The meaning of the GSG wording

[moonbegger]

Really do wish people would read my post before commening
ie.. " Not saying this is backslang", " Maybe acomplice scribbled on wall "
oh yeah .. Coroner at Mary Kelly was ?

There's none so blind as those who will not see

Regards Moonbegger

[Wickerman]

Most people have put the masonic conspiracy theories and anagrams in the rubbish bin, where they belong a long time ago. I'm certainly not going to get them out again, thanks.

Don't sugar-coat it, jus' tell it like it is!


Jon

[Bridewell]

Hi Moonbegger,

A freemason who scribbles cryptic messages in tiny cramped chalked writing on the entrance to a block of flats?

A freemason who uses backslang when communicating with other freemasons?

The choice of coroner was dependent on the location of the body, not whether or not the particular coroner was, or was not, a freemason.

Most people have put the masonic conspiracy theories and anagrams in the rubbish bin, where they belong a long time ago. I'm certainly not going to get them out again, thanks.

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger.

Okay. I get the backslang argument, but what would be the point in using it in this situation? I know there are, and probably always have been, a good few villains in the East End, but not, I suspect, many who would go along with the disembowelling of women?

What would "Nothing are the men who will not be blamed for the Juwes" mean anyway?" It's even more cryptic than the original, and we've been debating that for well over a century.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell

OK, lets just assume as many have over the years that the " Juwes " in the message was pertaining to the three apprentice masons who murdered Hiram Abiff , and who are the basis of masonic ritual .
" Nothing are the men " = The man is useless , lower than the low ,
" That will not be blamed " that will not shoulder the weight of blame, help out or support his brother mason when he needs it ( possibly reference to Wynne E Baxter , Coroner at the Chapman and Nichols Inquest who was not bowing to fellow freemason (George Bagster Phillips) pressure to cover up certain facts, and was more concerend with Justice, than freemason brotherhood ! Equally strange the fact that the last three murders were taken off Baxters hands .. and into the hands of a " more willing to help out' freemason Coroner . and finally ...
" For the Juwes " The Masonic assassins ..

Moonbegger

[Bridewell]

Okay

Hi Bridewell ,
Being born and raised in the East End of London , and being very familiar with a coded language ( cockney rhyming slang ) originally used by the East End underworld wishing to talk to each other without the danger of prying ears ( undercover police) understanding the conversation .. There is also a form called "Backslang" , where you switch the first word for the last ..Now i am NOT saying this is backslang .. But i am saying that sometimes a message meant for particular ears may have a certain disguise so only the intended can hear it .. Almost like " the world can see it, but only a few can hear it " Both power and disguise ! sound like anyone yet ?

Moonbegger.

Hi Moonbegger.

Okay. I get the backslang argument, but what would be the point in using it in this situation? I know there are, and probably always have been, a good few villains in the East End, but not, I suspect, many who would go along with the disembowelling of women?

What would "Nothing are the men who will not be blamed for the Juwes" mean anyway?" It's even more cryptic than the original, and we've been debating that for well over a century.

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Hi Moonbegger.

If that was what he meant, why isn't that what is written?
If he wants to attack Warren, why does he not write that?

"Warren out!" would have conveyed an unambiguous meaning much quicker.

I think we have to look at the words (both recorded versions) as they are written, not in shuffled or anagram form, that being a pointless exercise in my view.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell ,
Being born and raised in the East End of London , and being very familiar with a coded language ( cockney rhyming slang ) originally used by the East End underworld wishing to talk to each other without the danger of prying ears ( undercover police) understanding the conversation .. There is also a form called "Backslang" , where you switch the first word for the last ..Now i am NOT saying this is backslang .. But i am saying that sometimes a message meant for particular ears may have a certain disguise so only the intended can hear it .. Almost like " the world can see it, but only a few can hear it " Both power and disguise ! sound like anyone yet ?

Moonbegger.

[Bridewell]

Why?

by switching the first two words for the last word of the message we get
[ Nothing are the men , that will not be blamed for the juwes ] and it becomes a very specific attack on certain people that are becoming less supportive of the whole situation ( When exactly did Charles Warren resign ?

moonbegger

Hi Moonbegger.

If that was what he meant, why isn't that what is written?
If he wants to attack Warren, why does he not write that?

"Warren out!" would have conveyed an unambiguous meaning much quicker.

I think we have to look at the words (both recorded versions) as they are written, not in shuffled or anagram form, that being a pointless exercise in my view.

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Hi
This thread is for what you think the wording of the GSG means, if it was written by the killer (I think it probably was). Please no debates on whether it was written by the killer or not-Lets assume it was.

So what does it mean?

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

My possible explanations:


1.The killer was Jewish- And it means, basically-The jews(and me) have been blamed for nothing for too long. Kind of a reaction against the opression the Jews have felt.
I think this perhaps Rob House's view in his new book on AK.


