From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The GSG was obviously accusatory.

It could not have been pro-Jewish.

[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]

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!

[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?

[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

[Aethelwulf]

Disparaging graffiti is found all over London today, no-one goes ballistic over it today any more than they would back then.

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Also, I'm not sure that "not be blamed for nothing" isn't a double-negative, certainly cockney speakers have always claimed it is.
On what basis would anyone claim it isn't?

I have always thought that the message had about the same meaning as: it is not for nothing that the Jews will be held responsible.

[Wickerman]

Sorry to digress, Jon, but, as you probably know, I was involved soon after I started posting comments here in a discussion about whether Kosminski could speak English.

As I pointed out the other day, the writer of the GSG appears, on the meagre evidence we have, to have had a better grasp than Kosminski had, as the former made no mistakes - even the claim that he used an incorrect double negative being debatable - whereas Kosminski said I goes instead of I go.

So what are the chances of Kosminski's having been able to write the GSG with the only spelling mistake being in the one word he would surely have been able to spell?

I am aware Kozminski could speak English, I'm not sure he could read English - are you?

I would agree the writer of the GSG was more capable at forming a sentence than Kozminski appeared to be, but I'm not sure where that gets us. I have not suggested Kozminski wrote the GSG.

Also, I'm not sure that "not be blamed for nothing" isn't a double-negative, certainly cockney speakers have always claimed it is.
On what basis would anyone claim it isn't?

[Wickerman]

Hi Abby.

hey wick
first of all the jews in that building were probably not in the lowest economic class meaning they probably had a modicum of education and intelligence and could read English....

And, you think that because?

...secondly, of course jews had endured much worse, but that dosnt mean they would just leave disparaging graffitti there.
thirdly, it would have taken nothing to simply rub it off once seen. whether it had anything to say about jews or not. why leave ANY graffiti there?

that grafitti never saw the light of day.

Disparaging graffiti is found all over London today, no-one goes ballistic over it today any more than they would back then.
If you let petty scribble bother you it becomes a sign of weakness - that is as true today as it has always been.

[c.d.]

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.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Much of your objection rests on an answer to the question - how many Jews could read English?
Literacy in Whitechapel was nothing like as high as today, sure everyone had to learn to speak English, but the ability to read was another question.

Of all peoples, Jews, world-wide, have had to tolerate more injustice than many other peoples, why on earth should a few lines of juvenile scribble cause them any concern.

No point in trying to make an issue seem more important than it was. Jews had tolerated much worse.

Sorry to digress, Jon, but, as you probably know, I was involved soon after I started posting comments here in a discussion about whether Kosminski could speak English.

As I pointed out the other day, the writer of the GSG appears, on the meagre evidence we have, to have had a better grasp than Kosminski had, as the former made no mistakes - even the claim that he used an incorrect double negative being debatable - whereas Kosminski said I goes instead of I go.

So what are the chances of Kosminski's having been able to write the GSG with the only spelling mistake being in the one word he would surely have been able to spell?

[Aethelwulf]

hey wick
first of all the jews in that building were probably not in the lowest economic class meaning they probably had a modicum of education and intelligence and could read English.
secondly, of course jews had endured much worse, but that dosnt mean they would just leave disparaging graffitti there.
thirdly, it would have taken nothing to simply rub it off once seen. whether it had anything to say about jews or not. why leave ANY graffiti there?

that grafitti never saw the light of day.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Much of your objection rests on an answer to the question - how many Jews could read English?
Literacy in Whitechapel was nothing like as high as today, sure everyone had to learn to speak English, but the ability to read was another question.

Of all peoples, Jews, world-wide, have had to tolerate more injustice than many other peoples, why on earth should a few lines of juvenile scribble cause them any concern.

No point in trying to make an issue seem more important than it was. Jews had tolerated much worse.

hey wick
first of all the jews in that building were probably not in the lowest economic class meaning they probably had a modicum of education and intelligence and could read English.
secondly, of course jews had endured much worse, but that dosnt mean they would just leave disparaging graffitti there.
thirdly, it would have taken nothing to simply rub it off once seen. whether it had anything to say about jews or not. why leave ANY graffiti there?

that grafitti never saw the light of day.

[Sunny Delight]

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

Where is the evidence that such graffiti were ever tolerated by Jewish residents of the area?

How long do you think the graffito had been there?

The apron must have been left there between about 1.50 and 2.50 a.m.

Do you think the residents went to bed and decided to leave a nice message about them on their front door overnight?

- I don't know. The first thing would be to try to discern how many in the building could read English fluently. Then you would have to discern how big the writing was. Was it very noticeable? Not too mention it is quite long- how many could be bothered to read it? We do not know the answers.

- Where is the evidence such graffitti was NOT tolerated by residents of the area? Plus see my previous answer.

- Agreed. My own opinion is that it was around 1:50-1:55am.

- Sorry I don't follow this last point. What are you referring too?

[Wickerman]

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

Where is the evidence that such graffiti were ever tolerated by Jewish residents of the area?

How long do you think the graffito had been there?

The apron must have been left there between about 1.50 and 2.50 a.m.

Do you think the residents went to bed and decided to leave a nice message about them on their front door overnight?

Much of your objection rests on an answer to the question - how many Jews could read English?
Literacy in Whitechapel was nothing like as high as today, sure everyone had to learn to speak English, but the ability to read was another question.

Of all peoples, Jews, world-wide, have had to tolerate more injustice than many other peoples, why on earth should a few lines of juvenile scribble cause them any concern.

No point in trying to make an issue seem more important than it was. Jews had tolerated much worse.