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...)

[DVV]

Hello Maria

It belongs to the Old Testament (between Lamentations and Esther).

Amitiés

[mariab]

Thank you, David. (Merci infiniment.)

[Rubyretro]

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

There you go, I agree with you, Mike.

What's more, he couldn't have read it it in the pitch black of that stairwell, and in a great hurry.

He'd read it previously. He may even have written it, at his leisure, or known who did.

He was probably a neighbour who had seen it in daylight, walking along the road in the opposite direction.

[Phil Carter]

enjoy

He'd read it previously. He may even have written it, at his leisure, or known who did....

Hello Ruby,

I did enjoy this idea... especially as there is one person involved in the GSG that was there before the thing was found coming from Mitre Square, and turning up again, lo and behold, when the GSG and apron piece was discovered.

If I was a person to points fingers, Detective Halse would be the first I'd look at. That piece of rag could have been taken up and placed there deliberately on his first trip, and to make sure the thing was found, instructed the newbie PC to the area to search all the entrances to all the dwellings in the street.

Halse is the only person known to have been in both places, Mitre Square and Goulston Street, before the apron piece and the writing were discovered.
Infact, he made a B-line out of City police terriotory, into Wentworth Street and then turned right into Goulston Street, being there at the same time as the beat PC...and neither saw one another nor heard one another.

Then again, a policeman could NEVER have been the killer, according to some. I prefer to keep all my options open. A policeman would never stoop to planting evidence to attract the attention needed would he? Nah... only Robert Anderson points at the Jews.

Glad I don't point fingers. I just open up possibilties.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

agree

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....
Mike

Hello Mike,

Careful my friend.. but I think I can state that I agree with your idea here.
I really must be more careful of my thoughts.. whatever next eh?

best wishes to the fellow in Kaz!

Phil

[Abby Normal]

Not sure if it has been pointed out in this thread yet, but if Israel Schwartz is to be believed then there is the probability that the killer KNEW he had been seen by a jew in a very incrminating situation( and then later by jewish Lawende and company). Jewish witnesses who the killer may very well thought were going to be shortly going to the police with what they saw, which they did. I think the idea that the killer knew he was spotted by a jew(s) witness also bolsters the view that the killer wrote the GSG.

[The Good Michael]

I think the idea that the killer knew he was spotted by a jew(s) witness also bolsters the view that the killer wrote the GSG.

Well, the police were concerned that the GSG would start some kind of riot. That means that they feared the populace would see the grafitti as some sort of Jewish solidarity message. That is not necessarily what the message meant, but that interpretation is the only one that would be so inflammable. The unintelligibility of the message indicates to me that the killer would have read it and interpreted in one way that made sense to him and made him agree with it enough to drop the apron there. I would suggest that his written message would have been simpler and shorter; quick and easy like his murders.

Cheers,

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Well, the police were concerned that the GSG would start some kind of riot. That means that they feared the populace would see the grafitti as some sort of Jewish solidarity message. That is not necessarily what the message meant, but that interpretation is the only one that would be so inflammable. The unintelligibility of the message indicates to me that the killer would have read it and interpreted in one way that made sense to him and made him agree with it enough to drop the apron there. I would suggest that his written message would have been simpler and shorter; quick and easy like his murders.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi GM
I have not ever really bought the idea that JtR saw the graffitti and then later dropped the bloody apron under it. He would have to see it first and it be coincidently there (and seen by him) very close in time to when he successfully murdered again. Not to mention it would have to be graffiti that specifically suited his aims! And since he would have to see it before he murdered, would he not assume that other people(who lived there) also saw it before the murders and could possibly tell police it was there before the murder-therefore negating the link between the message and the apron-therefore negating the killers intended blaming of Jews. Also, I find it hard to beleive that a killer like JtR would adopt someone elses "work" as his own-he would want full control and manipulation for something like this IMHO.

I would suggest that his written message would have been simpler and shorter; quick and easy like his murders.

