An experiment

[Henry Flower]

The really clever thing is that that he didn't for one second think that anyone would uncover a suitable five letter word which, after all, is what "Juwes" is. Oh no, he was smart enough to realise that a diagraph constructed from the Latin does not appear on a wall by accident. We had to be looking at six letters.

Exactly this. Exactly.

[Bridewell]

Historians and researchers haven't been able to resolve the mystery of the GSG.

Always assuming that there was a mystery to resolve.

[Bridewell]

w = v+v.

Pierre

Actually it's u+u. (The clue is in the name of the letter - double 'u').

[Bridewell]

Because he thinks w= v v

So the word must be juvves. Otherwise it makes about much sense as most of what he posts.

Perhaps it's 'luvvies'.

[Pierre]

Actually it's u+u. (The clue is in the name of the letter - double 'u').

Hi Bridewell,

It originates from the Latin v. And the pronouncing is from the Greek ypsilon (upsilon), which was the original for the Latin v.

So you have the u from the Greeks.

Congratulations.

Pierre

[Bridewell]

If the word was not 'Juwes' or 'Jeuws' I think Robert Donston Stevenson's suggestion that it might have been 'Juives' is as valid as any. Where I think Pierre has a point of sorts is in suggesting that a man who can spell 'nothing' correctly (i.e. without using the 'u' which phonetic spelling would suggest) would be unlikely to insert a 'u' into a spelling of the word 'Jews'. I'm drawn to the notion that the GSG has no relevance to the Whitechapel Murders beyond a coincidental proximity to the missing piece of the Eddowes apron. Whether relevant or not, what and why was the error made by whoever did write it?

A couple of possibilities:

The writer's first language was not English: a German or French speaker might, from force of habit, begin to write 'Juden' or 'Juifs'.

The GSG was written and then the spelling of this word was corrected - which might explain reports that the writing was blurred.

(Having said all that I favour Halse's version anyway ).

[Abby Normal]

all the writings of the word have the "u" involved with the spelling-so I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture that it was some version of jews with a u.

and the fact that it was written with a common cockney double negative and on the building of a predominantly jewish building with a saying that in no way can be regarded as positive, I would posit that it was written by a non jewish east ender with out perfect spelling skills.

Its really not more complicated than that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi:

Although I still lean heavily toward the idea that the message was written by Jack ( due to the fact that I can see no acceptable reason why he would have taken a piece of cloth away from the scene other than as a 'signpost,') I think that a possible explaination could be that the Ripper was considerably more educated than your average Whitechapel inhabitant. I'm not talking a Prince here or anything like that but maybe someone like Druitt. Not necessarily Druitt himself but someone of his education. The spelling of 'juwes' and the double negative could just be an attempt by the killer to appear less educated. Someone would only feel it necessary to hide their level of education if it was noticeably better than everyone else's in the area and they felt that it may give the police a possible clue to his identity. Especially if he lived locally. Say a highly educated man who had fallen on hard times. A resentful man who sees immorality everywhere and blames the Jews for the fact he has to live in such a horrible place.
Maybe the meaning is a taunt and possibly an anti-Semitic one. Could he be saying 'there's even been a body found next to a Jewish club (Berner Street) and the police still won't blame the Jews!)
Regards
HS

[DJA]

Actually it's u+u. (The clue is in the name of the letter - double 'u').

Plural being double-ues (Brown and Kiddle,1870).

[GUT]

all the writings of the word have the "u" involved with the spelling-so I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture that it was some version of jews with a u.

and the fact that it was written with a common cockney double negative and on the building of a predominantly jewish building with a saying that in no way can be regarded as positive, I would posit that it was written by a non jewish east ender with out perfect spelling skills.

Its really not more complicated than that.

But didn't everyone mistake u for d or g or some such rubbish, after all it's an easy mistake not like his argument about F and T.

Getting more certain by the post that he just makes stuff up.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;417145]Hi:

Although I still lean heavily toward the idea that the message was written by Jack ( due to the fact that I can see no acceptable reason why he would have taken a piece of cloth away from the scene other than as a 'signpost,') I think that a possible explaination could be that the Ripper was considerably more educated than your average Whitechapel inhabitant. I'm not talking a Prince here or anything like that but maybe someone like Druitt. Not necessarily Druitt himself but someone of his education.

Yes, and Druitt worked as a barrister. If we take Druitt as an example, hypothesizing that he wrote the GSG, we can hypothesize that he wanted to act as a judge instead of a barrister and using that title in the GSG.

The spelling of 'juwes' and the double negative could just be an attempt by the killer to appear less educated. Someone would only feel it necessary to hide their level of education if it was noticeably better than everyone else's in the area and they felt that it may give the police a possible clue to his identity.

