From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

If the GSG referred to anything I believe it could only have been the Berner Street Club, plastered as it was outside in Hebrew literature. The point of leaving Eddowe's apron beneath the writing was to connect the two crimes. He was concerned he wouldn't get credit for Stride due to the lack of mutilation. He needn't have worried, as it turns out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

This may be a dumb question because the answer may be obvious, but I'm sure there may be more than one opinion on this and I'm interested
to the hear them all:

Why did Crawford spend so much time establishing the actual spelling of the second word (the "J" word") of the writing on the wall?

Martyn

More like 'attempting' to establish it, since they were never able to reach a consensus. He must have been as perplexed as we are as to why no two people could read that sentence or remember it the same way, and the second word is the crux of the whole thing. If it even was a word, that is. We'll never know thanks to the "abundance of caution" on display that night. Man, I wish I had a photograph of that writing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.

That's what Anderson said, too, about the Ripper writing the GSG.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So let me make sure I understand your position. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, who was not born until 1897, is your go-to guy for how we should interpret the GSG?

You lost the argument comprehensively and if you insist, I'll reproduce it here so any interested readers can see for themselves.

Please do, I would like to see what our fellow posters have to say.

c.d.

sure as shooting the other side (the Jews) fired back and and there was pro Jewish sentiment expressed as well in the graffiti in Whitechapel. That is just human nature.

... do you think Jewish people simply read it and said damn that is insulting and demeaning but hey what can I do about it? Or is it reasonable to expect that they defended themselves when all that took was a piece of chalk, a minute of their time with no risk of being punched because they were anonymous?

And finally, just look at these boards, do most posters accept what they think are cheap shots and snotty remarks without firing back in kind. It's human nature, buddy.

(c.d., # 350 & # 384, Jack's Escape Route?)



Your analogy is not a valid one.

What was happening in Whitechapel was not a case of two rival groups.

It was a case of anti-Semitism - of prejudice on the part of many local people against Jews.

There were reports of anti-Jewish graffiti but not of anti-Christian graffiti.

Men marched down Hanbury Street, chanting 'Down with the Jews!'

Jews did not march down Petticoat Lane, chanting 'Down with the gentiles!'

In the cases of Chapman and Kelly, witnesses described Jewish supposed-suspects.

In the case of the assault on Stride, a well-known anti-Jewish insult was shouted at the witness, who was of Jewish appearance.

Neither of the two Jewish witnesses, Schwartz and Lawende, stated that the suspect was of gentile appearance, although both suspects obviously were gentiles.

There were graffiti accusing the Jews of involvement in the murders.

There were no graffiti accusing the gentiles of involvement in the murders.

Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren were worried that there would be an anti-Jewish pogrom.

The police were not worried that there would be an anti-gentile pogrom.

You are making an invalid comparison and there is no evidence to back up what you are suggesting happened.

(PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR, # 389)



Just common sense, experience and an understanding of human nature. I didn't expect you to agree but that is fine. That is what these boards are for.

(c.d., # 391)

[c.d.]

So let me make sure I understand your position. Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, who was not born until 1897, is your go-to guy for how we should interpret the GSG?

You lost the argument comprehensively and if you insist, I'll reproduce it here so any interested readers can see for themselves.

Please do, I would like to see what our fellow posters have to say.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What Goebbels had to say about Jews is completely irrelevant to the GSG unless he himself wrote it.

I lost the argument only in your own mind not the real world.

You seem to have a real problem in equating your opinion with an established fact. You have been criticized for this numerous times by various posters, am I right?

What Goebbels said is not irrelevant - because the GSG is part of a long tradition of blaming Jews for acts they had not committed.

It seems you don't have any such problem as the one you say I have.

You can state that something is completely irrelevant and that is somehow not an opinion.

Somehow, when you state it, it becomes an established fact.

You lost the argument comprehensively and if you insist, I'll reproduce it here so any interested readers can see for themselves.

[c.d.]

What Goebbels had to say about Jews is completely irrelevant to the GSG unless he himself wrote it.

I lost the argument only in your own mind not the real world.

