Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

[DJA]

There is no evidence that states that the GSG was found directly above the apron. We get "above it on the wall", "on the wall above it", or even "in the same building" (rather vague that), but there's nothing that states that there was a direct, or "perpendicular", relationship between the two. In fact, if we take our two best witnesses, the apron was found "lying in the passage leading to the staircase" (PC Long), and the graffito was specified as being on the door-jamb (Warren); not directly above the apron at all.

Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
[Coroner] Did the writing appear to have been recently done? - I could not form an opinion.
[Coroner] Do I understand that you made a search in the model dwelling-house? - I went into the staircases.
[Coroner] Did you not make inquiries in the house itself? - No.
The Foreman: Where is the pocket-book in which you made the entry of the writing? - At Westminster.
[Coroner] Is it possible to get it at once? - I dare say.
Mr. Crawford: I will ask the coroner to direct that the book be fetched.
The Coroner: Let that be done.

[c.d.]

I would say the answer to that question is definitely no.

1. We don't know if the killer wrote the GSG.

2. We don't know if the message is meant to be pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish. Take your pick.

3. Assuming the killer did write the message, we have no way of knowing whether he was a Jew or a Gentile. Even if we were certain that the meaning is anti-Semetic, it doesn't necessarily follow that the writer was a Gentile. He could have been using the message as a red herring.

4. Nobody other than the author of it knows what the hell it means.

I don't think the killer wrote it.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm 90% certain it was written by the killer:
Found directly above the apron

There is no evidence that states that the GSG was found directly above the apron. We get "above it on the wall", "on the wall above it", or even "in the same building" (rather vague that), but there's nothing that states that there was a direct, or "perpendicular", relationship between the two. In fact, if we take our two best witnesses, the apron was found "lying in the passage leading to the staircase" (PC Long), and the graffito was specified as being on the door-jamb (Warren); not directly above the apron at all.

[DJA]

But how would her killer have known that?

curious

Either Eddowes or the police told him.

[Abby Normal]

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?

Hi HS
I'm 90% certain it was written by the killer:
Found directly above the apron
The killer had been interrupted by Jews that night
The building was new and predominantly Jewish- one of the residents would have wiped it off. It never saw the light of day.

As to meaning: double negatives were common and proper usage. I once read an expert in Victorian language say that it's most likely reading should be-Jews won't take the blame for anything.

It was written by a gentile local.

I don't think he was disguising anything about his class either, and the misspelling of Jews to me is probably done on purpose as a sign of disrespect. Like Churchill used to say Narzis, or something along those lines.

And yes I think this individual is mad at the world, and probably has delusions of grandeur, looking down on the whores and Jews and others that surround him.

[curious]

He essentially said,the Jews did not kill "nothing" and we know that was the "name" Eddowes gave the police.

Hmm!

But how would her killer have known that?

curious

[Robert]

A small shudder went up my spine.

You were expecting the imminent appearance of "The Diary of Caiaphas."

[Sam Flynn]

However, I think the author might have meant it in a general sense, perhaps even religiously, i.e. the Jews won't accept the blame for killing Christ.

I was in Christ Church, Spitalfields only yesterday - the first time I've actually been inside, believe it or not, despite umpteen visits to Whitechapel. I was amazed to find the lobby full of memorial plaques to those preachers and missionaries of Christ Church devoted to missionary work among the Jews of the area. (Christ Church seems to have served as a "base" for Christian missionaries to the Jews.) One plaque mentioned the good work of one proselyte to work with the Jews to put right the "wrongs of centuries", or words to that effect. I took "the wrongs of centuries" as a specific, if veiled, reference to the Jews' "complicity" in the crucifixion. A small shudder went up my spine.

[Harry D]

My take is that it’s supposed to mean that we shouldn’t blame the Jews without good reason

I beg to differ. I think the author is implying that Jews don't take responsibility for their actions, a mindset that is still prevalent in antisemitic circles today. Martin Fido took this interpretation as the basis for his 'ripped off customer' theory. However, I think the author might have meant it in a general sense, perhaps even religiously, i.e. the Jews won't accept the blame for killing Christ.

[Sam Flynn]

A mis-reading is always a possibility of course. You would have thought though with the number of people seeing it you would get a reasonable consensus.

This is perhaps where the mis-reading hypothesis gains a little support. If one source said that it was "Jews", but others said "Juwes" or even "Jewes" (etc), it could simply have been a case of an ambiguous visual stimulus being interpreted differently. It might just have been a wonkily-written (but correctly-spelt) "Jews" all along.

[DJA]

Reckon Jack used GSG as a red herring to draw attention towards the Flower and Dean/Hanbury Street area, where he did not live.

He essentially said,the Jews did not kill "nothing" and we know that was the "name" Eddowes gave the police.

It was the start of school term and Jack was not only carrying chalk but could also write in the dark. He was not tall.

Given his skill at Mitre Square,he might be a medical lecturer.

Early murders around Hanbury Street at night might indicate a dedicated worker on his way home from late night lectures.

Hmm!

[Herlock Sholmes]

A mid-reading is always a possibility of course. You would have thought though with the number of people seeing it you would get a reasonable consensus. The point doesn't alter if it was written juews. Something about the spelling appeared to draw attention? Maybe?

[FrankO]

Here are a couple of my thoughs, Micheal:

• The graffito has always struck me as a rather roundabout way of saying something
• My take is that it’s supposed to mean that we shouldn’t blame the Jews without good reason
• Which makes the graffito like a punishment line that children write at school

All the best,
Frank

[GUT]

I wouldn't be surprised if it came out closer to 50:50 - the GSG still pretty much divides opinion.The odd thing about that is that, given the substantial input that religious charitable movements had on improving working-class literacy (Sunday Schools, the various temperance movements, Christian charities etc), as well as the preponderance of Jewish immigrants on the streets of Whitechapel and stories about them in the press, I'd have expected that it was within the grasp of most people to spell the word "Jews" correctly. Perhaps it wasn't so much a mis-spelling, as a mis-reading?

I wouldn't rule out a mis-reading either.

[Sam Flynn]

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 wouldn't be surprised if it came out closer to 50:50 - the GSG still pretty much divides opinion.

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.'

The odd thing about that is that, given the substantial input that religious charitable movements had on improving working-class literacy (Sunday Schools, the various temperance movements, Christian charities etc), as well as the preponderance of Jewish immigrants on the streets of Whitechapel and stories about them in the press, I'd have expected that it was within the grasp of most people to spell the word "Jews" correctly. Perhaps it wasn't so much a mis-spelling, as a mis-reading?