Does the Goulston Street Graffito eliminate Jewish Immigrants as suspects?

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Patrick,

Again, if JtR could see what he was writing there, that would certainly help.
Like all cannonical 5 murders (save MJK), the moon was in a low phase .... was he writing in the dark?
Was there a lamp nearby to illuminate the stairwell?

If there was no lamp, he couldn't get very far before the sentence would become unreadable.
However, it was readable.

Residents saw it and were going to put off washing it off until Sunday,
when people had a break in their busy overworked schedules.
Its not like they hadn't seen anti Jewish graffiti before.
I find that explanation highly possible.


At the beginning of the ripper scare, east londoners thought the ripper very well could be a Jew.
So that type of graffiti would have been on an upswing.


Here is a paper on the use of double negatives in Victorian literature:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mea1984/2007/23/2007_79/_pdf/-char/en

There is a table on page #90 representing the character types who use the double negation: mostly working class men and women.

I find it highly likely that it was put up there by a east ender who resented the burgeoning jewish population,
and thought (or wanted to think) a Jew was responsible for the murders. The Jews were blamed for many things: the crucification of Jesus, avarice in money lending, baby snatching and ritual murders, etc... there was no end to their deviousness in the minds of more than a few working class members.

JtR wanted to dispose of the article there because he couldn't dispose of it where he waited things out, and that stairwell was the earliest recess he could find to get rid of it. I think it was just a coincidence.

Was the article found just underneath the graffiti, or actually in the general vicinity? The police tended to be sloppy in such things at times.
It would have been nice if the police asked the residents about having seen the graffito, or not, before the night of the double murder event. Maybe they did and came to the conclusion that it was not the ripper's work (which seemed to be their conclusion).

However, if it can be argued that there was good enough lighting at the site, I would reconsider things.

Newbie- interesting piece on the double negative. Many thanks.

I wonder if the fact that the door jamb was black and
chalk was white aided the killer? It also strikes me that the lettering height was only one-half inch in height!

Would someone with time and in daylight, if they were trying to incite protests or riots against Jews write that small? In a place clearly not that visable from the street? Or would someone trying to write a message in the dark have to look closely at the black jamb and with white chalk write a message? Obviously someone who could write and with chalk at one half inch heights? This person appears to be fluid with writing in chalk.

I personally think the double event is less coincidence than calculating.

Kill Stride in Metro like all other murders to date and next to an Immigrant Jewish Socialist Club? Implication?
Head to London ( his home?) and find Eddowes and murder ( the only time in London) and head back to Metro?
Head back to Metro and dispose the Apron and leave a message implicating Jews...again on the same night? And also making police believe he lived in Metro?

The immigrant Jews were prime suspects during this time. A calculating murderer would be smart to use that as an advantage. On the night of September 30 the killer appears to possibly have done this twice. The Working Mens Club and Goulston Street. Coincidence or Calculated on the move?

We dont know of course but Mary Kellys death was in Metro not far from Chapmans so the killer returns to Metro to murder after Eddowes. Why? Because he lived in London and would not be followed out of Metro jurisdiction??

[Newbie]

Im not sure Newbie. I find it too coincidental and i dont believe residents walking in and out of that location would not wash it off. I think the fact that it was washed off when discovered by Police, along with the apron speaks volumes. In my view the keyword blame speaks to the killer sending a message.

That said. I am learning that double negatives were not uncommon in Hebrew. The difference in that time period of 1888 was that double negatives could either cancel each other out .." The Jewes are the men that will be blamed"..
OR
In Hebrew the second negative is used to enhance the first negative
" The Jews are Not the men who will be blamed for Nothing.
How this enhancement is interpreted is debateable if written by a Jewish person.
Nothing enhances Not.
Not he Men
Blamed for Nothing.

Someone is being blamed for something, in my mind points directly to the Apron.

The Jewes will be blamed anyway...
OR...here is evidence and the Jewes did it.

