The meaning of the GSG wording

[mariab]

Ripper the bard?

Let's not go overboard here. A lot of us don't think the grafitto has anything to do with the killer. However, I agree with you that it does have a musical quality (which may or may not be accidental).

I'm not completely convinced that the GSG was connected to the apron piece, but I don't believe too much in coincidences.
On the other side, it doesn't surprise me in the least that a Victorian graffito might come in verse form, and I would call writing a message in verse an automatic or accidental reflex for a Victorian.

It fits nicely with a hi-hat rhythm - tshh, ta-ta tshh, ta-ta tshh etc. No doubt you will correct me, but doesn't iambic pentameter have ten syllables?

If I'm not mistaken, a Shakespearean pentameter counts as 10 syllables because the last (11th syllable) doesn't count.
To-be-or-not-to-be,-that-is-the-ques-tion. (iambic, technically 11 syllables)
The-Ju-wes-are-the-men-that-won't-be-blamed-for-no-thing. (iambic, technically 13 syllables, in French known as a 12-syllable aléxandrin)
Iambic, 13 syllables is a meter used by Homer (in the original), by the by! Insert a very big LOL here.

[Archaic]

Location of Graffito & the Fact That It Doesn't Seem Overtly Ant-Semitic

Hi everyone. Tom said earlier that "anti-Semitic graffiti was not uncommon in the East End". I'll buy that.

I was thinking though that anti-Semitic graffiti might have been less common in certain areas of the East End such as Goulston Street, which I believe had one of the densest populations of Jews, and perhaps less common still in the doorways of buildings where a large number of Jewish residents lived.

My reason for thinking this is that bullies and bigots tend to be cowards and to operate where they feel safe, which tends to be either on their own turf or within a group context. But the doorway of a largely-Jewish building in a largely-Jewish neighborhood isn't a particularly "safe" place to write anti-Semitic graffiti at any time of the day or night, because residents coming in or out of the building might catch the writer in the act.

Also, the Goulston Street graffito isn't particularly anti-Semitic. Its language is surprisingly mild. There are no racist epithets, no foul language, no direct insults; instead it's merely cryptic and confusing. My guess is that typical East End anti-Semitic graffiti would have been quite a bit shorter and ruder!

In my opinion the Goulston Street graffito really only makes sense in the context of the apron and the Double Event.
I can see why the perp didn't write "I'm Jack the Ripper, I just killed a woman in Berner Street and another in Mitre Square, ha ha." Not only would it not give him the same immense satisfaction of puzzling the police that the more ambiguous graffito gave him, but he had just successfully gotten away with 2 murders. What if he took direct credit for them in his graffito, and some residents really did come in or out just then and observe him in the act? They might make a grab for him, and if he ran away they would almost certainly go immediately to the police with his description. But the graffito as written wouldn't give his identity as a murderer away, it would just seem like odd mumbo-jumbo, and the torn apron piece below it would just look like trash.

The cryptic graffito would only have greater meaning if discovered by the police, who could be expected to identify Kate's bloody apron-piece and realize that the strange graffito might be connected to it, and hence might have been written by the murderer. In my view the graffito writer's goal wasn't so much to insult Jewish people, it was a way to let him celebrate his post-homicidal high by teasing and taunting the police.

Best regards,
Archaic

[mariab]

Hi Archaic,
I hope you're fine.
your knowledge in English verse form is highly needed here.

Also, the Goulston Street graffito isn't particularly anti-Semitic. Its language is surprisingly mild. There are no racist epithets, no foul language, no direct insults; instead it's merely cryptic and confusing. My guess is that typical East End anti-Semitic graffiti would have been quite a bit shorter and ruder!

I disagree. “Lipski“ is a pretty subtle anti-semitic insult, its meaning clear only to the connoisseurs.

In my opinion the Goulston Street graffito really only makes sense in the context of the apron and the Double Event.
I can see why the perp didn't write "I'm Jack the Ripper, I just killed a woman in Berner Street and another in Mitre Square, ha ha." Not only would it not give him the same immense satisfaction of puzzling the police that the more ambiguous graffito gave him, but he had just successfully gotten away with 2 murders.
The cryptic graffito would only have greater meaning if discovered by the police, who could be expected to identify Kate's bloody apron-piece and realize that the strange graffito might be connected to it, and hence might have been written by the murderer. In my view the graffito writer's goal wasn't so much to insult Jewish people, it was a way to let him celebrate his post-homicidal high by teasing and taunting the police.

Totally with you on this. Plus, my opinion is that he wanted to let steam off after his frustrating, interrupted experience in Dutfield's Yard.

[Wickerman]

I'm not completely convinced that the GSG was connected to the apron piece, but I don't believe too much in coincidences.

Glad to hear it, however on the point of "coincidences", let me introduce you to the strange case of Elizabeth Watts or Elizabeth Stride.

If her evidence was correct, there were points of resemblance between the deceased and Elizabeth Watts which almost reminded one of the Comedy of Errors.
- Both had been courted by policemen;
- both bore the same Christian name, and were of the same age;
- both lived with sailors;
- both at one time kept coffee-houses at Poplar;
- both were nick-named "Long Liz;"
- both were said to have had children in charge of their husbands' friends;
- both were given to drink;
- both lived in East-end common lodging- houses;
- both had been charged at the Thames Police-court;
- both had escaped punishment on the ground that they were subject to epileptic fits, although the friends of both were certain that this was a fraud;
- both had lost their front teeth,
- and both had been leading very questionable lives.

We must always make allowances for the "coincidence", they wouldn't have invented the word if it was not required!


Regards, Jon S.

