Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Tom_Wescott]

Given that every effort was spent that night to disguise the fact the graffiti even existed, we can be reasonably sure that none of the tenants were questioned about it, or made aware of its existence.
The police wanted it hushed up.

The writing was small enough that one single line could have been covered by your finger, if anyone had seen it in passing, they likely wouldn't have read it anyway.
I see graffiti all the time, that doesn't mean I stop to read it. It doesn't interest me, I dare say those tenants were of a similar frame of mind.

Tom, you could ask if I had seen the 117th Psalm scribbled in the mens bathroom. I'd say no.
But if you had asked if I noticed some graffiti on the back of the toilet door and I'd say yes, of course, its been there a while.

You would be referring to the same graffiti, but I was not interested enough to know what it said.

What? I don't get any of that. All I know is they would have determined had the graffiti been irrelevant. It wasn't determined irrelevant, so it was erased on the grounds that there might be a riot. I'm not suggested they read the graffiti to the residents, but like you said, would have asked if they'd seen that graffiti. It was certainly in the interests of the police to confirm that was not the Ripper's handwriting...both in the interests of those who wanted it preserved and those who wanted to be the ones to wipe it out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

The Police thought it was inflammatory and possible fodder for a riot, yet you think it was supportive towards Jews, which would do nothing to cause a riot in an area almost exclusively populated by Jews. Interesting idea, yet it makes zero sense.

The message as it is can be easily construed as a condemnation of Jews, "The Jewes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing", ...since you cant seem to grasp that concept, it could mean that the Jewes will not be blamed without good reason, or that the Jewes actually should be blamed. Either would be considered as inflammatory in a predominantly Jewish area, hence the officials argument for erasing it.

And your supposedly a teacher, right? Yet confused about translating English into English. Once again, interesting.

You insult me and mouth off all the while making bizarre conclusions,..that you cant figure out what basic sentences in English could mean is your own problem, but mouth off again and Ill report you.

You insult yourself. Never did I say the graffiti supported the Jews. You don't read. You just infer things because you have your own inane plots going on in that large, complex brain of yours; a brain I wish I could have because I think living in delusion-land might be a good thing.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Everyone in the building was questioned and once the story broke in the press, it appears no one came forward to say they'd seen the writing prior to the murder. And it goes without saying since the police were on the defensive that had there been any such witness they would have been paraded at the inquest and in the papers. He certainly would have warranted a mention in the police reports.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Given that every effort was spent that night to disguise the fact the graffiti even existed, we can be reasonably sure that none of the tenants were questioned about it, or made aware of its existence.
The police wanted it hushed up.

The writing was small enough that one single line could have been covered by your finger, if anyone had seen it in passing, they likely wouldn't have read it anyway.
I see graffiti all the time, that doesn't mean I stop to read it. It doesn't interest me, I dare say those tenants were of a similar frame of mind.

Tom, you could ask if I had seen the 117th Psalm scribbled in the mens bathroom. I'd say no.
But if you had asked if I noticed some graffiti on the back of the toilet door and I'd say yes, of course, its been there a while.

You would be referring to the same graffiti, but I was not interested enough to know what it said.

[Tom_Wescott]

Was anybody asked?

Everyone in the building was questioned and once the story broke in the press, it appears no one came forward to say they'd seen the writing prior to the murder. And it goes without saying since the police were on the defensive that had there been any such witness they would have been paraded at the inquest and in the papers. He certainly would have warranted a mention in the police reports.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

The difference is that people will remember having seen white chalk writing against black dada that is 24 hours, or 48 hours, or 72 hours old. Writing placed there minutes before is another story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Was anybody asked?

[Tom_Wescott]

I never did understand what he meant by "recently".

Granted, chalk writing that is a month old can be faded and weathered, but I defy anyone to describe the difference between chalk writing that is 1 hour old, or 24 hrs, 48 hrs, even 72 hrs old.

The difference is that people will remember having seen white chalk writing against black dada that is 24 hours, or 48 hours, or 72 hours old. Writing placed there minutes before is another story.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

True on the size.... but read on with what Halse has to say...

At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said:

...the writing had the appearance of being recently
written...


Then in The Daily Telegraph, 12 Oct 1888, in response
to a question of "why did you say it seemed
to have been recently written?" Halse responded...

It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before
it would have been rubbed out by the
people passing..

Score.

I never did understand what he meant by "recently".

Granted, chalk writing that is a month old can be faded and weathered, but I defy anyone to describe the difference between chalk writing that is 1 hour old, or 24 hrs, 48 hrs, even 72 hrs old.

Maybe I am the only person who has the required balance to negotiate an entry-way without once bumping into, or sliding along, the wall.
Is that what people normally do?

[Michael W Richards]

You are insane. There is nothing anti-semitic about the graffiti. An anti-Jew slogan would just have been more of the same thing that went on every day. You explain to me how that would be more inflammatory. You also find me anywhere it says by the police that they thought it was anti-Jew. Again, for your simple mind, a message saying: Jews did it, wouldn't have had any impact. A message saying: "We Jews did it" on a wall in a Jewish dwelling, where the apron was placed, would be much worse. The audience? The newspapers, meaning everyone. Now, go away.

