The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Fisherman]

"The details provided earlier show that the writer had a profound understanding of Jewish traditions that could only be derived by living as a Jew."

And what does it show us about the type of work upheld by the individual that wrote it? His shoesize and preferences when it comes to choosing between lavender and honey soap?

The plethora of assertions made about the GSG is truly amazing. I have to say that I am very much with Mike on this one. And I will once again say that when somebody is able to come up with a simple, logical explanation of the wording, directly applicable to the events it is assumed to relate to, I am much, much more willing to listen.

To me, the only profound understanding that can be reached by reading the GSG, is one of its author not getting things linguistically correct at all times. Sloppy grammatics combined with a sloppy talent for getting understandable messages across, that´s all I see. And, of course, that tallies a lot better with a man pressed for time than a secretive message filled with concealed meanings and more or less etheric hints.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

The details provided earlier show that the writer had a profound understanding of Jewish traditions that could only be derived by living as a Jew.

I just wanted to address this piece of your post quickly. There is nothing in the GSG that shows anything of the kind, or even anything remotely suggesting such a thing. It's one thing to say, "I believe such and such," but quite another to make such a statement. The Mezuzah thing that you brought up is strange. Why not call the writing one of Moses' tablets? "Thou shalt not blame Jews."

Mike

[Investigator]

Hello Folks,
Because I don’t have regular access to an internet connection I’ll address my comments in general. Good points have been raised that draw on contemporary resources; and opinions, although without validation, are useful in promoting ideas.
I can whole heartedly agree that the scape-goating of Leather Apron and, I might add, the reporting in The Times of the murder and mutilation of a women in 1884 by the Jew Ritter, may well have been triggers for the Whitechapel killer to make a diversionary defence. I can’t place Anderson making any specific comments bearing on the GSG. A reference would be appreciated. His definitive statement in his 1910 biography “….In saying that he was a Polish Jew I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact. And my words are meant to specify race, not religion. For it would outrage all religious sentiment to talk of the religion…” seems to follow on from other sources related to the witness identification.

On the other hand, trying to fake being Jewish would not fool a Jew. The details provided earlier show that the writer had a profound understanding of Jewish traditions that could only be derived by living as a Jew. It may be possible at a superficial level, but highly unlikely for a Gentile to incorporate the nuance of the Jewish way in this message, and how would you prove such a masquerade? A Jewish viewpoint would be appreciated in this respect and I’m open for instruction.

If the GSG pre-timed the apron then no Jewish resident had passed it from the time it had been written, as it would have been wiped off being in the mezuzah position and the hint of anti-Semitism. According to Halse the chalk was “fresh” – but then, he did not make it clear what time frame he had in mind. In a damp environment, natural diatomaceous chalk would discolour due to oxidation of metal impurities, grey, greenish, reddish.
I would propose that the coincidence of timing with the apron supports (does not prove) a connection with the apron. I am aware of Howard Browns (2005 and worth reviewing) proposal that with insufficient lighting it would have to have been written in daylight. Perhaps the Jewish residents only go home when it gets dark! (possibly drunk with home-made kirsch)

The writing by itself, or the apron piece on its own could easily be passed off as chance placement. But together there is a synergistic effect, they were dynamite for civil unrest and they were also a potent message to the Wentworth residents. It is quite clear that Warren thought the writing and apron were associated, directed at the residents of the Wentworth building when in his report wrote, “…that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked”.

As Dan points out, police views on the GSG are somewhat divergent, as it seems most views are about Jack the Ripper 120 years hence. On the other hand Anderson should have been the repository of all Police evidence, particularly with a pretty active secret police service directed at anarchist plots. Bear in mind that Berner Street was a meeting spot for many high profile socialist/anarchist activists. I personally would not dismiss his competence despite what appears to be his pompous, opinionated and self important manner.

While the discussion opens up interesting avenues of enquiry, so far I have seen little evidence to negate or even hint at modifying the mezuzah proposition. At the same time, I grant that the link between the writing and the apron may, in a one-to-one context, be circumstantial. Never the less, there is a coherent explanation that provides a credible motivation for the murders within a Jewish framework. It just seems that such a delicate hull is not quite ready for gale force winds.
Incidently Sam, Great picture. Spot on! How did you get that shot angle? Is this a demonstration of your computer wizardry?
I'll try to pop in again when we dock in Sydney, All the best DG

[Dan Norder]

I repeat, he didn't THINK a Jew MUST have been responsible, he SAID a Jew WAS responsible.