[mariab]

To Wickerman:
Yes I know, and our own lives are full of such coincidences, but these refer to biographical detail vs. evidence in a murder case.

I wonder if the police questioned the neighbors about the GSG's previous existence, or if they decided to “keep a low profile“ since they had erased the GSG anyway. (As you already discussed in your humorous post #243.)

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wickersticks, I wouldn't take all that to the bank if I were you. Watts had information on Stride by that time and may have incorporated some of what she heard to bolster her case, or at least make herself look less foolish.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Grave Maurice]

If her evidence was correct....

There's your insurmountable problem, Wick.

[Wickerman]

There's your insurmountable problem, Wick.

There's a party-pooper in every crowd...

[Wickerman]

I wonder if the police questioned the neighbors about the GSG's previous existence,

I believe it was the City Police who took that endeavour

[Abby Normal]

Sally,

Yes, the only reason why we are discussing the writing is because of its proximity to the apron piece.

Its association by location. And due to that assumptions were made and caution, on behalf of the police, was acted upon. Warren was fully aware of the anti semitic attacks made just after the Chapman murder and made a call on its removal. Other writing in the area is irrelevant because they did not have that apron piece laying near it. Howver, that's more for Abbys benefit.

I personally feel an inclusion of any info regarding the murders more striking. The Zodiac did it with Stines shirt. He left the police in no doubt who he was, what he did and what he was saying. Attention was grasped. Yet Jack, if he indeed is the writings author, failed to do that. I see no reasonable reason why.

It could have been oh so more effective.

Monty

Hi Monty

Yes, the only reason why we are discussing the writing is because of its proximity to the apron piece.

I beg to differ. I would say its content also has something to do with it.

Its association by location
See above. And it just happened to be directly above it. There could have been an infinite amount of ways they could be more seperate and further apart but just happen to be right next to each other.

Other writing in the area is irrelevant because they did not have that apron piece laying near it. Howver, that's more for Abbys benefit.
What other writing? Did the police mention any other grafitti in the immediate area in connection to the apron? It cant be irrelevant if none existed.

It could have been oh so more effective.
Effectiveness would have been the writers own to judge, not yours. In his own mind it could have been very effective.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi everyone. Tom said earlier that "anti-Semitic graffiti was not uncommon in the East End". I'll buy that.

I was thinking though that anti-Semitic graffiti might have been less common in certain areas of the East End such as Goulston Street, which I believe had one of the densest populations of Jews, and perhaps less common still in the doorways of buildings where a large number of Jewish residents lived.

My reason for thinking this is that bullies and bigots tend to be cowards and to operate where they feel safe, which tends to be either on their own turf or within a group context. But the doorway of a largely-Jewish building in a largely-Jewish neighborhood isn't a particularly "safe" place to write anti-Semitic graffiti at any time of the day or night, because residents coming in or out of the building might catch the writer in the act.

Also, the Goulston Street graffito isn't particularly anti-Semitic. Its language is surprisingly mild. There are no racist epithets, no foul language, no direct insults; instead it's merely cryptic and confusing. My guess is that typical East End anti-Semitic graffiti would have been quite a bit shorter and ruder!

In my opinion the Goulston Street graffito really only makes sense in the context of the apron and the Double Event.

Hello Archaic

In re your statement, "In my opinion the Goulston Street graffito really only makes sense in the context of the apron and the Double Event." I agree with you.

While the links of the case to the Jews are difficult to quantify, the night of the Double Event presents the greatest number of associations, including the first murder (Stride) in a yard besides a mostly Jewish socialist club and the the second murder (Eddowes) behind the Great Synagogue in Duke Street. And as you say, the piece of apron was deposited in the doorway of Wentworth Model Dwellings, a building where immigrant Jews lived.

So the killer could have been making a statement with the graffito plus the bloodied apron... the piece of Eddowes' apron being left by him to make clear to the police that the inscription had been written by him, even though the exact meaning of the wording is unclear to us now.

Also, as I noted elsewhere, even though many students of the case are skeptical today that the graffito was written by the murderer, the police at the time seemed to have no problem buying that the killer wrote it. In fact, it would appear that they readily accepted that as a fact and never expressed skepticism that Jack had written it.

In contrast, they later said Dear Boss was written by a journalist, although at first they evidently thought the Ripper letters were written by the killer just as they thought the graffito was by him.

All the best

Chris

[Monty]

Sorry Chris,

Can you point out where the Police 'readily accepted as fact' that killer wrote it?

Monty

[niko]

Hi everyone, Phil.H asked me what message was ment by the graffito, very differcult question to answer, as the graffito could mean so many thing's. One could be the following - Something had ocurred in the East End or was presently happening. The person who wrote the graffito (who could of been many) wanted the blame to be directed to "him" doing the happening's in the East End and not to throw blame on the (whole) Jewish community. All the best, Agur.

niko

[ChrisGeorge]

Sorry Chris,

Can you point out where the Police 'readily accepted as fact' that killer wrote it?

Monty

Hi Monty

For one thing why do you think they were careful to make a copy of it, albeit different policemen recorded it differently. And then there was the controversy about whether the word "Juwes" or "Jewes" referred to the Jews. There's actually no indication that they thought it was anything other than written by the killer.

Best regards

Chris

[Monty]

Hey Chris,

They noted it as potential evidence, not ascertained fact.

The case is ridiculed with such, the Leather apron in the yard in Hanbury Street, the envelope at the same location. Both explained via investigation.

The same lays for the writing. Just that no definate conclusion drawn. So to stae the police felt the killer wrote it, when we have nothing of the sort on official casefile (and rightly so, as it wasn't proven) is wrong.

Monty