Why would this killer leave Eddowes bloody apron along with a riddle that could have multiple interpretations? He obviously wasn't a drunken sex maniac or of weak intelligence. This was a shrewd cold calculating killer who taunted his adversaries. I think thats what apron and GSG shows.

I also think that this was a mis-direction as the killer wanted the Police to believe he lived in Metro. All of his murders were Metro save Eddowes. Another motive to draw Police away from London City.

Hi Patrick,

Again, if JtR could see what he was writing there, that would certainly help.
Like all cannonical 5 murders (save MJK), the moon was in a low phase .... was he writing in the dark?
Was there a lamp nearby to illuminate the stairwell?

If there was no lamp, he couldn't get very far before the sentence would become unreadable.
However, it was readable.

Residents saw it and were going to put off washing it off until Sunday,
when people had a break in their busy overworked schedules.
Its not like they hadn't seen anti Jewish graffiti before.
I find that explanation highly possible.


At the beginning of the ripper scare, east londoners thought the ripper very well could be a Jew.
So that type of graffiti would have been on an upswing.


Here is a paper on the use of double negatives in Victorian literature:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/mea1984/2007/23/2007_79/_pdf/-char/en

There is a table on page #90 representing the character types who use the double negation: mostly working class men and women.

I find it highly likely that it was put up there by a east ender who resented the burgeoning jewish population,
and thought (or wanted to think) a Jew was responsible for the murders. The Jews were blamed for many things: the crucification of Jesus, avarice in money lending, baby snatching and ritual murders, etc... there was no end to their deviousness in the minds of more than a few working class members.

JtR wanted to dispose of the article there because he couldn't dispose of it where he waited things out, and that stairwell was the earliest recess he could find to get rid of it. I think it was just a coincidence.

Was the article found just underneath the graffiti, or actually in the general vicinity? The police tended to be sloppy in such things at times.
It would have been nice if the police asked the residents about having seen the graffito, or not, before the night of the double murder event. Maybe they did and came to the conclusion that it was not the ripper's work (which seemed to be their conclusion).

However, if it can be argued that there was good enough lighting at the site, I would reconsider things.

[Patrick Differ]

We don't know if both happened on the same night.
The graffiti may well have been up there for days.
One imagines anti Jewish graffiti was fairly common: wash it off and a new one pops right back up.
That dwelling would have been a consistent target, given the number of Jews who lived there.

I'm still having trouble with someone writing anything legible in a darkened stairwell on a dark night.

Im not sure Newbie. I find it too coincidental and i dont believe residents walking in and out of that location would not wash it off. I think the fact that it was washed off when discovered by Police, along with the apron speaks volumes. In my view the keyword blame speaks to the killer sending a message.

That said. I am learning that double negatives were not uncommon in Hebrew. The difference in that time period of 1888 was that double negatives could either cancel each other out .." The Jewes are the men that will be blamed"..
OR
In Hebrew the second negative is used to enhance the first negative
" The Jews are Not the men who will be blamed for Nothing.
How this enhancement is interpreted is debateable if written by a Jewish person.
Nothing enhances Not.
Not he Men
Blamed for Nothing.

Someone is being blamed for something, in my mind points directly to the Apron.

The Jewes will be blamed anyway...
OR...here is evidence and the Jewes did it.

Why would this killer leave Eddowes bloody apron along with a riddle that could have multiple interpretations? He obviously wasn't a drunken sex maniac or of weak intelligence. This was a shrewd cold calculating killer who taunted his adversaries. I think thats what apron and GSG shows.

I also think that this was a mis-direction as the killer wanted the Police to believe he lived in Metro. All of his murders were Metro save Eddowes. Another motive to draw Police away from London City.

[Newbie]

It might be a waste of time to argue Ripper ethnicity. Its hard to imagine that the Eddowes apron and GSG did not occur together, in the same place at the same time on the same night. Possible but low odds. The value in my view, if value is the correct word, is that the killer must have had a reason to leave the apron where he did. If the killer took it a step further and left a message implicating Jews , iwasnt that already the case with the belief of law enforcement and the gentiles. The Jews must have done it? The Why here is the clue. I would think this speaks to motive. Unlocking an obvious riddle I believe this killer left. Was it a coincidence to find these 2 things together? Im not so sure.

