|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Erin
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 44
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 2:42 pm: | 
|
The premise of this thread is predicated on the notion that the club's correct title was "The International Working Men's Educational Society," an idea which is based primarily on a contemporary drawing. I have never seen the organization in question referred to as anything but the "International Working Men's Educational Club, I have not read every single scrap of writing or viewed every picture related to the case. So, I thought it best, under the circumstances, to go straight to the source.
From testimony given at the Stride inquest, as reported in The Times, Tuesday, October 2, 1888:
"William West, who claimed to affirm, said he lived at 40, Berner-street, Commercial-road, and was a printer by occupation. No. 40, Berner-street was the International Working Men's Club," (The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, 153).
"Morris Eagle, who also claimed to affirm, stated that he lived at 4, New-road, Commercial-road, and was a traveller in jewelry. He was a member of the International Working Men's Club, and was there several times during the day," (The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, 156).
"Louis Diemschutz deposed that he lived at 40, Berner-street, and was steward of the club. The correct title of the club was International Working Men's Educational Club," [emphasis added] (The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, 161).
In an October 19, 1888 report on the Stride murder, Chief Inspector Swanson repeatedly refers the organization in question as the "Socialist Club" (The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, 136, 139).
Under the circumstances, it would appear that the name of this organization was the "International Working Men's Educational Club." Sugden, Fido, Begg and just about every other writer on the subject refers to it this way, the club's members refer to it this way, Swanson refers to it this way, and as I said before, every time I have seen it referred to in any other source, this is is how it is written. I suppose it is possible that some member of the press misheard the name or simply didn't care enough to get it right (not uncommon in this era, unfortunately), but it seems that those who were in the best position to know knew it as the International Working Men's Educational Club, or simply "the Socialist Club." 
(Message edited by rapunzel676 on June 24, 2005) |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 90
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Erin,
It's not only that the artist drew that sketch (IMHO, possibly what he saw).
If you check the rest of the posts, you'll see some more references, in which newspapers of that time also refered to it as the "International Workingmen Educational Society." Some historians do the same and use both terms interchangeably.
At least, that name was also used at that time.
(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
|
Erin
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
I have read every post in this thread, and I stand by what I said. The people who were in the position to know called it the International Working Men's Educational Club. This seems to have been the name most frequently used for the club. Other names may appear in other sources (I haven't seen them, but I haven't read all 50,000 of the articles written about the Ripper, just the major books on the subject), but the inquest testimony and Chief Inspector Swanson's report present the most accurate contemporary accounts of the club's correct name.
P.S. The newspapers of the time reported a lot of details incorrectly, that's why they're generally unreliable as source material, except where independently corroborated by other sources.
(Message edited by rapunzel676 on June 24, 2005) |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 92
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Erin,
That's not the point. Firstly, to say that the artist mistook the name that was at the outside of the club is a bit speculative. The artist probably drew what he saw.
Secondly, if for argument's sake the killer had read some newspapers, in which the club was refered to as International Workingmen Educational Society", he could still have used that name, regardless whether it was the name under the club had been registered or not. The point is that (wrongly or rightly) that name was also used to refer to the BSC. Even nowadays, some historians use both terms interchangeably.
Besides, 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.
(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
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2105
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
I must admit that I have never before heard it referred to as Society-only Club and I too have searched for references to it.Sometimes it was apparently referred to as the Berner Street Club
as well[Prof William Fishman-The Streets of East London.
Natalie |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2693
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:25 pm: |
|
Well said Nats.....
Going to re read all this new section! on and on it goes!tomorrow but am inclined to go with Diana here!!!! chaps!!
Suzi |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 108
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 4:39 am: |
|
Inaki,
Your point on the writing ,if I am not wrong,is that it would take suspicion away from the writer.
The identity of the ripper,up untill that time,was a complete mystery to all,so there was no need to divert suspicion.And it was always so.
"My main point here is not to speculate".Your words.Of course you are speculating,as are all of us.
Your theory is based on the assumption that the "Jews" word has been misread.Fair enough,but there is no way anyone can prove that,or that the writing was put there by the same person as deposited the apron.
Prove either of the two,or both,then indeed your theory would have merit. |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 93
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
Hi all!
Harry,
As I already stated this theory revolves around the idea that the Constables overinterpreted the message (for the reasons already mentioned) and that Stride was a Ripper victim. This theory is aimed for those who believe that it's possible that the killer left that message and killed Stride. Its purpose is to provide with another alternative explanation for the events of that night.
