The meaning of the GSG wording

[mariab]

And then there was the controversy about whether the word "Juwes" or "Jewes" referred to the Jews.

There's also the possibility that the GSG might have said IWES, which eerily ressembles “JEWES“/“JUWES“. This is a fascinating idea originated by another Ripperologist. Interestingly enough, I was talking about this with some members of the Whitechapel Society a couple weeks ago, and it's an idea several people have come up with, independently from each other.


I've seen bits and pieces of Trapeze, but don't recall a quote for a triple negative. Ah, “the triple“. Totally get Lancaster/Curtis on this, as I'm working on triple jumps (Toeloop, then Lutz) in ice skating. Will do anything to get there. :-)

[Tom_Wescott]

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

Well, that might be why you discuss it, but within the framework of the other known evidence, the conclusion that must be reached is ‘The Ripper almost certainly wrote the graffiti’.

As for the police, while some individuals may have been convinced beyond any doubt that the Ripper wrote (as Hainsworth states Macnaghten was, and as Hainsworth himself is), the police as a whole were certainly not. How could they be? How can WE be? We can’t. But operating on probabilities, the probability is certainly that the Ripper wrote it.

I've read some of your poetry over at JTRForums and have noticed your preferance for free verse.

Actually, Chris George would prefer to be paid for it, but such is the curse of the poet. And thanks for reminding me to go catch up on his poems. I imagine there’s a ton I haven’t read yet.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Actually, Chris George would prefer to be paid for it, but such is the curse of the poet. And thanks for reminding me to go catch up on his poems. I imagine there’s a ton I haven’t read yet.

The ones I've read over at the JTRForums are from old threads, I'm afraid. What saddens me is that I had to miss his conference presentation (on theatrical depictions of the Ripper), as he spoke early in the morning and I only managed to arrive in London in the evening.

There's also the possibility that the GSG might have said IWES, which eerily ressembles “JEWES“/“JUWES“. This is a fascinating idea originated by another Ripperologist.

I should have mentioned that this is a contribution by Tom Wescott.

The layout with the capital letters at the beginning of each line is also reminiscent of verse.

Which makes me wonder: Are the police renditions of the GSG in capital letters or not?

[sleekviper]

Maybe they forgot the question mark. A guy that is deaf-mute meets his wife at that very spot, and on his handy dandy portable chalkboard writes, "Honey, some foreign looking guys just robbed me a few streets over." She grabs his chalk, and writes on the spot in question, " The juwes are the men that will not be blamed" He takes his chalk back, cleans his board, and writes, " Dear, you spelled Jews wrong, and I never said that they were Jewish, just foreign looking. Anyway, some bloke just handed me this apron." She grabs the chalk and writes, "For nothing?" he nods his head up and down, she hands him the chalk, takes the apron, sees that it have been ripped, and throws it to the ground. He shrugs, they walk off. Mystery solved.

[drstrange169]

Whoever the writer was, they were in the fine literary double negative company of Chaucer and Shakespeare. Contemporarily, Conan Doyle.

Not to mention, Bob Dylan’s farm work with Maggie, Mick Jagger’s lack of satisfaction and Roger Walters inadequate schooling!

[Monty]

Well, that might be why you discuss it, but within the framework of the other known evidence, the conclusion that must be reached is ‘The Ripper almost certainly wrote the graffiti’.

As for the police, while some individuals may have been convinced beyond any doubt that the Ripper wrote (as Hainsworth states Macnaghten was, and as Hainsworth himself is), the police as a whole were certainly not. How could they be? How can WE be? We can’t. But operating on probabilities, the probability is certainly that the Ripper wrote it.

Tom,

The probability is anyone could have written it.

One of the '4 points' you cite is not ascertained fact. No one states the writing was or was not there at a certain time, so this is not 'fact' as you yourself put in brackets.

Therefore you are building a conclusion on pillars of salt. Nothing solid at all.

The fact is, and remains, the only link between the writing and Eddowes killer which is certain , is that the apron lay close to the writing.

We have been down this path before, many times over the years.
Nothing within the writing indicates a connection with any crime whatsoever, it doesn't tie in with actions taken at the other scenes by the killer, writing was prominant throughout the area, reports were rife of writing in Hanbury Street (so the idea was not unique).

Whilst Jonathon may state Macnaghtens 'belief' (not made on official file) killer wrote it I'd like to point out Fido and Evans believe the probablity that Jack did not jot a word that night is higher.

The bottom line is, we will never know.

Monty

[Phil H]

The bottom line is, we will never know.

Oh, I think we can do a bit better than that, logically:

Nichols - no graffito, near the body, nothing removed, no writing anywhere else. OK, in that case "Jack" may have been disturbed.

