From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.]

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.

[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.]

The GSG was obviously accusatory.

It could not have been pro-Jewish.

Well that settles that! Thanks for your input.

c.d.

[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?