We don't know if both happened on the same night.
The graffiti may well have been up there for days.
One imagines anti Jewish graffiti was fairly common: wash it off and a new one pops right back up.
That dwelling would have been a consistent target, given the number of Jews who lived there.

I'm still having trouble with someone writing anything legible in a darkened stairwell on a dark night.

[Scott Nelson]

The writer saw it -- 15-year-old Simon De Lafuente. That's up to 10.

[Geddy2112]

By my count, that's at least 9 people that saw the GSG.

Thank you kindly...

[Lewis C]

That's pretty much conclusive then.

At least 9 people would ensure that at the very least, there was some form of chalked message that was written above where the apron piece was found.

Applying that same logic; how many people actually saw Schwartz?

2 senior officers and a Star reporter?

Is it recorded anywhere who actually saw Schwartz face to face?

I believe Abberline did. In addition to the ones you mentioned, his interpreter would have.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Ian,

I had to look that one up. According to Begg's JtL: The Facts, pp. 180-182, PC Long saw it first, and summoned an unnamed PC 190 to the scene. Detective Halse had a different opinion from Long about what the GSG said. Long went to a police station, where he found a duty inspector whom he brought to the scene. Then Superintendent Arnold came, and thought the GSG should be washed off, but waited for orders from Charles Warren before doing so. He left an inspector (I presume a different one from Long's duty inspector) with a sponge in the event that Warren approved washing it off. Then Detectives Halse, Lawley, and Hunt came to the scene. Warren went to the scene before ordering it washed off. By my count, that's at least 9 people that saw the GSG.

That's pretty much conclusive then.

At least 9 people would ensure that at the very least, there was some form of chalked message that was written above where the apron piece was found.

Applying that same logic; how many people actually saw Schwartz?

2 senior officers and a Star reporter?

Is it recorded anywhere who actually saw Schwartz face to face?

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis

Do we know how many people, apart from the culprit actually saw the graffiti?

Hi Ian,

I had to look that one up. According to Begg's JtL: The Facts, pp. 180-182, PC Long saw it first, and summoned an unnamed PC 190 to the scene. Detective Halse had a different opinion from Long about what the GSG said. Long went to a police station, where he found a duty inspector whom he brought to the scene. Then Superintendent Arnold came, and thought the GSG should be washed off, but waited for orders from Charles Warren before doing so. He left an inspector (I presume a different one from Long's duty inspector) with a sponge in the event that Warren approved washing it off. Then Detectives Halse, Lawley, and Hunt came to the scene. Warren went to the scene before ordering it washed off. By my count, that's at least 9 people that saw the GSG.

[Lewis C]

I agree Lewis


I was just testing the water to see how it felt, and on reflection I concur with your thoughts here.

It doesn't add up, you're right.

Sometimes we have to flush out what doesn't feel right, to then hopefully end up with what does.

An emotional version of the classic "power of deduction."


I think the ambiguity of the GSG actually supports the idea that it was written by the Ripper, as with everything else (i.e. alleged written correspondences, and the way he appeared to have played and experimented with innerds) he comes across as a guy who liked to play sick games, or "funny little games."

If the Ripper did actually have a political agenda, then the GSG would have been clearer in terms of its intended meaning.
But instead, the author chooses (apparently) to deliberately make the GSG sound confusing and its meaning obscure.
That IMO indicates that the whole GSG thing was just a ruse intended to confuse, and just another way to show off what he could get away with without being caught.

Like a teenager pushing those boundaries and laughing in the face of authority.

That's fine, RD. Sometimes I've done that too: said something that after someone responded, I had a different view. I was glad I said it though, because I had a better understanding after the other person responded.

