GSG because of Schwartz?

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Harry D]

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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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?

[Batman]

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.

[The Good Michael]

Contemporary facts from the case demonstrate irrevocably that the Whitechapel murder investigators considered the GSG to be an attack on the jews. Chief Inspector Swanson's report, 6 November 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C, quoted in Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, pp. 185–188

So any claims the message was not considered anti-semetic by contemporary police is firmly rendered implausable because evidence exists to the contrary.

Some modern interpretations reject that the message is anti-semetic. They are wrong.

Evidence does not exist to the contrary. Show me evidence saying that the message was specifically anti-semitic. Warren doesn't say that and Arnold doesn't say that. Neither does Halse. There was a fear of anti-semitic backlash, but that says nothing about the message itself. You are coming off as a bit clownish here. Get a grip.

Mike

[Batman]

Contemporary facts from the case demonstrate irrevocably that the Whitechapel murder investigators considered the GSG to be an attack on the jews. Chief Inspector Swanson's report, 6 November 1888, HO 144/221/A49301C, quoted in Evans and Skinner, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, pp. 185–188

So any claims the message was not considered anti-semetic by contemporary police is firmly rendered implausable because evidence exists to the contrary.

Some modern interpretations reject that the message is anti-semetic. They are wrong.

Kozminski expert Robert House accepts that these anti-semetic parts of the whitechapel narrative could have been done by a Jew and gives examples of Jews insulting other Jews. So the need to fit in a Jewish suspect doesn't have to abandon Stride or the GSG. I find House's explaination better than any of the anti-stride/gsg people on here, but I do not choose his explanation because I think a gentile did the above.

Schwartz reported a Jewish racial slur being hurled at him by a man who could be JtR attacking Stride. One woman died shortly after this point. Only minutes later Eddowes is murdered but some Jews saw her with a man.

In both cases we have JtR being disturbed by Jews.

Is it not a million miles away to believe to JtR killed Stride because she could identify him and he was disturbed in the act of procuring his target by a Jew?

Is it not a milliom miles away to believe that JtR was seen by more Jews that evening and so after Stride went home and thought about this and decided to do something about it? So went back outside with his chalk and apron to a Jewish sector for an anti-semetic message about how they caused a double murder instead of a single one?

Put that in yet pipe and smoke it.