|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 106
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:26 am: | 
|
Inaki,
You ask above,why cut a large piece of apron rather than a small piece? Maybe the size didn't matter,and it was just as easy to cut a large piece as a small one.
Surely as he was moving away from the square his thoughts were on evasion,so the wiping of hands only a subconcious action.Bloob and gore does take a while to clean properly.The five minutes or so to Goulstan street would not be excessive.
I think Suzi has the correct answer.He just discarded the rag as he was passing the building.There was no reason to enter the building if flight was his main preocupation,and I can not envisage a person who had commited such a dreadful crime playing games on the streets of Whitechapel.Whether it be word games or any other. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1883
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 6:03 am: |
|
Hi All,
If Jack was not Jewish, and discarded the apron half coincidentally beneath that message, he must have thanked his lucky stars when he heard about it, at the thought that the spotlight would again focus on Jewish suspects, after Leather Apron had been cleared of blame.
The Yorkshire Ripper must have felt the same, when the hoax tape caused the police to focus on Geordie suspects.
So did a non-Jewish Jack sit back while a young graffiti artist unknowingly helped his cause that night?
Or did Jack write the words to help his own cause? Would it be beyond a serial killer to have sensed the atmosphere in the East End and seen a relatively simple way to get everyone looking for the wrong 'type'?
Love,
Caz
X |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 73
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 6:51 am: |
|
Hi all!
Samuel,
Many of of your points make a lot of sense. You still connect the GSG with what happened in Berner Street. More or less, that was my point, too. The only difference is that I advanced the possibility that instead of being a slur against the Jews (Juwes) in general, the GSG may have been making reference to the Iwes organization. That could give cause for a different conclusion. But, the rest of your points may fit perfectly both interpretations.
"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: 74
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 6:53 am: |
|
Brad,
Although a kid might have chalked it, the GSG doesn’t reflect a kid’s mind. I’ve had to deal with kids a lot and the GSG doesn’t reflect that type of psychology. If you add Helge’s reasonings and some others posted here and in other threads, then the possiblility of being a kid’s message drop significantly.
"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: 712
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 6:54 am: |
|
Come off it Helge!! You really are clutching at some pretty soggy straws, and I am not sure why?
"It WAS the first time he cut a piece of clothing from a victim."
But it may also be the first time he had got dirty enough to warrant needing to clean his hands. I think it might have been the faecal matter that worried him more than blood (although if he was dripping that too might have been in need of attention). A Druitt-type murderer might have used pocket handerkiefs to wipe his hands on previous occasions.
"However, if he only wanted to clean his knife\hands, why not do it in situ? "
We do not know the timings accurately enough to know how long he might have had after finishing the mutilations, to clean up. My own hypothesis is that as he completed his grisely work he heard the approaching policeman, realised his hands were smelly and sticky and cut off the apron-half to take with him. If adrenalin was pumping through his body, and/or he had to sneak out the Square in the shadows, it might have been a minute or two before he started to clean himself. I have an open mind as to whether he did that while walking (tossing the apron-piece into the opening once he had finished; or whether he delayed wiping his hands until he could shelter in the entry, dropping the apron-half at his feet before stepping back out into the street. On balance, I favour the first version.
"It would not have taken much longer than to actually cut the apron. There is no way we can know what he was thinking."
Nor would anyone sensible need to rely on such an assumption. the options available to him can, however, be ordered and assessed.
"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. "
For which the options are 1) sheer chance/coincidence; 2) a deliberate connection. We cannot go further than that. As I have repeatedly asserted on casebook, simple logic suggests to me that we should assume no connection until we have better evidence. To do otherwise might lead to false conclusions.
"... almost certainly [the graffito] was written between the beats of two police constables that night. "
I'd question that statement. There is insufficient evidence to make it almost certain. It could have been written at any time and simply been overlooked and avoided being scuffed. Your fervour to prove whatever it is you want to prove makes you too bold IMHO.
"...I don't see how the possibility that Jack did it should be so remote. "
Simply because the other options are plentiful. The possibility that Jack wrote it is undoubtedly there, but it is one i would rate low. Why? Because no one has yet come up with an explanation/interpretation that links the words to the murders or to Jack that is not complicated and convoluted. assigning it to A N Other local who has a grudge and is anti-semitic, and say the presence of the rag is a coincidence, and you have something I think fits the words and the other evidence. Also Jack did not leave messages at other scenes, which must IMHO reduce the chances he did near this one.
"Let's indeed look at this logically! "
But you have ceased to do so Helge!! All your looking is through the lens of "connection".
"...So the graffito was "visible to anybody in the street" "
But something can be visible and yet unnoticed. The apron caused the police to look at that entry closely and once found the language of the graffito gave them concern. If the handwriting was small, low down, and evidently unclear to a degree (differences in spelling and word order in the police notes shows this) I would argue that in normal circumstances it had simply been overlooked and ignored.
"Let us stick to the known facts where we can, please.. "
Something I am trying to do, Helge!!
"Neither PC noticed anything on their previous round. It is pure speculation that the graffito and apron was missed earlier!"
Not so - it simply indicates they were missed. It neither says they were not there, nor that they were overlooked.
"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. "
Where have I done so in anything I have said in this post? It is not dismissal, but interpretation of the facts that is at issue here. I don't think we differ for a moment on the former.
"Because, if we do, we might just as well blame it all on the invisible man. Or Springheeled Jack. Or whatever. "
Blame all what? What is at discussion here is whether Jack wrote the graffito. Whether he did or not actually adds almost nothing to our knowledge at this stage. But if he did not, it does not mean he did not kill at least Eddowes that night, or some of the other women. Don't blow this out of proportion.
I sympathise with the attraction of an articulate Ripper leaving clues, but I would argue he did not on any other night. So why on this one, and one so unclear?
Further, by the logic of your argument I assume you approve Ms Cornwell's argument that because she can show Sickert might have written some nuisance letters, he must hve been the killer?
""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! "
Now you are putting thoughts into Jack's head, something you argued against just a moment ago. I did not assert that Jack thought any such thing, I just noted that according to what Jane was told, the sentiment was a common one in 1888 Whitechapel.
"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..""
We are back to putting thoughts into Jack's mind here - naughty, naughty!!
Cordially and with a smile,
Phil |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 75
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 6:57 am: |
|
Phil,
Well, what can I say? If you interpret my “enormous” post and my efforts to elaborate this theory as simply self-justifying, then little of what I say now may make you see things differently.
You speak about the “extremes of speculation being extruded in this thread.”
I’d like you to pinpoint some of those extreme speculations, so that I can correct them if needs be and it was me who wrote them. So far I thought that people had only been advancing more possible interpretations of the GSG, but that none of them were so extreme.
When you tell me to “focus on the words not the speculation”, I don’t fully understand what you mean. Do you mean that we must focus on those words, whose spelling and wording is still debated and acording to Sugden: “… in view of the conflicting comtemporary testimony, the exact nature of the murderer’s message must remain in doubt.” (Sugden 1998, p. 506-7)? If that be the case, I thought I had already made it clear that due to the dubious nature of the evidence, in which both witnesses (Halse and Long) were not capable of transcribing the message in the same way, same wording, and same spelling, then some room for a different interpretation might open.
