The meaning of the GSG wording

[Colin Roberts]

Whilst wiping the chocolate icing from his lips, young Johnny proclaimed: "I didn't steal the cupcakes. Bobby did!"

Whilst depositing the bloody apron beneath the chalk-written graffito, 'Jack' completed his scribble: "I didn't do it. The Juwes did!"

But, perhaps 'Jack the Ripper' was naive enough to believe that he could get away with that sort of sophomoric foolishness.

I see what you're saying, but personally I'm not sure I'd read it quite like that. IF that was the intention of a Gentile 'Jack the Ripper' why couldn't he have simply been encouraging a popular view?

He may have actually thought the 'Juwes' were to blame in some way for his crimes, but equally, I don't see why he couldn't have just been pointing the finger at them - who's to say he wasn't anti-Semitic?

As for getting away with it - well, whatever the intention, he did, didn't he?

I have difficulty with the conveyance of my reasoning, Sally, even when attempting to communicate it to myself.

I am able to envisage the concept, through crystal clarity, but the verbiage that is necessary, for its effective communication, has eluded me.

~~~

If a person has just committed a murder, and he wishes to implicate 'others', can he effectively do so, by producing a piece of crime-scene evidence, e.g. a bloody apron, and then exclaiming that he did not commit the murder, as it was, in fact, the 'others' that had done so?

If that person is able to produce the aforementioned piece of crime-scene evidence, then it is clearly he that has just committed the murder, regardless of his assertion that it was the 'others'.

I don't see how anyone could expect to get away with such shenanigans. Hence, my suggestion ...

..., perhaps 'Jack the Ripper' was naive enough to believe that he could get away with that sort of sophomoric foolishness.

As 'Jack the Ripper' has presented the bloody apron, as a means of clarifying the object of his chalk-written proclamation, i.e. "Nothing"¹, it is clearly he that has just committed the murder of Catherine Eddowes, and no conceivable amount of 'finger-pointing' can alter that fact.

¹ The object of his chalk-written proclamation, i.e. "Nothing", being that, for which the "Juwes" should be blamed.

This is why I believe that 'Jack the Ripper' was attempting to deflect 'moral blame' - as opposed to 'outright responsibility' - for, specifically, the murder of Catherine Eddowes, away from himself, and toward the "Juwes" that had disturbed him, in Dutfield's Yard.

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

~~~

I am a staunch proponent of the notion that 'Jack the Ripper' had his own reasons for doing what he did: Reasons, which none of us will ever be able to comprehend.

I guess that makes me one of the lowly underprivileged 'Ripperologists' that wasn't blessed with the ability to read the mind of a certain serial-killer that operated a century past.

Hence, I cannot, and will not (ever) accept the assertions of many, within this, our field of interest, that 'Jack the Ripper' would not have stopped to write a seemingly cryptic message, in a neat 'schoolboy hand' that consisted of letters that were less than one inch, in height, ... when the sounds of a frantic manhunt were clearly audible, in the direction, from whence he had just come.

If he had his own reasons for doing what he did, then so be it!

And, if those reasons were driven by a psychosis that entailed an underlying obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, then all bets regarding whether he would have done 'this', or whether he would have done 'that', are plainly and simply ... off!

Now, Abby Normal has established the notion that 'Jack the Ripper' did, in fact, write the so-called 'GSG', as an underlying premise, for all discussion, within this thread.

Accordingly, he has asked that we not debate this notion.

And, accordingly, I am not!

I am simply making note of the fact that we cannot successfully rationalize the actions of a hitherto unidentified serial-killer that operated a century past.

But, we can attempt to conceive of certain scenarios that we believe fit nicely, into the sequences of events that are under our scrutiny.

That is what I am attempting to do.

I would not presume, as do many, to be able to read the mind of 'Jack the Ripper'.

But, I would presume that reasonable and seemingly 'fitting' scenarios are attainable, ... on both sides of the debate, as to whether he did, or did not write the graffito.

Of course, in this particular thread, we are compelled to limit our discussion, to just one side of that debate.

[Wickerman]

If written around 2:00am we might expect it to have been scribbled in a more 'open' and lighted location. And if consistent with the suggested 'in-your-face' attitude of the killer, then scribbled in considerably larger script than was suggested by Halse:

"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboys round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"

Just unrelated scribble I think, ...but no locals mentioned it being there previously...

