The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[The Good Michael]

David,

Well, I don't have a clue when he wrote it really. I would guess that it was at night after most folks had retired for the evening. He would have needed a little light and a little time. I think it could have been done before Stride, so I don't think that would have made a difference. Are you suggesting that it would have been too much time between his writing it before Stride's death and coming home after Eddowe's because it would have been wiped off? Again, the size of the text appears to be uncharacteristically small, as if it would have been difficult to have seen in the evening. Long didn't see it until he was searching for drops of blood. Was it written small for the reason of obscurity until he could get a trophy and put it down near the GSG? I don't know. I'm still on the fence if he wrote it or just saw it and liked it, but I believe in a connection between it an Eddowes if nothing else. I don't believe it makes a difference whether or not Stride was his victim too as far as the graffito remaining intact goes. I don't see a precedent that he would have seen regarding a premature erasure, that would cause him to think he was in some kind of mad hurry. I suppose he might have thought that, beginning at 5 or 6am there might be a lot of traffic coming through the entryway that might rub it off, but I don't know why he would think that without some prior experience in that regard.

Cheers,

Mike

[Observer]

Hi David

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

Anderson years later, and then Swanson in the margin of Andersons book. What we have to consider here though is whether two high ranking police officers were accurate in their description of what actually transpired. I can't see any reason why they would lie.

all the best

Observer

[Graham]

David,

Well, I don't have a clue when he wrote it really. I would guess that it was at night after most folks had retired for the evening. He would have needed a little light and a little time. I think it could have been done before Stride, so I don't think that would have made a difference. Are you suggesting that it would have been too much time between his writing it before Stride's death and coming home after Eddowe's because it would have been wiped off? Again, the size of the text appears to be uncharacteristically small, as if it would have been difficult to have seen in the evening. Long didn't see it until he was searching for drops of blood. Was it written small for the reason of obscurity until he could get a trophy and put it down near the GSG? I don't know. I'm still on the fence if he wrote it or just saw it and liked it, but I believe in a connection between it an Eddowes if nothing else. I don't believe it makes a difference whether or not Stride was his victim too as far as the graffito remaining intact goes. I don't see a precedent that he would have seen regarding a premature erasure, that would cause him to think he was in some kind of mad hurry. I suppose he might have thought that, beginning at 5 or 6am there might be a lot of traffic coming through the entryway that might rub it off, but I don't know why he would think that without some prior experience in that regard.

Cheers,

Mike

My God....

Graham

[The Good Michael]

My God....

Graham

No Graham. I am just a man

[perrymason]

If the GSG was left there pre-Stride, then why didnt anyone notice it before? Surely Goulston, and likely the passageway to the Model Dwellings, was used between say 12:30am and close to 3am, when it was found.

There seems to be sentiments that only Long was by that location after Kates death, whose to say a half dozen werent by there already. Maybe they didnt notice it either...or maybe it was not there until written by the killer as he leaves the apron section....and when Long finds it.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the writing was a few hours old, some suggested it appeared fresh, and there had been rain earlier.

I still cannot see how anyone would assume that a Jew wrote it though. The spelling is semi literate gentile at best, and the message is in a place where almost everyone who might see it was Jewish. Why would a Jew leave a message about Jews at Jewish Housing. It makes no sense at all.

Anderson thought he was a Jew based on interviews he didnt conduct while abroad "resting", and we have no answer as to what Jew refused to identify which incarcerated Jew at later dates.

Jews dont write "Juewes/Juwes" in the heart of a Hebrew neighborhood. Im sure shop signage alone could have educated him. Its like an Irishman writing in chalk about "Feeniains" and leaving it on a Irish pub wall.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the writing was a few hours old

How exactly would one tell fresh chalk from chalk deposited a mere few hours ago?

Why would a Jew leave a message about Jews at Jewish Housing. It makes no sense at all.

For the same sorts of reasons that Northern Irish Protestants would write pro-Protestant messages on their own premises, and Catholics pro-Catholic slogans on theirs?

[Howard Brown]

Graffitus Interruptus

The explanation that Mr. Fido expressed on a Podcast program a while back was that the G was written by someone who had recently had a bad business dealing with a local Jewish vendor. Mr. Fido's opinion is as good an argument against the G in terms of what it means as any out there.

If that were true, then lets try and envision someone who purchased an item, say shoes, from a vendor and was displeased. Displeased to the point that he wanted to leave a message and really had something to say. The guy was irritated to the max.

Look at the text of the 12 Words and try to envision some sort of statement emanating from them which expressed rage or anger or displeasure. Its almost as if a microcephalic wrote it. It makes no sense whatsoever in any normal context other than the possibility of the 2nd word having to do with the events of the evening.

It was a complete waste of time for the author if he had taken a step back and taken two seconds to "proofread' what he just wrote. Its as if he said, " I'm going to leave a message that everyone can see but no one will understand..." Not then,nor now. Messages,to be messages,have to be translatable at some point in some way by someone, otherwise they are gibberish.

Its quite possibly the incomplete section of a thought/statement he planned on placing on the wall before an interruption.

[claire]

If the GSG was left there pre-Stride, then why didnt anyone notice it before? Surely Goulston, and likely the passageway to the Model Dwellings, was used between say 12:30am and close to 3am, when it was found.

There seems to be sentiments that only Long was by that location after Kates death, whose to say a half dozen werent by there already. Maybe they didnt notice it either...or maybe it was not there until written by the killer as he leaves the apron section....and when Long finds it.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest the writing was a few hours old, some suggested it appeared fresh, and there had been rain earlier.

