|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 154
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 3:59 pm: | 
|
What would have changed the situation for me, would be a photograph of the Berner Street Club including the word "Society", in effect, validating the drawing.
If the killer of Stride also wrote the GSG, it might be that he read that very sign at Berner Street, and it might have stuck in his head.
However, I still think he needed a motive for including the IWES in his message. Was it important for him that the Club was not involved? Was it important for him that the Juwes should not be blamed?
Kane,
"surely he would have written the simplest possible message,something like: "I KILLED BOTH LADIES"
Exactly! Valid point. Consider also, why is the GSG worded as it is in the first place? It gives no immediate clear-cut meaning as a simple taunt. Was it nevertheless important for the writer to say exactly what he said?
Was it in fact not a mistake by the writer at all?
The meaning that can be inferred using cockney dialect as basis, coupled with the circumstances surrounding its discovery, gives me reason to think Jack wrote it.
Anyway, can we ascertain that the drawing saying "society" in fact represented reality? (scurry to work fellow posters and posterettes)
I'm with Diana on wishing you good luck, Inaki. It is an innovative and fresh idea!
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 662
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
Hi Iñaki,
Although your theory gives us a fresh look at things, in addition to Helge’s point about the name of the Socialist club, I have a few comments.
First of all, however the word was spelled; I think it’s an important point that all the police officers who actually saw the graffito seemed to have agreed at least that the message was about the Jews, meaning that the second word of it was meant to be Jews.
Secondly, what would the addition ‘are the men who’, which is plural (as opposed to the singular ‘Society’) and therefore doesn’t fit, actually add to the International Workingmen Educational Society? It seems a rather awkward addition. Although ‘are the men who’ seems a redundant addition to the (plural) word ‘Jews’ (or however it was spelled), there is at least concord. Not that this makes your theory impossible, but it does make it less likely, in my view at least.
Furthermore, and I don’t want to be a killjoy here, what would your theory yield us at the end of the day, assuming it was right? Certainly, then it would be more likely that Stride was a Ripper victim and that the Ripper was anti-Semitic, or held some grudge against Jews, which shouldn’t really be all that surprising, considering he probably wouldn’t have been the only one. But, if you ask me, we still wouldn’t be significantly wiser as to the man we know as Jack.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 7:47 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Helge,
I'm going to try to answer your questions.
First of all, IMHO, the main question should be: Was the The International Workingmen Educational Club also known as the The International Workingmen Educational Society? Was that name in vogue at that time? This is important to determine whether it could have been used or not.
First of all, I’d like to point out that one thing is under which name the club was registered and another thing is what name the club exibited on their premises. For instance, I'm member of a Magic Circle. But the name we chose to get the club registered with is not the same name we exibit on our premises or the same name we are known by. And curiously, the difference lies in that we registered it as an Association but our public name reads Society. It's just a matter of burocracy. One term carries some advantages over the other. But you are not obliged to use the official term.
So, what about the Berner Street club? Is my theory kind of thin? Let's see...
Firstly, whoever drew the sketch stated "Society". To say that he just made a mistake is just speculative and doesn't sound very probable. Think about this: The artist went there and drew what he saw. Do you really think that he just mistook "Association" (in big capital letters) for "Society"?
Secondly, what about the newspapers? How did they refer to the BSC? Well, let's see some examples:
THE EVENING NEWS,MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1888 (5th EDITION): "The first murder discovered was that in the little yard in Berner-street, off Commercial-road. About a hundred yards down Berner-street, on the right hand side, are the rooms of the International WorkingMen's Educational Society, a club used principally by Russians, Poles, and Jews generally..."
One more example:
Irish Times,Dublin, Ireland, Monday, 1st October 1888: "there is also a side entrance to No. 40 Berner street, which is occupied by the International Workingmen's Education Society- a club of Jewish Socialists, mostly of foreign extraction who..."
Were journalists, artists, so careless as to repeat (and even draw) the same mistake over and over again?
You quote Mark Gould in which he uses the word "Association". Well, as I said one thing doesn't exclude the other. But, let me give you another quote. For instance:
Administrative/Biographical History
Reference: John Quail, The Slow Burning Fuse (London, 1978).
"William (Wolf) Wess was born to a Jewish family in Vilkomar, Lithuania in 1861. Early in his career, he worked as a machinist in Dvinsk and emigrated to England at the age of twenty. Wess was much influenced by Morris Winchevsky, a Socialist and poet. In 1885 the International Workingmen's Educational Club was founded in Berner Street in the East End of London. Wess was the Club's secretary and he was the first witness called at the inquest of Elizabeth Stride, an alleged victim of Jack the Ripper, in October 1888 : Elizabeth Stride's body was found in the early hours of the morning in the yard next to buildings used by the International Working Men's Education Society. Wess was heavily involved in the labour movement and assisted in the foundation of many Jewish trade unions. He acted as secretary of the strike committee during the strike of East London tailors in 1889. During the 1890s Wess founded and was secretary of the Federation of East London Workers' Unions: he was also secretary successively of the International Tailors, Machinists and Pressers' Trade Union, and the United Ladies and Mantle Makers' Association. Wess withdrew from his activities in the Jewish trade union movement at the beginning of the twentieth century and took up a job as a book-keeper in a tobacco factory. William Wess died in 1946."
I feel that both terms were interchangeable --although, officially it may have been registered as “Association”. The explanation for this may lie in the fact that the BSC was launched by the Society of Jewish Socialists...('East End Jewish Radicals', William J Fishman).
So it seems to me that International Working Men's Education Society was also a common name used and known both by the locals and journalists. Even historians use it to mean the same thing.
That's why the artist who drew the sketch most probably drew what he saw. As I said, one thing is which name you choose for registration purposes and another thing is which name you choose to exibit publicly.
So, let's suppose our man was someone who used to pass by the BSC from time to time. He may even have seen some pamplets or articles about the BSC, in which it was refered to as "Society" or IWES. He has also seen the big notice outside the club that read "Society", why would it be strange that he may choose to refer to it as such?
It's true that BSC was a popular name. But this seems to have been more a name given by the local people. As I've shown, newspapers also used International Workingmen Educational Society as a way to refer to it.
