GSG j or d

[Bridewell]

The graffito, and the absolute way it was written is a matter that might be of interest only to us today, although no one on here has ever managed to explain exactly how it would help.

With the wisdom of hindsight we know that it wouldn't have helped. However, Warren and Arnold didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we do. Had a suspect, linked to the Eddowes murder, been arrested a few days later and found to have compiled documents in which the word 'Jews' was spelt incorrectly, it would have been evidentially of some value if, but only if, the exact nature of the GSG mis-spelling was available to the court. Its exact nature would have been known beyond dispute if, but only if, the GSG had been preserved, either in situ, or on a photographic record or, failing that, a consistent version had been recorded by the officers. None of these things were done. As it turned out, Warren got lucky and it didn't matter, but that doesn't make it the correct decision - not by (forgive the analogy!) a long chalk.

Another thing which no-one on here has ever managed to explain is exactly how the erasure of the GSG prevented a riot. It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest, as did the various versions of the wording recorded by the officers. Can it seriously be contended that if the writing had been seen by a few passers-by in the early hours of the morning there would have been a riot even though no such rioting occurred when the content was plastered over every newspaper in the country? On the most basic, common-sense level that simply doesn't make sense.

[Phil H]

However, Warren and Arnold didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we do.

No one making a judgement call ever does - they have to use their own skill, assessment of priorities and determine the most appropriate course of action. Caution is not always an option.

The riot? Warren and his aides were in a position to know much more than we do. They could evaluate the atmosphere in the East End - we may disagree with them, fail to understand them; say "a riot never happened, it never would have done" - but they took a decision - end of story.

Warren was a soldier, a man who had shown nerve in tight scrapes - not the brightest of men maybe, but a professional and no fool. Certainly not the old fogey shown in films - he was still fairly young in 1888.

He had to balance the political sensibilities and sensitivities against whatever other issues might intrude (the value of the GSG as evidence might be one such). He made his choice and acted on it. I think it was the right one, others may differ.

Phil

[moonbegger]

Another thing which no-one on here has ever managed to explain is exactly how the erasure of the GSG prevented a riot. It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest, as did the various versions of the wording recorded by the officers. Can it seriously be contended that if the writing had been seen by a few passers-by in the early hours of the morning there would have been a riot even though no such rioting occurred when the content was plastered over every newspaper in the country? On the most basic, common-sense level that simply doesn't make sense.

Yes indeed , at what point does " Don't let the local populace get wind of this, they will riot for sure " become " Let them know all the facts " ?

There is no mention of extra forces being called in or made ready for the publication of the inquest report ! If a riot is to be expected surely counter measures would have been set in place .. Or why even allow it in to the inquest ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Phil H]

Yes indeed , at what point does " Don't let the local populace get wind of this, they will riot for sure " become " Let them know all the facts " ?

The authorities have to use their judgement - it is what they are for.

Any other approach and you'll have democracy, openess and freedom of informatio... oh we have!

But we didn't then - much healthier.

Phil

[moonbegger]

Pall Mall Gazette 11 oct 1888

If Sir CHARLES WARREN had but read pages 248-9 of Mr HOWARD VINCENT'S Police Code, he would have seen how flagrantly he was violating the first duty of a policeman in a case of murder. He was destroying evidence that might have been of priceless value, and hid that avowedly from a political motive. He feared that if the words remained on the wall, a crowd might assemble and there might be an attack on the Jews! So, rather than take the trouble of covering them up with a cloth and preventing access to the spot until the inscription was photographed, he rubbed it out, all out, refusing even to be content with erasing the one word "Juwes", as it appears to have been written in Yiddish, and so perished the only clue which the murderer has left us by which he might be identified.

Ahh .. The voice of reason !

cheers

moonbegger

[The Good Michael]

Pall Mall Gazette 11 oct 1888



Ahh .. The voice of reason !

cheers

moonbegger

Except it wasn't written in Yiddish as Yiddish used Hebrew letters

Mike

[moonbegger]

It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest

Actually , it was in the public domain before it was confirmed by the inquest . Its seems like the only person edging to stop the imminent riot was indeed , Charles Warren !

A very strange, startling rumour as to the manner in which Sir Charles Warren performs the duty of Chief Detective of Scotland-yard is current this morning in the City. Those who repeat it assert that is will be verified at the inquest which is now proceeding and a report of which will be continued in succeeding editions. The rumour in question is to the effect that rather than face the danger of allowing a crowd to assemble in a public thoroughfare Sir Charles Warren deliberately destroyed a clue - the only clue which the City Police believed to afford any guidance as to the identity of the assassin.

