|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 34
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:10 am: | 
|
Hi all!
After my contribution on the Tabram’s thread, I’ve decided to express some ideas on the Goulston Street Graffito (GSG). Those enignatic words have puzzled Ripper researchers and students of the case throughout the years. Many people have challenged those words or the origin of such message. They put it down to coincidence, saying that Graffito was abundant, etc. All of them are possible explanations and solve the problem in a nice and neat way. But, for argument’s sake let’s assume it was writen by the killer. Although, this is not the purpose of my post, I’ll just say that those words cannot be dismissed as easily as it may seem. In fact, a persuasive argument could be made for their being a message left by the killer.
The reluctance to take it as evidence is due partly to the fact that accepting its aunthenticity leaves many questions unanswered: Was the killer taunting the police?; Did it reflect some kind of Masonic connection?; What was its meaning?; Was it just a cryptic way to communicate the killer’s thoughts to the world? Besides, why did the killer write Juwes?; Was he trying to pin the blame on them?; Why did he use the double negative?; Why, in the first instance, would have the killer do that or take the risk of being caught in the act?; What is more, if the killer’s intentions were to taunt the police or just communicate his deranged thoughts to the world, why didn’t he leave any other messages in the rest of the murders sites or surrondings?
Will they ever be answered? We’ll never know for sure, but my intention is not to get stuck in those unanswered questions and to probe into an alternate explanation that could answer and account for all them. Within this context, it could be called an alternate theory, i.e. a conceptual framework that explains existing observations.
I think it’s time we challenge some of the ideas that are embedded in our minds. A good example of that is the excellent article writen by Wolf Vanderlinden on Annie Chapman’s death. He offers a solid argument that challenges the “conventional wisdom” about when she was murdered. This is the link: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rn-doubt.html
This is the purpose of my post, too. That’s the why of my question: “The Juwes: Was it all a big mistake?” Let’s proceed… (the post has been divided into smaller sections for convenience).
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 35
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:12 am: |
|
To understand how this theory started to develop, I’d like to tell you what happened to me one of the several times I’ve been living in London. To cut a long story short I’ll just say that I was applying for my Social Security Card. I filled in the Application Form and submited it. Some time after that, I received my SSC, only to discover that they have made a botch of it. The name on the card vagely resembled mine. The capital “I” in my name had been mistaken for a J, the “c” in my second name had been taken as an e, etc.
It was then when it dawned on me that those mistakes were due to some slight differences between British and other European handwriting styles. Although, most of the times they look similar there are some letters and figures which could lead somebody into error. “I” and “J” are some of them; “1” and “7” are others.
In fact, this an example of what I mean:  This is my gold medallion. Note how the “I” in my name is writen. Doesn’t the first capital letter look like a “J”? Actually, it’s an “I”. And this handwriting style is still used by many people in some areas of the world.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 36
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:15 am: |
|
What about 1888? The surprising fact is that this handwriting style was even more common at that time than now! Here are some examples of abbreviations in old style lettering that you can find on the US Census and many other types of records. http://www.amberskyline.com/treasuremaps/oldhand.html You will notice how similar the “I” and the “J” look.
Or as it is stated in this 1856 State As the 1856 State Census of Iowa states:
“Transcriber's Notes:
(…) Letters I and J look similar and may be mistaken for one another at times.” This is the link: http://iagenweb.org/census/jefferson/1856-IA-Jeff-Fairfield-2.txt You can find the Note at the beginning, almost at the top of the page.
This is an important point I’d like everybody to try to understand. Depending on the style of handwiting the letters “I” and “J” may be mistaken. Once we are clear about it, let’s deal with some facts about the message.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 37
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:17 am: |
|
It was found by Pc Alfred Long at 2.55 a.m., 30 September 1888. It was on the black brickwork at a height of aprox. 48 inches down to perhaps 36 inches high from the ground. Eddowes’s apron was immediately below it. (Ripperologist, May 2005, p. 19). At 2.20 a.m. Pc Long had been passing through Goulston Street on his beat. He noticed nothing at that moment. The second time he saw a piece of apron on the floor. “The apron was stained and one corner of it was wet with blood (…) Although he had by now heard of the murder in Mitre Square, he did not associate the piece of apron with that crime…” (JTR, The Facts, p. 179). This is interesting, because despite the fact that Pc Long wasn’t looking for any piece of apron, he noticed it and felt curious enough to examine it and see the blood on it. Although this proves nothing, IMHO adds some weight to Long’s statement when he said that the apron wasn’t there at 2.20 a.m. We must bear in mind that although he wasn’t looking for it, he noticed it and examined it. So, at least there is a reasonable probability that he was right, after all. Besides, Constable Halse saw the the message and thought it looked recent (Sugden, 1998, p.254).
But, what was the message? There is some controversy about this. Long said the writing read ‘The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing’. Halse said his wording was, ‘The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing’. (JTR, The Facts, p.180). As for the spelling, we have several different possibilities (Ripperologist, May 2005, p.20):
1- Halse: Juwes 2- Long: Juews 3- Dr Herman in reply to Warren: Juewes 4- McWillians report to Hoot: Jewes 5- MacNaghten: Jews 6- D’Oston: Juives 7- Foster’s comments: Juws
As authorities became apprehensive that the writing could cause anti-semitic riots, they decided not to take the risk of waiting an hour more until it could be photographed, and had it washed off. That way, every chance to interpret the message correctly was lost.
After all this confusion over its spelling and wording, Sugden aptly says: “… in view of the conflicting comtemporary testimony, the exact nature of the murderer’s message must remain in doubt.” (Sugden 1998, p. 506-7). Or, “… The actual wording and its order still are debated today. People state differing variations and one particular word, Juwes, is variously spelt Jewes, Jeuwes, Jeuws, Juewes, Juews and so on.” (Ripperolist, May 2005, p.25).
