Not for nothing

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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".