As someone who has been living abroad I know that a foreigner can be familiar enough with a place but not familiar enough with the terminology used by the locals. An example of this could be the word used by Londoners to refer to the underground train. They call it "The Tube". It has become a proper name. However, many foreign people still call it "The Underground". Why? Because that's the name they see outside the "Tube Station". Unless you are someone who blend with Londoners you'll probably use the name you see at the outside of the stations or in officiall reports, newspapers,etc., (for instance, if you read a newspaper you could see "London Underground Trains or London Underground Trains Strike, etc.). So, if you were a foreigner who wanted to leave a message about the London Tube, you would most probably use London Underground. That wouldn’t mean that you couldn’t be familiar with it.
My theory does't say that the murderer didn't know the area. My theory says that he wasn't a local. But there is a big difference between not being a local a not knowing the area. The example of the Underground above-mentioned is real.
Precisely, if he wasn’t a local the expected thing would be to chalk that type of term. The same term that he could have read on the outside of the premises or in newspapers, pamplets, etc., but not the same term a local man would’ve used.
he needed a motive for including the IWES in his message.
Well, assuming Stride was his victim, what would have the killer's state of mind been? As he hadn’t been able to dispath her 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). So the reasons to include IWES in his message wouldn't be philantropic but would be out of pride. He just wanted everyone to know that the IWES yard murder was his and no one's else.
"surely he would have written the simplest possible message,something like: "I KILLED BOTH LADIES"
Simplest? For who? I don't think that'd be his main purpose. If you have done a job you want to be recognized for that. To speak about an unidentified woman wouldn't be enough. After all, London was rife with violence. There could have been more murders. His purpose would be to make it clear that the IWES yard murder was his and only his.
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.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on that. It sounds quite similar to how a Spaniard (or any other Speaker whose language admitted the double negative form as grammatically correct) would say it to mean just one event. It also reminds me of Spanish, French, Speaking people who are learning English and still confuse the use of the particle "Will".
Once again, I must say that this line of reasoning about grammatics reflects the way a native would see things but a foreigner like a French, Spaniard, Italian, etc., wouldn't see it that way.
Anyway, all your questions open a possible scenario that it’d be worth looking into. For instance, if Stride was killed by the Ripper, why did he choose that location?, etc.
(Message edited by inaki on June 20, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 20, 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: 62
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:02 pm: |
|
Diana!
Thanks for your supporting words! I'll try not to give up. Anyway, all constructive input (and help) will be welcome!
Is it possible to find something? Well, possibly more things than if we fail to explore potential clues. Besides, even if this theory weren't correct, it could be a good thing to debate it because that may lead us to another type of scenario or to see things differently.
Well, it's getting late (actually, in the area where I live it's 2:00 a.m! I should be in bed! Catch you later!
"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: 63
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 8:05 pm: |
|
Frank!
Thanks for your comments. I'll have to deal with them when I get the chance and I get the time.
As I said, in the place where I live it's 2:00 a.m.!
But, interesting points, anyway.
"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
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 659
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Take a look at the Lusk letter. The pronoun "I" appears several times. Lusk is the only letter that is acknowledged by most to be possibly from Jack. Every "I" in Lusk could have been a J. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 660
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:24 pm: |
|
PS -- thats a checkable detail; not conclusive but surely suggestive. If the I's in the LL had been totally different it would be less likely to be true. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:29 am: |
|
Yes very interesting, but perhaps a couple of points.
First off the example given above is complete with a circled picture from a contemporay newspaper to validate the claim that IWES stands for International Workingmens Educational Society.
Unfortunately the circled picture shows the lettering to read:
'Workingmens International (or Educational) Society'
Which makes the letters WIS not IWES.
Secondly the writing was in very small letters, I believe something like 1/2" high. At that size letters writen in chalk could represent practically anything.
I believe the reason why there was so much confusion over what the words actually said was simply because they were so small that everyone who saw them put their own interpretation on them.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2670
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 4:21 am: |
|
Hi Bob et al,
Having had the good fortune (or misfortune,depending on your outlook!) to have taught for more years than I care to recall,I am only too aware of the number of permutations of letter formation of which the 'human' hand is capable!!
Coupled with the Victorian predeliction for a copperplate sytle of script,taught as a matter of course in a rigorous,prescriptive manner to those lucky enough to recieve a formal education,letter forms being 'dictated' by copying from a given letterform with very few permutaions encouraged or even allowed!
The 'author' of said graffito is however unlikely to have filled endless copy books with his efforts and so his scribbling would have been very much his own,devoid of the 'restrictions' of the standard form.
Also the suggested size (approx 1/2 " is a small cramped hand,again not typical of the more fashionable,flowing,effusive style.
Hoever,as we see in the handwriting of many men of the 'medical profession', this is not always the case!........(!!!!!!!)
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2671
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
Now class.......
T.......H..............E..........J.......U........... |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 155
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Inaki,
Great post, and you sure did come through with that research!
My preliminary research also showed that there was in fact many names for the "club" in question. That might be due to the fact that it was indeed part of an international socialist movement, but could be, at times, a turbulent local branch.
The question is still if they REALLY called themselves IWES.
Bobs points here are very relevant! Besides, the number of spelling errors one may find in newspapers from the time makes it all too clear that they worked in a completely different way than modern newspapers. What I'm saying is that they relied heavily on second hand information, and often copied eachothers mistakes.
This is NOT evidence that IWES is based purely on a "mistake" though! Just a valid point to ponder.
I quoted Gould, but this was not my only reference, although sufficiently interesting to mention. I could also have mentioned (and in hindsight, should have) that in the catalog of the writings of William Wess (Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick Library), the archives seems to indicate that in (at least late) 1888 the "Club" was actually going by the name "International Workingmen's Educational Club"
***
MSS.240W/4/5/1-9 Yiddish journals 1888-1912
MSS.240W/4/5/1 The Worker's Friend 1888 December
1 file
Published by the International Workingmen's Educational Club.
***
Inaki, you say:
"Besides, even if this theory weren't correct, it could be a good thing to debate it because that may lead us to another type of scenario or to see things differently"
Could not agree more!!
I have several more points of criticism concerning this, but believe me, it is in the interest of analyzing the situation from all possible angles, not to shoot you down, you are a terrific asset to casebook IMO!
Thanks for an interesting thread! I look forward to further debate.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 21, 2005)
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 156
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 8:27 am: |
|
Diana,
Your I's and J's example from the lusk letter illustrates your point well. From my point of view (i.e. the handwriting I am subjectively used to), even the F in "From Hell" might look like a capital I!
Interpreting handwriting can be hard, and a letter will often be interpreted dependent on the following letters, or what word one think might follow! This has to do with how we read words, not by looking at individual letters, but by the words visual "signature".
