The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Dan,

This is all a load of bollocks.
yes, many killers leave messages but there is absolutely nothing in the content of the message that in any way refers to the murders, and you know it.
The fact that he trew the apron there wouldn't in any way stop him from writing a message that would be clearer in its intent and wording. The notion that he threw the apron there in order to 'connect' it with the rather vague and useless text is of course nothing but nonsense. Sure, there was limited room on the door jamb, but if the Ripper wanted to make a statement, why bother writing on the door jamb at all? Nor does the limited place explain why he would waste time in a dangerous situation by wiriting it in a neat schoolboy's hand.

Nor could the killer be sure of that the rather dirty piece of apron would be found - since several things could have happened to this piece of cloth during the night or the following morning, leaving the message as just another anstisemtic scribbling - nor would he be sure of that it even would be identified or connected with the Eddowes murder.

I don't know where you get this about 'standard belief' from, but I can only view that as an example of your usual selective approach.
The City police - indeed - found it to be an important clue that at least was worth saving and reproduced but the Met only appears to have been concerned about the reference to the Jews and we know that is why Arnold and Warren wanted it to be destroyed. Just because they found the apron there doesn't mean they automatically viewed it as an important Ripper clue.
As for authors: well some see it as related to the murders but then again others certainly don't, so your erronous claim that it's a 'standard belief' is totally unsupported, if not false.

All the best

[auspirograph]

Finally

Finally, Dan Norder has taken a stand on something, apart from the no bolster issue but let's not go there.

Dan believes the GSG was written by the killer because "Other killers have left messages at or near crime scenes", and because " The standard beliefs of the police and several authors (doesn't say which, probably Stan Russo) interpret it as relating to the murders".

The police didn't know at the time and neither do you regardless of any interpretations.

Only the killer knew for sure.

I can agree with Glenn on his assessment that Jack the Ripper had other things on his mind than nurturing the outlandish beliefs of Dan Norder.

[The Good Michael]

Dan believes the GSG was written by the killer

Hold on! Dan most certainly didn't say that. He was chastising Glenn for his certainty. He said that there are beliefs by established experts that the GSG was connected to the murders, not that the killer wrote it. These are two different things.

Cheers,

Mike

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

He said that there are beliefs by established experts that the GSG was connected to the murders...

And that statement isn't even true either.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Sure, there was limited room on the door jamb, but if the Ripper wanted to make a statement, why bother writing on the door jamb at all?

Indeed - why not chalk it on the bricks inside the passageway? At least there, the writer would have been more sheltered from open view from the street as he was writing it. Alternatively, he might have written in big letters on the passage floor itself and, for the avoidance of doubt, left the apron right on top of it. As it is, we have the writing on the door-jamb, and the apron somewhere inside the passageway - in that sense, one might argue that the two artefacts weren't even "connected" by the killer himself.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

"As it is, we have the writing on the door-jamb, and the apron somewhere inside the passageway - in that sense, one might argue that the two artefacts weren't even "connected" by the killer himself."

One might, Sam - given that one is sure about where the lines are drawn in such occasions: Straight under/Obliquely under, Fifty centimetres away/Seventy centimetres away ...

Myself, I find it difficult to draw them lines, and therefore I will settle for saying that on the surface I have always thought it more credible that the items are unconnected, whereas I avoid stating that they actually were unconnected. Being found in one and the same doorway in a city of a million doorways is not all that bad...

The best,

Fisherman

[robhouse]

The police were apparently worried that the GSG would cause anti-semitic riots. This is probably because they thought the public perception would be that the killer wrote the message, and that the message indicated the writer was a Jew. If the message was in itself anti-semitic, why would it cause further anti-semitism? Especially if it was written by the killer?

The fact is, (as can be seen by this thread), the message can be interpreted in different ways. The main 2 variations are along the lines of

1. The jews will not accept the blame (or the responsibility) for anything. - this is the anti-semitic variation.

2. The jews should not be blamed for everything - this is the variation that could have been written by a Jew. This reflects the atmosphere of general scapegoating of Jews that was happening at the time... for the crimes, for unfair competition/ labor practices, etc.

The fact that these are essentially diametrically opposed, shows the problem.