Sorry, Michael, I don't understand this reasoning. How do we possibly know whether anyone saw it or not? Given that the police rubbed it off because they were afraid of people seeing it and its causing a riot, it's not really likely that they'd then go round questioning people about whether they saw it, then, is it? Similarly, I don't know that people, even if they did notice it (and I'm unconvinced that people really notice very much in the way of chalked graffiti on a dark, showery night), would run to the police and say, hey, wait a minute, what happened to that bit of graffito that I saw near where you found the apron piece? (Or, even more absurd, Hey, I walked by there and saw no graffiti and now there's no graffiti [given it was rubbed off before they'd ever see it].)

As for rain, it would have to be falling in the direction of the doorway to wash it off (this I know from waiting for rain to clean off the lovely drawings and messages of my children chalked on driveways and porches ).

I agree, though, with your point about Jews/Juwes/Juewes. I don't believe it's credible either for it to have been written by a Jew.

[The Good Michael]

Howard,

Thanks for the post. As always, it was thoughtful. At its face, perhaps Fido's idea is a good one. For me, it fails completely based on a few things.

First, graffiti that is written as an objection is typically bolder and more direct. The writer failed in this endeavor.

Second, graffiti that is small and neat, is very rare. I've seen it in Orkney written by Norsemen, I've seen it written by Robert Burns on an inn wall in (can't think of the town name right now), and I've seen it written on the walls of my daughters' rooms which had black walls for this purpose. This is all typically introspective, or personal, and not vehement. It looks to me that the man (if man) who wrote it was writing for himself and people like him who he wanted it to be read by, almost an extension of his own house walls. Mostly, I think he wrote it for himself. The use of language, because of the unclear meaning, appears to me to be done by a foreigner. A local angry Jew-hater might write, "Don't buy anything from that rip-off artist Abrahams," but certainly not, in my opinion, something so unobtrusive and really, for all intents and purposes, benign. It is only possibly malignant in its context with the murders that evening and the apron, and the specualtive police reaction.

This is my take. I really run this stupid thing through my head a lot, maybe even more than Heather Graham runs through my head (but only just), and I can't come to any conclusion that involves it being antisemitic. I try though. I really try.

Cheers,

Mike

[Observer]

Hi

The explanation that Mr. Fido expressed on a Podcast program a while back was that the G was written by someone who had recently had a bad business dealing with a local Jewish vendor. Mr. Fido's opinion is as good an argument against the G in terms of what it means as any out there.

If that were true, then lets try and envision someone who purchased an item, say shoes, from a vendor and was displeased. Displeased to the point that he wanted to leave a message and really had something to say. The guy was irritated to the max.

Look at the text of the 12 Words and try to envision some sort of statement emanating from them which expressed rage or anger or displeasure. Its almost as if a microcephalic wrote it. It makes no sense whatsoever in any normal context other than the possibility of the 2nd word having to do with the events of the evening.

It was a complete waste of time for the author if he had taken a step back and taken two seconds to "proofread' what he just wrote. Its as if he said, " I'm going to leave a message that everyone can see but no one will understand..." Not then,nor now. Messages,to be messages,have to be translatable at some point in some way by someone, otherwise they are gibberish.

Its quite possibly the incomplete section of a thought/statement he planned on placing on the wall before an interruption.

Excellent post Howard, by far the best in this thread. You're quite right, the message does seem to be incomplete, as if the writer was going to divulge more , and totally out of kilter with some disgruntled gentile hell bent on complaining abot some garment, or indeed shoes that he had purchased from a Jew. Thing is Mr Fido only used this scenario as one example of why a gentile may be responsible for the graffitti, I'm sure there are many more. Anyone think of why a gentile would write such a message?

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Brought this from another thread as it's more appropriate here


Hi

You know if the Ripper didn't write that message then someone else did, and that person in the days following the messages discovery would surely have realised the importance it held in the inquiry. I wonder why they never came forward to claim responsibility? Although on second thoughts they would have realised that they would have to encounter a police grilling. The fact that they never ventured forward might also point to the fact that they were alone at the time of writing, obviously the more people who witnessed the writing the more chance of the author being discovered.

all the best

Observer

[The Good Michael]

One more thing re: Howard's post. To me, the translation of the message is clear. It doesn't seem unfinished at all, and I would think that the police would have mentioned such a thing if they thought so.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

You're quite right, the message does seem to be incomplete, as if the writer was going to divulge more

I disagree. The graffito - whatever it means - seems to be a complete sentence and, bloat and double-negative notwithstanding, gramatically self-contained. It boils down to a classic SVO ("subject, verb, object") structure:

[The] Juwes (subject) [will be] blamed (verb) [for] nothing (object)

[My] son (subject) [won't] take (verb) [his] medicine (object)

The SVO structure is typical of English, French, Polish or Russian, say, but not typical of German or Yiddish, which are predominantly SOV:

[The] Juwes (subject) [for] nothing (object) [will be] blamed (verb)

[My] son (subject) [won't his] medicine (object) take (verb).

[Observer]

Hi Micheal

One more thing re: Howard's post. To me, the translation of the message is clear. It doesn't seem unfinished at all, and I would think that the police would have mentioned such a thing if they thought so.

Cheers,

Mike

You have made the same mistake as the message writer, i.e. left us up in the air. What is your translation of the message? It's clear the police interpreted the message as anti Semitic, and so there was no need to mention whether the message was finished or not, they believed it was complete.

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

oops my apologies Micheal, just seen your post above

Observer