2. The killer was Jewish-means-With the double negative switched-The Jews will be blamed for something. as in- I am Jewish and I did it and I should be blamed! I am glad I did it. A boast. I beleive some of the senior police official at the time held this view.

3. The killer was not Jewish-means-The Jews will not take the blame for anything. I read somwhere(can't remember where) that a language expert on the times says that this is probably the most accurate way to interpret it.
So I see this reading as a non Jewish killer trying to blame them perhaps in a more subltle or indirect way. as in-they have never and also in these murders accept blame for their evils, but they are responsible (either directly or non-directly) for these murders.


4. The killer was not jewish-means-The Jews will be blamed for something. Again turning the double negative to the positive and directly meaning-The Jews did it!

5. The killer was not Jewish-means-the jews will not be blamed for something. As in The jews are being unfairly accused and are not responsible for this.


My personal view is that number three is the most likely.
Please let me know if you think any above is most likely or your own interpretation of what the GSG meant.

by switching the first two words for the last word of the message we get
[ Nothing are the men , that will not be blamed for the juwes ] and it becomes a very specific attack on certain people that are becoming less supportive of the whole situation ( When exactly did Charles Warren resign ?

moonbegger

[lynn cates]

?

Hello Caz. Hmm, I think that, until we know who did what to whom, everyone requires a question mark--even me.

Now, the GSG. I agree that it looks a tad bit more than coincidental. But I am reminded that coincidences do happen. But the apron there?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

But if we are obliged to put a question mark over Smith, Tabram, Stride, Kelly, McKenzie and Coles each being done in by a prostitute killer (by definition, you understand), make mine a small one.

And I suppose we should try to get back to the GSG at some point. Maybe the Juwes were the men being blamed by Jack for keeping the local 'toms' in business. Now there's a thought.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

conditionals

Hello Caz.

"if the women killed were prostitutes, their killer became a prostitute killer by definition."

Well, we certainly agree on that. I love truth tables for conditional sentences.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

Hello Caz. Out of curiosity, why must they be prostitute killers? Surely there are other motives for murder?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I wasn't really considering motive, because it's a lost cause. It was more of an observation that if the women killed were prostitutes, their killer became a prostitute killer by definition.

Statistics alone indicate very strongly that it was a rare beast who inflicted fatal injuries on a London unfortunate for no other apparent reason than she was an easy target. What was in it for the murderer, apart from an appointment with the hangman if he were discovered? Again, motive is nigh on impossible to guess in any of the Whitechapel cases, but men don't go out with sharp knives to slice through a female neck unless there is something very odd going on in their head.

In 1888, fewer women walked the streets alone at night if they valued their safety and reputation and were not forced there by dire poverty. Just as drug-addicted prossies today are recognisable by their clothes, their general appearance, the world-weary look in their eye or just by hanging around like they have nothing better to do, the loitering unfortunates in Jack's time would have stood out from the odd 'respectable' woman walking with an obvious purpose, such as making her way home or to a late-opening shop.

Peter Sutcliffe (whose crimes would have stuck in our memory with or without the 'Yorkshire Ripper' nickname) targeted prostitutes at first but later gave himself 'permission' to attack any woman out alone, regardless of what she was wearing or where she was going. The ripper would have had fewer options to go down a similar path. But if they have to justify the unjustifiable in their own minds, then picking on 'whores' would be the obvious way to go - at least until they become so steeped in blood that they can justify anything at all, or no longer care.

Yes, I believe the Dear Boss letter was sent to the police by the CNA, arriving just a few hours before Stride and Eddowes were murdered. The CNA presumably gave up the opportunity to have it published immediately (which would have been before the double murder) in order to do the right thing and let the police decide what to do with it. It is generally accepted that the same person wrote the Saucy Jack postcard, and the CNA received it initially. But it's interesting that the handwriting style was not kept consistent - quite clever of a hoaxer to read of the night's events and dash this one off, just as the author of Dear Boss might have done if he had just managed to down two 'whores' in one night and badly wanted to gloat about it.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

They are killed first because they are women.
Second, because they are prostitutes.

[Bridewell]

I Agree

Yes but prostitutes are victims in many sexual serial killer cases. They make for easy targets, are out at all times of night, often in ill lit areas, won't be missed like other women, etc. Dear Boss and Saucy Jack really have nothing to do with the choice of target -- whomever wrote those missives was in a way just stating the obvious about the women being prostitutes.

Chris

Hi, Chris,

"Yes but prostitutes are victims in many sexual serial killer cases."

I entirely agree. (Peter Sutcliffe being a case in point, & the Hillside Stranglers in the US too, I believe.) But this doesn't mean they were killed [I]because[I] they were prostitutes. They could have been killed simply because they were, as you say, easy targets (by "virtue" of being prostitutes or by virtue of being drunk (or both). Is it worth starting a new thread on this? What do you think?

Yours aye, Bridewell

[lynn cates]

Caz

Hello Bridewell. Thanks. However, I think Caroline Morris (Caz) beat me to the punch there.

Cheers.
LC