Not for nothing

[Sam Flynn]

for me the simplest explanation is the best

The simplest explanation is that the (apparently) anti-semitic graffiti was already there before the Ripper jettisoned the apron.

[Abby Normal]

for me the simplest explanation is the best.

Earlier that evening too many jews interrupted the crazy psychopath from carrying out his ritualistic mutilations - so he had to find someone else to kill.

He almost interrupted by yet more Jews - Levy - "Look there, I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about,"

On his way home he does what many serial killers do, he blames other people.

Bingo

[Boggles]

for me the simplest explanation is the best.

Earlier that evening too many jews interrupted the crazy psychopath from carrying out his ritualistic mutilations - so he had to find someone else to kill.

He almost interrupted by yet more Jews - Levy - "Look there, I don't like going home by myself when I see those characters about,"

On his way home he does what many serial killers do, he blames other people.

[c.d.]

Hello CDMy first sentence was correct: the most "obvious" meaning of the GSG is anti-semitic; or, at least, that's certainly the immediate impression it gives, and it needs a fair bit of thinking to interpret it otherwise. My second sentence was, I'll grant you, an opinion. I'll tone it down to "Its author was probably not a Jew, and it's less probable that he was a gentile pretending to be one".

Hello Sam,

Explanation accepted.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Joshua,

If I don't use enough commas, please don't hesitate to call me an anti-commanist.

Aside from Long & Halse's more practical observations as mentioned, many of the police officials are on the record along the lines that the GSG was written by the murderer and was an important clue. For example;

Moore: "undoubtedly by the murderer"

Swanson: "the purport of the writing as shown at page 3 was to throw blame upon the Jews"

Warren: "writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews". In a broader sense, Warren said that, "…the last murders were obviously done by some one desiring to bring discredit on the Jews and Socialists or Jewish Socialists".

Smith believed the GSG was “probably” genuine and left as a ruse “to throw the police off the scent, to divert suspicion from the Gentiles and throw it upon the Jews".

In my personal opinion, yes, JTR was determined to leave a mutilated corpse at the club. The coroner touched on a not entirely unrelated point in saying that, the murderer “must have spent much time and trouble to induce her to place herself in his diabolical clutches”. PC Smith told the inquest that Berner St was no haunt for prostitutes, which is also interesting.

In regard Schwartz, there seems to be quite a bit of overlap about the physical description of the man seen with Stride, admittedly, at different times of the evening, but I find the convergence in describing someone of limited height and particular frame, interesting: 5ft 5in of “broad shoulders” and “rather stoutly built” (Schwartz), 5ft 5in (Gardner & Best), “about 5ft 6in” and “rather stout” (Marshall), “about 5ft 7in” and “stoutish” (Brown), “about 5ft 7in” (PC Smith).

Thanks for your other points, which open up a broader discussion which might be beyond the scope of this thread by way of detailed response and which could drag on a bit. Might I suggest, if you are interested, reading my 'Dear Rip' letter in Ripperologist n.155 or the recent review of my book by London-based journo Robert Philpot. See links:

http://www.mangodesign.biz/ripperologist155.pdf

http://www.timesofisrael.com/were-the-jack-the-ripper-murders-an-elaborate-anti-semitic-frameup/

Regards, Stephen.

Hi Stephen
Good post.
ANd let's not forget that Schwartz, Marshall, lawende, smith and the anon church street sighting all describe a man with a peaked cap.
And apparently this part of a description made an impression on Abberline, the most astute cop of the entire case, IMHO. See my SIG below.

[cnr]

Isn't that getting a bit anti-semantic?

Hi Joshua,

If I don't use enough commas, please don't hesitate to call me an anti-commanist.

Aside from Long & Halse's more practical observations as mentioned, many of the police officials are on the record along the lines that the GSG was written by the murderer and was an important clue. For example;

Moore: "undoubtedly by the murderer"

Swanson: "the purport of the writing as shown at page 3 was to throw blame upon the Jews"

Warren: "writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews". In a broader sense, Warren said that, "…the last murders were obviously done by some one desiring to bring discredit on the Jews and Socialists or Jewish Socialists".

