writing on the wall

[milchmanuk]

Hi
this is out there with the rest,
i was re reading a thread here recently posted and was looking at the old 1888-89 map, behind Bucks row is a jews burial ground.
i thought of the writing on the wall,
"the juwes are not the men to be blamed"
it,s like old testament Passover, lamb blood above the door /Moses.
and my thought was a jew writing this living in the apartments there,
seeing the Whitechapel killings as a sort of scourge.
and denouncing there involvements as gods children ,

also while JtR was there was he also reading this in the dark.

[Scott Nelson]

It went "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed..." And yes, I agree a Jew living in the apartments there probably wrote it and JtR, if he took the time to notice it, read it in the dark.

[erobitha]

I tend to favour the City of London Police's transcription (D.C. Halse) who took it down before Warren showed up demanding it be washed off the wall. Halse wanted a photograph but Warren denied it and then the Met took five weeks to send their report to the Home Office. Warren never attended any other crime scene connected to the murders but this one.

This is Halse's version:

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."

Inverse the negatives and the positives in this statement and you will get a sentence that makes sense.

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for anything."

The Juwes mis-spelling was a redirect, an impression of ill education. Just like what we see in the Openshaw and From Hell Letters.

I have mentioned this already on my blog:

https://jayhartley.com/etched-in-chalk/

https://jayhartley.com/letters-from-hell/

[milchmanuk]

without a photo that was intended by some ,
we can not see if it was written legibly or scribbled by a kid or in haste after escaping panic rush to safety to savor deeds done.
i was looking at the map for route's perhaps taken.
i did have another disgusting thought about the piece of apron was used for after wiping he,s hands. well two that comes to mind but i dont want to be committed to mention them.

[Aethelwulf]

I tend to favour the City of London Police's transcription (D.C. Halse) who took it down before Warren showed up demanding it be washed off the wall. Halse wanted a photograph but Warren denied it and then the Met took five weeks to send their report to the Home Office. Warren never attended any other crime scene connected to the murders but this one.

This is Halse's version:

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."

Inverse the negatives and the positives in this statement and you will get a sentence that makes sense.

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for anything."

The Juwes mis-spelling was a redirect, an impression of ill education. Just like what we see in the Openshaw and From Hell Letters.

I have mentioned this already on my blog:

https://jayhartley.com/etched-in-chalk/

https://jayhartley.com/letters-from-hell/

i suspect you and i don't agree on much but I too see the From Hell and Openshaw being written by the same person. that is probably as far as any common ground goes as I see some entirely plausible similarities with Bury's hand. It was testified that he could write in several different hands. A minor detail - the Met version has 'blamed' with improper capitalisation (Blamed) - Bury does this, four times in his from ellen letter, usually on verbs as in blamed. He also does the rather odd joining of two words together as in 'i took' in from hell. The latter is, I think, the trait of a very fluent writer, which goes totally against much of From Hell. Bury's rather distinctive upper case D is also very similar to that used in Openshaw and not something I have been able to find elsewhere - by far the most common cursive style upper case D is that used in the Dear of Dear Boss.

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

The GSG's intended meaning has been discussed many times, and given the oddity of its construction, combined with the ambiguity of some of the phrasing, that's probably not surprising.

Personally, and due to how the phrase is used where I grew up in Eastern Canada, the "blamed for nothing" portion to me reads as "blamed without reason". As in, "I was blamed for nothing" means, as I used it as a kid "I was blamed despite doing nothing", which effectively is saying "I was blamed without reason". If that is the intended meaning, then interestingly both phrasings of the GSG end up at the same interpretation:

The Juewes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.
The Juewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.

Both are effectively saying that the Jews are to be blamed.

The first basically means "there are men that will be blamed for no reason, but the Jews are not those men" and the 2nd boils down to saying "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed without reason", so there is a reason to blame them.

I know there are other ways to read that final phrasing, but it is so engrained in my language that I find it hard not to read it this way and really have to work at recognizing that it can be read differently to that.

What I wonder, though, is whether or not the interpretation I have is reflective of some older usage that was common in the UK in the 1800s that has survived in Eastern Canada (which means it is worth considering with respect to the writer's intent of the GSG), or if it as usage that developed independently in Eastern Canada (in which case it is unlikely to apply to the GSG).

