The GSG. What Does It Mean??

[Sam Flynn]

This is probably outside the remit of this thread anyhow

It is indeed, Claire, and thanks for reminding us.


Mike,

I've pointed out at least once that this thread is about the meaning of the graffito, not about whether the apron was smeared with blood, or how it got to Goulston Street. As befits a cloth item, there are threads aplenty on the apron.

This one's about the meaning of the chalk writing.

[Howard Brown]

What is not often broached here is the fact that we can never be 100% sure that the Mitre Square killer left the apron piece there, and it may have been found and brought to that location to be used as anti-jew propaganda perhaps. Leaving a murder scene item at residences almost entirely Jewish is almost as good as a place like the International Club on Berner if you want to target Jews...except that location was busy at the time.

Mike:

This infers conspiracy, but by whom? The prevalent feeling was that a person who happened to be Jewish/non-native born was already the killer even before the Leather Apron hoopla a month earlier....

Your scenario suggests that either the Ripper or a policeman placed the apron there, since no one else knew the apron piece came from Eddowes or rather, would know.

Ergo, if the Ripper intentionally placed the apron piece under,near, or close to the Message on the wall, its almost as if he wrote it anyway, if the placement was intended to connect the two items...the Message and the apron piece...In short, if he didn't write the G, then it was already written for him in your scenario...which I'm sure you can see is a bit of a stretch, with all due respect.

Alternatively, if a policeman placed it there, then that implies intentional falsification of evidence,since the Message was taken seriously enough to eradicate it for the well known reasons provided. Whether or not WE consider it evidence, the official actions undertaken by the police on the scene show they did...by the objection(s) to removing it and the action of removing it after copying it down.

[Rosey O'Ryan]

Hi Mr Brown,

Hmm. That word "Juwes"... obviously written by an illiterate adult, a madman , intent on implicating the Jewish population of the East End. But if we cannot ascertain the identity of the writer/killer we can only kinderspiel.
Rosey :-)

[perrymason]

Hello again,

Its obvious that its difficult for me to address the writing's possible meaning without having at least some of the arguments referrring to the timing of the aprons arrival, so Ill bow out of this.

I cant see how for the life of me you can consider them in isolation when they are recorded as being discovered at the same time, by the same man, and one is murder scene evidence..however....

Howard, I was trying to insinuate a different scenario that the one I believe, so it was weaker as a result, but so you can see wher that came from, Jews were not the only residents in the East End, and they were not "wholly accepted". And I think this is evidenced by the statements about Jews that police made during this period...that Jews were likely to hide one of their own, even if they knew he was the Ripper.

If someone wanted to malign Jews, that doorway was a good inflammatory spot to make their case. Maybe the apron was just dropped there because he went there to do just that. Maybe the chalk writing is the primary clue.

Anyway...thanks for the interest. Ill refrain from posting again on this thread, Cheers.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

I cant see how for the life of me you can consider them in isolation

The meaning of the writing can have nothing to do with what the apron looked like, where it was positioned in the doorway, or what was smeared on it, Mike. In short, the piece of apron was there -plain and simple - quite how it got there is another discussion that relates to the apron, not the writing.

The fact that the apron was found in the doorway is a "given", which means we can treat it as a "black box" and focus quite separately on the meaning of the graffito.

[Howard Brown]

I cant see how for the life of me you can consider them in isolation when they are recorded as being discovered at the same time, by the same man, and one is murder scene evidence..-Mike

I agree Mike. The G was written by the same man who dumped the apron in my view. There's no isolation,separation,or any "ation". They're together,daddio. Its all these other guys that don't agree with that. Dummies...one and all.

And I think this is evidenced by the statements about Jews that police made during this period...that Jews were likely to hide one of their own, even if they knew he was the Ripper.-Mike

Actually,that statement about Jews protecting one of their own was uttered by SRA 20 years or so after the last murder in 1888...and even he felt that it was a mistake at one point for Warren to have ordered it erased. I'm not aware,although someone else may be,if a member of the police are recorded to have uttered anything like that during the murder skein. I might be wrong.

Maybe the apron was just dropped there because he went there to do just that. Maybe the chalk writing is the primary clue.-Mike

I don't see any earth shattering,applecart upsettin' problem with what you said. Everytime people discuss the G,something new could arise from simply discussing the Message. I also hope that you don't stop thinking or discussing the issue.

Mrs. O'Ryan:

You know what they say, "Spare the chalk and spiel the kinder.." and I agree. I think its safe to say that our wallmeister didn't skip any grades at Mother Malarkey's School For The Wayward.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi How,

I cant see how for the life of me you can consider them in isolation when they are recorded as being discovered at the same time, by the same man, and one is murder scene evidence..-Mike

I agree Mike. The G was written by the same man who dumped the apron in my view. There's no isolation,separation,or any "ation". They're together,daddio.

They're together in space and time, naturally, but whatever the graffito meant isn't changed by the properties of the rag that Jack left behind. What if Jack had left a kidney as well as, or instead of, the apron there? Well, we'd still be discussing the meaning of "The Juwes are..." etc, of course. In other words, the meaning of the writing is logically separate from the question of how the apron got there, what Jack might have used it for, or what was smeared on it.

