The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[String]

I think the graffiti was just that and a coincidence for a number of reasons.

If I was Jack and wanted to get a message across why not just write it on the wall/ground beside my victim, then there is no ambiguity.
I would not dump the apron piece in the dirt and write a ambiguous message on the wall both of which may or may not be found. I would want to make sure that the message was found along with the apron as proof.
I would either post the apron piece with a message to a newspaper or write a message and attach the apron piece to it, on a door or other wooden structure.

[Sam Flynn]

"The mezuzah, as the graffito, would be located at shoulder height on the door-post, after all."

Just a quick note here, to remind everybody that people who write standing up, will inevitably write at approximate shoulder height...

Depends how tall they are, but what you say is quite correct, Fish. Indeed, this is another good reason to cast doubt on Jack's being the author of the graffito, because he'd have to have been standing upright in an open doorway, probably straddling the threshold and the public pavement, in order to write his message so neatly on the door-jamb. I know that "Jack was a risk-taker, so he could have done anything" is a favourite trump card that some like to play, but I just can't see him doing anything so stupid, what with the incriminating evidence about his person, and an extensive police presence on the streets in the wake of the "Double Event".

[Sam Flynn]

I would suggest, as you seem to, that any mezuzical (new word!) connections are flights of fancy.

Agreed, Mike. As I said - tentative and amusing, nothing more.

[The Good Michael]

More important is what the threshold means to Jews, this will require some searching on your part. With the mezuzah however, consider the rigidly specified, physical requirements for the placement of the holy scroll. A doorway is required to have a lintel, it is on the right side, is on the inner door jamb. It is placed on the lower part of the top third, etc. etc. Compare this location with that of the GSG. The placement of the GSG message appears to fit very closely with the mezuzah scroll. Could this have been written in that location by chance?

You seem to playing Tasmanian Devil's advocate here.

Mike

[caz]

I'm more reluctant to accept the argument that any local man would be familiar with the word "Jews" and would therefore know how to spell it. This obviously isn't the case, since common words continue to be misspelled today, despite the frequency with which they appear on the streets, in books, magazines etc. I don't think it was intentionally misspelled in an expression of contempt either, since "Juwes" hardly has the oh-so-witty connotations that "Cornball" or "Chretin" has.

Hi Ben,

You may have misread the post of mine you were addressing here. You will see from the quote below that I was not arguing that any local man who could put chalk to wall would have spelled ‘Jews’ correctly. Far from it. I was actually arguing the opposite, that practically anyone, regardless of background, education, intelligence and language skills, can misspell one word in a sentence, regardless of how familiar that word ought to be to them. As you seem to be saying above, common words get misspelled all the time, and the writers can’t all be semi-literate. Proper nouns are especially vulnerable to improper spellings.

Yes, one might think the ‘Juwes’ author had to be pretty low on the literacy scale to see all the references to Jews around him and still make a mistake like that. But where would that leave all the posters who have referred to Pat Cornwell as ‘Cornwall’, despite the tons of references around them to the correct spelling? Are they all semi-literate? Or is something else going on here, something that is all too common when people decide that an individual, or group, is not worth the effort or respect that goes with spelling their name correctly?

I purposefully didn’t refer to the oh-so-witless “Cornball” misspelling because there’s absolutely no possibility of an accidental slip of the pen there, and no indication by itself of the writer’s literacy either. It’s a supposedly sharp, but terribly tired expression of contempt that can and has been used by great and lousy spellers in equal measure.

I used the references by many posters to ‘Cornwall’ to illustrate that it’s certainly not the prerogative of the semi-literate to misspell familiar names. This one is no witty put down. Nor is it meant to be. And most if not all of the examples I have seen over the years come from well-read posters who have no excuse to confuse an English county that churns out cream teas and pasties, with an American tease called Patsy who churns out crime stories. It’s not always the result of a one-off typing error; it can also be a recurring but honest mistake, made by an educated person who repeats it from force of habit or assumes it to be the correct spelling of her surname, no insult intended.

What I was getting at is the well known phenomenon, whereby a name can be misspelled consciously or unconsciously if the writer feels anything from mild indifference to outright contempt for that person. It isn’t necessarily done deliberately or obviously, or with wit or subtlety, or to get a reaction at all. But it happens - all the time - and people at every level of literacy can be guilty of it.

Ask Pat ‘Cornwall’ - or even 'Mishter' Lusk.

stop blaming jews for stuff
we aint done noffink

Hi Stephen,

Bit silly if Jack the Jew wrote that and then dropped the apron beneath it to show he was the one full of sh*t.

Bit too much of a coincidence for my liking if Jack the Gentile happened across such a message as he was carrying the only 100% incriminating piece of evidence from one of his crime scenes and was able to use it to dramatic effect to imply the author was the one full of sh*t.

Bit of a bummer for a disgruntled graffiti artist if Jack the Jew OR Gentile didn’t even notice his complaint but seriously undermined it by coincidentally discarding the offending article beneath it.

