The meaning of the GSG wording

[GUT]

G'day Mike

That's me

[caz]

Hey! Jews suck!!! get out
I love Suzi. Nobody does it better!
The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing


Any difference?

Hi GM,

Maybe the Juwes message (language use, sentence construction, size) was a more typical way to deface walls in those days than your clearly modern examples.

The problem is that we have no good evidence that similar messages could be found on every other building in the vicinity, and the police reaction to this one may suggest otherwise. If their priority was public order rather than preserving the potential handwriting of the killer, it implies that the message was viewed as out of the ordinary and out of place for those recently built dwellings, in addition to being inflammatory - and that's with or without the apron that was found at the same time and quickly taken from the scene, leaving just the message to deal with. There is nothing to suggest the police were routinely faced with similar graffiti that required speedy removal to prevent trouble.

To All,

If the killer saw the message earlier and decided to dump the apron beneath it, it means that others could have seen it too. He could not have been sure it would still be there by the time he'd risked transporting the bloody cloth there. So I'm not a fan of that theory. Ditto if he wrote it himself earlier. Anyone could have erased it in the interval, or worse, could have seen him writing it and been on the lookout for him.

The simpler option for me is that the killer cleaned up somewhere close by before returning to the street to discard the cloth and write the message - to confuse, distract or delay those searching for him. At that point there was no reason to suppose a connection between Goulston St and the Mitre Square (or Berner St) murder, and he'd have nothing more incriminating than chalk on him if stopped and questioned.

Love,

Caz
X

[pinkmoon]

Hi GM,

Maybe the Juwes message (language use, sentence construction, size) was a more typical way to deface walls in those days than your clearly modern examples.

The problem is that we have no good evidence that similar messages could be found on every other building in the vicinity, and the police reaction to this one may suggest otherwise. If their priority was public order rather than preserving the potential handwriting of the killer, it implies that the message was viewed as out of the ordinary and out of place for those recently built dwellings, in addition to being inflammatory - and that's with or without the apron that was found at the same time and quickly taken from the scene, leaving just the message to deal with. There is nothing to suggest the police were routinely faced with similar graffiti that required speedy removal to prevent trouble.

To All,

If the killer saw the message earlier and decided to dump the apron beneath it, it means that others could have seen it too. He could not have been sure it would still be there by the time he'd risked transporting the bloody cloth there. So I'm not a fan of that theory. Ditto if he wrote it himself earlier. Anyone could have erased it in the interval, or worse, could have seen him writing it and been on the lookout for him.

The simpler option for me is that the killer cleaned up somewhere close by before returning to the street to discard the cloth and write the message - to confuse, distract or delay those searching for him. At that point there was no reason to suppose a connection between Goulston St and the Mitre Square (or Berner St) murder, and he'd have nothing more incriminating than chalk on him if stopped and questioned.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi caz,the most logical answer my dear the last thing our killer would have wanted is the police searching his house so he took the risk to give the false impression he lived in the Whitechapel area.

[Penhalion]

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but with over 500 replies in this thread I haven't read all of them.

Why would he have been carrying a piece of chalk? Was he in the habit of writing on walls? Did he *plan* to leave a cryptic message for the police that night? Did his work require him to have chalk for some reason so he always had a bit on him? Sure, a piece of chalk wouldn't be particularly incriminating, but it wouldn't be something every man in Whitechapel would have either.

For the record, I don't think the GSG had anything to do with JtR other than it happened in the same area. The apron being found nearby was just one of those odd coincidences- a dark doorway to toss a bit of garbage away.

[pinkmoon]

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but with over 500 replies in this thread I haven't read all of them.

Why would he have been carrying a piece of chalk? Was he in the habit of writing on walls? Did he *plan* to leave a cryptic message for the police that night? Did his work require him to have chalk for some reason so he always had a bit on him? Sure, a piece of chalk wouldn't be particularly incriminating, but it wouldn't be something every man in Whitechapel would have either.

For the record, I don't think the GSG had anything to do with JtR other than it happened in the same area. The apron being found nearby was just one of those odd coincidences- a dark doorway to toss a bit of garbage away.

Hi penhalion,a lot of people over the years have used the chalk carrying to point the finger at Druitt what with him been a teacher and a teacher would be more likely to have chalk in his possession then the average man in the street.

