|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 305
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:26 am: | 
|
It just dawned on me that in all the issues that have ever been raised about the GSG, nobody has ever asked what there was to blame anybody about. The murders? Thats the obvious answer and probably because most of us think like normal people thats the assumption we'd make. But is that how a psychopath thinks? I'm not a psychologist or a profiler, but I have read Douglas and Ressler. The impression I get is that a psychopath is monumentally self centered. A child is run over in the street in front of him and he is royally upset because someone stepped on his foot in the commotion. If Jack wrote the GSG, and if he was a psychopath (both issues that have been hotly debated for years) then whether the Jewes were to be blamed, not blamed, for something, or for nothing, you can be sure that the blameable action had nothing to do with the deaths of four prostitutes, but with some inconvenience or problem suffered by Jack. When a psychopath admits to wrongdoing it usually is with the caveat that it was someone elses fault. They made him do it. This lends more credence possibly to the GSG's genuineness, because what the author seems to be saying is, "I am very annoyed that I was interrupted by Louis Diemschutz. The fact that I killed Eddowes is all his fault." |
Malta Joe
Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 42
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Hello Diana,
I was discussing the GSG with my family just a month ago, and I was stressing to them that it was the ending of the verse "Blamed for Nothing" which attempts to expose its meaning. I told them we're talking about a vindictive psychopath who feels he was accused of things earlier in his life. Accusations to which he is incapable of responding to with any expressions of guilt nor regret. Well, just this morning a family member of mine read your August thread and brought my attention to it by saying, "Ha! That Diana conceived this theory over two months BEFORE you had claimed it to be your brain-child, Joe! That's why she is an Inspector and you'll never be anything more than a puny sergeant!!!" I got to hand it to my family. Whenever they think I'm drowning, they sure know how to push my head all the way under the surface!
But really, I think you've hit the nail right on the head with your comments. The man who I suspect as having been the Ripper utilized ambiguity in his poetic verses for decades. The GSG is very ambiguous, but I believe it has always been the policy of this killer to have his self-perceived innocence showcased in public writing. (Whether it be in a newspaper, on an outdoor wall in a slum, or in a published pamphlet.)
There are many examples that I can use, but the one which exemplifies his usage of ambiguous poetry to exonerate himself was written in his third autobiography. He responded to the newspaper accusations concerning his role in the Whitechapel murders by retorting,
Cease, viper, you bite against a file."
Like the GSG, you have to pause a bit to understand what this message could mean. Is he telling the press to quit wasting time by trying to convict me? It'd be like a snake trying to insert venom into a steel file. Then the ambiguity creeps in because the word "file" in 19th century British slang also means a devilishly crafty scoundrel. All of a sudden, the verse turns into a George Lusk type of taunt. "Give it up. Don't even think about catching a clever rascal like me." I'm very glad you posted your thoughts on this, Diana. I can see the points that you are trying to make.
Malta Joe |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2281
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 - 7:51 pm: |
|
Interesting subject, but I seriously doubt that Jack the Ripper was a psychopath, and I certainly don't believe he communicated with or was especially interested in the press (if he indeed was a psychopath, he would have been, I agree on that).
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 352
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 17, 2004 - 11:12 am: |
|
My point was that if (and it is a very big if) Jack wrote the GSG he was blaming the Jews for some real or imagined slight or inconvenience done to him. He did not care one whit about the death of 4 human beings. If a psychopath murders a child, he will not care about the child, but he may be very upset that his best shirt got bloodstained and torn in the process. Therefore we have to forget our biases which would be based on societal norms (for most of us) when we interpret the GSG. Jack is not blaming the Jews for the death of four human beings, he is blaming them for some unknown irritation or inconvenience caused to him.
The only sense in which the murders would tie in at all would be in terms of the old cliche: There now! See what you made me do?
If you hadn't done XYZ to me, I never would have been driven to this. When forced to accept responsibility, it is my understanding that they usually put the blame on someone else.
