Apron placement as intimidation?

[Abby Normal]

Double-negatives are, and have probably long been, commonly used by English speakers throughout Britain; often, but not always, in the everyday speech of the working classes. They are also found in other languages like French, Polish and Russian (amongst others), so it's not inconceivable that a non-native English speaker could inadvertently create a double-negative by "translating" what's in their heads.

of course.

I read an expert on Victorian language said the phrase most likely should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything. and also that it was most likely written by a cockney. I don't think he said anything about weather it was jewish or gentile though.

so if that is the most likely reading, and sounds like it is-why would a jew write such a disparaging remark against his own people. sounds rather odd, no?

[Harry D]

I read an expert on Victorian language said the phrase most likely should be read as-the jews wont take the blame for anything. and also that it was most likely written by a cockney. I don't think he said anything about weather it was jewish or gentile though.

Hello Abby,

To me, it seems that this is exactly what the author was getting at. It's also the reason why I doubt its authenticity. If you look at most serial killers who communicate with the outside world, they all provide some kind of reference to the murders and the psychology behind them. The GSG author didn't - he made an oblique jab at the Jews. Therefore, the apron placement serves no purpose insofar as authentication.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

To me, it seems that this is exactly what the author was getting at. It's also the reason why I doubt its authenticity. If you look at most serial killers who communicate with the outside world, they all provide some kind of reference to the murders and the psychology behind them. The GSG author didn't - he made an oblique jab at the Jews. Therefore, the apron placement serves no purpose insofar as authentication.

Hi Harry

To me the killer is signing the graffiti with the bloody apron piece.
Look, anyone can break down any event into its many small componants, then analize each component and say by itself it means nothing. I tend to look at the big picture-look at everything together.

I look at everything the night of the double event and see a pattern-the pieces fit together like a puzzle:

the witnesses were all jewish, one who had a heavy jewish appearance.
they all describe a man with a peaked cap (therefore Schwartz, marshall, lawende and co, maybe smith all saw the same man- the ripper).
Schwartz, apparently the one that looked the most jewish, pissed off the ripper enough that he shouted a jewish slur at him.
Diemshitz may have interrupted further.
Lawende and company also saw him and were making disparaging remarks, maybe he heard them.
again, all jewish witnesses.

There was already an anti jewish feeling in the city.
Leather apron, who the ripper was called before the ripper, was jewish.
the main suspect for leather apron, the biggest suspect up to that point, John Pizer was jewish.

theres a gap of time in between when eddowes was murdered and the graffiti was discovered that fits with the ripper heading to his bolt hole to grab some chalk.

the building the graffiti was on was predominantly jewish.

The graffiti is found written above clear evidence(the bloody apron) the killer was there.

The most likely interpretation of the graffiti is anti jewish.

the graffiti was recent-the mostly jewish residents would have wiped it off the instant it was seen.

No resident ever said they saw it previously, nor is ther any reports of ANY graffiti in the area.

The police at the time thought it was written by the killer.

put it all together. I'm 90 percent certain it was written by the killer.

[c.d.]

Hello Harry and Abby,

As you say, the message is open to interpretation which is my point exactly. So no matter how many arguments you can amass (and yes, you listed good ones) to show that it was most likely anti-semitic that is still a guess. Only one person knows with absolute certainty and that individual is its author.

Now while it can be argued as to how much danger the killer put himself in by taking the time to stop and write the message, there had to be some degree of risk however slight. I don't see the events of that night justifying the rage against Jews that led to him taking that risk. They simply appear to be people basically minding their own business who somehow got in the killer's way and they just happened to be Jewish. But was their being Jewish the cause of getting in his way? I just don't see that. Now he could have had strong anti-semitic feelings prior to that evening and this just threw more fuel on the fire. But then why such an ambiguous, wishy washy message if he was willing to take the risk to write it? Why not something along the lines of all Jews are scum and deserve to be in hell? The whole anti-Jewish argument seems like a stretch to me.

c.d.

[c.d.]

And you have to wonder why some apparently misplaced anger against some Jews who really did nothing "Jewish" would somehow take precedence over the fact that he apparently killed two women on the same night. Why not brag about that or at least make some sort of passing reference to it? Or better yet, why not incorporate both themes? "Next time it will be three women and even a 1,000 dirty Jews won't be able to stop me." The message simply doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the circumstances.

c.d.

