The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

I have read literally 100s of transcripts of trials and if you read nothing but the answers you will as often as not get a radically different view of the case than if you read the lot.

Many times I think, re JtR, if only I had the full transcript it would make a lot more sense.

also get the feeling that many of the news reports are nowhere near transcripts of the words witnesses used but the reporters interpretation of the Q and A.

Ah yes, another curve to contend with, the various press versions given in paraphrase
All these problems make it essential, in my view, to collate the various press versions, along with the original, to gain a better insight into what was actually said in court.
A common error is that some will adopt one source as their preference - this is wrong.

[Batman]

Now the question which you say is omitted from the records can magically become what you want it to be and can never be "Did you see the apron or graffiti when you inspected the spot before its discovery?"

Right? Because the following couldn't possibly flow from it...
By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

Anyhow it all becomes moot when the MET says it was done to cast suspicion away from a gentile and onto Jews. Certainly explains their behaviour there and then.

[GUT]

Ah yes, another curve to contend with, the various press versions given in paraphrase
All these problems make it essential, in my view, to collate the various press versions, along with the original, to gain a better insight into what was actually said in court.
A common error is that some will adopt one source as their preference - this is wrong.

Agreed.

[Wickerman]

Anyhow it all becomes moot when they MET says it was done to cast suspicion away from a gentile and onto Jews. Certainly explains their behaviour there and then.

The graffiti was a slant against Jews regardless who wrote it, or when, or what the true meaning was.
Just as likely written by a disgruntled gentile over some business dealings with Jews.

[Batman]

The graffiti was a slant against Jews regardless who wrote it, or when, or what the true meaning was.
Just as likely written by a disgruntled gentile over some business dealings with Jews.

No because the investigators ruled the latter out for several reasons from its freshness to the neighbours would have rubbed it out to the rain the night before to the neighbours not being able to account for it, the old Jewry there even saying such a thing would have been there to cast suspicion on them.

Then we have the antisemitic connection with other murders and Warren himself saying a gentile did all this to cast suspicion on Jews. We have a strong clue that rejects Jewish suspects.

[Wickerman]

Ok, well, I don't remember you establishing what "fresh" meant.
- I don't slide along walls when I walk through passages, do you?
- The rain couldn't get to it (was the wall wet?).
- No neighbours commented on it, one way or the other.

So there is nothing to contest the possibility that the graffiti was there the night before. And that, was the problem then, just as it is today.

[Batman]

Rubbed out deliberately not 'brushed off' accidentally.

[Wickerman]

Rubbed out deliberately not 'brushed off' accidentally.

Deliberately?, ok so now we are back with the assumption that these Jews could read English. Compounded with the second assumption that they would be bothered to read it, being so small.

Compare this with graffiti today, most of it is large and emblazoned across the walls, but in modern toilets it is generally small, how much of it do we bother to read?

So put yourself in their shoes.
You see some small graffiti (in a toilet, or anywhere), that is a slant against your race, you will either:
- rub it off, or
- ignore it.

[Batman]

If the Old Jewry there agreed with the MET on these points and also concluded it was done to cast suspicion on them, your guess about their inabilities seems unfounded.

The modern argument is that graffiti blaming Jews existed elsewhere in Whitechapel, not specifically at that location. That hasn't been shown and basically is calling investigators incompetent to know the difference.

[Abby Normal]

Nope.

Hi Wick
Can you at least agree that it COULD have been a clue?

[Abby Normal]

Hello. I'm new here so go easy.

I don't see how it could be the murderer. The most obvious point is the opportunity to speak his mind in Millers Court but chose not to take it. I also think it might be odd to write on a wall when not one but two police forces were out looking for him. I'm no expert but I'd guess two murders in one night might be both physically and mentally exhausting.

That said, he could have been 'prolonging the high' as he clearly found killing to be an exhilarating pastime.

Anyway, that's my view. A no here.

Hello again.

Hi Cenci
Re Millers court: If you believe like I do and many others that George Hutchinson may have been the ripper then he did speak his mind-by directly implicating a jew in his description of his suspect Aman.

[Monty]

"The graffiti was a slant against Jews regardless who wrote it, or when, or what the true meaning was."

Apologies for disagreeing, but that's not entirely the case.

Monty

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick
Can you at least agree that it COULD have been a clue?

Hi Abby.
I think I did already.
This is the basis for this never ending banter with Batman, the acceptance of "could", rather than "was".

The graffiti was not a "clue/evidence" because its provenance was never established, but it could have been a clue, if the police had known when it was written, or by whom.

So, "could" have been a clue is not the issue, not as I am aware anyway.

[GUT]

Hi Cenci
Re Millers court: If you believe like I do and many others that George Hutchinson may have been the ripper then he did speak his mind-by directly implicating a jew in his description of his suspect Aman.

That's the way to play the game, "This is mt suspect so how can I twist the evidence around to fit him".

Well it's the most common method.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.
I think I did already.
This is the basis for this never ending banter with Batman, the acceptance of "could", rather than "was".

The graffiti was not a "clue/evidence" because its provenance was never established, but it could have been a clue, if the police had known when it was written, or by whom.

So, "could" have been a clue is not the issue, not as I am aware anyway.

OK-I'll take it! we agree. It could have been a clue.