In considering what inconvenience or irritation might have been caused to Jack by a Jewish person which he would have used as an excuse to kill Eddowes, I am drawn immediately to the interruption of his crime with Stride by Louis Deimschutz. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 5:41 am: |
|
Hi Diana,
And if he also saw the three Jews approaching when he was standing with Eddowes, imagine his annoyance at the thought that his fun might be spoiled for the second time that night by such men - and the triumph he would have felt afterwards when he had succeeded, despite their unwelcome intrusions.
It was like he was marking the Jews' territory with the soiled apron piece, as proof of his victory over them.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Malta Joe
Sergeant
Username: Malta
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hello Diana,
I'm glad you explained it more thoroughly, and I think I've got it straight now. You feel that the approach which has yet to be explored is to look at the author of the graphito as a man who perceived he had been previously injured or disturbed by the Jews. As a result, he isn't accepting responsibility for his London crimes, but instead may be directing the blame on the people he thought did him wrong. (e.g. Diemschutz.) I found your last posting to be a thought-provoking read. That certainly is a novel way of looking at it, and I'll remember it.
Your original posting came across to me as if you had identified the author as being a hugely self centered individual who was using the GSG as a denial of his accountability. That lit me up because I had been discussing this exact same theory with my family recently, and it initially sounded to us like you + I were on the same page. To me, the GSG author was a man who felt he had been falsely accused in his past, and the focus of this graphito deserves to be concentrated on his "Blamed for Nothing" grand finale. Whatever point he was trying to get across, it should be agreed that he deliberately chose to cloak his mysterious message in a sick poetic verse which contained multiple meanings. That is why I made references to Dr. Tumblety for he was a man who constantly shifted the blame for his guilt all of his life, and I've already spoken of his usage of ambiguous poetry to taunt his rivals. I am glad to have heard your opinion + Glenn + Caz's opinions as well on this.
For those who are interested in the current Tumblety research. I've received a phone call this morning from Washington DC. A specific Pinkerton Detective Agency's Container Box will be opened inside the Library of Congress tomorrow afternoon. I know a lot of us have been waiting on this for a long time. I should be able to post the win or lose result on a Tumblety thread by Sunday night. I've sent a few people to the LOC to purposely look into this Container Box, and I feel we have a honest shot at obtaining new info on Tumblety on Friday. |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2300
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Hi Malta Joe,
"For those who are interested in the current Tumblety research. I've received a phone call this morning from Washington DC. A specific Pinkerton Detective Agency's Container Box will be opened inside the Library of Congress tomorrow afternoon. I know a lot of us have been waiting on this for a long time. I should be able to post the win or lose result on a Tumblety thread by Sunday night. I've sent a few people to the LOC to purposely look into this Container Box, and I feel we have a honest shot at obtaining new info on Tumblety on Friday."
Wow, that's interesting stuff. I hope Stewart Evans knows about that as well -- not that he's stressing a certain suspect anymore, but still...
I certainly look forward to that, Joe.
All the best
G, Sweden
"Want to buy some pegs, Dave?"
Papa Lazarou
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 354
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 18, 2004 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Cant wait to hear the results. Thanks, Joe |
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 137
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 7:05 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I admit I am very confused about the meaning of this phrase:
"The Juwes are The men That Will not be Blamed for nothing."
To be honest, I do not even comrehend the traditional "reading" that this somehow is meant to cast blame on the Jews.
If I am correct, the double negative form was in common slang usage during this period, and thus the phrase should actually be interpreted as a single negative. For example:
"The Juwes are The men That Will be Blamed for nothing."
Additionally, this phrase is also confusing because of the word "will". How should this be interpreted? The word "will" is commonly used in a variety of forms in English, but we mainly focus only on the baser forms that would have been used by the people of somewhat limited literacy skills, of lower class, etc.
The word may be used in describing a characteristic of something, as in "this car will do 100MPH". Read as such, the phrase would mean "The Jews are never blamed for anything".
Will may also be used in "command" form, as in "you will speak to no one about this!" Read as such, the phrase becomes an imperative command: "You had better not blame the Jews for anything"
A third less likely interpretation can be gleaned by considering the future form of "will", as in "I will be famous some day". In this sense, the sentence takes on a sort of dreamlike quality. In fact, it seems to express a wish on the part of the author, or a premonition: "The Jews will in the future not be blamed for anything."