I’m also not sure how your disgruntled Jewish author was hoping to reach his target audience: the Gentiles who kept blaming Jews for stuff.

How usual would it be for resentful members of any social group (or race/religion/political party etc) to deface buildings that housed their own people, rather than buildings associated with the source of their resentment?

For example, if someone has a grudge against the council for failing to take away their rubbish, they might go and dump it on the steps of the council offices and scrawl a few well-chosen expletives on the wall above. But would they write on their own wall: “Stop taking my council tax for nothing you slags”, where presumably no council workers are going to see it all the while the rubbish is mounting up uncollected?

There’s a logic in there somewhere, but I’m a bit sh*t at putting it across.

the 17 Sept letter is the most ridiculous document I know (with Maybrick diairy, which, by the way, uses it)...

Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

Yes, the letter and diary are both ridiculous documents: ridiculous for anyone to write at any time, or for any purpose.

But, by the way, I don’t think you can be right that the diary ‘uses’ the letter. I can’t see an obvious connection, but if you can that would be very curious indeed, because when the diary first emerged, very few people would have been aware of the letter’s existence, and even fewer would have had access to the text. I’m trying to see how you think the diary author, working at any time before 1992, could have made use of this letter, unless you are suggesting that one person was responsible for both, and just assumed that the letter would be discovered in the PRO files in time to make a difference.

You might like to PM me with any response, or take it to a more appropriate thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Hi David,

Yes, the letter and diary are both ridiculous documents: ridiculous for anyone to write at any time, or for any purpose.

But, by the way, I don’t think you can be right that the diary ‘uses’ the letter. I can’t see an obvious connection, but if you can that would be very curious indeed, because when the diary first emerged, very few people would have been aware of the letter’s existence, and even fewer would have had access to the text. I’m trying to see how you think the diary author, working at any time before 1992, could have made use of this letter, unless you are suggesting that one person was responsible for both, and just assumed that the letter would be discovered in the PRO files in time to make a difference.

You might like to PM me with any response, or take it to a more appropriate thread.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,
you're right, I should have said "Diary's supporters use the 17 Sept letter.

"I would like to know the reactions of other authors to the 17 Sept letter signed 'Jack the Ripper' that Paul's book first made public. (...) Since the Maybrick journal refers to an earlier correspondence than that of the 25th..."
Melvyn Fairclough, "In quest of JtR" (Mammoth book)

Amitiés,
David

[Investigator]

Just a few pointers in interpreting Jewish sentiment through a few quotations.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar, to make atonement for your souls; for it is in the blood which makes atonement for the soul.” Leviticus 17:10-14
The message accuses Jews of digressing from the covenant of G-d, the mezuzah reminds all Jews who pass the threshold of their moral responsibility to be as one with G-d
It is the backbone of Judiasm to -'...distinguish between the unclean and the clean' not only in food, but in all areas of life - the sexual, the moral, the ethical, the spiritual. (Dictionary of Jewish Lore & Legend. Alan Unterman, Thames and Hudson London 1991)
Distant from the contemporary protestations of Herman Adler, modern theology is quite outspoken on matters of relationship between Jews and Gentiles.
Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin wrote, “The ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and defiled, the sacred and the profane, is very important in Judaism.”
“Orthodoxy is strongly opposed to intermarriage, and there are even families who observe the mourning rituals for those marrying a Gentile.”
More directly, the relationship between Jews and Gentiles is made specific by Israel Shahak.
"If a Jew has coitus with a Gentile woman, whether she be a child of three or an adult, whether married or unmarried, and even if he is a minor aged only nine years and one day - because he had willful coitus with her, she must be killed, as is the case with a beast, because through her a Jew got into trouble." (An outline of Jewish History, https://www.olamgadol.pwp.blueyonder...humbnails.html)
Sexual morality is clearly the point in question, it being a matter of maintaining the “cleanliness” of Orthodox Judaism.
The GSG is very specific that it is male Jews who are to be blamed - wonder why? Such walks into folklore doesn't necessarily imply they are acted out in society - that is the balance of neurological inhibition processes. It does however tap into the emotional narratives of some people - Yes Mike, maybe there is a touch of the Tasmanian Devil, including the tumours. I suspect that all this will be man-in-the-moon stuff unless you are Jewish. It requires a perceptual shift of gears, while you see the vase, you cannot see the witches faces, thats why its cryptic. Catching the tide at 0300 hrs so won't be arround for at least a week. Enjoy! DG

[The Good Michael]

Investigator,

While I don't buy the mezuzah bit, I do believe it was a Jew for the reasons of interpretation of the GSG that I have stated. The fact that none of the victims were Jewish, when, according to Fishman there were plenty of East End Jewish prostitutes, may be important. It also may be a canard.

Enjoy your voyage.

Mike

[caz]

Hi Caz,
you're right, I should have said "Diary's supporters use the 17 Sept letter.