[Harry D]

And you have to wonder why some apparently misplaced anger against some Jews who really did nothing "Jewish" would somehow take precedence over the fact that he apparently killed two women on the same night. Why not brag about that or at least make some sort of passing reference to it? Or better yet, why not incorporate both themes? "Next time it will be three women and even a 1,000 dirty Jews won't be able to stop me." The message simply doesn't make a lot of sense in light of the circumstances.

c.d.

Hello CD,

This is what I was getting at.

If the killer wrote the GSG and left the apron there to authenticate it, what purpose did this serve? He didn't make any reference to the murders, and none of his victims were Jewish. The killer also never took his beef up with the Jews ever again. No bloody graffiti left in Miller's Court, nothing.

[c.d.]

Hello CD,

This is what I was getting at.

If the killer wrote the GSG and left the apron there to authenticate it, what purpose did this serve? He didn't make any reference to the murders, and none of his victims were Jewish. The killer also never took his beef up with the Jews ever again. No bloody graffiti left in Miller's Court, nothing.

Hello Harry,

Ok. So we are in agreement. I find myself for the most part agreeing with you on a number of things regarding this case. And I do think the lack of a Miller's Court message is quite telling and is an argument against the killer writing the GSG. I also have to imagine that in light of the GSG that Abberline would have told his men to look for a similar message there which is why I find it hard to believe that an "F" and and "M" could have been prominent without being noticed.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Harry and Abby,

As you say, the message is open to interpretation which is my point exactly. So no matter how many arguments you can amass (and yes, you listed good ones) to show that it was most likely anti-semitic that is still a guess. Only one person knows with absolute certainty and that individual is its author.

Now while it can be argued as to how much danger the killer put himself in by taking the time to stop and write the message, there had to be some degree of risk however slight. I don't see the events of that night justifying the rage against Jews that led to him taking that risk. They simply appear to be people basically minding their own business who somehow got in the killer's way and they just happened to be Jewish. But was their being Jewish the cause of getting in his way? I just don't see that. Now he could have had strong anti-semitic feelings prior to that evening and this just threw more fuel on the fire. But then why such an ambiguous, wishy washy message if he was willing to take the risk to write it? Why not something along the lines of all Jews are scum and deserve to be in hell? The whole anti-Jewish argument seems like a stretch to me.

c.d.

Because then it’s too obvious the writer is a gentile.

[c.d.]

Or a very clever Jew pretending to be a rabid Jew hater.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello CD,

This is what I was getting at.

If the killer wrote the GSG and left the apron there to authenticate it, what purpose did this serve? He didn't make any reference to the murders, and none of his victims were Jewish. The killer also never took his beef up with the Jews ever again. No bloody graffiti left in Miller's Court, nothing.

Well he referenced the murders by leaving the bloody apron. And didn’t do it again at Kelly’s maybe because he wasn’t interrupted by a bunch of Jews that night.

[Abby Normal]

Or a very clever Jew pretending to be a rabid Jew hater.

c.d.

Or a very clever gentile pretending to be a very clever Jew pretending to be a rabid Jew hater.

[c.d.]

Well he referenced the murders by leaving the bloody apron. And didn’t do it again at Kelly’s maybe because he wasn’t interrupted by a bunch of Jews that night.

But if he has this intense hatred of Jews for interrupting him that night why does the GSG not seem to reflect that hatred?

c.d.

[Scott Nelson]

Brilliant stuff from Mr. Normal.

[Jon Guy]

But if he has this intense hatred of Jews for interrupting him that night why does the GSG not seem to reflect that hatred?

c.d.

Perhaps the author thought the murder and mutilation of Eddowes was an angry statement in itself.

[Abby Normal]

But if he has this intense hatred of Jews for interrupting him that night why does the GSG not seem to reflect that hatred?

c.d.

Hi cd
That’s a good question. And it goes along also with why is it so ambiguous.
And I agree. One would think it would be more definite, angry, refer to the murders and written larger.

If there weren’t so many things going on that night that tie into the gsg being authentic I would discount just for these reasons.

I can only assume the killer had his reasons.


Now what’s even weirder about it is even if it wasn’t written by the killer it’s strange graffiti. Most written graffiti is simple to understand the point and writtten large. I mean why would any graffiti writer write something small and ambiguous?

Good chat.