Here I Go Again About The GSG

[Howard Brown]

Just in case some of you weren't aware of it,I am one of those people who are enthusiastic that the Goulston Street Graffiti is a legitimate evidentiary article.

Whether it is or not...and what are we to make of it 119 years and 1 1/2 months later,correct?....I think this post will explain why I feel it is legitimate a little better than all the posts I made before and especially when I got lumped up by Neil Bell in a point/counterpoint article in the Rip two years or so ago.

I liken the reaction from those who reject the GSG outright ( Funny that various police officials didn't...even those who didn't agree on other areas of the Case,but on this they did...) to a person who watches a sporting event on television from the comfort of his living room...like say Manchester United versus Chelsea....an outdoor affair.

He can't get the feel of the game...the wind blowing...the tension in the air...some of the nuances that someone who attended the game could or did from being there.

Since the policemen who were at the scene of the discovery of the verifiable evidentiary article...the apron piece...were not obligated to write down their impressions for us 1,429 months later ( Has it been that long already??)...one nuance or impression that they seem to have automatically recieved was something inherent in the chalk and the way it "rested" on the brickwork....something modern Ripperologists cannot percieve,even those of us who accept the GSG as legitimate,but accept it for a variety of other reasons.

I cannot understand why the mentioning of "other graffiti" in the area is used as a caveat to those who lean in the direction of the GSG being legitimate. Its as if the naysayers are using some profiling technique to dismiss the GSG based on some statistical breakdown of all the graffiti found in the immediate area...and beyond.

This isn't what the focus of the officers who were there on the scene in October 1888 was on. It was more likely the immediate impact of what was inherent in the chalking that stood out. Its only in retrospect that modern Ripperologists dismiss it,based on the unproven assumption that other graffiti was in the immediate area.....much like saying that had another piece of another apron similar in design and covered in gunk been found in the general area,then the section found of Mrs.Eddowes' apron may not have been hers after all.

As you can probably gather....I like talkin' about the GSG.

Anyone else?

[Monty]

Yeah, me!

How,

Theres a general misunderstanding that because the Police 'investigated' the writing (as any good force should do), they believed it to be genuine.

There is only one Police official who states he believed the the writing to be genuine in all of the HO and Police files, that was Shore. Who, when you actually read it, does not provide any evidence in 'proving' its validity.

And this is why you will find NO official report catagorically supporting it. Simply because there is nothing to back it up beyond doubt. That said, the same must be stated about the counter arguement.

If the writing was unique then its validity increases simply because of its location. Even then it doesnt mean we have a genuine communication here. The mention of other graffiti merely indicates that other writing was present. Therefore other authors.

And Eddowes apron was unique to her, simply because the cut edges matched.

Now if the writing had such distinctive 'cuts' in the form of comments relating to the apron/Eddowes/the murders/Mitre Sq etc then Id say we have an almost certain piece of evidence from Jack.

However....

Monty
:)

[Howard Brown]

Gadzooks ! Its my old nemesis back to lump me up...

Correct me if I am wrong,sor...but didn't Anderson and Major Smith ( to name but two...and definitely two officials antagonistic towards each other...) believe it was a clue in subsequent writings,if not in fact,official reports?

Correct me if I wrong once more...but is not a fact that at the time of the GSG's initial impact...and for some time afterwards,that no mention of other graffiti in the surrounding area was ever mentioned?

Correct me once more,old friend,but is it not true that an inordinate effort was made to first conceal the GSG...then Halse's suggestion to remove one line...and the inevitable removal....could be construed as an awful lot of trouble expended,where the simple dismissal of the message would have been a hell of a lot easier?

However....

[Monty]

Shadys back...tell a friend...

Correct me if I am wrong,sor...but didn't Anderson and Major Smith ( to name but two...and definitely two officials antagonistic towards each other...) believe it was a clue in subsequent writings,if not in fact,official reports?

Subsequent writings yes, official police report? No. Why? because they knew that without the strong supporting evidence they couldnt mislead. However, their own personal belief was that it was the real deal.

You should question why they didnt put forward their personal belief in official reports? The answer is glaringly obvious.

Correct me if I wrong once more...but is not a fact that at the time of the GSG's initial impact...and for some time afterwards,that no mention of other graffiti in the surrounding area was ever mentioned?

In surviving records true. However Graffiti is mentioned in Hanbury street during the scare and in photographic evidence of Berner and Dorset street in later years. Are you suggesting that Goulston Street would have been free of such graffiti?