You say that my theory is based on the assumption that the "Jews" word has been misread
Well, sorry Harry, but that is not an assumption. Actually it was. That is why we initially have more than one interpretation, wording, spelling, etc. A different thing is that you'd say that Iwes could have been the word. But it's due to the fact that: “… 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), that other options can be advanced.
You also say that: The identity of the ripper,up untill that time,was a complete mystery to all,so there was no need to divert suspicion
Well, I think I've alrady answered that. If the Ripper killed Stride it's possible that he knew that he had been seen by some people, i.e., Schwartz, Mr Pipeman (if he was an innocent passer-by),etc. If that be the case he wouldn't know if they could provide the police with a full identification or not. At least he most probably knew that they'd tell the police that the attacker wasn't a Jew but a Gentile (bear in mind that, so far some Jews had come under police suspicions, i.e. Leather Apron, etc.). It's possible that the murderer (if he was a Gentile) had been making the most of that misconception. What if the killer just intended to throw the police off the (right) scent and at the same time muddy the investigation waters, by scribbling a message in which the IWES organization (i.e., the place where Stride was murderered and where he had been spotted) was involved? This is just one possible interpretation if Iwes was the word the Constables misread.
We don't know, of course. But as there are some elements that might suggest (and note that I'm not too emphatic over this) that the killer wrote some kind of message and that the apron was depossited there by him, it would be silly not to investigate all the possibilities.
"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: 94
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 6:04 am: |
|
Natalie, Suzi, et all,
I've already posted that depending on the handwriting some other permutations of the word are possible. They'd still resemble one of those possible combinations like Juwes, Jewes, Jeuwes, Jeuws, Juewes, etc.
These other permutations refer to the BSC as "Club" and not "Society". Just check the rest of the posts and you'll find some samples of it.
(Message edited by inaki on June 25, 2005)
(Message edited by inaki on June 25, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 633
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Dan...
In one of the above posts,you refer back to the alleged statement or rather,the cry, that emanated from MJK's room,of "Oh Murder !", to show that people did in fact use that phrase,in that time, when in distress, just when they were going to be seriously assaulted. Okay..thats cool.
I proposed a counter argument to that a long time ago,based on the phrase being too over-dramatic. In addition,a phrase like that could be used in a situation where someone just dropped their tea on the floor and instead of saying " Oh sh*t", said "Oh,murder !".
I could be wrong. I may well be wrong. I proposed the alternative to the consensus opinion, just to see what folks felt,since often tenets established back in the day of the Moustache Pete's of Ripperology often go unchallenged or unquestioned,out of respect and maybe a little fear.
I detect the same attitude or approach on Inaki's behalf, which,while he may be wrong or mistaken or even conscious of his pronouncement being erroneous and intentionally so, its still a good and positive thing to shake up the status quo. Out of all this,and I'm sure you would agree, we are usually left reconsidering our own position,which may in turn segue into us rethinking other areas of the Case. Its no accident that almost everyone here on the boards has changed their views on specifics due to someone else proposing an alternative to the original premise or modifying their views based on external information.
I hope you don't think I am trashing your views on the child-and-graffiti. I'm certainly not. I would much rather see you throw a counter-argument up in order for me to bolster or change my view than see someone back mine. No one "gains" anything by being affirmed without the opposite view being considered in full. Having said that, I certainly do appreciate,as we all should,when someone supports our ideas ,but counter arguments "keep it real".
I wasn't kidding or emotionalizing my stance on the child-as-artist at all. I am fully aware of the different usages of English in the Victorian period and that children would say things differently,even having different swear words than our current crop of kids do. No argument whatsoever there at all. None.
The consensus of the people that I asked, actually pestered, that saw the syntax of the graffiti,as well as myself, feel strongly that there is a "worldly" hand behind it. A hand that belongs to someone filled with the frustration of the times....a hand that displays the traditional anti-Jewish attitudes,whether in deed or in "second nature",...a hand that is of its time and place..a hand that is aware of the consequences of its being seen by other adults.
So while thanking you for the counter-argument to the child-as-artist, I for one still do not see a child between the ages of 6-15 concocting this message. Likewise,and this is only my opinion, that a kid between the age of 15-to early adulthood would have a slightly more likely chance of posting that message. A message that said, "Jews suck".."Jews: Go Back To The Pale !!" or something as graphic as that would be more likely. Children were superannuated back then due to the environs,growing up far more rapidly than kids today. Kids were physically and psychologically "older" then than now..no argument.
But this message, to me and free of any emotional need to defend it or for some vested interest or "point to make", is more likely an adult hand.
Its not that I "need" an adult to have written it or "need" a preferred suspect being the perpetrator at all. Independent of these two possible "motives", I looked at the GSG and saw an adult's hand.
Again, no slight to your opinion on it at all. I just wanted you to know that I don't have some "agenda" for my views. That wouldn't be in the best interest for me or anyone else. Queen Victoria could have written the GSG and it wouldn't bother me at all...
Later,buddy...Looking forward to the next Ripper Notes.
HowBrown
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 95
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 9:55 am: |
|
Howard,
Thanks for your post. It sums a few things up very well. As I stated in my first post I think it's time we challenge some of the ideas that are embedded in our minds and remain unquestioned and unchallenged. I offered as an example of that the excellent article writen by Wolf Vanderlinden on Annie Chapman’s death. He offered a solid argument that challenged the “conventional wisdom” about when she was murdered.
To do that I tried to elaborate the idea as much as I could. That is, I didn't just say a "witty" remark to see what happened. I tried to make up a whole conceptual framework that explained as many things as possible in a way that it wouldn't follow suit of the rest of theories that take for granted that the GSG was some crytic message about the Juwes, Jewes, etc.
I've also stated that my intention is not to push my theory as the "correct one". I'm aware of its limitations. But, my intention is to open new ways of looking at it and promote a healthy debate.
As for the GSG being the work of a child, I agree with you. I like your concept of "there is a "worldly" hand behind it."
(Message edited by inaki on June 25, 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
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2233
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
I think it entirely possible that a lot of constables may have seen things written on walls that were either there or not there, and they may well have misread what they saw.
On January 9th 1888 PC Evans, 384E, was up before the Beak on account of spending from 1.30am till 5am in the Duke of York pub getting sloshed when he should have been on his Whitechapel beat.
I reckon these guys probably saw green Alsatians.
And they were probably Jewish. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2694
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
Wolf!!!....
I have almost lost the will to live here!!!!
GOD!!!..These guys can type and don't get me wrong... a lot of things are being said here.....
All I can say to back up here is that there were probably many things .....written on many walls in many doorways ...or walls.......ooops pick your place to drop your apron!!!,nice comfy doorway...that'll do!!!
AP Please!!! am I the only sane(!) one here???
LOL
Suzi x |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4590
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Suzi, I'm sane. However, I'm not here, so I don't suppose that helps much!
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2698
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:04 pm: |
|
Robert!!!!!!
As ever it helps that you're here.... Blimey this thread is the sort of thing that can keep a girl awake at night......or there again.....
Fabulous to hear from you...well what can I say soon be the hols eh Mr Quelch!!!pararrr parrarr!!!
Suzi xx |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4591
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
Hi Suzi
I'd better save Mr Quelch for the pub. In the meantime, take 50 lines.
Robert |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2699
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:14 pm: |
|
GREEN JEWISH Alsations!!!! Blimey!!!! Must take more water with it!!!!!
Great thought though....that piece of chalk clutched in that manly paw!!!!!!! just making sure that they got it about 5' 2" from the ground!!! Damned clever those Whitechapel hounds!!!!
S |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2700
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
L I N E S !!!!!! Lawks!!!! Yessir!!!! er where were they???....oh! on paper in my copy book!!! er hum right !!! yes sir
Steadying the First Dorm as I type Mr Qeulch!!!!! Gosh damned difficult to post here!!!!!! ammit thats what comes of installing VIRUS killing horror!!!!!
Hanney Jnr
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2106
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:38 pm: |
|
What Now??? You graffiting
this thread then Suzi? |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2703
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi Nats!!!
Nope!!!! am here!!!!!! ....just tantalised by the Crotty thing (another thread!!) You ok??
Sx |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 743
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 9:00 pm: |
|
Hi Howard,
OK, so you think that a kid wouldn't have written the Graffiti because it sounds "worldly" to you, and you asked a bunch of people you know if they think a kid would have written it and they all said no (ignoring for the moment that people here have said yes). How many 19th century children living in the East End did you ask?
I don't know what your definition of "worldly" is, but pretty much any way you could describe it can apply to *lots* of kids today, and even moreso with those who survived living in Whitechapel any length of time. You don't think sharing a single ten by ten room with ten other people and assorted livestock only to be kicked out around midnight for several hours so your mother can turn a trick (for those that did get kicked out, others were right there watching), avoiding getting shaken down for your shoes or clothing by street gangs (and so forth and so on) and then having to get up early to make crates or sticks all day long might just make someone more worldly than today's Nintendo generation?
