The **** are the men.

[Damaso Marte]

What were the common British slurs for Jews back then, other than Lipski of course?

I would expect a 19th century American anti-semite to say something like "yid" or "heeb" or even "feeny" rather than the k-word, which strikes me as more modern.

[Hunter]

... Perhaps the blurring of the words described by one officer (was it Halse?) was an unsuccessful attempt to correct a spelling error?

Swanson.

[Tom_Wescott]

I submit Sam that the crux of the message caught the attention of the police, a shame the exact spelling of the message wasnt as important to them to record verbatim. We have at least 3 versions of the spelling of Jews.

The way it was written might have revealed something about the ethnicity of the author.

Cheers Sam

More than that. No two people recorded the sentence the same. And I believe it's highly possible that the second word was NOT any sort of version of 'Jews'. Bottom line, a photo should have been taken. But that's all ale under the railway arch now, I suppose.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

I submit Sam that the crux of the message caught the attention of the police, a shame the exact spelling of the message wasnt as important to them to record verbatim. We have at least 3 versions of the spelling of Jews.

The way it was written might have revealed something about the ethnicity of the author.

Cheers Sam

Infinitely frustrating that there was no consistency in the recording of the exact wording and spelling - something a photograph would have resolved of course. 'Jew' was a common enough word in the East End and it seems strange that only that one word was misspelt. I'm left wondering if the writer's first language wasn't English and he started writing Juden or Juifs before belatedly attempting a correction. Perhaps the blurring of the words described by one officer (was it Halse?) was an unsuccessful attempt to correct a spelling error?

[Michael W Richards]

Interesting point, Tecs. Could it simply have been that the writer simply wanted to get his message across clearly? Slang may have been misunderstood by most of his intended targets, given that there was a strong possibility of their being immigrant Jews. Even the most recently arrived non-English speaking immigrant would recognise the "Ju-" prefix, and surmise that the graffito was saying something about them.

It's notable that even the most anti-Semitic society of modern times, the Third Reich, tended to use the "polite" form of Jude(n) in their racist graffiti.

I submit Sam that the crux of the message caught the attention of the police, a shame the exact spelling of the message wasnt as important to them to record verbatim. We have at least 3 versions of the spelling of Jews.

The way it was written might have revealed something about the ethnicity of the author.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting point, Tecs. Could it simply have been that the writer simply wanted to get his message across clearly? Slang may have been misunderstood by most of his intended targets, given that there was a strong possibility of their being immigrant Jews. Even the most recently arrived non-English speaking immigrant would recognise the "Ju-" prefix, and surmise that the graffito was saying something about them.

It's notable that even the most anti-Semitic society of modern times, the Third Reich, tended to use the "polite" form of Jude(n) in their racist graffiti.

[Tecs]

Dear all,

Watching Ripper Street last night got me thinking. In the programme when the anti semitic graffiti appeared around Whitechapel, the words used to describe the Jews were all derogatory and offensive.

With apologies for using those words, they were saying things like "Kike" and "Yids" etc to describe them.

Linking this with Martin Fido's view that the graffiti was just a disgruntled customer moaning that a Jewish trader wouldn't give him a refund or some other slight and it was just by chance that the piece of apron appeared at that point, wouldn't an angry Eastender expressing their anger use one of the words above instead of the polite "Jews?"

If we assume that a truly disgruntled customer wouldn't hold back and would write "Those Y*d ba****ds" or "Robbing K***s" instead of a nice polite "The Jews," does that lend support to the idea that the graffiti was put there by somebody else?

Ultimately leading to the question of whether it could have been put there by the Ripper?

Any thoughts?

regards,