The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[The Good Michael]

String,

What does proliferation of graffiti mean? Does it mean that there was writing on every stoop and every wall? On every door? On every shop? Do you envision chalked letters everywhere one turned? What did the proliferate graffiti look like, and what did it say? I will suggest that this exact type of graffiti, in neat letters, in uncommon language, and in small size was very rare. That alone makes it worth remarking on in my book.

Cheers,

Mike

[Septic Blue]

I will suggest that this exact type of graffiti, in neat letters, in uncommon language, and in small size ...

... on the walls of a relatively pristine four-year-old model dwelling, inhabited by comparatively orderly people and situated in a recently re-developed street ...

... was very rare. That alone makes it worth remarking on in my book.

Colin

[DVV]

Is the simplest explanation not the most probable?
The Graffiti is just that and the fact that the apron piece was found in the vicinity is just a coincidence.

Hi String,
this seems by no means the "most probable" explanation.
Not only because "coincidence isn't the most likely thing where murder is concerned", as Michael said, but also because it was not the habit of the murderer to leave clues behind him.

Also, why did JtR cut and take away a piece of Eddowes' apron? If he had to wipe his hands, or knife, he could do it in Mitre Square.
Plus, if he wanted to get rid of this piece of apron before getting home, it was so easy to throw it in a garbage place. Noboby would have found it. Of course, he could also put it in his pocket - that would not have incriminated him more than a human kidney.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Colin,

... on the walls of a relatively pristine four-year-old model dwelling, inhabited by comparatively orderly people and situated in a recently re-developed street ...

Were vandals somehow more respectful of fresh canvases back then?

[Sam Flynn]

Also, why did JtR cut and take away a piece of Eddowes' apron?

...perhaps because he fancied picking up a DIFFERENT piece of THREAD, Dave.

[Septic Blue]

Hi Colin,

... on the walls of a relatively pristine four-year-old model dwelling, inhabited by comparatively orderly people and situated in a recently re-developed street ...

Were vandals somehow more respectful of fresh canvases back then?

"comparatively orderly"

Of course not, Gareth !!!

But the "comparatively orderly" Eastern European artisans that inhabited the building were probably quite proud of their shining new abode; and were ever so capable of removing chalk-written graffiti, that tainted its appearance.


Colin

[DVV]

...perhaps because he fancied picking up a DIFFERENT piece of THREAD, Dave.

Dear Sam,
what you have quoted was part of my reply to String, whose post was merely saying "all that is just a coincidence", and did not discuss the meaning of the GSG. And I don't blame String for that, since all threads dedicated to the GSG seem doomed to discuss every aspect of the problem - as some of your own posts show.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

But the "comparatively orderly" Eastern European artisans that inhabited the building were probably quite proud of their shining new abode; and were ever so capable of removing chalk-written graffiti, that tainted its appearance.

Their ability to do so is not in doubt, Colin - that they would invariably have done so is less certain. If some classic studies are anything to go by, Wentworth Model Dwellings would have engendered less of a sense of "belonging" in its tenants, as it fronted onto the public road. Contrast that with the undoubted sense of community pride exhibited by residents of the Rothschild Buildings in Flowery Dean, which was largely self-contained and insulated from the mean streets outside its gates.

[Sam Flynn]

Dear Sam,
what you have quoted was part of my reply to String, whose post was merely saying "all that is just a coincidence", and did not discuss the meaning of the GSG.

I know you didn't, Dave. I was just conscious that someone else might leap onto that and take this off into the large topic of "why did Jack take her apron", for which voluminous threads already exist.

And I don't blame String for that, since all threads dedicated to the GSG seem doomed to discuss every aspect of the problem - as some of your own posts show.

I'd respectfuly dispute that - I try my damnedest to avoid creating opportunities for "forks" in threads, wherever possible.

[Septic Blue]

But the "comparatively orderly" Eastern European artisans that inhabited the building were probably quite proud of their shining new abode; and were ever so capable of removing chalk-written graffiti, that tainted its appearance.

Their ability to do so is not in doubt, Colin - that they would invariably have done so is less certain. If some classic studies are anything to go by, Wentworth Model Dwellings would have engendered less of a sense of "belonging" in its tenants, as it fronted onto the public road. Contrast that with the undoubted sense of community pride exhibited by residents of the Rothschild Buildings in Flowery Dean, which was largely self-contained and insulated from the mean streets outside its gates.

Well said, Gareth !!! And the comparison with Rothschild Buildings makes perfect sense.

