Archive through January 1, 2000

** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **

Archive through January 1, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Is The Goulston Street Graffito All It Seems?: Archive through January 1, 2000

Author: Ashling Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 03:24 am
JON: Thanks for posting - I've often wondered what the Wentworth tenants had to say about the graffiti. Did their statements survive? Do we have a record of the police asking specifically whether or not they'd seen that writing before the night of the murder? Thanks, Ashling
Author: Desdinova Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 08:50 am
Hi all, Me, Jon and a few others had quite a lengthy debate about what the residents said about it. I said that they would be afraid to speak out in fear of reprisal from non-Jews on other estates and in the fear that if they identified themselves to the police, Jack might come after them. And if JTR was a Jew, then the residents would not want to 'rat' on their own. Also, at this time, the police were not trusted by the Jews (in general). Ta, Des
Author: RLeen Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 12:13 pm
Hello Everybody, Some interesting thoughts on this board, of which, some I find extremely perplexing. However, I actually think that the graffiti was written by a resident who saw the piece of apron on the ground and, bearing in mind the hue and cry, probably recognised it as having some bearing on the JTR case. It strikes me that it was written as a form of protest, a denial that the murders had any connection with Judaism. It is neither esoteric, nor intellectual. Just a plea from a frightened soul to the rumour mongers and anti-semites to live and let live. Perhaps a translation would read, "the Jews did not do anything and we will not accept the blame." As for the sterotypical apron?? I'm lost there. Thanking you for your consideration and best wishes for the coming year. Rabbi Leen
Author: Desdinova Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 12:31 pm
Hi everyone! All the above could only be said IF Jack wrote it, if he didn't, then it's all useless. When I said about the stereotypical apron, I meant about this book I read not that long ago about Victorian London, and it gave various sterotypes that Londoners and the English saw Jews like as a whole. For example, the big nose. Among these, was that they were mostly butchers (in the same way that people from Pakistan own corner shops) If most Londoners held this belief, and the graffiti regarded Jews, then a Jew could have been Jack in the eyes of the populace, which (I think) is one of the main reasons Warren cleaned it off. Cheers, Des
Author: Bob_C Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 01:02 pm
Hi all, I admit to being a bit lost over Jewish people and aprons, as Rabbi Leen also admits and is in a much better position as I am to judge. As the house was occupied mainly by Jewish people, I doubt if the graffiti had been allowed to stand, even if it wasn't to be considered as specially anti-Jewish. Being chalked, it were the matter of moments to deface it. As with the Lusk kidney, I feel there may have been a breath of Jack here, a fleeting moment when the bugger left a clue that we can't unravel. He was there, in or at that entrance. He could, of course, have thrown the apron piece in at passing, and not seen this message. He could have chalked it, leaving the apron piece as marker, as signpost to his words. The writer must have known that mainly Jews lived there. Was he himself a Jew? Would a Jew write such a message about himself and his fellow race? Or was it a Gentile, venting some of his anti-semetic spleen on the wall of this house? Could I, under circumstances, write such a message and mean what I want to mean? Best regards Bob
Author: Diana Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 01:53 pm
What about lighting? If it was pitch dark at the time the piece of apron was ditched and the graffito was already there, Jack could have quite easily missed it. If there was a streetlight, then it is more likely he wrote it because it is difficult to write in the pitch dark. I somehow can't picture him with a lantern (although anything is possible).