"I would like to know the reactions of other authors to the 17 Sept letter signed 'Jack the Ripper' that Paul's book first made public. (...) Since the Maybrick journal refers to an earlier correspondence than that of the 25th..."
Melvyn Fairclough, "In quest of JtR" (Mammoth book)

Amitiés,
David

Hi David,

Thanks for this - and for being brief.

The only diary supporter I was aware of who believed the 17 Sept letter could help him prove the diary genuine was Paul Feldman - and he is no longer around.

The diary contains no reference to 'an earlier correspondence' as far as I can make out. Melvyn Fairclough seems to have accepted at face value an assumption of Feldman's based on certain other references, turning it into fact when making the statement you quote.

This remains a very common fault, whereby Feldman's arguments are scrutinised and judged (and easily demolished more often than not) while the diary itself sits there unchecked, not expected to account for its own words.

Feldman found it hugely significant that the diary author refers to an edition of Punch, which came out on Sept 22, in the same entry as: ...if they are to insist that I am a Jew then a Jew I shall be.

The author of the Sept 17 letter writes: So now they say I am a Yid...

But then Feldy found a lot of things hugely significant that nobody else did. Others no doubt see the timing of the references here as nothing to get worked up about at all, and pretty much what one might expect from two independent modern hoaxers, working in the late 1980s from the various ripper reference books around at the time. History would have given them the same public perception of a Jewish fiend in the wake of the Leather Apron scare - in early to mid September.

The only thing I find slightly odd is the number of hoaxers supposedly going about their ripper business in the late 1980s/early 1990s, independently of each other, and none of them being exposed (and certainly not for the want of trying). In the late 1880s/early 1890s, it's the number of murderers supposedly going about their ripping business, independently of each other, and none of them being caught, that strikes an odd note.

Love,

Caz
X

[Stephen Thomas]

I’m also not sure how your disgruntled Jewish author was hoping to reach his target audience: the Gentiles who kept blaming Jews for stuff.

How usual would it be for resentful members of any social group (or race/religion/political party etc) to deface buildings that housed their own people, rather than buildings associated with the source of their resentment?

Hi Caz

Well, the message seems to have been written in the early hours of Sunday morning, not long before the street would have been flooded with Petticoat Lane punters, many (maybe most) of whom would have been Gentile. I imagine you disagree but I think the message simply means 'Jews shouldn't be blamed for anything' and wasn't written by JTR.

Best wishes

[DVV]

Hi Stephen,
I understand that the wording is open to debate.
But suppose you are a "Gentile" going to the market on this Sunday morning.
You see the graffito and read it.
What would have been your first understanding of it? Would it have been the one you are suggesting now?

Amitiés,
David

[claire]

Yes, but respectfully, David, what a Gentile reader would have first thought is possibly different to what the writer's intentions were...which, of course, we can only speculate about. The only thing you can say by asking what the Gentile interpretation would have been is that, if that interpretation was anti-semitic, the decision to erase was understandable (whole other thread ).

[The Good Michael]

Though David's question wasn't directed at me, with my apologies if it is inappropriate, I'd like to take a stab at it. Please, no cutting remarks for my pun there.

I believe that a gentile living in a predominately Jewish area, In the Victorian era, may have been anti-semitic. If I may play that role out: I imagine myself, a somewhat disgruntled, semi-employed dock worker passing by the graffiti. I read it. It says, "The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing."

"Screw them," I think. "Sorry, lot they are. They've got nothing to whine about. They get away with murder here. I've got have a mind to give them something to bitch about."

That's my take on it. Of course, I was one of the lucky ones who could read.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Hello Claire,
you write: "what a gentile reader would have thought is possibly different to what the writer's interpretation would have been."
True, but that's precisely the other side of the debate.

The graffito's wording is: "the Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".
In my opinion, the most obvious understanding would have been:
"the Jews have to be blamed for something".
It honestly seems to me a little bit more complicated to interpret it as:
"the Jews have not to be blamed for anything."

Especially, Michael, because, as you pointed it, antisemitism was quite common at this time, in this area.
Thanks for endorsing the role of the low-class antisemite, and playing the game (and as usual, I'm pleased to read and keep in mind different opinions than mine).

Amitiés,
David

[claire]

I agree, actually, that the *reading* of it, most likely, is an anti-semitic one. My first take was along the lines of, well, the Jews won't take the blame for anything (ie. not really that no-one will blame them, but just that they won't accept blame). This was kind of the use of the double negative in my dodgy old London school when I was a kid--well, Miss, you can't blame him for nuffink (ie. he won't admit it anyhow). That reading does mean that your author is a gentile having a crack at his Jewish neighbours. No idea what it was that he was suggesting they should be blamed *for,* but I think there's at least as much chance that it was written by someone who'd had a skinful and, possibly, a run in, and chalked it up on their way back to their bed, as it is to have anything at all to do with the murders, let alone be authored by JtR. This impression of him as a bit of a chancer, bit of a smart-alec, derives, I believe, from the general myth of JtR as jokester letter writer.