The meaning of the GSG wording

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wickerman. Of course, I thought about that, but in remembering the the writer would have been working in the relative darkness, in a hurry, with one eye over his shoulder, and using chalk on rough dado no less, I don't know that proper structuring was his priority, particularly as he utilized a double-negative to appear less intelligent than he almost certainly was (as gauged by he handwriting). And keep in mind that I myself am not 'convinced' of this theory, but I do think it's a good one. My gut says that if it had been photographed, this conclusion would have been reached a long, long time ago.

Another good objection brought forth by Chris George when I posted this theory some time back, was that anagrams were not nearly as common in the LVP as they are today. This is certainly true, but they were certainly not rare, and one thing I've noticed about the Brits back then is they would often not use periods after each letter, for instance HRH and CID.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Not only is the resulting meaning still obscure, it relies on someone writing lower-case letters (for IWMES) in place of upper-case. I can't recall any examples of when anyone would do this (IBM, CIBC, RIM, EEC, WHMIS).

Capital letters were noted in the graffiti so the writer cannot be said to have used lower-case throughout.
As I said elsewhere, clever, but your explanation of the writer not using capitals for the abreviations when they are used correctly elsewhere does not provide a convincing explanation.

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

The height could also be explained by someone crouching down to avoid being seen.

c.d.

Me likey!
and/or someoneone writing it closer to the evidence they just left behind.

[Abby Normal]

I posted this on another thread, but it would actually be more on topic here, so here's an idea of what the GSG might actually mean...

I too believe the graffiti to be genuine, as did most of the police at the time. You may or may not be aware of a theory I hold as to what it actually said. It's a theory, mind you, and NOT something I'm convinced of, but a careful study of all the witness evidence of the graffiti can only lead one to the conclusion that there was no real consensus as to what the second word was. Because of Warren's handwritten note, we all say "Juwes' now, but others who were on the scene would beg to differ, and there are many variations. Because of this, it occurred to me years ago that perhaps people were trying to make a word out of something that was not a word in the first place, but an anagram. The sign outside the Berner Street club read 'International Working Men's Educational Society' - IWMES. When written out in cursif, these letters more than merely resemble JUWES, but not so 'spot on' that some people wouldn't see something else. If my theory is correct, then one interpretation is that Jack is wanting to make sure that he is properly credited with the murder. Also possible would be your interpretation that he is wanting to cast blame on them. We're still, of course, left with the double negative that means it could be read both ways.

Incidentally, I've often wondered if Jack didn't want to write the graffiti in Mitre Square, but heard the constable's approach and knew he had to get packing, thus grabbed the apron portion for placement elsewhere.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Now thats thinking outside the box.

[Tom_Wescott]

GSG - The Truth At Last?

I posted this on another thread, but it would actually be more on topic here, so here's an idea of what the GSG might actually mean...

I too believe the graffiti to be genuine, as did most of the police at the time. You may or may not be aware of a theory I hold as to what it actually said. It's a theory, mind you, and NOT something I'm convinced of, but a careful study of all the witness evidence of the graffiti can only lead one to the conclusion that there was no real consensus as to what the second word was. Because of Warren's handwritten note, we all say "Juwes' now, but others who were on the scene would beg to differ, and there are many variations. Because of this, it occurred to me years ago that perhaps people were trying to make a word out of something that was not a word in the first place, but an anagram. The sign outside the Berner Street club read 'International Working Men's Educational Society' - IWMES. When written out in cursif, these letters more than merely resemble JUWES, but not so 'spot on' that some people wouldn't see something else. If my theory is correct, then one interpretation is that Jack is wanting to make sure that he is properly credited with the murder. Also possible would be your interpretation that he is wanting to cast blame on them. We're still, of course, left with the double negative that means it could be read both ways.

Incidentally, I've often wondered if Jack didn't want to write the graffiti in Mitre Square, but heard the constable's approach and knew he had to get packing, thus grabbed the apron portion for placement elsewhere.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Swansons report does not state the writing was left by the killer just that the writing throws blame on the killer, there is no suggestion what for.

