The meaning of the GSG wording

[Sister Hyde]

Firstly, a jew IMHO would not write something implicating Jews and second I don't think a Jew would spell the word incorrectly.

Yes he wouldn't, the case of the author of the graffito being a jewish man himself only fits the Jacob Levy theory, i think if it turned out the graffito was done by a jew, that would definitely confort in the Levy theory, but unfortunately we can not know that, so yet, the 3rd option from Abby is very likely.

[Abby Normal]

People tend to be careless - often consciously but not always - when spelling the names of people (or groups of people) for whom they have contempt, hence I have always suspected that the spelling of Jews in the message is as much, if not more a reflection of how the author felt at the time about the 'Juwes' in question than his writing skills. If we go by the physical appearance on the wall, the phrase 'illiterate scrawl' doesn't describe it at all. And if anyone's on the ball, it seems to be rhyme o'clock here, y'all.

Think of all the perfectly literate and coherent posters who just couldn't help themselves and managed to misspell Pat Cornwell's terribly simple name when she first ventured into ripperology and made so many see red.

I absolutely see what Colin is trying to convey and I have tried to do the same with no more success. Who knows what else this killer could have felt compelled to do that night, or why, considering what he had felt compelled to do in Mitre Square, almost under the noses of the local Jews, coppers, night watchmen and what have you? Some people evidently think the slaughter of Eddowes was both rational and risk-free, but not so a little chalk on a wall by the same hand - a small neat hand that also nicks eyelids in the dark.

I have asked time and time again what kind of message could have been written above the apron, by the man who discarded it, that could have effectively implicated someone other than himself in the murders, and there is no easy answer. There can't be as I have yet to read one. "I did it already, signed Jacob Cohen" was hardly going to crack it, and "the Mitre Square killer woz here" would have been entirely redundant given the pinny's presence, and is in the same 'useless information' category as the ambiguous message we got.

Serial killers will typically say - or write - anything that they think in their tiny confused minds will make them appear less blameworthy and more like the hard done-by victim of circumstances. It happens over and over again, the whining, totally detached from reality 'justifications' they come out with for what they do on a whim for mere personal gratification. So I can easily see this one blaming everyone he had met that night if a personal 'coitus interruptus' on Berner St had compelled him to alter course and seek full release further afield. "This apron says that two had to die in one night because of you poxy Lipskis." You see, there's even a potential precedent here of seeing blameless Jews as lady killers, if the apron dropper had earlier shouted "Lipski" at Schwartz. In his tiny mind, was this innocent witness one of "The Juwes" with Eddowes's blood on his hands?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
People tend to be careless - often consciously but not always - when spelling the names of people (or groups of people) for whom they have contempt, hence I have always suspected that the spelling of Jews in the message is as much, if not more a reflection of how the author felt at the time about the 'Juwes' in question than his writing skills. If we go by the physical appearance on the wall, the phrase 'illiterate scrawl' doesn't describe it at all. And if anyone's on the ball, it seems to be rhyme o'clock here, y'all.

Good point. Like how Churchill used to call the Nazis "Narzies" or something similar.

So I can easily see this one blaming everyone he had met that night if a personal 'coitus interruptus' on Berner St had compelled him to alter course and seek full release further afield. "This apron says that two had to die in one night because of you poxy Lipskis." You see, there's even a potential precedent here of seeing blameless Jews as lady killers, if the apron dropper had earlier shouted "Lipski" at Schwartz. In his tiny mind, was this innocent witness one of "The Juwes" with Eddowes's blood on his hands?

Wow-a very perceptive observation! Me likey.


BTW Caz, if you are not a professional writer and/or poet-you should be. : )

[Sally]

Hi Sally
I totally agree-apparently it did stand out like a sore thumb(combined with the bloody apron). It was spotted in the middle of the night. And I beleive it had the apparent effect that was intended-it connected Jews to the murder.

Thank you Mr Nomal!

