The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

And even if the description was accurate, a Jew who was nearing the age of thirty (see Lawendes description)

Where in Lawende's description does he specify a Jew or Jewish appearance?

Thanks in advance,
Ben

[DrB]

Hi Sam, thanks. Not an expert , only read a few books on the subject, but if the tenement block was for Jewish imigrants and non were implicated or had any connections with persons likely to be the victims or Jack himself and it was a casual walk from the murder scene, the area was not busy and there was no rubbish lying around in the stairwell - then maybe Jack thought I'll plant this one on the Jews or I am a Jew and did this and so cause mayhem. Warren would have been right to have a panic attack. I still think the pc was smart, lucky or both - I was only being sarcastic about the sherlock bit due to the guys fortune or detective prowess. A similar panic would errupt today if a detonator was left in an asian block with a message after a bomb blast. Is this too simple??

[The Good Michael]

Investigator,

I don't know what you mean by presenting so much Wik stuff on language. I was simply saying that Yiddish, a Germanic language, was written in Hebrew characters, and not that it was Hebrew or German. My point was that, as Yiddish was the lingua franca of those who were recent immigrants to London, and that I would suspect a religious message to be written in either that or Hebrew, and especially a Mezuzah. These are my expectations only, but I can't argue a case for English unless you're talking about an English speaker trying to make it look like a Jew wrote it, in which case no Jew would ever suspect it was a Mezuzah as it wasn't in Hebrew. So, the idea of reaching the Jews at one level and the Gentiles at another, doesn't hold water in my opinion.

As for the idea that the GSG was written earlier:

1. It was neat and small, a difficult thing to produce when in a hurry and with little lighting. I write in chalk every day and when I write quickly, it looks like garbage, and I do it in broad daylight. One might suggest my chalksmanship was inferior, but I assure you that I write pretty well after all the practice.

2. Because it was little, I am of the opinion that it couldn't have been done by someone trying to escape a murder area unless that someones could shut off adrenaline at will. I would expect graffiti written quickly, to be larger and messier.

3. My belief is that JTR, who may have been living in that housing area, saw the Graffiti when he left to kill, or when he came home from the pub, or whatever, and liked what he read (even if he only thought he understood), and was determined to leave a calling card by the words he agreed with.

Cheers,

Mike

[Scott Nelson]

My belief is that JTR, who may have been living in that housing area, saw the Graffiti when he left to kill, or when he came home from the pub, or whatever, and liked what he read (even if he only thought he understood), and was determined to leave a calling card by the words he agreed with

Thank God the Graffiti was still there when Jack returned with the piece of apron. If it had been erased, his plan would have been foiled. I wonder where he would have deposited the apron piece then?

[Sam Flynn]

Thank God the Graffiti was still there when Jack returned with the piece of apron. If it had been erased, his plan would have been foiled. I wonder where he would have deposited the apron piece then?

I guess he'd just have jettisoned it anywhere, Scott, after having wiped his hand(s) and/or knife on it - which he seems to have done anyway. The wiping, I mean, if not the "jettisoning it anywhere" bit.

[Monty]

Plan b, Jack woz ere.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Hi Observer,

Where in Lawende's description does he specify a Jew or Jewish appearance?

Thanks in advance,
Ben

He doesn't, my mistake, although according to Anderson, and Swanson the witness who saw Kate Eddowes shortly before her death with a man apparently revealed that he was a fellow Jew.

Point is we have a witness who identified Eddowes companion as being a Jew

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

Was the apron piece ever said to be "smeared" with feces and blood, or was it "stained" as most reports Ive seen? And was its scrunched up, or just loosely laying there? Im phrasing in that manner because A), I am time pressed tonight and dont have time to look it up...and secondly, B), if the cloth was simply to wipe his hands with, I believe smeared and scrunched up, followed by a casual toss aside would be the result. And far sooner than Goulston.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

Was the apron piece ever said to be "smeared" with feces and blood.

It was described by Dr Brown as appearing "as if a bloody hand or knife had been wiped on it". Wiping = smears. The Irish Times explicitly reports PC Long deposing that he found a "piece of apron with smears of blood on it".

We're straying dangerously into "apron" as opposed to "graffiti" territory here, Mike. Now, back to chalk.

[perrymason]

It was described by Dr Brown as appearing "as if a bloody hand or knife had been wiped on it". Wiping = smears. The Irish Times explicitly reports PC Long deposing that he found a "piece of apron with smears of blood on it".

We're straying dangerously into "apron" as opposed to "graffiti" territory here, Mike. Now, back to chalk.

It relates to the chalk Sam, and there is no mention of "feces" on it. Nor is there mention that it was "scrunched", as any person wiping their hands with a cloth would do if it was to be discarded. It could have been staged with a smear of blood, for all we know.

And since when does the Ripper need something to wipe off blood? He had his hands in Annie, no issue apparently. And Kates clothing was not "feces" smeared.

The more casually the article is described, the more credence to a casual discard,...but I dont see that, so the article may have been left there, not discarded there.

If the apron was purposely left there, and a message is near, makes sense to consider them as potentially from the same source.

Best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Mike - let's not talk here about what was on the apron, whether it was smeared with whatever, whether the cloth was folded or "scrunched", or anything else to do with it per se.

This thread is about the graffiti and what it might have meant.

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Point is we have a witness who identified Eddowes companion as being a Jew

True, although the witness in question was almost certainly the one that identified Gentile Grainger subsequent to Kosminski, thereby casting considerable doubt on the latter identification.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben and Observer,
what does this mean exactly, at last?
Who said "Eddowes companion" was a Jew?
A witness? Or was it Anderson, years after, who said or wrote: "A witness said that..."

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Oops Looking back at my post I have to correct something. I should have put in part 3 that I believe it could have been someone besides the Ripper that did the GSG, and that the Ripper liked what he saw. Please don't hold me to 'The Ripper didn't do it.' That would be silly of me.

Let me add this: If JTR did it, perhaps he kept it small so that it would escape notice for a time until he could leave something there. I still believe that it was done before the murders of course.

And in answer to Scott's comment, why would the writer/killer think the GSG would be erased by the time he got back? What precedents would he have had to tell him this?

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

I still believe that it was done before the murders of course.

Hi Mike,
an interesting idea.
But how long before (if Jack wrote it, I mean )?
If one thinks Stride to be a JtR victim, I doubt JtR could have time enough to go to Goulston Street, chalk the graffito, then come back to Mitre Square/Church Passage, meet Eddowes, kill and mutilate her.
So your suggestion works better, I think, once we put Stride out of the frame.

Amitiés,
David