But as I said, what can I say? I just thought that trying to see the GSG from a different angle could be positive. That’s why I wrote a theory and tried to elaborate it. Please, note that I didn’t just say: Hey, what if those words were such or such? I strived for elaborating it as much as I could, providing with some research, examples of what I meant, trying to reason it out, etc.
It makes me sad to see that this thread can be perceived as you have described it: “The growing absurdity of the convolutions and speculations in this thread is both amusing and frustrating… or that the flaws (pointed out) that defy any logic and require gymnastic displays of reasoning to explain them, is simply common sense…it’s the associated speculation that is making the thread ridiculous ”. It was far from my intention that this thread may be percieved as going down a “degenerating spiral”.
I thought it was already clear that if we allowed for the possiblity that the word were Iwes and that the writer may have reflected a foreigner’s way of expressing (like Sir C. Warren thought it was: “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), then all those gymnastics wouldn’t be necessary. As I had already said, although for a native speaker of English it may take some gymnastics to understand or to explain those words in the way I theorised, the same gymnastics wouldn’t be required for a speaker whose mother tongue allowed for a similar sentence structure to the GSG.
And so I could go on. But if after all this you only interpret it as a way of self-justifying, then I’d better not add anything else. Only to echo what I thought a theory is, i.e an attempt to describe and/or explain facts and when this theory makes claims about those facts (about what is happening, or did happen) it is making some kind of truth-claims, too. That’s why a theory must be elaborated and tested to see if it works, and explains the facts observed.
But, in the GSG controversy, what is the truth we can start from? As Donald put it: “There is so little that we can be sure of regarding the Ripper murders…”
"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
|
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 209
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Hi Inaki
My mind has been on other areas of thought over the last few days. reavaluation.
But your comments on IWES sent me in a differant direction. Am I correct in assuming that the club would have been frequented by Polish and Russian interlectuals?
Would a Polish Surgeon possibly be a member? Is there any way of discovering if any club records survive concerning member ship of the Club?
Did anyone ever accertain if one Sevrin Kloswoski, a polish jr surgeon, who had recently moved into the area, ever used or freaquented the club?
Did anyone ever check on Kloswoski's politic's and is it possible he was an anti-semite?
Just a thought while reavaluating the suspects.
Jeff |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 76
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Harry,
Thanks for you comments.
Well, as I said 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. As Caz has put it, “If Jack was not Jewish, and discarded the apron half coincidentally beneath that message, he must have thanked his lucky stars when he heard about it, at the thought that the spotlight would again focus on Jewish suspects, after Leather Apron had been cleared of blame.”
The other path and also a valid course of action is to think that the GSG might have been left by the killer. If we choose to follow the path that says that the GSG could be a clue, then we must be ready to formulate a theory, explanation, etc., that accounts for all the questions it arises. That was my intention.
You say that “Maybe the size didn't matter…” .
Well, the bigger the size the bigger the probabilities to draw people’s attention. Besides, I’ll say it once more, JTR was already an 'experienced' killer. He probably had given some thought to those aspects of cleaning his hands and knife. Or, do we really think that this was the first time he got his hands stained or covered with blood?
You also say that you “can not envisage a person who had commited such a dreadful crime playing games on the streets”.
Nor can I. But, the thing is that maybe it wasn’t a game but a ruse to throw the police off the scent, and at the same time to muddy the investigation waters by scribbling a message, in which he involved the IWES organization or the Jews as a group? As Caz said, “the spotlight would again focus on Jewish suspects, after Leather Apron had been cleared of blame.”
Besides, we don’t know whether he discarded that piece of apron as he was fleeing or not. The fact is that Pc Long declared that Eddowes’s apron wasn’t there at 2.20 a.m. Before assuming that it simply went unnoticed, let’s bear in mind that “despite the fact that 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 it adds some weight to his statement. 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). there is an interesting dissertation about that. A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour. Here’s the link:
http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html
And if Graffito against Jews was so common in that place (thing that remains to be proved) why did the authorities panic? If they hadn’t said a word about the apron no one could have connected it with the GSG and the Ripper murders. They may have devised another explanation for having it photographed.
"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: 77
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
Jeff,
Good questions and ideas. You are right that the Iwes club may have been frecuented by Polish and Russian intellectuals. Note that they defined themselves as an Educational Society or Association. The club also had a printing shop adjacent to it responsible for producing a radical workingmen"s newspaper. Possibly, there were also connections with the Fenian movement.
That’s what I’ve tried to advance. If some link between the murders and the Iwes club could be made, then the case could be looked from a new angle. And your questions about Kloswoski or other members are very interesting.
(Message edited by inaki on June 23, 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
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 166
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:03 am: |
|
Phil, I'm not going to get into another argument based upon opinions here. I see that you have other interpretations than me on most of this, and that is fine.
However, I must ask you to come up with ONE..one single EVIDENCE that none of what I talked about might be true.
You can't. All you have is your interpretation and opinion. And have you noticed that although I am looking "through the lens of "connection", you are looking through the lens of "non-connection"?
I am trying to explore possibilities here, and to explore one possible venue of investigation, we simply have to rule out some other possible options. But if that is unacceptable, I suppose we should just close Casebook and all go home with our opinions.
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: 79
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:14 am: |
|
Helge!
Sorry for getting your name wrong. I called you Samuel. This is another example of Pareidolia. I could have sworn I had read Samuel and not Samuelsen.
"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: 168
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:50 am: |
|
Inaki,
Apology accepted  Actually I did not notice until now..
You are of course right, our two scenarios are quite similar.
Helge
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 713
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
Inaki and Helge - if you cannot by now peceive the point I am trying to make, then you really are far gone in your ruminations.
Start with establishing whether there is any validity in Inaki's interpretation of the writing - I can just about go with that (though I think it wrong).
It is all the speculation based on it; the assumption of links between writing and apron; the attempts to get into the killer's mind, that i find premature and pointless, and rather unworthy of you both.
I give up,
Phil |
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 20
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:59 am: |
|
G'day Inaki,
Firstly I'd like to congratulate you on the research and interpretations you have put on the word Jews. I've been following this thread for a few days now to see where it would lead, and you've sure got some people interested.
Personally I just take it as the way whatsisname wrote it as he was told to.
The reason for this post is periferal in that you say a young person could not have written the GSG. I have spent many years working with young people, mainly from juvenile detention centres and off the streets, and yes they are quite capable of writing such graffitti.
Even back in Jack's era kids were doing the same things kids are doing today ie: forming gangs, terrorising neighbourhoods etc, I'm sure you've had a flick through some of Dickins and Barnardo's writings to see this.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that it was quite possible for a young person to have written the GSG, but exactly when it was written and whether it was a coincidence that Catherines apron (Part thereof) was dropped there will still remain a souese of contention.
Once again, cangrats on your work.
Sincerely
Jules |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 616
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 10:00 am: |
|
Helge,
Let us stick to the known facts where we can, please.. Neither PC noticed anything on their previous round.
