The word JUWES

[RivkahChaya]

Because, paired with the apron, the graffito looked odd, even slightly sinister. Other anti-Semitic graffiti, which we can only guess at, may have been more threatening, but less sinister. "Lepinsky the butcher puts lard in his kishkas," is a much nastier thing to say, especially if you are Lepinsky, but it is unlikely to start a riot; for one thing, it sounds more like something another Jew would write. Rehashing some tired accusation, like deicide, in a graffito would be unlikely to stir up the Jews, because, you know, that just doesn't provoke us anymore. At least, not in the form of an anonymous graffito.

But the GSG was new, odd, and cryptic. Still, it was cryptic enough that without the apron, I don't think anyone would have paid it much attention. It was only when it got paired with the apron, and considering the fact that it was sort of a Rorschach-- it could be anti-Semitic if that's what you were inclined to see-- it was riot-worthy.

Remember, the "Leather Apron" fiasco had actually produced some mob activity, so it wasn't an idle thought. It was a genuine concern on the part of the police.

We don't even know what they suspected. They may not have thought JTR wrote the graffito, just that people would assume it had something to do with the murders, because of the apron (as we are now doing), and spark more riots. Or they might think it was written by a witness, who was writing cryptically, because he was afraid to go to the police.

What the police knew or thought doesn't matter as much as what they worried the public might think, and what they worried the public might think might cause rioting, just as there had been rioting a few weeks earlier.

[Phil H]

moonbegger wrote:

This was not a crime scene , Long had taken the apron to the station , there was nothing to connect GSG with the Ripper .. there was anti semitic graffiti everywhere ( apparently ) so why would Warren head down to Goulston street and inflame the whole situation by rubbing out this specific graffiti .. did he wipe out all the anti Semitic graffiti between there and Mitre Square also ?

The short answer is that, IMHO, the man in authority was Warren. the buck stopped with him. He was fully aware of the implications of destroying "evidence" and was prepared to take the responsibility - but only after seeing for himself. Further, the decision was "political" - by which I mean touching on sensitive issues of public order, anti-semitism and police control - and thus required the personal attention of the Chief Commissioner himself.

I see Warren as a "hands on" Chief at the met. Not that many years later, Churchill as Home Secretary personally went to watch the "Seige of Sidney Street" though he was not required to do so.

Of course Warren did not rub out other graffiti - he had no need to. It was this one that was potentially asscoiated with JtR. In a crowded area like the East End word would quickly have got around - both of the apron scrap and the writing. Warren was all too aware of the furore after the Chapman killing and the claims about Leather Apron. He had probably also been briefed on the Stride murder - a Met case, unlike Eddowes - beside a Jewish club.

OK, he put 2 and 2 together and made 5, but hindsight is always easy.

But there is no difficulty here, apart from those who want to create it, as no doubt some ddi in 1888.

Phil H

[Phil H]

RivkahChaya

But the GSG was new, odd, and cryptic.

Is (was) it any of those things.

Divorced from the JtR case, I think it is clear.

The Jews are to blame for "everything (all our misery, lack of jobs, taking the work etc etc)" but will never admit it. Many must have thought the same in 1888 Whitechapel. This illiterate wrote it in a place where he knew Jews lived.

A common cry (however wrong) through history (alas!) though somewhat less common since 1945.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

RivkahChaya

But the GSG was new, odd, and cryptic.

Is (was) it any of those things.
Phil H

OK, those adjectives were a little strong-- what I meant was relative to the usual anti-Semitism going around (Jews were used to the blood libel, poisoning wells, and soforth). You have to realize that Eastern European Jews coming into London came from ghettos of Poland, or the pale of settlement where the were segregated. Living in London among the gentiles was new, and being accused of taking jobs away from gentiles was new. Yes, that is probably the plain meaning, but the syntax is odd. I think the syntax is odd because someone was trying to make fun of a Yiddish accent, and that is probably why the word Juwes is spelled wrong.

Cryptic is too strong a word, but it is generic-- it could cover a lot of situations, and when you add the apron, suddenly it sounds like it could have something to do with the murders.

[GregBaron]

The Jews are rioting again...

A common cry (however wrong) through history (alas!) though somewhat less common since 1945.