Author: Desdinova Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 02:40 pm
Hi all, Perhaps, Jack did not intend to leave the apron at all? Most serial killers take a souveneir of the killing with them, and if it was dark as Diana says, he might not necesarily notice if he dropped the apron in haste. I have heard a number of theories where JTR is believed to be schizophrenic, and so could have stopped to write the graffiti immediately after eluding capture from the police at that time.That is of course, if he wrote it. Cheers, Des
Author: Bob Hinton Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 04:32 pm
Hello everyone, First off the nearest light was way down the street, the stairwell would have been in darkness. Murderers do scribble things on walls, they do leave chalked messages, but look at how and why they do it. It is usually because they want to communicate something, either their rage (helter skelter) or frustration or a cry for help ( for heavens sake catch me before I kill more I cannot control myself) Now look at the actual messages left, what do you notice about them. They are written with passion, they are big, bold, brassy they shout to the heavens their message 'Bang bang I'll be back' Now look at the Goulston graffito. Written in a small neat round schoolboy hand with the largest letter less than an inch. There is no passion in this missive, no one seems to even know what the writer is trying to say,in my opinion whoever wrote this was not the person who recently hacked and eviscerated a human being a few hundred yards away. Just as a matter of interest has anyone tried writing the message in a neat schoolboy hand with relatively small letters on painted brick in the dark. I have and it ain't easy. By the way someone said that the City police went through Wentworth model dwellings. Since this was on the Mets patch I would be interested to know where this came from. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Jon Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 05:09 pm
Bob Let me quote from the Eddowes inquest papers... '[Det. Halse speaking]..."When Hunt returned (Detective Sergeant Baxter Hunt - City Police) an enquiry was made at every tenement of the building but we could gain no tidings of anyone going in likely to be the murderer"...' (page 41) Also, '...Mr crawford said that he could call witnesses to prove that a vigilant search was made in all the dwellinghouses in and around Goulston Street...' (Manchester Guardian, Oct. 12th 1888) Regards, Jon
Author: Ashling Friday, 31 December 1999 - 03:49 am
Hi all. JON: So, you're saying you have no knowledge of actual records of the police - City or Met, asking specifically about the graffiti? And why would the tenants volunteer info on something they couldn't see - because it had been washed off? Arrgh! One question always leads to another on this case. BTW, I'd really like to know the names of the tenants ... Finding out the list is so short is encouraging news. Best regards, Janice
Author: Diana Friday, 31 December 1999 - 07:43 am
Some more thoughts on the content of the graffito: The only misspelled word is Juwes. First of all the misspelling tells us we are not dealing with an educated person. That is confirmed by the use of the double negative. Secondly, the writer is probably a Gentile because even if it were an uneducated Jewish person he probably would not misspell the name of his own ethnic group and religion. The graffito could be an attack on the Jewish people, or it could be a defense. To the uneducated mind the use of a double negative provides emphasis. They do not realize that the one negative cancels out the other. It could mean that the Jews are blameless or it could mean that the Jews are good at escaping retribution for what they have done. I want to reiterate at this point that while I dispassionately tear this message apart it in no way reflects my views. I have seen the films of the holocaust and they sicken me.
Author: Desdinova Friday, 31 December 1999 - 08:56 am
Hi all, We are either dealing with an undeducated person, or an very well educated person pretending to be uneducated. And as Diana says, the person is either very Jewish or completely anti-sematic. I was just wondering, would Warren have read the letters Jack (supposedly) sent? If so, would he recognise the hand writing style, and if it matched or not? Thanks, Des
Author: Jon Friday, 31 December 1999 - 09:29 am
Janice Ok, for your sake we'll assume no-one asked about the graffiti, the press were not interested, the police were too stupid & the officials wanted a cover-up, afterall it was obviously a masonic conspiracy. :-) (No Janice, unfortunately we can only rely on the police doing there duty. Some of the police paperwork left gives us a little insite to the investigation, alas what is left is very spars. The police were very thorough, very diligent and left no stone unturned in an attempt to catch this villian. I think the Jack the Ripper case, from a police perspective would make an interesting book, but I suggest that something in the order of 95% of all the official paperwork ever put to print, is missing from the archives.) As far as the names go, their is a census list available I believe, but not actually 1888, but another close year '92?. And it was already pointed out by one researcher that a Kosminski was resident there, maybe reported in a back-issue of Ripperana? Happy New Year Ashling, to you & yours. Regards, Jon
Author: Bob Hinton Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 04:42 am
Dear Everyone, A few more points. There seems to be a train of thought along the lines of Was the author uneducated or Was he educated trying to appear uneducated? I think both schools of thought are off centre. Lets take the truly uneducated person, with very little communication skills. It is a human trait that we all steer clear of that of which we are afraid or unfamiliar with. The basic fear of darkness stems from this as the dark contains only the unknown. A truly uneducated person therefore has a lack of communication skills that is evident in his speech and in his writing, both are truncated and often contain words outside the normal pattern of speech. For example discussion or debate with a truly uneducated person quickly dissolves into him or her quickly peppering their entire argument with requests to '•••• off'(can I say that?)and other four letter words. In other words their inability to communicate shows itself in a truncation of speech and an inability to express oneself. (anyone present at the Michael Barret interview will know exactly what I mean) This is noticeable in all walks of life, the comedian who favours the snappy one liners finds his audience to be completely diferent from the raconteur who relates amusing stories at length. Graffiti is often in the same manner. Writing is shortened not expanded. Look around you, how many slogans of more than ten words can you find. Look for the shortest contributions to these boards and draw your own conclusion. Therefore a truly uneducated person writing the Goulston st graffiti would write something along the lines of ' The jews done it' or conversley 'The jews didn't do it'. An educated person on the other hand trying to appear uneducated would probably write 'The joos dun it' or something along those lines. Apart from the apparent mis-spelling of the word Jewes everything else is aok. Not much of a disguise there. I believe that the peson who wrote that, first of all was not the killer, and in all probability was someone for whom the written word was not a familiar tool. Now this could be an immigrant, it could equally be a schoolchild or someone just starting his or her education. The author is despeately trying to convey something but his ignorance leads him along tortuous alleys of syntax and double negative mixed in with a healthy dose of bad grammar. Next time a child writes something notice how much effort they put into each word, every letter, and look how pleased they are with the result which to them is a model of clarity but to you may be incomprehensible. If I was a betting man I would say look for a male aged about 10 to 13, immigrant been in the country about 3 years, almost certainly Jewish, and connected to the clothing trade, with a high possibility of being a tailors apprentice. Anyone for searching the 1891 census, look for that block of flats and the one next door. all the best Bob Hinton
Author: Diana Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 07:52 am
I'm wondering how high or low on the wall the message was written. When writing on the chalkboard in my classroom I have noticed it is not difficult to maintain a neat hand when operating at or above eye level. However, as one progresses downward the wrist has to be cocked more and more until either the writing gets very sloppy or one is forced to sit on a low chair or kneel on the floor.