On the other hand, if Druitt had a reason for communicating with someone he knew and wanted the communication to be clear, he would not intentionally spell the word wrong.

The variation in the sources is the problem and that problem is with the ones who constructed copies of the GSG.

Especially if he lived locally. Say a highly educated man who had fallen on hard times. A resentful man who sees immorality everywhere and blames the Jews for the fact he has to live in such a horrible place.

I would really like to understand why a serial killer would kill destitute women if his actual target was Jewish men. Please explain this to me if you can.

Regards, Pierre

[ohrocky]

Pierre: I would really like to understand why a serial killer would kill destitute women if his actual target was Jewish men. Please explain this to me if you can.

As a self-proclaimed historian you appear to have over-looked the fact that throughout history, and across many countries, Jews have often been targeted during times of political, religious or economic unrest. From the mass slaughter of the Jews in York in 1190, the anti-Jewish pogroms of the 19thC in the Russian Empire, and of course the Holocaust (amongst others).

Why would you think it unlikely that in the East End of London in the LVP there might be those who would seek to lay blame for the killings (IF the GSG has any connection to the killings) on the Jews?

The author may have been blaming the Jews for other things!

There is absolutely no solid evidence that the GSG was written by the killer, nor that it actually refers to the killings at all. And it is extremely unlikely there ever will be. Therefore trying to reconstruct what was written so that it fits in with your "I think I have found him" is, IMO, a fools errand.

[Bridewell]

Pierre: I would really like to understand why a serial killer would kill destitute women if his actual target was Jewish men. Please explain this to me if you can.

As a self-proclaimed historian you appear to have over-looked the fact that throughout history, and across many countries, Jews have often been targeted during times of political, religious or economic unrest. From the mass slaughter of the Jews in York in 1190, the anti-Jewish pogroms of the 19thC in the Russian Empire, and of course the Holocaust (amongst others).

Why would you think it unlikely that in the East End of London in the LVP there might be those who would seek to lay blame for the killings (IF the GSG has any connection to the killings) on the Jews?

The author may have been blaming the Jews for other things!

There is absolutely no solid evidence that the GSG was written by the killer, nor that it actually refers to the killings at all. And it is extremely unlikely there ever will be. Therefore trying to reconstruct what was written so that it fits in with your "I think I have found him" is, IMO, a fools errand.

Good post. As you say there is nothing, beyond the proximity of the apron piece, to link the GSG to the killings at all. If you went out in the small hours in central London, even today, and dumped a piece of apron you'd probably find, if you checked in the morning, that there was graffiti somewhere near where you'd dumped it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=ohrocky;417262]

Pierre: I would really like to understand why a serial killer would kill destitute women if his actual target was Jewish men. Please explain this to me if you can.

As a self-proclaimed historian you appear to have over-looked the fact that throughout history, and across many countries, Jews have often been targeted during times of political, religious or economic unrest. From the mass slaughter of the Jews in York in 1190, the anti-Jewish pogroms of the 19thC in the Russian Empire, and of course the Holocaust (amongst others).

Hi,

No. The pogroms and later* the Holocaust are not "overlooked". Do you think that the Whitechapel murderer killed destitute women because of those*?

Why would you think it unlikely that in the East End of London in the LVP there might be those who would seek to lay blame for the killings (IF the GSG has any connection to the killings) on the Jews?

If you hypothesize that you must hypothesize that

A) an anti Jewish person wrote the GSG and at the same time placed the apron from Eddowes, which he had collected at the murder site, there or

B) an anti Jewish person saw a piece of blood stained apron and thought "Oh, another murder by Jack the Ripper must have taken place" and took up a piece of chalk an wrote the GSG on the wall above it - all with the purpose of blaming the Jews for the killings.

The author may have been blaming the Jews for other things!

"May have" is not a good hypothesis if there is no evidence.

There is absolutely no solid evidence that the GSG was written by the killer, nor that it actually refers to the killings at all.

But above you said:

"Why would you think it unlikely that in the East End of London in the LVP there might be those who would seek to lay blame for the killings (IF the GSG has any connection to the killings) on the Jews?"

and then of course, a tree might fall in the woods even if you do not hear it.

Cheers, Pierre

[Henry Flower]

Pierre, I would be interested to know how many serial murderers do you think are actually directly targeting the root causes of their hatred and anger.

Aren't the actual victims *always* a proxy for the real target, on some level? If they were not, the killing would not continue.

I have no problem imagining a killer motivated by loathing of his world, a man who hates; hates women, hates prostitutes, hates foreigners, and who vents his loathing on the easiest, weakest targets.