The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Monty]

Tom,

I apologise. You meant a rioting mob in Goulston street. Cos thats the only place the mob would riot yeah?

And the fact only one police official states his own views that the murderer wrote the writing, kinda goes against your belief that the police felt the same hand did both the writing and the murder.

Sooner be rusty than ceased up old chap.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

More than one person in the force thought the writing was Jacks', Monty. And news of the graffiti and its contents did not spark a riot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. and I believe you mean 'seized' up?

[Howard Brown]

I apologize for misrepresenting your views. Something I read (or misread) in an earlier post on this thread led me to believe that, like me, you took issue with Warren not allowing the graffiti to be photographed. I stand by my reasoning that the writing was valuable evidence that should have been preserved photographically, but I understand your reasoning to the contrary.

Not an issue at all,Tom. I wish Warren had had it photographed for the same personal, completionist mentality reasons everyone else around here wishes he had photographed it for . But I understand why he thought it best to erase it. I think had some other police official been in charge it would have remained until photographed. I wonder what SRA would really have done if presented with the same set of circumstances that Warren was put in.

Warren's decision to erase has been taken to extremes ( first, as part of a cover up for the Masonic nonsense and then to "cover up for the Jews" in some extremist literature), but it probably boils down to his concern for maintaining the peace above all other considerations...and lets face it, Tom....even if he had had it photographed....what could they do with it? Probably the same as what we could do with it. Look at it and speculate over it to death.



Monty:

Thanks for clarifying and I didn't really think you provided the letter for what I asked you about earlier....

Come to think of it Neil....can you recall any other letters to the press written by PC's during the WM ? I can't. The Hutt letter may be unique.

[Monty]

More than one person in the force thought the writing was Jacks', Monty. And news of the graffiti and its contents did not spark a riot.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. and I believe you mean 'seized' up?

They did indeed Tom, though only one expressed their opinion on police file. Therefore differing personal opinion from official police line.

I did indeed mean 'siezed'. I would be so evil as to mean 'ceased'...would I?

Monty

[Johanne]

My jury has always been out as to whether jtr killed liz stride, but as for the writing, it's either one of two things; the apron definitely belonged to the victim so he either just threw it there, and the writing was already there, or he wrote it. I don't think he was scanning the walls for appropriate graffiti. Serial killers do play games and often write to various agencies to draw attention to themselves or their 'purpose', so it is likely he wrote it. I suppose it would be interesting to know how much graffiti was around ... was this a one off, or was there loads of it? Knowing that might be of help!

[Monty]

How,

Ah, you mean why did I post it here?

Mainly to show that Hutt had noted the ill feeling towards the Jews around the time of Chapmans murder. And if a serving PC noted it Im sure his superiors did.

Hutt initialed the letter but The Jewish World names him in their edition. Others may have written in anonymously. This for obvious reasons.

Monty

[Howard Brown]

Neil:

Thanks once more my friend. I hope that those among us who are under the impression that the police were either intentionally unprofessional in their conduct towards any of the foreign people in the East End will print out Hutt's letter here ( or better yet, subscribe to the Rip and ask Adam Wood to send that issue from June '09 ) and remember it, since this heartfelt letter seems to indicate a totally different attitude by a rank and file, on the street, in the midst of the action, PC. That he also received his walking papers for an act unbecoming a PC also tells me that his superiors played it close to the vest in terms of how PC's conducted themselves in general to a somewhat greater degree than what some may feel at that time in history.

My challenge still stands as to anyone in providing one example of police malfeasance towards the foreigners of the area in which we focus our studies.

[perrymason]

Neil:

Thanks once more my friend. I hope that those among us who are under the impression that the police were either intentionally unprofessional in their conduct towards any of the foreign people in the East End will print out Hutt's letter here ( or better yet, subscribe to the Rip and ask Adam Wood to send that issue from June '09 ) and remember it, since this heartfelt letter seems to indicate a totally different attitude by a rank and file, on the street, in the midst of the action, PC. That he also received his walking papers for an act unbecoming a PC also tells me that his superiors played it close to the vest in terms of how PC's conducted themselves in general to a somewhat greater degree than what some may feel at that time in history.

