From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Darryl Kenyon]

How long do you think anti-Jewish graffito chalked on the entrance to a building inhabited by Jews would have remained intact?

But how do we know the message was anti-Jewish? No one can be certain about that. And a pro-Jewish interpretation is by no means unreasonable.

c.d.

Exactly CD . I remember watching a documentary on JTR were it was suggested a Jew wrote the GSG lashing out at the world for perceived injustices.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Some police officers wanted the graffito to remain in place until it could be photographed, with the apron piece presumably having been removed.

Yet Warren and Arnold were adamant that even in the absence of the bloodstained apron piece, to have left the writing in place would have risked a pogrom.

What are the chances, then, of the Jewish population allowing such a message to be left at the entrance to their homes during the autumn of terror?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

But how do we know the message was anti-Jewish? No one can be certain about that. And a pro-Jewish interpretation is by no means unreasonable.

c.d.

Exactly CD . I remember watching a documentary on JTR were it was suggested a Jew wrote the GSG lashing out at the world for perceived injustices.

Regards Darryl


I suppose Warren and Arnold got it wrong.

I suppose they could have left the message safely intact and pogromists passing by would, upon seeing the message, have exclaimed: Ah, there's another pro-Jewish graffito.

One sees them all over Whitechapel!

[c.d.]

Assuming that neither Warren or Arnold actually wrote the GSG themselves they were simply expressing their belief as to what it meant. So it is an opinion not a fact.

The GSG is ambiguous and thus can be interpreted as anti-Jewish. Removing it was done out of an abundance of caution. Removing it in no way tells us what the author meant by it.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The GSG was obviously accusatory.

It could not have been pro-Jewish.

[c.d.]

The GSG was obviously accusatory.

It could not have been pro-Jewish.

Well that settles that! Thanks for your input.

c.d.

[Aethelwulf]

The GSG was obviously accusatory.

It could not have been pro-Jewish.

Although you've been spouting torrents of nonsense elsewhere, I will agree with you here. For the sake of compromise though I would alter 'could not have been pro-Jewish' to 'unlikely to have been'.

[c.d.]

Although you've been spouting torrents of nonsense elsewhere, I will agree with you here. For the sake of compromise though I would alter 'could not have been pro-Jewish' to 'unlikely to have been'.

Yes, exactly. The difference between stating a fact and stating an opinion.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

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

(WHITECHAPEL MURDERER)


The Jews are to blame for each German soldier who falls in this war.

The Jews are the enemy's agents among us.

The Jews are responsible for the war.

(JOSEPH GOEBBELS)

[c.d.]

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

(WHITECHAPEL MURDERER)


The Jews are to blame for each German soldier who falls in this war.

The Jews are the enemy's agents among us.

The Jews are responsible for the war.

(JOSEPH GOEBBELS)

To quote Manuel from Fawlty Towers, "que"?

Sorry, but this tells us nothing about the GSG and is a complete non sequitur unless you think Goebbels wrote the GSG.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

To quote Manuel from Fawlty Towers, "que"?

Sorry, but this tells us nothing about the GSG and is a complete non sequitur unless you think Goebbels wrote the GSG.

c.d.

I didn't make any non-sequitur.

[Abby Normal]

Yes agree. I've never been convinced by any of the arguments the ripper didn't write the GSG. If Long managed to notice it in the middle of the night, someone would have seen it and probably removed it if it'd been there already (e.g. written the day(s) before). The other alternative is that someone wrote it that night and the ripper just happened to pick that spot to drop the apron, and that just sounds too far fetched. Given Schwartz and the Lipski comment, I just can't see GSG and apron as unrelated.

bingo wulf. added to that lawende and co later at Mitre square and the ripper was probably doubly pissed off.

[Abby Normal]

That's a poor analogy though. How much modern graffiti has a piece of clothing from a murder victim dumped near it? The GSG is message that can be interpreted as connected to the lipski incident earlier that night.

I don't buy your theory of people today not being bothered either. No one is going to be bothered about graffiti saying something like 'wick woz ere '23', but something that could be taken as racist is another matter and most likely someone would clean it.

plus today its spray painted and hard to remove, unlike the chalk GSG

[Aethelwulf]

bingo wulf. added to that lawende and co later at Mitre square and the ripper was probably doubly pissed off.

Yes that too. I reckon JtR already had some petty grievance (real or imagined) against the Jewish community (maybe along the lines of 'why are they doing better than me' in a racist context). Schwartz and Lawende reminded him of his prejudice.

[c.d.]

bingo wulf. added to that lawende and co later at Mitre square and the ripper was probably doubly pissed off.

Except that we have absolutely zero evidence that the Ripper was aware that Lawende was looking at him. And why would he be upset by that? I would expect any couple on the street at that time to get extra scrutiny. And he didn't let a glancing look interfere with his plans.

c.d.