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 64
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Hi all!
First of all, I’d like to thank you all for your points and ideas.
Bob,
The lettering says Workingmen’s Educational Society. So, it wouldn’t be WIS but WES. See the sketch below.
Anyway, I didn’t say that the notice outside the club was the only reason for IWES. As I said, newspapers often used International Workingmen Educational Society as a common way to refer to the BSC. So, if the killer chose that term to refer to the place in which he had just struck that night, that’d have been a valid name.
You rightly say that: “the writing was in very small letters, I believe something like 1/2" high. At that size letters writen in chalk could represent practically anything. I believe the reason why there was so much confusion over what the words actually said was simply because they were so small that everyone who saw them put their own interpretation on them.”
Basically, my point is more or less the same. For the reasons already mentioned, there’s no solid evidence that they just saw a misspelling of the word Jews. Besides, I’d like to point out something. Even if we still allow for other permutations of the word it still might have led them to the same confusion. As we don’t know the exact wording of it, it’s possible that the killer’s intention would have been to say: The Iwec’s men will not be… etc., (to mean the members (or men) of the International Workingmen Educational Club). As Suzi says (hi Suzi. Very funny your classroom photograph) the number of permutations of letter formation of which the 'human' hand is capable may be incredible. Depending on the handwriting style it could have been misread as Jwees.
The letter “c” is also often written like an “e” (actually, if you read my mother’s letters you couldn’t tell whether she uses an “e” or a “c”. They look the same. And when the word admits both options then it’s impossible to decipher it). And Iwecs would still resemble one of the possible variations of Juwes, Jewes, Juews, etc. Here are some samples of Iwecs written in different handwriting styles.
The idea that my theory aims to stress is that the mesage could be a reference to the BSC murder (whether incriminating or exonerating, it'd be impossible to say for sure), and that the killer left Eddowes’s apron to link it.
PS- Bob, I’d like to take advantage that you have stepped in to congratulate you on your book, From Hell. It’s a fresh and well thought out approach to the case. I highly recommend it as a must (even if you don’t agree with the final conclusions).
"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: 65
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Diana,
Thanks for your ideas and for showing us a possible clue. I’ve been checking the letters and I think they could reflect what I’m saying.
Here are some samples of them.
As it can be seen in both letters (The Lusk’s letter and the Dear Boss Letter) the “I” is writen much in the style of a “J” and they could pass as the same letter.
Even in none of them came from the killer, they’d still show that in those times some styles of handwriting wrote the “I” in that way. So, a mistake of that type could have been quite possible.
"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: 66
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Helge,
It’s interesting to note that the BSC was an offshoot of the Socialist League (Illustrated Police News 6 October, 1888), and it was indeed part of an international socialist movement. Or as John Henry Mackay puts it: “…Except the "Morgenröthe," the third section of the old Communistic Workingmen's Educational Society, the "International Workingmen's Club" was the only club of revolutionary Socialists in the East End. The members, about two hundred of them, consisted mostly of Russian and Polish immigrants. The whole of Whitechapel, which for the most part was inhabited by their countrymen, constituted their wide field of propagandism…” (THE ANARCHISTS. A PICTURE OF CIVILIZATION AT THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.)
International Working Associations existed all around the world. For instance, “In the 1860s James Stephens, head of the Fenians, also promoted an alliance with the British radical movement. Moreover, Stephens joined the International Working Men's Association in New York in 1866.” (Newsinger, 1994: 51).
As an aside, I’d like to point out that this link between International Workingmen Associations and Fenians would be quite interesting to explore. As you know, Sir Melville Magnaghten identifed the Ripper with the leader of a plot to assassinate Mr Balfour at the Irish Office.
As for specifically the BSC, I haven’t able to find whether they used IWES or not. I have found that one International Workingmen Association used to refer to itself as IWA. (Memorial of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association November 20, 1867; Written: by Marx November 20, 1867) So, I don’t think it would be strange that the International Workingmen Eduactional Society could be refered to as IWES.
But, as I have just said above, even other permutations allow for a reference to the BSC murder. Anyway, as I also mentioned, I don’t believe in absolutes. So, I’m open to new ideas. Who knows, depending on the wording we choose the message might also be interpreted as a threat to the IWES organization.
Maybe, that was the reason for which Stride was killed there and for the Lipski incident...
"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: 67
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:58 pm: |
|
Hi Frank!
Thanks for your comments.
“however the word was spelled; I think it’s an important point that all the police officers who actually saw the graffito seemed to have agreed at least that the message was about the Jews, meaning that the second word of it was meant to be Jews.”
Well, as it has already noted, the police officers saw a word that lead them to believe that it was the word Jews spelled wrongly. That doesn’t mean that it had to be something related to the word Jews or a misspelling of it. The best evidence is that none of the police officers transcribed the word in the same way. As it has been said, the message was chalked in a place which housed a lot of Jews. So, that might have lead them to conclude that it was the word Jews. But apart from that, there was nothing else that made reference to the Jews.
As for the grammatical problems…
First of all, we can’t even be sure of the wording of it. Admitting the possibility that English wasn’t the killer’s first language, how can we be so sure about how he had expressed himself? I’ve seen a lot of writting examples of people who are learning English and they are even worse than the GSG. Imagine that he just meant “The Iwes men (i.e. the men of the IWES organization) will not be…etc.”, and just made a botch of it.
“Although ‘are the men who’ seems a redundant addition to the (plural) word ‘Jews’ (or however it was spelled), there is at least concord.”
But here you are just taking for granted that the word was Jews and not Iwes (or other similar permutation of it) that made reference to an organization or group.
And there is not concord on that. As 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.” (Ripperologist, May 2005, p.25).
Assuming my theory were right, it would be another step in untangling the case. As you’ve already noted, it’d link Stride’s murder to the others. Depending on whether you interpreted the message as a way to incriminate the IWES organization or not, it could give us another reason for which those murders were commited. If that’d be the case, then many of the suspects could be discarded.
And if we just interpret the message as a way the killer intended to make it clear that the IWES yard murder was his and the IWES members had nothing to do with that, and in order to do that, he used a double negative form because his first language may be French, Spanish, etc., then it could point to another suspect. I think you all know who it might be.
Anyway, it’s another way to approach the case and as I said, even if my theory weren’t correct, it could be a good thing to debate it because that may lead us to another type of scenario or to see things differently"
"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: 2672
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:09 pm: |
|
The A-Z refers to the "INTERNATIONAL WORKINGMEN'S EDUCATIONAL CLUB AT 40,Berner St,running along the North side of Dutfield's Yard.