Thus I do not think it is clear that the meaning of this phrase is to cast blame on the Jews. My initial instinct is to interpret in quite the opposite fashion, as in "dont you dare blame the Jews for anything". In this reading, it seems most similar to the way a serial killer's mind works. Issuing an order, and at the same time asserting an almost God-like sense of control that is indicative of an overinflated ego, a sense of unlimited power and control over one's surroundings.
Also, it is vague, as Diana points out, what is meant by "nothing". This is most likely referring to the crime series itself (assuming JTR wrote the GSG).
Thus we can read this as: "You will not (dare) to blame the Jews for these crimes".
In my opinion, either the "command" form or the "characteristic" form of the word "will" is the proper interpretation based on the level of literacy indicated by the writing style.
But, If my reasoning is way off base here someone please correct me.
Rob |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 8:50 pm: |
|
Hi Robert
Read it to mean that it is saying the Jews will be blamed for something. And the double negative was not just an expression of the era of the murders but it is still used down to our day as well, possibly not as commonly, but it does occur in conversation and literature occasionally.
From American Heritage® Book of English Usage:
double negative equals a positive. It is a truism of traditional grammar that double negatives combine to form an affirmative. Readers coming across a sentence like He cannot do nothing will therefore interpret it as an affirmative statement meaning “He must do something”
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:
Double negative
A double negative occurs when two or more ways to express negation are used in the same sentence.
In the film "Mary Poppins", Dick Van Dyke uses a double negative when he says
If you don't want to go nowhere.
Other examples of double negatives include:
Don't nobody go to the store.
or
I can't hardly wait.
Double negative also refers to even more than two negatives, like:
And don't nobody buy nothing.
Today, the double negative is often considered the mark of an uneducated speaker, but it used to be quite common in English, even in literature.
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 336
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Christopher,
Yes, in the mind of the literate a double negative may well equal a positive, but when most perps complain "I don't know nothing" they mean "I don't know anything." They ain't bound by no rules of grammar. So, did the writer of the graffito not know grammar or did he and was using the two negatives to produce a positive? For that matter, if the writer were JtR and in something of an understandable hurry, did he simply not realize he had already used one negative in his sentence? That last happens to me sometimes when writing a post, something I usually catch to my chagrin while editing.
Don. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 162
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 10:30 pm: |
|
Dear Don....You have touched on an aspect of this GSG that is intriguing...the convolution of the message. It says the Juwes/Juives [ take your pick ] are to blame....for something.
Chris adds some of the common usages of the double negative,which are part of daily life to this day....for example:
Yo Don...not for nothin',but I wouldn't want nothin' to happen to you for me not tellin' you nothin' about your nowhere girlfriend !!"
I am,in my East Coast way,telling you to watch out for that woman,Mr.Souden ! Word up ! She ain't kosher.
Its hard to imagine a Jew performing what is called selbsthass or "self-hate" on a wall/door jamb in this way,especially considering if it wasn't removed before Long saw it. Its magic word "Juwes/Juives" would have had any responsible person wiping it off or doing his or her best to do so... The Wentworth M.D. was a predominantly Ashkenazim Jew enclave,as Ms.Severn pointed out in a thread somewhere around these here parts......Sort of like an Irish guy writing "Death to the Micks !" on an all Irish apartment building wall...or "Niggers Stink" on a housing project in the Badlands of Philly,by the hand of an African-American. Not likely.
I can't see any immigrant using English like that to state a message like this. It looks like and was written like it was fabricated by a non-immigrant character [ READ: JTR ]. Thats just my two cents worth.. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 2:38 am: |
|
Hi Howard and Donald
The key here might be that the inscription was written in "a schoolboy's round hand" per P.C. Halse which would indicate an education. Although the graffito is often discounted as having been left by the murderer, could it have been the same gameplayer who wrote the Lusk letter, posing in that communiqué as an Irishman but in the graffito as a Cockney, vide also the gamesmanship of the Openshaw letter where the writer uses mock Cockney expressions.
Thomas Wescott and I think the Lusk and Openshaw letters might have a common author, and that the author was possibly D'Onston. The handwriting in both could be said to be a round schoolboy's hand, a style thus possibly similar to that used to write the graffito.