I quite often find myself in agreement with your posts

Like your last one, for example

[Abby Normal]

Thank you Mr Nomal!

I quite often find myself in agreement with your posts

Like your last one, for example

Your welcome.

Its mutual, and please...call me Abby. ; )

[Colin Roberts]

It's true that we don't know the extent of the graffiti acrross other walls in the vicinity, yes; but I think you have to take into account literacy levels, weather conditions, and that fact that this particular graffito was considered so inflammatory that it was removed by official order.

I personally conclude that it stood out like a sore thumb.

It should also be noted that Goulston Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, was almost entirely redeveloped, during the mid-to-late 1880's, and that much of its redevelopment consisted of so-called 'model dwellings' that were designed to cater to a comparatively orderly class of tenant.

I am inclined to believe that the thoroughfare bore a pristine appearance, in 1888, and, that its predominantly Jewish inhabitants were very proud of their shining new abodes.

... who would have had a piece of chalk in their pocket? Someone who played pool, perhaps? A tailor? Although his weapon of choice would probably have been scissors. Not necessarily a schoolboy I think, wouldnīt chalk have been handed in at the end of the day?

Goulston Street was a 'Market Street', and whilst the so called 'dustmen' that were given the responsibility, by the Whitechapel District of the Metropolitan Board of Works, of cleaning it each (?) evening, were probably reasonably thorough, it is conceivable that pieces of chalk were to be found lying on its adjoining pavements (sidewalks), in the wee hours of the morning.

Either Way:

Someone, obviously, somehow procured a piece of chalk, so as to able to scribble the so-called 'Goulston Street Graffito'. Why should 'Jack the Ripper' be considered to have been any less likely than anyone else, to have been able to do so?

(If the killer wrote it)

That the 'killer' did write it, is a stated premise of this thread.

I shall, therefore, steer myself back on topic, as I have already complained vehemently about some off-topic intrusions that occurred at the onset of this discussion.

... I believe it had the apparent effect that was intended-it connected Jews to the murder.

I don't agree!

Obviously, Sir Charles Warren was concerned that it would.

But, given a moment, with which to ponder such implications, ... who would have fallen for the pre-adolescent mischievous nonsense that they invariably must have been?

Who would have believed a red-handed murderer that was presumably pointing a blood-stained finger of implication at the "Juwes", in hopes of 'connecting' them, somehow, to the hideous sequence of atrocities that had been committed, to date?

If 'Jack the Ripper' were that naive, then so be it: He was that naive.

He thought that by pointing a blood-stained finger of implication, he could absolve himself of his outright responsibility for the so-called 'Whitechapel Murders' that he had committed, by ~2:00AM, on 30 September, 1888: Thereby avoiding the hangman's noose.

But, again, I have difficulty accepting such a scenario.

I consider it to be much more feasible that 'Jack the Ripper' was merely attempting to absolve himself of his moral 'blame', specifically, for the death of Catherine Eddowes: Thereby avoiding the wrath and indignation of those that might have passed any sort of judgment upon him.

Obviously, I murdered her. But, it is the "Juwes" that should be "blamed".

---

Don't hate me. I'm really not such a bad person.

I absolutely see what Colin is trying to convey and I have tried to do the same with no more success. Who knows what else this killer could have felt compelled to do that night, or why, considering what he had felt compelled to do in Mitre Square, almost under the noses of the local Jews, coppers, night watchmen and what have you? Some people evidently think the slaughter of Eddowes was both rational and risk-free, but not so a little chalk on a wall by the same hand - a small neat hand that also nicks eyelids in the dark.

I have asked time and time again what kind of message could have been written above the apron, by the man who discarded it, that could have effectively implicated someone other than himself in the murders, and there is no easy answer. There can't be as I have yet to read one. "I did it already, signed Jacob Cohen" was hardly going to crack it, and "the Mitre Square killer woz here" would have been entirely redundant given the pinny's presence, and is in the same 'useless information' category as the ambiguous message we got.