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Except it wasn't written in Yiddish as Yiddish used Hebrew letters

Yes Mike .. but that was not the point I was highlighting with the post . Maybe I should have cut off the end

moonbegger

[caz]

With the wisdom of hindsight we know that it wouldn't have helped. However, Warren and Arnold didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we do. Had a suspect, linked to the Eddowes murder, been arrested a few days later and found to have compiled documents in which the word 'Jews' was spelt incorrectly, it would have been evidentially of some value if, but only if, the exact nature of the GSG mis-spelling was available to the court. Its exact nature would have been known beyond dispute if, but only if, the GSG had been preserved, either in situ, or on a photographic record or, failing that, a consistent version had been recorded by the officers. None of these things were done. As it turned out, Warren got lucky and it didn't matter, but that doesn't make it the correct decision - not by (forgive the analogy!) a long chalk.

Another thing which no-one on here has ever managed to explain is exactly how the erasure of the GSG prevented a riot. It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest, as did the various versions of the wording recorded by the officers. Can it seriously be contended that if the writing had been seen by a few passers-by in the early hours of the morning there would have been a riot even though no such rioting occurred when the content was plastered over every newspaper in the country? On the most basic, common-sense level that simply doesn't make sense.

Great post, Bridewell!

As far as we know they didn't destroy any of the hundreds of hoax ripper letters they received, presumably just in case one turned out to have some evidential value, so I'm sure they could have done something to preserve at least most of the writing (minus 'Juwes' being the obvious solution) until a photo could be taken, without the fear that a crowd would assemble and grow ugly.

The first news of the message (and apron found beneath) presumably had to come from a police source originally, one way or another, so there would have been hell to pay if the feared riotous assembly had followed.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I find it odd too. The writer was able to spell "nothing" correctly but not the word "Jews". He spelled that Juwes, (or was it Jeuws or Jeuwes? - We don't know).

Don't forget, where there is a will to misspell, there is always a way.

Otherwise perfectly literate posters have made some pretty awful balls-ups with the name Patricia Cornwell over the years, some obviously by design, others apparently by careless accident, but every last one of them I suspect due to their lack of respect for Cornwell's venture into ripperological waters.

Misspelling the name of an individual or group, ie mucking about with their very identity, can be tantamount to a 'keep out, we don't want you here' notice, so I tend to see 'Juwes' in that context, putting the horrible spelling down to a bigot who disliked the Jews being 'over here' and able to live in posh new buildings like the Model Dwellings.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Hello Caz ,

Misspelling the name of an individual or group, ie mucking about with their very identity, can be tantamount to a 'keep out, we don't want you here' notice, so I tend to see 'Juwes' in that context, putting the horrible spelling down to a bigot who disliked the Jews being 'over here' and able to live in posh new buildings like the Model Dwellings.

So do you think that most of the Jews in the area at the time , had a good enough command of the English language to even be aware of that big proverbial stick that was being poked at them ?

cheers

moonbegger

[caz]

I have no idea, moonbegger. But once it all got into the papers there can't have been many people in the area - Jewish or otherwise - who didn't get the message that the word Jews had been used and misspelled.

However, I doubt the author gave much thought to how many passers-by/residents would be able to read or understand his words.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

I have no idea, moonbegger. But once it all got into the papers there can't have been many people in the area - Jewish or otherwise - who didn't get the message that the word Jews had been used and misspelled.

However, I doubt the author gave much thought to how many passers-by/residents would be able to read or understand his words.

Love,

Caz
X

Hello Caz ,

But once it all got into the papers there can't have been many people in the area - Jewish or otherwise - who didn't get the message that the word Jews had been used and misspelled.

So , you are implying that it was indeed the killer who was responsible for the graffito , otherwise how would the Author know his ramblings would get into the papers ?

the word Jews had been used and misspelled.

Or just maybe Caz , it had not been misspelt , but misinterpreted

Cheers

moonbegger

[RivkahChaya]

Except it wasn't written in Yiddish as Yiddish used Hebrew letters

Mike

Since it happens that I don't think JTR wrote the graffito, I think what the the letter is, is irrelevant, but I thought I'd note that I've found it difficult to convince some people whose native language used an alphabet without capital and lower case letters, that the distinction is important. They'll use all caps, all lower case, or mix them randomly, and not understand why my brain hurts.

As far as what the letters actually were-- if you use a use a piece of chalk to write a lower case "e," it can end up being end up, I don't know, "cleft," I guess, and look like a "u." The extra "e" in the plural is a result of over-applying a rule. In fact, plurals like "Jewes" were correct once, so it may not have mattered how often the graffito writer saw "Jews" in the paper every day.

Also, is there any dialect where "Jews" would be a two syllable word, or the vowel would be a diphthong?

[C. F. Leon]

I don't know about any "Duwes", but there is a "Dew" involved in the case. If someone only heard the name and didn't know (or care) how it was properly spelt...

I believe that the confusion about the spelling actually clears up one point- the writing was in script, rather than block letters, and it was written sloppily. Write all the variant spellings in script and see how similar they appear. It also opens up other possibilities- such as 'James', or the 'J' may have been a 'T', an 'F', an 'L' etc.