Acquired in 1885 by Jewish Socialists,it became a favoured centre for immigrant anarchists and intellectuals"
Suzi
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 666
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 3:47 pm: |
|
Hi Iñaki,
"But here you are just taking for granted that the word was Jews and not Iwes (or other similar permutation of it) that made reference to an organization or group.
And there is not concord on that."
I wasn't taking that for granted. The 'Society' in IWES is a singular noun, whilst 'are the men who' is obviously plural. However, the word 'Jews', or however it was spelled, is plural, too. So, there would be grammatical concord in case the actual chalked word was 'Jews' or whatever, whereas there wouldn't be in the case of 'IWES'.
So, the concord I meant didn't have anything to do with the level of agreement between all the parties concerned - it was all about grammatical concord. And, on account of that, 'Jews' seems more likely than 'Society'. That was my point, besides the fact that the '...Society are the man who...' sounds rather awkward.
Of course, I concede that if Jack the writer was someone who didn't completely master the English language, he might have written anything.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2673
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
Frank!
That is my point!!! exactly!!! the fact that the writing was small, scribbled and ill formed would suggest either-
a) Someone of an ill education
b) Someone to whom let's say.. English was not a first language
c)Just 'anyone' who was scrawling and at speed.....IF indeed the writer of all this WAS indeed the 'Ripper'
The facts are, as I see it that a piece of apron was found in a doorway,more than likely being the other half (or thereabouts ) of Kate Eddowes's apron....
There was somewhere around it, something scrawled on the black jamb,allegedly in chalk,in small indistinct handwriting...for whatever reason it was removed....maybe it was seen to say Jews,Jewes,Jives,or whatever and therefore seen as a possible incitement 'problem' with the existing situation in Whitechapel at the time with respect to Jewish suspicion etc.
Sadly, whatever ,it was removed and all we have is some police notebook scribbles.....These men were no doubt very worried and maybe keen to be the first to get down the facts(!) before the sponge took it all out of our reach,...I think [IMHO ] that we probably have more than one 'view' of what was scrawled on that wall and if it had anything at all to do with the case, let alone be from the hand of the Ripper, remains to be(but more than likely not) seen!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2674
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
I MUST stress I'm not THAT old but do remember copying things in such a book with phrases such as
"The Devil Makes Work for Idle hands"
Obviously worked!!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2675
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:03 pm: |
|
Some beautiful pictures of kids doing just that ..copying letterforms into their copy books and being careful not to spill their ink......hence the phrase....."blotting your copy book!" ..Yes Really!
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2677
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
This of course is me here tonight working on mine!!!!
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 157
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
All,
I doubt if we can dismiss the idea that people sometimes referred to the BSC as IWES, so I'll certainly go along with this as a possibility. Although, I concur with Frank on the grammatical difficulties inherent in this alternative interpretation of the GSG.
The wording does seem a bit strange to me, and I have a hunch that IF Jack wrote the GSG, there was more to it than just a desire to tell people he killed "the other woman". (and sorry, Inaki, the notion that he should talk about the "IWES men" NOT being the killers seems a bit unnatural to me..but then again, who knows?)
Why only a reference to the one murder? Why did he not mention Mitre square? Of course, one may argue that the piece of apron was an indication on that in itself. But if Jack realized this, he was intellectually aware of the situation, and we should expect the GSG to have been written with some deliberation.
Inaki, you wrote:
"Who knows, depending on the wording we choose the message might also be interpreted as a threat to the IWES organization"
Maybe.
None of this can be properly ascertained, except perhaps by sorting through the known facts and using common sense. Some points to ponder:
*If he was simply bragging, would Jack have alluded only to one murder?
Unlikely, IMO, he would boldly have claimed two!
*Was he simply confused? Why then did he have the wits to carry the apron a considerable distance so as to validate the graffito? (If he did not intend this, why carry it this far?) Also, if he really behaved in a confused manner, why was he never arrested?
*What if he was NOT bragging, NOR confused. What if it was actually part of a very (at least in his opinion) "cunning" plan. (one that, if it ever existed, almost worked)
So what could this plan have been?
*Was he simply trying to confuse the police? Why leave a clue at all? If caught, it would only tie him to both murders. At this point, would he not have been as good as home free anyway? The writing of the GSG exposed him unnecessary.
Was it that important to Jack? And why?
*Was he in fact really trying to blame it all on the Jews? If so, why? Because he was not a Jew, and that would throw the police off his scent? Well, they were not even close to being on his scent at this point, anyway! (Or were they? Did he think so, right or wrong?)
*Was he an anti Semite? Was it that simple? He did not kill Jews, obviously. But that may not have been his plan, nor desire. Perhaps he was a serial killer AND an anti Semite? Certainly there were more of the latter kind in Whitechapel than the former, so that would not be stretching things too far. If Jack killed Stride, he might very well have been the one shouting Lipski! And even if he was against the Jews, prostitutes would still be the easiest targets for his...other nasty pastime.
*Did he want an uprising against the Jews? Did he try to implicate the BSC and the Jews in some way? Certainly a possible revolt was on the minds of the police at the time. It was turbulent times, with anti Semitism and rising socialism. Inaki’s interpretation of the Juwes as Iwes could perhaps be explained by Jacks desire to implicate the Jewish socialism?
But even the usual interpretation could be valid in a scenario where anti Semitism play a role. Also, the apron WAS left outside Jewish dwellings, and this fact alone could indicate an intent to blame it on the Jews (Unless we think it was coincidental, in which case we must explain why Jack carried the incriminating piece of apron this far)
*Was he also involved in radical socialism? Was he a member of the BSC? Or a former member? Remember this was a socialist organization, but with increasingly heavy ties to the Jewish socialist movement. Did Jack disagree with their agenda? Or simply the fact that they were Jews?
*Another explanation is just as possible. Was Jack actually an orthodox Jew? It was commonly known at the time that the Jewish socialists were considered by many to be “bad Jews” that did not stick to their religion. (Begg p. 172) The double negative in the GSG actually opens up for even this possibility.
*Did he murder Stride outside the BSC to “blame the Jews”?
*Alternatively, did he murder Stride outside the BSC to more specifically damage the BSC and\or the Arbeter Fraint?
Did he leave Eddowes’ apron on the steps of the Wentworth Model Dwellings (a predominantly Jewish residence in a predominantly Jewish locality) to further “blame the Jews”?
