The apron was dropped...

[Fisherman]

I agree, Abby, and in that heightened state I would not be surprised if a man who was deranged enough to commit such murders in the first place, would simply assume that everyone would immediately get the message.

Love,

Caz
X

Thatīs quick and neat; he was deranged, and so he would not write things that not deranged people would get.

Comfortable! But true ...?

Who knows?

[Fisherman]

My postcard...

The killer may have been hoping that the apron and the message would only be found when the market came to life and the skies lightened. If so, PC Long scuppered his plan to cause more mischief by finding both while it was still dark.

Is that why the writing was small? Less chance of anyone reading it in the dark and getting rid before the fun could start?

Love,

Caz
X

He could have put it in an envelope and placed it on the rag, with the text "Do not open until daybreak".

My own humble suggestion is that serial killers who want to get a message across are not very subtle. If the killer had an intention to communicate, Iīd suggest that he would write something that was linked to the deeds and that he would write it in large letters, over the whole of the wall as it were.

I fail to see him scribbling away at waist height in minuscule letters, so as to keep passers-by from seeing his text until daybreak.

Whichever way we look at and disagree about it, the important thing to keep in mind is that we DO disagree - and therefore, the GSG is worthless as evidence.

[Fisherman]

hi wick
schwartz, dimeshitz, and lawende and co. at least five. could be just one or all five for that matter.

and its a moot point because even if it was just one it still makes sense:

I was pestered by a jew today. God I hate jews!

Yes. Or it was a young gentile boy who had been taken to the cleaners at the market that day who hated them. Or the day before. Or two days before. Or it was a Jew who thought that his people had been given the blame for just about everything in the past years, and who thought he would make it clear that he had had enough. And so he expressed that the Jews are people who will not tolerate being blamed for things any longer.

We will NEVER be able to find a consensus, and even if we did, we could find the wrong one. The character of the whole affair invites it. Until we can establish anything at all about it, best let it go.

[Abby Normal]

re the gsg dosnt make any sense/why didnt he write something more clear and pertinant to the murders etc. argument.
to give an example-

Manson and his followers thought there was going to be a race war in which they would come out on top. to facilitate this they planned and carried out murders hoping they would be pinnned on blacks. did they write death to whitey!or black power! ? or something along those lines?

no. they wrote helter skelter and pigs. not very clear for their plan.

and to illustrate just how non cryptic I think the gsg is... if they had written the blacks are the men who wont be blamed for nothing...that would be more germaine to their plan and i think there would be little doubt that the intent of the message would be the black man would should be blamed for the crimes.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Could I jump in here?

Could it be the Jews attending the Berner Street club, whose comings and goings would have made the place too risky for Stride's killer to do more than cut and run?

Hi Caz.

I can imagine that explanation being offered if we had statements that members were coming & going between 12:45 and 01:00am, roughly the time window for the murder, but we don't.
So that explanation will not fly.

Could it be the three Jews near Mitre Square, if they saw the killer with Eddowes and could possibly go on to describe him?

What 'blame' are you supposing when they had no role in preventing, or inhibiting his activity that night?
We can't even be sure Lawende saw the killer (with Eddowes), but even if it was him, I don't see the connection you are trying to create.

Could it be both?

More like, neither.
Which is the reason I asked the question in the first place.
I had already run through all those scenario's myself before posing the question to Michael, and I found no satisfactory answer.

Or could it simply be the Jewish residents of the Model Dwellings, who had annoyed the author of the message somehow?

Not sure who you mean here, annoyed the killer?, or annoyed some citizen who shared his frustration in chalk?

However, if your view is that a specific Jewish resident may have swindled the author, he was still blaming 'the Jews' collectively for the offence, wasn't he? In which case, why could the same not apply to one man, Diemschitz, or one man, Schwartz, as the object of the author's ire?

I don't think I said it was due to one single instance.
It's like when you're kept awake by a party next door. A one-off you normally let it go, but after repeat offenses, time after time, you then go around and complain. You're not complaining because of this one instance, but all the other's that have gone before it as well.

Or, are you saying the the killer scribbled the graffiti, not because he was interrupted in one instance by Diemschitz, but because every time he pulls out his knife, some Jew comes wandering by?
Not a view supported by the existing evidence.

It's the natural response of the bigot, to blame all members of a race, nationality, class or sex, for the real or perceived sins of individuals.

As true as it sounds, and in general I agree they do. But this also reads like an attempt to white-wash the incident - ie; 'he was just a bigot, so the graffiti was aimed at all Jews'.
But if that is the case, then how can you assume the graffiti is evidence, because the same argument applies to the aggravated citizen I propose, which negates it's value as evidence.
If the meaning is so general, then it does not apply specifically to any incident, therefore it has lost any value as evidence, we can't have it both ways.

[Abby Normal]

a little joke about criminals and double negatives.

Cop: your under arrest for murder

Criminal: I aint done nuthin!