Serial killers will typically say - or write - anything that they think in their tiny confused minds will make them appear less blameworthy and more like the hard done-by victim of circumstances. It happens over and over again, the whining, totally detached from reality 'justifications' they come out with for what they do on a whim for mere personal gratification. So I can easily see this one blaming everyone he had met that night if a personal 'coitus interruptus' on Berner St had compelled him to alter course and seek full release further afield. "This apron says that two had to die in one night because of you poxy Lipskis." You see, there's even a potential precedent here of seeing blameless Jews as lady killers, if the apron dropper had earlier shouted "Lipski" at Schwartz. In his tiny mind, was this innocent witness one of "The Juwes" with Eddowes's blood on his hands?

[caz]

Thank you, people. You just made my day.

Love,

Caz
X

[curious4]

It should also be noted that Goulston Street, Parish of St. Mary Whitechapel, was almost entirely redeveloped, during the mid-to-late 1880's, and that much of its redevelopment consisted of so-called 'model dwellings' that were designed to cater to a comparatively orderly class of tenant.

I am inclined to believe that the thoroughfare bore a pristine appearance, in 1888, and, that its predominantly Jewish inhabitants were very proud of their shining new abodes.



Goulston Street was a 'Market Street', and whilst the so called 'dustmen' that were given the responsibility, by the Whitechapel District of the Metropolitan Board of Works, of cleaning it each (?) evening, were probably reasonably thorough, it is conceivable that pieces of chalk were to be found lying on its adjoining pavements (sidewalks), in the wee hours of the morning.

Either Way:

Someone, obviously, somehow procured a piece of chalk, so as to able to scribble the so-called 'Goulston Street Graffito'. Why should 'Jack the Ripper' be considered to have been any less likely than anyone else, to have been able to do so?



That the 'killer' did write it, is a stated premise of this thread.

I shall, therefore, steer myself back on topic, as I have already complained vehemently about some off-topic intrusions that occurred at the onset of this discussion.



I don't agree!

Obviously, Sir Charles Warren was concerned that it would.

But, given a moment, with which to ponder such implications, ... who would have fallen for the pre-adolescent mischievous nonsense that they invariably must have been?

Who would have believed a red-handed murderer that was presumably pointing a blood-stained finger of implication at the "Juwes", in hopes of 'connecting' them, somehow, to the hideous sequence of atrocities that had been committed, to date?

If 'Jack the Ripper' were that naive, then so be it: He was that naive.

He thought that by pointing a blood-stained finger of implication, he could absolve himself of his outright responsibility for the so-called 'Whitechapel Murders' that he had committed, by ~2:00AM, on 30 September, 1888: Thereby avoiding the hangman's noose.

But, again, I have difficulty accepting such a scenario.

I consider it to be much more feasible that 'Jack the Ripper' was merely attempting to absolve himself of his moral 'blame', specifically, for the death of Catherine Eddowes: Thereby avoiding the wrath and indignation of those that might have passed any sort of judgment upon him.

Obviously, I murdered her. But, it is the "Juwes" that should be "blamed".

---

Don't hate me. I'm really not such a bad person.

Hello Colin,

You mean the market traders would have used chalk to mark their prices. Well, I suppose so, could be, but would they throw away anything which could still be used.

Still think Jack was on a high and wanted to taunt the police.

Regards,
C4

[Colin Roberts]

...

Goulston Street was a 'Market Street', and whilst the so called 'dustmen' that were given the responsibility, by the Whitechapel District of the Metropolitan Board of Works, of cleaning it each (?) evening, were probably reasonably thorough, it is conceivable that pieces of chalk were to be found lying on its adjoining pavements (sidewalks), in the wee hours of the morning.

Either Way:

Someone, obviously, somehow procured a piece of chalk, so as to able to scribble the so-called 'Goulston Street Graffito'. Why should 'Jack the Ripper' be considered to have been any less likely than anyone else, to have been able to do so?

