the Goulston St Graffiti

[Wickerman]

Really?, so what does the length of time have to do with it, if we are supposed to believe people would have intentionally rubbed it out had they seen it?

[The Good Michael]

Really?, so what does the length of time have to do with it, if we are supposed to believe people would have intentionally rubbed it out had they seen it?

Jon,

You might want to put him on ignore. I have and I'm a happier man.

Cheers,

Mike

[lynn cates]

No feeding zone.

Hello Michael. You are an intelligent man. If more would stop feeding the trolls, research would be enhanced.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

If more would stop feeding the trolls, research would be enhanced.

Don`t be so ignorant !!
Why not take a look at yourself, hey ?

[Batman]

Really?, so what does the length of time have to do with it, if we are supposed to believe people would have intentionally rubbed it out had they seen it?

It means that its freshness is corroborated by the fact the people living there would have removed it. This is further corroborated by the fact no one living there reported seeing it or corrected the investigators over their opinion of it.

[Wickerman]

Corroboration can only be reached if your solution has only one interpretation.

- You assume that people in general read all graffiti? - they don't.
- You assume the Jewish residents could read English? - on what basis?

No-one is going to erase it if they don't notice it, or if they can't tell what it says.

You also need to remember this graffiti was small, the words could be covered by your finger, it was not emblazoned across the wall for all the world to see.

[Batman]

The assumption by Halse is that where it was located and what it said meant people living there would have removed it. Halse, obviously familiar with graffiti on his beat even realized it was unusual in this way. People living there were interviewed. Nobody claimed it was there when they used the passage. All of this is corroborated by the freshness comment made by Halse.

I am pretty sure the above is Swanson's conclusion in his report.

[Richard Patterson]

Here is my interpretation of events on the night of September of the double murders. It rests on the premise that the writing on the wall was in reaction to the only incident involving a Jew on the night on the double murders.

At about 12:40 a.m. a man left the ‘Nelson’ hotel at No. 46 Berner Street. William West a printer for the socialist paper at the 'International Working Men's Educational Club,' saw that the man was of a stout build, wore a small brown moustache, and was 5ft 5in tall. The ‘Nelson’ hotel was licensed to Louis Hagens and was located on the western side of Berner Street, and at the northern corner of the junction with Fairclough Street. As the man left the ‘Nelson’ West saw Stride standing at the entrance to Dutfield’s Yard. The man walked up to Stride and started talking to her. Walking not too far behind the man was Israel Schwartz of number twenty-two Helen Street. Schwartz, who was walking south down Berner Street, had been following the man since he saw him leave the ‘Nelson’. Schwartz saw Stride spurn the man. The man began to handle Stride roughly and pulled her to the ground. Stride yelled out three times. Schwartz then saw another man leave the ‘Nelson’ and then cross to the opposite side of the street and stand watching. The other man was about thirty-five years of age and was five foot eleven inches tall. His complexion was fair with light brown hair and moustache. He wore an old black wide brimmed felt hat, dark overcoat, and was smoking a long clay pipe. As the rejected man, who fought with Stride, crossed the road, and walked passed the one with the pipe he yelled to him 'Lipski!'

(In July the previous year year, a twenty-three year old Polish Jew named Israel Lipski had been found guilty of the murder of Mrs. Miriam Angel by pouring nitric acid down her throat and was condemned to hang. The name of 'Lipski' thereafter, had become a slang name for any men, particularly those of Jewish descent, who were of suspicious character.)

The man with the pipe, who had been called Lipski, looked up at the stranger and then he spotted Schwartz, who was be then walking passed. Schwartz began to walk away when he heard footsteps behind him. The man with the pipe had begun chasing him and Schwartz ran fearing for his life. As he ran south down Berner Street Schwartz felt for a moment that the man chasing him might also be running away. Schwartz was tempted to stop and wait for his pursuer to catch up, but he continued to run passed several streets. His pursuer gave up the chase when Schwartz reached the arches of the Blackwall Railway adjacent to Cable Street.
To me it sounds as if the man who pushed Stride yelled out to the man with the pipe thinking he was a Jew and that the insult of Lipski would unsettle him. Schwartz, who was Jewish, on the other hand, might have perceived things differently. If the man with the pipe was dressed in the manner of a Jew but was not Jewish, thenSchwartz, who was a Jewish have both realised this and also that the gentile with Stride had made the wrong assumption. This is why I believe the man began to chase Schwartz. The man knew that he may Jewish, to an Englishman, which may have suited his purposes, but when he saw Schwartz he realized that his obvious English appearance (light coloured hair, fair completion) beneath his the long coat and wide brimmed hat, showed to Schwartz he was really a gentile. The man with the pipe possibly knew that Schwartz might ask himself why was this man with the pipe was in Berner Street. He was most likely not there to attend the club meeting since its members were predominantly Jewish. I think the man with the pipe, upon realising he had been spotted by Schwartz, knew that he appeared conspicuous and inevitably he might be remembered later. He would be remembered both as a stranger no reason to be in the area. He would also be recalled as someone at least one person insinuated was a murderer. That is why, I think, he followed Schwartz. Primarily to scare him off. I think it was the man with the pipe was the only out-of-place person in this incident and hence the most likely suspect for the eventual murder of Stride.