Oh come, play fair. The head of the Ripper investigation, in a report about the Ripper murders, is stating that a piece of writing found over the torn apron of a Ripper victim was intended to ‘throw blame upon the Jews’. Now I would think that if Swanson were suggesting it was to blame the Jews for the rise in tea tax, he would have said as much, considering everything else in the report pertained to the Ripper investigation. The fact that he offered no other elucidation means that his comment referred to the Ripper murders.

I've already had to deal with one false allegation of untruths today, I'd gladly deal with another.

I wouldn’t dare say you were lying, I just said that what you posted was not true, as in I was in a position to post relevant material to the contrary of what you stated, and I did just that. The fact that Sir Henry’s words came from his book and not the files probably reflects more on the depletion of the files than it does on Henry’s stance, which clearly is that the graffiti was possibly from the killer.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

The height could also be explained by someone crouching down to avoid being seen.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

But then, Why write any Graffiti that small??? see my point?

As we know, today graffiti has turned into an art, but decades ago most graffiti was the product of schoolkids, generally the more abusive it was the smaller it was.

And if it is so small, again, it was big enough for the police to see and make the connection.

It was only noticed because Long approached & bent down to pick up the apron, so his face was closer to the wall. Probably whoever wrote it only intended people to see it who were entering through the archway, not for the general public passing in the street, otherwise it might have been written on the outside facing wall.

To carols above point-Do you know high it was written on the wall? (I think she makes a valid point).

No, we have no idea how high it was written. The dimensions given on the photo are only based on the dimensions of the typical house brick + cement line. I was showing an approximate location between two specific points.
Unfortunately, I cannot remember what the article or post was which contained that doctored photo. Just using the photo by itself is taking it out of context, but I can't remember what the context was, sorry, it was done a few years ago.

Come to think of it, and in keeping with Carol's point, I think there was one suggestion by an official(?), that if the graffiti had been there any length of time it might have been brushed off by peoples shoulders (which gives a clue to the height). Though, I don't recall ever bumping into brick walls as I pass through an archway :-)

Regards, Jon S.

[Abby Normal]

Here's an exersize for you this weekend. Get yourself a ruler and draw two horizontal parallel lines 3/4" apart. Then get some chalk and write that message being very particular to observe that..

"....The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"

When you've done, take your time and try convince yourself that Jack the Ripper risked his life & freedom to stop and scribble this useless excuse for a graffiti message, that no-one can read from 10 feet away.
Yep, some blazeh in-your-face message that turned out to be...

Regards, Jon
P.S. 3/4" is 0.75 mm
:-)

Hi Wicker
I dont need to do the exersize. i see what your saying.

But then, Why write any Graffiti that small??? see my point?
And if it is so small, again, it was big enough for the police to see and make the connection.

To carols above point-Do you know high it was written on the wall? (I think she makes a valid point).

[Wickerman]

Hi Wicker
The grafitti was big enough to be seen by the police at the time who also thought it was written by the killer who left the bloody apron.

"size" of the grafiti ruling it out? c'mon.

Here's an exersize for you this weekend. Get yourself a ruler and draw two horizontal parallel lines 3/4" apart. Then get some chalk and write that message being very particular to observe that..

"....The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion"

When you've done, take your time and try convince yourself that Jack the Ripper risked his life & freedom to stop and scribble this useless excuse for a graffiti message, that no-one can read from 10 feet away.
Yep, some blazeh in-your-face message that turned out to be...

Regards, Jon
P.S. 3/4" is 0.75 mm
:-)

[Abby Normal]

We were on holiday when this thread started and I've only just caught up properly with it. For a start - are you sure you're a boy, Abby? I was sure you were a girl.

I still need to think about the meaning of the GSG wording Abby, but I noticed something that I really would like to share with you all as the post concerned, together with photograph, is number 32 by Wickerman. So please forgive me for being 'off-topic'. In the photograph the top row of the graffiti is marked as being 49.5 inches from the ground. Now - I think it is a known fact in detection that if a person writes whilst standing up that he/she will write the first line on a level with his/her eyes. If this is so then the writer would be about 54 inches tall - the height of a schoolboy of an age to write neatly.