Correct me once more,old friend,but is it not true that an inordinate effort was made to first conceal the GSG...then Halse's suggestion to remove one line...and the inevitable removal....could be construed as an awful lot of trouble expended,where the simple dismissal of the message would have been a hell of a lot easier?

The message, genuine or not, had the possibility of cause major unrest within the community. Simply because of one of its numerous interpretations.

The dismissal would not have made any difference in my opinion. It had to be eradicated. However, the timing was unfortunate.

And so on...

Monty
:)

[Howard Brown]

Monty:

All the police really had to do was pick up the apron and split. The ball was in their court,so to speak,and it was they who made the graffiti important. We have to ask ourselves why...How easy would it have been to simply avoid that message...I think very easily.

I don't believe anyone in a nearly all-Jewish dwelling and majority-Jewish street would have taken up torches and rioted upon themselves,do you? I don't think Warren was that demographically-challenged that he wasn't aware of preponderence of Jewish people in and on that street? It wasn't like the GSG was left on the Unter Den Linden in Berlin in 1934....no sarcasm intended.

They could have easily and wisely picked the apron up....searched the Wentworth and then left...all without so much as a noise about the "insignificant" message on the wall.

Why they didn't do this is probably the basis of our difference of opinion when it all boils down. You see it as a message that the police made important...whereas I see it as an important message that the police reacted to,rightly or wrongly,with an inordinate amount of rigamarole.

The proof,to me,is in the rigamarole.

I can't really add on anything else to the thread but would like to hear what you think my original post ( with the "you had to be there..." references) sounds to you. I really value your input,as you well know,on the GSG...being that I actually love arguing with you as much as I like you,old man.

[WRITEFX]

Hello How,

I'm also very interested in the message.

If there had been no other clues/evidence in the case whatsoever would the words on the wall still feel unconnected to the case or would people be desperate to find a link?

Could it be a case of not seeing the woods for the trees?

[Caroline Morris]

Hi How,

As you know, I also think that if similar chalked messages were an everyday sight in the area, the simple removal of the apron piece should have reduced the inflammatory nature of this example to manageable proportions. But the fuss made by the boys in blue suggests that they didn't consider it to be quite such a simple matter.

Imagine if nature had been allowed to take its course, and a civilian passer-by or resident had come across the message in the normal way, with no awareness that the police had recently removed a pinny-shaped calling card left there by the Whitechapel fiend. Would a riot have been the likely outcome, if it wasn't even clear to this individual whether the message was meant to offend local Jews or be a comment by a local Jew? Would it not have been rubbed out with a sleeve, and a shrug of the shoulders, if that were really the case?

Logic suggests that the fuss should have been exactly the same had a constable found this message but no proof that the murderer had been there. For whatever reason, the words were considered too hot to be left there sans apron - which presumably set them apart from other local graffiti at the time.

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

How

All the police really had to do was pick up the apron and split. The ball was in their court,so to speak,and it was they who made the graffiti important. We have to ask ourselves why...How easy would it have been to simply avoid that message...I think very easily.

I dont. The fact is that the Police would have been in that area, doing whatever investigations (and Fosters presence indicates this) the next day. Enquiries where made in the building. Word would have gotten around.

How could they avoid a possible clue?

I don't believe anyone in a nearly all-Jewish dwelling and majority-Jewish street would have taken up torches and rioted upon themselves,do you? I don't think Warren was that demographically-challenged that he wasn't aware of preponderence of Jewish people in and on that street? It wasn't like the GSG was left on the Unter Den Linden in Berlin in 1934....no sarcasm intended.

Upon themselves no, however it was not a purely Jewish area was it? Only majority.

They could have easily and wisely picked the apron up....searched the Wentworth and then left...all without so much as a noise about the "insignificant" message on the wall.

By they I assume you meant Police. As Ive said, the dwelling tennants were questioned. And, as Ive also said, its a clue. The writing was a clue. However some get confused between clue and evidence. The writing had to be investigated, doesnt mean it was believed.

Why they didn't do this is probably the basis of our difference of opinion when it all boils down. You see it as a message that the police made important...whereas I see it as an important message that the police reacted to,rightly or wrongly,with an inordinate amount of rigamarole.

I see it as a message that had to be investigated. They investigated the envelope in connection to Chapman also, the TC on Eddowes arm, the Soldier links to Tabram. Should we take these as proofs?