Smith believed the GSG was “probably” genuine and left as a ruse “to throw the police off the scent, to divert suspicion from the Gentiles and throw it upon the Jews".

In my personal opinion, yes, JTR was determined to leave a mutilated corpse at the club. The coroner touched on a not entirely unrelated point in saying that, the murderer “must have spent much time and trouble to induce her to place herself in his diabolical clutches”. PC Smith told the inquest that Berner St was no haunt for prostitutes, which is also interesting.

In regard Schwartz, there seems to be quite a bit of overlap about the physical description of the man seen with Stride, admittedly, at different times of the evening, but I find the convergence in describing someone of limited height and particular frame, interesting: 5ft 5in of “broad shoulders” and “rather stoutly built” (Schwartz), 5ft 5in (Gardner & Best), “about 5ft 6in” and “rather stout” (Marshall), “about 5ft 7in” and “stoutish” (Brown), “about 5ft 7in” (PC Smith).

Thanks for your other points, which open up a broader discussion which might be beyond the scope of this thread by way of detailed response and which could drag on a bit. Might I suggest, if you are interested, reading my 'Dear Rip' letter in Ripperologist n.155 or the recent review of my book by London-based journo Robert Philpot. See links:

http://www.mangodesign.biz/ripperologist155.pdf

http://www.timesofisrael.com/were-the-jack-the-ripper-murders-an-elaborate-anti-semitic-frameup/

Regards, Stephen.

[Abby Normal]

Isn't that getting a bit anti-semantic?



Halse admitted he might not have seen the apron piece even if it was there when he passed. Long possibly noticed it only after learning of the murder.



Except that the man Schwartz saw wasn't accompanying Stride, but walking down Berner Street past the yard entrance where she was standing. Are you suggesting the killer spent the evening trying unsuccessfully to entice her into the yard (in the process allowing himself to be seen with the victim all that time) gave up and went home, only to come back later and happened to find her in the very place he'd had in mind all along?



In neither account given by Schwartz did he think the shout was directed at him. This was entirely Abberline's suggestion.



Church Passage? Mitre Square? Sounds at least as likely that he was having a go at Christian clergy.



Referencing riots? It's not even certain it references Jews.



How come the killer was only trying to libel the Jews on this one night? Did he try and incriminate other nationalities, ethnic or religious groups at other times? Was his spilling of Kelly's stomach contents into her abdominal cavity some obscure reference to the last supper, or the Irish fish-and-potato famine?

Hi Joshua

Isn't that getting a bit anti-semantic?

Now that's funny.

Except that the man Schwartz saw wasn't accompanying Stride, but walking down Berner Street past the yard entrance where she was standing. Are you suggesting the killer spent the evening trying unsuccessfully to entice her into the yard (in the process allowing himself to be seen with the victim all that time) gave up and went home, only to come back later and happened to find her in the very place he'd had in mind all along?

In my mind he had left her only to shortly return(this is where Schwartz sees him) in anger and attack her.

In neither account given by Schwartz did he think the shout was directed at him. This was entirely Abberline's suggestion.

not quite right. he couldn't tell if it was directed at him or not.

Church Passage? Mitre Square? Sounds at least as likely that he was having a go at Christian clergy.

getting into crackpot territory here.

Referencing riots? It's not even certain it references Jews.

perhaps not the riots but certainly jews. or juwes. lets not be overly un-anti-semantic here ; )

How come the killer was only trying to libel the Jews on this one night?

Perhaps because he just thought of it? also George Hutchinson libeled a jew on the night of Mary Kelly's murder soooo maybe it was two nights.. you get the picture.

Did he try and incriminate other nationalities, ethnic or religious groups at other times?

because he didn't have a beef with them???

Was his spilling of Kelly's stomach contents into her abdominal cavity some obscure reference to the last supper, or the Irish fish-and-potato famine?

non-sequiter and not funny

[Abby Normal]

The writer could have been a boy who didn't yet see himself becoming a man.

or a chimpanzee who didn't yet see himself becoming a man

[Sam Flynn]

I agree with you that there was no "hidden" message. I think the message was very open and straightforward. The problem was that not many could read it correctly and understand it.