Quite true Phil H., now we just blame the Mexicans and the Muslims, some group must take the heat...

As for the Juwes, doesn't it seem that only Jews would see this graffito as it's on their way out from their dwellings.....? and consequently, I imagine one of the Jueuwish blokes would have erased it himself..........this also implies, as someone mentioned, that the Jews would be the one's to riot...! And we know what a violent bunch they are.......

I remain perplexed......


Greg

[moonbegger]

OK ..

So Popping on my ( GSG unrelated to killer ) cap for just a minute or so ..

I see no harm in leaving it be ! For me it clearly comes across as a Jewish author who is clearly angry off at Jews being blamed for everything .. especially as the day before this appeared in the Star ..

The most noticeable thing in these severe rules is that exceptional measures are ordered against Jews. All travellers entering Russia must have a passport bearing the visa of a Russian diplomatic or Consular agent, and on reaching his destination in Russia the traveller must get his passport visaed by the local authorities. If he is going from place to place, or means to settle in any one locality for some time, he may obtain a "license to sojourn," which will remain valid for six months, but wherever he goes he must present his passport to the Russian police for a fresh visa. Those leaving Russia must also exhibit passports bearing the visas of the police in the districts whence they come. In the case of Jews, whether Russians or aliens, the visa may be refused without explanation. Consequently a Jew may be arbitrarily denied the right of entering the Czar's dominions, of travelling in them, or of leaving them.

So possibly a Russian Jew , upset at the new travel restrictions forced upon him ?

The Jews had plenty of reasons to feel oppressed and blamed for everything ...

A large-scale wave of anti-Jewish pogroms swept Ukraine in 1881, after Jews were wrongly blamed for the assassination of Alexander II. In the 1881 outbreak, there were pogroms in 166 Ukrainian towns, thousands of Jewish homes were destroyed, many families reduced to extremes of poverty, large numbers of men, women, and children were injured and some killed

So the GSG ( if not killer related ) really was not a condemnation of the Jews , but more a Jewish condemnation of always being blamed . and for my mind contemporary Eastenders of all religions would have seen it as such.

cheers

moonbegger

[Phil H]

now we just blame the Mexicans and the Muslims, some group must take the heat...

I once heard it said that every nation also has one "group" who are traditionally regarded as less intelligent than the rest and thus became the butt of jokes. For the English it used to be the Irish. I seem to recall that for Germans it was Friesians (the islanders not the cows!).

As for the Juwes, doesn't it seem that only Jews would see this graffito as it's on their way out from their dwellings.....? and consequently, I imagine one of the Jueuwish blokes would have erased it himself..........this also implies, as someone mentioned, that the Jews would be the one's to riot...! And we know what a violent bunch they are.......

I don't think there is any need for perplexity. Perhaps you are seeking to over-complicate things.

It is not a case of what WOULD have happened. It is a case of what senior police officials thought or perceived might happen. Their perception might well be wrong. Maybe they were overly sensitive. But that is what they were paid to do.

The newspapers were kicking up a storm, the police (Warren) over-compensated.

Simple. It's human nature.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

The Jews are to blame for "everything (all our misery, lack of jobs, taking the work etc etc)" but will never admit it. Many must have thought the same in 1888 Whitechapel. This illiterate wrote it in a place where he knew Jews lived.

A common cry (however wrong) through history (alas!) though somewhat less common since 1945.

Quite true Phil H., now we just blame the Mexicans and the Muslims, some group must take the heat.

New immigrants take the heat. For many hundreds of years in Europe, Jews were semi-nomadic, mainly as a result of getting kicked out of one country after another. Now that people don't do that anymore, you don't have waves of Jewish immigrants*.

now we just blame the Mexicans and the Muslims, some group must take the heat...

In the US, Hispanics, and Middle Eastern people are the biggest groups of immigrants, or, at any rate, identifiable groups. They get kicked around. Everyone assumes Hispanics are illegal, and Middle Eastern people are Muslim, and therefore terrorists.

*However, you should hear some Brooklyn-Bronx Jewish people go on about Israeli immigrants, and how they are gonifs, and if you tell them to be kinder to fellow Jews, that it was not so many generations ago we were immigrants, you often hear, in total seriousness, "They aren't Jewish, they're Israeli."