Interestingly, erobitha's interpretation of "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for anything.", has a similar, though slightly different, meaning, in that it could be saying that "The Jews are the men who will not accept the blame for anything", suggesting anti-Semitic views (as per the two above) although it could also be interpreted as meaning "The Jews are the men who are without blame" (hence they won't be blamed for anything), which would not be an anti-Semitic comment. I think to get to that last interpretation the writer has to be someone for whom English is not their first language, but that would make sense if the writer were a non-English as first language Jew, as was common in the area. On the other hand, the interpretation I've suggested and the first possible interpretation of erobitha's version implies the opposite, that the writer's first language is English, and they are using a common informal phrasing rather than formal English phrasing.

Sadly, it doesn't matter which interpretation I prefer because there are other interpretations that reasonably flow from the construction of the sentence. My own interpretation is just a subjective call based upon my own personal way of using similar language. But how I use it doesn't mean that is how the graffiti writer used it, hence the evidence is objectively ambiguous with regards to meaning.

Like so many things JtR, where you end up depends upon what assumptions one makes about what is objectively ambiguous evidence.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

The GSG's intended meaning has been discussed many times, and given the oddity of its construction, combined with the ambiguity of some of the phrasing, that's probably not surprising.

Personally, and due to how the phrase is used where I grew up in Eastern Canada, the "blamed for nothing" portion to me reads as "blamed without reason". As in, "I was blamed for nothing" means, as I used it as a kid "I was blamed despite doing nothing", which effectively is saying "I was blamed without reason". If that is the intended meaning, then interestingly both phrasings of the GSG end up at the same interpretation:

The Juewes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.
The Juewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.

Both are effectively saying that the Jews are to be blamed.

The first basically means "there are men that will be blamed for no reason, but the Jews are not those men" and the 2nd boils down to saying "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed without reason", so there is a reason to blame them.

I know there are other ways to read that final phrasing, but it is so engrained in my language that I find it hard not to read it this way and really have to work at recognizing that it can be read differently to that.

What I wonder, though, is whether or not the interpretation I have is reflective of some older usage that was common in the UK in the 1800s that has survived in Eastern Canada (which means it is worth considering with respect to the writer's intent of the GSG), or if it as usage that developed independently in Eastern Canada (in which case it is unlikely to apply to the GSG).

Interestingly, erobitha's interpretation of "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for anything.", has a similar, though slightly different, meaning, in that it could be saying that "The Jews are the men who will not accept the blame for anything", suggesting anti-Semitic views (as per the two above) although it could also be interpreted as meaning "The Jews are the men who are without blame" (hence they won't be blamed for anything), which would not be an anti-Semitic comment. I think to get to that last interpretation the writer has to be someone for whom English is not their first language, but that would make sense if the writer were a non-English as first language Jew, as was common in the area. On the other hand, the interpretation I've suggested and the first possible interpretation of erobitha's version implies the opposite, that the writer's first language is English, and they are using a common informal phrasing rather than formal English phrasing.

Sadly, it doesn't matter which interpretation I prefer because there are other interpretations that reasonably flow from the construction of the sentence. My own interpretation is just a subjective call based upon my own personal way of using similar language. But how I use it doesn't mean that is how the graffiti writer used it, hence the evidence is objectively ambiguous with regards to meaning.

Like so many things JtR, where you end up depends upon what assumptions one makes about what is objectively ambiguous evidence.

- Jeff

hi jeff
I remember an expert in victorian language said the most probable meaning was the jews wont take the blame for anything.
i agree, especially with what happened that night with the ripper being interupted by jews at both murder sites.

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
I remember an expert in victorian language said the most probable meaning was the jews wont take the blame for anything.
i agree, especially with what happened that night with the ripper being interupted by jews at both murder sites.