Caz,

You are correct, association via location. That was the whole jist of my side of the article with Howard. The location of the apron is the crux.

However, and Im as tired of typing it as you are of reading it, there is no connection in the writing to anything regarding Jack, Eddowes, the apron or any crime whatsoever.

Just because it was investigated does not indicate its validity.

Regards

Monty
:)

[Chris G.]

Monty:

All the police really had to do was pick up the apron and split. The ball was in their court,so to speak,and it was they who made the graffiti important. We have to ask ourselves why...How easy would it have been to simply avoid that message...I think very easily.

I don't believe anyone in a nearly all-Jewish dwelling and majority-Jewish street would have taken up torches and rioted upon themselves,do you? I don't think Warren was that demographically-challenged that he wasn't aware of preponderence of Jewish people in and on that street? It wasn't like the GSG was left on the Unter Den Linden in Berlin in 1934....no sarcasm intended.

They could have easily and wisely picked the apron up....searched the Wentworth and then left...all without so much as a noise about the "insignificant" message on the wall.

Why they didn't do this is probably the basis of our difference of opinion when it all boils down. You see it as a message that the police made important...whereas I see it as an important message that the police reacted to,rightly or wrongly,with an inordinate amount of rigamarole.

The proof,to me,is in the rigamarole.

I can't really add on anything else to the thread but would like to hear what you think my original post ( with the "you had to be there..." references) sounds to you. I really value your input,as you well know,on the GSG...being that I actually love arguing with you as much as I like you,old man.

Hi Howard

There had been a street disturbances in Batty Street following the Lipski trial in the months before. As Robert J. McLaughlin wrote in his Casebook dissertation, "Interpreting 'Lipski'" (http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-lipski.html):

"The anti-alienists used the Lipski trial to put pressure on the government to halt immigration. There were clashes between Jews and non-Jews severe enough to require police intervention. Several disturbances took place around Batty Street after the trial. These scenes carried on during the Ripper murders as well."

So I really think an anti-semitic riot was a real fear of Warren's and the reason he ordered the writing destroyed.

Chris

[Caroline Morris]

Caz,

You are correct, association via location. That was the whole jist of my side of the article with Howard. The location of the apron is the crux.

However, and Im as tired of typing it as you are of reading it, there is no connection in the writing to anything regarding Jack, Eddowes, the apron or any crime whatsoever.

Just because it was investigated does not indicate its validity.



I hear you Monty.

My point, however, was not that the police did consider the writing itself to be related to the murders and would not have investigated it otherwise (although to be fair, you can only say there needn't be any such connection; we don't know that the author didn't write those words with the murders in mind, or that they would have appeared there had there been no murders).

My point was simply that the message was apparently seen as much more a case for concern than other graffiti in the area (assuming it was a common sight) because the killer had stood or passed by that building and enquiries were naturally being made there.

The killer's presence set this message apart from any other examples, regardless of whether there was a direct connection between the two or not. But if he had no idea that the message was there when he dropped the apron piece, it was at the very least somewhat ironic that it was his action that drew attention to these words, which had appeared just when speculation was rife concerning whether he was a Jew or not, and when and where he would strike next.

The message may only have been connected with the killer in the same way that the wall was. But that's still a solid connection, and I have yet to see a good argument for ruling out an intentional connection.

Have a great weekend!

Love,

Caz
XX

[Howard Brown]

Dear WriteFX:

I apologize for the slow reply,but had the apron not appeared in front of the message,I for one do not think that any connectivity whatsoever would have been associated with the Eddowes murder or the Case at all.

Monty Cristo:

One of the better counter arguments ( to me at least ) to your position that it was a mitzvah to remove the message can be found in the PMG. I quoteth:

"Unfortunately,the action of Sir Charles Warren in destroying evidence that might seem to have implicated the Jews is just the kind of thing to exicte popular feeling far more bitterly against the Jews than the inscription itself..."

This,more or less,in perfect 20-20 hindsight of course....is why I think the graffiti had some ambience or characteristic to it that necessitated its removal ( its 'freshness' or its raised lettering...some damned thing...) and that if it had been a generic message endemic to the area like or similar to the other alleged messages in the general vicinity,then the police went way overboard in their collective reaction.

Back to you,Montague...:whip:

[Monty]

Caz,

I return your 'I hear you'.

If there was a good arguement for ruling out an intentional connection (or confirming an intentional connection) this thread wouldnt exsist.



How,

Catch you at lunch...too much to do at the moment.