Author: Leanne Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 07:59 am
G'day everyone, I think that an innocent Jew,(resident or not), would not come forward to own-up to writing the graffito, for fear of being wrongly accused of connection to the Whitechapel Murders. Especially if he was a child. As Desdinova points out, 'the police were not trusted by the Jews' and the entire Whitechapel population was frightened. It was pitch dark, and Paley points out in his book, that 'The People' of the 14th of October, reports that the capital letters were about 3 quarters of a inch in height, and the little letters were proportionately smaller. That would mean that the whole thing was about the size of a human hand. The point I am trying to make, is that it would have been extremely difficult. If Jack wanted to leave a clue, even a mis-leading one, I think he would have left it at the scene of the crime, where it could be found. Police searched for clues, and didn't find any, at the scenes of the other murders. It could have narrowed the police search to his 'front door', whichever way its 'double-meaning' was taken. I believe that the graffiti was put there, shortly before Jack wiped his hands and knife and threw away the apron, to get rid of any evidence. I believe the author was educated, but pretending to be less so, because 'Juwes' was the only misspelt word and the other words, (which, by the way, were mostly three letter words), weren't. Look at the words 'Blamed' & 'nothing', (both spelt correctly). LEANNE!
Author: Leanne Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 08:07 am
G'day All, I think that if the murderer wanted to scribble something on a wall, he would have written it in blood and not bothered to pull a piece of chalk from his pocket, which would have wasted a few more seconds. LEANNE!
Author: Diana Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 08:18 am
I just reread the old posts. It apparently was written low on the wall. In order to do that the writer would have had to squat or kneel. Trust me on this one. I have this image in my mind of Jack, hotly pursued, rushing down Goulston St. and then coming to a screeching halt outside Wentworth Model Dwellings. He drops the piece of apron and takes out a piece of chalk. He kneels down on the cement (cobblestones?) Then, laying down his bloody knife he pulls out a book of matches and a lantern. He strikes a match or two, gets the lantern lit and proceeds to write in a rounded schoolboy hand. When he is done, he blows out the lantern, gathers up lantern, chalk, burnt matches, unused matches and knife. Thrusting all of these things inside his coat (including the hot lantern) he tears off down the street and escapes the manhunt. (Likely?) Another thought occurred to me. Was there a lot of graffiti in the area? I'm not up very much on the laws of probability, but if there was graffiti all over the place, wouldn't the likelihood of the apron being dropped near a graffiti increase? That would also explain why the residents of Wentworth didn't notice or comment on this particular one. We tune out the commonplace. Does anybody know exactly how low on the wall the message was written?
Author: Leanne Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 08:26 am
G'day Diana, Please read my post above, to find out the only record I've found to describe the size of the graffiti. You may have overlooked it, because you are obviously on-line at the same time as me. LEANNE!
Author: Diana Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 09:16 am
Using the spacing in Bob's post of December 28, I wrote out the message on a piece of paper to your size specifications and you are right about size. The fact that the first three lines are capitalized might indicate that this person had written poetry in the past (in poetry the first letter of each line is usually capitalized). It might also mean that the writer had been taught to capitalize the first letter of each sentence and had gotten mixed up and capitalized each line instead. The size of the letters is that which is currently used in teaching penmanship to first or second graders, however this may not be significant since it was on a brick wall. The writer may have been influenced by the bricks as I can't picture anyone trying to write on the mortar between them. Using the above size and spacing information I think the following would have fit neatly on one brick: The Juwes are The men that The next brick below it would have contained: Will not be Blamed and the last brick underneath would have had: for nothing. The bricks explain the odd spacing.