Cop: so you admit it!

[Fisherman]

A couple of questions for Abby and Caz:

1. If the text had read "The zulus are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" or "Polar bears should not be allowed on the London streets", would you consider it likely to have been written by the killer? In other words, is the proximity itself enough for establishing a link, or does a link demand a message that gives away that it was written by the killer? Not that it COULD have been written by the killer, mind you, because ANYTHING can be written by anybody who can write.

2. Assuming that you admit that the text is what ultimately governs the likelihood of the killer being the guy/gal with the chalk, how does the text at hand give away that it was written by the killer?

I humbly suggest that what you have is an observation that the Jews caused bad blood in many camps (a correct observation), another observation that Jews were close by the murders in Dutfields Yard as well as in Mitre Square (another correct observation) - but this in itīs turn does not mean that the text can be linked to the killer. We donīt even know that the text was critical towards Jews, and if we cannot even link it to antisemitism as such, then why would we conjure up an antisemitic killer with a piece of chalk in his pocket...?

Forget about the damn thing.

[Wickerman]

hi wick
schwartz, dimeshitz, and lawende and co. at least five. could be just one or all five for that matter.

and its a moot point because even if it was just one it still makes sense:

I was pestered by a jew today. God I hate jews!

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.

[Fisherman]

re the gsg dosnt make any sense/why didnt he write something more clear and pertinant to the murders etc. argument.
to give an example-

Manson and his followers thought there was going to be a race war in which they would come out on top. to facilitate this they planned and carried out murders hoping they would be pinnned on blacks. did they write death to whitey!or black power! ? or something along those lines?

no. they wrote helter skelter and pigs. not very clear for their plan.

and to illustrate just how non cryptic I think the gsg is... if they had written the blacks are the men who wont be blamed for nothing...that would be more germaine to their plan and i think there would be little doubt that the intent of the message would be the black man would should be blamed for the crimes.

The term Helter Skelter and the name pigs used for policemen were generic among the hippies back then, so it at least had some sort of viability as a signpost.

If they had chalked "The blacks are the men that wonīt be blamed for nothing", they would have done so on the walls of the Polanski/Tate estate, and it would be likely in the extreme that the killers were the originators. However, if the graffiti was found on a fence ten blocks away and with a piece of Tates bloody garments under it, Iīd say forget about trying to couple the two.

[Abby Normal]

A couple of questions for Abby and Caz:

1. If the text had read "The zulus are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" or "Polar bears should not be allowed on the London streets", would you consider it likely to have been written by the killer? In other words, is the proximity itself enough for establishing a link, or does a link demand a message that gives away that it was written by the killer? Not that it COULD have been written by the killer, mind you, because ANYTHING can be written by anybody who can write.

2. Assuming that you admit that the text is what ultimately governs the likelihood of the killer being the guy/gal with the chalk, how does the text at hand give away that it was written by the killer?

I humbly suggest that what you have is an observation that the Jews caused bad blood in many camps (a correct observation), another observation that Jews were close by the murders in Dutfields Yard as well as in Mitre Square (another correct observation) - but this in itīs turn does not mean that the text can be linked to the killer. we donīt even know that the text was critical towards Jews, and if we cannot even link it to antisemitism as such, then why would we conjure up an antisemitic killer with a piece of chalk in his pocket...?

Forget about the damn thing.

i never forget! lol and your a pit bull : )

[Wickerman]

I was pestered by a jew today. God I hate jews!

Sorry, I missed that last line.

That makes the graffiti a general comment against Jews, which I agree it is.
If this is what you see, as opposed to some specific accusation concerning one of the murders, then the graffiti has lost it's value (as I pointed out to Caz) as evidence.
In my view, we cannot tie the graffiti to any murder, it is merely a general complaint against Jews. You have just made my case with that last line.

[Wickerman]

Exactly, Abby! You put it more concisely than I did.

Love,

Caz
X

But making the same mistake as you did

The bottom line is, ....in order to have any value, the meaning must be incident specific, if you agree it is only a general comment, then it has no value as evidence.
That's the challenge you both have to overcome.

[c.d.]

Even if we could be certain that our interpretation is correct and that the message expresses hatred of the Jews and assigns blame to them, how can we be certain that the writer was not in fact a Jew himself? A classic red herring.

c.d.

[Harry D]

Yes. Or it was a young gentile boy who had been taken to the cleaners at the market that day who hated them. Or the day before. Or two days before. Or it was a Jew who thought that his people had been given the blame for just about everything in the past years, and who thought he would make it clear that he had had enough. And so he expressed that the Jews are people who will not tolerate being blamed for things any longer.

We will NEVER be able to find a consensus, and even if we did, we could find the wrong one. The character of the whole affair invites it. Until we can establish anything at all about it, best let it go.

I think you have the right take on it, Fisherman.

The GSG is an interesting curio in the Ripper case but it's evidentially worthless.

[Abby Normal]

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