Did BS-man murder Liz Stride?

[Michael W Richards]

I agree it is ridiculous. But the only way it could have been thought possible to have caused a problem is a Pro-Jew, supportive translation. Simply saying, "It's the Jews' fault" would be repeating words that had been said over and over again without a riot. By interpreting it as "We Jews did it." or something to that effect, I can understand Warren's concerns, yet disagree with the removal. Was there anything in what I wrote to indicate I agreed with the erasure? Or was it just the sexism?

Mike

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.

[The Good Michael]

Fresh chalk looks like fresh chalk, especially the old type of chalk you never wrote with, which flaked heavily, unlike todays modern non-flake chalk which is different. That old flaky chalk could be easily removed. You could blow flakes away off it and see the dust of a policeman's light.

It wasn't big. And, I use very brittle chalk that breaks every day because that's what we have in Taiwan. It is different than American chalk. I will say again that chalk upon a wet surface embeds itself and is much harder to remove. The GSG was written on the flat side of the black dado and not on the rougher side. It doesn't make a difference. I have never thought about the chalk being more than a day old. I would think that highly unlikely. The chalked message may have been there before the apron. I don't know. But I do know that without the apron being searched for, there would have been no reason to remark upon everyday graffiti. I do believe it was fresh enough but it wasn't written by the murderer. I also believe the murderer knew of the graffiti because the coincidence is very strong, but I am not throwing myself into such an argument as it cannot be proven.

Mike

[Batman]

I will just leave it at you are bewildered and move on. I cannot define 'old' as it is different for everyone. If you can judge chalk writing that is one hour old and differentiate it with chalk writing that is 12 hours old, you are a genius, and my years of teaching and writing with chalk are meaningless.

Mike

Ah so you want to play the 1 hour old - 12 hour old coincidence card here too then? Why didn't you say so.

It's one thing to suggest the apron was found by very old graffiti and the apron was found in graffiti that was coincidentally 1 to 12 hours old, with a Jewish statement, which appeared on the same evening/day Scwartz heard himself being called Lipski.

By old what I get from the anti-GSG crowd is that graffiti is everywhere in whitechapel and even on that street. It's everywhere.

Fresh chalk looks like fresh chalk, especially the old type of chalk you never wrote with, which flaked heavily, unlike todays modern non-flake chalk which is different. That old flaky chalk could be easily removed. You could blow flakes away off it and see the dust of a policeman's light.

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.

[The Good Michael]

I bewildered by why your suggesting chalk has magical staining properties. It never stains and rubs away easily. The deviation between new and old is immense. By old I mean as old as the anti-GSG people would have it.

I will just leave it at you are bewildered and move on. I cannot define 'old' as it is different for everyone. If you can judge chalk writing that is one hour old and differentiate it with chalk writing that is 12 hours old, you are a genius, and my years of teaching and writing with chalk are meaningless.

Mike

[Batman]

I bewildered by why your suggesting chalk has magical staining properties. It never stains and rubs away easily. The deviation between new and old is immense. By old I mean as old as the anti-GSG people would have it.

[The Good Michael]

A blackboard isn't a brick wall. Ever see chalk games drawn on the ground fresh and old ones? Also to believe they didn't check it by touching it would be odd. I think the reason why those at the scene think it was linked is because they asked the questions we are asking and decided it was new.

What's a dado? You're being sexist. Chalk games on the ground and chalk on the dado...are they comparable? I'll let you think about that. Bricks are more porous than slate...what does that infer? I'll give you time to think about that...one more question, if I bump my shoulder against chalk imbedded into brick and chalk on slate, which writing will be damaged more?

Mike

[Batman]

Ask any teacher about chalk. If you use chalk on a damp, black surface, not only does it look fresh, but it stays fresh-looking for days unless there's a downpour. It's very difficult to erase and also takes water to get rid of and not just a simple wipe.

Mike

A blackboard isn't a brick wall. Ever see chalk games drawn on the ground fresh and old ones? Also to believe they didn't check it by touching it would be odd. I think the reason why those at the scene think it was linked is because they asked the questions we are asking and decided it was new.