The vagueness of the statement does not come from the double negative. It comes from the vagueness of the word "WILL". And specifically the phrase: "Will not be blamed"

"Will not be blamed" either is a command statement, as in "You will not speak to your father in that tone".

or, it is a past tense, implying a refusal to ACCEPT blame, or responsinility.

RH

[Fisherman]

Spot on, Rob! That little word "will" may well have been given too much attention and weight, most of all when "will not be blamed for" is read as "are not going to let themselves be blamed for".

This is one of the reasons that I earlier suggested that the Juwes mentioned could have been Lawende, Levy and Harris. If nothing else, such a suggestion renders a very clear and prosaic meaning of the word "will", if the killer was saying that he had no intention of blaming the men for spilling the beans about him.

I have no trouble accepting the fact that we do not know that the killer acknowledged the tree men from the club as jews, but I think that if we want to reach a simple understanding of the wording, we shall have to move away from the realms of reading all sorts of mumbo-jumbo into it.
If that in it´s turn provides us with a more true interpretation of the GSG, is of course an entirely different matter - as is also the fact that there are VERY good reasons not to believe it was Ripper-written at all - but the fact remains that simple explanations are more often than not good explanations too.

The best!

Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

.
Another problem is that the wording does not sound like a sentence exchanged between friends. To me, it's both clumsy and pompous, isn't it?

I'd say it seems somewhat rehearsed and not spontaneous. But the bottom line here is that there are just two possibilities:

(1) Jack the Ripper wrote the message.

(2) He didn't.

There's a third possibility but that's too fanciful for me.

I go for (2) but would be happy to be proved wrong.

[Graham]

As has been stated ad nauseam on these threads in the past, Walter Dew said that the walls of the East End were plastered with graffiti, much of it related to Jews and Jewish politics, which were giving the police mighty headaches at the time. Warren was probably correct in ordering its erasure, due to the obvious possibility that if the general public had 'proof' that the killer was Jewish, matters may well have escalated on the streets.

Cheers,

Graham

[DVV]

But the bottom line here is that there are just two possibilities:

(1) Jack the Ripper wrote the message.

(2) He didn't.

There's a third possibility but that's too fanciful for me.

I go for (2) but would be happy to be proved wrong.

Hi Stephen,
I personally don't know who wrote the message, but if I assume it was not JtR, still I'll have to ask myself why was the piece of apron found near to it - since it was not the habit of the killer to scatter clues behind him.
Can it be because the killer saw the message and "liked" it?
Some would say that JtR threw the piece of apron there by chance...possible...but a little bit hard to swallow...since he was by no means forced to throw anything.

Amitiés,
David

[Stephen Thomas]

As has been stated ad nauseam on these threads in the past, Walter Dew said that the walls of the East End were plastered with graffiti, much of it related to Jews and Jewish politics, which were giving the police mighty headaches at the time. Warren was probably correct in ordering its erasure, due to the obvious possibility that if the general public had 'proof' that the killer was Jewish, matters may well have escalated on the streets.

Quite so, Graham.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Fish,

One might, Sam - given that one is sure about where the lines are drawn in such occasions: Straight under/Obliquely under, Fifty centimetres away/Seventy centimetres away ... being found in one and the same doorway in a city of a million doorways is not all that bad...

What would have been so difficult in writing a nice, big message inside the passageway where the apron was found? What would have been so difficult with writing the message on the floor of the passageway, and placing the apron in the middle of the nice, big letters? Why - with those two options - chuck the apron into the passageway and write a small message halfway up a door-post? It just doesn't connect.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Hi Fish,What would have been so difficult in writing a nice, big message inside the passageway where the apron was found? What would have been so difficult with writing the message on the floor of the passageway, and placing the apron in the middle of the nice, big letters? Why - with those two options - chuck the apron into the passageway and write a small message halfway up a door-post? It just doesn't connect.

Exactly, Sam. And it certainly wouldn't have taken any longer amount of time.
I am with you on this one.

All the best

[DVV]

As has been stated ad nauseam on these threads in the past

Hi Graham,
Tarde venientibus ossa... though this thread is already 27 pages long!
More seriously, I've read the "old" discussions, and certainly we are repeating the same arguments, views, questions, suggestions, objections... But I take it positively, and find interesting to see how some topics are quickly closed, while others, like the GSG, are continuously and warmly debated.

Amitiés,
David