Anderson said a Jew was responsible based upon "moral evidence" and not actual evidence. That means he only thought he knew. Other police officials (who were in better positions to know and who don't have the same documented history of mistaken memories and prejudices) explicitly said he didn't know what he was talking about.

I never get why some people always want to declare Anderson's statements to be beyond question but feel no qualms about insinuating that all of the other police at the time were incompetent or liars. It's pretty hypocritical.

And, of course, all of that has already been covered on threads specifically about Anderson, so we don't need to rehash that all here. If you want to believe there's some magical difference between Anderson thinking something happened and saying something happened, either take it to a more appropriate thread or just accept that other people disagree and leave it at that.

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Dan

I repeat, he didn't THINK a Jew MUST have been responsible, he SAID a Jew WAS responsible. If you want to think that the head of the British equivalent of the CIA de nos jours was a senile idiot then good for you. Sure he could have been lying, but for what purpose?

[Dan Norder]

Anderson said a Jew WAS responsible.

...because he thought a Jew must have been responsible.

[Stephen Thomas]

Anderson thought a Jew must have been responsible.

Hi Dan

Not quite.

Anderson said a Jew WAS responsible.

[Dan Norder]

Anderson thought a Jew must have been responsible. He also thought the message was written by the murderer to say that he wasn't a Jew. Because of that contradiction he decided that it was left as a ruse to try to throw them off the scent instead of being accurate. Without a presupposition that the killer had to be a Jew the idea that it was written by a non-Jew to take credit for his murders instead of letting this "Leather Apron" the papers were talking about get the glory is just as likely.

[DVV]

Hi Dan,

"The line seems to be saying that the Jews aren't to blame, and Anderson, at least, thought it was written by a Jew trying to deflect suspicion away from the Jews."
Dan Norder

What's contradictory to Anderson's theory in Anderson's interpretation of the GSG?

Amitiés,
David

[Dan Norder]

the apparent meaning seems rather antisemite (= the Juwes have to be blamed for something), the contrary being only a "second" possible interpretation.

There are multiple possible interpretations, and there's no outside source has gone through and numbered them so that we can conclusively say which is secondary and which is primary. To me, the primary interpretation, if it was written by the killer, seems to be taking credit for the killing and saying that a Jew was not responsible.

As to Anderson, he came back from Switzerland having already formed his Jewish theory, and his personal interpretation of the GSG is certainly biased.

I'm certainly no supporter of Anderson's various bigotries, but the point is that he considered the meaning of the message to be contradictory to his bias would lead him to believe the killer would have said and then further assumed that it was written to be deceptive. If his interpretation was limited to only bias instead of what the words meant he could have just interpreted it to mean what he thought the killer would have said in the first place and skipped the extra step.

[Sam Flynn]

During my research for a joint article with Howard Brown, Stewart Evans kindly sent me a picture of the entrance with a cross upon it where he felt the writing was located. I must say that I favour this spot too.

Ditto, Neil...



...we must be psychic

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Dan,
the apparent meaning seems rather antisemite (= the Juwes have to be blamed for something), the contrary being only a "second" possible interpretation.
As to Anderson, he came back from Switzerland having already formed his Jewish theory, and his personal interpretation of the GSG is certainly biased.

Amitiés,
David

Indeed, David.
I agree with that.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

The line seems to be saying that the Jews aren't to blame, and Anderson, at least, thought it was written by a Jew trying to deflect suspicion away from the Jews.

And Warren meant that it was written to cause antisemtic friction within the community. No doubt Warren regarded the message as antisemitic and directed towards the Jews in a negative way. And frankly, it's an interpretation I agree with. To me the line certainly doesn't seem to indicate that it was "written by a Jew trying to deflect suspicion away from the Jews".

All the best

[DVV]

The line seems to be saying that the Jews aren't to blame, and Anderson, at least, thought it was written by a Jew trying to deflect suspicion away from the Jews.

Hi Dan,
the apparent meaning seems rather antisemite (= the Juwes have to be blamed for something), the contrary being only a "second" possible interpretation.
As to Anderson, he came back from Switzerland having already formed his Jewish theory, and his personal interpretation of the GSG is certainly biased.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Thanks. You see I have no books here and only the fading memory. The chaps you quoted point the GSG heavily in the direction of someone wanting to appear Jewish when they wrote it. This is, as I said, a distinct possibility if one doesn't like the Polish Jew theory. The point is, the only thing that could be seen as so inflammatory that it would piss off the Gentiles, is the writing of an angry Jew, absolving his people of blame... or someone pretending to be one.

Cheers,

Mike