The apron was dropped...

[Abby Normal]

I am fascinated to find out soon!

a man riding a horse of course. either that or a threesome with a headless monkey

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman

Sorry to jump in, but actually we do not know it was Diemschultz that disturbed the killer, only that the horse shied and the body was found then. No-one heard or saw anyone scarper. It is quite possible, even likely, he was disturbed and made his escape before then. A few people entering or leaving the club who noticed nothing but spooked the murderer who fled unseen.

Thanks Etenguy, I should have been clearer.
However, if Diemschitz did not interrupt the killer, then there is no argument left to justify pinning the GSG on the killer.

[Wickerman]

I donīt think Jon is actually promoting Diemschitz as the Jew the killer referred to, etenguy. He only points out that out of Diemschitz, Schwartz and Lawende, Diemschitz is the only one the killer could have been said to have had a beef with. He MAY have interrupted the killer whereas the other two clearly did not.

Thankyou Christer

[Fisherman]

lol!

what has six legs two heads and a tail?

I am fascinated to find out soon!

[Fisherman]

Hi Wickerman

Sorry to jump in, but actually we do not know it was Diemschultz that disturbed the killer, only that the horse shied and the body was found then. No-one heard or saw anyone scarper. It is quite possible, even likely, he was disturbed and made his escape before then. A few people entering or leaving the club who noticed nothing but spooked the murderer who fled unseen.

I donīt think Jon is actually promoting Diemschitz as the Jew the killer referred to, etenguy. He only points out that out of Diemschitz, Schwartz and Lawende, Diemschitz is the only one the killer could have been said to have had a beef with. He MAY have interrupted the killer whereas the other two clearly did not.

[Abby Normal]

The only beast in the animal kingdom with four legs and an arm!

Not his own, though...

lol!

what has six legs two heads and a tail?

[Abby Normal]

From what I've read, handwriting analysts claim you write with finger movement, whereas graffiti on a wall is more to do with wrist movements. You can't compare the two.


Oh right, like "bloody nife", "Kidne" & "tother"?


Like thousands across the East End?


Well, if you had something more incident specific, you wouldn't get an argument.

How's this...

That Jew on his cart interrupted my fun,
So two had to die, instead of just one!

Now, that's incident specific, and no-one will give you an argument if that's what was written.



Don't bring Druitt into it


Or, does it point to the psychology of the one who suggests it?
Don't take that the wrong way, it is a serious possibility. I often see the dark side of things myself, but try to make light of it.


Steady-on ol' chap!

Ok, back to business...
You mean Druitt?
If I was all gung-ho! about Druitt, don't you think I would, or should have, jumped on the fact the killer appears to have used an item in possession of most schoolteachers - chalk!
If I wanted an easy life I should use the GSG to support the Druitt case, but I genuinely do not see it that way.

Sorry Bud

and it was in good schoolboy hand! although not sure druitt would have used a double negative? ; )

[etenguy]

Hi Abby.
But, what did Schwartz prevent? - from what we can see, nothing. The murder took place later.
Likewise, what did Lawende prevent?, this encounter didn't affect the killer in any way. The murder also took place later.
I just see these incidents as false arguments.
There's only the encounter with Diemschitz that qualifies.

Hi Wickerman

Sorry to jump in, but actually we do not know it was Diemschultz that disturbed the killer, only that the horse shied and the body was found then. No-one heard or saw anyone scarper. It is quite possible, even likely, he was disturbed and made his escape before then. A few people entering or leaving the club who noticed nothing but spooked the murderer who fled unseen.

[Simon Wood]

Superintendent Arnold also overreacted. He had an officer standing by the message with water and a sponge, whereas a quick swipe with licked fingers would have done the job just as well.

[c.d.]

Warren may have overreacted but can anyone here list the conditions and requirements necessary for a riot to start?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

it turned out to be evidentially worthless because nothing ever came of it. like everything in this case. lol. but that dosnt mean its not a potential clue.
It points to the killer not being a jew.
it points to the killers handwriting.