Hi Abby Normal,

I rather doubt the non-anti-Semitic version is intended, as I can't see that being a view one would post as graffiti in the first place. And, given the very similar underlying meanings of the other interpretations I suggested, they all do sort of boil down that basic idea, that "The Jews are to be blamed". To me, it seems less likely to be penned by JtR, though, if the intended meaning is that "The jews won't accept the blame for anything", because that's a self-contained dig at the Jewish community and doesn't require any further context for it to be an insult. The way I read it (and I admit, again, my reading could very well be wrong and simply reflect an Eastern Canadian thing that wouldn't apply to an East End Londoner of 1888), that "The Jews won't be blamed without reason" seems to suggest the writer has something specific in mind about what "the Jews" are supposed to be blamed for. That, to me, seems to fit with JtR as the author as JtR would have something specific in his head (the murders) that he knows about, and in haste, has simply overlooked the fact that his message doesn't clearly convey what the reason is why the Jews are to be blamed. It's forefront in his mind, and therefore would seem self evident to him (we are often unaware of how our words are ambiguous to someone who does not have access to all that his happening in our thoughts that we are trying to communicate). The leaving of the apron, though, would be a way of clarification - making sure the point was clear.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying the GSG had to have been written by JtR, because there is nothing that clearly links him to the message writing (there's no sign of blood on the wall near the message, for example). Moreover, if erobitha and the Victorian language expert's interpretation is to be preferred (which is probably wise), then the message is a wholly self-contained insult and it does not need to refer to the murders at all in order to be insulting; making the possibility of the apron placement being coincidental entirely reasonable to consider.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the police at the time had asked each of the residents “have you noticed any chalked writing in the doorway” surely this would have solved the problem of whether the killer wrote it or not? I can only assume that the police just assumed that it was written by the ripper so I wonder if they did ask the question and that every resident said that they hadn’t previously seen any writing?

[FISHY1118]

If the police at the time had asked each of the residents “have you noticed any chalked writing in the doorway” surely this would have solved the problem of whether the killer wrote it or not? I can only assume that the police just assumed that it was written by the ripper so I wonder if they did ask the question and that every resident said that they hadn’t previously seen any writing?

I believe the police did if fact question the residents about the writing, if indeed they had noticed it before that evening .

The thing that make me think it was the Ripper. is if it had been there previously, surely someone whom might have been offended by it would certainly have removed it, and that no one came forward to say it was there before that night in question.
Then there's the Apron.

[Wickerman]

It's as well to point out that not all Jews could read and write in English.

Typically, first generation immigrants only use their natural language, some will learn a few phrases of English sufficient to get by, but the younger Jewish kids who attend school are the most likely to learn to read and write in English.
Others may forget the troubles, the pogroms & massacre's the Jews had endured across Europe, why would they even care about some local mindless graffiti, they have tolerated much worse.

[c.d.]

I guess the question is whether we are interpreting the message simply as it is written or are we interpreting it in light of its connection to the apron?

By itself, a pro-Jewish interpretation is certainly reasonable - The Jews are tired of being blamed for things we didn't do.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

I believe the police did if fact question the residents about the writing, if indeed they had noticed it before that evening .

The thing that make me think it was the Ripper. is if it had been there previously, surely someone whom might have been offended by it would certainly have removed it, and that no one came forward to say it was there before that night in question.
Then there's the Apron.

hi fishy
exactly. its clearly a dig at jews, written in a very noticeable spot on a mostly jewish resident building. one of the residents would have surely and easily wiped it off if it had been there any length of time. one of the police said it looked fresh.
Its connected to the apron/murder from that night and PC long said it wasnt there earlier in the night.

it was written by the ripper and never saw the light of day.

[milchmanuk]

hi fishy
exactly. its clearly a dig at jews, written in a very noticeable spot on a mostly jewish resident building. one of the residents would have surely and easily wiped it off if it had been there any length of time. one of the police said it looked fresh.
Its connected to the apron/murder from that night and PC long said it wasnt there earlier in the night.

it was written by the ripper and never saw the light of day.

hi
so this means JtR is carrying chalk ? as well as perhaps a couple of blades.
i have wondered if scissors had been considered in cutting garments and such or already dismissed.
i have read of other graffiti written in chalk around the vicinity.
perhaps common then in London.?

[erobitha]

hi
so this means JtR is carrying chalk ? as well as perhaps a couple of blades.
i have wondered if scissors had been considered in cutting garments and such or already dismissed.
i have read of other graffiti written in chalk around the vicinity.
perhaps common then in London.?

There is good evidence to suggest it was written specifically using Talc or otherwise called ‘French Chalk’. It was commonly used amongst Tailors (and the rag trade in general) but it was also used in food by unscrupulous vendors to make things whiter - like bread.

Graffiti was common enough but it would have been far less cryptic than this. Who exactly was it for if it was not written by Jack? I do not believe the apron and graffiti to be found together as a coincidence.