...

I consider it to be much more feasible that 'Jack the Ripper' was merely attempting to absolve himself of his moral 'blame', specifically, for the death of Catherine Eddowes: Thereby avoiding the wrath and indignation of those that might have passed any sort of judgment upon him.

Obviously, I murdered her. But, it is the "Juwes" that should be "blamed".

---

Don't hate me. I'm really not such a bad person.

You mean the market traders would have used chalk to mark their prices. Well, I suppose so, could be, but would they throw away anything which could still be used.

Still think Jack was on a high and wanted to taunt the police.

~~~

Correction:

Someone, obviously, somehow procured a piece of chalk, so as to be able to scribble the so-called 'Goulston Street Graffito'. Why should 'Jack the Ripper' be considered to have been any less likely than anyone else, to have been able to do so?

~~~

I wouldn't presume, curious4, that market traders would have willingly discarded useful pieces of chalk.

But, I would presume that they might have been somewhat careless, with regard to their placement here, and their placement there, ... of their pieces of chalk.

~~~

I have difficulty perceiving the 'GSG' as having been a taunt.

If I were to commit a murder, and then proceed to a doorway that was a few hundred yards away from the crime-scene, and then write a seemingly cryptic message regarding the direction, in which the finger of 'blame' should be pointed, and I were to 'validate' my assertion with a piece of crime-scene evidence; then whom might I be attempting to taunt, and how so?

I'm sorry, but I don't see any semblance of a supposed taunt.

I have 'validated' my assertion, with crime-scene evidence.

And, I have used that crime-scene evidence, specifically, to clarify the object of my assertion: "Nothing". That being the death of Catherine Eddowes: i.e. that, for which the "Juwes" should be "blamed".

Where's the supposed taunt?

~~~

Regardless of the direction, in which I point my finger of implication, it is clearly I that has just committed the murder.

No conceivable amount of blood-stained finger pointing should be perceived as being remotely capable of absolving me, of the responsibility for the murder, which I have clearly just committed.

[Phil H]

Wasn't there discussion at one time about tailors using chalk? They would carry it on their persons - used for marking patterns on cloth for seams and gussets etc.

Would market traders have had blackboards to write up prices etc. They might today, but in 1888?

Otherwise why would there have been any chalk lying about?

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Wasn't there discussion at one time about tailors using chalk? They would carry it on their persons - used for marking patterns on cloth for seams and gussets etc.

Would market traders have had blackboards to write up prices etc. They might today, but in 1888?

Otherwise why would there have been any chalk lying about?

Phil

Dont forget snooker players who put it behind their ears

[Sally]

Sarah Lewis was a tailor....

[Sister Hyde]

Would market traders have had blackboards to write up prices etc. They might today, but in 1888?

Otherwise why would there have been any chalk lying about?

Phil

I dunno if people working on markets were already writing the prices on blackboards, that's a stumper to me. but it seems that writting on walls with chalk was rather common already back then, like an equivalent of our paint sprays now.

[Wickerman]

Dont forget snooker players who put it behind their ears

Whenever I played billiards the cue chalk was always a cube, like an oxo cube, you can't write with that.
My mother also used tailor's chalk, it was round and flat like a disk, for drawing lines, not for writing with.

Jus' thinking out loud....

[curious4]

Chalk

Greetings,

Carol suggested at one point that in Kent, where we both grew up, children would pick up pieces of chalk stone to write or draw with. It was just lying about everywhere. Donīt know if this applied to London, though, I left while still a baby and went back as an adult, so scrawling on walls with chalk wasnīt an issue.

C4

[Phil H]

I'm not sure that the edge of tailors' chalk - albeit circular, could not have been used to write a schoolboy hand - i.e. semi-copper-plate.

It occurs to me that chalk might also have been used by brewers to mark casks; and by carmen to write on boxes etc. Now who can we think of who was a carman...?

But as I don't think JtR wrote the GSG that's not relevant.

Phil