Ah, my friend, here we go again. It is a fact that both Long and Halse PC testified that they had not seen the apron before 2:55. However, Halse was in a hurry, was looking for people not artifacts, and admitted he might not have seen it when he passed at 2:20. As for Halse, you are well aware of my feelings about his statements from other threads. Suffice to say here that I have grave doubts about his testimony.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 169
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 11:09 am: |
|
Phil,
Your point is well made, I just don't see any reason to start a debate based on posts starting with "Come off it Helge!! You really are clutching at some pretty soggy straws, and I am not sure why?"
I understand your opinion is made up on this, and that is OK!
That means I accept that. I accept your position. Clearly you do not accept mine, but that is fine with me. I'm just not starting any discussion based on this. You got your opinion, I got mine, and if you would debate it in a sensible way, I would be more than happy to, but I can see where this is going. Nowhere.
Donald, my pal..
"here we go again.."
No, we don't. I hope.
Unless there is a rule against trying to establish possible scenarios here on casebook, I don't see the problem. Granted, I admit that neither mine nor Inaki's hypothesis have been proven, but the same can be said about every single theory ever devised around the Ripper case!
I certainly don't claim to have hit gold yet. It is a hypothesis. But at least I try to base it on what we do know.
***
I agree, it is possible that both Halse and Long was awful coppers. They may have made a lot of c*ck ups and mistakes. Hell, they may even have written the graffito themselves.. Just for fun.
But that seems a bit unlikely. (and was said in jest) What we do know is that they stated that the graffito was not there on the earlier round. That may be incorrect, but that possibility does not in itself prove that this was the case!
I choose to accept what they said. What is the harm in that? Except that it does not agree with your point of view?
Let us take this from the beginning. A theory that violates known facts are bound to be inaccurate. A theory that does not violate any known facts may or may not be correct. I can't speak for Inaki, but I certainly do not claim that I know the thruth. We are trying to see things from different perspectives here. But that means that we have to choose certain turns along the way that other people may disagree on.
That in itself does not invalidate a theory. Nor does it prove it.
Please, I know most of your opinions on these matters by now. Is there any way to disprove anything I have said? I would be the first to applaud that. But if we are going to use personal opinions as a basis for a debate, we will never get anywhere. We will end up in a Pythonesque discussion of "yes it is - no it isn't".
A hypothesis will in most cases rely on personal opinion as well. If it does (and this one does) it can hardly be called proven, unless backed up by hard facts.
The same hypothesis can be argued against based on personal opinions as well. But no matter how many personal opinions you throw in, it will never be disproven. People may make up their minds about it, perhaps, but thruth is not democracy. Neither will the ones that shout the loudest neccesarily be correct!
And let me just try to clarify what I mean by personal opinion, lest anyone claim it is my bad english that makes it impossible for me to understand anything here..
Let us take the apron as an example. Two possibilities.
1) It was there, but neither Halse nor Long spotted it the first time.
2) It was not there, and that is why it was not spotted the first time.
Listen carefully now: I say there are TWO (2) possibilities. You have chosen one, probably based on what you deem to be good reason. I have chosen another, based on my interpretation. I'm NOT saying that your position necessarily is incorrect. Nor do I ridicule that position.
All I'm saying is that for the purpose of this theory, and based on my personal interpretation of events, I make my choice.
Since neither position can be proven correct, both positions are personal interpretations, or personal opinions.
It seems like the people usually debating on Casebook expect anyone to take a position, and to debate this position as if it was gospel thruth. I'm not used to that. I am used to debate in academic circles where any position is regarded as valid as the other, unless proper arguments can be brought against it.
And this is what I mean when I say that personal opinions are not arguments per se. Granted, I would be more than willing to debate based on interpretations of facts. But that kind of debate is dependent on both parties accepting a certain leniency on the side of other opinions.
When the debate consist of people saying "I think that - And I think that", we get nowhere. It might be somewhat amusing, perhaps, but not, as here, when personal comments are mixed into the debate. Then it all becomes futile, and frankly, I have better things to do.
(And if I sounded irritated there on the end..well, I'm not, and btw we are having a wonderful summer over here in Norway. Hope you enjoy good weather too!)
Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 23, 2005)
"Please, Spock, do me a favor ... don't say it's `fascinating'..." Dr. McCoy
"No... but it is...interesting..." Spock (The Ultimate Computer)
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 714
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Helge - my tone was supposed to be light-hearted. That's why I ended with the words, "Cordially and with a smile"!!
The difficulty with picking options is not in that per se, but in then weaving them into complex scenarios that can seem enticing but argue further than the actual facts will bear.
As for setting out theories on casebook - sure, that's what it's for. But given the propensity in Ripper matters for the gullible and unwary to be misled by attractive theories and arguments. It happened to me with Knight and other theories.
For that reason, I think it is proper to act rather like the slave in a Roman triumphator's chariot, who reminded the conquering hero he was only mortal.
I and others simply point out the shakey foundations on which you are building. But don't let us spoil your fun.
Phil |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 665
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
For those of you who own the Jack the Ripper Companion, look at chapter 16. I will attempt to provide a synopsis here.
The file was opened October 12, 1888.
Charles Warren wrote, " . . . the suggestion of the informant . . .it is done by a renegade socialist to bring discredit on his former comrades.[sic]
George Lushington wrote, " . . . forwarding a copy of a Despatch from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna giving the details of an interview with an individual who professed himself able to effect the capture of the perpetrator of the recent murders . . ."
Sir A. Pagett (ambassador to Vienna) wrote, ". . . an Austrian subject . . . one of the chiefs of the Internationalist Society . . . Some time ago there was a split in this party with two sections, one of which pursues its object by terror & assassination, the other by less violent methods . . . The man who has committed the murders was formerly a member of the Society, but he was dismissed . . . He then produced a . . . letter from the head of the party in London. . . . 'There is no doubt that No. 49E is identical with the murderer and that he has a helper unknown to the party.' . . .The informant's name is Jonas ELP . . . the name of the [accused] man when in San Francisco, was Johann Stammer, when in London, John Kelly . . ." [this document is dated November 5 so it was before MJK -- Diana] . . . of medium height, with broad shoulders, aged between 35 and 38 years, strongly marked features and extremely brilliant large white teeth; has a scar due to a stab beneath the left eye; walks like a sailor, having been a ship's cook for 3 years; is thought to be at Liverpool . . ."
If Jack had been a member of IWES and had been ejected he certainly would be mad at them and want to cast blame on them or get them in trouble. |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 739
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
You wrote (and Howard has said similar things in other threads):
"Although a kid might have chalked it, the GSG doesn’t reflect a kid’s mind."
I would have to disagree most strongly with that idea. In fact, if we go with the simple and surface meaning of the words (instead of complicated and unnecessary theories to explain it as something else entirely) it's exactly the sort of thing a kid would write.
Besides which, if you are trying to argue that a child wouldn't think that way you should note that the Victorian era did not have a prolonged social period of adolescence like most societies now have. Back then you were largely either a small child or a young adult, expected to work and bring in money just like any other person, with not all that much in between. You are making your judgments from the perspective of a modern society in which child labor laws and compulsory extended public education have come along. London's East End back then was considerably different.
