Dissertation- A curious find in Goulston Street by Derek Osborne

[Sunny Delight]

I found this to be an interesting read and thought it might be worth further exploration. This is on the Wiki under Dissertations. I wanted to sight Paragraph 7.

A Further source online is " Policing the Ghetto- Jewish East End 1880 to 1920" by David Englander.

" If the Ripper had really sought to blame the Jews for his crimes, why would he choose such an insignificant place for that purpose? Better by far to leave such a condemnation at the scene of one of his crimes, where the impact could have been far greater..."

A fair question. But then I asked myself why Charles Warren was adamant about erasing the message. In other words was this an insignificant location? Did the location represent anything pertaining to the killer or his crimes? Did the killer write it? Does the location answer that or is it easier to say its just a coincidence?

Would a Constable see a white apron in the darkness but not writing in chalk on a black background right above it? Its possible. But for the sake of argument lets assume the Killer of Eddowes wrote the message.

" The Jewes are the men who will be blamed". Was this meant to mean All Jews or just Immigrant Jews who started arriving in 1886 out of the Prussian purge? Who would this statement draw attention to? Would it include the Anglo Jews who had little affinity for the migrants either. Or is it as simple as a Gentile implicating Jews after he murdered another Gentile prostitute in a once again predominantly Jewish area?

The Apron without any doubt was deposited by the killer of Eddowes within the roughly 50 minute window after Eddowes body is found. The GSG presents a real dilema if the killer wrote it. Why would the killer implicate the migrant Jews and draw attention to them causing a potential riot? Or would Police believe it to be a false flag and that a gentile was trying to pass off blame?

In 1888 Charles Booth had assistance from Edmund Reid and several others in walking all the Streets of Whitechapel and developing Demographics. The Apron and GSG were in fact planted in the very heart if the Jewish Quarter. Its not hard to understand Charles Warrens reason for erasing it. Written in a good schoolboys hand would reveal the killer to likely be educated in English. Not a migrant who could not write or speak English.

The Police in this case had a distinct disadvantage in dealing with the migrant Jews of Whitechapel. They did not understand Yiddish. In fact it was the Jewish Board of Guardians through the Rothschilds financial power controlling the entire Jewish equation in Whitechapel. The Police were in effect dealing directly with the Board in Civil matters. As Booth illustrates the Anglo Jewish Middle Class could be found along Commercial Road and Petticoat Lane- Wentworth St and Goulston and also at Middlesex' Aldgate and Whitechapel Rd, with the Migrants heading East throughout the smaller roads along Old Montague and towards London Hospital. The Socialist Class of Migrants were headed off in the area of Berner and Batty Street as well as Fieldgate.

As with everything in this case the GSG and Apron raise more questions than answers. However, considering the bias towards the Jewish Migrants the GSG would have had the desired effect if the word in the Market area ( where it was written) got out. The target would no doubt be the Migrants eventhough Wentworth Dwellings had Anglo Jews as well as migrants.

If the killer wrote GSG, in English, one would be hard pressed to believe a migrant Jew was JtR. It would make little sense to implicate your own. Who would the Police have expected wrote this? Yiddish was written all over Whitechapel. Would the killer be versed in writing in English, a double negative, if they were a migrant?

Booths work reveals that the Jewish migration path by street was more of a wave. Hanbury Street, Bucks Row and Berner Street were included in that path.

The few witnesses and the GSG tie the Jewish community to the Whitechapel Murders. The changing Demographics illustrate the murder locations that were largely Jewish as opposed to the Dutch, German, Italian and Irish exclusion zones. None of the witnesses described a Migrant Jewish person with an impoverished look, dark complexion, high cheekbones and larger lips. But they were in fact that distinguishable.

Could the GSG point to motive? The killer wanting to implicate the Jewish Immigration Class after being seen by Long and Schwartz and then 3 Jewish men at Church Passage? They would have been a perfect Scapegoat. He knew he was seen and needed to draw attention away from himself?

We have seen in recent times rampant racism with hotels housing migrants or asylum seekers being attacked, people attempting to put them on fire. Attacking Police. All with the help of social media.

The GSG posed a similar risk to the Whitechapel Police. That graffitti could have been seen by people who may then have spread it to their friends who spread it to their friends, who spread it to their friends etc etc etc. Ever heard of Chinese Whispers? By the time it would have got around Whitechapel no doubt the graffitti would have read something like this:

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for something they are responsible for". Setting off a large scale riot against Jews in the area.

