The word JUWES

[curious4]

The black bricks (dado) were from ground level to 4 feet high. Above that, the bricks were white.

"Superintendent Arnold says the writing was "on the wall of the entrance at shoulder height and could have been rubbed by people passing in and out of the building"

The GSG. What Does It Mean?? - Page 28 - Casebook Forums

C4

[Shaggyrand]

Maybe, but then the cause of the graffitist's writing difficulties could have been external, rather than internal. He/she was writing on a vertical, bricked surface, after all, with grooves and/or gaps between each brick - sufficient, perhaps, to throw the chalk off-track. Such a slip could conceivably introduce a "false loop" in the lettering, where none was intended.

It very well could have been external causes. I only meant in regards to C4's idea that the same hand wrote Dear Boss, Lusk letter and GSG. Dysgraphia would be a better fit than dyslexia.

[packers stem]

^ Cockney speech was full of double negatives though, wasn't it? There ain't nuffink like it.

..... And it didn't say nuffink it said nothing
To be graffiti you'd expect something like
It's the Jews wot dun it.... Not the known wording.
This was no local graffiti written by a semi literate east end urchin, crazy idea that anyone has ever thought it to be really

[Rosella]

^ Cockney speech was full of double negatives though, wasn't it? There ain't nuffink like it.

[Robert St Devil]

This sentence seems a real departure from the Dear Boss letter in terms of comfort with the English language. My two obvious assumptions about this writer are: 1) he is quoting from unknown source; or, 2) English is not his first language.

Re: #2, my puertorican wife just started learning English a few years back. In the beginning, Her sentences were full of double negatives and drawn out because it is not uncommon for Spanish sentences to be drawn out and full of double negatives. She was auto-translating her elongated spanish sentences word for word into English. in this case, i would expect to read "Blame the Juwes!" or "The Juwes are the men to blame".

[RockySullivan]

It seems like something a little wordy for a kid to write

[Harry D]

Personally I doubt the killer wrote it. We write just below eye height on vertical surfaces, and the message is a little low to have been written by an adult. Maybe there are mitigating factors, but it still looks like it was written by someone under 5 feet tall. I think it was done by a kid earlier. But that's just what I think.

Detective Halse claimed that the graffiti was 'fresh' and goes on to say, quite rightly, that it would've been scrubbed out by the locals if it had been left earlier in the day. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a kid, because no doubt there were street urchins out after curfew, but it does make it that little less likely. The apron was found underneath the graffiti and it was enough for the police to connect the two. Some will argue that had the apron been ditched somewhere else, there'd be another piece of graffiti nearby but the fact of the matter is that it wasn't. The evidence links it to this particular graffiti, and while we obviously can't know for certain that it was written by the killer, we shouldn't be so quick to rule it out, either.

[RockySullivan]

Wasn't the man seen in banbury in the deerstalker 5'4 or 5'5 and some of the other sightings as well? so if this man was the ripper, thats pretty short

[Sam Flynn]

Said it before, gonna keep repeating it. Dysgraphia is more likely.

Maybe, but then the cause of the graffitist's writing difficulties could have been external, rather than internal. He/she was writing on a vertical, bricked surface, after all, with grooves and/or gaps between each brick - sufficient, perhaps, to throw the chalk off-track. Such a slip could conceivably introduce a "false loop" in the lettering, where none was intended.

[jerryd]

The writing was said by the police to have been at shoulder level "where it could easily have been rubbed off by people passing by". Minimum height for a policeman was 5'9". That gives us some idea of how high up it was and how tall the writer may have been.

Best wishes
C4

The black bricks (dado) were from ground level to 4 feet high. Above that, the bricks were white.

[curious4]

I recall Sherlock Holmes saying the same thing about writing at eye height or so. Although I don't think the killer wrote the GSG, I will play devil's advocate and say that an adult might have been crouching which would make sense if he wanted to avoid being seen.

c.d.

The writing was said by the police to have been at shoulder level "where it could easily have been rubbed off by people passing by". Minimum height for a policeman was 5'9". That gives us some idea of how high up it was and how tall the writer may have been.

Best wishes
C4

[c.d.]

Well, yes. It's just not clear to most anyone else. Thus the debate. And you may be correct. Or it may have been a spectacular misspelling, it may have been a threat, a promise, a defense... The whole message is a train wreck of the English language.

Personally I doubt the killer wrote it. We write just below eye height on vertical surfaces, and the message is a little low to have been written by an adult. Maybe there are mitigating factors, but it still looks like it was written by someone under 5 feet tall. I think it was done by a kid earlier. But that's just what I think.

I recall Sherlock Holmes saying the same thing about writing at eye height or so. Although I don't think the killer wrote the GSG, I will play devil's advocate and say that an adult might have been crouching which would make sense if he wanted to avoid being seen.

c.d.

[Errata]

Whoever wrote the GSG, most likely the killer, it was perfectly clear to them why they did it and what they meant.

Well, yes. It's just not clear to most anyone else. Thus the debate. And you may be correct. Or it may have been a spectacular misspelling, it may have been a threat, a promise, a defense... The whole message is a train wreck of the English language.

Personally I doubt the killer wrote it. We write just below eye height on vertical surfaces, and the message is a little low to have been written by an adult. Maybe there are mitigating factors, but it still looks like it was written by someone under 5 feet tall. I think it was done by a kid earlier. But that's just what I think.

[Abby Normal]

It wouldn't sting at all. I am part of a largely unknown other, and well meaning people get it wrong all the time. Not the name necessarily, because Jew really spells itself for the most part, but other things yes. I can't react to all of it, I'd go mad.

I was raised not unlike the Jews of the East End. Small tight community in a sea of other. Who didn't like us much, didn't respect us, thought we killed their messiah, made religious proclamations against us. It never occurs to me that someone misspells my religion as an insult. It does occur to me that they do it because they are a moron. Doing it repeatedly like the Saddam bit would be irritating, like repeatedly listening to Junior say "nucular" makes my teeth curl, but not insulting. Baffling would be a good word.

But this is a one time thing. It's not repeated over and over so you yell at your tv screen "How hard is it to get one stupid word right?". If he wanted to insult, insulting words were there for the taking. The same ones we have now and a few others that have dropped out of use. But instead he spells it like it's a two syllable word. Or a Dutch name. And even if he wrote it in flame on my doorstep, I would still be so disarmed by the spelling that I don't think I would take offense. At least until the plants caught on fire. Then I would get miffed.

Mispronouncing something only irritates in repetition. One time is just a weird error. So either he didn't know he had to do it a bunch in order to be insulting, or he genuinely had a tragic spelling accident. Or maybe his cursive was so terrible he meant to write "fates" but lost control of his swoops and curls. It kinda doesn't matter what he meant to say, it matters what he did say. It might be a menacing message, but it isn't an insulting one. It just isn't. That was never the worry.

Even if your right and the spelling of the word Juwes wouldn't have offended anyone at the time (which I still disagree I think it would)it really doesn't matter. Because he might have thought it did and or it was his way of dissing Jews.
Whoever wrote the GSG, most likely the killer, it was perfectly clear to them why they did it and what they meant.

[c.d.]

"Your guess is as good as mine. Problem is we're trying to decipher an 127 year old message that was potentially written by a madman. If he did stop to chalk the graffiti, we have no idea how his mind worked and what self-justifications this particular serial killer used for his crimes."

Truer words were never spoken.

c.d.