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 38
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
All the above-mentioned means that we all depend on how accurate the Constables were when they transcribed the message. As we have already seen, we can’t have assurance about it. Neither the wording nor the spelling is definitively ascertained. It only seems that it was a message with the Jews in mind and that intended to pin the blame on them for something… or was it?
Well, I’d like to challenge that “conventional wisdom”, and advance an alternate possibility. My theory revolves around the possibility that the police made a mistake and misinterpreted the message. The result was a message with a dubious meaning. Although, no one can say what the message exactly said, I wonder if what the authorities may really have seen could have been the following message or something similar:
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 39
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:41 am: |
|
This is the same sentence in 3 different styles of handwriting (for those who think that the message should read “The Juwes are not”, you can simply add a “not”). I think these samples bear a reasonable resemblance with what they might have seen. I also think it’s not a far-fetched possibility that those words might have been transcribed as Juwes, Jewes, or a similar word. But, what could the meaning of that message be? Isn’t it still a reference to the Jews? Well, if you think that the sentence reads “The Jwes are the men…”, you are mistaken. Actually, it reads: “The Iwes are the men…”. You can reproduce a similar result on your personal computer. Just try different types of font-letters, like Forte, French Script MT, Script MT Bold, etc. By the way, some of those styles of handwriting are still in use in the area where I live.
And allowing the possibility that they could have mistaken the “I” for a “J”, what would the meaning of Iwes be? Well, Iwes standed for International Workingmen Educational Society as it read on the notice outside the Berner Street Club. See the sketch below:
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 40
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:42 am: |
|
My question is: after seeing all the controversy about its wording, spelling, etc., can we really trust that the word Juwes, Jewes, etc., ever existed? Think about this:
In some styles of handwriting Iwes would look like Jwes, which is very similar to Juwes, Jewes, or other rendering of it. We should also take into account the conditions in which the message was observed, i.e. it was immediately above the piece of apron and very close to the floor. That means that the observation coditions would be quite awkward, to say the least. It was still dark. Besides, everybody had taken for granted that it was something related to the Jews. Didn’t Goulston Street Buildings house a lot of of them? That made sense... Even the higher-ups had panicked into the rash decision of wiping it off. So, what should we expect them to think it was? Of course, they knew that the spelling was unusual, the meaning rather confusing, etc. But we shouldn’t expect them to dispute the meaning or argue that, depending on the handwriting style, the letter ‘I’ could be mistaken for a ‘J’, etc. So, they just gave those cryptic words the meaning they thought it was, even though both Constables transcribed a different message. The term for that psychological phenomenon is Pareidolia: the erroneous or fanciful perception of a pattern or meaning in something that is actually ambiguous or ramdom.
As the message was obliterated people could only repeat what the Constables transcribed. But if they had been wrong, people would only repeat their mistake.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 41
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
For argument’s sake, let’s accept for a moment this possibility. A theory to be considered as such, must be “a conceptual framework that explains existing observations. Does it account fot them? Where would it lead us to? Can we get a better comprehension of it? Let’s see.
Assuming that Stride was a JTR’s victim (please, those Stride’s detractors don’t dismiss that possibility. I know that her status can be challenged but this is not the thread to debate it. So, for argument’s sake, let’s accept that she was), her killer probably was interrupted and he couldn’t carry out with the mutilations. So, what would the killer’s state of mind be? Would he let that crime in the IWES Yard go unoticed and not take the glory for it? After all, anyone could have done it. She hadn’t been overkilled like the rest… So, what could he do? Wouldn’t it be possible that, at some point, he could come up with the idea of letting everybody know that he had been her executioner and no one else should take the responsibility (and from the killer’s viewpoint, the glory) for that? So then, what would the message mean?
To understand the meaning we should bear a few things in mind:
Firstly, its wording is not clear because there isn’t a clear-cut consensus about it.
Sencondly, the authorities at that time thought the following: “Warren, writing to Lushintong on 10 October, could not make much of it: ‘The idiom does not appear to me to be either English, French, or German, but it might possibly be the idiom of Spain or Italy.’ (Sugden, 1998, p. 256). Well, as for English and German, Warren was right. But as for French, he was wrong. French admits the double negative form, too. In French, Spanish, etc., a double negative equals a negative (je ne sais rien or No se nada = 'I don't know anything').
Thirdly, if Lawdende saw Eddowes’ killer then this opinion may hold some water. He saw her talking to a man of sailorly appearance. If that man was a sailor, he may have well been a foreigner. The double negative form, the existence of several words in the message which had capitals letters mid-sentence in words that were not the name of a place or person, the confusing use of the word “Will”, etc., may lead to think that the killer might have been a foreigner who wasn’t used to writing in English. In fact, “…In September of 1889, following a renewed Ripper scare instigated by the discovery of a woman's mutilated torso in Pinchin Street, it was reported that '...The Thames Police…at once got their various craft on the river, and boarded all vessels at the mouth of the Thames dock. Attention was particularly directed to cattle boats from Spain and America.'” (Michael Conlon, The Ripper in America).
From a native’s viewpoint, the sentence is incorrect and might indicate that the writer was illiterate. On the other hand, we know that it was “in a good schoolchild’s round hand” (JTR, The Facts, p.180), so after all, maybe he wasn’t so illiterate. Perhaps he only was a foreigner unskilled in writing in English.
From a foreigner’s viewpoint the sentence may make more sense than it may seem. As someone used to using the double negative form (not in English) I see the message less cryptic: If my interpretation about IWES and the killer’s mother tongue were right, he’d simply be saying that the men or members of that club were not responsible for the murder committed close to their club, and that he was the one who had killed her. To prove it he left Eddowes’s apron immediately below the message. That way, he linked it to Stride’s murder.