Mike

The Police thought it was inflammatory and possible fodder for a riot, yet you think it was supportive towards Jews, which would do nothing to cause a riot in an area almost exclusively populated by Jews. Interesting idea, yet it makes zero sense.

The message as it is can be easily construed as a condemnation of Jews, "The Jewes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing", ...since you cant seem to grasp that concept, it could mean that the Jewes will not be blamed without good reason, or that the Jewes actually should be blamed. Either would be considered as inflammatory in a predominantly Jewish area, hence the officials argument for erasing it.

And your supposedly a teacher, right? Yet confused about translating English into English. Once again, interesting.

You insult me and mouth off all the while making bizarre conclusions,..that you cant figure out what basic sentences in English could mean is your own problem, but mouth off again and Ill report you.

[Batman]

Halse is very clear about it being fresh and if someone who was there and saw it doesnt convince you then nothing will.

Anyway as for stride, modern victomology agrees with the police views at the time.

[The Good Michael]

Michael, I have to firmly agree with Mr. Richards. Halse is basically falsifing your hypothesis that its old and not related. I think you read what Halse said, but you obviously can't accept it.

Halse said "It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing.."

Now I guess you want us to believe that the Jews would have rubbed out a pro-jewish message? Michael, I am all for an open mind, but not to the point where my brains plop out.

Halse did what you said you can't do, which is differentiate between old and new chalk marks. I speculated they can't be that stupid and must have been asking the questions we are asking here and look at it. He is telling you it's fresh. That's a huge setback for the anti-GSG crowd and whatever Jewish suspect they are trying to sell us.

I asked how Halse defines "recent". I also don't remember Jews wiping out a message. You and Richards are cut of the same cloth.

Mike

[Batman]

Where does Halse define 'recent'?

Mike

Michael, I have to firmly agree with Mr. Richards. Halse is basically falsifing your hypothesis that its old and not related. I think you read what Halse said, but you obviously can't accept it.

Halse said "It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing.."

Now I guess you want us to believe that the Jews would have rubbed out a pro-jewish message? Michael, I am all for an open mind, but not to the point where my brains plop out.

Halse did what you said you can't do, which is differentiate between old and new chalk marks. I speculated they can't be that stupid and must have been asking the questions we are asking here and look at it. He is telling you it's fresh. That's a huge setback for the anti-GSG crowd and whatever Jewish suspect they are trying to sell us.

[The Good Michael]

True on the size.... but read on with what Halse has to say...

At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said:

...the writing had the appearance of being recently
written...


Then in The Daily Telegraph, 12 Oct 1888, in response
to a question of "why did you say it seemed
to have been recently written?" Halse responded...

It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before
it would have been rubbed out by the
people passing..

Score.

Where does Halse define 'recent'?

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I cannot fathom how you would state something like the above in bold, how in heavens name could a pro jewish message written in a predominantly jewish area cause a riot....as was the suggestion by officials involved.

Who would be the party that would riot...gentiles? Who by demographics comprised an almost insignificant percentage of the population living in the immediate surrounding buildings.

The officers clearly believed the message was a danger to local Jews, therefore they interpreted the message as having the potential to stir ill feelings towards the Jews, therefore they saw it as anti-Jew...as one straightforward interpretation of the message is. The most obvious one.

I know your not one for acknowledging any obvious answers if they conflict with your own personal take on individual matters, but suggesting the GSG was pro Jew contradicts the actual wording of the message, the opinion of the senior officials, and their voiced fears about it.

Sometimes I think you search to hard for ways just to be contrary, as you also tend to ignore sound reasonable ideas.

You are insane. There is nothing anti-semitic about the graffiti. An anti-Jew slogan would just have been more of the same thing that went on every day. You explain to me how that would be more inflammatory. You also find me anywhere it says by the police that they thought it was anti-Jew. Again, for your simple mind, a message saying: Jews did it, wouldn't have had any impact. A message saying: "We Jews did it" on a wall in a Jewish dwelling, where the apron was placed, would be much worse. The audience? The newspapers, meaning everyone. Now, go away.

Mike

[Batman]

True on the size.... but read on with what Halse has to say...

At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said:

...the writing had the appearance of being recently
written...


Then in The Daily Telegraph, 12 Oct 1888, in response
to a question of "why did you say it seemed
to have been recently written?" Halse responded...

It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before
it would have been rubbed out by the
people passing..

Score.

[Wickerman]

The other thing is, given that Long claims he didn't see it before, it must have been quite big, otherwise why would he have not noticed it before if it was tiny? I doubt it was written over a 2 brick x 2 brick area. More like a word or two per brick.

PC Long never claimed the graffiti was not there before, that comment applied only to the piece of apron.
Det. Halse gave us the size of the writing, that the capitals were 3/4" inch tall, and the rest in proportion to that.
As PC Long said, he only noticed the graffiti due to him searching for blood spots with his lamp, so the writing by both accounts was small.

The fact it was so small is reason enough that no residents had noticed it before, or if they had, such mindless anti-semitic scribble was of no concern to them, Jews for the most part set themselves above this kind of rubbish.