The graffiti, in its default non-killer meaning (as compared to the default meaning if the killer had written it, which we don't know), is just a slur against Jews, which absolutely is something kids could do just as easily as adults. I think the part that has you confused is the fact that the wording is currently only reminiscent of older intellectual (or psuedo-intellectual) people who speak using archaic phrases. We know people back then talked that way, the fact that we don't is more a feature of the century plus that has passed since then than the idea that the person was writing something normal people wouldn't. This argument seems to be framed in the same sort of poor logic as the claim that the cry of "Oh! Murder!" had to have really been something else because people wouldn't actually say that while being attacked -- when we know for a fact from historical records that they did.
When interpreting communications from back then, it's all a question of the proper mindset: thinking like an East Ender of the late 19th century versus thinking like someone now doing the puzzle section in a newspaper or magazine.
And since I am posting, I'd also like to point out that your mention a while back that certain Graffiti characters have a high likelihood of being interpreted as other characters is totally irrelevant to this thread, as they are talking about Graffiti™, the computer software for trying to decipher handwriting on a touch sensitive screen into specific computer characters. Just as computers have a horribly difficult time interpreting differences between human faces and identifying matches between photos of the same person, they also have problems trying to sort out other visual clues that human minds have a lot less trouble with. As someone who dealt with the technical details of the PalmOS that used Graffiti™ in a professional capacity for several years (lead trainer for the technical staff that handled all US support calls for Palm, Inc., by the way), let me assure you that the kinds of mistakes that software would make in identifying letters are quite a bit different than the ones a human actually looking at the same thing would make. You can't use those examples to try to support your claims that the Goulston Street Graffito would have been easily confused. I think you saw the word "Graffiti" and assumed it was about actual street graffiti and not computer-based text recognition. That sort of thing can happen when you use the Internet to dig up anything to try to support an argument without really being familiar with what the page is saying.
It's better to just take a step back, accept that other people are going to disagree with you and live with that. Quickly posting ideas that you make up off the top of your head ("doesn't reflect a kid's mind") or from skimming a website on an unfamiliar topic ("Graffiti") instead of taking some time to think about the problems involved is not a good way to try to support your hypothesis. In fact, the first step in making a well-reasoned argument is to objectively look at both the things that support an idea as well as the things that do not. Don't think that I'm singling you out here, because it's really all too common that people in this field only think about whatever they can find to try to support their ideas and spend no time at all critically examining them for problems. As soon as some negative evidence comes to light, they immediately snap back with extended rationalizations that don't really make much sense.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 618
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 2:46 pm: |
|
Helge,
No problem, I understand what you are saying. I think I was animated by what seemed (and I probably misread) to be the suggestion that it was fact (as opposed to a fair possibility) that the apron was not there at 2:20. That's all.
By the way, there is at least a THIRD possibility (and one that doesn't violate the laws of physics or involve men from Mars). Since it is an idea I'm working on I won't say more now but I'll email you personally.
And I don't think Halse was a bad cop at all -- he just had his mind on other things at 2:20 and freely admitted he could have missed an apron part. Long . . . well I'm not so sure.
Glad your summer is delightful -- in time for the vacaction you said you'd be taking?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 171
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Ok, Phil, maybe I misunderstood your tone.
And by all means, do point out "the shaky foundations". But so far I see only people picking at individual detail, giving their interpretation of events, and not really producing evidence either way.
As I said, I am more than willing to discuss a certain interpretation, but we must allow for the fact that certain facts or events may be interpreted in different ways by different people, and I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe I feel most theories here are shot down even before we can start to verify them.
It is not that I can't take that people disagree with me. Actually, I have repeatedly stated that what I propose is a theory only, and that I certainly do not think it is verified in any way.
I actually agree, that as things stand, the theory is on shaky ground indeed. But AFAIK it does not violate any known facts, and might even explain a couple of the "strange" facts that we so easily dismiss as pure chance.
Diana,
Thanks very much for providing the information in your last post. Very interesting!
My reasoning is that the times were very volatile, and mix anti Semitism (we know it did exist) with radical socialism (or communism) and you get a powder keg.
Diana wrote:
"If Jack had been a member of IWES and had been ejected he certainly would be mad at them and want to cast blame on them or get them in trouble."
Indeed. But there are in fact many options. He could have been a socialist that did not like that the Jews became so important within the organization. He could have been ejected, or have chosen to drop out voluntarily. In fact, we have many options, and most of them would work for my hypothesis.
Ok, I am going to try to respond to Phil's former post now, as I have time on my hands, and now that I realize I might have misread\misunderstood his general tone.
Mind you, my responses will probably show exactly why this kind of debate is futile. And keep in mind that even where I disagree, I fully respect the opposite stance.
Me: "It WAS the first time he cut a piece of clothing from a victim."
Phil: "But it may also be the first time he had got dirty enough to warrant needing to clean his hands. I think it might have been the faecal matter that worried him more than blood (although if he was dripping that too might have been in need of attention). A Druitt-type murderer might have used pocket handerkiefs to wipe his hands on previous occasions.
My response:
Here Phil comes up with his interpretation of events. It might be spot on, or perhaps not. Mind you, nothing of this contradict my initial idea. I mention a fact that may or may not be significant. Phil speculates. Where does that leave us?
Me: "However, if he only wanted to clean his knife\hands, why not do it in situ? "
Phil: "We do not know the timings accurately enough to know how long he might have had after finishing the mutilations, to clean up. My own hypothesis is that as he completed his grisely work he heard the approaching policeman, realised his hands were smelly and sticky and cut off the apron-half to take with him. If adrenalin was pumping through his body, and/or he had to sneak out the Square in the shadows, it might have been a minute or two before he started to clean himself. I have an open mind as to whether he did that while walking (tossing the apron-piece into the opening once he had finished; or whether he delayed wiping his hands until he could shelter in the entry, dropping the apron-half at his feet before stepping back out into the street. On balance, I favour the first version."
My response: I am simply saying that Jack probably had ample time to dry his hands and knife on the apron in situ. Phil speculates that perhaps he was interrupted, and needed to take the apron with him. Maybe. I think a killer moving away from a crime scene while drying his hands in half an apron would be rather conspicuous. The possibility that he decided to take the apron with him almost in panic is speculation. I interpret fact my way, Phil interprets facts his way. Where does that leave us?
Me: "It would not have taken much longer than to actually cut the apron. There is no way we can know what he was thinking."
Phil: "Nor would anyone sensible need to rely on such an assumption. the options available to him can, however, be ordered and assessed."
My reply: I don't rely on anything here at all. I am simply saying that under most circumstances Jack could have wiped his hands clean pretty fast. There would be no reason to take the piece of apron. Surely he must have encountered that problem before? The fact we know is that he took the apron and left it behind in a place where it easily could cast suspicion on the Jews. Phil thinks the options can be ordered and assessed, but fails to realize that my proposal is just such an option, and in my mind all in all plausible. He thinks not, but again we interpret things differently. Where does that leave us?
Me:"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. "
Phil:"For which the options are 1) sheer chance/coincidence; 2) a deliberate connection. We cannot go further than that. As I have repeatedly asserted on casebook, simple logic suggests to me that we should assume no connection until we have better evidence. To do otherwise might lead to false conclusions."
