The GSG. What Does It Mean??

I think a useful exercise here is to ask oneself two questions, does the use of dougle negative phrasing seem to indicate a ESL issue, or is it used as it might be with English speaking residents, perhaps as a dramatic or sarcastic tone, or to confuse or mock?

A witness description of a good "schoolboy" handwriting style. "Juwes/Juewes" capitilized. The word "nothing" has its "g". "The" capitalized. Spaced...5 lines?

Best regards all.

[The Good Michael]

Investigator,

"The Jews are the men" is not a close translation of "Die Juedische Maenner"

"Die Jueden sind die Maenner" is where it would come from literally.

Mike

[Investigator]

Hello all, Billy,
I think you're right about the grammar, the writer could be translating into English. "The Jews” is a collective noun for all Jews, male and female, it is incorrect to classify them as “The men”. This appears a clumsy translation from a European language into English. In English, “The Jews are the men” is more correctly rendered “The Jewish men”, which in the 1888 contemporary German translates as “Die Juedischen Männer”, being Jewish is descriptive of a class of men. That this German spelling was in vogue at this time can be seen in the heading of an article by William Wess in 1903, a witness in the Stride inquest and an IWES member.
The stem spelling is also consistent with the confusion of the graffiti word of “Jews”. This may in fact be what was intended. In German, masculine and feminine is differentiated in the plural by the ending on the stem word, so that “Die Juden”, refers to male Jews and “Die Judin” to female Jews as a collective plural so it is unnecessary to refer to the subject as “the men”.
It may also be observed that the correct English pronoun for people is “who” and not “that”. In German the differentiation is gender related having the plural indefinite article “die” translating as “that”. However, it is common enough for native English speakers to use pronouns incorrectly and by itself, is not strong evidence to support a foreign translation. This may be all balloney and it would be useful if a native German could vouch for this interpretation or even another language.
Since the exact spelling of Jews is in doubt, it is sufficient to concede that it was misspelled to include a “U” in a social context that would commonly have exposed the writer to the correct English spelling. On the face of it, the misspelling of “Jews” (whatever the configuration) is unexpected in view of the strong representation of the Jewish community in the East End.
Having said that, I think Toms idea of IWES rather fascinating, and who knows there could be a connection there.
Regards DG

[Billy Bulger]

Tom, I must say I think you might be on to something with this idea- it certainly seems more feasible than many theories that still abound today.

Is it just me or does the grammar of the graffiti read very poorly; as if written by a foreigner?
I may be wrong here but the GSG always struck me as being poorly worded.

Hi Mike,

If he dumped it in a well-known Jewish enclave (and possibly wrote a Jew-implicating message at the same time), it was more than likely to take the focus off his path of retreat home, since the initial investigative focus would have fallen on the immediate locality of the GSG - a heavily Jewish enclave.

As for the "time-lapse", I've always considered it far more likely that the apron was deposited en route home, and that it was missed by Long first time around.

Regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,

I agree that tossing it aside, if it didnt carry organs....a point Im unsure about,... is just ridding himself of a hand cleaning cloth. If it was there and Long missed it...another point Im unsure about, it was likely en-route home.

If it wasnt there until 3am, then we may have a calculated placement of it, using your rationale on its location that I bolded in your quote.

I believe if Long missed seeing it first pass by, the issue is only did he also write the message....but If he didnt miss it, and it wasnt there until almost 3, that could change the possible answers dramatically.

All the best Ben.

[adamkle]

on "Juwes"

Perhaps it's nothing new (well, I'm new)... I've just read in "Middle English Dictionary" (letter J, page 382, available on books.google.com) that "Juwes" was a variation of word "Jews", used - as I understand - in John of Trevisa's English translation (1387) of "Polychronicon". Originally it was written in Latin by Ranulf Higdon, no more than ninety years after the expulsion of Jews, ordered by Edward I.
I don't suggest that JTR was a scholar or medievalist. Or even that he hated Jews and read a lot about it. I just think that there is nothing mysterious in "Juwes". It could be jargon or some archaic form (there are so many of them!), that JtR could know.