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

[Writerboy]

I am right in thinking the portion of apron was CUT from the apron, and so that sugggests maybe the killer was planning to do something specific with it (he never took souvenirs from the other victims that we know of).

So perhaps it was to prove his graffiti was genuine. Either that, or he took it as a souvenir, dropped it in panic when fearing he might be discovered with it, and just happened to drop it near a piece of graffiti that he had nothing to do with...

[Wickerman]

I am right in thinking the portion of apron was CUT from the apron,

Hi Writerboy.
Yes it was, verified by the doctors in charge of the case.

and so that sugggests maybe the killer was planning to do something specific with it (he never took souvenirs from the other victims that we know of).

Traditionally it was believed he only cut off the large piece of apron to wipe his hands, however that is not the only possibility, he may have used it to carry away the uterus & kidney.
Souveniers from the other victims?, we wouldn't know, but the other victims didn't have much by way of artifacts for him to take. He did remove part of Chapman's womb, if you include this as a souvenier.

All the best, Jon S.

[Hunter]

...And, possibly, her brass rings.

[curious4]

Was the writing on the wall there to draw attention to the bloodstained apron or the bloodstained apron there to draw attention to the writing? Of course the killer could have seen the writing earlier and deliberately dropped his "red herring" there. I think we can take the wording to mean exactly what it said - that it would not be wrong to blame the jews.

Regarding whether posters are male or female, I was not happy about being "outed" - shouldn´t make any difference. Except when we get on to Victorian undies,contraception and abortion methods of course! (lol)

Best wishes,
C4

[Sally]

Was the writing on the wall there to draw attention to the bloodstained apron or the bloodstained apron there to draw attention to the writing? Of course the killer could have seen the writing earlier and deliberately dropped his "clue" there. I think we can take the wording to mean exactly what it said - that it would not be wrong to blame the jews.

Ah, C4, the million dollar question - which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I agree that its a possibility that he saw the writing and dropped the apron there for effect. I don't think the appearance of the apron and the graffito in the same place at the same time, is likely to be random coincidence.

I suppose it would make a difference if he had just taken advantage of something that was already there to make a statement as opposed to having written the message himself - in former scenario, he'd be an opportunist; in the second, more of a planner.

[Wickerman]

Well, the writing was not large enough to draw attention to the rag, you are certainly about to see the cloth first.

So was the rag dropped to draw attention to the writing?
That might depend on whether the writing was already present, or did he just scribble it fresh?

If he dropped the rag with the intent of drawing attention to some words, and then commenced to write the words, then why write them so small?

If the words were already present, then how was he able to pick them out in the dark while hurrying along the street?, and why were these particular words significant?

- What we do not have is any statement from the residents as to whether the words were there the day before, or had been there a few days.
- Alternately, we have no resident statements as to them not being there either. The police just assumed they were fresh, I think it was described as 'fresh-looking' by Det. Halse.
- We also have no knowledge of the extent, if any, of more graffiti across other walls in the same building or along the street.

The simplest solution is that the cloth and the writing are unrelated. Then you have no need to struggle over any of the above questions.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Well, the writing was not large enough to draw attention to the rag, you are certainly about to see the cloth first.

So was the rag dropped to draw attention to the writing?
That might depend on whether the writing was already present, or did he just scribble it fresh?

If he dropped the rag with the intent of drawing attention to some words, and then commenced to write the words, then why write them so small?

If the words were already present, then how was he able to pick them out in the dark while hurrying along the street?, and why were these particular words significant?

- What we do not have is any statement from the residents as to whether the words were there the day before, or had been there a few days.
- Alternately, we have no resident statements as to them not being there either. The police just assumed they were fresh, I think it was described as 'fresh-looking' by Det. Halse.
- We also have no knowledge of the extent, if any, of more graffiti across other walls in the same building or along the street.

The simplest solution is that the cloth and the writing are unrelated. Then you have no need to struggle over any of the above questions.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker
I think any Graffito with the word jew in it, in a jewish area would have been rubbed out pretty quickly-ie in the first daylight of its writing.

The police at the time associated the rag and the writing together.

But back on topic-assume they are related and written by the killer-What do you think the meaning/intent was?

