The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[FrankO]

Hi Frank

Warren was determined enough to insist it was erased before it could even be photographed. He had the knowledge that the message had no connection with the apron or murder, and similar graffiti was common to the area. As did P.C. Long who put it in his notebook when he saw it. Why would the local Jewish community go nuts at something so innocuous and prevalent?

Hi Jon,

I’m not saying Warren knew or assumed that the message had no connection with the apron or murder. All I’m saying is that from the decision to erase the message it doesn’t follow that they believed the GSG was written by the Ripper.

Like Monty, I don’t think they feared that the Jewish community would go nuts, but rather the Gentile part, if they discovered new clues that might point to the Jews as possibly being involved in the ghastly murders. After all, the message was written in a neighborhood mainly inhabited by Jews, which very soon would be 'very much crowded by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London', as Warren wrote.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

I see you both ignored my post that points out the probability that if they assessed the "risk" potential of an ambiguous message correctly, the message would then most probably have been written after dark Saturday night.

I didn’t ignore it, Michael. I just think the message was only considered inflammatory because of the apron piece that was found close to it and that without it, it wouldn’t have been considered such a big deal.

Having said that, I’ve always been inclined to think the message was chalked after dark on Saturday night. Not only because of Arnolds remark in his report of 6 November (“it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out”), but also because I think some inhabitant sooner rather than later would have sponged it off.

For what it’s worth, I think he rather dropped it inside the entrance without seeing the writing than that he dropped it there on purpose because of the graffito. Maybe he stepped inside the entrance and out of view for a few seconds to wipe his knife and hands, dropped the rag without giving it another thought and left.

The best, Mike!
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

Arnolds remark in his report of 6 November - “it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out”

That remark has always intrigued me. Either Arnold knew that a significant proportion of the tenants of WMD had severe co-ordination problems, or he was talking out of his arse.

[FrankO]

I think you're right, Gareth. Having taken a look at some of the photographs of the entrance, Arnold's words only seem to make some sense if the graffito was directly at the bottom of those narrow stairs inside the entrance.

Inside the entrance there was room enough for one person to move and my guess is that the street entrance was some 120-130 cm wide, more than wide enough for one person to pass through without having to tough either jamb of the entrance.

[Aristocles]

Hello

Three points regarding the GSG.

Firstly, no occupants of the building confirmed the writing was there previously.

Secondly, despite all the anti-semitic writing in the area the police were determined to have it erased.

Thirdly, the message is written in lower case, as in a message rather than a statement.

Your second point has a certain eloquent simplicity. The notion has a logical tightness to it.

"If it's common then why be bothered to erase"

"If it's uncommon then it lends credibility to the scrawling"

It seems, in a case where the closest some folks get to a nexus is an acid jazz band from Sidney, yet they weave away. . . that others do not want to connect any dots. Skepticism is a rather powerful Archimedean Point PROVIDED one has the proper length lever.

[FrankO]

Your second point has a certain eloquent simplicity. The notion has a logical tightness to it.

"If it's common then why be bothered to erase"

Hi Aristocles,

Because this particular graffito, Arnold and Warren must have reasoned, would get much more attention than the average anti-semitic graffito (and than they hoped for), if they were to wait for enough daylight. This graffito would quite probably be placing Jews back into the spotlights of the public as the group that was hiding the Whitechapel murderer amongst them, or so they seem to have thought. According to Warren, the place would be crowded with Jews and Christians shortly, so he feared a riot and therefore bothered to erase. He simply did not have this problem with other graffiti.

All the best,
Frank

[The Good Michael]

Because this particular graffito, Arnold and Warren must have reasoned, would get much more attention than the average anti-semitic graffito (and than they hoped for), if they were to wait for enough daylight. This graffito would quite probably be placing Jews back into the spotlights of the public as the group that was hiding the Whitechapel murderer amongst them, or so they seem to have thought.

Frank,

I agree with this. Again, anti-Semitic graffiti wouldn't have had the capability of rousing the masses in such an area. What must have been read into the words by the officials was a message that seemed to be pro Jew and threatening, possibly because of the proximity to the apron, the combination of the two making a (perceived) strong statement. The writing was only anti-Semitic because of the damage a pro-Jew message could cause to strained relations between the Jewish and the greater communities. It was anti-Semitic in it's possible volatility and appearance of having been written by a Jew.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

What must have been read into the words by the officials was a message that seemed to be pro Jew and threatening, possibly because of the proximity to the apron...It was anti-Semitic in it's possible volatility and appearance of having been written by a Jew.