I believe that the man with the pipe was possibly the murderer and he wrote the message on the wall to those who may have thought his 2nd murder was some type of retaliation to Jews after being spotted by a Jewish resident. To him it was important that people knew that he acted on his own design, if Schwartz’s was called forth to give testimony. This is why the Ripper wrote, ‘The Jews are not the ones who will be blamed for nothing’.

Only those interested in Francis Thompson as a suspect should read on. Schwartz's description of the man with the pipe happens to be a close match that of my Ripper suspect Francis Thompson. He habitually used a long clay pipe and his wearing of his long brown bulky coat was legendary even extending into the summers. A legacy no doubt from his years of homelessness when he was not using the Providence Row night refuge opposite the entrance to Dorset Street. He also commonly wore a type of old black hard felt as described by Schwartz.

[Ausgirl]

You also need to remember this graffiti was small, the words could be covered by your finger, it was not emblazoned across the wall for all the world to see.

I did not know that! Wow, that changes things up, IMO.

[Rosella]

What a lot of typing Richard! Well done! And I never knew West had seen a man of 'BS'man's' appearance leaving the Nelson pub. So, if it was Stride who was attacked by the same man he may well have had a few drinks.

Having said that, I'm afraid I put a different interpretation on the word 'Lipski!' being shouted out to the fair-haired 'pipe man', I think it was shouted to a fellow Gentile in the spirit of "Got a Jew here!" (Schwartz) "Nosy little so and so!" in case Pipe man felt like interfering instead of just standing for a moment observing.

Schwartz felt as though Pipe man was following him to perhaps do him a mischief, but we don't necessarily know that for a fact. Possibly Pipe Man just didn't want to get involved in any of it, and was just quickly walking off.

Or he may have been just as anti-Semitic as many in the East End were at that time and as a sort of sick joke ran after Schwartz to give him a fright. That wouldn't have had anything to do with what BS man was doing to Stride back at Dutfield's Yard.

[Wickerman]

I did not know that! Wow, that changes things up, IMO.

For many theories I imagine, which is why few theorists acknowledge the fact. Both the Daily Telegraph & Daily News captured this portion of testimony.

"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion."

[Trevor Marriott]

The assumption by Halse is that where it was located and what it said meant people living there would have removed it. Halse, obviously familiar with graffiti on his beat even realized it was unusual in this way. People living there were interviewed. Nobody claimed it was there when they used the passage. All of this is corroborated by the freshness comment made by Halse.

I am pretty sure the above is Swanson's conclusion in his report.

This is another myth anyone being able to accurately say the age of the chalk writing its simply guess work !

Swanson's report was based on the information before him which had been gathered by others and may not have been reliable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

If it was just yet another piece of graffiti and the apron piece gone and in the hands of the pathologist, explain then why all the fuss about getting into trouble over destroying evidence and the request for a photograph occurred over something that some modern interpretation thinks is irrelevant?

The denial of connection has a scene playing out around it that doesn't make a shred of sense unless one accepts they believed it connected.

[Bridewell]

The denial of connection has a scene playing out around it that doesn't make a shred of sense unless one accepts they believed it connected.

They didn't need to think it connected in order to decide that it should be photographed. It should have been photographed simply because there was a possibility that it might be connected.

[GUT]

They didn't need to think it connected in order to decide that it should be photographed. It should have been photographed simply because there was a possibility that it might be connected.

Ain't that the truth, today it'd be photographed about 100 times, from every possible angle, shots of each word and each letter.

But standards of investigation change.