[Batman]

Hi Bat. I think fresh/old chalk is up to the person looking. Chalk a couple of days old could look new and chalk writing put up an hour ago could look old with one rub or a bit of rain. What really matters is the fact that no one who lived in that building - and it was mostly Jews - seems to have seen the writing before. This tells me it was written up there around the same time the apron would have been deposited.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Yeah that makes sense.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Bat. I think fresh/old chalk is up to the person looking. Chalk a couple of days old could look new and chalk writing put up an hour ago could look old with one rub or a bit of rain. What really matters is the fact that no one who lived in that building - and it was mostly Jews - seems to have seen the writing before. This tells me it was written up there around the same time the apron would have been deposited.

Ask any teacher about chalk. If you use chalk on a damp, black surface, not only does it look fresh, but it stays fresh-looking for days unless there's a downpour. It's very difficult to erase and also takes water to get rid of and not just a simple wipe.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Bat. I think fresh/old chalk is up to the person looking. Chalk a couple of days old could look new and chalk writing put up an hour ago could look old with one rub or a bit of rain. What really matters is the fact that no one who lived in that building - and it was mostly Jews - seems to have seen the writing before. This tells me it was written up there around the same time the apron would have been deposited.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Batman]

Doesn't anybody elsre find it strange that anti-Stride folk who make a big deal of the rain and mud lacking on her (which incidentally are wrong about) then have us want to believe that everyone who saw the GSG couldn't tell the difference between fresh white chalk on black brick and weathered chalk graffiti (its not paint you know).

Also if its aplenty then there should have been plenty there too yet Long was able to account for it not being there. Where they all really silly enough not to be able to discern the blatantly obvious between new and old chalk and all that other old graffiti that must be there too.

[Tom_Wescott]

I agree it is ridiculous. But the only way it could have been thought posswible to have caused a problem is a Pro-Jew, supportive translation. Simply saying, "It's the Jews' fault" would be repeating words that had been said over and over again without a riot. By interpreting it as "We Jews did it." or something to that effect, I can understand Warren's concerns, yet disagree with the removal. Was there anything in what I wrote to indicate I agreed with the erasure? Or was it just the sexism?

Mike

Hi Mike, that's sensible. I was likely blinded by your sexist propaganda and misunderstood your more subtle points relating to the graffiti. I agree with you. I'm not saying Warren shouldn't have been concerned over a public outcry, I just feel he then should have been prepare for it and found a way to handle it other than erasing the graffiti. I believe there's little doubt that many in power shared Henry Smith's consternation over this action and due to the pressure to solve this case it reflected poorly on Warren and did indeed play a part in his eventual firing/resignation.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

I've said for many years now that the GSG erasure was one of the final straws that led to Warren's forced resignation. So, I must respectfully disagree with Good Michael, not only in regards to his rampant sexism, but also any justification for completely obliterating what might have been crucial evidence in a murder investigation before it could be recorded. A riot is a 'what if', a 'maybe', but the graffiti was real and tangible. Erasing it on the grounds that some chalk on a wall might have caused a riot is ridiculous.

I agree it is ridiculous. But the only way it could have been thought possible to have caused a problem is a Pro-Jew, supportive translation. Simply saying, "It's the Jews' fault" would be repeating words that had been said over and over again without a riot. By interpreting it as "We Jews did it." or something to that effect, I can understand Warren's concerns, yet disagree with the removal. Was there anything in what I wrote to indicate I agreed with the erasure? Or was it just the sexism?

Mike

[Wickerman]

Then the police need to man up and take care of it IF it happens. You don't wipe out evidence in the event of a maybe. That's all I'm saying. It was a bad call, plain and simple.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

And I'm not saying the erasure was the right thing to do.
I am saying it had nothing to do with Warren's resignation.

There is a difference here between a Jewish suspect like Pizer, and the GSG.
Whether a Jewish individual can be accused depends largely on Just Cause, which is an entirely different matter to a general slant against all Jews.
There would not be a riot over one Jewish suspect, but to suggest all Jews are "to blame" for these murders creates an extremely volatile situation. Especially for those tenants in Goulston St. - avoiding civil unrest and property damage was probably foremost in Warren's mind, but how exactly could the police have benefited by leaving it in place is debatable, once they had it recorded.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Batman, I would say the graffiti was and must always be an 'if' since it didn't appear to directly relate to the murders. Again, had it been photographed and the actually words studied, the exact message could be known and understood and might have in fact been determined as relevant.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott