Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes
My original point was that you would have thought it likely, though not impossible of course, that someone who could spell 'nothing' and 'blamed' could be expected to spell 'jews' correctly. Therefore could the mis-spelling have been deliberate? Of course, it might not have been. But because I believe that on most occasions someone being able to spell the two longer words would be equally able to spell the shorter one I think that it's at least possible that the mid-spelling was intentional. If it was, then why?
If we dismiss the Masonic connection, and I do, all that I can think of is either that it was meant as insulting or dismissive of Jews, or that it was mis-spelt intentionally for another reason. The only one that I can come up with is to give the impression of being less educated than he actually was.
I've seen even reasonably educated people make errors with simple words, such as using "to" when they mean "too." In fact, I'm prone to the odd spelling mistake myself, particularly if I'm writing quickly, although these days I can usually pass it off as a predictive text error!
It's possible that he was trying to present himself as less educated, but then why spell the other words correctly? And exactly how much of an advantage would that have given him? I mean, I'm sure the police wouldn't have excluded an educated suspect simply on the basis of the GSG.
It should also be remembered that Whitechapel was home to a sizeable immigrant population. We cannot therefore assume that English was the first language of the author.