[Howard Brown]

They're together in space and time, naturally, but whatever the graffito meant isn't changed by the properties of the rag that Jack left behind ( 1 ). What if Jack had left a kidney as well as, or instead of, the apron there? Well, we'd still be discussing the meaning of "The Juwes are..." etc, of course. In other words, the meaning of the writing is logically separate from the question of how the apron got there,(2) what Jack might have used it for, or what was smeared on it.-Sammy

1- Agreed. The rag could have been pristeen or unsoiled,but had to come from Eddowes person for the connection. I dig. It did.

2- If a kidney ( pardon the visual) was deposited instead of the apron, its relationship to the G ( at least to me ) is identical to the apron piece. The meaning of the message wouldn't change regardless of what was deposited in the apron's stead.

The "meaning" of the message is either linked to the apron or it is not. "How" the apron got there is part of the connectivity of the two,therefore is it impossible to separate the two acts....the depositing of the apron and the writing on the wall..... if the two indeed have connectivity. Could the wall writing have occurred prior to the depositing of the apron? Possibly.

[Sam Flynn]

The "meaning" of the message is either linked to the apron or it is not. "How" the apron got there is part of the connectivity of the two,therefore is it impossible to separate the two acts....the depositing of the apron and the writing on the wall..... if the two indeed have connectivity.

Whether the apron is or isn't connected to the message doesn't change the graffito's words, How, anymore than any other inanimate object in the vicinity does - be it apple core, the bricks on the wall, or the wood from which the stairs were made. The presence of these other artefacts cannot have any bearing on the question "The GSG. What does it mean?" in any way, whether the Ripper wrote the message or not. Neither would the discovery that the Ripper smeared jam (as well as blood and faeces) on the apron, or hopped on one leg via Piccadilly Circus to get to that doorway.

[Howard Brown]

Sam:

My position is that the message appeared after the deposit of the apron. The message...whatever it is or means... and I'm aware that thats the title of the thread,old friend.... is linked to the apron and the evening's events firmly in my hardhead.

I find it unusual at times when I come across individuals in Ripperology who although not actually being present at the Wentworth Building can so easily disconnect what the police connected with each other. But thats what makes Ripperology such a great way of life...the occasional differences of opinion.

We know what Warren's motive was for removing it. Warren did not act as if the graffiti or message was unrelated by the very fact he made an issue of it...and to the extent that he ordered it removed against the protestations of Halse, if not others as well. His transcription or the transcription provided for him by a subordinate which was jettisoned to the Home Office demonstrates that regardless of what it meant, it may have meant something. He considered it a possible bit of evidence by the action of sharing the text with a superior. WHAT it means is impossible to determine.

In closing,since you may feel its a dead heat on a merry go round we are conducting here...let me add this.

Why is it when we look at virtually any other police/crime scenario we accept the opinions of the police without any difficulty whatsoever ?

We ordinarily don't and in the case of the G, the message's content and the ramifications of it being left where it was without erasure are neck and neck in priority for the police on the scene that night.

Yer pal

How

[Sam Flynn]

Hi How,

To be clear, my issue is not whether the apron and GSG are linked in the sense that Jack left them there (or not, as the case may be). My issue revolves around the fact that the graffito's words aren't changed by the presence of the rag. If the words of the graffito aren't changed by it, then neither can its meaning be.

The apron was present in the doorway. That's true whether Jack wrote the message or not, and it's a "constant" - irrespective of whoever one believes was the author of the graffito. That being the case the apron, what was smeared on it, and how it got there, is irrelevant to any discussion about the meaning of the GSG itself.

[Howard Brown]

Oh okay,Sam...

The message means...ahem...Those Jews, that schlepper Schwartz and the putz with the pipe.. in Berner Street prevented me from doing a real job on that woman...because 10 seconds later or so, some nudnik with a horse comes down the road and forces me to split.

Or...it means that the crowd inside the IWMEC gave me the jitters,so I had to split with all that socialist doo-doo they were singing. Oy vey,such dreck !

Take yer pick,Comrade Flynn.

Power to the People

[Sam Flynn]

The message means...ahem...Those Jews, that schlepper Schwartz and the putz with the pipe.. in Berner Street prevented me from doing a real job on that woman...because 10 seconds later or so, some nudnik with a horse comes down the road and forces me to split.

Or...it means that the crowd inside the IWMEC gave me the jitters,so I had to split with all that socialist doo-doo they were singing. Oy vey,such dreck !

Take yer pick,Comrade Flynn.

Talk about Hobson's Choice! I wouldn't go for either, How - or any similar explanations relating to the murders, to be honest - if only because I'd find it more likely for Jack to have said something more along the lines of "The Juwes are the men who should take the blame for [all] this", "The Juwes made me do it", or even simply "A Juwe dunnit". In other words, that a "Juwe" did, does, or is otherwise associated with, some defined act.

The words, as they stand, are very generalised and more reminiscent of a sweeping statement - either anti or pro-semitic - that says either "We won't take any $hit", or "They won't take responsibility for anything". The GSG, under either interpretation, stands alone rather well as a slogan of some description, and as such makes more sense than it does as a statement about a specific deed or sequence of events.

[Howard Brown]

And that,daddio...is why its possible that the message is in incomplete form,as if in someone spooked the writer during the writing..


Your interpretation,as is my interpretation of what it should mean or state doesn't take into account we're not crazy.

Okay,at least one of us isn't.

[Ben]

We won't take any $hit"

"We won't take any $hit" would translate, in the context of the apron, to "We won't take any $hit despite the fact that we're responsible for that $hit". I reckon...