*Or, if Inaki’s interpretation is correct, to further implicate the BSC?
*We must not forget that we also have the possible Fenian connection to the case, another link to the BSC?
If these speculations (or even just some of them) are correct, it also follows that Stride’s murder was perhaps deliberately part of a double event, thus strengthening her case for being a canonical Ripper victim. It also explains the problem with why the apron ended up where it was eventually found, as well as explaining the GSG “mystery”.
Two murders in one night. One outside a Jewish Club. One connected to a Jewish residence. We cannot be absolutely sure if Jack committed both crimes, nor if he really wanted a revolt against the Jews, but if he did not, he could have fooled me!
Ok, the above are just some of my thoughts on this. Much is speculation, but apart from the hypothetical, I stick to the known facts (most of the time, I hope!)
Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 21, 2005)
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 68
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 8:34 am: |
|
Hi all!
Frank,
Sorry for my mistake. I misunderstood what you meant. 
As we don't know the exact wording we can't be absolute sure about what the GSG writer meant. Imagine that he just intended to write something along these lines: “The Iwes men (i.e. the men of the IWES organization) will not be…etc.”, and for the reasons above-mentioned made a botch of it. That'd make more sense.
Besides, although IWES is a singular word it makes reference to a whole group of people, which could explain why the writer might have used the word "men".
Anyway, as you put it, if the writer was someone who didn't completely master the English language, he might have written anything.
"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
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Following on from my earlier posting to another thread (i.e. on "Juwes" being a misinterpretation of a scrawled "Jukes") I was intrigued to read of the possible connection between Monty Druitt and the Tuke brothers asylum.
I am really not convinced by the Druittist argument, but for those that are I don't suppose it's beyond the bounds of possibility that a mentally unsound Druitt could have chalked "The Tukes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing", if he had once had dealings with the Tukes - a "cry for help" perhaps - and had felt let down.
Granted, this is only a brain-dump, but only slightly more outlandish than IWES, n'est-ce pas?
I note that investigations into the possible Tukes/Druitt linkage may be ongoing by several board members. I'd be intrigued if they turn up anything of substance. Or not, by the way, I don't regard my hypotheses as sacred cows - only possible avenues of exploration by the good members of this community :o)
(Slightly) doctored version of my previous crappy mouse drawing attached. (Clue: it spells "Tukes")
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Hello Inaki,
I sorry but I feel that you are desparately trying to bang that square peg into a round hole now.
You keep emphasizing that the Ripper,above all, needed to tell everyone that HE was responsible for Stride's murder.So OK according to your theory he doesn't know the womans name so he refers to the IWES in his message.
Now,had he written something like:"I KILLED LADY NEAR IWES",then I would start taking your idea seriously.
Now,vague as the wording is,the general message contained in the graffito is quite clear, according to its author...THE JEWS GET AWAY WITH EVERYTHING.
Even if you don't accept the massage said "Juwes",
it is quite obvious that the graffito was a complaint against SOMEONE who had "offended" time and time again and not a confession to a murder.
Why do you think the murderer would be telling the people that the IWES WERE NOT responsible for the murder? Why not Just say "I DID IWES MURDER"
Of course,there is absolutely no indication that the message refers to a murder or any other specific event anyway.
Also,trying to interpret the type of grammatical errors that a foreigner of unknown nationality may or may not have made is realy "Clutching at straws" I think.
I agree with Frank, that between them,the police were pretty sure that the message was aimed at the Jews and was written probably by a man holding a grudge for whatever reason.
Kane
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:55 am: |
|
Hello.
What generally seems to happen in a lot of Goulston street graffito discussions,is that somebody will begin by re-interpreting the word "JUWES" and then try to make sense of it in the context of the rest of the message.A bit like choosing a suspect then bending the facts to fit around that suspect.
Surprisingly,I have seen few attempts to simply rewrite the sentence so that it makes better grammatical sense.There seems to be a great need in some to weave some sort of intrigue or mystery in the form of a cryptic message,be it by Mason or by Martian!
So here is my mundane interpretation of the message:
"The Jews are the type of people who always refuse to admit they are wrong whenever the make a mistake".
My guess is that a local man with an obvious grudge against the Jews wrote the message.
Maybe he had often been short changed by Jewish market traders who knows?.
The double negative and choice of the letter "U" in attemting to spell Jews,are both understandable if poorly educated cockney man was in fact responsible.
Kane |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 705
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
I have deliberately sought to keep out of this discussion, because I do not want to dampen Inaki's enthusiasm or seem to question his clear knowledge and eagerness to pursue new options.
But I must endorse what Kane said when he wrote:
"What generally seems to happen in a lot of Goulston street graffito discussions,is that somebody will begin by re-interpreting the word "JUWES" and then try to make sense of it in the context of the rest of the message.A bit like choosing a suspect then bending the facts to fit around that suspect. "
The growing absurdity of the convolutions and speculations in this thread is both amusing and frustrating. The flaws in the hypothesis have been clearly pointed out - not least the grammatical one - in earlier posts.
While I think those who wish to should explore the possibility that the word might be IWES - though it makes no sense to me - building all sorts of questions and castles in the air on that seems preamture at least.
Just my view, though,
Phil
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 614
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:10 am: |
|
Kane and Phil,
Very good posts that make excellent points. My energy level is still a little low so I won't write much more now, but I can't pass up one whimsical notion.
Gareth: How could you have missed the connection in your interpretation to that 19th Century New York State family -- the Jukes -- whose history revealed a high incidence of crime?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 69
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Suzi,
You look 'gorgeous' in that black&white picture... 
All your scenarios are possible, in fact, even complementary, because the writer may meet all of them.
The facts are, as I see it that a piece of apron was found in a doorway,more than likely being the other half (or thereabouts ) of Kate Eddowes's apron....
This is one of the most interesting aspects of that night. For any reason the killer chose to cut a rather big piece of Kate's apron and take it with him all the way until GS. That was a long stretch and if the reason had been to wipe off his hands, he obviously made a good job of it. He missed several places where he could have deposited the apron.
Besides, that was the first time he cut a piece of apron, clothes, etc., to clean his hands, knife, etc. I know there could be more reasons for it. For instance, he may have cut himself while dispatching Eddowes. But if that was the case, then he simply misjudged the injure because he discarded that makeshift bandage just a little while later. Besides, only one corner of it was wet with blood. And why should he cut a big piece of apron if the injure were not so serious?
I'd even discard the possibility that the killer cut a piece of apron to wipe off his hands or knife. As I said, it was the first time he did such thing, and he was already an 'experienced' killer. He probably had given some thought to those aspects of cleaning his hands and knife. These are just some of the reasons that remain to be answered satisfactorily. The question is not only whether the GSG is authentic or not, but why did the killer cut such a big piece of apron, walk such a long stretch with it, and discard it right below a fresh message (according to Halse)?
PS- I see that you live near Portsmouth. I used to visit Portsmouth on a weekly basis and later on a monthly basis. It's a very nice area. I even dined once in Wickham or surrondings. It was an Indian Restaurant.
(Message edited by inaki on June 22, 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: 2681
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
Inaki!
EEeek did you? wow! small world!!!!!
Sadly theres no Indian in Wickham anymore! There are loads in Fareham though which is fairly close!!!!
Right.....as to Kate's apron and the distance ,he carried it...yes this is interesting of course,..I feel that he probably wiped all the unpleasantness off of his hands,stuffed the 'rag' into his pocket and then ran (or walked in a sharpish fashion)for all he was worth through the rat run towards home,...passing GS he probably thought AH!.. and threw out the offending rag (apron) and maybe fate landed it in the doorway that has ended up in history complete with some interesting but irrelevant graffiti!
Just a thought!
Suzi |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 667
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:33 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
Although I don’t agree with everything you wrote, I think it’s still a good thinking-aloud post.
“*If he was simply bragging, would Jack have alluded only to one murder?
Unlikely, IMO, he would boldly have claimed two!”
Yes, he doesn’t seem to have been the bragging or taunting type.
”Was he simply confused? Why then did he have the wits to carry the apron a considerable distance so as to validate the graffito? (If he did not intend this, why carry it this far?) Also, if he really behaved in a confused manner, why was he never arrested?”
I don’t see why the Ripper should have come up with the idea to use the apron as a signature below the graffito long before he’d reached the entrance in Goulston Street. As far as I’m concerned he may just as well have taken it with him for whatever practical reason only. In other words, he might have been confused, but still have carried the apron all the way to the entrance.
On the other I completely agree with your last remark here. Although as a result of probably not thinking ahead too much he took considerable risks, within the boundaries of these risks he seems to have tried to keep his chances of getting caught to a minimum. So, if he actually was confused, IMHO he probably wasn't that confused.
“*What if he was NOT bragging, NOR confused. What if it was actually part of a very (at least in his opinion) "cunning" plan.”
Like I suggested above, judging from his crimes and crime scenes the Ripper seems to have been practical, efficient and concentrated (and probably also lucky) enough not to get arrested, but on the other hand he doesn’t seem to have been (much of) a planner. Had there been some clear indications that he did some planning, I might have believed the Ripper could have actually come up with the cunning plan your referring to. Since there aren’t, I have doubts about it.
”Why leave a clue at all? … At this point, would he not have been as good as home free anyway? The writing of the GSG exposed him unnecessary.”
I totally agree with you here.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 70
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Kane, Phil, Douglas…
Thanks for your comments…
First of all, I’d like to know why is it more believable to say that an overtly anti-semitic message could have survived long in chalk in an entry principally used by Jews…?
If I haven’t misunderstood what you are implying is that someone with with a grudge against the Jews just wrote the message. As it's been suggested, maybe "he had often been short changed by Jewish market traders, etc."
Well, before continuing, I’d like you to pause for a moment and think if the GSG reflects what someone protesting against someone (or should I say no one in particular?) would do? Do you really think that if you are pissed off about the Jews you’d go to a Jewish neighborhood to chalk just a few small lines, close to the floor, in a cryptic way, and without any insult, or other term to slag them off, etc.? And do you really think that such type of message would be there for long?
To say that the GSG means "THE JEWS GET AWAY WITH EVERYTHING", is to advance only one of the possible interpretations. Nothing less, nothing more. But, to say that it definitively means that, is speculation.
Besides, if you wanted to express an accusation or a complaint agains someone there'd be better (and bigger!) ways to put it (if you ask why I think the he did it that way, just check the other posts).
It can’t even be asserted that the graffito was "a complaint against SOMEONE".
Why a complaint and not a way of exonerating someone? After all, if the sentence read “will not be blamed”, it could very well be interpreted as someone who'd be defending a third party.
You say that "trying to interpret the type of grammatical errors that a foreigner of unknown nationality may or may not have made is realy "Clutching at straws"..."
Well. I guess that you know that there are books that deal with the typical mistakes made by people from some countries when learning or speaking English. The double negative form is just one of them.
Even the authorities at that time thought the GSG reflected the hand of a foreigner: “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). As I said, Warren was mistaken about the French. But, the fact is that some grammatical errors and ways of writing can be clues about the nacionality of the writer.
For instance, a typical way to say in Spanish that you are are not guilty is: “no one can blame you for nothing” or “you can’t be blamed for nothing” (literally translated). I’m not saying that the GSG author was a Spanish Speaker (French, Italians, etc., could say that in a similar way), but the fact is that some type of expressions and/or grammatical errors do denote the origins of the writer.
Finally, I’d like to say that, my initial interpretation is only one of the possibles. Actually, it was only one among several.
I’ve already stated that I don’t believe in absolutes. So, I’m open to new ideas. As we can’t know the exact wording of it, if we took a different wording then the interpretation would be different, too. Assuming the GSG author wrote the word IWES, he may have meant several other things: For instance:
•The GSG author intended to express that the IWES men were not the ones who must take the blame for what’s happened there (this was my first interpretation. A way the killer, in a fit of pride, let everybody know that he was the author of that murder in which he had been interrupted). "Why not Just say "I DID IWES MURDER"." Even so, he'd be saying something about the IWES. But, could you really say for sure how a foreigner would express himself? That, which is easier for a native, doesn't need be easier for a foreigner who, after all, is working under risky conditions, pressed for time, etc.
•The GSG author, in a subtle way, intended to incriminate the IWES men. Obviously, an overt attack to that group of men wouldn’t have been believable (like saying that the IWES men are the ones who did it, etc.). It wouldn’t have made sense that the killer would “confess” who the culprit was. But to hint something about them would have been more intelligent. This is assuming that those murders were committed to create an uprising against the Jews. Let’s bear in mind that Eddowes’s murder was also committed near a Jewish kind of club.
•The GSG author was worried because he knew that he had been seen by some people, i.e., Schwartz, etc. What if the killer just intended to throw the police off the scent and at the same time to muddy the investigation waters, by scribbling a message in which the IWES men were involved (without incriminating them overtly --See above)?
If the killer’s intentions had been to let people believe that in those murders was a Jewish hand (even if it only served as a means to bluff his way out and avoid suspicions), Schwartz could spoil his plans because he could tell the police that the criminal was a Gentile. So, that type of cryptic message could be a nice ruse. After all, the IWES organization were a group of men who were under suspicion of authorities for their radical activities.
“the graffito was a complaint against SOMEONE who had "offended" time and time again”
Well, many people felt offended by the activities the IWES men carried out. So, that objection wouldn’t rule them out.
“The growing absurdity of the convolutions and speculations in this thread is both amusing and frustrating”… “The flaws in the hypothesis have been clearly pointed out…”
Do you think that the rest of ideas, speculations, etc., that have been advanced and debated in other threads have been more productive? Have they reached a better understanding of it or do they just keep harping on the same interpretation without being able to reach a consensus?
As Diana said: “You can't prove a hypothesis till you have a hypothesis. Let's see if we can find a way to prove or disprove.”
To point out some “flaws” don’t disprove anything. To start with, it must be proved that it’s a flaw and not just an objection.
Secondly, any theory that aims to be considered as such must be open to corrections. That implies that a theory (from a scientific viewpoint) is fallible and revisable. In fact, a theory only must be a funtional guide to revise our knowledge of things.
But, the fact that some points are revisable don’t convert the theory as a whole in trash or in a useless tool.
Anyway, I’m glad that you were having an amusing time... 
(Message edited by inaki on June 22, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 22, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 22, 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: 2682
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:49 pm: |
|
Blimey Frank !!
Simultaneous posting!!!Spoooooky eh.....!!
Suzi
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 71
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Hi Helge!
Nice post and points. Now, I don't have enough time to further comment on them. But, I'll do it 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
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2683
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Hey Inaki....
Just reading through your last post (quickly though I must add),but bearing in mind that the 'graffiti' was written in chalk on a ceramic door jamb.......with many people (or not, who knows) passing it.....wouldnt it just be possible that the lettering such as it was, had become smudged or smeared,(or maybe even added to ,or altered!)...who knows... hence causing even further 'mistranslation'
Musing....
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2684
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Inaki
I dont have much time here either at the moment so will check tomorrow
Suzi |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 707
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
As far as I can see, Inaki, that last enormous post of yours was simply self-justifying. Methinks [the lady] doth protest too much.
Do you think that the rest of ideas, speculations, etc., that have been advanced and debated in other threads have been more productive? Have they reached a better understanding of it or do they just keep harping on the same interpretation without being able to reach a consensus?
Not my point, Inaki. advance one step at a time - its is the extremes of speculation being extruded in this thread that i find vaguely funny.
As Diana said: “You can't prove a hypothesis till you have a hypothesis. Let's see if we can find a way to prove or disprove.”
Precisely my point, Inaki - focus on the words not the speculation.
To point out some “flaws” don’t disprove anything. To start with, it must be proved that it’s a flaw and not just an objection.
To point out obvious grammatical flaws that defy any logic and require gymnastic displays of reasoning to explain them, is simply common sense.
...the fact that some points are revisable don’t convert the theory as a whole in trash or in a useless tool.
If you re-read my post Inaki - assuming that is aimed at me - you'll find I encourage exploration of your interpretation. It is the associated speculation that is making the thread ridiculous.
Phil
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 72
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi!
If you check my other posts you will see that I had advanced that possibility as an explanation of why they may have read JUWES or other similar word.
"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
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 615
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Suzi,
more than likely being the other half (or thereabouts ) of Kate Eddowes's apron....
There is so little that we can be sure of regarding the Ripper murders and so much room for endless speculation (this thread being an example) let us willingly embrace what seems dead on fact. Since the cut in Kate's apron went across a patch and a matching of the apron part left in Mitre Square with the part found in Goulstoun Street showed that the two patch portions also fitted together perfectly, I think it is safe to say something more emphatic than "more than likely" in terms of the apron.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2221
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
To get a historical and accurate perspective about how Londoners viewed their Jewish ‘brothers’ in the regard we talk about here, I would suggest that all should read the article published by The Times on August 14th 1884: ‘Anti-Semitism and the Blood Accusation’.
This is a lively news article which gives a fair view into the precarious situation.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 160
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Frank,
I'm not sure if I agree on everything I wrote myself 
This concept is just one possible scenario that is a working theory at best, and might well be considered "thinking aloud".
I'll try to answer some of your objections, but I'm very open on these interpretations myself, mind you.
"he might have been confused, but still have carried the apron all the way to the entrance"
Yes, we may never know why he carried the piece of apron. But it was the first time he did something like that. It could be possible that he actually had a plan. It was not to wipe his hands or knife, that would have taken only seconds, and would be a dangerous thing to do for several minutes. I think even a disorganized killer would have instinctively known that.
I don't see Jack as totally disorganized and unpredictable. If he had no use of the apron, he would have tossed it away at random long before GS.
"he doesn’t seem to have been (much of) a planner. Had there been some clear indications that he did some planning, I might have believed the Ripper could have actually come up with the cunning plan your referring to. Since there aren’t, I have doubts about it"
I see your point, Frank. Actually I don't think he necessarily had a plan ready as a sort of blueprint. He probably made decisions on the spot.
But if my main "core theory" here are correct, he might have wanted to kill someone outside the Berner Street Club to "blame the Jews". That it was Stride, and that the opportunity even arose that night was random. He may have tried several nights without success. Unfortunately he was (perhaps) interrupted by Diemschutz, and that particular plan was almost fullfilled, but not quite.
So he improvises, and killes Eddowes. Maybe he had thought about the apron beforehand, maybe not. Maybe he originally had wanted to take something off Stride.
At any rate, he is not satisfied with the one killing. No mutilations means no satisfaction, regardless of any other plan.
Maybe he simply needed the piece of apron to carry organs that he suddenly wanted to bring home as trophies, whatever.
The plan to "blame it on the Jews" kicks in again, and he realizes he can cast suspicion on the Jews once again by using the apron.
Mind you, there is ample time between the killing of Eddowes and the time the apron was found for Jack to have come up with this idea. Maybe he even went home with his "souvenirs" first? Maybe it was then he also came up with the idea of the Graffito?
Ok, lots of maybe's. But it fits the known facts. In itself, that proves nothing, I know. But the "core theory" here survives several possible scenarios.
As you see, I think Jack was quite used to take risk, think fast, and plan on his feet. His "cunning plan" would still only be "to blame it on the Jews". Everything else he made up as he went, to reinforce that plan.
I'm sure, if this was what happened, that he considered himself pretty clever for playing his little games.
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2690
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:38 pm: |
|
AP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The voice of sanity as ever!!!!!
XX Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2691
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Donald
Yes we KNOW it was THE piece of the apron...........that wasn't really my point!
At least there are many facts to assume that that was the case and it probably was but as in most things here can we ever be sure
Suzi |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 162
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:17 pm: |
|
Well, anti-semitism is rife even today
This is not for the faint hearted:
(read on your own risk, it made me feel sick!)
"Jack the Ripper and the Jews by Max Hadden"
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/lettersOct-Nov03/10904haddenripper.htm
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 621
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 7:45 pm: |
|
Dear Helge:
You stated above: "Yes, we may never know why he carried the piece of apron. But it was the first time he did something like that."
Not to be rude, but it may not have been the only time he carried something to clean his hands or knife. It was,as you stated correctly,the first time he took a known garment from any of the victims killed outdoors.
*************************************************
HowBrown
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 451
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:54 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
I just went to the web link you put in your post and I was almost physically sick. I truly could not believe what was written there,
Having read the most antisemitic diatribe I have ever come across there, I almost choked when I read the following line:
'There are photographs available of the Ripper's victims but I have not included them here out of good taste.'
Well he should know all about good taste.
My grandmother's parents were first generation Russian Jews who moved into the East End, in the 1890's and my Grandads parents were second generation Jews who were in the area at the time of the murders.
My nan told me a great deal about the antisemitism at the time, but it was hard to credit how bad it actually was.
I did speak to several very elderly jewish women in Whitechapel in my childhood, who were living in the area at the time and remembered the murders, although they were only in their teens, When I asked them about whether or not a Jew could have been Jack the Ripper. they simply shrugged their shoulders and said, 'The Jews always got the blame for everything.' Just about sums it up really,
Very interesting thread Inaki, even though I don't really go along with the idea. Still worth looking at though, because you never know when something will be unearthed in the most unlikely places. Keep up the good work. Fancy having some thoughts about Liz Stride next?
Love Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on June 22, 2005) |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 253
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 11:50 pm: |
|
Hi All!. The GSG....can we look at it logically?
Probably the thing that makes it most important is that it was erased and to this day we have no clear understanding as to the exact wording. But lets look some other explainations outside JTR. First of all who typically is responsible for grafitti?...Young disafected males usually under the age of 18. It seems a good way to vent when adults wont listen and youre angry about something. Ever write on a blackboard? Of course you have and where do you start writing? For most people its eyelevel. Where did the grafitto start? About 4 feet 10 inches from the ground. If the author was typical then his height would have been about 5 feet 1 inches. The actual text was said to be in a good round school boy hand.Well, how about a school boy?
WC at the time was in turmoil. Survivial wasnt easy but for those who have read "The Abyss" by London you know among Gentiles there was a sense of community.Im sure it was the same in the Jewish community only stronger as they came from foriegn soil. To the Cockney and Irish im sure they felt the Jews were some how under cutting them for jobs and an economic foothold. We know about Bloody Sunday. To me the GSG was the work of a Cockney or Irish kid venting. I have a difficult time imagining JTR, fresh from killing, taking time to bend down and neatly printing a cryptic message in letters 3/4 of inch high on the inside wall of a doorway. Then again who knows?...Brad |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 709
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:32 am: |
|
Jane, in you excellent post you wrote:
I did speak to several very elderly jewish women in Whitechapel in my childhood, who were living in the area at the time... When I asked them about whether or not a Jew could have been Jack the Ripper. they simply shrugged their shoulders and said, 'The Jews always got the blame for everything.'
I don't know whether it was intentional, but your quote almost matches the graffito. If those were the words you heard, maybe we have an echo of the phrase that the writer (almost certainly not Jack in my view) had in mind.
Phil
Edited to remove unwanted wording from the quote.
(Message edited by Phil on June 23, 2005) |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 163
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 3:10 am: |
|
Howard,
I'm not sure why you think you might be rude, we are in total agreement on that fact!
It WAS the first time he cut a piece of clothing from a victim.
However, if he only wanted to clean his knife\hands, why not do it in situ? It would not have taken much longer than to actually cut the apron. There is no way we can know what he was thinking.
But the fact still remains that the piece of apron ended up outside a Jewish stairwell beneath an anti Semitic graffito.
A coincidence perhaps, but I don't see why that should be more likely than the possibility that in fact there was some meaning behind it.
Brad,
Sure, the graffito could have been written by "a Cockney or an Irish kid". But almost certainly it was written between the beats of two police constables that night. That kind of reduces the options slightly, and I don't see how the possibility that Jack did it should be so remote.
Let's indeed look at this logically!
Detective Halse stated at the inquest:
"I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall"
P.C. Long:
"About 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk - the jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"
In a memo from Sir Charles Warren to Henry Mathews:
Subject: 'The writing on the wall'
"...I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.
There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.."
So the graffito was "visible to anybody in the street"
NOT hidden away! It was - visible to anybody in the street..
This is important, because PC Alfred Long stated at the inquest:
".I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2.20am the apron was not there when I passed then"
Also Detective Halse said at the inquest:
"..about 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything"
The piece of apron was actually rather large, and the graffito was visible from the street.
Sure, maybe the grafitto was there all along. Maybe it was too dark for them to see much. Maybe both PC's didn't do their job properly.
Let us stick to the known facts where we can, please.. Neither PC noticed anything on their previous round. It is pure speculation that the graffito and apron was missed earlier! Just because this does not fit with the idea that Jack did not write the graffito, does not mean we can dismiss the known facts.
Because, if we do, we might just as well blame it all on the invisible man. Or Springheeled Jack. Or whatever.
Phil,
"The jews always got the blame for everything"
Yes, they did. But that does not make it less probable that Jack also could have been thinking in those terms!
Jane,
Yes, anti Semitism was pretty bad. Exactly why I don't find it unreasonable that Jack might have been an anti Semite. After all, serial killers often blame their actions on someone else. Maybe he was reasoning in his sick mind that "the jews was to blame, and the whores was asking for it.."
Well, we have heard that kind of sick reasoning before..
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
alternative-spelling2.png