My challenge still stands as to anyone in providing one example of police malfeasance towards the foreigners of the area in which we focus our studies.

Hi Howard,

I was interested in the wording of the account based on our exchange on this topic and I agree with you, this is not a letter that would lead one to conclude that Hutt was anti-semetic at all. But he does suggest a deep undercurrent of those kinds of sentiments in the relevant communities.

The mood generally towards these immigrants wasnt positive, this was the tail end of phenomenal emigration of Jewish people from throughout Europe and Russia in the 1800's, and they were cited as one of the reasons for the borderline "sardine" conditions people lived in. They were also cited by many less prejudiced for bringing in business and cleaning up the areas they lived in.

But its clear that at that time there was some serious prejudice going on there, look at Pizer press and find some that doesnt specify his ethnicity...and I believe as I said earlier that we do have a very prejudiced police remark in the statements that alleged that a Jewish Witness refused to identify a Jewish suspect in custody because the police authority believed they would not turn another Jew in, regardless of the crime.

I believe that is antisemitism. Its a very distasteful thing to suggest that anyone of any ethnicity would refuse to identify this suspected madman if they could do so, and particularly to suggest that the refusal is solely based on mutual Judaism....."as was the inclination of their kind"...or something to that effect.

Can we state with any kind of certainty that the police were not to some degree infiltrated with prejudice?

My best to you Howard.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Mike:

"this is not a letter that would lead one to conclude that Hutt was anti-semetic at all. But he does suggest a deep undercurrent of those kinds of sentiments in the relevant communities.

No argument there,Mike. In addition, some assimilated Jews and Orthodox Jews were less than enamored with their Eastern brethren for their socialist tendencies as well as other reasons. Again, I'm focusing on the police and their activities, not what people thought...an entirely different function until put into motion and again....there is none to speak of.

and I believe as I said earlier that we do have a very prejudiced police remark in the statements that alleged that a Jewish Witness refused to identify a Jewish suspect in custody because the police authority believed they would not turn another Jew in, regardless of the crime..

This remark came a few years after the skein...Anderson explained his meaning, which has been looked at with doubt depending on which side of the fence one is on. This, too, is not an action such as smacking someone upside his head for a confession or in any way a general police practice...its one lone faux pas,perhaps,by a retired police official. The Jew suspect wasn't charged with the crimes that Anderson suspected he committed, was he? Therefore, no action taken.

I believe that is antisemitism. Its a very distasteful thing to suggest that anyone of any ethnicity would refuse to identify this suspected madman if they could do so, and particularly to suggest that the refusal is solely based on mutual Judaism....."as was the inclination of their kind"...or something to that effect.

I can think of some ethnic groups that wouldn't "roll over" on one of their own in certain circumstances and thats not a distasteful thing, its a fact, Mike. Its just as "anti-semitic" for Jews to write articles condemning Jews, but no one seems to see this as relevant.

Again, what Anderson said makes him look foolish to some, elitist to others ( who are aware that he numbered non-prole Jews among his friends) and probably on the right track to some other Ripperologists. All irrelevant to the challenge of finding a definitely ascertainable, verifiable police action against foreigners in East End London.


Can we state with any kind of certainty that the police were not to some degree infiltrated with prejudice?

Thats never been an issue,Mike. The issue isn't what police officials thought of people ( What if Hutt was the norm,Mike? How about Warren being shaken by the death of the Jewish PC, whose name escapes me at the moment? )....and lets be frank, Mike...if there was, as you and others in the past have intimated, a high degree of anti-foreigner sentiment in the police departments from the top on down...where is evidence to demonstrate that in action? If it was endemic, why can't anyone provide just one example?

If PC's had cracked a hundred Gentile or "native born" heads during the Autumn of Terror, not one damned word would have been spoken about it in the sense that this myth of police anti-foreigner sentiment has been. The police risked their own safety by fighting back mobs from harming Jews. Where's the credit when its due for that Mike?