From what I've read, handwriting analysts claim you write with finger movement, whereas graffiti on a wall is more to do with wrist movements. You can't compare the two.

it points to the killer spelling jews weird.

Oh right, like "bloody nife", "Kidne" & "tother"?

it points to the killer not liking jews

Like thousands across the East End?

it points to the killer being interupted by jews-corroberating witness statements who saw the ripper that night.

Well, if you had something more incident specific, you wouldn't get an argument.

How's this...

That Jew on his cart interrupted my fun,
So two had to die, instead of just one!

Now, that's incident specific, and no-one will give you an argument if that's what was written.

it points to the killer having chalk

Don't bring Druitt into it

it points to the killers psychology (brazen, risk taker, letter writer etc.)

Or, does it point to the psychology of the one who suggests it?
Don't take that the wrong way, it is a serious possibility. I often see the dark side of things myself, but try to make light of it.

Yes its evidentially worthless in hindsight but you be goddamed sure if one of your alls favored suspects writings were ever found where they spelled it Juwes it be evidence then wouldnt it? (and yes it should!)

is this too subtle a point?
Its a clue. end of. love you

Steady-on ol' chap!

Ok, back to business...
You mean Druitt?
If I was all gung-ho! about Druitt, don't you think I would, or should have, jumped on the fact the killer appears to have used an item in possession of most schoolteachers - chalk!
If I wanted an easy life I should use the GSG to support the Druitt case, but I genuinely do not see it that way.

Sorry Bud

[Fisherman]

The highest ranking officer of the Met may well have been ironically the destroyer of the best clue we never had.

Or not. Again.

[Fisherman]

it turned out to be evidentially worthless because nothing ever came of it. like everything in this case. lol. but that dosnt mean its not a potential clue.

Nobodyīs denying that it is a potential clue. But it predisposes that we can prove that it was written by the killer. Before that happens, there is no evidential value for sale.

Before that, it is worthless. Wooof!

[Fisherman]

... your a pit bull : )

The only beast in the animal kingdom with four legs and an arm!

Not his own, though...

[erobitha]

it turned out to be evidentially worthless because nothing ever came of it. like everything in this case. lol. but that dosnt mean its not a potential clue.
It points to the killer not being a jew.
it points to the killers handwriting.
it points to the killer spelling jews weird.
it points to the killer not liking jews
it points to the killer being interupted by jews-corroberating witness statements who saw the ripper that night.
it points to the killer having chalk
it points to the killers psychology (brazen, risk taker, letter writer etc.)

Yes its evidentially worthless in hindsight but you be goddamed sure if one of your alls favored suspects writings were ever found where they spelled it Juwes it be evidence then wouldnt it? (and yes it should!)

is this too subtle a point?
Its a clue. end of. love you

Bingo! Winner winner Chicken dinner.

The GSG has ALWAYS been worthless as evidence. I thank Charles Warren for that. However, it’s future value as evidence could be quite profound if we can ever achieve any of the following:

1) Be certain what was in Warren’s approved transcription is indeed 100% accurate. I am sceptical that we will ever know. The fact there is at least x3 different transcriptions and that means we cannot put absolute full faith in the most commonly quoted version
2) Be absolutely certain the apron was meant to be found with the graffiti. We will unlikely ever know that for certain unless some confession is unearthed somewhere to explain it
3) Find that spelling of Juwes to appear in any of the suspects own writing in some way. That would be a strong link

I think old Charlie had done just about enough tinkering to prevent us from ever knowing what was on that wall 100%. His presence at the scene, the whole anti-semitism riot nonsense, his behaviour by wiping the wall himself and the subsequent stage-managed report leaves me feeling very uneasy indeed.

The highest ranking officer of the Met may well have been ironically the destroyer of the best clue we never had.