But even there if you take a look around at inner cities, isolated rural areas and even affluent suburbs and you can find all sorts of kids with horribly racist attitudes, performing acts of violence, raping other children (and sometimes mentally retarded individuals and defenseless senior citizens), and so forth. Then there are the ones who try to avoid getting beaten up by alcoholic parents, are regularly groped and worse by some uncle or choir director or whomever and whose only warm meal each day is when they get something at school.
Worldliness is not something that gets handed to you in a box when you turn 18. It just gets thrust upon you when you aren't sheltered from the big bad world. And as much as we'd like to hope that kids could be protected from hatred, madness, and immorality, it doesn't always happen...
The East End wasn't called the Abyss for nothing.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 634
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 9:27 pm: |
|
Dan
All legitimate points regarding the maturation processes of children back then as well as now.
I am four square with you on these points regarding children and definitely, not probably, to the extreme right of Attila The Hun in how I would handle maltreatent to kids if'n I had powers other than what ones I have to remedy them.
However,and again,I understand your basis for determining that the GSG may have been written by a child....the syntax "worldliness" and its "worldly" authorship [ perhaps I should have defined my interpretation of "worldly" a little better..] means someone who has either lost a job to a Jew...someone who has felt encroached upon [ and considering the already omnipresent squalor,who could blame someone for this sentiment? ] by the Jewish presence....someone who didn't feel comfortable in a community with a lot of foreigners...and in addition,someone who wanted to lash back at "The Jews" for some or all of the aforementioned reasons.
Thats just my opinion regarding the authorship. I don't see a Jew with the condition of selbsthass,which means "self-hate" and is a known condition that has affected Jews,as well as other groups of people,who no matter what gifts they give,they are always esteemed to be wrong.
Its not fair to counter-propose, "Show me a graffiti that a child did that is similar to this.", because this graffiti, like some of the murders within the WM,are unique. So I won't ask for an example.
I beg to differ with you on this one,my brudda from anudda mudda..
....and you are correct about the horrible conditions of the Abyss. One would be hard pressed to find a junior graffiti artist with the writing skills [ again,not trying to compare the syntax,as that isn't fair..] to compare with the GSG. Writing skills wouldn't be a high priority in the East End. Survival by any means necessary would.
HowBrown
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 109
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Inaki,
Whatever the word was,you appear to want it to read IWES,and your theory is based around that assumption.Only by proving your belief,does your account have meaning,and you have not proven so.You must at least start with a truth,whatever other assumptions are made,and you have failed to do so.Can you prove the word was IWES,and yes or no will suffice.
It may have been,it could have been,it's possible,are irrevelent.It either was IWES or it wasn't,it's for you to decide. |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 96
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Harry,
As I've stated several times, my intention is not to push my theory as the correct one. So, if I appear to want it to be read IWES (or IWECS, see other posts), then it's a misperception (probably because I haven't explained myself properly or fully enough. Please, bear in mind that English is not my first language).
My intention is to create a healthy debate. Why? Because I think it's time we challenge some of the ideas that are embedded in our minds and remain unquestioned and unchallenged. And this goes for your asking proof. My last sentence is related to your objection:
"You must at least start with a truth..."
Harry, I've done it. The truth I positevely stated and corroborated was: “… 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).
This is a key point. We have contradictory interpretations, transcriptions, spellings, wordings, etc., of that message. Throughout the years people have also accepted the conventional interpretation, i.e. that it was a message aimed for Jews. But as there is no solid proof about its wording, spelling, etc., then there can't be solid proof that the message was aimed for Jews, either.
And this is where my theory and others step in: could it be that the Constables misterpreted or overinterpreted the message? Are there other possible understanding of the same?, etc.
So, starting with that truth, i.e. that no one knows for sure the wording and spelling of that message, would it possible to get to understand it and explain the other questions the message arises, if we only changed our conventional way of interpreting it?
And this is related to your objection:
Can you prove the word was IWES,and yes or no will suffice.
First of all, you are asking an impossible. If no one has ever been able to prove the real spelling, wording, etc., of the message, then how could I prove that my alternative is correct?
Secondly, I feel that there is a bit misunderstanding about my goals with this theory and about what a theory should be for. As I've stated, my intention is not to prove anything. Otherwise, I'd have to be pushing my theory as the correct one, and that is something I cannot do because no one knows for sure what the exact nature of the message was.
One more point: what should a theory be for? To prove something? If someone says yes, then that person is mistaken.