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicker
I think any Graffito with the word jew in it, in a jewish area would have been rubbed out pretty quickly-ie in the first daylight of its writing.

The police at the time associated the rag and the writing together.

But back on topic-assume they are related and written by the killer-What do you think the meaning/intent was?

Hi Abby.
(so the name is not a colloquialism for, "I am normal"? (I be normal?), I must admit I thought you were a member of the fairer sex).
:-)

Ok, regarding what the writing meant somewhat depends which version you accept. I have always accepted PC Longs version because at least the spelling was checked by the Inspector. And that suggests to me that any wrong wording may have been noticed too.

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing", suggests to me that a non-Jew had a grievance against Jews for not taking the blame for - something. Whether this was related to business dealings or some social disagreement can only be guessed.

The reason I doubt it being a general anti-semitic slur is because of the inclusion of "the men" as opposed to simply, "The Jews will not be blamed for nothing", which would be a derogatory slur against the ethnicity of a people.
This scribble was aimed at the decision makers, "the men", and therefore may be business related.

(If the killer wrote it)
If the killer was a low-class person I would not expect something verging on the poetic. Rather we might expect something more low-brow, perhaps, "Look what the Jews did", or "Goldberg was here!" :-)

Would a Jew have written this?, or does the GSG argue against Kosminski?

Regards, Jon S.

[Sally]

- What we do not have is any statement from the residents as to whether the words were there the day before, or had been there a few days.
- Alternately, we have no resident statements as to them not being there either. The police just assumed they were fresh, I think it was described as 'fresh-looking' by Det. Halse.
- We also have no knowledge of the extent, if any, of more graffiti across other walls in the same building or along the street.

I believe the apron was spotted first, then the graffito.

Neither Halse nor Long, the bobbies on the beat, noticed the graffito half an hour earlier when they passed by. The graffito (I think I'm right in saying) was written on black ceramic brick, in wet conditions. It would have been quite ephemeral.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.
(so the name is not a colloquialism for, "I am normal"? (I be normal?), I must admit I thought you were a member of the fairer sex).
:-)

Ok, regarding what the writing meant somewhat depends which version you accept. I have always accepted PC Longs version because at least the spelling was checked by the Inspector. And that suggests to me that any wrong wording may have been noticed too.

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing", suggests to me that a non-Jew had a grievance against Jews for not taking the blame for - something. Whether this was related to business dealings or some social disagreement can only be guessed.

The reason I doubt it being a general anti-semitic slur is because of the inclusion of "the men" as opposed to simply, "The Jews will not be blamed for nothing", which would be a derogatory slur against the ethnicity of a people.
This scribble was aimed at the decision makers, "the men", and therefore may be business related.

(If the killer wrote it)
If the killer was a low-class person I would not expect something verging on the poetic. Rather we might expect something more low-brow, perhaps, "Look what the Jews did", or "Goldberg was here!" :-)

Would a Jew have written this?, or does the GSG argue against Kosminski?

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

(If the killer wrote it)
If the killer was a low-class person I would not expect something verging on the poetic. Rather we might expect something more low-brow, perhaps, "Look what the Jews did", or "Goldberg was here!" :-)

In my view the writing is pretty low brow, the misspelling of Jews and the "Slang" of the incorrect use of the double negative.

Would a Jew have written this?, or does the GSG argue against Kosminski?

I dont think a Jew who was the killer would write it, including Kosminski. Firstly, a jew IMHO would not write something implicating Jews and second I don't think a Jew would spell the word incorrectly.

[Abby Normal]

I believe the apron was spotted first, then the graffito.

Neither Halse nor Long, the bobbies on the beat, noticed the graffito half an hour earlier when they passed by. The graffito (I think I'm right in saying) was written on black ceramic brick, in wet conditions. It would have been quite ephemeral.

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.

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.

[curious4]

The writing on the wall

Hello again,

For what it´s worth, I think Jack did write the message, probably laughing up his sleeve at his ability to run rings round the police and to give vent to his antisemitism perhaps. I believe the message was described as being "in a round schoolboy´s hand" - not the writing of someone badly educated. The big mystery is just why it was wiped out - I don´t buy the official reason at all.

Another point - 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, wouldn´t chalk have been handed in at the end of the day?

Best wishes,
C4

[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.

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