Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daniel Barnett was at the VH in 1891. Can anyone place him there earlier?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      I don't foresee this as a long thread but I thought that I'd try and get a few opinions. I imagine that if we took a poll asking if the GSG was written by Jack or not that the 'nots' would win? Possibly even by a significant margin. I've always leaned toward the opinion that it was. I'm a little like Cadosche though; just on the other side of the fence. So perhaps I should have called this thread 'can we profile the writer of the GSG?'

      My point is one that I imagine has been made before, more than once, so apologies for going over old ground but hey, this is a forum about 1888 after all!

      A thing that's always interested in me and I've wondered if it's at all suggestive is the fact that the writer managed to spell 'blamed' and 'nothing' correctly whilst mis-spelling the word 'Jews.' With the double negative hinting at a not-so-good grasp of basic grammar and the spelling of 'juwes' showing poor spelling the impression that we get is of someone of poor education. But if he could spell two tricky words correctly and yet get a simpler one wrong are we dealing with someone trying to downplay or hide his level of education? If so, then surely someone would only do that if they felt that their level of education was considerably above that of an average Whitechapel resident? The writing was also said to be in a good schoolboy hand hinting at decent penmanship.

      So what can we deduce if anything?

      Could the spelling of 'juwes' have been a deliberate insult. An example of 'I'm not even going to spell your name correctly.' Like someone talking to Nigel Farrage but pronouncing his surname to rhyme with marriage instead of barrage as an insult.

      Was Jack a decently educated man who had come down in the world? Perhaps someone who blamed the Jews and prostitutes for the degraded area in which he was forced to live? Perhaps he felt that the Jews never received any blame for the 'harm' that they had caused? Perhaps the double negative is also mocking local speech and the locals poor education? So can we also see a man who sees himself as superior to those around him. Someone to whom fate has been cruel?

      Someone who felt justified in taking revenge?
      Yes, we can profile the Ripper from the GSG. But we need external data to make it possible.

      Comment


      • I'll throw this in and you can deride at will.

        Perhaps the choice of Goulston Street was a deliberate clue. In the area at that time was a Levi Goldstein, sometimes corrupted in the workhouse records as Goulston. He was a Hebrew tailor aged around 35 in 1888 and seemed to move address frequently - Brick Lane (1886), Osborn Place (1888) and maybe Booth Street (1888). If not a clue to him, maybe another Goldstein perhaps.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MysterySinger View Post
          If not a clue to him, maybe another Goldstein perhaps.
          Leon Goldstein, of black bag fame?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

            What are the only two pieces of direct evidence that specifically use and or implicate Jews?

            The gsg and George Hutchinson's suspect. One following right after another.

            NOt only that but I think the gsg and hutchs ostentatiously dressed Jewish suspect both exhibit signs of dislike, jealousy and blame.
            Hi Abby,

            It's Stephen here, author of Jewbaiter Jack The Ripper: New Evidence & Theory. My daughter's kindly allowed me to use her Casebook account, as I don't have one yet.

            I'd just like to add to your points above, the cry of “Lipski” (an anti-Semitic epithet) as delivered in Berner Street, only a few hours previous to the graffito's discovery in Goulston Street. As well as the location of the murders on the night in question: a Jewish radical club / newspaper, and behind the Great Synagogue (Mitre Square).

            More specifically, in reference to the subject matter of this thread, I consider it a very real possibility that graffito was a reference to the anti-Jewish riots which had followed Chapman’s demise. In other words, the graffito's author was mindful that the murders were being blamed on the Jewish community (as he well intended) and that he maliciously sought to reinforce the point: that the rioters had been correct in their assumption. As you may be aware my thesis proposes that Jack The Ripper was an anti-Semite.

            I also note your and Sam's geographic reference/s to the Victoria Home, and would like to add that, if indeed, there was some kind of back yard access to the property via Castle Court, the fact that there were was an “external back washing room” and “back yard w.c.” may potentially have afforded the killer some degree of privacy and anonymity of movement. The quotes here come from never previously published correspondence between the owner of the Commercial Street property, Miss Amelia Levy and the lessee, Lord Radstock, providing a glimpse of its physical make up at the commencement of the lease in 1887 and 1888.

            Kind regards.
            Last edited by cnr; 08-21-2017, 04:22 PM.

            Comment


            • Hello Stephen,

              First of all welcome to the boards.

              I think making a Jewish connection to events of that night is stretching it to say the least. I personally don't think that Jack wrote the GSG but even if he did I certainly don't see anything particularly malicious in its intent which seems rather strange given the chance he took to apparently vent his anger. To me, it is more on the level of a customer who thought the butcher was resting his thumb on the scale when he rang up the meat.

              And even if we could be sure that the intent of the GSG was anti-semetic it would still not tell us that the author was a Jew hater as it is entirely possible that he himself was a Jew and simply wanted to throw the police off the track.

              c.d.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by cnr View Post
                Hi Abby,

                It's Stephen here, author of Jewbaiter Jack The Ripper: New Evidence & Theory. My daughter's kindly allowed me to use her Casebook account, as I don't have one yet.

                I'd just like to add to your points above, the cry of “Lipski” (an anti-Semitic epithet) as delivered in Berner Street, only a few hours previous to the graffito's discovery in Goulston Street. As well as the location of the murders on the night in question: a Jewish radical club / newspaper, and behind the Great Synagogue (Mitre Square).

                More specifically, in reference to the subject matter of this thread, I consider it a very real possibility that graffito was a reference to the anti-Jewish riots which had followed Chapman’s demise. In other words, the graffito's author was mindful that the murders were being blamed on the Jewish community (as he well intended) and that he maliciously sought to reinforce the point: that the rioters had been correct in their assumption. As you may be aware my thesis proposes that Jack The Ripper was an anti-Semite.