Unfortunately, we know that the very opposite was read into the graffiti by the police officials. Take Charles Warren, for example, who was responsible for ordering the obliteration of the message. His view was not that the message was written by a Jew, but rather that it was:

"evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews"

Both Donald Swanson and Sir Henry Smith echoed his sentiments.

There is certainly no evidence that Warren considered the message "pro-Jew", and he was was also on record as stating that the murders were committed by someone who wished to discredit Jews and socialists.

Hope this helps,

Ben

[Aristocles]

Hi Aristocles,

Because this particular graffito, Arnold and Warren must have reasoned, would get much more attention than the average anti-semitic graffito (and than they hoped for), if they were to wait for enough daylight. This graffito would quite probably be placing Jews back into the spotlights of the public as the group that was hiding the Whitechapel murderer amongst them, or so they seem to have thought. According to Warren, the place would be crowded with Jews and Christians shortly, so he feared a riot and therefore bothered to erase. He simply did not have this problem with other graffiti.

All the best,
Frank

Hello Frank:

I used two conditionals, id est, "if-then" statements. If one believes what you have stated, then it is "uncommon" and falls to the horns of the second. Thus why I liked his comment. Hope that is clear. My prior post was a bit convoluted. . .

Jay Gibson

[FrankO]

Hi Jay,

English not being my mother's tongue, I didn't quite get that, so thanks for clearing it up. Now I can see why you liked the comment.

Best regards,
Frank

[perrymason]

Its not the Jewish community that would have gone nuts Jon.

Monty

I believe you mean to infer they thought gentiles would see it and assume Jack was a Jew and cause violence on Jews.....for some bizarre reason. Without knowing what the message said its literal translation actually exonerates Jews from Blame....so I fail to see that logic.

Since almost certainly ONLY Jews would have seen it if by leaving the Model Homes, and it could have been covered by cloth to prevent anyone from the street from seeing it....its always been a weak excuse for erasing potential evidence.

For them to claim the message was a slight against the Jews they must have had some information we dont....cause the writing is not inflammatory in and of itself.

Why not write "Jews did it"...if the author had that intent....why a sarcastic or tongue in cheek wording if the writer just intended to Blame them?

Cheers Monty

[Sam Flynn]

I believe you mean to infer they thought gentiles would see it and assume Jack was a Jew and cause violence on Jews...

That's what Warren surmised, apparently - and I can see where he's coming from.

Without knowing what the message said its literal translation actually exonerates Jews from Blame...

It doesn't, Mike. The literal meaning is "Jews are slippery bastards".

[perrymason]

That's what Warren surmised, apparently - and I can see where he's coming from.
It doesn't, Mike. The literal meaning is "Jews are slippery bastards".

"The Juewes/Jewes/Juwes are the Men that will not be blamed for nothing"....literally means the male Jews will not be blamed for anything....which literally, predicts the outcome of any future investigations into their culpability for some act or acts.

The use of the future tense rather than perhaps "The Jews didnt do it", past tense,..... is suggestive of a future process that will clear the Jews of Blame.

I think the author likely meant what you said, but thats not what he wrote.

Best regards Sam

[FrankO]

"The Juewes/Jewes/Juwes are the Men that will not be blamed for nothing"....literally means the male Jews will not be blamed for anything....

Might it not also literally mean: the Jews will not be blamed without good reason?

Good night,
Frank

[Sam Flynn]

"The Juewes/Jewes/Juwes are the Men that will not be blamed for nothing"....literally means the male Jews will not be blamed for anything...

As a native Brit, Mike, my first reading of that phrase is that "The Jews are people who will not take the blame for anything". It takes another level of interpretation to turn it into "They won't be blamed for anything in the future".

Take this sentence:

"Denis will not eat his greens"

Now, does that mean that the lad won't eat broccoli "in the future", or does it mean that he habitually refuses to eat green vegetables? The latter, I think.