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 42
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:47 am: |
|
But if my interpretation of IWES were correct, why wouldn’t he capitalised it (IWES) and instead of that he only capitalised the first letter (Iwes)? The answer to that objection is simple. I think this question reflects the mentality of someone born in an English Speaking Country. In some other countries, like Spanish Speaking Countries, you can see examples of both styles, i.e. an acronym and/or abbrevietion with only the first letter capitalized, and the same acronym and/or abbrevietion totally capitalized. As I said, there exist the possibility that the killer was a foreigner and was not used to writing in English. Besides, we shouldn’t expect to find the proper grammatical structure in a sentence which contained other grammatical mistakes. Secondly, for any reason the writer chose to write the message using capital letters mid-sentence. So in that case Iwes would only follow the same pattern as the others, i.e. Will, Blame, etc.
If he only meant to make it clear that he was the one who had murdered that woman in the IWES Yard, then that could explain why he took that risk on the night of the double-event. It would also explain why he never left more messages in the other murder sites. His purpose was never to taunt the police or send messages to the world. He only wanted to take all the glory for Stride’s murder. Although he hadn’t been able to finish it off in the way he had planned it, that murder was also his.
Another question that may pop in the mind would be why he didn’t chalk a bigger message if he wanted to draw the police attention to the apron? This is an interesting question because it has to do with how we envisage JTR. However deranged he might be I don’t think he was a fool. To write a bigger message in an upright position could have been more risky. If someone (like the Pc on his beat) would have happened to come up upon him he’d have been in trouble. How could he have explained why he was writing such a message on the wall? On the other hand, to write a smaller message in the place where he did it, while he was in a crouching position, could give him some advantages: Firstly, he wouldn’t be in a such visible position, and secondly, if someone happened to come up upon him he could erase the message with a swipe of the hand while concocting some excuse for his being there. Anyway, regardless the size of the message, its main purpose remained the same, i.e. that people may link it to the apron.
Besides, if the killer wrote the message he probably didn’t intend that it be discovered all too soon. Most probably, he wanted to have enough time to be far enough from the message before somebody could discover the apron, but a bigger message might have drawn somebody’s atention prematurely. That’s another reason for why he may have chosen to write a small message and leave the apron immediately below it. What happened was that Pc Long turned out to be a conscientious Constable and didn’t overlook neither the piece of apron nor the message.
As a final point, I think it’s an obvious thing why he wrote IWES and didn’t write the whole name Internacional Workingmen Educational Society. He was pressed for time and fleeing. To chalk such a long sentence would have been a very time (and space) consuming task. Besides, he also probably chose IWES because he knew that some local newspapers, pamphlets, etc., used it to mean the Internacional Workingmen Educational Society. In fact, I wonder if the killer might have initially intended to word the message in this way (it would still be poorly constructed, but possibly slitghtly clearer):
It only happened that (for the reasons above-mentioned or others) he made a botch of it and the final message turned out to be a confusing sentence. This could explain why Halse and Long got two different versions of the same message. If the wording was poorly constructed it could have lead to such confusing renderings of the same.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 43
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
To sum it all up:
All this confusion about the message, it’s meaning, etc., is the result of a mistake the local authorities made.
As the killer hadn’t been able to dispath Stride the way he expected, the Ripper found another victim, killed her and came up with the idea of connecting both murders. By doing that, everybody could know that both victims had been killed by the same hand (some sort of personal pride). He cut a big piece of apron, got it stained with blood and fled. Later, he found a good place to spend a few seconds carrying out his plan without risking being spotted or disturbed (and possibly because there was also some street lights that provided the place with some illumination –Ripperologist, May 2005, p.23) and chalked a message (assuming he was a sailor, a piece of chalk wouldn’t have been a strange thing in his pockets).
What he was trying to convey (in a broken English) was that the men of the IWES were not the ones responsible for the murder committed in their Yard. It had been him. And to prove it he left Eddowes’s apron immediately below the message. However, and probably because English was not his first language, he was not proficient enough to write a properly constructed message in that language, which caused to leave a collection of sentences that were confusing for a native, i.e. the sentence construction, double negatives, several capital letters, etc.
All this lead police to error and to misjudge the whole meaning of it. Due to the fact that the message was written in a “peculiar handwriting style”, they mistook the letter “I” for a “J” and read Jwes or something similar (like Juwes, Jewes, etc.). Besides, as Goulston Street Buldings housed many Jews, they thought that it was an inflammatory sentence against them. They kind of panicked and wiped it off without having it photographed, so any chance to contrast the transcriptions with the original disappeared. Police constables only transcribed what they thought it most probably read. The observation conditions were not good, i.e. it was still dark and the message was too close to the floor as to read it confortably. Besides, everybody had taken for granted what the word Juwes, Jewes, etc. meant and no one questioned that. Another point to ponder over: the message may have not looked as clear as some people may think. Swanson referred to it as “blurred” (Sugden, 1998, p.254), which could lead to think that the message had been touched by some of the local authorities while checking it.
As I’ve already said, we’ll never know for sure what the message meant (assuming it was writen by the killer). And maybe I’m totally “off base”. But I can’t get out of my head that if they had only mistaken the “I” for a “J”, Iwes could have been mistaken for Juwes, Jewes, etc. If we add, the double-event of that night, how unusual it was, the risks the killer took when he killed Eddowes in Mitre Square, etc., it wouldn’t be surprising that our “risk-taking killer” might have decided to take one more risk and chalk that message. Anyway, I think this possibility is worth a look.