[Patrick Differ]

I think that the meaning of the GSG is unclear, but one thing is for sure: it mentions Jews, but doesn't mention immigrant Jews.

Hi Lewis- i first thought the message waa unclear until you realize the way it is written means basically the same thing no matter how you cut it..

If its an accusation- it means the Jews did it.
If its a statement if resignation- the Jews are going to be blamed no matter what..actually means the sane thing.

That said- one might ask why a Jewish person would implicate another Jewish person ( who refused to testify against a fellow Jew?)...that evidently happened.

What benefit would a non Jewish person get out of an accusation against Jews in writing , where he also dropped an apron ( actual physical evidence)?

I just murdered Eddowes, here is her apron, and the Jews either did it or will get blamed anyway.
Does this mean that JtR admits to being Jewish? ( A Jewish witness refuses to testify against his own.

Was there a difference between Anglo Jewish perception and Immigrant Jews, especially the impoverished class of Polish Jews out of Prussia? Did the Anglo Jews consider themselves Englishman first? That appears to be the case.

DId the GSG message include Anglo Jews? Or just the Immigrants? The Authorities had no clue. No Englishman could commit such atrocities.

[caz]

Hi Lewis- i first thought the message waa unclear until you realize the way it is written means basically the same thing no matter how you cut it..

If its an accusation- it means the Jews did it.
If its a statement if resignation- the Jews are going to be blamed no matter what..actually means the sane thing.

That said- one might ask why a Jewish person would implicate another Jewish person ( who refused to testify against a fellow Jew?)...that evidently happened.

What benefit would a non Jewish person get out of an accusation against Jews in writing , where he also dropped an apron ( actual physical evidence)?

I just murdered Eddowes, here is her apron, and the Jews either did it or will get blamed anyway.
Does this mean that JtR admits to being Jewish? ( A Jewish witness refuses to testify against his own.

Was there a difference between Anglo Jewish perception and Immigrant Jews, especially the impoverished class of Polish Jews out of Prussia? Did the Anglo Jews consider themselves Englishman first? That appears to be the case.

DId the GSG message include Anglo Jews? Or just the Immigrants? The Authorities had no clue. No Englishman could commit such atrocities.

Hi Patrick,

The following passages struck a chord with me:

'I just murdered Eddowes, here is her apron, and the Jews either did it or will get blamed anyway.'

'No Englishman could commit such atrocities.'

I see a non-Jewish, literate man child playing a mind game with the victim's apron and the ambiguous chalked words, designed to be seen in the same moment and connected - as indeed they were at the time. Many modern minds see the juxtaposition as purely coincidental, which I struggle with. It wasn't typical of the average graffiti lout, and I've seen no evidence of similarly worded, neatly written messages appearing on other walls, and being removed for fear of riots.

It's like the man with the chalk is gloating, because he knows he can do whatever he likes and the local Jews will still get the blame anyway.

He wasn't wrong, was he?

Today, it might be some racist domestic abuser, writing on the wall of a former hotel adapted for asylum seekers: 'Don't look at us, we all know the real enemy is within.'

And he knows he will be cheered on by the hard of thinking.

Nothing changes much.

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Patrick,

The following passages struck a chord with me:

'I just murdered Eddowes, here is her apron, and the Jews either did it or will get blamed anyway.'

'No Englishman could commit such atrocities.'

I see a non-Jewish, literate man child playing a mind game with the victim's apron and the ambiguous chalked words, designed to be seen in the same moment and connected - as indeed they were at the time. Many modern minds see the juxtaposition as purely coincidental, which I struggle with. It wasn't typical of the average graffiti lout, and I've seen no evidence of similarly worded, neatly written messages appearing on other walls, and being removed for fear of riots.

It's like the man with the chalk is gloating, because he knows he can do whatever he likes and the local Jews will still get the blame anyway.

He wasn't wrong, was he?

Today, it might be some racist domestic abuser, writing on the wall of a former hotel adapted for asylum seekers: 'Don't look at us, we all know the real enemy is within.'

And he knows he will be cheered on by the hard of thinking.

Nothing changes much.

Love,

Caz
X

Thank you for the response Caz.

