Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So we have a writer who correctly spells ‘blamed’ and ‘nothing’ which are words that a person of poor levels of literacy might easily get wrong but he mis-spells ‘Jews’ incorrectly. He also adds a double negative. The writing was also described as being in a neat schoolboy hand.

Certainly nothing concrete but neat handwriting and two tricky words spelt correctly but with one word spelt wrong and a double negative added might (and I certainly only say ‘might’) indicate a writer deliberately trying to show himself as a person of poor literacy.

Either way, we have no way of getting anything concrete from the graffiti and we can’t even be certain that it was written by the killer. I recall that you claimed that most felt that it was but I showed you a poll which showed that most think that it wasn’t. I reckon that if you asked most ripperologists it might be fairly close but my guess is that most would say that it wasn’t written by the ripper.

I’m unsure but I tend slightly toward it being written by the killer. I certainly wouldn’t bet on it though.

I think the consensus at the time was that the message was written by the murderer.

Martin Fido argued that it was not, but then he had selected a Jewish suspect and, unlike some posters here who have suggested the message could be pro-Jewish - rather like suggesting that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a philo-Semitic text - he accepted that the message was anti-Jewish.

I think anyone who argues that the message was not written by the murderer needs to explain why the murderer cut the apron in two and why he carried it for at least ten minutes and (based on Pc Long's testimony) probably nearly an hour, if not to validate the message as having come from the murderer.

They might also like to explain why the message was written on the jamb of the entrance, where it was most easily visible to a passing policeman and also why, if it had been left long before or even during the previous day, no resident had erased it.

I would point out that there was a wall on the right side, in between the jamb and the stairway, where anyone could have left a message to upset the residents, but the writer chose to leave it where it was visible to passing policemen.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the consensus at the time was that the message was written by the murderer.

Martin Fido argued that it was not, but then he had selected a Jewish suspect and, unlike some posters here who have suggested the message could be pro-Jewish - rather like suggesting that the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is a philo-Semitic text - he accepted that the message was anti-Jewish.

.

The message could very easily have meant “the Jews aren’t going to be blamed” - because the writer felt that the Jews got blamed for things that weren’t their fault.

[c.d.]

The message could very easily have meant “the Jews aren’t going to be blamed” - because the writer felt that the Jews got blamed for things that weren’t their fault.

I have to agree. Not saying that it is but certainly possible. Look at political trash talk or sports teams trash talk. Somebody talks trash somebody on the other side responds in kind. So why in the world would Jewish people simply accept antisemitic graffiti without firing back in kind? After all, it only required a bit of chalk and a minute or two.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The message could very easily have meant “the Jews aren’t going to be blamed” - because the writer felt that the Jews got blamed for things that weren’t their fault.

I think that is far-fetched.

As I pointed out before, the message is accusatory, starting 'The Jews are the men ...'

Anti-Semites often accuse the Jews by starting their accusations with 'The Jews ...'

If the writer was Jewish and wanted to absolve the Jews of blame, he might have written something like 'Why do we Jews always have to take the blame?'

He would not have written 'The Jews are the men ...'

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have to agree. Not saying that it is but certainly possible. Look at political trash talk or sports teams trash talk. Somebody talks trash somebody on the other side responds in kind. So why in the world would Jewish people simply accept antisemitic graffiti without firing back in kind? After all, it only required a bit of chalk and a minute or two.

Please explain the apron being cut in two and being in the possession of the murderer for nearly an hour.

[c.d.]

If the writer was Jewish and wanted to absolve the Jews of blame, he might have written something like 'Why do we Jews always have to take the blame?'

He would not have written 'The Jews are the men ...'

How could you possibly know that? That is speculation not fact.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Please explain the apron being cut in two and being in the possession of the murderer for nearly an hour.

A trophy perhaps or being used to hold organs. I can only speculate.

