the black dado of the passage wall", was how the papers worded it. The writing was on the southern wall of the entrance to the building. And I think most people would agree that the killer would have passed that doorway heading north on Goulston Street.
If so, then that means that if the writing was there, then he would need to stop and turn around and look at the wall he had just passed, thus enabling him to see the writing. And we know that it took some light and a curious policeman to see the writing in the first place.
This is why I say that if the GSG was there as he passed, he would not have seen it. He would just have tossed the rag in and walked on by.

When we speak of coincidences, I agree that if the message had had any connotation to the Whitechapel killings, then we would be faced with a coincidence. But since there is absolutely nothing in it that ties it to the killings, what you say is that it was too much of a coincidence for ANY graffiti to be in place in the doorway he tossed the rag in, for it to be anything but a probable connection to the killer.

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?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman!

I agree entirely with your hypothesis, IF, of course, things were as you suggest. IF the graffiti was already there when the murderer passed by - north, as you say - then YES - very unlikely to be a connection in my view; since as you point out, it took a policeman with a light to see it. It wasn't highly visible in the dark, wet night, obviously.

BUT, none of that allows Jack to have written it himself on his way. And I still think that's a possibility.

The graffiti was fresh. Chalk graffiti is ephemeral by it's nature. Unless it exists in physical conditions in which it will not be touched by any other physical object, it will quickly be erased - water, human agency, etc. Everyone would have known that (everyone who practiced the art of wall-writing, say). So it's fair to assume that chalk graffiti is usually a spontaneous affair with the knowledge that the message is a temporary one. If you wanted to make something more permanent, you'd use paint.

So, less of the droning on - this tells me that this graffiti hadn't been there long and was probably a spontaneous act.

Given the events of the night, without any comment on who might, or might not have killed either or both women, it seems a little odd that there just happened to have been a freshly chalked message, relating to the Jews, in the doorway of a building predominately inhabited by Jews, in the same bloomin doorway as an old bit of rag recently forming part of Catherine Eddowes' Apron.

That's what I mean by co-incidence. I see a connection. As I said, it doesn't have to have been the murderer.

Best regards

Sally