All this reminds me of the quote Alfred Lilienthal made in regard to his anti-Zionist work...Alfred was a Jew,by the way. He said that "Once an anti-Semite was considered someone who disliked Jews. Now its someone that Jews don't like."

I think that might apply here,Mike. People have been making anti-Semites of men ( The Police) who probably never committed an egregious act in their entire careers towards anyone specifically because of their background....despite the temptation that might have existed.

Shalom baby...

[perrymason]

Dear Mike:

"this is not a letter that would lead one to conclude that Hutt was anti-semetic at all. But he does suggest a deep undercurrent of those kinds of sentiments in the relevant communities.

No argument there,Mike. In addition, some assimilated Jews and Orthodox Jews were less than enamored with their Eastern brethren for their socialist tendencies as well as other reasons. Again, I'm focusing on the police and their activities, not what people thought...an entirely different function until put into motion and again....there is none to speak of.

and I believe as I said earlier that we do have a very prejudiced police remark in the statements that alleged that a Jewish Witness refused to identify a Jewish suspect in custody because the police authority believed they would not turn another Jew in, regardless of the crime..

This remark came a few years after the skein...Anderson explained his meaning, which has been looked at with doubt depending on which side of the fence one is on. This, too, is not an action such as smacking someone upside his head for a confession or in any way a general police practice...its one lone faux pas,perhaps,by a retired police official. The Jew suspect wasn't charged with the crimes that Anderson suspected he committed, was he? Therefore, no action taken.

I believe that is antisemitism. Its a very distasteful thing to suggest that anyone of any ethnicity would refuse to identify this suspected madman if they could do so, and particularly to suggest that the refusal is solely based on mutual Judaism....."as was the inclination of their kind"...or something to that effect.

I can think of some ethnic groups that wouldn't "roll over" on one of their own in certain circumstances and thats not a distasteful thing, its a fact, Mike. Its just as "anti-semitic" for Jews to write articles condemning Jews, but no one seems to see this as relevant.

Again, what Anderson said makes him look foolish to some, elitist to others ( who are aware that he numbered non-prole Jews among his friends) and probably on the right track to some other Ripperologists. All irrelevant to the challenge of finding a definitely ascertainable, verifiable police action against foreigners in East End London.


Can we state with any kind of certainty that the police were not to some degree infiltrated with prejudice?

Thats never been an issue,Mike. The issue isn't what police officials thought of people ( What if Hutt was the norm,Mike? How about Warren being shaken by the death of the Jewish PC, whose name escapes me at the moment? )....and lets be frank, Mike...if there was, as you and others in the past have intimated, a high degree of anti-foreigner sentiment in the police departments from the top on down...where is evidence to demonstrate that in action? If it was endemic, why can't anyone provide just one example?

If PC's had cracked a hundred Gentile or "native born" heads during the Autumn of Terror, not one damned word would have been spoken about it in the sense that this myth of police anti-foreigner sentiment has been. The police risked their own safety by fighting back mobs from harming Jews. Where's the credit when its due for that Mike?

All this reminds me of the quote Alfred Lilienthal made in regard to his anti-Zionist work...Alfred was a Jew,by the way. He said that "Once an anti-Semite was considered someone who disliked Jews. Now its someone that Jews don't like."

I think that might apply here,Mike. People have been making anti-Semites of men ( The Police) who probably never committed an egregious act in their entire careers towards anyone specifically because of their background....despite the temptation that might have existed.

Shalom baby...

Thats a nice post Howard. Very fair.

My best old chap.

[JTRSickert]

Does anyone know if Abberline himself commented o the general atmosphere of anti-semitism in the East End?

Also, we all know Warren ordered the GSG to be erased but does anyone know if Abberline himself agreed with that decision or beleived it should have been photographed first?

[smezenen]

My jury has always been out as to whether jtr killed liz stride, but as for the writing, it's either one of two things; the apron definitely belonged to the victim so he either just threw it there, and the writing was already there, or he wrote it. I don't think he was scanning the walls for appropriate graffiti.