[Dane_F]

If it is believed that between the two murders he went somewhere to clean up, he might have grabbed it then. I could see where he gets upset for being interrupted with the first one, goes back to clean up determines to leave a message for those that interrupted him and planned it from that point forward.

This is of course completely guessing.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Plausible meanings.

The two best, if we are dealing with a single killer, or maybe those who want that to be how things are scene, the best explanation of the GSG's meaning would be either:

1. Jews are being blamed for nothing and now here is something we have done that you can rightly blame us for. Ei, the murderer is Jewish.

2. The Jews at Berners are responsible for Eddowes' death since the murderer did not get to finish. Ei, the murderer is not Jewish. Or is Jewish but does not consider his self to be or possibly doesn't those at Berner to be the same as he.

Something like that.
Most likely the murderer deposited the apron there.
Less likely, yet still well within reason, the murderer scrawled the message.

[Sam Flynn]

a lot of people over the years have used the chalk carrying to point the finger at Druitt [who, as a] teacher would be more likely to have chalk in his possession then the average man in the street.

Not in those days, however. Chalk was widely used in many walks of life and, indeed, by those without much of a "walk of life" to talk about - kids, beggars, street artists and the like. Chalk was a readily available, and cheap, writing material that could have been carried around by just about anyone.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo.

If it is believed that between the two murders he went somewhere to clean up, he might have grabbed it then. I could see where he gets upset for being interrupted with the first one, goes back to clean up determines to leave a message for those that interrupted him and planned it from that point forward.

This is of course completely guessing.

No, it would be way more likely that he cleaned up after Eddowes and went back out to deposit the apron and write the message. Acquiring the chalk then. If he wasn't just in the habit of carrying chalk about.
I see the depositing of the apron and message writing as a distractionary tactic to create a focal point to occupy the authorities as a good possibilty. The murderer might have been very close by and wanted as much of the attention somewhere he was not. To aid escape or observe or gloat or whatever.

[Sam Flynn]

Hey! Jews suck!!! get out
I love Suzi. Nobody does it better!
The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing

The Good Michael, as ever, proves a font of all knowledge.

...I'm sorry, I'll read that again:

The Good Michael, as ever, proves a knowledge of all fonts.

That's better

[Bridewell]

The problem is that we have no good evidence that similar messages could be found on every other building in the vicinity,

I recall mention being made of Walter Dew having alluded, in his memoirs, to the fact that anti-Semitic graffiti was common in the area.

I have no personal knowledge of this but I'm sure I've seen it posted.

[GUT]

G'day Bridewell

I recall mention being made of Walter Dew having alluded, in his memoirs, to the fact that anti-Semitic graffiti was common in the area.

I have no personal knowledge of this but I'm sure I've seen it posted.

I've heard similar, but as I said there doesn't appear to be any clear record, so if we accept Dew's allusion it may have been mere coincidence that the apron was dropped near the graffiti.

And a deeper knowledge of the anti Semitic graffiti that may have existed might assist in understanding the strange wording.

[DVV]

[QUOTE=GUT;296898
And a deeper knowledge of the anti Semitic graffiti that may have existed might assist in understanding the strange wording.[/QUOTE]

Hi Gut,

I don't think it would help understanding the GSG (which makes no big problem if you attribute it to the ripper), but we'll certainly have evidence that the GSG was quite unique.

And that's why (most of) the police thought it had been chalked by the killer.

In other terms : as common as anti Semitic graffiti were, the GSG was remarkable.

Cheers

[c.d.]

I just don't see him stopping to clean up somewhere while still in possession of the apron. Neither do I see him reaching the safety of home only to venture out again. If he were clever, he might be able to explain away a bloody knife but if he were found with the apron at any time he was screwed. I think he simply threw it away as soon as he realized how dangerous it was to have with him.

If he did make it home only to venture out again, why not cut off a piece of the apron as a souvenir as well as a way to authenticate any future messages? I mean cutting the piece he had in his possession and keeping the cut piece. That doesn't appear to have been done.

c.d.

[GUT]

G'day Dave

You will note I said "might" help and as you say only if the ripper wrote it does it become an issue.