Does Graffito writer = Letter Writer?

[ChrisGeorge]

I often wonder whether a substantial portion of the vagrant 'dolly-mops', residing in 1888's inner 'East End', would have been willing to provide their 'services', ... to some 'filthy foreigner': Desperate circumstances notwithstanding.

Mmmmm. To use a modern term, if a "john" is able to provide you with the price of a bed for the night, why not?

Chris

[Colin Roberts]

No offense intended Colin Roberts.

Well, I wasn't feeling offended, ...

... as you Brits

... until you said that.

I am, after all, an American.

I like your hypothesis as well. Very insightful although of course there are other interpretations...

Indeed, there are!

I wonder if it could be a reference to all the murders and is saying something like 'Well, these Jews are taking advantage of our poor Gentile women and nobody says anything about that.........sure I'm murdering them but should they be servicing these dirty Jews?'

I often wonder whether a substantial portion of the vagrant 'dolly-mops', residing in 1888's inner 'East End', would have been willing to provide their 'services', ... to some 'filthy foreigner': Desperate circumstances notwithstanding.

[Wickerman]

In other words, is it intellectually consistent to believe the Graffito is the work of JTR but not any of the letters? And if he did write at least one of the letters methinks our greatest clues lie there. Commentary please…

I guess I'm just the party-pooper, I don't think Jack wrote either of them...
so I don't have to struggle with these intellectual conflicts....

Jon

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi all,

I was going to add this to the ‘meaning of Graffito’ thread but thought I might be attacked as a thread transmogrifier. Heaven knows we don’t want that! Again, assuming the Graffito to be the work of the murderer of Eddowes, doesn’t this have a direct correlation to the letters? What this indicates is that the ripper is a writer and a taunter. If he is a writer and a taunter, don’t you think he would have also written at least one of the letters? In other words, is it intellectually consistent to believe the Graffito is the work of JTR but not any of the letters? And if he did write at least one of the letters methinks our greatest clues lie there. Commentary please…


Greg

Hi Greg

The graffito is a fairly flat statement that can be read a number of different ways: blame the Jews, don't blame the Jews. It's the double negative that muddies the meaning. Overall, the graffito is not as overt and cynical or sarcastic as the letters with their taunting phrases. So I don't necessarily see any correlation between the graffito and the letters beyond the fact that they are both written, although obviously the first reaction at the time was that the same guy who wrote the letters also wrote the inscription.

All the best

Chris

[GregBaron]

Stay away from our Unfortunates...

"attacked" ???

No offense intended Colin Roberts. I actually get a kick out of such things and I guess you can't see my tongue planted firmly in cheek. And as you Brits like to say, you were 'spot on' in this instance...

I like your hypothesis as well. Very insightful although of course there are other interpretations.....

I wonder if it could be a reference to all the murders and is saying something like 'Well, these Jews are taking advantage of our poor Gentile women and nobody says anything about that.........sure I'm murdering them but should they be servicing these dirty Jews?' ..... Our imaginations are the only limit on what in fact this graffito might mean...................

Greg

[Colin Roberts]

I was going to add this to the ‘meaning of Graffito’ thread but thought I might be attacked as a thread transmogrifier. Heaven knows we don’t want that! Again, assuming the Graffito to be the work of the murderer of Eddowes, doesn’t this have a direct correlation to the letters? What this indicates is that the ripper is a writer and a taunter.

"attacked" ???

That thread was destined to be stripped of its underlying premise, and quickly transformed into a debate, regarding whether 'Jack the Ripper' did or did not write the 'GSG'.

I rarely get involved in such things; but, in that particular instance, I felt that the 'attacks' were necessary. Especially, in light of the fact that the thread's underlying premise - if upheld - was likely to precipitate discussion, in which I would have been most interested.

"What this indicates is that the ripper is a writer and a taunter."

Not necessarily!

If, as I have suggested, 'Jack the Ripper' was somehow spooked in Dutfield's Yard, and was, therefore, obsessively compelled to do something that he psychotically considered to be 'immoral', i.e. kill twice, during the same excursion, and he accordingly blamed the "Juwes" that had disturbed him, for Eddowes's death; then, he might have been just as obsessively compelled, to 'voice' his feelings, by way of some sort of written communication - in that particular instance, and, only in that particular instance.

[Sally]

'Cornwell' is more appropriate, I feel.

Especially the first part.

And also the second part.

[Phil H]

Contempt suggests I have ANY view on the woman. It was just a mistake.

Phil

[Sister Hyde]

See what he did there? He spelled her name 'Cornwall'.

They just can't help themselves when they have contempt for someone.

'The Juwes' anyone?

QED

Love,

Caz
X

ahahah Cornwall is where I'm going next week

[caz]

Then Cornwall would surely argue that Sickert clearly wrote the GSG - as against Sickert wrote the GSG clearly, which is of course. NOT true.

Phil

See what he did there? He spelled her name 'Cornwall'.

They just can't help themselves when they have contempt for someone.

'The Juwes' anyone?

QED

Love,

Caz
X

[Sister Hyde]

we don't know if any of the writings are genuine(meaning penned by the ripper) but if we believe any to be real it narrows the suspects...

I don't mean to sound stubborn (although I can never be as stubborn as some posters here), and repetitive, but I guess Levy still would be in the competition then

[GregBaron]

Feigning Ignorance?

Hi Sally et al,

Well, I was thinking letters in the same uneducated schoolboy hand complete with poor grammar and gross misspellings. What kind of a man writes like this? And please Phil H don't say Sickert. Ha...We can throw out educated suspects like Druitt except of course if they were faking ignorance. It doesn't seem to me like the writing of a recently emigrated Eastern Euro either.....If the Lusk letter and the Graffito are genuine for example, it appears the writing of a low-life, uneducated, Gentile, working class psycho and this would eliminate many suspects in my view...........of course I know all this is speculative.......we don't know if any of the writings are genuine(meaning penned by the ripper) but if we believe any to be real it narrows the suspects..................except for Sickert of course....who is always at the top of the charts...........

Greg

[Sally]

Hi GregBaron

I agree, I've often thought the same thing. I think that perhaps he would have been the letter-writing sort if he wrote the graffito - but of course the question is - which letter(s)?

[Sister Hyde]

Then Cornwall would surely argue that Sickert clearly wrote the GSG - as against Sickert wrote the GSG clearly, which is of course. NOT true.

Phil

I think Sickert is what would be the answer coming out of her mouth to ANY question on the subject anyway.

[Sister Hyde]

if there would be one letter more likely to be genuine than the others, it would be the Lusk letter I guess. and if you look at the letter and the graffito, both authors have spelling issues