It would take only seconds to write that graffiti.

[DVV]

Agreed Abby, and the height at which the GSG has been written makes the piece of apron its likely signature.

Amitiés
David

[mariab]

Abby Normal wrote:
Not sure if it has been pointed out in this thread yet, but if Israel Schwartz is to be believed then there is the probability that the killer KNEW he had been seen by a jew in a very incrminating situation( and then later by jewish Lawende and company). Jewish witnesses who the killer may very well thought were going to be shortly going to the police with what they saw, which they did. I think the idea that the killer knew he was spotted by a jew(s) witness also bolsters the view that the killer wrote the GSG.
I fully agree with everything you say, apart from the underlined part. (Which is definitely a possibility, but one of many.) By the way, a (Jewish?) tailor would have been carrying chalk with him. Israel Schwartz (if it's the same man) has been listed as a tailor in a census. (Not that I'm seriously going anywhere with this!) Also, did butchers and other sellers in Victorian Whitechapel use chalk, to write down their daily prices/specials, like today in restaurants and Cafés?
The Good Michael wrote:
I would suggest that his written message would have been simpler and shorter; quick and easy like his murders.
The murders were quick, but nothing “easy“ and to the point about them. In my perception the message implies a mentally disturbed and dim individual, which very much fits with the murders.
But all of this is nothing but conjecture, as we have no further facts.
As for Phil Carter's “police conspiracy“, this is a bit too far-fetched for me. Why would the police wish to cause an anti-Jewish inflammation and more Jewish upheavals in Whitechapel? A provocatory act by the Okhrana for the entire double event, as Lynn Cates might be suggesting, would make more sense politically. Still, NOT that I'm buying any of this in any fashion whatsoever...although I'm very much willing to research it.

[mariab]

Fisherman wrote:
But I would have loved to read the sequel on the walls of No 13 Millers Court - in fact, I would have expected to.
Oh no, Fisherman, the killer indulged himself too much and spent too much time in Mary Kelly's room to spare thoughts on a graffito. Besides, there were no Jewish components in Millers Court.

[DVV]

Oh no

Agreed all round.

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"I have not ever really bought the idea that JtR saw the graffitti and then later dropped the bloody apron under it. He would have to see it first and it be coincidently there (and seen by him) very close in time to when he successfully murdered again. Not to mention it would have to be graffiti that specifically suited his aims! And since he would have to see it before he murdered, would he not assume that other people(who lived there) also saw it before the murders and could possibly tell police it was there before the murder-therefore negating the link between the message and the apron-therefore negating the killers intended blaming of Jews. Also, I find it hard to beleive that a killer like JtR would adopt someone elses "work" as his own-he would want full control and manipulation for something like this IMHO."

Bravo, Abby! Spot on!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

MAria:

"Oh no, Fisherman, the killer indulged himself too much and spent too much time in Mary Kelly's room to spare thoughts on a graffito. Besides, there were no Jewish components in Millers Court."

U-huh? So he did NOT indulge himself in Eddowes? And in that hastened deed, he DID have spare time to scribble away in Goulston street...?

Logic is a flexible thing, apparently!

Moreover, if there were no Jewish components in Miller´s Court, would it not be a VERY reasonable thing to bring that component in? If he was keen on scapegoating Jews, and killed in a place where there were no such connection, I think that it would be much more needy for him to add that by himself!
We should also take into account that there is good reason to believe that he did all he wanted to do to Kelly - that maybe for the first time in his killing carreer, he finished the job in extenso. If so, he would afterwards have cooled down mentally inside the room, regaining his breath and calmness. After that, he would have all the time in the world to write anything he wanted on the walls - in blood, should he choose to.

The lack of any such communication in Miller´s court, or after it, is a clear indicator that he either was of a different mindset after that deed than after Mitre Square, or - and this is my suggestion - he was never of that mindset at all!

The best,
Fisherman