Can we profile the Ripper from the GSG?

[DJA]

Hello Sam,

First of all props on using a word like"philosemitic". Stuff like that hasn't been seen since Lynn Cates was a regular poster (who I hope returns some day).

You might have an argument for a secondary interpretation but that seems to be interpreting the message in a vacuum. If seen in the light of being part of a "graffiti war" back and forth between two camps (Jews and non-Jews) and relating to other graffiti in the neighborhood then I don't think a pro-Jewish interpretation is so far fetched.

c.d.

Suspect Jack was philosemitic,Judeophilic even.

The Juwes are not to blame!

Crikey!

[c.d.]

Suspect Jack was philosemitic,Judeophilic even.

The Juwes are not to blame!

Crikey!

Ok. Now I feel like I graduated from grade school only with the help of political influence. Sheesh! I am going to go look up some of dem big woids.

c.d.

[DJA]

In a report op 6 November 1888, superintendent Thomas Arnold wrote that the writing was "on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings. It was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out of the Building."

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4923/18921.jpg

[Sam Flynn]

I don't think a pro-Jewish interpretation is so far fetched.

I wouldn't say the philosemitic interpretation is far-fetched at all, CD, just a "secondary" reading, with the anti-semitic reading being the most obvious one.

[Sam Flynn]

Maybe JTR was also in the Police station when Eddowes was brought in and heard her give the name Nothing.

Rather unlikely, to say the least. Again, might the police not have been interested in tracking this - as yet unmentioned - other person down?.

Alternatively, he could have asked her her name when he met her a dbeen also told Nothing.

More likely she'd have given another made-up, but realistic, name, like "Mary Ann Kelly", for example. Besides, in this scenario, how could he have known that her telling him that her name was "Nothing" would have had any significance to the police, such that he felt compelled to include it in his chalked message?

BTW, I'm still not convinced that what went into Bayfield's ledger was merely the word "Nothing", i.e. that she gave no answer, but that when this was read out at the inquest, it was misunderstood by journalists as if she'd actually said the word herself.

[c.d.]

Ok. Pretty much the only word I haven't had to look up in this whole GSG discussion is chalk so I am out of here. Have a good evening all.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

BTW, I'm still not convinced that what went into Bayfield's ledger was merely the word "Nothing", i.e. that she gave no answer, but that when this was read out at the inquest, it was misunderstood by journalists as if she'd actually said the word herself.

I thought that might be a possibility too, Sam. But I've been giing through the inquest reports and so far all have seemed to say she made a positive reply which was "Nothing". By the way, it was PC Robinson who reported this, Byfield reports simply that she was unable to give her name and address when she first arrived at the station.

[Joshua Rogan]

She was released 5 hours after being arrested.
At best her blood alcohol level is down by .05%.

Sgt Byfield: It was quite possible for a person to be very drunk at a quarter to nine and sober at one o'clock.

[Sam Flynn]

I thought that might be a possibility too, Sam. But I've been giing through the inquest reports and so far all have seemed to say she made a positive reply which was "Nothing". By the way, it was PC Robinson who reported this, Byfield reports simply that she was unable to give her name and address when she first arrived at the station.

Thanks for the correction, Josh. Mind you, the fact that Byfield reports that she was unable to give her name might add some support to the suggestion that she actually said nothing, as opposed to said "Nothing".

[Sam Flynn]

She and Jack arrive at almost the same time and go inside.

What a stroke of luck on his part! How was he to know that she'd be released at around 1 in the morning?

[Pierre]

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?

There are two perspectives: Misspelling and misreading. The first concept is a small box where the same answers are produced over and over again. Thinking from the other perspective is almost never discussed.

And yet the ONLY word in the GSG that is not understood is the word Juwes.

So the author could spell.

But was the GSG clearly readable?

Obviously not. The evidence is that there were different versions of the interpretation of the text produced depending on who produced them.

Pierre

[John G]

There are two perspectives: Misspelling and misreading. The first concept is a small box where the same answers are produced over and over again. Thinking from the other perspective is almost never discussed.

And yet the ONLY word in the GSG that is not understood is the word Juwes.

So the author could spell.

But was the GSG clearly readable?

Obviously not. The evidence is that there were different versions of the interpretation of the text produced depending on who produced them.

Pierre

He could correctly spell certain words. We are not entitled to infer from that fact that he could correctly spell all words.

[Pierre]

He could correctly spell certain words. We are not entitled to infer from that fact that he could correctly spell all words.

We can only infer from the GSG. All of the words in the GSG except from one word were spelled correctly.

The interpretations of the GSG were different between persons who read it.

Therefore we must also discuss misreading.

[John G]

We can only infer from the GSG. All of the words in the GSG except from one word were spelled correctly.

The interpretations of the GSG were different between persons who read it.

Therefore we must also discuss misreading.

Yes, one out of twelve words are spelt incorrectly. Nothing particularly significant about that: people misspell words all the time. Put simply, its not the same as one in a thousand words being incorrectly spelt, which would be significant.

And, as has already been pointed out, there was also a grammatical error indicating the author did not have a perfect command of the English language.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, one out of twelve words are spelt incorrectly. Nothing particularly significant about that: people misspell words all the time. Put simply, its not the same as one in a thousand words being incorrectly spelt, which would be significant.

And, as has already been pointed out, there was also a grammatical error indicating the author did not have a perfect command of the English language.

Hi John,

My original point was that you would have thought it likely, though not impossible of course, that someone who could spell 'nothing' and 'blamed' could be expected to spell 'jews' correctly. Therefore could the mis-spelling have been deliberate? Of course, it might not have been. But because I believe that on most occasions someone being able to spell the two longer words would be equally able to spell the shorter one I think that it's at least possible that the mid-spelling was intentional. If it was, then why?
If we dismiss the Masonic connection, and I do, all that I can think of is either that it was meant as insulting or dismissive of Jews, or that it was mis-spelt intentionally for another reason. The only one that I can come up with is to give the impression of being less educated than he actually was.