Cheers

Monty
:)

[Paul Butler]

Afternoon all.

Here I am straying further and further away from the familiar surroundings of diaryworld.

The GSG has always been an interesting part of the case for me, so perhaps I can ask a couple of things that aren't so clear in my mind? Apologies if this is all old hat.

I have read a lot here and on casebook that suggests graffiti was a common thing in the east end in 1888. If that were the case, and Whitechapel was littered with the stuff, why did this particular one stand out amongst all the others? Apart from being near to the apron piece that is. Is there actually any hard evidence that Whitechapel was littered with graffiti, or is this just guess work?

I've seen a few old photos that show examples of random scribblings on walls and doors, mostly at child height , but nothing to convince me that it was everywhere and so commonplace as to make this particular instance unexceptional.

Nobody in 1888 had spray cans and so chalk was likely the only medium used, and a couple of good showers of rain, (we are talking autumn time in London here), and it would be gone forever. The only difference I can see with this particular example was that it was just inside the archway and being sheltered from the wet, likely to last quite a bit longer.

regards to all.

Paul

[Monty]

How,

This,more or less,in perfect 20-20 hindsight of course....is why I think the graffiti had some ambience or characteristic to it that necessitated its removal ( its 'freshness' or its raised lettering...some damned thing...) and that if it had been a generic message endemic to the area like or similar to the other alleged messages in the general vicinity,then the police went way overboard in their collective reaction.

I think they were dammed if they did and dammed if they didnt.

Paul,

The only reason it did stand out is because of the apron piece. No other reason was needed.

Monty
:)

[Paul Butler]

Thanks Monty.

The point I was trying to make was whether this particular chalk scribbling was exceptional for any other reason that it being just above the apron piece.

I have seen it said several times that the area was literally plastered in graffiti, and was wondering what evidence there really was for this assertion.

Lots of old photos of the East end seem to show none at all. To be fair, some on casebook show a little, but this looks more like scribblings by children than politically motivated graffiti.

Chalk graffiti wasn't likely to last more than about a week or so in the rain and fog down in the already damp atmosphere by the docks in Autumn, so I'm finding it difficult to accept that maybe the reason that this particular example was made such a fuss over might not have been also due to the fact that it was something that was NOT so commonly seen in the area.

Regards.

Paul B

[Chris G.]

Hi Paul

I think it is clear that the inscription was made exceptional by the apparent reference to the Jews and by its close proximity to the dropped apron. I should think that graffiti in the area was not that extensive and that anti-Jewish graffiti was even more rare. Otherwise we would I think get wind of it from some of the commentators who visited the scene.

Chris

[Adam Went]

I think the key thing when considering whether or not the graffito was really written by JTR is to remember the description of it being written in "good schoolboy handwriting" - it was neat. It wasn't child's scribble, it wasn't messy, mis-spelt or even written in large letters - bearing in mind the general standards of education in the East End of 1888, it was obviously written by someone who was not dumb. I believe it was intended as a message for someone, and IMO, it is far too big of a coincidence that the bloody apron was found with it for it not to have been written by JTR. From what we can gather about him, I believe JTR was actually a reasonably clever person.

Having said that, I think a better question to ask is: Why Goulston Street? Why not closer to Mitre Square, or even in Mitre Square? If he wanted the message to be seen and to make certain everyone knew it was a message from him, why leave it in Goulston Street? What significance does it hold?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Paul Butler]

Thanks, Chris and Adam, for your views.

I know there are two quite opposite schools of thought on this one, and for what it's worth, I do think it likely that Jack was responsible for writing this message.

If graffiti of this, or any other type was common place in the east end, I don't see why this particular piece would have been given so much attention, proximity to the apron piece or not.

If you wanted your Jewish quip to be noticed, you wouldn't really put it on a wall just inside an archway leading into an alley would you? You would put it on an outside wall where it would be visible to all passers by.

My understanding is that the writing was just above the apron piece, i.e. just a few feet or so from floor level. This fits well with my image of Jack crouching or cowering in that doorway, maybe catching his breath or recovering from stitch or cramp after his speedy getaway from Mitre square.

In short, I think that the positioning of the writing indicates that it may have been written by a man who did not want to be seen on that night, and the fact that it was right above the apron piece, makes it highly likely that it was Jack.

It seems a funny place, and a funny position being lower down and not at shoulder height, for any "normal" piece of graffiti to be.

Regards.

Paul B