The meaning of the GSG wording

[RivkahChaya]

I’m not trying to be difficult, I genuinely didn't - and still don't - understand your reasoning on this point.

I didn't say it made stone-cold, Vulcan logic. In that scenario, it was a panic move, and stupid. I think I compared it to the Manson gang writing "Death to Pigs," in order to get the police looking for black suspects, because they were somehow under the impression that only black people in the US referred to the police as pigs, or at least the police thought that.

Personally, I don't think JTR wrote the graffito, and I further don't think it has anything to do with the murders.

The idea that any reference to Jews is a reference to the Stride murders would probably be true, if JTR wrote the graffito, since she was the one killed outside a Jewish hang-out, but the apron was Eddowes', not Stride's. A written reference to the Stride murder, and a physical remnant of the Eddowes murder, together, serves to connect them. Why would the killer want to do that? Even if the same person did kill both women, why does he want to clue the police into that fact?

If the graffito is intended to inform people that a Jew did not kill Stride, then why doesn't it say "The Jews are not to be blamed for the murder outside their club"? Or if it's meant to blame the Jews, then "The Jews ARE to be blamed for the murder outside their club"?

Unless someone wants to suggest the apron got dropped by accident.

[DVV]

I'm not a Londoner, but I guess Goulston Street was somewhere between Mitre Square and the Victoria Home.

[caz]

Hi Rivkah,

I did read what you wrote about a Jewish ripper who “doesn’t get it right”.

Here is what you wrote:

“Seriously, it makes sense ONLY if JTR is Jewish himself, and he also killed Stride, and he is suddenly worried, after the fact, that there will be more Leather Apron-type harassing because she was killed right outside a building full of Jews, so he wants to deflect blame, and is attempting to express the idea that Jews should not be blamed, but isn't a native English speaker, and doesn't get it right.”

My response was based on what you suggested he meant to say, and not what you think he ends up saying, so my original objection stands: if a Jewish ripper had got the phrase right and put: ‘Don’t blame the Jews’, then chucked the uniquely damning apron piece from Mitre Square beneath his message, how did he think this would have deflected blame away from Jews? Do you see the problem now?

“And yes, dropping apron was pretty disingenuous, as though the killer would really care that a particular group of people not take the rap for his crimes…”.

But in your scenario, the killer is from the particular group of people he doesn’t want blamed. If he is Jewish himself, and is trying to tell people not to blame the Jews for his murders, what is he doing leaving evidence from the murder scene at the entrance of the predominantly Jewish Dwellings? That's just asking people to blame the Jews, isn't it?

I’m not trying to be difficult, I genuinely didn't - and still don't - understand your reasoning on this point.

Love,

Caz
X

[Michael W Richards]

What's your thinking behind that please, Michael?

Regards, Bridewell.

I have a few different ideas about that Bridewell,... from an idea that the killer took the cloth and contents to his room to dispose of things and wipe up and someone else took it out and left it there purposefully for him, or he went out again once clean and left it himself....or that the apron was discarded at the scene and a policeman who was at both Mitre Square and Goulston Street took it to Goulston,...or that the apron section was found elsewhere but taken by someone to Goulston to suggest the killers egress direction and the guilt of a Jew,......as you can tell Im far from certain about how it arrived there, ... but Im fairly certain of the reason for it being left there, as well as the time it appeared there. That reason seems to match up with the writing quite well in my opinion.

All the best

[Bridewell]

Thats not necessarily the case at all, in fact, its possible the killer didnt take the apron piece to Goulston at all

What's your thinking behind that please, Michael?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

One thing that seems to be forgotten regarding Longs statement is that he said "it was not there" when he passed shortly after 2.

He didnt say "I didnt see anything", or " I may have missed it", or "I really didnt look closely", or "I should have seen it if it was there", or "it was dark and Im not sure", or "I dont recall seeing anything"....he said it wasnt there.

Said in that manner he seems to be stating that he did look at that spot when he passed and he saw nothing there. Its only vague if you choose to believe otherwise, but he seems to make the point clear for me anyway.

One of the most critical points about this murder is where the murderer went after he left Mitre Square, since many believe the writing and apron section indicated that he went into the East End directly, confirming suspicions that the killer lived in that small kill zone. Thats not necessarily the case at all, in fact, its possible the killer didnt take the apron piece to Goulston at all, let alone straight from the square, or write anything on the wall himself.