My thoughts also, In fact I dont think Jack even saw the writing. I think he was done with the rag and tossed it in the first dark place he found. I have issues with him writing it becouse he would have had to have a piece of chalk in order to do so. Where did the chalk come from? Did he bring it along with the intent to leave a message? In which case wouldnt his message be more effective at the scene of the crime intsead of blocks away? Did he go home and retrieve the chalk then come back out? If so then I would speculate he lived very near by. also I dont believe he would have taken the risk of coming back out after he is safe at home. Why not just write a letter to any of the police stations, media outlets, or maybe to the vigilence commity? his message would reach many more people in the newspapper than it would on the wall in Goulston street. Anyway I look at the GSG I dont see Jack writing it. Too much risk involved, he would have made himself very visible while writing it, he would know that the police are out looking for him after 2 murders are commited and wouldt be stoping to take time to write on the wall, and I dont believe he would have left home once he made it there safe.

[Ben]

Hi Smez,

If Dr. phillips stated at any other time that the killer had no anatomical knowledge it would seem that he contradicted himself or changed his mind.

Phillips believed that the killer of Chapman had both anatomical knowledge and surgical skill. He also believed that Eddowes was killed by a different person altogather - a crude immitator with no surgical knowledge.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Smez,

Phillips believed that the killer of Chapman had both anatomical knowledge and surgical skill. He also believed that Eddowes was killed by a different person altogather - a crude immitator with no surgical knowledge.

Best regards,
Ben

To follow that thought a bit Ben, the above is one of the reasons I generally like Phillips and his opinions.....his line when referring to Annies killers skill "The mode in which the knife was used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge",...was by my A-Z's account the "firmest" statement made regarding the killers talents.

I do think his suggestion that Liz was cut lying down is inferior to Blackwells suggestion that she was cut while falling after being choked with her scarf.....Baxters summations on Catherine Eddowes Inquest seemed to rely on Phillips opinions as you cited above Ben,....."unskillful injuries and possibly an imitator".

There is no continuous unbroken display of skill and knowledge with the 5 "Canonicals", there is with some unsolved murders that Fall that fit into a "Ripper" category. Phillips seems to be one of the men that was not eager to have unsolved murders assessed individually rather than just hung on the shoulders of someone at large.

I think the evidence and some opinions suggest that one if not both women on September 30th were not killed by someone with "skilled hands and knowledge".

That is important when considering why only on that night would we get a message from Jack, or an action that he never did before or again...the public discard of murder evidence he took from a crime scene.

Cheers Ben

[perrymason]

Im wondering if the "2" versions of the writing that Warren submitted with his report on October 6th to the Home Secretary are roughly correct...I quote 2 because he sent 2 identical recreations....

"The Jewes are
The men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing".

(5 lines)

I wonder if the capitals above suggest emphasis, like italicizing would normally indicate, but the venue or the writing materials didnt allow for clarity that would reveal italicized words.

So he capitalized instead.

"The"...begins the sentence, and since the writing was supposedly in "good schoolboy hand", its probably just using correct grammar.......but Jewes" is spelled incorrectly, yet should be capitalized grammatically......so he likely either didnt know the correct spelling but the correct grammar, knew it and could care less to use the correct spelling, or didnt know the correct spelling or the grammar and used the capitalization for emphasis...... ."The" before "men" to me suggests that its specifically the Jews, not all men....the "m" is in lower case...."Will" may be capitalized for emphasis, and if spoken aloud in that manner sounds like a repeated source of frustration to the author, an example in use might be "No matter how hard they tried they couldnt scale the wall"....and "Blamed" is capitalized incorrectly and may have been written in that way for emphasis on the word....

"The Jewes are The men that Will not be Blamed for nothing".

I think all the above illustrates is that he probably knew correct spelling and grammar, but didnt use it all the time....so when it is incorrect, we might want to wonder why "choose" those errors with those words. Why those "caps", why the grammar and spelling errors if he knew better...

Best regards all.