My reply: I say that basically the apron could have ended up beneath the GSG by coincidence or not. Clearly I see the two options. Phil says we should not assume a connection. Well, actually, sometimes we must explore options and in so doing choose. I have never (I hope!) said that I consider my choice gospel thruth. The link here is the anti Semitism. I gladly concede that this is an unproven fact, but the hypothesis is based on the proposition that Jack was an anti Semite. It connects the Lipski! shout, the Berner Street Club location, and the GSG. If Jack was not an anti Semite, then this entire scenario folds.
Its a risky proposition, I know, but sometimes one must stick ones head out, and hope its not bitten off!
Anyway. Phil says "we cannot go further than that". If this is true, we must stop all discussion on this site, because people seem to disagree on just about everything. We don't even know which of the victims were Jack's. Perhaps, in the extreme, none of them was? Where does this kind of reasoning leave us?
Dont get me wrong. I actually agree with Phil. We can't say more than this FOR SURE. But that is what theories are for, to explore new interpretations and options. Obviously any theory that cannot substantiate such claims cannot be called proven, but I have never called my theoretical musings here proven.
Not yet, anyway
Ok, I will leave it at that, Phil's post was too long for me to go over every point, and I fear I am beginning to bore my readers However the same kind of reasoning applies to every argument here.
It is not that Phil is necessarily wrong. It is just that we cannot get any further with this type of discussion! If there is some element here that seems totally impossible, unbelievable, or ludicrous, then do point it out, but the facts here are unfortunately often so vague that we cannot usually do that. And so we stall the debate with personal interpretations.
That was my point. How to solve this? Perhaps to accept a theory as a theory, and keep in mind that there is not necessarily a battle going on. People proposing a theory should always be reminded about the fact that as long as a theory is unproven, it is just that..unproven. But the opposition to a theory need not necessarily gloat at this fact.
Some news (at least to me) have allready come out of this. Diana just brought to our attention that there was in fact some "shady" stuff going on at the BSC. This was "predicted" by my theory.
But I'm not saying this makes me right! Maybe Strides murder was connected to someone connected to the BSC, but totally unconnected to the Ripper? (Ok, this is a possible scenario submitted as example only)
This is, however, an option that I would fully embrace, if it could be proved.
And even if every word I have ever written on this thread should be proved untrue, if it leads to any result whatsoever, at least we would progress!
Though I admit I would like to see the day when I can say "Told you so!"
Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 23, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 172
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
Donald, I AM on my vacation
And I was not supposed to sneak off to post here at all, but you know how it is..
Well, actually I'm leaving on friday. But I might pop in here occasionally anyway. Just bough me a new WAP phone. Don't know if I can figure out how to post from it, though.
BTW I understand what you say. Sometimes perhaps I don't make it clear enough that what I am saying is part of a theory, and sometimes, I admit it may be speculative. But then again, I can't tag every sentence with a caveat
Can't wait to hear about that third possibility!
Btw, I have ordered a light meter for my little experiment. Things take time, but I'm confident I'll arrive at a good estimate that will either prove me right, or abysmally wrong
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 174
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Dan,
Inaki said:
"Although a kid might have chalked it, the GSG doesn’t reflect a kid’s mind."
I think I also said something similar earlier. I am somewhat trained in modern child psychology, and failed to take into account that victorian child psychology would have been different.
I stand corrected, Sir!
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 715
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Helge - the difference between our positions is that my "interpretations" as you call them, are simply intended to show up plausible alternatives to those being proposed by others. But mine are not put forward as anything other than options - I have not tried to "knit" them into some theory or hypothesis. If I tried to do that, I would be guilty of the same "weakness" I see exposed in your logic.
As for theorising, I don't think Ripper studies would be worse off if much of it stopped. As I have said before, often, on Casebook - my aspiration would be to see JtR research placed on the same level as Richard III studies have become under the Richard III Society - academically based, respected, fostering serious research into the period.
The IWES hypothesis is an amusing idea (as was Jukes, I suppose) and it might warrant some quiet study into whether it has "legs" or not. But to go further is, in my (no doubt elitist) view a waste of time and space, as the speculation is worthless as anything more than a bit of fun. It is also a distratction, though I'll admit that these boards are going through a somewhat fallow period at present.
Maybe I just need a break from Jack.
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 177
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
Phil,
You do realize that no one is stopping you from presenting academically based serious research on the Ripper case?
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 80
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:07 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Dan,
“You wrote (and Howard has said similar things in other threads): "Although a kid might have chalked it, the GSG doesn’t reflect a kid’s mind." I would have to disagree most strongly with that idea. In fact, if we go with the simple and surface meaning of the words (instead of complicated and unnecessary theories to explain it as something else entirely) it's exactly the sort of thing a kid would write.”
Well, you can disagree all you want. My experience with kids (and not teenagers or other juvenile people) and their psychology, makes me believe the reverse.
Anyway, it’s your option to disagree and there’s no point in trying to show who knows more about it. But maybe your conclusion are as way off-base as when you say: “Quickly posting ideas that you make up off the top of your head ("doesn't reflect a kid's mind") or from skimming a website on an unfamiliar topic ("Graffiti") instead of taking some time to think about the problems involved is not a good way to try to support your hypothesis.”
If your conclusions after reading all my posts is that I quickly post ideas that I make up off the top of my head, then I must say the same about your conclusions (you only have to replace the word ideas for conclusions).
I think my posts reflects (regardless whether they are right or not) something more than just quickly ideas made up off the top of my head.
However, it’s true what you say about “mention a while back that certain Graffiti characters have a high likelihood of being interpreted as other characters is totally irrelevant to this thread, as they are talking about Graffiti™, the computer software for trying to decipher handwriting on a touch sensitive screen into specific computer characters”
The thing is that that wasn’t the link I intended to post. It was a mistake on my part due to the amount of information I collect and that I lost half of the post because my computer went on the blink and I had to rewrite almost everything in a hurry. In this instance I cut and pasted a wrong and irrelevant reference to the point (I have a big collection of information with their links in my Word processor).
I’d have liked to say thank you for pointing out this mistake of mine but you could have saved all those personal (and from my point of view, offensive) remarks about my having a kid’s mind, etc., and have asked before jumping to those “conclusions”.
This is the link:
http://www.ancestry.com/learn/library/article.aspx?article=26
“Misspellings are another cause for concern when consulting an index. When consulting indexes in database form, you may have the option of using a Soundex feature in your search, which may help avoid the pitfalls of misspelled names. With indexes in book form (and some databases), you have the option of scanning through the index to find misspelled names. But when you consider that many indexes were compiled from old records that were handwritten--some in old script, some in just plain bad handwriting--which may have faded throughout the years, it is not surprising to find errors that may place your surnames in entirely different sections of the alphabet. Letters that are commonly mistaken for one another include:
S and L
T and F
J, G, and Y
I and J
K and R
O and Q
P and R
U and W”
Besides, those examples were only intended to illustrate my theory. In fact, I thought that it was widely known that this could happen.
But, if you are unaware of that point, i.e. that “J” and “I” can be mistaken or taken for the same letter, then you’d better go abroad and get to know some other cultures, countries, etc. But please, avoid the English Speaking Countries and come to the south of France, North of Spain, etc. Maybe you’d be quite surprised of what you could see in old and not so old documents (although, computer era is changing the way people write).
