Kate's Apron

[GBinOz]

Perhaps I am overthinking this, but two bricks is not a large canvas, not to mention the recesses between bricks would've made it even harder to write legibly in such a small hand. I'd love to see someone recreate the graffito but most of the ones I've seen aren't to scale.

Hi Harry,

The recreation that you suggest has been done. Here is the dissertation:
https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...ffthewall.html

Cheers, George

[Harry D]

I would imagine that it's easier than removing a kidney in the dark though.

the dude was removing internal organs in the dark Harry

Point taken

However, I think that for a killer with some rough anatomical knowledge, he would've relied a lot on instinct to perform the snatch & grabs under time pressure. The organs weren't removed with surgical precision according to the contemporary medicos.

Perhaps I am overthinking this, but two bricks is not a large canvas, not to mention the recesses between bricks would've made it even harder to write legibly in such a small hand. I'd love to see someone recreate the graffito but most of the ones I've seen aren't to scale.

[Varqm]

Yeah, they won't be blamed for "nothing" ie they will be blamed for "something".

I just always hear it in my mind with a cockney accent!

So,

The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing

The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for something?

or

The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing

The Juwes are the men who will be blamed for something?

[Ms Diddles]

here in the states it goes like this:

cop: did you kill that woman?

criminal: i didnt do sh1t !

cop: so you admit it!

heehee

........ .BANG! ???

Sorry! In poor taste!

[Mark J D]

The IWMES will not be blamed for Nothing.

It seems almost impossible to me that this interpretation could be 'a coincidence'...

M.

[Abby Normal]

Personally, I'd always interpreted it the same way as Abby (ie the Jews won't take the blame for anything).

The double negative makes it sound like the writer was just writing as they spoke.

I'd almost have expected it to be something like "....wot won't be blamed for nuffink", however the writer evidently had enough knowledge of spelling and grammar to avoid that.

Your alternative interpretation works too though now I've wrapped my head around it.

Interesting!

here in the states it goes like this:

cop: did you kill that woman?

criminal: i didnt do sh1t !

cop: so you admit it!

heehee

[c.d.]

I have always thought that a quite reasonable interpretation could be "The Jews are tired of always being blamed for things we didn't do." Of course, this would indicate that it was written by a Jew. But if you have a neighborhood with anti-Jewish graffiti you can pretty much expect the other side to fire back. You see the same thing today.

c.d.

[Ms Diddles]

I agree. and even if its as scott says it really dosnt change the meaning or intent-the jews should be blamed.

Yeah, they won't be blamed for "nothing" ie they will be blamed for "something".

I just always hear it in my mind with a cockney accent!

[DJA]

The IWMES will not be blamed for Nothing.

[Abby Normal]

Personally, I'd always interpreted it the same way as Abby (ie the Jews won't take the blame for anything).

The double negative makes it sound like the writer was just writing as they spoke.

I'd almost have expected it to be something like "....wot won't be blamed for nuffink", however the writer evidently had enough knowledge of spelling and grammar to avoid that.

Your alternative interpretation works too though now I've wrapped my head around it.

Interesting!

I agree. and even if its as scott says it really dosnt change the meaning or intent-the jews should be blamed.

[Ms Diddles]

No - double negative, written out, not spoken -- means the Jews will be blamed for something.

Personally, I'd always interpreted it the same way as Abby (ie the Jews won't take the blame for anything).

The double negative makes it sound like the writer was just writing as they spoke.

I'd almost have expected it to be something like "....wot won't be blamed for nuffink", however the writer evidently had enough knowledge of spelling and grammar to avoid that.

Your alternative interpretation works too though now I've wrapped my head around it.

Interesting!

[Scott Nelson]

No - double negative, written out, not spoken -- means the Jews will be blamed for something.

[Abby Normal]

Was it cursive? - I got the impression it was printed lower case (schoolboy style), but I can't find a reference either way at the moment. The semi darkness could be solved with a match, but it's hard to know how much light there was at the particular spot - white on black from twelve inches is visible even in quite low light. I would imagine there would be more light on the jamb than the inner wall. And how difficult it was to write on the brick would depend on the roughness of the brick's surface. Any imperfections could certainly make legibility harder.

I would imagine that it's easier than removing a kidney in the dark though.

With reference to your earlier point, 'Jewes' was a common spelling used in the period, therefore it I think it probably was the written/intended word. But are they 'the men' or are they 'not the men'? and will they be blamed or not? And 'nothing' means 'anything' right?

All the best.

hi Greenway

The juwes are the men that wont be blamed for nothing. Cockney for-they wont take the blame for anything

[Abby Normal]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?

the dude was removing internal organs in the dark Harry

[Greenway]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?

Was it cursive? - I got the impression it was printed lower case (schoolboy style), but I can't find a reference either way at the moment. The semi darkness could be solved with a match, but it's hard to know how much light there was at the particular spot - white on black from twelve inches is visible even in quite low light. I would imagine there would be more light on the jamb than the inner wall. And how difficult it was to write on the brick would depend on the roughness of the brick's surface. Any imperfections could certainly make legibility harder.

I would imagine that it's easier than removing a kidney in the dark though.

With reference to your earlier point, 'Jewes' was a common spelling used in the period, therefore it I think it probably was the written/intended word. But are they 'the men' or are they 'not the men'? and will they be blamed or not? And 'nothing' means 'anything' right?

All the best.