PS- This theory assumes that the GSG was chalked by the Ripper. So, this post is not to debate whether it was or it was not. The same goes for Stride’s murder. Ah!, and for those interested in fingering a culprit: I guess that many of you have already linked this scenario with one of the known suspects…
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2079
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Hi Inaki,
I have read only some of the above and feel the need to go for a lie down so I can come back fresh
and absorb what you are saying,
One small point though-if as you suggest the word had this letter U missing so it reads JWES
could you perhaps find some samples of such Victorian abbreviation to study?The reason being
initials normally have a full stop between them-to denote abbreviation. |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 427
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:01 am: |
|
Inaki- regardless of whatever else this post is, it's a fresh look at something that's been right in front of our noses for a long time.
I have lots of problems with this scenario(starting with Stride as a victim) but as you say, this may not be the place for them.
Given your parameters,your theory certainly is fresh and also certainly makes me want to keep my mind open--so you've met your goal there!
Mags
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 653
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
Great idea Inaki. Puts a whole different light on the GSG.
It means, that contrary to Douglas, he was somewhat interested in attention. I am beginning to question Douglas' assumptions on that point anyway.
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 428
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 11:29 am: |
|
One point about writing small so as not to be discovered:
Being discovered by a copper writing graffiti wouldn't have gotten a man into much trouble, but standing there holding the bloody apron sure would!
Mags
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Interesting, Inaki. I posted something along similar lines last week, where I pointed out that ambiguous lettering and social pressures could have lead to erroneous over-interpretation by those who read the graffito. See the "Juwes or Juives" thread.
I suggested that it might have referred to a personal grudge against someone called "Jukes" (there were a few families of that name in the area in the 1881 census), but made no particular connection between it and JTR.
I suppose if we were to allow that JTR actually wrote the graffito, then your proposition is intriguing. However, since "IWES" would have referred to an institituion rather than a person, it may have made more sense (and saved JTR quite a bit of time) to have written "The Iwes will not be blamed for nothing".
BTW, not wishing to sound vainglorious, I would just like to point out that the notion of "forced overinterpretation" was mine ;o)
... and probably had been thought of by others before. I'd be surprised if it hadn't.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2082
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
Still pondering on this Inaki,
very innovative I must say!
I have searched for the usual name BTW and found that it was known as "The Berner Street Club"
see Paul Begg The Facts pages 171 and 184.
Also,if the writer was familiar enough with the club to have used the initials only for it then in my view that would indicate someone who knew of the clubs existence in the first place[it wasnt in the heart of the area but off Commercial Street]. So I doubt it would have been a sailor passing through the night so to speak.
Natalie |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Thanks for your comments.
Diana,
One small point though-if as you suggest the word had this letter U missing so it reads JWES
Yes, but bear in mind that we can't be sure about what the real spelling was. We have different renderings of it. Even the Constables who transcribed the message got a different spelling.
Anyway, think that there is a "W" in-between, and that any linking mark between the I and W may have been taken for another letter like the U.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Inspector
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 393
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:21 pm: |
|
Inaki,
I second Maria's statement that this is indeed a fresh look at the graffiti, and definitely food for thought. I like the way your mind works here. At one time I gave serious consideration to the idea that the 'nothing' in the graffiti referred to Eddowes, who repeatedly gave her name as 'Nothing' earlier that night at the police station. This thesis relieves the graffiti of its troublesome double-negative, but I've since decided this is probably not the case, as the word was not capitalized. You address this same probelm in regards to your 'Iwes'. I think that's the biggest stumbling block in accepting your theory. Given the author's relative literacy, I feel he WOULD have capitalized each letter if he were referring to the club initials. In any event, yours was a wholly original idea founded on good logic, and I hope you stay with the case and give us more food for thought in the future.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 733
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:32 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
If you liked Wolf's piece on Catherine Eddowes' time of death, you should really get a subscription to Ripper Notes. He has an article, a column and book reviews every issue, and of course there are contributions by other great writers as well.
Regarding your hypothesis above, while I agree we should be open to new ideas, I don't find this one very convincing, I'm afraid.
The main problem with it is that going straight from an I to a W would have meant that there were only two loops in the writing there (the two Us in the double-u). Even with the disagreements over the spelling of the word, the sources agree that there were at least three loops (an E or a U before the W).
Between that, the question over why it wouldn't be capitalized, and how the sentence still doesn't quite read right that way, this possible explanation seems a whole lot more complicated than the simple notion that someone just misspelled Jews.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Maria,
Thanks for your input.
Being discovered by a copper writing graffiti wouldn't have gotten a man into much trouble, but standing there holding the bloody apron sure would!
Yes, but as I said a man in an upright position and writing a big size message would have been in a more risky position than somebody in a crouching position and writing a message which could erase with just a swipe of the hand.
Anyway, we shouldn't think that JTR was holding a bloody apron. If it happened to be a sailor, most probably he'd had a satchel (it was a normal item in sailors) so the apron could have been in there.
Besides, as I said, if the killer wrote the message he probably didn’t intend that it be discovered all too soon. Most probably, he wanted to have enough time to be far enough from the message before somebody could discover the apron, but a bigger message might have drawn somebody’s atention prematurely. That’s another reason for why he may have chosen to write a small message and leave the apron immediately below it.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:49 pm: |
|
Hi!
About why he didn't capitalized the whole name...
Well, as I said, I'm afraid that this objection only reflects how an English Speaking person would think. But, if you allow for the possibility that JTR's first language wasn't English (and the double negative may indicate that), things are not so difficult to explain. Even the authorities at that time thought the following: “Warren, writing to Lushintong on 10 October, could not make much of it: ‘The idiom does not appear to me to be either English, French, or German, but it might possibly be the idiom of Spain or Italy.’ (Sugden, 1998, p. 256).