Please explain why a murderer with no history of communication (I am excluding the letters because I think they are hoaxes) would take the time to write the GSG when there are police on the street looking for him?

Please explain why the GSG does not mention the murders and why does it seem so innocuous given the circumstances?

Please explain why, if the Ripper murdered Kelly, there was no message on her wall? Did he abandon the idea of communicating?

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the writer was Jewish and wanted to absolve the Jews of blame, he might have written something like 'Why do we Jews always have to take the blame?'

He would not have written 'The Jews are the men ...'

How could you possibly know that? That is speculation not fact.

c.d.

That reminds me of a poster's remark that my contention that the writing was anti-Jewish is 'wild speculation' which means Arnold and Warren got completely the wrong end of the stick.

It is not speculation, but sound reasoning.

People who want to absolve themselves of guilt do not begin a sentence in a self-accusatory way.

Similarly, the allegation that a certain obviously anti-Semitic letter was written by a Jew is farfetched because the writer refers to the Jews as 'they' and not 'we'.

To suggest that the murderer did not write the message and that the message was not anti-Jewish is far-fetched.

It does not follow from the evidence.

Even Anderson thought the murderer left the message - and the police's view was that it was intended to create a diversion by blaming the Jews.

[c.d.]

Sorry but your whole line of reasoning is speculation not fact. Any argument regarding the intent of the GSG is speculation no matter the conclusion or who makes it. Only its author knows the meaning and that is a fact.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A trophy perhaps or being used to hold organs. I can only speculate.

My question was:

Please explain the apron being cut in two and being in the possession of the murderer for nearly an hour.

You haven't answered the first part!

Please explain why a murderer with no history of communication (I am excluding the letters because I think they are hoaxes) would take the time to write the GSG when there are police on the street looking for him?

Part of the answer lies in the second half of my question: he was there only briefly.
He wasn't wandering the streets for an hour.

The other part is that he took time to go to Wentworth Dwellings and deposit the apron there.

That in itself was risky.

Please explain why the GSG does not mention the murders and why does it seem so innocuous given the circumstances?

It was so innocuous that Arnold and Warren decided to have it erased in order to prevent a pogrom.

The murders were indicated by the piece of apron, smeared with the victim's blood.

Please explain why, if the Ripper murdered Kelly, there was no message on her wall? Did he abandon the idea of communicating?

The reason he left the message where he did was that he could authenticate the message by leaving it next to an item of clothing that could definitely be connected to the victim.

Please see my answers above.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sorry but your whole line of reasoning is speculation not fact. Any argument regarding the intent of the GSG is speculation no matter the conclusion or who makes it. Only its author knows the meaning and that is a fact.

c.d.

It is not speculation but a reasonable deduction from the evidence.

Arnold and Warren made the same deduction.

They were not speculating.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that is far-fetched.

As I pointed out before, the message is accusatory, starting 'The Jews are the men ...'

Anti-Semites often accuse the Jews by starting their accusations with 'The Jews ...'

If the writer was Jewish and wanted to absolve the Jews of blame, he might have written something like 'Why do we Jews always have to take the blame?'

He would not have written 'The Jews are the men ...'

As c.d. has rightly said - you just can’t know that.

You keep giving your opinion as if it’s an acknowledged fact.

The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.

Colloquially ‘not be blamed for nothing’ can mean ‘not be blamed for anything.’

So yes, it could have meant ‘ the Jews aren’t going to take them blame.’

We just don’t know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It is not speculation but a reasonable deduction from the evidence.

Arnold and Warren made the same deduction.

They were not speculating.

Yes they were.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please explain the apron being cut in two and being in the possession of the murderer for nearly an hour.

Maybe he dropped it directly after the murder but Long simply didn’t notice it first time?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Maybe he dropped it directly after the murder but Long simply didn’t notice it first time?

I quote from my comments in # 55:

My question was:

Please explain the apron being cut in two and being in the possession of the murderer for nearly an hour.

You haven't answered the first part!