I think like most of us you try and understand the environment on the ground and one of the things I learned was that the Anglo Jews had become Anglicized to the point of resentment towards the mostly Polish immigrant Jews. It was reflected in the Jewish Chronicle and research from people like Feldman and Englander. The fear from the Anglo class was loss of gains within the English Society including Parliament. Rothschilds controlled the purse strings for Jews in Whitechapel.

i do not believe a Polish immigrant committed these murders. First of all the witnesses who describe a Jew ( all of them) either directly or by inferrance, do not describe a man with high cheekbones, large lips and wearing what amounted to rags. An impoverished look was a distinction that the Metro Police had come to recognize. Yiddish speaking was a huge problem for Metro and the result was the Metro Boys had to rely heavily on the Jewish Board of Guardians to translate disputes. The immigrant Jewish Class was tracked by Charles Booth with Edmund Reid in tow. The murders of these women coincides with the immigrant path east from Houndsditch.

I struggle with the thought that none of the eyewitnesses got it right. They all apparently saw a Jewish looking man wearing shabby gentile clothing, a sailor look or in the case of Hutchinson a man with an Astrahkan coat, jewelry and spats. They all had seemingly different hats. This would not match an impoverished immigrant speaking Yiddish or writing in English or heard speaking in English. It seems odd that Elizabeth Long would insert a look as foriegner had she not seen it. She didnt have to use the word but she apparently knew the distinction between inhabitants and appearance. The remaining witnesses appear to coincide more with Long than not.

The killer in my mind was a local Anglo Jew by default. His motive to implicate the Immigrant Jewish class was likely born out of something personal and the GSG, as it turns out, was focused in the Immigrant Class. ( Not an Englishman). It reflects the actual events on the ground. Also the witness testimony would be hard to completely write off in my opinion.

I exclude a gentile man because of witness testimony and location. Its not clear to me why a gentile man would kill gentile women and then write a message implicating Jews and drop an apron at a Jewish dwelling. Its possible but then you would have to throw all witness testimony out the windo. Eventhough the women were turning tricks in predominantly Jewish neighborhoods ( Booth).

Love you back
Patrick

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis- i first thought the message waa unclear until you realize the way it is written means basically the same thing no matter how you cut it..

If its an accusation- it means the Jews did it.
If its a statement if resignation- the Jews are going to be blamed no matter what..actually means the sane thing.

That said- one might ask why a Jewish person would implicate another Jewish person ( who refused to testify against a fellow Jew?)...that evidently happened.

What benefit would a non Jewish person get out of an accusation against Jews in writing , where he also dropped an apron ( actual physical evidence)?

I just murdered Eddowes, here is her apron, and the Jews either did it or will get blamed anyway.
Does this mean that JtR admits to being Jewish? ( A Jewish witness refuses to testify against his own.

Was there a difference between Anglo Jewish perception and Immigrant Jews, especially the impoverished class of Polish Jews out of Prussia? Did the Anglo Jews consider themselves Englishman first? That appears to be the case.

DId the GSG message include Anglo Jews? Or just the Immigrants? The Authorities had no clue. No Englishman could commit such atrocities.

I think that what you're saying here assumes that the Ripper wrote it, which is very possible, but I think far from a certainty.

When I get a chance, I'll try to make a point of posting a list of all of the things that the GSG could be interpreted to mean.

[John Wheat]

I think that what you're saying here assumes that the Ripper wrote it, which is very possible, but I think far from a certainty.

When I get a chance, I'll try to make a point of posting a list of all of the things that the GSG could be interpreted to mean.

I don't think the GSG gives any clues as to who Jack was if he did indeed write it which is of course far from certain.

[Tom_Wescott]

Warren seems to be acting on the very strong suggestion of Arnold, who already had a bucket and water ready upon the formers arrival. There is Police Code guidance under which Warren could act which would cover such a move if it be officially questioned. It wasn't.

In all honesty, the writing holds no weight as a 'clew', despite what Anderson states

And yet it's worth noting that Charles Warren - the man who ordered its removal - appears to have too believed it was written by the killer. Arnold isn't so forthright, but is curiously spotted search around Swallow Gardens a few years later checking to see if Coles' killer had left any scribblings. No soapy bucket that time. They'd learned from their mistakes. And erasing the writing before it could be photographed was a mistake.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

I don't think the GSG gives any clues as to who Jack was if he did indeed write it which is of course far from certain.

I don't either, except that there might be some suspects whose English wasn't good enough to have written it.

[John Wheat]

I don't either, except that there might be some suspects whose English wasn't good enough to have written it.

Good point Lewis C hadn't thought of that