For instance, in Spanish Speaking Countries, you can see examples of both styles, i.e. an acronym and/or abbrevietion with only the first letter capitalized, and the same acronym and/or abbrevietion totally capitalized.
Besides, we shouldn’t expect to find the proper grammatical structure in a sentence which contained other grammatical mistakes.
And one more thing, for any reason the writer chose to write the message using capital letters mid-sentence. So in that case Iwes would only follow the same pattern as the others, i.e. Will, Blame, etc.
The main problem with it is that going straight from an I to a W would have meant that there were only two loops in the writing there (the two Us in the double-u)
Dan, do you how easy is to mistake Ws and Us? If are in a bit of a hurry, you can easily extend one of the tails of the W and create the illusion of another letter. I've just tested it and it can happened. And believe me, I haven't done it on purpose.
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 697
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
Inaki - congratulations on your post, your erudition and your english.
I welcome fresh ideas and approaches and I'll watch the debate on this one with interest.
I remain 70:30 sure that Stride was not a Ripper victim, and all the evidence seems to me to suggest that the graffito was no connected to the murders. I am thus not convinced by your interpration which relies on two many assumptions.
Perhaps the discussion will convince me, who knows. I hope I have an open mind. But at this stage, I regret, I see this as having as much value as Gareth's "Jukes" theory, though it is more elaborate.
Phil
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 48
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Here is an instance of what I mean
As I said, I've done it as if I was in a hurry and bear in mind it wouldn't be a much illuminated site.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 49
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 3:28 pm: |
|
Natalie,
I'm afraid you've got the pages mixed-up.
Anyway, I know that it was popularly known as the Berner Street Club.
But, as I said, if you give a look at the sketch I've posted (the sketch was done at that time), you will see that the name at the outside read "International Workingmen Educational Society".
So, someone who was not a local (and if he was a sailor it's probable that he wasn't) and only saw the notice at the outside of the club and/or had seen that some newspapers, pamphlets, etc., used IWES to mean the Internacional Workingmen Educational Society, could have refered to it in a different way as the local people did.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 734
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 3:39 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
Looking at the latest image you posted, surely if someone were writing "Iwes" there'd be no reason to do the stroke downward after the I only to come up and start loops for a W? After the I the chalk would already be in a position to start the W right where it was with no dipping down like that. The downstroke seems like an artificial way of trying to make it look (slightly) more like "Juwes" but which would have no practical reason for someone trying to actually write "Iwes."
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 50
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
Hi Dan!
Believe me, it's not an artificial way of trying to make it look (slightly) more like "Juwes".
This confusion happens because some styles of handwriting write the "I" like a "J". Just check how my name is in the medallion and see that it resembles a "J".
I'm afraid that he problem lies in how your handwriting style is. It seems to me that British and American styles of handwriting are more typographic than in some other countries.
In fact, it was when I was living in England that I got used to writing more typographically and changed slightly my handwriting style. I even had some problems in distinguishing 1 from 7 (this is a good example of what I mean by typographically. Many, if not most British people write that figure just as that. In the area here I live we always cross the 7 with a small dash. Otherwise, 7 looks quite similar to 1, in the way we write 1, of course. Or, at least that seems to me).
So if you envisage the I so typographically, then it won't be easy for you to see any reason to do the stroke downward after the I. But if, as I said in my post, you take into account that some people and some styles of handwriting write the "I" as a "J", (but not a typographic J) things are different.
By the way, in the example I posted I didn't write Juwes but Iwes. That was how I used to write the capital "I" before I went to UK. That was one of the small changes I had to introduce in my handwriting style. British people weren't used to see such "I" and always thought it was a J.
But, in the area where I live (and I'm afraid, in some other places, too), people don't write the same way and if I showed you some of their letters, documents, etc., you would see what I mean.
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 51
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Hi Phil!
Thanks for your kind words.
It's true that my theory must rely on two assumptions:
That the Constables mistook the capital I for a J and that Stride was a Ripper's victim.
But, the "good news" is that I don't think they are far-fetched assumptions. As I said in my post, it's not so difficult to make that mistake:
As it was stated in this 1856 State Census of Iowa:
“Transcriber's Notes:
(…) Letters I and J look similar and may be mistaken for one another at times.”
In those times, that handwriting style was more common than nowadays.
And as for Stride being a Ripper's victim... well, maybe she wasn't but I wouldn't say it's a far-fetched possibility to think she was.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 52
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Diana, Gareth,
Thanks for your words, too.
Well, don't worry, I never said that the "forced overinterpretation" idea was mine. So, I hand it to you 
My intention is to show that we shouldn't think there are no more possibilities. And taking into account what had happened that night in the IWES yard, there exist the possibility that the Constables were mistaken in the spelling, wording, etc.
After all, if you check the samples above-posted, you will see that it's not so far-fetched that they could have made that mistake. Iwes, Juws, Juwes, Jewes, don't look so different. Even more, if you take into account that it was dark, it was in an awkward position to be observed and everybody took for granted that it was something related to Jews.
As for, "it may have made more sense (and saved JTR quite a bit of time) to have written "The Iwes will not be blamed for nothing"." Well, maybe for somebody whose first language is English, yes, but bear in mind that it's possible that English wasn't his first language, so we don't know if that'd have been easier or not for him. Another point is that we don't even know what the real wording was. Both Constables got it differently. Maybe he just wrote: "The Iwes men will not be blamed for nothing" (in his particular handwriting style, of course).
But you are totally right when you say that ambiguous lettering and social pressures could have lead to erroneous over-interpretation by those who read the graffito.
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2665
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Inaki
Dear God there's a lot of 'stuff' here.....am about half way through it and like Nats have to get some sleep before I can think about taking it on!
