The meaning of the GSG wording

[Wickerman]

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

....and by Druitt, while employed at the school?

[Phil H]

Wickerman - I think that's long been a tenet of Druittism. A schoolboy hand would, in that context, of course, be precisely what children were taught to write.

But writing "fonts" were pretty standard, so anyone educated to write then would do so in pretty similar ways.

A school boy also might have access to chalk and would write in that hand too.

Maybe Jack went to the Board School in Buck's Row?

Let's get excited.

Pip

[Wickerman]

Hmm, I'd like to know what a schoolboy was doing out at 2:00 O'clock in the morning....another artful dodger?

[Sister Hyde]

Hmm, I'd like to know what a schoolboy was doing out at 2:00 O'clock in the morning....another artful dodger?

He got lost on the yellow brick road...

[Wickerman]

He got lost on the yellow brick road...

...of Which, he was Lying about his Wardrobe

[Sister Hyde]

...of Which, he was Lying about his Wardrobe

a bitch lying in the wardrobe hey?? now that's too much reflexion for me on a friday night

[SextonBloke]

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

I’ve been searching the boards to see if this idea had already been floated. It is the only explanation of the GSG I can think of that actually makes some precise sense of the message. If JtR had simply wanted the authorities and the public to think that he was a Jew to divert attention from himself then it would be counterproductive to be so cryptic about it.

Orwell famously condemned the use of the double negative as weak, mealy-mouthed English (“a not ungreen field”). However, he exaggerated, as it has a legitimate function when we wish to express something contrary to our expectation, e.g. “the rock was not uncomfortable to sit on”. It would be missing something to say that this simply means “ the rock was comfortable to sit on”.

The use of the not/nothing double negative in the GSG is not necessarily bad English if we take it to mean that the author is making a partial, nuanced accusation, namely that the Jew who disturbed him before he could mutilate Stride should take a share of the blame for Eddowes’ death, thus he says “the abuse that your people take for the ripper murders will in this instance not be for nothing”.

If correct, this interpretation has some significant implications. The killer has to be quite literate and capable of some subtle reflection, albeit toward a contemptible, self-justifying end. Also consider his competence with the chalk: when Halse described it as a “good schoolboy hand” he was perhaps suggesting that it was the work of someone who wrote things down regularly and was therefore not quite a typical slum dweller.

I have always been convinced that the GSG was the work of JtR because of its oddity. I would imagine that anti-semitic graffiti of the period would typically be rather more blunt. The common objection to crediting authorship to the killer is that it would be absurdly risky for him to dawdle around in the circumstances. That doesn’t seem so powerful to me when one considers his willingness to take the time and therefore the extra risk to kill in his “signature” style.

[GregBaron]

Well done...

Good first post SextonBloke and not without impressive reasoning. I expect many will agree with you. Welcome to the Nuthouse oh.. uh.. er.. Casebook I mean. It's a lovely place I must say...just don't rattle the cages of the authorities............

Greg

[Abby Normal]

I’ve been searching the boards to see if this idea had already been floated. It is the only explanation of the GSG I can think of that actually makes some precise sense of the message. If JtR had simply wanted the authorities and the public to think that he was a Jew to divert attention from himself then it would be counterproductive to be so cryptic about it.

Orwell famously condemned the use of the double negative as weak, mealy-mouthed English (“a not ungreen field”). However, he exaggerated, as it has a legitimate function when we wish to express something contrary to our expectation, e.g. “the rock was not uncomfortable to sit on”. It would be missing something to say that this simply means “ the rock was comfortable to sit on”.

The use of the not/nothing double negative in the GSG is not necessarily bad English if we take it to mean that the author is making a partial, nuanced accusation, namely that the Jew who disturbed him before he could mutilate Stride should take a share of the blame for Eddowes’ death, thus he says “the abuse that your people take for the ripper murders will in this instance not be for nothing”.

If correct, this interpretation has some significant implications. The killer has to be quite literate and capable of some subtle reflection, albeit toward a contemptible, self-justifying end. Also consider his competence with the chalk: when Halse described it as a “good schoolboy hand” he was perhaps suggesting that it was the work of someone who wrote things down regularly and was therefore not quite a typical slum dweller.

I have always been convinced that the GSG was the work of JtR because of its oddity. I would imagine that anti-semitic graffiti of the period would typically be rather more blunt. The common objection to crediting authorship to the killer is that it would be absurdly risky for him to dawdle around in the circumstances. That doesn’t seem so powerful to me when one considers his willingness to take the time and therefore the extra risk to kill in his “signature” style.

Good talk!