I think the ambiguity of the GSG have been intentional or may not have been. If it was unintentional, it could be the writer was in a hurry and didn't take the time to say it clearly. Or maybe he just wasn't a good enough writer to express it clearly.

[c.d.]

It could explain another reason the killer never got caught. The Police never considered a local English born Jew. Is this a true statement?

It is certainly possible that certain individuals in the force held that view but I sincerely doubt it was universal. I mean having that mindset is extremely piss poor police work.

c.d.

[Patrick Differ]

It strikes me that the grafitto would have different meanings depending on who wrote the message. By translation and cancelling the double negative " The Jews are the men who will be blamed"
or..the Whitechapel murders are committed by Jews.

Or the Jews are tired of being blamed for things they didn't do (written by a Jew and not related to the murders). I can't see how that can be ruled out.

c.d.

Hi c.d.- point well taken.

My only thought again is with regards to the Apron, definately left by the killer and the odds a message was additionally left for some purpose.

There Is another possibility that I think needs consideration. When I look at the Rothchilds and the Jewish Chronicle messaging regarding mass Jewish migration it illustrates conflict within the East End Jewish Community. The fear by Legacy Jews was that their quest to be Englishman had taken decades until Rothschild became an MP. With the mass migration of Jews from Eastern Europe the Legacy Jews were rightly concerned about the potential for setbacks.

The question here would be under what circumstances might a Legacy Jew..thinking himself an Englishman, the killer,write this message?

1. Frustration?- the Justice system will blame us anyway.
2. Pivot? - the Cops are focused on immigrant Jews so keep it that way.
3. Blame?- a gentile killer passing blame to Jews but then why use a double negative? Why not just say it?

The Blame question is interesting because it would likely exclude the Legacy Jews. Exclude because the focus was never on them as far as I can tell. " No Englishman could commit these atrocities"? It had to be an immigrant.

Would a gentile witness in the East End be able to distinguish between an immigrant or an East End born Jewish person? Was the description " foriegner" a generalization?

It could explain another reason the killer never got caught. The Police never considered a local English born Jew. Is this a true statement?

Food for thought!

[Geddy2112]

For me, that doesn't add up. I don't think that the police would have thought that erasing it would have made them look like heroes. And I don't know what rhetoric it would have been intended to push. If they were going to do that, I think they'd invent a message whose meaning was clear.

Hi Lewis

Do we know how many people, apart from the culprit actually saw the graffiti?

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi RD,

For me, that doesn't add up. I don't think that the police would have thought that erasing it would have made them look like heroes. And I don't know what rhetoric it would have been intended to push. If they were going to do that, I think they'd invent a message whose meaning was clear.

I agree Lewis


I was just testing the water to see how it felt, and on reflection I concur with your thoughts here.

It doesn't add up, you're right.

Sometimes we have to flush out what doesn't feel right, to then hopefully end up with what does.

An emotional version of the classic "power of deduction."


I think the ambiguity of the GSG actually supports the idea that it was written by the Ripper, as with everything else (i.e. alleged written correspondences, and the way he appeared to have played and experimented with innerds) he comes across as a guy who liked to play sick games, or "funny little games."

If the Ripper did actually have a political agenda, then the GSG would have been clearer in terms of its intended meaning.
But instead, the author chooses (apparently) to deliberately make the GSG sound confusing and its meaning obscure.
That IMO indicates that the whole GSG thing was just a ruse intended to confuse, and just another way to show off what he could get away with without being caught.

Like a teenager pushing those boundaries and laughing in the face of authority.

[Lewis C]

I'd go one better and suggest that the graffiti was never there in the first place.

A fabrication by the police to push the rhetoric; all the while making the police look like the heroes of the hour, by them actively rubbing the chalk message out before it could cause offense to anyone.

It was never photographed.

Has anyone ever considered that the police made it up?

Hi RD,

For me, that doesn't add up. I don't think that the police would have thought that erasing it would have made them look like heroes. And I don't know what rhetoric it would have been intended to push. If they were going to do that, I think they'd invent a message whose meaning was clear.