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 699
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Inaki - you wrote:
...It's true that my theory must rely on two assumptions:... That the Constables mistook the capital I for a J and that Stride was a Ripper's victim... But, the "good news" is that I don't think they are far-fetched assumptions. As I said in my post, it's not so difficult to make that mistake: ... And as for Stride being a Ripper's victim... well, maybe she wasn't but I wouldn't say it's a far-fetched possibility to think she was.
That's fine, Inaki - those are your opinions. I must, however, differ.
I think it could be a VERY far-fetched thing to believe Stride was a Ripper victim. Indeed, I think it could be one of the things that has confused the case for a century.
I would also point out that it is for YOU to convince others of the rightness of your logic, not for me to simply accept it.
But my point was not simply about the rightness of your assumptions, but their NUMBER. The more assumptions you make, broadly, the more likely your theory is to be flawed, since an error in the premise is multiplied.
You have constructed an elaborate edifice on your assumptions, and I simply warn against accepting it too quickly.
Cassandra at the feast as usual, it seems,
Phil |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 53
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
Hi Phil!
Yes, you are right. We must avoid as many assumptions as posssible. However, I'd say that mine are basically two: That the Constables mistook the capital "I" for a "J" and that Stride was a Ripper's victim.
Anyway, I feel that everybody is assuming things. After seeing all the controversy about the wording, the spelling, etc., after seeing that both Constables wrote two different versions of that message, don't you think that everybody is assuming too much? I wouldn't assume and take for granted that Juwes, Juws, Jewes, etc. was the word.
You say that Stride could not have been a ripper's victim. That's fine, too. But as I said in my post: "Assuming that Stride was a JTR’s victim (please, those Stride’s detractors don’t dismiss that possibility. I know that her status can be challenged but this is not the thread to debate it. So, for argument’s sake, let’s accept that she was)".
I don't want to use this thread to debate whether she was or not a Ripper's victim. Anyway, I wouldn't say it is a "far-fetched" possibility to say that she may have been. Anyway, I agree that it's "feasible" possibility that she wasn't.
You think it could be one of the things that has confused the case for a century. Maybe, or maybe it's one of the things that could give us some sort of a clue, who knows. Sometimes, it all depends on how we look at things. "Is The Bottle Half Empty Or Half Full?"
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 54
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi!
Don't worry. Have a nice sleep. Or, better still, sleep on it  and you'll tell me what you make of it.
(Message edited by inaki on June 19, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 607
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 8:21 pm: |
|
Inaki...
You deserve a lot of credit for working this concept out. It took time and a degree of passion and its worthwhile idea,regardless of whether it is "correct" or not.
None of us,obviously,know the speed in which the message was written. This means simply that your postulation could be correct, so don't give up on it.
I've been leaning towards the idea that it could have said "Juives" for a few years,being someone who considers Stephenson a worthy suspect. I'll tell ya,Inaki...your idea sounds a little better than the "Juives" one at the moment.
I'll tell you why. The confusion over the second word could have been the motivation for RDS writing his "One Who Thinks He Knows" article and just another way to make a dollar or pound. RDS studied in France and knew the gender of the word "Jews" in French,which is "Juifs". He may have been playing a game,as some say. Both suggestions are equally as good.
Nice work,Inaki...I also agree with you on Stride being a victim of The Ripper. Two women found with their throats cut on the same night was a first...unless someone else can counter that with another example....and I'm with you,buddy !
Viva Espana !
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 700
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 1:35 am: |
|
Anyway, I feel that everybody is assuming things. After seeing all the controversy about the wording... don't you think that everybody is assuming too much? I wouldn't assume and take for granted that Juwes, Juws, Jewes, etc. was the word.
Inaki - I don't accept that the graffito and the apron fragment are connected. That still has to be provn - so I make no assumption about the writing.
If I did, I would assume that in a highly anti-semitic environment, such as Spitalfields was in 1888 - that it was a mis-spelling of Jews. End of story.
please, those Stride’s detractors don’t dismiss that possibility. I know that her status can be challenged but this is not the thread to debate it. So, for argument’s sake, let’s accept that she was)..
Sorry Inaki, but that seems to be rigging the discussion. "Please agree with me or pretend to!! " (I know you probably didn't mean that and just want focus, but that's how it comes across.)
Most effective debate comes from the challenging of the assumptions on which the logic is based. That is what I have done. I've said all I want to.
Phil
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 151
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Inaki,
Interesting thoughts, as always!
My main problem with this theory is that the name of the Berner Street Club was in fact International Workingmens'(s) Educational Association. (Begg, Definite History p. 171)
Mark Gould wrote a very interesting book about the radical influence of this organization and the Arbeiter Fraint. Also, a good reminder of the conditions common workers lived under in those days (A 12 hour working day was one of their goals!!)
http://society.guardian.co.uk/offdiary/story/0,14093,1341625,00.html
The sketch you include in your argument clearly states "society", but I wonder if this is a simple mistake made by the artist.
I do realize that someone unfamiliar with the club MIGHT have read such a misrepresentation and made the same mistake, but this sounds to me highly improbable.
If the killer was in fact so unaware about the association's real name, why emphasize the organization at all? Why allude to something that must have been rather obscure to him in the first place? (if he was in fact from out of town and unfamiliar with the real name) Would it not be more likely that he would say "Berner street", even perhaps "the Berner Club", or what have you?
I have no trouble accepting that the handwriting could have been misread. Actually it was. That is why we initially had two interpretations. I have no trouble accepting that Stride could have been a ripper victim.
These possibilities cannot be ascertained either way. To dismiss any theory on the basis of this only would be unfair.
However, it stretches things a bit to think that Jack was:
a) So unfamiliar with the area that he did not know the real name of the associaton in question. It would seem more reasonable to think that in fact this was Jack's home turf.
b) That he chooses to use an abbreviation for an association that he clearly does not have any proper knowledge about. (According to this theory) IMO by mentioning it by name this would indicate that he in fact WAS familiar with the organization. (But then he would have known its proper name!)
c) That he would find it opportune to tell people that the men of before mentioned association was in fact NOT responsible for the previous murder. (Why, if the IWEA meant nothing to him at all?)
Why this focus on the IWEA, when in fact he did not even know it, according to the theory? It does not add up.
To me, it seems more reasonable that in fact Jacky WAS familiar with the association. Who was he psychologically? Would he be drawn to the radical ideas it stood for? Would he nevertheless be against the obvious Jewish links? (remember the Lipski! shout) Did he have a reason to hang around this particular club?
And would not all this imply that he might very well have meant Juwes after all?
Actually, this is the most likely scenario IMO.
Neither the "Juwes", nor the double negative was in fact IMO a mystery to Jack. This was how he spoke. He was, perhaps, quite simply, an East Ender.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 20, 2005)
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2089
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Helge,
Thankyou for giving us that link.I must get this book.
Last August,The Whitechapel History Society-as its now known,had Prof. William Fishman to give a talk.
I was not in London at that time and missed it which I have regretted ever since as I would have loved to have heard him speak.
Anyway,thanks again Helge,
Natalie |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 55
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:22 am: |
|
Hi all!
Howard,
Thanks for your words!
As you say, we don't know the speed in which the message was written (although, if done by the killer he probably was in hurry), so I think that if speed was higher than normal, it might have been another factor to take into account and which would help explain why no one got the same rendering of the message.
I'll have to give a deeper look at RDS.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 56
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
Besides, we should bear in mind that a "W" is like two "V" or two "U", depending the handwriting style. So if the "I" looked more like a "J" as it does in several handwriting styles (and did in many 1800's ones), it wouldn't be far-fetched to think that if the killer chalked the message in a hurry and there was some kind of chalk-stroke as a linking mark between letters, it could have created the illusion of and extra "U".
And let's not forget that the message was chalked and not written in ink. If it had happened that some of the local authorities had touched the message while checking it or the surface was just wet, it could have contributed to blur it (Swanson referred to it as “blurred” --Sugden, 1998, p.254)and help make things more confusing.
This link may result interesting:
unistroke text
At the bottom of the page,
"[0051] Though Graffiti is popular, it also has problems. We took some lessons from studies of Graffiti in an effort to alleviate some of its problems, or at least to avoid reproducing them. Certain letters in Graffiti have specific problems. For example, many people handwrite an n beginning at the top-left of the letter and initially going down. In Graffiti, this almost always results in an h. The present invention supports an optional initial down stroke on letters that commonly have them: b, d, m, n, p, q, and r. Similarly, many people make a down stroke at the end of u, and in Graffiti this almost always produces an h or w. The present invention allows this down stroke on u. Graffiti also often produces a u when novices make a v but forget to add an unnatural serif on the right. The present invention avoids this u-v confusion, as every form is more than just subtly different from every other form."
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 57
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Phil,
You may rest assured that my intention is not to rig the discussion. And when I get the chance we'll debate her status in the proper thread.
As you say, "Most effective debate comes from the challenging of the assumptions on which the logic is based." You are right. I quite often do that in my life (actually, as I'm always challenging the so-called "received wisdom", my friends always tell me that I'm swimming against the tide all the time). I'd even say that I've been like a salmon struggling to swim upstream to find her place 
But, if you look closer to my theory, that's precisely what it does! It challenges a long-standing notion about the meaning of the GSG.
You'll say, well, but we don't even know if the apron is connected to the message...
Yes, you are right. But, are you willing to probe the possibility that it may have been?
If the writing wasn't the work of the killer and it was attributed to him only because of its proximity to the apron, then as you say, it would be a red herring and the message would mean nothing at all.
But we can't know for sure whether it was or it wasn't. We must be ready to study or probe both possibilities.
The path of "it was placed there fortuitously" leads to nowhere. We can't get any glimpse of the killer's mind, or take it as a clue, etc. It's a possibility worth looking into because it could be the way it happened, although we won't get anything out of it.
On the other hand, and to quote Sugden: "The position of the writing, just above the bloodstained piece of Kate's apron, and the unlikelihood of an overtly (or at least, it looked so) anti-semitic message surviving long in chalk in an entry principally used by Jews, oblige us to take it seriously." (Sugden, 1998, p.254).
This is another path, too. To entertain the possibility that it was chalked by the murderer. If you don't mind to probe this possibility (as we have done with the other) then we must advance some type of explanation, theory, that accounts for the whys, hows, etc.
And that was my intention when I posted this theory. For that reason we must be willing to entertain the two assumptions already mentioned (That the Constables mistook the capital "I" for a "J" and that Stride was a Ripper's victim).
It's necessary if you want to walk this path and see where it leads us. I don't discard the possibility that the first path is the correct one, but I can't discard the latter because I have some previous conceptions as to how I have to investigate the case.
Anyway, as I said, this is not the place to discuss the authenticity of the Graffito or the canonicity of Stride (don't worry, we'll do it in the proper thread  . My intention is to discuss the possibility I have advanced and see if it could give another option worth looking into.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 58
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Hi Helge!
Thanks for your words and input. Good, well presented ideas...
Nice points to ponder over. I do want to answer them properly, but I need more time to do that (and at this moment, I'm a bit pressed for it), so I'll deal with them asap.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 702
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
Two points Inaki -
a) I have been engaged in challenging the conventional view on Stride's killer here on casebook for 6 months;
b) I admire Sugden and rate him as the best narrative book on the murders, but I don't regard him as "gospel". I would challenge his views on several points, and consider his views on the graffito no better (and perhaps worse) than those of other informed commentators.
By the way, am I to intrepret your words:
The path of "it was placed there fortuitously" leads to nowhere. We can't get any glimpse of the killer's mind, or take it as a clue, etc. It's a possibility worth looking into because it could be the way it happened, although we won't get anything out of it.
as meaning that "I would like the graffito to belong to the Ripper because its an interesting clue and I wish it did, because I can then create all sorts of theories around it"?
Lot's of "could's" and "possibles" in your last post to me, being transformed via wishful thinking into fact, as I see it. That was the way of the MacCormacks, Knights and other earlier writers. We now look back on them as largely discredited.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on June 20, 2005) |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 152
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Hope you take no offence in me pointing out that we cannot disregard all theories that includes Stride just because you think she was killed by another killer.
Obviously any such theory WOULD be rendered invalid if Strides murder was proven to be disconnected to the Ripper case. But we cannot make every thread a Stride thread.
I think this is what Inaki means.
Prove that Stride was not a Ripper victim (on another thread preferably), and I would be thrilled. Personally I think she WAS a Ripper victim, but I hold my options open, as there are no definitive evidence either way.
Until such proof exist, all we got are personal opinions, and those may be right or wrong, but cannot be the basis of an argument per se.
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
If it really was the International Workingmen's Educational Association and not Society and if your theory is true, then we better start chasing down who drew that picture. What are the odds that two different people would misname the same group the same way? |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 59
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Phil!
As I said, it a fine thing to challenge things and I do it constantly. I hope to have the chance to debate some of those objections somewhere else.
When I quoted Sugden, I didn't do it because I thought his word is "Gospel". I did it to show that it's not a far-fetched idea that someone may think the GSG might be a message left or that the reasons that Sugden only summarizes are not to be dismissed out of hand. But, as you do, I don't believe that something must be so just because someone says so.
Are you to interpret my words as meaning that "I would like the graffito to belong to the Ripper because its an interesting clue and I wish it did, because I can then create all sorts of theories around it?"
No, I didn't say or mean that. I just said that we have two paths or courses of action to follow. The first path and valid course of action is to think that the GSG wasn't chalked by the Ripper. If that's true, then it's useless as a clue and says nothing about the killer.
The other path and also a valid course of action is to think that the GSG might have been left by the killer. Am I not going to follow that path just because I know there exist another one that goes in opposite direction?
If I choose to follow the one that says that the GSG could be a clue, then I must be ready to formulate a theory, explanation, etc., that accounts for all the questions it arises.
Am I to interpret that you have 100% proof that the GSG or Stride's murder are not connected to the Ripper? or Do you only think that there is a good and reasonable possibility that they are not? If you believe the latter, then we can agree on that, but if you believe the former, then I think we see things differently.
PS- If I use several "could's" and "possibles" is because I don't believe in absolutes. I also think that we only have a partial knowledge of things. As I said, sometimes, it all depends on how we look at things. "Is The Bottle Half Empty Or Half Full?"
Besides, if I don't think that anyone's opinion should be regarded as "Gospel", why should I express myself with so much certainty? I just have fear that I might be taken as a smart-alec.
Anyway, there are "could's" that are "possibles" and "possibles" that "couldn't".
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 60
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
Helge, Diana,
When I get the time I'll address that confusion over the name. But, there is more evidence that it was also called Society.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 153
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 11:46 am: |
|
I have not had time to really look into this, but so far I have come over names like
The International Working Men's Educational Club,
and
International and Educational Club
In newspapers of the time. Surely the possibility of a mis-spelling as "Society" is not far fetched at all. Newspapers at the time were not particularly impressive when it came to checking their sources.
But that is, of course, partly because the information technology as we know it today did not yet exist.
I'm sure the IWEA was also known by some as IWES. The main question is, would they really have referred to themselves as that? And if not, does it all hinge on Jack having read it somewhere?
Love your theorizing, Inaki, but that is kind of thin.
Actually, I would have loved it if it was true, though, because I have for some time been fiddling with the idea that there might have been some link between Jack and the Berner Street socialist movement!
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 12:50 pm: |
|
You can't prove a hypothesis till you have a hypothesis. Let's see if we can find a way to prove or disprove. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Hello, all.
Kindly have a look at my "Jukes" posting under "Juwes or Juives" (which also contains a mouse "drawing" by way of illustration).
Perhaps Inaki has already read it? Perhaps that's what sparked Inaki off in the first place?
My idea might have been rubbish, but since Inaki is plainly ploughing the same furrow it might at least have some mind-opening potential.
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Hello Inaki.
I like the fact that you have approached this from a completely new angle.I also admire the enthusiasm and determination you show in trying to make your theory work.
However having said all that,your scenario doesn't work for me.There are far too many IFs and BUTs.
Firstly,you are suggesting that the killer wrote the graffito,he was foreign and had a poor grasp of the English language.
He therefore would have had some difficulty conveying his message clearly.
Being aware of this then,surely he would have written the simplest possible message,something like: "I KILLED BOTH LADIES"
Instead you are suggesting that the killer,whilst struggling to form a sentence in a foreign(to him)language ,decided to make life ten times more difficult for himself by producing a cryptic message alluding to a group of people who were NOT responsible for an unspecified event or more probably,a series of events.
Your theory hinges on the idea that in his message,the killer was reffering to a specific event.
Grammatically incorrect as it might be,the line which includes: "Will not be blamed for nothing",
tends to suggest a SERIES of events rather than a specific event for which responsibility was never admitted.
I therefore don't believe it likely that the graffitist was implying that HE was actually responsible for anything.
Kane
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 658
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 3:11 pm: |
|
Don't give up, Inaki. If your idea is true, what else ought to be true? What can we expect to find? |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