I'll think about the meaning of the GSG wording now, Abby.

Carol

Hi Carol

For a start - are you sure you're a boy, Abby? I was sure you were a girl.

I'm a hermaphrodite.

I still need to think about the meaning of the GSG wording Abby, but I noticed something that I really would like to share with you all as the post concerned, together with photograph, is number 32 by Wickerman. So please forgive me for being 'off-topic'. In the photograph the top row of the graffiti is marked as being 49.5 inches from the ground. Now - I think it is a known fact in detection that if a person writes whilst standing up that he/she will write the first line on a level with his/her eyes. If this is so then the writer would be about 54 inches tall - the height of a schoolboy of an age to write neatly.

Maybe JtR was a midget. most witnesses describe him as on the shorter side.

Just kidding. Actually a good point. if it is known that the height of the GSG was that low than that would be a red flag for it being wriiten by the ripper.


I'll think about the meaning of the GSG wording now, Abby.

Thanks-I'll be interested on what you think its cryptic message meant.

[Carol]

We were on holiday when this thread started and I've only just caught up properly with it. For a start - are you sure you're a boy, Abby? I was sure you were a girl.

I still need to think about the meaning of the GSG wording Abby, but I noticed something that I really would like to share with you all as the post concerned, together with photograph, is number 32 by Wickerman. So please forgive me for being 'off-topic'. In the photograph the top row of the graffiti is marked as being 49.5 inches from the ground. Now - I think it is a known fact in detection that if a person writes whilst standing up that he/she will write the first line on a level with his/her eyes. If this is so then the writer would be about 54 inches tall - the height of a schoolboy of an age to write neatly.

I'll think about the meaning of the GSG wording now, Abby.

Carol

[Heinrich]

Well, the message appears to blame the Jews for something ... but what?
To interpret this graffito calls for conjecture unsupported by any evidence that it was written by the killer.
It does not refer to the piece of apron.
It does not refer to any murder.
It is useless as a clue to the identity of Jack the Ripper.

[Monty]

"...and the purport of the writing...was to throw blame upon the Jews..." --- Nov 6th, 1888 report by Chief Inspector Donald S. Swanson, pgs 186-87, Ultimate (first edition).

"Sir Charles Warren was instantly apprised of this discovery, and, coming down himself, ordered the words to be wiped out, alleging as his reason for so doing that he feared a rising against the Jews. This was, I thought, a fatal mistake, as Superintendent Mac William plainly told Sir Charles when he called about seven o'clock, accompanied by Superintendent Arnold. It is just possible the words, if photographed, might have afforded an important clue."-----Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner (1910)

And then of course there’s the report by Warren where, following the double event, he became convinced that a ‘secret society’ was behind the murders and attempting to throw the blame upon the Jews, a veiled reference at least in part to the graffiti. I imagine there are more such references by the police, such as the one you mentioned by Moore in 1896, but these are the few that come right to my mind. I think it’s sufficient to show there was early belief at the highest levels of police that the Ripper at least might have been responsible for the writing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hey Tom,

I suggest you read my post really carefully.

I stated that there is no statement made on Police file, other than Moore, that says the killer wrote the wall writing.

Smiths views appeared in a book, not on case file, so therefore are his own personal opinions and not that of the official force.

Swansons report does not state the writing was left by the killer just that the writing throws blame on the killer, there is no suggestion what for.

So, again, please enlighten me as to where (other than Moore) in the official file does it state the writing was left by the killer?

I've already had to deal with one false allegation of untruths today, I'd gladly deal with another.

Monty

[Hunter]

At the time, the various officials would have been careful in structuring their reports, knowing the controversy over Warren's decision and the need for cooperation between the Met and City Police despite it.

The controversy itself and the reason for Arnold's advice and Warren's decision certainly suggests that all who were there considered it possible that the killer might have written it; otherwise, the inflammatory statement would have had little repercussions to them.