If you don't mind me saying, Pierre, "Judges mistaken for Juwes" is an even bigger stretch than the maybrickian "James mistaken for Juwes".

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;426642]

I agree with you that there was no "hidden" message. I think the message was very open and straightforward. The problem was that not many could read it correctly and understand it.

Pierre

[Scott Nelson]

Also, even if you don't believe in above interpretation, since the writer speaks of the Jews in the third person, and inserts the phrase are the men, he is distancing himself from Jews, so That alone hints that that the writer is not Jewish and doesn't like them in general.

The writer could have been a boy who didn't yet see himself becoming a man.

[Joshua Rogan]

it's all getting a bit semantic.

Isn't that getting a bit anti-semantic?

And on the score that Long supposedly missed it, we have Halse backing him up. He didn't see it either at 2.20am.

Halse admitted he might not have seen the apron piece even if it was there when he passed. Long possibly noticed it only after learning of the murder.

By the time Schwartz spies the opening phase of the attack on Stride, she and her companion had passed by a radical Jewish club four times in the space of about an hour. They weren't just promenading - it seems a plan to leave a corpse on the premises was in the offing. A lecture entitled, 'Why Jews Should Be Socialists' had concluded not long before.

Except that the man Schwartz saw wasn't accompanying Stride, but walking down Berner Street past the yard entrance where she was standing. Are you suggesting the killer spent the evening trying unsuccessfully to entice her into the yard (in the process allowing himself to be seen with the victim all that time) gave up and went home, only to come back later and happened to find her in the very place he'd had in mind all along?

Ripper yells out a Cockney, anti-Semitic slur.

In neither account given by Schwartz did he think the shout was directed at him. This was entirely Abberline's suggestion.

Eddowes killed behind Great Synagogue and seen with Ripper 'round the front of it, on cnr of Duke St. & Church Passage.

Church Passage? Mitre Square? Sounds at least as likely that he was having a go at Christian clergy.

Graffito referencing the anti-Semitic riots post-Chapman left in building tenanted "almost exclusively by Jews".

Referencing riots? It's not even certain it references Jews.

...and the most important consideration of all, that in killing Eddowes, JTR was frantically overcompensating for his failure to mutilate Stride. Mutilation being the whole point of the exercise, given he was tapping that old and ugly lie, the blood libel.

How come the killer was only trying to libel the Jews on this one night? Did he try and incriminate other nationalities, ethnic or religious groups at other times? Was his spilling of Kelly's stomach contents into her abdominal cavity some obscure reference to the last supper, or the Irish fish-and-potato famine?

[Harry D]

'It can't be pro-Jewish because a Jew wouldn't write in cockney double-negatives' - a fair argument, but it also assumes the author wasn't an idiot. He couldn't even spell Jews right, apparently.

[Sam Flynn]

I read somewhere that an expert on Victorian cockney language says the most accurate interpretation should read as the Jews won't take the blame for anything.

Makes sense to me, Abby.

Also, even if you don't believe in above interpretation, since the writer speaks of the Jews in the third person, and inserts the phrase "are the men", he is distancing himself from Jews, so That alone hints that that the writer is not Jewish and doesn't like them in general.

Very good points, particularly the observation I've underlined.

[Michael W Richards]

I mentioned several times that there is a conundrum with the writing. If a cockney was speaking, the double negative ("not"..."nothing") would more easily translate to the negative - eg,. "I didn't shoot no-one", meaning I didn't shoot anybody, so the meaning would be the Jews are not to be blamed. But if somebody is writing out their thoughts, the double negative that would easily pass in common speech becomes harder to justify if a writer has the time to think out the actual meaning in contrast to just blurting something out -- thus, "The Jews.... that will not be blamed for nothing becomes a positive -- they will be blamed for something. And this is not necessarily anti-Semitic.

Perhaps the author was not really anti semetic, but an observer of the Jewish situation within the East end confines. Like he was watching from above it all. Someone who did not have a personal investment in the East End, and the tensions that were brewing in part because of the massive Jewish influx the preceding years. Just a hunch about Kates killer here, I don't believe that she was killed by a native brit.