The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[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

[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

[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.

[c.d.]

To me, the biggest argument against the GSG being written by Jack is that we have no other communications from him in the case before or after the GSG. (I am assuming that he wrote none of the letters.) So if Jack was the author, he decides to communicate for the only time at the worst possible time with regards to his own safety. And to boot, he decides to make that communication so ambiguous that no one can understand it.

c.d.

[Christine]

I can think of so many ways to fit the misspelling to so many scenarios.

1) Jack was a Jew, but an anti-Semitic Jew who made a distinction between modern, anglicized Jews like himself and old fashioned Jews who dressed funny and refused to work on Saturday. He called those people "Juwes" and assumed that everyone else did too, because his brilliant thoughts were being broadcast all the time and could control the minds of lesser beings.

2) Jack was educated, but not well enough to know how to spell.

3) Jack thought it was funny to misspell things.

4) Jack was hearing impaired, which made spelling really hard for him, despite being reasonably educated.

5) Jack saw the graffito and was disgusted by it, so he threw the filthy apron at it as a sort of editorial comment. Obviously anyone short of a complete idiot would understand his brilliant intent.

6) Jack saw the graffito and was impressed by it, so he dropped the token of his godly work by it as a sort of editorial comment. Obviously anyone short of a complete idiot would understand his brilliant intent.

I'll stop at six, I'm sure you can come up with others. I think that the usefulness of the thing lies primarily in its location, and secondarily its handwriting (if we had it), its general indication of education level, and its sign of interest in Jews. But even that is questionable. It's quite possible Jack never even saw it.

[Mitch Rowe]

To me, the biggest argument against the GSG being written by Jack is that we have no other communications from him in the case before or after the GSG. (I am assuming that he wrote none of the letters.) So if Jack was the author, he decides to communicate for the only time at the worst possible time with regards to his own safety. And to boot, he decides to make that communication so ambiguous that no one can understand it.

c.d.

We dont really know if JTR didnt write other graffiti. Stuff that was ignored/ect. There were other cases of strange graffiti but most of it was just mentioned by news in passing.
I personally dont think any of it was written by JTR as I dont see him as too concerned with what others thought. But thats just a hunch not based on anything but who i feel JTR was.

[perrymason]

Just for the sake of argument, if it was The Ripper that did leave the apron and then the writing, or vice versa, I would think the most signifigant "clue" is the lack of acknowledgement of the Dutfield Yard slaying in any clear and concise manner. The apron section is just that, clear, concise. I took it.....I killed her, here is her blood and cloth.

Just like the kidney is in a little more than 2 weeks....I took the kidney, I killed her, here is some.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

The apron section is just that, clear, concise. I took it.....I killed her, here is her blood and cloth.

...but why not "I killed her... there is her body"? There was no need to leave the cloth equivalent of a paper-chase when he'd left such a severely butchered body behind. And why premeditatedly take a fragment of apron with the intention of "flagging-up" a piece of graffiti he had planned on writing, when he could simply have written a more explicit message without the cloth?

[Christine]

Hi Mike,...but why not "I killed her... there is her body"? There was no need to leave the cloth equivalent of a paper-chase when he'd left such a severely butchered body behind. And why premeditatedly take a fragment of apron with the intention of "flagging-up" a piece of graffiti he had planned on writing, when he could simply have written a more explicit message without the cloth?

Perhaps because anyone short of an idiot would understand the obvious meaning of his brilliant gesture. After all, doesn't it touch on the most important things in the world? (Juwes? Aprons? Blame? Walls? Goulston Street?) There's a good chance that he was projecting his thoughts anyhow, and of course "they" were doing everything they could to read his mind and naturally "they" would know what all this meant. Or maybe it wasn't meant to be understood by normal folks like us, maybe only the elite were supposed to get it.

Alas, even from that perspective I can't make much out of it, except that Juwes had something to do with it.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,...but why not "I killed her... there is her body"? There was no need to leave the cloth equivalent of a paper-chase when he'd left such a severely butchered body behind. And why premeditatedly take a fragment of apron with the intention of "flagging-up" a piece of graffiti he had planned on writing, when he could simply have written a more explicit message without the cloth?

Hi Sam....I hope youre feeling better, Ive been off more than on the past few days.

I agree with you, there is little sense if its all premeditated, but Im not so sure it was. If this is the killer that took Annies organs, surely the cloth isnt for cartage, which leaves us with to be used later, or to wipe s*** from his hands. If its the second, its seems we likely have him tossing it aside while on his way home, why hold on to something so offensive....then the apron piece was already there at the 2:20am pass....

Maybe he took the apron piece to be used when sending a note later on, as a way to authenticate himself, but he became aware of something on the way home, that of a murder that preceeded his but was added to his roster, might he alter his "plan", and use the apron piece as part of a message, after cleaning himself more fully and popping the organs in spirits.

I personally just dont buy him heading North East to his home, and leaving it on the way there, while still holding organs, and surely with some blood on him.

The message is about or to Jews, and it involves blame, or the lack of it. September 30th was easily the most "Jewish" night of them all. Certainly coincidental that it was right near the apron, and seems to address the missing element that I mentioned earlier....the apron is about Kate, as is the kidney,.....so maybe the GSG is about The International Working Mens Club witnesses, and the Jewish private property that a murder occurred on.

We dont have something from Liz, because he wasnt there.

Its just a hunch obviously Gareth, but I think it fits some of the parameters.

Cheers Amigo.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

If this is the killer that took Annies organs, surely the cloth isnt for cartage, which leaves us with to be used later, or to wipe s*** from his hands. If its the second, its seems we likely have him tossing it aside while on his way home...

...which I believe is precisely what he did.

[Johnr]

Hello All,
Am I mistaken or was it reported at another of the JTR murder sites that a piece of bloodstained envelope or paper anyway, was found.
And was it speculated that this paper had been used to wipe blood from the knife?
If that is so, perhaps it is a mini glimpse of a modus operandi.
Was grafitti located at that site too?
I have read some of the postings arguing different positions here and elsewhere about the GSG and all I get from the written chalk message is a
double-negative anti Semitic cribble - in chalk.
If the apron and the graffiti were linked, I would assume that similar things would have occurred at the other sites.
If it was a symbolic message from the killer, I think it failed because few understood what JTR was on about. JOHN RUFFELS.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,...which I believe is precisely what he did.

Of course you may be right Gareth,... no surprise, I cant recall having found the need to ever accuse you of being outright wrong...

But.......that implies the killer treated both the apron piece, and the leaving of a trail in the direction of his home, as just unimportant incidentals.

I might accept the first point, but I see nothing in any of the other cases to suggest to me that he is the type of individual who is unconcerned with an evidence free egress from murder sites. If true as you offer, then the Police also had within their grasp a particlular area of the East End to isolate as the likely lair. That doesnt synch with the opinions of his possible home location offered by contemporary Investigative officers. Many were'nt even sure he resided in the East End.

Unless of course it was used to mis-direct, ......but that would be the behaviour of a man who was concerned about leaving an accurate trail.

All the best Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

If true as you offer, then the Police also had within their grasp a particlular area of the East End to isolate as the likely lair.

Given that there were tens of thousands of people crammed into such a small radius that wouldn't have been much of a clue. Besides, the police already believed that the killer was most likely a local man and were actively searching the area, so one dropped apron was hardly going to change matters one way or another.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

If true as you offer, then the Police also had within their grasp a particlular area of the East End to isolate as the likely lair.

If the apron and/or message was used as deliberate subterfuge to implicate the already "scapegoated" Jewish community, as I believe, it would potentially have disguised the fact that it was diposited en route home.

Best regards,
Ben