Not for nothing

[Abby Normal]

There was an article in the June Whitechapel Journal that tried to make that same point. I think it is one of the only explanations that seems to make sense.

Hi John and sam scott and cd.
And Stephen

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.

To me that's certainly in the realm of being anti Semitic, as it not only implies they should be blamed, but that they are not moral enough to accept blame.

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.

[Pierre]

Indeed, but colloquial double-negatives don't necessarily follow algebraic rules. Sometimes, negatives are used (and re-used) in a sentence almost as a kind of emphasis.

It would be quite legitimate to condense the GSG from "The Juwes [are the men that] will not be blamed for nothing" to "Juwes won't be blamed for nothing", which makes perfect sense in double-negative patois.

O I perceive after all so many uttering tongues,
And I perceive they do not come from the roofs of mouths
for nothing.

[Sam Flynn]

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"

Indeed, but colloquial double-negatives don't necessarily follow algebraic rules. Sometimes, negatives are used (and re-used) in a sentence almost as a kind of emphasis.

It would be quite legitimate to condense the GSG from "The Juwes [are the men that] will not be blamed for nothing" to "Juwes won't be blamed for nothing", which makes perfect sense in double-negative patois.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello CD

The Goulston Street Graffito is obviously anti-semitic. Its author was not a Jew, nor pretending to be one.

Your normally level head seems to have deserted you for once. Unless you wrote it yourself you are stating an opinion not an established fact. Sorry.

My 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".

[John Malcolm]

I mentioned several times that there is a conundrum with the writing. ... -- thus, "The Jews.... that will not be blamed for nothing becomes a positive -- they will be blamed for something.

There was an article in the June Whitechapel Journal that tried to make that same point. I think it is one of the only explanations that seems to make sense.

[Scott Nelson]

Indeed, Scott, but the fact remains that the most immediate impression is one of anti-semitism, whether its author intended it or not.

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.

[c.d.]

The Goulston Street Graffito is obviously anti-semitic. Its author was not a Jew, nor pretending to be one.

Hello Sam,

Your normally level head seems to have deserted you for once. Unless you wrote it yourself you are stating an opinion not an established fact. Sorry.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Fair enough, ol' son, as they'd say in Whitechapel. (Trust my Cockney's up to scratch).

Anyway, the police officials who definitely believed it to be authentic included, Moore, Anderson, Smith, Warren. I think Arnold and Swanson might be added to the list. Ultimately, it fits into an anti-Semitic sequence of events writ-large over the course of that early morning.

Your description of the sun seen shining in Wales reminds me of the Monty Python scene where a shipload of Vikings are attacked by a dragon-like creature. Bewildered and confused they assume the strange beast to have been the sun.

My regards to Old Blighty please, Sam, and to you.

Stephen
http://www.timesofisrael.com/were-th...mitic-frameup/

Hi Stephen and sam

AS Stephen has pointed out, I'd go with the police who where there at the time on whether the apron and graffito were connected.

Speaking of the sun. We had a strange incident here last week when the sun was mysteriously blotted out by something for a few minutes. The consensus here in the states was that it was probably a very large bat, or that it was Trumps fault.

[cnr]

I'm actually being accurate, Stephen. There is no primary source which says that the graffito was immediately above the apron, and taking all the witness statements together suggests that there was a degree of separation between them, along both vertical and horizontal axes. Not a massive gulf, of course - the distance between open archway and the stairs was perhaps only 5 feet - but a separation nonetheless.

Fair enough, ol' son, as they'd say in Whitechapel. (Trust my Cockney's up to scratch).

Anyway, the police officials who definitely believed it to be authentic included, Moore, Anderson, Smith, Warren. I think Arnold and Swanson might be added to the list. Ultimately, it fits into an anti-Semitic sequence of events writ-large over the course of that early morning.

Your description of the sun seen shining in Wales reminds me of the Monty Python scene where a shipload of Vikings are attacked by a dragon-like creature. Bewildered and confused they assume the strange beast to have been the sun.

My regards to Old Blighty please, Sam, and to you.

Stephen

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

[Sam Flynn]

C'mon Sam, it's all getting a bit semantic.

I'm actually being accurate, Stephen. There is no primary source which says that the graffito was immediately above the apron, and taking all the witness statements together suggests that there was a degree of separation between them, along both vertical and horizontal axes. Not a massive gulf, of course - the distance between open archway and the stairs was perhaps only 5 feet - but a separation nonetheless.

Trust the weather in Wales this evening is kind to you, Sam.

We actually got to see the sun today. The entire street was out celebrating.

[cnr]

Nowhere is it stated that the apron was "directly" below the graffito

C'mon Sam, it's all getting a bit semantic. There's no doubt that those police officials who commented, to posterity's benefit, believed the graffito to be authentic. And on the score that Long supposedly missed it, we have Halse backing him up. He didn't see it either at 2.20am.

We have a sequence of events that give the Ripper away:

1. 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.

2. Ripper yells out a Cockney, anti-Semitic slur.

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

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

5. ...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.

I could go on, but it's all in my book. Trust the weather in Wales this evening is kind to you, Sam.

Stephen http://www.timesofisrael.com/were-th...mitic-frameup/

[Abby Normal]

But once he knew that he'd been seen and could possibly have been identified wouldn't he have just 'aborted' and gone to find another victim?

not if hed already cut her throat. and he did abort anyway-no mutilations.

[John G]

The apron was connected to the writing. If the writing had not been misread, Kelly would not have been killed.

Is this a return to your undisclosed theory?

[MrBarnett]

The man has a point, Abby. This was a neighbourhood with a large Jewish locality. One of the murders occurred outside a Jewish socialist club, and antisemitic graffiti was found at a Jewish dwelling during a period of social unrest with the immigrant populace. The Jewish thread to the case is not necessarily related to the killer.

Not forgetting that the other murder that night took place in a square behind the Great Synagogue.

[Pierre]

Yes, but no more than we should read into an anti-semitic graffito on a wall in a Jewish quarter in 1930s Germany. It's just the sort of thing we might expect to see.
From what we know today, the idea that he was a local, gentile Englishman should come as no surprise. Killers tend to attack people within their own socio-demographic group. The real clue is the apron, and always has been; the graffito is superfluous.

The apron was connected to the writing. If the writing had not been misread, Kelly would not have been killed.