Not for nothing

[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.

[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.

[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.

[John G]

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

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Sam Flynn;427164

Whether it was ambiguously spelled, misspelled, blurred or not, the graffito self-evidently speaks about the Children of Israel, and nothing - or nobody - else.

"The children are not the men..." sounds reasonable.

Pierre

[Pcdunn]

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.

Interesting questions, Bill.

The chances that Jack was an anti-Semite are good, simply because there was a lot of that present in Victorian London.

The Jews have generally been blamed for things through out history, so on the face of the GSG it is just a true statement, at least from the anti-Semite's viewpoint.

As to why Jack killed unfortunate women, mostly Christians, think back to the Middle Ages and the blood-libel that Jews murdered Christian children for their own sinister reasons. These stories popped up from time to time, usually leading to bad times for the local Jewish population.

If Jack was a hater of Jews, why not kill Christian women, some of them near the Jewish part of Whitechapel? And leave the GSG and apron fragment in case the police need a hint?

If we believe the Dear Boss letter (I know many don't), Jack was also "down on whores", which may offer another reason for his attacks being on women of the Unfortunate class.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Pcdunn;427206

The chances that Jack was an anti-Semite are good, simply because there was a lot of that present in Victorian London.

So being anti-Semite was not connected to one strictly personal identity but to many.

The Jews have generally been blamed for things through out history, so on the face of the GSG it is just a true statement, at least from the anti-Semite's viewpoint.

And they were many.

As to why Jack killed unfortunate women, mostly Christians, think back to the Middle Ages and the blood-libel that Jews murdered Christian children for their own sinister reasons. These stories popped up from time to time, usually leading to bad times for the local Jewish population.

From "unfortunate women" to "mostly Christians" in one sentence. "Being Christian" is not a victimological explanation!

If Jack was a hater of Jews,

or if he liked a drink now and then. Or if he lived in Whitechapel. Or if he worked in Whitechapel. If he did what many others did.

why not kill Christian women,

Because all of those people who "hated Jews", had a drink now and then, or lived and/or worked in Whitechapel DID NOT KILL CHRISTIAN WOMEN.

some of them near the Jewish part of Whitechapel? And leave the GSG and apron fragment in case the police need a hint?

A hint meaning what? That he killed Christian women because he was like everybody else who "hated Jews"?

If we believe the Dear Boss letter (I know many don't), Jack was also "down on whores", which may offer another reason for his attacks being on women of the Unfortunate class.

Do we need that letter to understand the victimology? No.

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting questions, Bill.

The chances that Jack was an anti-Semite are good, simply because there was a lot of that present in Victorian London.

The Jews have generally been blamed for things through out history, so on the face of the GSG it is just a true statement, at least from the anti-Semite's viewpoint.

As to why Jack killed unfortunate women, mostly Christians, think back to the Middle Ages and the blood-libel that Jews murdered Christian children for their own sinister reasons. These stories popped up from time to time, usually leading to bad times for the local Jewish population.

If Jack was a hater of Jews, why not kill Christian women, some of them near the Jewish part of Whitechapel? And leave the GSG and apron fragment in case the police need a hint?

If we believe the Dear Boss letter (I know many don't), Jack was also "down on whores", which may offer another reason for his attacks being on women of the Unfortunate class.

Hi Pat,

We could view Jack as possibly anti-Semitic if we interpret the GSG as if he was pretending to be a Jew to turn people against the Jews even more than many of them already were. So, in effect, he could have been saying 'I'm Jewish, I'm killing your women, but I'll never get blamed (because I'm a Jew)'

[Sam Flynn]

We could view Jack as possibly anti-Semitic if we interpret the GSG as if he was pretending to be a Jew to turn people against the Jews even more than many of them already were. So, in effect, he could have been saying 'I'm Jewish, I'm killing your women, but I'll never get blamed (because I'm a Jew)'

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

[Robert St Devil]

Commissioner Warren would not have erased the graffito if the word wasn't some obvious version of "Jews". he wasn't worried about a riot breaking out against the judies, juries, &c.

i have it: "the jewes are not the men to blame for nothing" with the possibility of the cursive lettering of "ewe" causing confusion.

[Scott Nelson]

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

I guess it depends on linguistic interpretation, Sam. My take has always been that it was written by a Jewish kid who listened to his father complaining about being bilked by gentile customers at the Spitalfields Market (or an approximate scenario thereby). Thus, it was not an anti-Semitic sentence, but a very sympathetic one.