GSG because of Schwartz?

[Harry D]

Would a Jewish writer misspell the name of his own people? Unless, of course, he was intentionally making it look like the work of an uneducated gentile?

[The Good Michael]

Hi Michael,

You might not be aware of this but the bit in italics above is called a reference. So which part of Swanson's report did you disagree with? Because he certainly disagrees with you.

Learn these words...

"was to throw blame on the jews".


"Upon the discovery of the blurred chalk writing on the wall,written--although mis-spelled in the second word,--in an ordinary hand in the midst of a locality principally inhabited by Jews of all nationalities as well as English, and upon the wall of a common stairs leading to a number of tenements occupied almost exclusively by Jews, and the purport of the writing as shown at page 3 was to throw blame upon the Jews, the Commr. deemed it advisable to have them rubbed out."

Hope you enjoyed learning about referencing.

I read the report and posted components of it the other day. Thanks for teaching me about referencing. I know how happy it makes slow people to feel they've taught someone. Now, where is the part where you show me the words are anti-Semitic? No, you can't? As I thought. Batman indeed.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Would a Jewish writer misspell the name of his own people? Unless, of course, he was intentionally making it look like the work of an uneducated gentile?

Harry, probably not and a Jew probably would have used Yiddish, but who knows? According to Warren, one chief rabbi claimed that the newspapers said "Jewes" was the way the Jewish people spelled their name. Obviously that is incorrect, but what would the majority of East End Brits know about all that, really?

Mike

[c.d.]

What exactly is being argued here? It seems like arguments are getting intertwined. The meaning of the message and what the police believed it to mean are two different arguments. Only the author of the message knows exactly what it means so references to what the police believed don't tell us what the message itself means. And as it has been noted, the police were also aware that the writer could have been Jewish and was simply attempting to put the police on the wrong track.

Warren's fear was what OTHER people might think the message means. His own belief has nothing to do with it.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

What exactly is being argued here? It seems like arguments are getting intertwined. The meaning of the message and what the police believed it to mean are two different arguments. Only the author of the message knows exactly what it means so references to what the police believed don't tell us what the message itself means. And as it has been noted, the police were also aware that the writer could have been Jewish and was simply attempting to put the police on the wrong track.

Warren's fear was what OTHER people might think the message means. His own belief has nothing to do with it.

Batman is just arguing that the police believed the words were Anti-semitic. I look at them the way you do, that we cannot tell, and that the police never said the words themselves were anti-semitic. That's where I stand. Batman apparently see literal meaning and (for him) so did Warren. I wish the Boy Wonder could talk to him.

Mike

[Harry D]

Was it ever established just how close the apron WAS to the graffito?

[c.d.]

Hello Good Michael,

Warren's beliefs as to whether the GSG was anti semitic are just that, his beliefs, and have nothing to do with what the GSG actually means. So it is pretty much a moot point.

c.d.

[Batman]

What exactly is being argued here? It seems like arguments are getting intertwined. The meaning of the message and what the police believed it to mean are two different arguments.

What the writer of the GSG was saying, what the investigators thought and what others might think are not mutually exclusive. What is a modern proposal is that there is some confusion about it at the time. Confusion about this is a modern non-contemporary private interpretation not shared by the investigators. Show me where they are confused?

Swanson's report is very detailed. It runs a few pages. The meaning of the message was to cast suspicion on the Jews ("was to throw blame on the jews"). That's it. Nothing more. Nothing less. No confusion at all.

What some people here want us to believe that it is possible the graffitti isn't anti-semetic. Yet we know from the double-cockney and misspelling of the word jews, that this means a semi-literate gentile was writing pro-jewish graffitti??? or that the killer is trying to cast suspicion on himself (a jew) in the hope the police will think it a ruse and therefore turn on the gentile???

The fact is only a bloody apron set of anti-semetic riots after Chapman. JtR deposits a real bloody apron this time on Jewish turf. I think JtR didn't seem to care he would be identified as a gentile because of it.

[Wickerman]

Was it ever established just how close the apron WAS to the graffito?

One source described the graffiti as above the apron, and another gives a distance of about 4ft up the wall.

[The Good Michael]

Warren's beliefs as to whether the GSG was anti semitic are just that, his beliefs, and have nothing to do with what the GSG actually means. So it is pretty much a moot point.

Moot as in 'debatable'. We don't know Warren's beliefs about the exact meaning. That's the point.

Mike

[c.d.]

Hello Batman,

Let me ask you this -- do Walter Sickert's paintings show details of the murders that only the killer would know and are they symbolic of the killings as well? Patricia Cornwell says yes, so does that mean that they are?

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

Was it ever established just how close the apron WAS to the graffito?

Harry,

No. It was said to have been beneath it, but it's open for argument. The graffiti was close enough to the street so that passersby would not miss it. One must assume the apron was just about at that level of visibility as well, though on the ground.

Mike

[Batman]

Hello Batman,

Let me ask you this -- do Walter Sickert's paintings show details of the murders that only the killer would know and are they symbolic of the killings as well? Patricia Cornwell says yes, so does that mean that they are?

c.d.

Never read her work and don't care too. I reference classics like Sugden and the Evans casebook or the A-Z.

The only time I have read Stride-denial or GSG-denial is because of a Jewish suspect.

Let me ask you this. Is your suspect Jewish? How many of the GSG-denial folk have a Jewish suspect? Most I would say, especially in pop. litrature.

[c.d.]

Moot as in 'debatable'. We don't know Warren's beliefs about the exact meaning. That's the point.

Mike

Moot in that only the author of the GSG knew what it meant and that Warren's beliefs, whatever they were, can't alter the actual meaning of the message.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Never read her work and don't care too. I reference classics like Sugden and the Evans casebook or the A-Z.

The only time I have read Stride-denial or GSG-denial is because of a Jewish suspect.

Hello Batman,

The point is that someone's interpretation is just simply that. Their interpretation. It may be correct or it may not be but only one person knows for sure. In this case it would be Sickert. In the case of the GSG it would be the person who wrote it.

c.d.