The apron was dropped...

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fisherman,

What's a 10-year-old documentary doing in a fairly current edition of the Express?

Stay safe,

Simon

It’s just background isn’t it?

Or is the location of the Rumbelow interview a development of Ed Stow’s ‘tap, tap, tap’?

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

The GSG started life as the BSG.

The Bash Street Graffito? I should have known those kids were up to no good.

[Simon Wood]

The GSG started life as the BSG.

[etenguy]

A good deal of time is wasted on details that have not been proven.
I totally agree, because it cannot be shown to be written by the killer then it is of coincidental interest - maybe yes, maybe no.
Warren merely overreacted, nothing out of the ordinary for a government official, they overreact all the time.

I wonder how many of these 'believers' have tried to chalk this message at 1:30 in the morning, in a passage, in near total darkness.

Hi Wickerman

I am not at all sure who wrote the GSG or what it means, but I am intrigued about what happened after its discovery. It may well have simply been an overreaction by Warren prompted by Arnold, but Warren was ex military and I struggle to believe he would have been shaken by the GSG. He was also very resilient to press attacks over time and given he had tendered his resignation, I'm not convinced he was overly concerned about his job. Nevertheless, if it were only erasing the writing for the sake of an hour, a simple overreaction might be the most likely explanation.

There are two other pertinent facts that bring simple overreaction into question.
1. His instruction that future crime scenes are untouched until he has attended. An odd instruction given his position. And although it was a sensational case, he was not likely to be part of the general investigation. Could he instead want to see any other potential message from the murderer?

2. The coincidence (or was it?) that the murders ceased immediately after his resignation. Does this suggest some connection to the murderer (not actually involved of course)? I think he was also the only senior police official who never voiced a pet prime suspect. Who knows, the facts are suggestive but no more than that.

I don't hold a strong view about who wrote the GSG nor whether the actions of Warren were anything other than a man under stress and pressure. But there are enough questions that I do not think it easy to simply put the GSG to one side.

[Simon Wood]

Good to know the Express has its finger firmly on the 19th Century pulse.

[Fisherman]

A ten year old documentary about a 132 year old scribbling - and they present it as a recent find. Brrrr ...

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

What's a 10-year-old documentary doing in a fairly current edition of the Express?

Stay safe,

Simon

[erobitha]

People go on about Warren, but wasn't it Supt Arnold who initially decided the GSG was an obscenity to be scrubbed out?

Was that information sourced from the report he submitted to the Home Office on 6th November around six weeks later, or is it from another source?

[Wickerman]

What this all boils down to is that IF the GSG WAS written by the killer, THEN it is significant. Which is the exact point I made: since we donīt know that it was, we cannot claim it IS significant.

Until we prove it as the killers work, whatever effort we spend on it is a waste of time. Once again, I am sorry to sound less than enthusiastic, but thatīs my take on things.

A good deal of time is wasted on details that have not been proven.
I totally agree, because it cannot be shown to be written by the killer then it is of coincidental interest - maybe yes, maybe no.
Warren merely overreacted, nothing out of the ordinary for a government official, they overreact all the time.

I wonder how many of these 'believers' have tried to chalk this message at 1:30 in the morning, in a passage, in near total darkness.

[Fisherman]

Have a look here, from todayīs Express newspaper. Shows where we end up if we work from the idea that the GSG is a genuine part of evidence:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13...zxSK8CQOQrz23k

Note how it is said that the killer would have suffered from venereal disease, and that this was what made him cut out Eddowesī uterus. Then note how the fact that also he extracted the left kidney is left with no mentioning at all.

That did not fit the theory. The GSG being written by the killer did. So a proven fact is ruled out, while a speculation is ruled in.

Itīs not only what we put in the pot that decides what we get for dinner, it is also what we leave out...

Anyways, this is what the GSG does for us.

[Fisherman]

People go on about Warren, but wasn't it Supt Arnold who initially decided the GSG was an obscenity to be scrubbed out?

It was - he was the one who had sent an Inspector with a sponge to the site to stand by to rub the message out "with a view to prevent serious disorder". Warren was the one who gave the subsequent order.

[Harry D]

People go on about Warren, but wasn't it Supt Arnold who initially decided the GSG was an obscenity to be scrubbed out?

[Fisherman]

The fact that you have a conditional within your argument (ie if it was proven to written by the killer then the GSG would be significant) I think does imply it is at least significant to that extent. I do appreciate your argument that the indicators would suggest it was not written by the killer.

I might adjust my position to say that any intrinsic significance of the GSG is, at best, yet to be proven, however, its wider significance, I would argue, is of interest.

Iīd be less generous myself: As long as we allow it to colour our picture of the killer and what he did, we are not doing a proper job. When looking for the killer, we should not allow the GSG to lead the way in any way at all. If something surfaces to justify another take on things, THEN we adjust. Not before.

I donīt think we are going to get any further with this. Thanks for the exchange!

[Fisherman]

I would completely buy that rationale if Charles Warren has not behaved in the manner that he did. The anti-Semitic argument is weak. Why was this the first scene he appeared at? Why did wipe the wall himself? Why did he refuse to wait an hour for a photograph? If he shared your view neither were particularly connected why do all those things? He could have simply stated in his view they were not connected and history would have been left as you describe. His actions and presence suggest something altogether different.

Warren very clearly believed that the rag and the GSG could be connected. But he could not have known per se that this was so, unless he was in position of information that we do not have. And much as it is interesting to look at how the Victorian police did their job, it remains that as long as we donīt know that there was a connection, it is a futile exercise to try and understand the Ripper case by way of somehow using the text.

That is not to say that the GSG is not of any interest at all. Of course it is of interest as such. But it is useless when it comes to justifying a specific take on the murder series since such a take can - and should - always be challenged. In fact, the whole idea about how the killer would have had some sort of hangup, be that a negative or a positive one, on Jews, is something that tilts the case very much regardless how you see it. And that was never going to be a good thing.

That is my take on things, and others are welcome to other takes.

[etenguy]

What this all boils down to is that IF the GSG WAS written by the killer, THEN it is significant. Which is the exact point I made: since we donīt know that it was, we cannot claim it IS significant.

Until we prove it as the killers work, whatever effort we spend on it is a waste of time. Once again, I am sorry to sound less than enthusiastic, but thatīs my take on things.

The rag is significant evidence, but thatīs as far as it goes. The fact that there were no other messages picked up on alongside the other murders and that the GSG does not in any shape or form mention the murder/s are both pointers away from it being related to the murder series. The one pointer for a relation is that it was found close to the rag, but if we accept that as proof of a connection, we are not on thin ice - we are in the water below the ice.

The fact that you have a conditional within your argument (ie if it was proven to written by the killer then the GSG would be significant) I think does imply it is at least significant to that extent. I do appreciate your argument that the indicators would suggest it was not written by the killer.

I might adjust my position to say that any intrinsic significance of the GSG is, at best, yet to be proven, however, its wider significance, I would argue, is of interest.