That “J” and “I” can and are sometimes mistaken is a fact, regardless how surprising this fact may be for you. I think I also posted how my name is (still) writen, and if you look at it you’ll see that the “I” looks like a “J”.
So, that mistake of mine doesn’t rule out the theory as a whole.
PS- This is the first and the last time I answer posts that refer to my person in a derogatory way. One thing is to disagree and/or to point out a mistake and another thing is to “make ironic remarks” or make fun of somebody.
(Message edited by inaki on June 23, 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: 81
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Nicholas,
Thanks for your kind words.
When I said that “the GSG doesn’t reflect a kid’s mind”, I didn’t mean people from juvenile detention centres and off the streets.
I said that it didn’t reflect a kid’s mind because it has sometimes suggested that it could be the work of a child. In my experience childs don’t construct that type of sentences. But, who knows? Maybe, Whitechapel’s children were different.
"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: 82
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
Diana,
Thanks for digging up and sharing with us those nuggets of useful information. It’s been a very, very interesting post. 
(Message edited by inaki on June 23, 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
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 130
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:19 pm: |
|
You do realize that no one is stopping you from presenting academically based serious research on the Ripper case? - quote from a post above.
That applies to everyone who posts on this site. But very few will engage themselves, preferring gossip instead. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 178
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Ok, should I present academically based, respected and serious research on Casebook, I would need to come up with a basic premise, then sit down for a couple of years and research the case, then submit it.
Then someone, in order to respond to that properly, would need to do their research, over a couple of months at the very least, and post their response.
Needless to say, I cannot afford the time nor money to do it this way.
This media does not work that way either. But it might work in another way. It might work like this: Once in a while a new angle (or theory) is proposed, and we discuss if it seems possible. If it does, we see if we can come up with a way to verify it. If not, well, unfortunately it exist only as a possible, but unverified scenario.
Perhaps it will never be verified. As a matter of fact, I would say, most likely it will not be verified.
My absolutely LAST choice of a subject to do serious research on would be the Ripper case. We are grasping in the dark here (0.07 lux?) I would much rather prefer to research ancient norse legends (which I do)
But that is not half as fun, of course!
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 741
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Hi Inaki,
And that's another thing that I hate about this field: People claiming that others personally attacked them and made derogatory remarks when all that happened is that mistakes in arguments were pointed out to them.
People get so wrapped up in believing that their emotionally-held ideas are correct that they ignore contrary points and then confuse a reasoned criticism of their ideas with personal attacks.
Take a breather and try to get some perspective.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 179
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:24 pm: |
|
Scott,
Just one amendment to my previous post. If we, instead of bicker over personal interpretations, and lament the poor quality of research going on, did the serious research as a team here, we might still get the job done..
Helge
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 83
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Dan,
I haven't wrapped up in believing that my "emotionally-held" ideas are correct nor I confuse a reasoned criticism of my ideas with personal attacks.
If you have read what I said, what I hate is when people take advantage of their pointing out someone's mistake to make remarks that are out of place or are unnecessary.
Besides, I don't have any "emotionally-held" idea. This addition of yours illustrates ("emotionally-held" ideas) my point. Maybe it sounds ok and grandiloquent to you but to me it sounds as though you were patronising me. As I said, but for those manners I would have liked to have said thank you for pointing out that.
You know nothing about me as to draw such conclusions and make such ironic remarks. In fact, if you knew me a little bit you'd see that I love debating and although I try to advance my points as much as I reasonably can I never say I'm 100% correct or my theory is the right one.
I'll say it once again. I don't mind (in fact, I want to. Why should I want to stay in error?) to stand corrected if I need it. What really pisses me off is when someone takes advantage of that situation to add personal or ironic remarks. Is that clear?
"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
|
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 131
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 6:59 pm: |
|
Norder,
Will you stop posting all of that garbage below the end of your posts? Unwitting readers might get the mistaken notion that you are actually someone important who knows something about the case. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 12:55 pm: |
|
Donald,
LOL
To answer your point, I'm not in the business of whimsy, otherwise I'd have suggested that JTR was actually an Ancient Brit who, unaware that the Anglo-Saxon period had ended, had scrawled anti-Jute graffiti on the wall. The American Juke family connection is too geographically remote to be of relevance or practical use - not much point in having a dig at a transatlantic family by chalking a small message in a dark alleyway in Old London Town.
I have not clutched at such straws - I have observed that there were dozens of people named "Jukes" in East London (according to the 1881 census) and I have observed that some would posit a direct connection between MJ Druitt and the Tukes brothers' asylum. I have further suggested that it's possible for someone to have had grudges against these families and that the graffiti could have had an alternative explanation on that basis. I have made no claim for the veracity or otherwise of either of these speculations, but have held them up as possible further avenues of exploration. I have also suggested that the Police, conditioned to *expect* anti-semitic graffiti, interpreted the ambiguous "Juwes" stimulus as referring not to Jukes or Tukes, but Jews. Inaki has done much the same.
I (and later Inaki) have also suggested that the self-evidently weird spelling of "Juwes" might not refer to Jews, not least because the writing (small chalked message on vertical brick surface) could have been ambiguous in itself. If I were a modern police officer and had not followed up the possible interpretations of an ambiguously spelt message, putatively left by a mass murderer, I would expect to have my arse kicked by my superior officers.
Those who wish to see "Juwes" as having only one possible interpretation are free to do so. For what it's worth, I am convinced that the "Jews" explanation is by far the most likely, neither do I connect the graffito to the murderer, but I am not precluding alternative avenues being explored by others if they wish.
By the way:
1) Phil Hill recently applauded a "brainstorming" approach by Natalie Severn (Charing X to Hammersmith - MJD thread), yet this particular brainstorm is labelled as absurd and convoluted. Hmmm.
2) Sir Clive Woodward has selected Jason Robinson at full back and left Shane Williams out of the Lions test team against New Zealand. Aaargh!
... forgive me, therefore, for feeling slightly less than gruntled right now ;o)
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Hello Caz,
It's all very well speculating as to whether Jack did or didn't write the graffito,but I have yet to hear a convincing interpretation of the message that actually connects it with the murders.
Also,the essence of the message is both sweeping and unspecific in character.
It does not tell us that a specific individual was resposible for a specific action.Something I would have expected,had a boastful murderer chalked it.
Kane
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 2:00 pm: |
|
"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.""
>>This is nothing more than a conflation of objectivity with subjectivity. How do we know what seemed "practical" to the writer at the time? Common sense is relativism.
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:23 pm: |
|
Hello again Inaki,
Let me deal with your points posted in response to my last posting.
You wrote:
"And do you really think that such type of message would be there for long"?
Well Inaki, nobody knows exactly how long the graffito had been there anyway.
You wrote:
"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".
Yes you are absolutely right.I am only advancing one possible interpretation...the most direct,common sense interpretation I can possibly think of.Not some elaborate fancifull idea cobbled together to try and prop up a week theory.
If I were to spot a wall spray-painted with the message:"ARSENAL ARE RUBBISH" I would be pretty certain that somebody was not particularly impressed with the aforementioned football team!
Others might see this as a warning about a cache of firearms hidden in nearby dustbins!
You just seem to be clinging on to your theory for the sake of clinging on.
You wrote:
"Besides, if you wanted to express an accusation or a complaint agains someone there'd be better (and bigger!) ways to put it"
Yes Inaki,and for somebody wishing to brag to the general public about a murder they had commited?
Oh yes of course what better way than "To chalk just a few small lines" telling of somebody who wasn't responsible for something!
But then again maybe Jack was trying to wrongly implicate the members of the club.....or maybe he wasn't!
In the words of Martin Fido:
"Oh dear,oh dear,oh dear"!
Kane
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 22, 2005 - 9:08 pm: |
|
Phil,
"... you'll find I encourage exploration of your interpretation. It is the associated speculation that is making the thread ridiculous."
To paraphrase:
"Don't bother checking up on all of Dr Shipmans' patient records - all this idle speculation is ridiculous".
I'm sorry but, with the greatest respect, what (within reason) makes one idea about misinterpretation any more worthy of exploration than another? If you're prepared to admit that "IWES" is a valid train of thought worthy of exploration (or in other words you accept that the writing on the wall was ambiguous) you cannot condemn as "ridiculous" any other reasonable (NB) alternative interpretation. Sauce for the goose etc...
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 668
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 9:57 pm: |
|
PEACE, } } PEACE, PEACE, PEACE, PEACE |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 107
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
Inaki,
Of course ,beside the need to cleanse himself,the killer also needed a method of carrying the body parts of Eddowes.Now maybe they were not of a great size,but to walk away with them in hand,would be to leave a pronounced blood trail,and this was not in evidence.So two items of material needed,the apron piece and one other.Perhaps a red neckerchek?
Now when did the idea of writing a message occur? If you believe the writing in Goulsten st an attempt to claim responsibility of the Stride killing,and the apron piece a way of linking Stride and Eddowes,then the idea of a message occured in the time between leaving Berner St and cutting the apron.If the idea occured after leaving Mitre Square,then why was the apron cut and taken?
Again, if after leaving Berner st and intending to write a message,why not do it before arriving in the vicinity of Mitre square.If he was confident enough to dally with Eddowes,a situation he could not have forseen,then he surely had enough time and confidence to leave a short message before that meeting.
One last question.Why,if he needed to write anything,not wait a day or two to guage the effects of the latest killing?
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 181
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:06 am: |
|
Kane, Kane, Kane
Hold your fire there..
You wrote to Inaki:
"You just seem to be clinging on to your theory for the sake of clinging on."
Ok. Some people complain (righly so from one point of view) that too little academic research is done here. No theory, including the IWES one, can be supposed to be defended against this kind of barrage that invariably pops up here in such short timescales.
We end up fighting..
It is VERY easy to come up with alternative possibilities when one need not take into account any main theory at all. There exist, by default, almost an infinite number of possibilities in an unsolved multiple murder case this old. Picking at a theory is damned easy.
Simply saying that alternatives exist is not fair. Set up your own scenario, and lets see how many holes we can put into that. You don't want to set up scenarios? Well, go do some basic research then. Publish your findings, and stay out of the scenario based theorizing.
Sounds harsh? Yeah. But if we cannot accept that scenario based theorizing can lead anywhere, why stick on threads that do that?
Actually, let people set up scenarios, do the research, and then come back and shoot the theory down. Or make up your own.
This kind of bickering leads nowhere. And it is frustrating for all parties.
Do you expect anyone coming up with a theory to give up instantly when someone points out alternative possibilities?
Proper research and debate would implicate this being discussed for months! But then again, I guess the attention span of most people around here simply does not last this long!
I think it is a mistake to respond too quickly to criticism..or to criticize for that matter. Yes, I do the same myself, I know. It is easy. If you do not respond, people will think you can't, and by the time you do, there is no attention anymore.
Likewise, if you do not criticize, it might be considered that you agree.
What I am saying here is that the format of these discussion boards do not allow for academic, professional research on the fly (what does?). So do not expect people coming up with ideas to necessarily answer critique on that level.
Certainly the critisism seldom have this level of quality either!
Once in a while propositions of more "proper" quality do find their way to these boards (I could mention Davids "Alternative Ripperology"..though that does not necessarily mean I agree with it)
Inaki (myself, and others) have come up with propositions that anyone (I hope!) can see is no attempt on a full scale academic theory.
Still, these propositions can be the core for a debate. They are obviously unfinished. They need more work. And even those that disagree are part of that work. This is why we submit these propositions in the first place. In the hope that the Ripper community here can take the theory to another level. Not necessarily to validate it, mind you! Perhaps to smash in into the ground, and bury it for good.
But let us debate these things within reason. It is OK to disagree. But I have stated before, that no amount of personal opinion can either disprove or prove a theory. And yet, most (all?) theories must be based on personal opinion to begin with.
Can we focus on the possibility to take the personal interpretation out of it? In some cases we probably cannot. The matter must remain undecided then. Both parties must agree on that. Things can still be debated, but please outside the war-room...?
But when strong indications can be found that one option is in contradiction or in accordance with known or inferred facts, then we might actually decide. And we who make theories must then be willing to accept that sometimes it will not be in our favor.
No one looses, though. This is not what academic debate is all about.
Soo..
Enough said, I know we all mean well..
And I'm off to my holiday, so cannot respond to anything for a while. Hope you all enjoy the summer too! Take care, and grow a smile on your faces
Helge
(Message edited by helge on June 24, 2005)
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 716
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
I am afraid this thread has convinced me that I have nothing more to contribute to Casebook. On that basis I am going to take an extended break.
See you all,
Phil |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 84
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Kane,
Before dealing with your objections I ‘d like to say something. I don’t cling on to my theory for the sake of clinging on. Nor I have any personal interest in pushing it as the right one. This theory is the result of some ideas I’ve been entertaining for a long time and I just wanted to give them some kind of shape and post them to get some feedback. I’ve tried to elaborate them as much as I can so that people may have as many elements as possible to give their opinion. I still think that we shouldn’t close the door to any other option about the GSG. I endorse Helge’s words.
nobody knows exactly how long the graffito had been there anyway
Yes, we don’t know. But we do know that Constables who saw it thought it looked recent. So, the possibility that it was chalked by the Ripper still is to be considered.
I am only advancing one possible interpretation...the most direct,common sense interpretation I can possibly think of
This is only as result of taking for granted that the word in the GSG was Juwes. If you are aware of the fact that there is no solid evidence about the wording, spelling, that both Constables got a different message, that Warren saw a foreign hand in the GSG, etc., then I wouldn’t be sure that yours is the most direct, common sense interpretation (I’m not saying that it cannot be the right interpretation. I’m only saying that we should give some room for other alternatives).
If I were to spot a wall spray-painted with the message:"ARSENAL ARE RUBBISH" I would be pretty certain that somebody was not particularly impressed with the aforementioned football team! Others might see this as a warning about a cache of firearms hidden in nearby dustbins!
Well, if I saw that I'd probably get the same interpretation. But you are missing the point. The fact is that no one can tell for sure what the message was. For instance, in your example with the ARSENAL Graffito, the equivalent situation would be:
We have no photograph of the Graffito. We only have several different versions and renderings of the same. One spells it Arsenal, other Arcenal, other Cardenal, etc. even the wording would be different. Some of them would say :"ARSENAL ARE RUBBISH", another :"ARSENAL ARE NOT RUBBISH", etc. Besides, in your case the police should also believe that the author of the ARSENAL Graffito had attacked that same night in a place called CASENAL or something like that. This would be a more similar example to the GSG.
and for somebody wishing to brag to the general public about a murder they had commited?
As I’ve already stated, even if the author wrote Iwes, my initial interpretation would be only one possible interpretation among others. I’m open to view it from other angles. As for why the killer (if it was written by him) chose to chalk it in a small handwriting, and leave the apron right below it, check my original posts because there I express some ideas about it.
(Message edited by inaki on June 24, 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
|
Nicholas Smith
Sergeant
Username: Diddles
Post Number: 23
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
G'day everyone.
Good words of advice Dan and Helge and Diana I agree with them totally. This is a discussion board, not an argument board. Spry and Johnno have gone to a lot of work to get this website set up, so let's not stuff it up with petty arguments.
Yeah Inaki, I agree with your comments about a childs mind in regard to the GSG, but that also might explain the illiteracy of the grafitti, but then again I suppose not many people of the East End were literate, Mary, for example had to get Barnett to read the paper to her.
Have a great holiday Helge, enjoy yourself mate. And enjoy your extended break Phil.
Jules |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 85
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 10:45 am: |
|
Gareth,
I’d just like to tell you that I had thought about this possibility a long time ago (actually, a few years ago while I was in London). It’s only been the thing that until now, when I've joined the Casebook, that I didn’t feel the need to give it some shape and put it in writing. By then, you already had posted your theory about the other spelling
But, as you say If someone is prepared to admit that "IWES" is a valid train of thought worthy of exploration (or in other words that it’s accepted that the writing on the wall was ambiguous) no one can condemn as "ridiculous" any other reasonable (NB) alternative interpretation.
The main point I wanted to convey with this thread was that we shouldn’t get stuck in that deadlock and that we should try to break it by looking for other possible alternatives (like yours, mine, etc.), which could give us some other ideas or clues to follow.
This is not just a speculation game. I think that both alternative spellings are not a far-fetched interpretation. Besides, the fact that no one knows what the real wording, spelling, etc. was, should allow for some controlled forays into some other possibilities.
(Message edited by inaki on June 24, 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
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1726
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Inaki
Yes, we don’t know. But we do know that Constables who saw it thought it looked recent. So, the possibility that it was chalked by the Ripper still is to be considered.
Only Halse stated it looked fresh based on the assumption that the writing was anti-semetic and therefore would not have lasted long at that spot.
This makes his personal interpretation of the writing as anti-semetic. I suppose the gerneral concensus was to assume the worst.
Just because it looks fresh does not support the idea that Jack wrote it.
It still stands, as you state at the end of the paragraph above, that it is possible Jack wrote it. I agree with that.
Cheers,
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 86
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Harry,
Thanks for your input.
when did the idea of writing a message occur?
Well, if my theory of IWES were correct, most probably he came up with that idea after fleeing from Berner Street. I'm not going to say that my initial interpretation about why he did it is the correct one.
As I've said the IWES theory allows for some other options. Two of them are:
*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 ot in this case, against the IWES organization. Let’s bear in mind that Eddowes’s murder was also committed near a Jewish kind of club. Besides, as Diana put it, "If Jack had been a member of IWES and had been ejected he certainly would be mad at them and want to cast blame on them or get them in trouble." (See above)
*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 so far that in those murders was a Jewish hand (even if it only served as a means to bluff his way through 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.
If the idea occured after leaving Mitre Square,then why was the apron cut and taken? if after leaving Berner st and intending to write a message,why not do it before arriving in the vicinity of Mitre square.If he was confident enough to dally with Eddowes,a situation he could not have forseen,then he surely had enough time and confidence to leave a short message before that meeting
Look the case this way. He's had to flee from BSC in a hurry, probably had to clean himself a little bit and possibly his knife, too. He is still enraged about his failure to carry out his plans. Maybe he is a little worried because somebody may have seen him. These are not the best conditions to devise any alternative plan (Besides, could he be so confident? He had just failed and possibly had been seen).
But, a little while after he meets Kate, strikes up some sort of conversation with her and then he begins to see how to link the BSC murder with the rest of the Ripper murders. The rest is history.
That's one possible scenario. Whether his plan was to let everybody know or not that he was the one who had done it, is irrelevant. Maybe he just intended to commit a Ripper-like murder in the vicinity of BSC to set people on the club's members. As he failed to commit it the way he had planned he just killed Kate in a Ripperish way and later left her apron by a message in which he incriminated the IWES club.
My main point here is not to speculate (after all, any interpretation we give to the GSG is a bit of speculation) but to offer different reasonable possibilities that could account for why the word IWES could have been used by the killer (assuming the possibility that those words were chalked by him).
Another possibility. He cuts a piece of apron for some unknown purpose (wipe off his hands, knife, etc.), and flees to a nearby hide-out. After a short while, he has second thoughts and decides to deposit the apron and chalk that message to throw the police off the scent, let everybody know that he was the one who had done the BSC murder, etc. Take your pick.
Why,if he needed to write anything,not wait a day or two to guage the effects of the latest killing?
Well, that'd depend on what his intentions were. 2 days later, a piece of stained apron wouldn't have drawn any attention. People could have even taken it to clean something, etc. However, the night of the double-event was when police were looking for clues. He knew that police would be looking for any piece (pun intended) of information. So, that night was a good night for whatever he intended to do.
"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: 87
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Monty,
Halse stated it looked fresh based on the assumption that the writing was anti-semetic and therefore would not have lasted long at that spot.
That's one of the reasons. Another reason is that people would have just rubbed it out while passing along the place. But not necessarily because it had been recognised as an anti-Semmitic Graffito. As Bob Hinton puts it when dealing with this point: "As the writing stands it does not make any sense at all, and it does seem as if no one has recognised this fact" (From Hell, p.91).
Note that the expression "to look fresh" implies more than just an assumption based on a deduction. "Halse thought it looked (not that it was) recent. Chief Inspector Henry Moore and Sir Robert Anderson also stated their belief that the message was written by the murderer" (Sugden, 1998, p.254). Another expression used by Halse was that the "writing had the appearance of being recently written." (Ultimate JTR Sourcebook, p.214-15).
Besides, we also have Halse and Long statement. Both of them stated that they hadn't notice that message a while before. Of course, they may have missed it. But as we can't know whether that was the case or not and since Long didn't overlook the appron and the message the second time he passed by on his beat (even though he wasn't looking for it), there exist the possibility that they were right.
I didn't say that just because it looked fresh, it was evidence that JTR wrote it. But it is the only fact we have. And it might suggest that he did it. At least, police took it seriouly at that time.
(Message edited by inaki on June 24, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 24, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 24, 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: 89
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Helge,
I just wanted to wish you a great and happy holiday. Enjoy the summer! 
Mine will be next month...
"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
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