It is not a case of what WOULD have happened. It is a case of what senior police officials thought or perceived might happen. Their perception might well be wrong. Maybe they were overly sensitive. But that is what they were paid to do.

Given the Leather Apron riots, and the fact that Pizer was almost lynched, the police were not just paranoid, I think.

I think about what New York was like when David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) was on the prowl. I was really young, and we were out of the country when his spree started, but when we came back to the US, we lived with my grandmother upstate, and my mother said it was because our renters needed the house a while longer. It really was because we lived in Queens, where Son of Sam was active. When we got back, I heard such stories about how paranoid everyone was. People drove their kids to school instead of letting them ride the bus, in spite of the fact that Son of Sam killed people mainly in their own cars. Maybe it was a vague memory of the Zodiac in California having threatened to blow up a school bus full of children, but mostly I think it was just people wanting their children in their sight. People don't do the most rational thing when they are scared, and the more scared, the less rational.

[GregBaron]

Lights, cameras, action...

I don't think there is any need for perplexity. Perhaps you are seeking to over-complicate things.

Perhaps you're right Phil, over complication can lead to conspiracy theories and Lord knows we don't want to re-open that can of worms...

New immigrants take the heat. For many hundreds of years in Europe, Jews were semi-nomadic, mainly as a result of getting kicked out of one country after another. Now that people don't do that anymore, you don't have waves of Jewish immigrants*.

In the US, Hispanics, and Middle Eastern people are the biggest groups of immigrants, or, at any rate, identifiable groups. They get kicked around. Everyone assumes Hispanics are illegal, and Middle Eastern people are Muslim, and therefore terrorists.

*However, you should hear some Brooklyn-Bronx Jewish people go on about Israeli immigrants, and how they are gonifs, and if you tell them to be kinder to fellow Jews, that it was not so many generations ago we were immigrants, you often hear, in total seriousness, "They aren't Jewish, they're Israeli."

Completely concur RivkahChaya...

Back to the thread, I'm wondering if the following line of reasoning has any merit....?

Assuming a Jew would wash off incriminating graffiti from their lovely new dwellings and in support of whichever cop thought the writing "fresh", it seems the deed was most likely done late that night or early morn as it was unlikely to be written as passers-by entered........this implies it was probably written in the dark..now I don't know how dark it was, I recall a past discussion of lamps but don't remember the particulars....Anyway, perhaps the darkness required the small schoolboy hand as the writer himself couldn't really see what he was doing and maybe even explains the spelling anomaly and double negative....Hence, doesn't the difficulty of this night writing lend credence to the idea the killer wrote it since the idea of a disgruntled midnight writer seems even more coincidental when considering that the apron dropper was himself unlikely to have seen this graffiti in the dark..?..So, in essence, two separate Jewish incrimination's that morning......!....Not sure I explained this very well but hopefully someone can shed some light (pun intended) on the issue............




Greg

[Phil H]

doesn't the difficulty of this night writing lend credence to the idea the killer wrote it since the idea of a disgruntled midnight writer seems even more coincidental when considering that the apron dropper was himself unlikely to have seen this graffiti in the dark..?..

I'm not sure I follow your logic, greg.

Why should the difficulty point to the murderer.

Surely it would make it riskier, because he had to linger longer.

To me it would (if true) indicate someone with no other axe to grind.

As I don't think the dropping of the apron needs to be explained by the presence of the GSG - the likely route and the open door are enough - whether the dropper had seen the GSG is irrelevent.

How often, as you discard something, to you look at a street rubbish bin - or even the adjacent wall - to ascertain what is written there?

One point you touch on is of interest though. Has anyone experimented with writing on a recently washed wall in chalk? Does it impact on the appearance of the writing? My memories of school blackboards/chalkboards is that the chalk changed appearance if written on a newly WASHED board as against a simply dusted one.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

One point you touch on is of interest though. Has anyone experimented with writing on a recently washed wall in chalk? Does it impact on the appearance of the writing? My memories of school blackboards/chalkboards is that the chalk changed appearance if written on a newly WASHED board as against a simply dusted one.