                I also note your and Sam's geographic reference/s to the Victoria Home, and would like to add that, if indeed, there was some kind of back yard access to the property via Castle Court, the fact that there were was an “external back washing room” and “back yard w.c.” may potentially have afforded the killer some degree of privacy and anonymity of movement. The quotes here come from never previously published correspondence between the owner of the Commercial Street property, Miss Amelia Levy and the lessee, Lord Radstock, providing a glimpse of its physical make up at the commencement of the lease in 1887 and 1888.

                Kind regards.
                Hi Stephen
                Yes I think there was a good chance the ripper was an anti Semite in general. My take on it is that he might also have a specific Jewish man (or specific type of Jewish man) in mind. Which involved a lot of jealousy.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                  Hello Stephen,

                  First of all welcome to the boards.

                  Many thanks for the welcome aboard, c.d.. Wishing you a swift journey on your way to Commissioner.

                  Comment


                  • Thank you, Stephen,

                    I think I am going to require some political influence or will have to grease a few palms to accomplish that.

                    c.d.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by cnr View Post
                      More specifically, in reference to the subject matter of this thread, I consider it a very real possibility that graffito was a reference to the anti-Jewish riots which had followed Chapman’s demise. In other words, the graffito's author was mindful that the murders were being blamed on the Jewish community (as he well intended) and that he maliciously sought to reinforce the point: that the rioters had been correct in their assumption.
                      Absolutely, CNR.
                      Supt Arnold was thinking the same too.

                      What does this tell us ?
                      The killer was local and witnessed the trouble on the day of Chapman`s murder ?
                      The killer was Jewish and the GSG was in response to the accusations ?
                      The killer was not Jewish and trying to cause another riot ?

                      Comment


                      • And Walter Dew was a beat cop at the time who didn't put any stock in the GSG because such graffiti was apparently commonplace back then. We'll never know either way but I'm inclined to agree with Wally on this one. The killer ducked into the alleyway for whatever reason, deposited the apron piece and scarpered. It just happened to land near a piece of vague graffiti about der Juden.

                        If this was the Ripper's big moment to speak to the world, he failed spectacularly. Just some vague, probably antisemitic gabber. It said absolutely nothing about the murders or the murderer himself.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                          And Walter Dew was a beat cop at the time who didn't put any stock in the GSG because such graffiti was apparently commonplace back then. We'll never know either way but I'm inclined to agree with Wally on this one. The killer ducked into the alleyway for whatever reason, deposited the apron piece and scarpered. It just happened to land near a piece of vague graffiti about der Juden.

                          If this was the Ripper's big moment to speak to the world, he failed spectacularly. Just some vague, probably antisemitic gabber. It said absolutely nothing about the murders or the murderer himself.
                          Did he really fail spectacularly? Sent the police into a tizzy, helped settle the hash of the commish, and the confusion lasts till this day!

                          And to those who say well why wasn't it written bigger or more clear in its message? Who knows, but shouldn't any graffiti be written bigger and more clear? If your mad at sam the butcher, or just want to spew anti Semitic insults it should also be big and clear like DONT BUY FROM SAM, or JEWS ARE PIGS!

                          See what I mean.

                          The killer knew exactly why he wrote it and what it means and that's all that matters, not what we think he should have wrote.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                            And Walter Dew was a beat cop at the time who didn't put any stock in the GSG because such graffiti was apparently commonplace back then.
                            The police thought the GSG was undoubtedly written by the murderer
                            Chief Inspector Henry Moore A on 18 October 1896, MEPO 3/142, ff. 157-9:
                            You are aware of this internal memo ?

                            If this was the Ripper's big moment to speak to the world, he failed spectacularly..
                            I think the killer`s big moment to speak to the world had been an hour or so earlier in Mitre Square.

                            Just some vague, probably antisemitic gabber.
                            God knows what was going thru his head. He`d just been rummaging around in Kate Eddowes belly and the police were on his tail..

                            It said absolutely nothing about the murders or the murderer himself.
                            Perhaps the killer thought the mutilation of Kate Eddowes was enough, and had assumed that we would know the message was from him because of the rag he placed beneath it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                              The police thought the GSG was undoubtedly written by the murderer
                              Chief Inspector Henry Moore A on 18 October 1896, MEPO 3/142, ff. 157-9:
                              You are aware of this internal memo ?

                              I think the killer`s big moment to speak to the world had been an hour or so earlier in Mitre Square.

                              God knows what was going thru his head. He`d just been rummaging around in Kate Eddowes belly and the police were on his tail..
                              Plus, he was crazy to start with. Perhaps, he thought he was being very plain. "Here is how I operate." apron piece placed. "But you are not blaming the Jews for their murder" GSG -- Stride killed at the Berner Street club. The hue and cry was "Another woman has been murdered." meaning the killer has struck again -- at Berner Street. Only he had not and he wanted the police to know that.

                              Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                              Perhaps the killer thought the mutilation of Kate Eddowes was enough, and had assumed that we would know the message was from him because of the rag he placed beneath it.
                              Hello,
                              I agree with you, Jon. Plus the follow-up kidney in a box sent to Lusk was probably in the same vein.

                              I suspect that Elizabeth Stride was not the work of the killer of at least Nichols and Chapman, and the GSG, apron drop and Lusk letter were JtR's way of attempting to get the authorities to recognize that. He was saying THIS is MINE -- this is how I operate -- and perhaps also saying Stride had been killed by someone at the club, but was definitely NOT his work.

                              Consider a modern day serial killer who did not communicate with police until someone else took credit for his work. He started with graffiti. When that did not work, he sent letters to the media (not the police). I find this an interesting parallel and wonder . . .



                              curious

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X