But, I still contend that my point - ... on the walls of a relatively pristine four-year-old model dwelling, inhabited by comparatively orderly people and situated in a recently re-developed street ... - should be a significant factor in our perception of the setting in Goulston Street, St. Mary Whitechapel, in 1888; and the perceived likelihood of chalk-written graffiti found therein.


Colin

[DVV]

I'd respectfuly dispute that - I try my damnedest to avoid creating opportunities for "forks" in threads, wherever possible.

Sam, please, when you send an (useful) image of Goulston Street entrance, and debate about whether the graffito has been chalked at shoulder height or not, are you straightly discussing its meaning?
No, you are discussing the problem of its connection to the piece of apron.
In my view, if we want now to follow the line, we'd better ask: "If the GSG is the work of the Ripper, what does it mean?"
If not, we will endlessly read posts about the author, the apron, etc.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, please, when you send an (useful) image of Goulston Street entrance, and debate about whether the graffito has been chalked at shoulder height or not, are you straightly discussing its meaning?

Vous avez raison! However, in that particular instance I was correcting an erroneous assertion by another poster, in response to an (on-topic) post by me. As I said, I try not to create "forks" myself - but even that, I admit, is not always achievable.

[Investigator]

It looks as though we may have some wires crossed here. The extracted quote from my message was not referring to the graffiti per se, but to the location at which it was placed and the high level of conformance to the mezuzah position. More to the point is that there is some confusion about the where this is all going.
Let me clarify my position on this.
The first part of the graffiti hints at a writer whose usual language is not English, possibly German. The second part suggests he has a better education than would be obtained from the streets or at a Ragged, Workhouse or Industrial school. Beyond this the syntax obtusely blames male Jews for something not stated, it is an unfinished communication.
The position of the graffiti on the doorpost of a Jewish dwelling is highly significant in the Jewish context. This is where a religious amulet is usually placed, the mezuzah. This is a holy scroll contained in a case to protect it from damage. We may speculate as to whether the graffiti was simply the “case” to hold the position of the real message. There are very specific religious requirements attending this scroll that are predominately fulfilled by the GSG. For those statistically minded, the GSG match those requirements at a probability level of 1 chance in 2,000.
An understanding of the meaning of the mezuzah to Jews is the missing part of the meaning of the GSG. For the majority of Gentiles this meaning would neither be recognized nor understood. For a Jew, the meaning is very clear. His accusation is of ignoring/rejecting the covenant of his religion, of abandoning his moral obligations, of exploiting his own people for gain, and of incurring the bitter pill of anti-Semitism. Lieberman in his Call to Jewish Youth is quoted by Rocker as writing;
“We have had to pay for your sins! The race hatred, the religious hatred with all their terrors have fallen mostly upon us. …….. The entire Jewish people, suffering and astray, must suffer more than all other people because of your greed. It is your fault that we have been exposed to calumny.”
This is but one layer to the message, another could relate more to the personal moral order of Jewish relationships with Gentiles. Destitute Jewish women are not likely to be found walking London’s Streets; the Jews are more caring and covetous of their women.
Two weeks before the killing of Stride and Eddowes, the 15th of September 1888 was the day of “Atonement” or Yom Kippur, the day of the Jewish year for the ritual cleansing of all sins. We can speculate on what, how and if this was an added incitement to murder on some other thread. I hope this helps clarify my position, regards, DG

[The Good Michael]

Investigator,

To paraphrase, what you are saying is that the GSG was written by a Jew for Jews, and that he intentionally wrote it at the location he did because Jews would understand it as a solidarity Mezuzah or some such thing. Is this correct?

First, I want to point out the language issue. Surely if it was to reach the local Jews, it would have been in Yiddish which would be a Germanic language using Hebrew characters. Or was it intended to reach everyone, Jew and Gentile, but hold special meaning only for the Jews?

In your scenario, this was a multi-layered message. Okay, who wrote it then? It's fairly certain, at least in my mind, that the message was written prior to the double killing. Did the Ripper see this as a Mezuzical uprising message and decide, beforehand, to place the apron there?

Cheers,

Mike

[Observer]

Hi Investigator

The first part of the graffiti hints at a writer whose usual language is not English, possibly German

I'd go along with you 100% here. I don't think a local British native would use the words

"the Juewes are the men who"

They'd more likely in my opinion drop the "are the men who" altogether

To leave

"The Juewes will not be blamed for nothing"

all the best

Observer