Phil H

I don't know about having washed it with water. When my son wipes his chalkboard with water, it doesn't matter, as long at it is dry. When I was in school, the janitors wiped all the blackboards (some of them were green) with a watered-down solvent every night. It's wasn't alcohol, and it wasn't acetate, if I remember by the smell. It was chalkboard-cleaner-smell, and I don't know it from anywhere else. It was slightly oily, even though it mixed with water. Anyway, it was usually dry in the morning, but occasionally, for whatever reason, the chalkboards were cleaned in the morning instead of the night before, the writing would disappear a few minutes after the teacher wrote it.

Googling "chalkboard cleaner," and "chalkboard solvent" isn't helpful.

However, I know that what was used on chalkboards in the US for most of the 20th century (they use dry-erase boards now) was actually gypsum (calcium sulfate), not real chalk. Real chalk (calcium carbonate) flakes and crumbles more easily. It's a minor distinction, except that chalk is messier, and gets on your fingers. Gypsum is drier, and creates more dust, but less mess over all. I would imagine that real chalk gets into pits and crevices on an uneven surface better.

I have absolutely no idea what would be available to a person in 1888, but someone carrying chalk would be a lot more likely to get marks on his clothes than someone carrying gypsum would.

I would think you'd probably need a damp cloth to totally obliterate the writing, whichever was used.

[GregBaron]

Roots of Coincidence...

Fair enough Phil. I suppose I'm trying to ascertain the probability of this coincidence assuming the writing and drop were within a couple of hours of each other. I suppose there are 3 possibilities..

1) The murderer dropped the apron, perhaps by accident, and he never saw any graffiti...
2) The murdered saw the graffiti and thought "wonderful, a great place to drop and confound everyone even more" or..
3) The killer wrote it...

My understanding is that the writing was on bricks which I would imagine requires water and a rag to remove....it also seems an odd choice for graffito writing....

You're right about riskier but we know the killer is an enormous risk taker and perhaps gets a great thrill from the danger itself....

Again, one wonders how much graffiti was in the area typically and if residences washed it off themselves or ask coppers to do it....I can't imagine the Jews allowing that message to linger too long at the entrance to their homes....

To me the greatest loss of the non-photography, at least today, is a comparison to some of the letters...

Greg

[Cogidubnus]

It'd be nice to have, but....

Hi Greg

To me the greatest loss of the non-photography, at least today, is a comparison to some of the letters...

And there we have it...If I chalked at arms length on a brick wall (in letters of the height indicated), I'm none too sure there would be any resemblance at all to my normal penmanship in ink, on paper...so I genuinely wonder whether the erasure of the GSG lost us anything worthwhile at all (apart from, as Colin reminds us, the completeness of the record)....

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

My understanding is that the writing was on bricks which I would imagine requires water and a rag to remove....it also seems an odd choice for graffito writing....

In the "Meaning of the GSG" thread, Wickerman posted a photo of the place where the writing supposedly was. I don't know how accurate it is, or the source of the photo (waiting for a response from Wickerman), but if it is accurate, then the graffito is exactly where you would place a mezuzah on a Jewish home, and I find it hard to believe that is a coincidence. If someone was mocking Jewish customs, and possibly a Yiddish accent, then it is easy to explain why someone would go to the trouble of writing over brick, because it was in that one particular spot on purpose.

Also, I'm not really sure what "schoolboy hand means," but if it just means childish, then maybe it was someone further mocking the way new immigrants who are still learning English write.

Most of my family has been in the US for a long time, but my uncle married a woman who came here as a child, and she said her mother, who didn't even speak English when she first got here (when she was about 42), learned to write it by borrowing her children's school books, and copying their lessons.

Someone who wrote Polish might learn to write English fairly easily as he learned to speak it, but someone who came from Russian would still have to learn a new alphabet, even if it was somewhat similar. Someone who wrote only Yiddish, or Yiddish and Hebrew, would be learning a radically different style of alphabet and penmanship.

[Bridewell]

Ok Bridewell , how about 5 ?

cheers

moonbegger

How about none? The whole masonic conspiracy theory is nonsense. Fascinating nonsense perhaps - but still nonsense.

Regards, Bridewell.