Not for nothing

[Callmebill]

OK. Several questions

This is probably a stupid question but ...

If JTR hated Jewish people, why not kill Jews? Why murder women down on their luck? I know, I’ll kill X because I don’t like them anyway and then blame it on the group I’d really like to erase – quite an abstract methodology that would indicate intelligence?
Is there an example of a serial killer who killed X to blame Y? As far as I know, no victims were of the Jewish faith?
JTR left that message after several murders. I think he’s saying, I’m clever, or sharper than you.

[Sam Flynn]

God, now I’m using double nots.

It's contagious, Bill. Stare at the Goulston Street Graffito for too long, and the Goulston Street Graffito stares back at you.

Why, when the writing is in a Jewish area, would not one, but two policemen, presume the word was not Jews but any of the other spelling variants?

I think they both realised that the word was "Jews", but that the spelling was wonky; it's the wonky spelling they disagreed on.

[Callmebill]

Two nots

Why, when the writing is in a Jewish area, would not one, but two policemen, presume the word was not Jews but any of the other spelling variants?
God, now I’m using double nots.

[Sam Flynn]

But why spell it incorrectly? It's not a difficult word.

Indeed, but as John G points out, some people struggle with even simpler words. Also, it's not unlikely that there was an (artificial) ambiguity in the way in which the letters were rendered on the wall; for example, a slight flourish on the "e" and/or the "w" that made it look like misspelling, or a slight "hiccup" when the chalk went over a bump/indentation in the brickwork that caused the writer to make a mistake.

[John G]

And "too" isn't a difficult word, but I know of people with university degrees who write "to" when they mean "too."

[Callmebill]

I don't think anyone bases their interpretation on the fact that there's an "old understanding", but on the basis that "Juwes = Jews" is almost certainly the correct meaning.

To reiterate, the graffito was found in a street where the Jewish population density was high, in a district where Jewish immigration was perceived as a social problem, and where anti-semitism was rife. Even if this weren't the case, the most likely reading would still be that the graffito referred to Jews.

But why spell it incorrectly? It's not a difficult word.

[Sam Flynn]

not beyond "all" reasonable doubt. Just beyond the reasonable doubt of those who believe the old understanding was correct.

I don't think anyone bases their interpretation on the fact that there's an "old understanding", but on the basis that "Juwes = Jews" is almost certainly the correct meaning.

To reiterate, the graffito was found in a street where the Jewish population density was high, in a district where Jewish immigration was perceived as a social problem, and where anti-semitism was rife. Even if this weren't the case, the most likely reading would still be that the graffito referred to Jews.

[John G]

Dear Sam,

not beyond "all" reasonable doubt. Just beyond the reasonable doubt of those who believe the old understanding was correct.

Cheers, Pierre

And there's no sensible reason to believe it wasn't correct.

[Callmebill]

It's a puzzle.

That's where I am with the meaning.
For some reason the judges/law is to blame, or in some part responsible. I especially like the word :doom in relation to the definition.

[Pierre]

Indeed, and it's beyond all reasonable doubt that they interpreted/understood correctly.

Dear Sam,

not beyond "all" reasonable doubt. Just beyond the reasonable doubt of those who believe the old understanding was correct.

Cheers, Pierre

[Callmebill]

I don't know either, but ...

It would be difficult to avoid a large Jewish population in Whitechapel. Jews isn't a difficult word to spell, and it's written often enough in contemporary newspaper reports that most literate people would be aware of its spelling.
We don't know Warren's motive. We do know the reason he gave for sponging away the graffito.

[Sam Flynn]

And that was the interpretation of the police in 1888. That was their understanding.

Indeed, and it's beyond all reasonable doubt that they interpreted/understood correctly.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;427164]

I don't believe it because the police interpreted it as "Jews", but because it is by far and away the most probable reading. Like I said, the graffito was found in a part of the world where the Jewish population was high, Jewish immigration was perceived as a social problem, and anti-semitism was rife. Whether it was ambiguously spelled, misspelled, blurred or not, the graffito self-evidently speaks about the Children of Israel, and nothing - or nobody - else.

And that was the interpretation of the police in 1888. That was their understanding.

[Sam Flynn]

And the strategy for solving the problem of this "ambiguity" was the choice of the police to interpret it as:

"Jews"

and people have since then believed, like you do, that "the correct word" (!) had to be "Jews".

I don't believe it because the police interpreted it as "Jews", but because it is by far and away the most probable reading. Like I said, the graffito was found in a part of the world where the Jewish population was high, Jewish immigration was perceived as a social problem, and anti-semitism was rife. Whether it was ambiguously spelled, misspelled, blurred or not, the graffito self-evidently speaks about the Children of Israel, and nothing - or nobody - else.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;427161]

The rest of the words notwithstanding, it's evident that the key word (J***s) was sufficiently ambiguous as a stimulus that it was interpreted differently by Halse and Long.

Yes, but not because the author could not spell. But because there are sources for blurred writing, the brick wall and chalk.

So the specific conditions on which the writing had to be created were:

brick wall
chalk

And the result:

blurred

These conditions, and their result, are sufficient for a well established historical explanation for the existance of the following sources:

Long: "Juews" and "Jewes"

Halse: "Juwes"

This is what you interpret as "ambiguity", as did the police in 1888

And the strategy for solving the problem of this "ambiguity" was the choice of the police to interpret it as:

"Jews"

and people have since then believed, like you do, that "the correct word" (!) had to be "Jews".

Besides, the rest of the message had its fair share of ambiguity, too; wmust have been "Jews", from that strategy.

as it "The J***s are not the men..." or "The J***s are the men that will not..."?

The version if from Long. It shows us that the author of the GSG was not the problem: he could spell.

But PC Long was not capable of interpreting the GSG correctly. He gave his statement as both "Jewes" and "Juews". He also stated that Halse had commented on his spelling.

And he also differed from the writing of Halse in the word order.

Halse was a Detective Officer and at the inquest he stated that he took a note of the writing before it was rubbed out and "the exact words were "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing". "

So the sources are very clear and it is easy to establish historical facts on them.

Pierre