[RivkahChaya]

Hi Rivkah
My thoughts are that him being an anti-semite is somewhat irrelevant. In my scenario his motivation is more because the people who interupted him that night were Jewish and he was pissed off about it and wanted to throw police off and blame them.

Except that Jews would have witnessed Stride's murder, and he left Eddowes' apron. If he's worried most about not getting caught, giving the police a reason to connect the Stride and Eddowes' murders isn't a smart thing to do. Or, it's about bravado, from a guy who goes back after he already got away, leave evidence, send the police a letter assuring them he did both murders (written by someone who does not sound like a recent immigrant from Russian or Poland), in which case, you'd expect the graffito to say "The Juwes didn't do it! It was all me!"

Hi Rivkah,

Maybe I've misunderstood your reasoning here

Actually, yeah, you did misunderstand, because here's what I wrote:

[he] is attempting to express the idea that Jews should not be blamed, but isn't a native English speaker, and doesn't get it right. [emp. added]

I was suggesting that JTR was not a native English speaker, and didn't get the phrase right-- he pretty much says the opposite of what he means to say. He means to say "Don't blame the Jews," but he ends up saying the opposite, because of his poor grasp of English. And yes, dropping apron was pretty disingenuous, as though the killer would really care that a particular group of people not take the rap for his crimes, but killers have made dumber mistakes, and sometimes they've even worked, at least at first.

Charles Manson thought he could convince police that black people had committed the murders at the Tate-Polanski residence, by writing "Death to Pigs" on the walls, because clearly only black people hate the police, or use that expression.

The only way I could see a Jewish killer chalking the message is if he meant something more along the lines you suggested yourself in parentheses - something like: "It's not for nothing the Jews will be blamed this time". In other words, if we are going to be blamed for all the sins of the world, big and small, have this one - it's a BIGGY.

The "it's not for nothing" bit was an afterthought; even though Yiddish speaker in English do often use the double-negative to mean a non-negative, I suddenly remembered that expression, which is sort of an exception. However, your example is not the kind of context people use that in. People say it in situations when they've done their part of a job, and someone else isn't doing their share, and person one is going to go get person two off his lazy ass, since it's "not for nothing" she's already done her part. It's like saying "I'm not doing this for my health." You know, if someone suggests going somewhere for dinner after you've been cooking all day, you say "No, we're eating here, it's not for nothing I've spent the day in the kitchen."

But really, I see it more as the work of someone who deliberately misspelled Jews to cause extra offence to anyone Jewish

I agree, and I think the whole syntax is pseudo-Yiddish accent. I don't think JTR wrote it, but I think whoever did was making fun of the way immigrant Jews talk.

[caz]

Seriously, it makes sense ONLY if JTR is Jewish himself, and he also killed Stride, and he is suddenly worried, after the fact, that there will be more Leather Apron-type harassing because she was killed right outside a building full of Jews, so he wants to deflect blame, and is attempting to express the idea that Jews should not be blamed, but isn't a native English speaker, and doesn't get it right. Yiddish-1st-language/English-2nd-language do, in fact, frequently use double negatives, like "don't know nothing." (However, I have heard people say, now that I think about about it "It's not for nothing I would go to that trouble," because it parallels a Yiddish expression, where the word for "nothing" is a more specific word. That may be only in the US, though.)

That's too many "ifs" for my comfort.

Hi Rivkah,

Maybe I've misunderstood your reasoning here, but how would a Jewish killer think he was going to deflect blame, either from himself or from Jews in general, by writing a message that was supposed to tell anyone passing along Goulston St not to blame the Jews for the recent murders, then dropping the bloody apron piece from the latest atrocity underneath it? Wouldn't that have the opposite of the desired effect - like writing "Don't blame me for stealing the chocolate cookies" and leaving a trail of cookie crumbs back to the shop?

The only way I could see a Jewish killer chalking the message is if he meant something more along the lines you suggested yourself in parentheses - something like: "It's not for nothing the Jews will be blamed this time". In other words, if we are going to be blamed for all the sins of the world, big and small, have this one - it's a BIGGY.

But really, I see it more as the work of someone who deliberately misspelled Jews to cause extra offence to anyone Jewish who was likely to come across the writing. And I do find it one heck of a coincidence that the killer chose that same entrance in which to discard his victim's apron piece, again causing offence to anyone who was likely to have encountered it when entering or leaving the building.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I also think Bridewell could be right. However, if the killer did go and get a piece of chalk and then come back, I think it more likely that rage (against the Jews) rather than thrill-seeking led him to ignore the danger given the meaning we are speculating for the graffito.

absolutely. From a previous post of mine:

In my scenario his motivation is more because the people who interupted him that night were Jewish and he was pissed off about it and wanted to throw police off and blame them. Of course I am sure he realized that the current thoughts that the killer might have been Jewish and the prevalent general feeling of hatred against jews by the general public would also help accomplish this.