I also beleive that being seen/interupted by Jews(Schwartz-Stride, Lawende and co-Eddowes) had something to do with his motivation for writing the GSG. Since the writing was probably not planned and precipitated by the events as they happened that evening, I surmise that after the Eddowes murder he went back to his place(or somewhere) to find a piece of chalk. This might also explain the relevant long length of time between the murder of Eddowes and the subsequent discovery of the apron and writing by the PC.

[Heinrich]

It is inconceivable that this graffito was chalked by the killer.
God alone knows what this piece of balderdash means and it was likely there long before the murder was perpetrated.

[Abby Normal]

It is inconceivable that this graffito was chalked by the killer.
God alone knows what this piece of balderdash means and it was likely there long before the murder was perpetrated.

I doubt any graffito that had some possible negative reference to Jews would have lasted very long in a heavily Jewish area. Someone would have wiped it away immediately-especially if it ever saw the light of day-which in my mind probably did not.

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I've always taken this to mean "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed without reason." The last "for nothing" is used in this way where I grew up (East Coast Canada), as in "I got sent to my room for nothing", which sort of means "for doing nothing wrong", and so in context it means "being punished without reason".

So, effectively, the writer is saying the Jews will be blamed, and rightly so. So probably written by a gentile, and given the climate of the day, not necessarily JtR.

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi,

I've always taken this to mean "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed without reason." The last "for nothing" is used in this way where I grew up (East Coast Canada), as in "I got sent to my room for nothing", which sort of means "for doing nothing wrong", and so in context it means "being punished without reason".

So, effectively, the writer is saying the Jews will be blamed, and rightly so. So probably written by a gentile, and given the climate of the day, not necessarily JtR.

- Jeff

Jeff,

Taken as it's written, it would appear to be written by a Jewish hand suggesting "you do not have carte blanche to blame Jews for that which is not the fault of Jews".

But, I live in the North East of England (old slang/terms/phrases have remained to a greater extent with the N.E being a corner of the country a little bit cut off from the rest).

It is still common to hear the phrase: "you are not getting wrong for nothing". Meaning: "you are not being punished unjustly; you are being punished because you deserve it".

So:

"The Jews are the men".........."who will not be blamed for nothing".....

suggests to me: "The Jews are being blamed because they deserve it".

[caz]

I do think it would be highly ironic (and frankly unlikely) if a disgruntled Jew wrote the message on the brand spanking new wall of the model dwellings (which housed mainly Jewish residents), to mean: "we Jews can't always be expected to take the blame", and it managed to remain perfectly intact and legible for some time before the highly incriminating apron was dumped underneath in the entrance - for all the world like it was saying: "Ahem, I beg to differ".

What a cruel joke that would have been, whether by accident or design.

It is inconceivable that this graffito was chalked by the killer.
God alone knows what this piece of balderdash means and it was likely there long before the murder was perpetrated.

Clearly not inconceivable to many, Heinrich, which kind of makes it your loss and their gain, to have this extra potential clue to the killer's psyche. Dismiss it as no clue at all and you have one less clue to work with. But you are not alone. These days it isn't unusual to find people gaily dismissing potential clues left, right and centre until they are left pretty much, er, without a clue.

If you admit that only God could translate this 'balderdash' into plain English, how do you know it wasn't killer-speak for "Ha ha, Heinrich, gotcha!"?

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil H]

These days it isn't unusual to find people gaily dismissing potential clues left, right and centre until they are left pretty much, er, without a clue.

But that is surely what the historian has to do?

In many areas of research, especially relating to the far past - ancient Egypt or Rome, for instance - there may be a dearth of information of any kind, and a sort of desperation to cling to anything that might be useful or provide detail. But it all has to be weighed, considered and if necessary set aside.

That said, no sensible historian would ever wholly discard material - just not build it into his theories and explanations without corroboration. Equally, fertile imaginations will try to find connections in unreliable sources - roal history, myth, later re-workings, and whether that is acceptable is dependent upon whether the theorist convinces his or her peers.

If studying King Arthur, one would not place anything like the same reliance on Malory or Chretien de Troyes, Wace of Layamon,Geoffrey of Monmouth etc, as one would perhaps on Bede, Nennius or Gildas, but even those latter ones are questioned, and yet at the same time others will seek to say there is truth in Geoffrey even if hidden or obscure.

All the same, one would not gain respect from any authority on a subject if evidence were included in a book or thesis without scrutiny (even scepticism) and only with careful supporting argument that gains acceptance.

So with the GSG we need to keep it to one side, since there can be no PROOF of connection with the apron scrap, and include it in a theory or hypothesis only with backing argument and logic. Even then, its use has to accepted before it can be said to be valid. A theory, based solely on such contentious material would surely not receive acceptance.

There are many examples of "facts" which appeared in older works on JtR which have now been discarded (Fairy Fay, Dr Dutton's Annals of Crime) for which there is no corroboration. Why should the GSG be any different?

Phil