Chapman - no graffito, at murder site or elsewhere, despite opportunity to take clothing items. Nothing found elsewhere.

Stride - nothing taken, no graffito.

Eddowes - subject of this thread.

MJK - despite ample time, no graffiti at site - unless we accept the "F" and "M" claimed by diary delusionists.

Tabram, Coles, McKenzie - no graffiti.

Thus we are seeking to associate the killer of Eddowes with some chalk writing, when there is NO OTHER MURDER associated with this series, where such a thing is known.

Further the GSG message has never been shown to have a clear unambiguous, widely accepted or agreed connection to the JtR murders. Moreover, the wording could be read, more sensibly, to refer to other matters with no connection to JtR.

The proximity of the apron-piece is the ONLY link or reason to associate killer and writing. Yet there is NO REASON to link the two as the material could have arrived in the entrance for reasons entirely unconnected to the writing on the wall.

Finally, and interestingly, if the killer wasa "writer" or communicator, I see no attempt to link the same individual to the "letters" - although surely and logically, someone clearly literate (if they could write the GSG) and so keen to communicate a message so complicated it is ambiguous would have had no problem with writing in other forms.

The JtR wrote the GSG theory is a house built on sand. It cannot be sustained except by subjective and very weak arguments. PERIOD.

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

The layout with the capital letters at the beginning of each line is also reminiscent of verse.

All the best

Chris

Which makes me wonder: Are the police renditions of the GSG in capital letters or not?

Yes, it terms of the capitalization of certain words. Here is the copy in the MEPO files--



P.S. In regard to my poetry, you can catch up with it on my blog.

Chris

[Fleetwood Mac]

I would entirely agree with Phil H.

It's quite odd, really.

The equivalent would be saying: because he threw the apron in a doorway in Goulston Street then Jack must have a strong connection to those dwellings.

It's exactly the same thing. Making a connection between where the apron landed and the spot's surroundings.

But, must he have had a connection to those dwellings? No, he's ducked in a doorway that allows him shelter from the main footway.

The idea that the writing would have been rubbed off by someone's shoulders: seems bizarre to me because I don't remember bouncing off walls as I walked down the street, unless of course the policeman is relying on everyone being too drunk to walk straight.

Then there's the idea that it wasn't there the day before. I would concede that someone should have seen that in the dwellings. How thorough was the investigation, however? And it still doesn't implicate Jack: other people could write a message.

And, there is no reference to the murders in the message.

All in all: I would say it's unlikely that Jack wrote that message.

[mariab]

To Chris George:
Thanks for the HO report. No capitalization for the entire SGS. I wonder if the other copy is entirely capitalized, which would permit the hypothesis of JEWES=IWES...

[ChrisGeorge]

To Chris George:
Thanks for the HO report. No capitalization for the entire SGS. I wonder if the other copy is entirely capitalized, which would permit the hypothesis of JEWES=IWES...

Hi Maria

The term "Jewes" -- if that is what it says -- is not entirely capitalized in either version, so "IWES" seems an unlikely interpretation though an interesting suggestion by Tom nonetheless.

Best regards

Chris

[mariab]

Thank you so much for the info about the GSG copies' capitalization, Mr. George.

[Tom_Wescott]

I don't understand why everyone thinks the Warren note of the graffiti is some sort of Xerox of how it appeared. At most it represents the layout, but it was written rapidly and represents someone's natural handwriting, not the stilted, shaky hand we'd expect if someone were writing slow to capture the exact appearance.

Warren didn't even read the memo, because according to his reports, it didn't say 'Juwes'.


Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Nobody says it's a xerox or a pic, Tom. Most plausibly the HO transcription (attached by Chris George in his post #636) contains the mistake “will not“ vs. “won't“. I'm willing to bet that the original said “won't“ – otherwise the verse effect is gone. What I'm interested in is in the capitalization, since only full capitalization would allow the “JEWES“/“JUWES“=“IWES“ hypothesis. However, it's also possible that the original GSG was entirely in capitals and that the police omitted transcribing this, not thinking it was an important detail.

By the by, is that Warren's hand himself in the HO transcription? Does anybody know? Hunter? Chris George?

At some point I'll read the memos and reports on this, and The Ultimate from cover to cover.

PS.: Actually I'm saying whatever. It would be totally possible that someone spelled IWES “Iwes“ if writing with chalk on a wall. They could have even spelled it “Sewi“ if they were being creative. :-)

[Tom_Wescott]

Yes, they are saying that, Maria. Chris George just stated my IWMES theory was unlikely on the grounds that he believes the Warren transcription reflects the actual form of the writing, and he's not alone in that thinking. I just don't see any reason to suppose that's the case. It recorded what the transcriber believed it to say and in what order, but does not reflect the handwriting or structure.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott