The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Ben]

I agree with a good deal above, Caz, particularly your argument that a subtle and ambiguous message would serve the intentions of a Jew-implicating ripper better than “I am the murderer, I live here and I am a Jew". That makes sensem, as does:

The apron could have served to underline either sentiment and reinforce the public’s belief, post-Leather Apron, that a Jew was behind the murders.

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.

The other salient point is that literacy levels in the area were generally very low anyway, with few education opportunities available for the working class poor. Since the majority of graffiti-artists in the area were likely to be less-than-proficient on the literacy front (and almost certainly use doube-negatives), why should we expect anything better from this one - Jack or not?

Best regards,
Ben

Edit: Document examiner Thomas Mann believed the Lusk-Letter author to have been semi-literate. I don't know of any expert who has gone on record and stated the opposite, but I'm open to correction there.

[caz]

Hi All,

I think maybe this is a case of not seeing the wood for the trees.

I see plenty of examples of the kind of message people assume the killer would be much more likely to have written, but I see very little incentive for him to have written any of them. What would simply claiming authorship of the message, eg “I am the killer”, have achieved?

Hi all

I don't think that the gsg has anything to do with the killings. Would anybody have noticed the graffitti if the apron hadn't been underneath it. (Not directly under either if I remeber correctly!)

Why couldn't it just have been the rambling of a drunken semi-literate person on their way home from a night of drink?

tj

The problem is that you can’t wish Kate’s apron away like that in order to argue that the message might never have been noticed without it and was therefore likely to have been written (in a neat and legible hand, don’t forget) by some innocent drunk who made no effort to make his work noticeable. Part of her apron was removed by her killer and was found by a policeman who judged it to be connected with a violent crime, and the message was noticed at the same time. We know that (to use Stewart’s words) ‘we have a murderer fleeing the scene of his crime, with a whistle being blown and police patrols on the streets’. So while this is used as an argument against him stopping to write anything on a wall, we know that it didn’t stop him carrying a large and 100% incriminating piece of his victim’s apron all the way to that wall from Mitre Square.

Once that apron is on the ground, he could presumably have written the message and if the worst came to the worst and he was caught with chalk in hand he could have claimed to be no more a killer than whoever people think really did write it, eg some drunkard or someone with a personal grudge against a Jewish trader and so on. I’m not sure one can have it both ways. Since the message has no obvious connection to any of the murders, and the apron could have been dropped there by pure coincidence, then you’d also have to concede that the man holding the chalk (killer or not) could not have been nicked for the murders simply for stopping to write that message. Obviously if he also had blood all over him and organs and a knife on him at the time, he would be at a distinct disadvantage. But it doesn’t follow that the killer would have done, since he could have cleaned up and deposited the other evidence somewhere before finally dumping the apron and leaving the message.

The apron was there, which means that Kate’s killer is the one person we can safely assume was in a position to have put the writing there too.

Look at it the other way round: would the apron have been found if the message had not been there? Yes, if the apron was noticed first. And that was enough to show the killer was there. He didn’t need a message to claim he was the same person who dropped the apron, because if it were found (as it was) and identified as part of Kate’s (as it was) it would be rather obvious it was the killer who had dropped it there.

Anyone writing that message could have claimed to be the killer (if they saw any point in doing so; a hoaxer might, but I’m not sure about the killer), while the killer himself could have claimed something specific about one or more of his murders. But neither happened. The message makes no such claims. So we can safely say that this wasn’t the purpose behind the message, regardless of who the author was. It follows, therefore, that if the hand that dropped the apron wrote the message, the latter was done with some other purpose in mind.

If, for example, the killer wanted to imply that a Jewish resident was responsible for the murders and had carelessly discarded the apron as he reached his destination, then writing: “I am the murderer, I live here and I am a Jew” would not have fooled anyone. Not much better would be: “The murderer lives here and is a Jew”.

But the very vagueness and ambiguity of the message made it a rather suitable one for a non-Jewish killer to have dropped the apron beneath, since the words could be seen as an anonymous grumble about Jews or a defiant statement coming from a Jew. The apron could have served to underline either sentiment and reinforce the public’s belief, post-Leather Apron, that a Jew was behind the murders. (Hell, there’s even an apron joke there and it wasn’t exactly hard to find.)

What are the chances of the killer, with the apron still on his person, happening upon a message that could be used to that effect? What better message could he have written himself to achieve a similar effect?

Finally, I don’t get the argument (mainly from Ben, whose suspect is Hutchinson) that if the killer wrote the message, the content indicates he was semi-literate. If it’s possible for a hoaxer to dumb down to pretend to be a semi-literate killer, as many believe the Lusk letter author was doing, then it’s equally possible for a killer to dumb down to pretend he can’t spell Jews or to pop in a double negative.

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?

“Only Chretins believe in the virgin birth”

If this message appeared in a neat and legible hand on a Salvation Army building, would the writer be judged semi-literate or just a provocative arse?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Paul!

Were agreed!

...on not being techno guys, that is.

The rest, well, that´s another thing. I stick by my stance that the killer would not have any chance to know that his throwing an apron and scribbling a message would cause 120 years of debate. What I think we are sometimes doing is assesing the impact of the murders, and then theorizing as we work our way back, somehow making the assumption that Jack knew that he would be regarded some sort of ghoulish criminal mastermind. There is no need to believe that he even strived for such fame.

If you feel that there is a real possibility that Jack tried to find a suitable mumbo-jumbo level for the GSG, so as to confound posterity, then by all means...
To me, such a proposition remains utterly useless and totally incredible. The contents of the message is a very strong pointer to Jack NOT being the author of it, as far as I am concerned.

The best, Paul!
Fisherman

[Monty]

Double negative

Double Negative is more of a working class trait than regional.

Monty

By the lack of any documentation to suggest otherwise JS, I believe the double negative was simply viewed as sign of a semi literate author, I have never seen anything that suggests they explored the use of double negatives in literate dialog. Of which there are many occurrences, one of which is in connection with sarcasm, another being an indicator of perhaps an attempt at clarification.

Best regards.

[paul emmett]

Hi Fisherman. I am sorry. I am no tech guy, and my responses here got all screwed up. Your original statements are regular; my responses are in CAPS. I'm too embarrassed to tell you what I was trying to do.

[QUOTE=Fisherman;19880]
To write something that there was no need for nobody to recognize as his work would be strange in the extreme, since it would open up for the possibility that the game he may have been playing would not evoke any interest.

HENCE, THE APRON--AND DEBATE AFTER 120 YEARS. AND IF THERE HAD BEEN NO INTEREST, HE COULD DISMISS IT WITH, "STUPID--UNLIKE ME--BASTARDS."




More often than not, when a psychopath killer communicates with society, he does so out of a feeling that he is invincible and more clever than those wo try to catch him. That will make him prone to go further and further in his hinting.

I AGREE WITH THE FIRST SENTENCE HERE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A TENSION BETWEEN "INVINCIBLE" AND "CLEVER." I DON'T THINK THAT "INVINCIBLE" LEADS TO DIRECT AND OBVIOUS, AND I THINK THAT "CLEVER" CAN TAKE PRECEDENCE. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE SECOND SENTENCE HERE BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT--LIKE YOU--DOES GIVE PRECEDENCE TO INVINCIBLE AND RECOGNIZED. I THINK THAT LETTER AFTER LETTER, GRAFFITO AFTER GRAFFITO, A PSYCHOPATH COULD BE LAUGHING HIS ASS OFF AT THE OBTUSE MORONS WHO WERE UNABLE TO GRASP HIS SUBTLTIES.

[Fisherman]

Paul Emmet writes:

"...one of the "marks" of the psychopath is the need to feel that he is pulling the wool over the eyes of others, being too clever for them"

May well be, Paul, even if we should not let us be convinced that all psychopaths work along the same lines.
My take on such an action, had Jack written the GSG, though, is that he would try to pull that wool over our eyes by claiming the killings in a very obvious manner, but TRY TO STAY UNDETECTED HIMSELF.
To write something that there was no need for nobody to recognize as his work would be strange in the extreme, since it would open up for the possibility that the game he may have been playing would not evoke any interest.
More often than not, when a psychopath killer communicates with society, he does so out of a feeling that he is invincible and more clever than those wo try to catch him. That will make him prone to go further and further in his hinting.
A message like the GSG does not have the elements that are very often evinced in such cases; a mocking boldness and a desperate need for recognition.
In short; much as I think that you are to a significant extent right in your description of many psychopaths, I think you are wrong in seeing the GSG as typical for the kind of message these characters would produce.

The best,
Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

Another more or less linguistic question: the double negation, was it a common occurrence in the local dialect?

Yes, it was very common. It wasn't commented upon too much in 1888. It's worth noting that the author did not need to phonetically render 'nothing' as so many did (i.e. nuffink, like Suzi mentioned), therefore I would find it even more remarkable if 'Juwes' had been the result of bad phonetics.

I certainly didn't mean my earlier post to sound as Howard interpreted it.

It's all good. We can't help the haters.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[JSchmidt]

Another more or less linguistic question: the double negation, was it a common occurrence in the local dialect? And if so, has it been remarked upon or mocked at the time of the murders?
I just wonder if this might say something about the author, whether he was local at least acquainted with the district.

[Paddy Goose]

Regardless, the police decision to erase it was prescient. Witness the scene after the sun rose, as described by the local paper:

"The appearance of East London early on the Sunday morning so soon as the news of the murders was known - and, indeed, all day - almost baffles description. At ten o'clock, Aldgate and Leadenhall-street, Duke-street, St. James'-place, and Houndsditch were all literally packed with human beings - packed so thick that it was a matter of utter impossibility to pass through. The babel of tongues as each inquired of the other the latest particulars, or the exact locality of the Aldgate murder, or speculated on the character or whereabouts of the murder, was simply deafening. Every window of every inhabited room in the vicinity was thrown open, for the better view of the inmates; and seats at these windows were being openly sold and eagerly bought. On the outskirts of this vast chattering, excited assemblage of humanity, costermongers, who sold everything in the way of edibles, from fish and bread to fruits and sweets, and newspaper vendors whose hoarse cries only added to the confusion of sounds heard on every hand, were doing exceedingly large trades. Entrance to the square was strictly forbidden by the police, who jealously guarded all the three entrances; and yet, that great multitude seemed to derive a kind of morbid satisfaction in standing even so near the scene of the tragedy of a few hours before, and in gazing with a kind of awe upon so much of the dull flagstones of the square as they could see. As the day wore on the crowds increased, considerably diminished between two and four o'clock, and increased again in the evening. In Berner-street, existed a scene of similar excitement. Some thousands of people had gathered about the streets, and stood watching with the same morbid curiosity that distinguished the crowds at Aldgate, what little there was to be seen of the scene of the murder. And all that could be seen was the big wooden gate inside which the woman Watts had met her death, guarded also by a large force of police. Here too, windows were in great demand, and costermongers and newsvendors as they brought out numerous "special editions," which existed only in their own imagination, did a wonderful trade. Large crowds gathered at Mitre-square and Berner-street, on Monday and Tuesday also, and remained discussing together during the day. Apparently too, the denizens of West London have begun to take a lively interest in the doings of the Whitechapel murderer, for since Sunday a very large number of cabs and private carriages containing sightseers have visited the scenes of the tragedies."

So at least the police did not have a third scene to control.

Just looking on the bright side of things,
Paddy

[Ally]

At least you accept you don't qualify as a man.

The facts are simple: Anagrams as a whole were uncommon.

No one referred to the club by its full name.

It wasn't an anagram of the International Working Men's Educational Society.

[Tom_Wescott]

You've in no way 'proved me wrong', although you have managed to assume I know no more than you about the matter. Now please, let the boys talk.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

And he just happened to think of the Working Men's club by it's obscure title that not even its members referred to it by? Gee he really was an uncommon wordsmith for his time!

Uh huh. Logic goes right out the window as soon as people get a pet theory. And you are a cutie dear boy, proving you wrong isn't "starting a fight". There's nothing to fight about. You are wrong, you refuse to accept it. Same ol', same ol'.

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally,

We've established that acronyms exists in 1888. That they weren't as commonplace then as they are now is incidental. They were in regular usage, the Ripper had limited space in which to write, and perhaps he wrote this acronym on a regular basis for one reason or another. Now be a good girl and find a pub talk thread to start fights on.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Nice cop out. I'll remind you of that the next time you are arguing with someone that a given scenario is not likely because of inconvenient facts that the theorist of the day doesn't want to address.