Along with this he probably felt that said jew(s) who spotted him that night were soon to be speaking to the police and probably giving his desription to them, and thought that blaming his accusers would help throw suspician on them and confuse the situation.

[Wyatt Earp]

Hi Bridewell
I totally see what your saying, and yes Long might have just missed it the first time.

But many serial killers like the thrill with the risk and perhaps the ripper did also in this case. After what he was used to getting away with(the actual murder and mutilations on the street) "going out again (with the incriminating piece of apron) in order to write an ambiguous chalk message" might have seemed peanuts to him in terms of risk.

I also think Bridewell could be right. However, if the killer did go and get a piece of chalk and then come back, I think it more likely that rage (against the Jews) rather than thrill-seeking led him to ignore the danger given the meaning we are speculating for the graffito.

[Abby Normal]

I've always been vaguely bemused by the 'confusion' surrounding the GSG. The meaning is quite clear, having grown up in an area where that type of double negative is used everyday. It means, simply, "The Juwes(sic) won't take responsibility for anything."

Interestingly, I was listening to an old Rippercast last night (and this is off on a happy little tangent) and Trevor Marriott's theory regarding the piece of apron was mentioned, then rapidly shot down when reference was made to the small squares of cloth found on her body which had been already prepared for the alleged use the apron piece was put to.

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that, as she would have had her possessions taken from her while she was in the cells, that she may have had to improvise something while she was in there? Just a thought.

J

Hi JDow

I've always been vaguely bemused by the 'confusion' surrounding the GSG. The meaning is quite clear, having grown up in an area where that type of double negative is used everyday. It means, simply, "The Juwes(sic) won't take responsibility for anything."

Yup. From my first post:

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.

[Abby Normal]

I think the idea of JtR getting safely home, waiting until the area was crawling with police officers, and then going out again (with the incriminating piece of apron) in order to write an ambiguous chalk message rather improbable.

To my mind it's more likely that Pc Alfred Long didn't see the apron piece and graffito on his earlier visit.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell
I totally see what your saying, and yes Long might have just missed it the first time.

But many serial killers like the thrill with the risk and perhaps the ripper did also in this case. After what he was used to getting away with(the actual murder and mutilations on the street) "going out again (with the incriminating piece of apron) in order to write an ambiguous chalk message" might have seemed peanuts to him in terms of risk.

[Abby Normal]

Hmm. I never thought about that. Premeditated graffito.

You know, back when I first read about the GSG, in a book that pretty much presented it as a given that JTR wrote it, I understood it as a paranoid "The Jews made me do it!" sort of rant.

I don't think that now, because I don't think JTR wrote it, but if you think of it as premeditated, and an attempt to blame the Jews, not for the murders directly, but for making him do it, it makes more sense. It still sounds more like something for a novel, than what really happened, but it's still more likely than stopping in the middle of a getaway to chalk something on a wall-- on the other hand, he'd have to be more than just a casual anti-Semite to take the trouble to go back.

Hi Rivkah
My thoughts are that him being an anti-semite is somewhat irrelevant. In my scenario his motivation is more because the people who interupted him that night were Jewish and he was pissed off about it and wanted to throw police off and blame them. Of course I am sure he realized that the current thoughts that the killer might have been Jewish and the prevalent general feeling of hatred against jews by the general public would also help accomplish this.

Along with this he probably felt that said jew(s) who spotted him that night were soon to be speaking to the police and probably giving his desription to them, and thought that blaming his accusers would help throw suspician on them and confuse the situation.

[Monty]

Custody Searches

City of London Police Orders & Regulations 1839 - 1894.

Yes, I know, a woman.


Cue conspirators and one frantic Conference talk re-write.


Monty

[curious]

Wouldn't it be reasonable to say that, as she would have had her possessions taken from her while she was in the cells, that she may have had to improvise something while she was in there? Just a thought.

J

Hi, J,
Welcome to Casebook.

Your question was answered at the inquest when a juror asked Constable George Henry Hutt (who released Eddowes that morning) about whether the prisoners were searched or not.

"A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness?"

Hutt replied " - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief.

This is under "Official Documents" here on Casebook.

curious