There is also the matter of the very high dot over the "i" in D'Onston's correspondence and in those two "Ripper" letters, and the way he crosses his "t" high up sometimes that could be taken to be a capital "T", an oddity of the graffito also.
In his December 1 article in the Pall Mall Gazette in which D'Onston astonishingly says the inscription was on the wall of Mitre Square above the murdered Eddowes, he speaks of the police perhaps missing the dot over what he interpreted to be the French word "Juives" for "Jews" -- yet more gameplaying?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert W. House
Detective Sergeant
Username: Robhouse
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 3:32 am: |
|
Hi again,
I still do not see how it can possibly be clear what the meaning is. To me one of the few things that seems clear is that the double negative, in this case, equals a negative. As in "The juwes are the men that will be blamed for nothing".
But supposing we were left with just this to decipher... to me it is still a maddeningly vague sentence. If you look up the word "will" in the dictionary you will see that it has many usages.
In my mind this is like a directive, probably made stronger by the use of the double negative. "The juwes" is a passive subject in the sentence.... not actually doing something, but rather having something done TO it... ie being "blamed". Also, the use of "nothing" possibly implies the murders does it not.
I am reading this as "Do not blame the jews for the murders!" I put an exclamation point on the end because I think it is an exclamation strengthened by the double negative. But how would this have been interpreted in 1888? My understanding is that it was not very clear then either.
Sugden interprets this as being anti-jewish, but I am not sure why. Can someone help me with this?
RH |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1160
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 4:24 am: |
|
Hi
The jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.
And 'you will be all right for what i have told you' are two intresting ways of speech.
It is a strong possibility that the person that acosted Mary Kelly [seen by Hutchinson] may have written that grafiti.
Richard. |
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 430
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 6:14 am: |
|
Hi Robert,
I think the anti-Jewish interpretation is that the phrase should be read that the Jews are the ones who don't take responsibility for anything they do.
Imagine someone buying something from a Jewish shop or market stall and then deciding later that it was spoiled, worthless or broken and going to complain, receiving the answer, "Do not try to blame us, you bought it. You let it go bad / should have looked it over first / broke it yourself."
Racists often blame whole groups for the perceived slights from one person or a few people. I could see how someone would angrily write that message without it having anything to do with the killing.
Of course someone saying that the Jews really aren;t to blame for whatever could also be the meaning, and that also wouldn't necessarily have to be related to the killing. This sort of message might last a very long time with nobody living there complaining or erasing it.
Hi Richard,
I think you'll find that Victorians typically spoke in what we would consider interesting ways. I don't think any two instances of people talking in ways that those of up 100+ years later find odd means there's necessarily a connection. Like many of the arguments made about the case, I think this is made without taking the context of the times into account.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 1:41 am: |
|
A dopuble negative is usually used by an illiterate person to give emphasis.
To me the interpretation of the GSG should be the simplest - essentially: "It's all the Jews' fault!!"
Phil |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 165
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 15, 2004 - 11:55 am: |
|
I think the double negative is used by illiterate people just because they don't know any better and if I had to interpret it I would say:
"The Jews are the men that WON"T be blamed for anything."
Emphasis on "won't" and meaning:
" The Jews refuse to take(or admit) blame for anything"
PS- maybe we should get some illiterate posters!
Mags
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 361
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Back in November Caz opined:
"And if he also saw the three Jews approaching when he was standing with Eddowes, imagine his annoyance at the thought that his fun might be spoiled for the second time that night by such men - and the triumph he would have felt afterwards when he had succeeded, despite their unwelcome intrusions.
It was like he was marking the Jews' territory with the soiled apron piece, as proof of his victory over them. "
It just dawned on me that the apron was soiled with fecal matter, wasn't it? Not the kind of sh-t I'd care to carry around for long, pun intended. Makes the case for its symbolism all the stronger.....Jack wanted to leave it precisely where he did, and brought it a fair distance, circumstances considered.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 368
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 2:52 pm: |
|
Or just far enough to have wiped his hands and knife and then casually discarded it, Sir Robert.
Occam's razor suggests one should always take the SIMPLEST explanation, does it not?
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