[Ben]

because it seems a useless gesture, ridding himself of only the "bag" but not the contents...so I would go with Sams notion of "de-excrementation".

Hi Mike,

It would make perfect sense to "rid himself of only the bag but not the contents" if he was close to home, especially if the "bag" was likely to give off incriminating pongs when he arrived back home (probably not in single, private accomidation). I'm not sure what the objection is to the notion that the killer deposited the apron en route home. This is the most reasonable explanation by miles. If he dumped it in a well-known Jewish enclave (and possibly wrote a Jew-implicating message at the same time), it was more than likely to take the focus off his path of retreat home, since the initial investigative focus would have fallen on the immediate locality of the GSG - a heavily Jewish enclave.

As for the "time-lapse", I've always considered it far more likely that the apron was deposited en route home, and that it was missed by Long first time around.

Regards,
Ben

Hi Sam, Monty and Rob,

I appreciate the feedback gentlemen, and as Monty said... even if not implicitly mentioned as having any influence on focussing the search, perhaps the apron piece did.

Im not sure if that satisfies my curiosity about this issue though, being as I am very open to it having arrived at its location just before 3am. I would say though that if he dropped it casually on the way home as you suggest Sam, I believe that would be close to 2am. And for me, that would decrease the chances that he took time to write a message also. If he is "fleeing"....either a brisk pace, walking or crawling, that is what would be on his mind I would think. Until such time that he has no incriminating evidence on his person, anyway.

If he leaves the apron piece, I would surmise it did not hold organs....because it seems a useless gesture, ridding himself of only the "bag" but not the contents...so I would go with Sams notion of "de-excrementation".

But. If the apron was not there until almost 3...it could have held organs, was definately placed there, and need not be left in a direct path towards his home from Mitre Square.

I admit it...the second time just feels more right to me. I dont think he did anything casually while on kill night adrenaline, and I think a bad experience carring organs in a pocket before, might have made him seek alternatives this go round. And I cant imagine that he would casually lead investigators closer to his home.

And in the second scenario....I think the writing is more likely from him, as the apron piece was purposefullly placed there... due to the hour lapse......and it related to the nights events somehow.

Best regards.

[Monty]

Hey, youre luckier than Jack. Some say he was only allowed chalk.

Monty.

[Sam Flynn]

Rob,

Too much time with the marker pens?

Clacky's lucky, Neil - they only let me use crayon

[Monty]

Gareth,

Fair point.

Rob,

Too much time with the marker pens? Seriously, beneficial.

Thanks.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

I did this a while back on the Met search area. Which I think is reasonably accurate.

Certainly moreso than mine, which was a little curtailed at the top - your map shows even better that it was indeed the Northwestern extremity of the East End that was the primary focus of the enquiry at that time. Thanks, Rob.

[Rob Clack]

I did this a while back on the Met search area. Which I think is reasonably accurate.



Rob

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Monty,

As you mention, Swanson lays out the Met polices search area in his overview report (HO144/221/A49301C, ff 148-159), which was predominantly on Strides murder.

True - although the section in that overview that mentions the questionnaires and the house-to-house interviews seems to be a general "What we've been doing to date", rather than majoring on the Stride case specifically at that point. It's a bit like Abberline's later memo that accompanied the Hutchinson statement, which also covers more than one area of interest.

To be fair, he doesnt mention his reasons why this area was searched and I think its a tad misleading to say Swanson took to that area solely due to the apron.

I was just answering Mike's question about why didn't the police didn't suspect that the killer came from the Northwest of the East End - I didn't claim that the discovery of the apron had all that much to do with it.

[Monty]

The MET search area.

Sam,

As you mention, Swanson lays out the Met polices search area in his overview report (HO144/221/A49301C, ff 148-159), which was predominantly on Strides murder. To be fair, he doesnt mention his reasons why this area was searched and I think its a tad misleading to say Swanson took to that area solely due to the apron. That said, it must have been a factor and I agree with your logic.