You seem to have a real problem in equating your opinion with an established fact. You have been criticized for this numerous times by various posters, am I right?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As I pointed out before, there is a very long (and continuing) and disreputable tradition of blaming Jews for everything, including the Black Death, both World Wars, 9/11, and Covid-19.

I gave three examples of Goebbels playing that game and their similarities to the Whitechapel Murderer's effort are striking, including the use of the double definite article.

Anyone can take a look at our friendly argument about alleged Jewish retaliatory graffiti in the East End and see that you did lose it.

I am merely stating a definitely ascertained fact.

[c.d.]

As I argued before, there is no reason to suppose that Jews tolerated anti-Jewish graffiti chalked at the entrances to their dwellings.

If they did do so during the autumn of terror, why would Warren and Arnold have thought that the removal of such graffiti needed to be done urgently in this case?

c.d. suggested previously that there were retaliatory pro-Jewish graffiti and I believe I comprehensively demolished the idea.

Again, you are assuming that the GSG is anti-Jewish but unless you yourself wrote it that is just your opinion. The same goes for Warren and Arnold. Done out of an abundance of caution. That tells us nothing about the GSG. They may have thought Queen Victoria wrote it but again just their opinion. Not an established fact no matter how often you reference them.

You "comprehensively demolished the idea"? I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you have never lost an argument. Am I right? Demolished it in your own mind or some sort of Superman Bizzaro World but not in the same world as the rest of us mere mortals who post on Caseboook inhabit.

c.d.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

And if we argue that he was interrupted in the mutilation the person most likely to have done this was Diemschultz who was Jewish, but since Dutfield's yard was pitch black more or less, the assailant would hardly notice this, if indeed he saw Diemschultz at all.

I think it is generally accepted that it is likely that Diemschutz did interrupt the murderer.


As for Mitre sq the three Jewish gentlemen certainly [ again ] didn't stop the murder nor the mutilation . If anyone interrupted the ripper there it would be PC Watkin.

Surely Harvey is much more likely to have disturbed him.


As for the apron being found near some graffiti mentioning the Jews, and it being a big coincidence if not connected. The area had its fair share of Jews and predominantly Jewish buildings. How do we know there wasn't other scrawlings on walls for or against the Jews further up the street say ?
I believe Walter Dew mentioned something like this .


As I argued before, there is no reason to suppose that Jews tolerated anti-Jewish graffiti chalked at the entrances to their dwellings.

If they did do so during the autumn of terror, why would Warren and Arnold have thought that the removal of such graffiti needed to be done urgently in this case?

c.d. suggested previously that there were retaliatory pro-Jewish graffiti and I believe I comprehensively demolished the idea.

[c.d.]

Schwartz was only guilty of walking down the street. He did not attempt to interfere in what he saw. Now if it had been a group of Catholic church goers parading with an image of a saint I could see some sort of connection to being Catholic. But what did being Jewish have to do with simply walking down the street?

c.d.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Neither Schwartz nor Lawende interrupted the ripper . If Schwartz is 100% accurate in what he saw it didn't stop the killer murdering Liz. And if we argue that he was interrupted in the mutilation the person most likely to have done this was Diemschultz who was Jewish, but since Dutfield's yard was pitch black more or less, the assailant would hardly notice this, if indeed he saw Diemschultz at all. As for Mitre sq the three Jewish gentlemen certainly [ again ] didn't stop the murder nor the mutilation . If anyone interrupted the ripper there it would be PC Watkin.

As for the apron being found near some graffiti mentioning the Jews, and it being a big coincidence if not connected. The area had its fair share of Jews and predominantly Jewish buildings. How do we know there wasn't other scrawlings on walls for or against the Jews further up the street say ?
I believe Walter Dew mentioned something like this .

Regards Darryl

[Sunny Delight]

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

That is hindsight. The killer could not have known that night that 3 men passing by as he spoke with Eddowes were Jews nor that they had anything significant to offer. So being pissed off at that seems a ridiculous notion.

[mpriestnall]

This may be a dumb question because the answer may be obvious, but I'm sure there may be more than one opinion on this and I'm interested
to the hear them all:

Why did Crawford spend so much time establishing the actual spelling of the second word (the "J" word") of the writing on the wall?

Martyn

[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.