A theory is a conceptual framework that aims to explain existing observations. In our case we have some existing observation: Assuming the GSG was written by the Ripper, then we have a message that leaves several questions unanswered:
Was the killer taunting the police?; Did it reflect some kind of Masonic connection?; What was its meaning?; Was it just a cryptic way to communicate the killer’s thoughts to the world? Besides, why did the killer write Juwes?; Was he trying to pin the blame on them?; Why did he use the double negative?; Why, in the first instance, would have the killer do that or take the risk of being caught in the act?; What is more, if the killer’s intentions were to taunt the police or just communicate his deranged thoughts to the world, why didn’t he leave any other messages in the rest of the murders sites or surrondings?
A theory should aspire to answer those questions. But it will never prove anything. That's why a theory can be replaced or modified if new evidence is unearthed. In that case, a better or improved theory will take over the other.
So, when you ask me to prove something you are going beyond my intention and beyond any theory's scope. My intention was to provide people with a new angle to see those "existing observations" in a way in which those questions could be answered.
As I've also stated, I'm open to the possibility to modify to a certain degree my first impression about why the killer (if he did it) chose to leave that night that message. But, that's the funtion of a theory.
A theory musn't be so stringent that doesn't allow any modification. In this case, even if we modify my first interpretation about why the killer chalked that message, the final result or the theory as a whole remains the same.
In this instance, the killer wouldn't have chalked the message to let everybody know that he was the author of the BSC murder. He would have done it to throw the police off the scent for the reasons already explained in other posts. But, the bulk of the theory wouldn't be changed. He'd still have written the message and had refered to the IWES (or IWECS) men because of the events that took place that night in that club's yard. And the theory would also explain the rest of the questions above-mentioned. Why the killer never left any other message in the rest of the murder sites, etc.
Does that mean that I'm trying to make it read IWES (or IWECS) "come hell or high water?" No, I'm just trying to show that we shouldn't close the door to any other possibility and that it'd be a good idea to exchange opinions, try to see things diferently, etc.
To do that, I must offer a theory as elaborated as my possibilites allow me and being ready to answer questions, objections, etc., in order to provide people with a better frame of reference.
(Message edited by inaki on June 26, 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
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 4:28 am: |
|
Hi Inaki,
In this instance, the killer wouldn't have chalked the message to let everybody know that he was the author of the BSC murder. He would have done it to throw the police off the scent for the reasons already explained in other posts.
Exactly so.
The popular objection to the killer chalking the message is that he would have made it clear he was the killer.
But that's not logical - the apron piece could not have made it any clearer that the killer had been there.
If Jack wrote those words, he obviously didn't intend to say "I am the killer", as that would have been even more pointless than the words we are left to deal with. (A bit like "Do not remove this message".) Whoever wrote it had Jews (Juwes, or even Iwes) and blame on the brain for a reason that night - and who would have better reason than a non-Jewish man who had just killed twice, near Jewish clubs; been plagued by the presence of Jewish witnesses; knew that Leather Apron had been cleared of blame, and that the hunt was now back on big time?
It almost seems perverse to me to want to blame someone else for the freshly written  message, when we know for absolute certain that Jack woz 'ere, with a large piece of incriminating cloth, brought all the way from his recent shenanigans in Mitre Square. A small piece of chalk would be nothing by comparison.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on June 27, 2005) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1729
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 4:45 am: |
|
Inaki and Caz
Inaki,
Halse stated he thought it looked fresh. As far as I remember, and my apologies if I am wrong, Moore and Anderson never saw the writing so how did they know?
The rest of your post I agree with. Apart from the last line which I may have misinterpreted, again my apologies if I have.
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.
What is the only fact we have? That the writing was fresh or just the writing itself?....and the police would have looked into seriously as part of their duties. Not because they believed or disbelieved it.
Caz,
But that's not logical - the apron piece could not have made it any clearer that the killer had been there.
If it was that obvious then why is it still debated?
Cheers,
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1892
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
I meant it was obvious from the apron piece that the killer was at that location at some point after the murders.
A message saying so was not needed - the apron gave that message loud and clear.
So if the killer wrote the message, it was not to declare his presence, but for some other reason.
And what better reason than to focus attention back on the Jews - if he was not Jewish himself?
Think how grateful Peter Sutcliffe would have been to the Geordie voice on that tape, for getting the police running round like headless chickens after Geordies. If Sutcliffe hadn't screwed up on the day of his arrest, they might still have been doing so today.
Diversion tactics would not have been beyond a Sutcliffe type in 1888. And you can't say it didn't work. The Polish Jew theory hasn't exactly been hindered by the graffito, has it?
Love,
Caz
X |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 98
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 27, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
Hi all!
Caz,
"Whoever wrote it had Jews (Juwes, or even Iwes) and blame on the brain for a reason that night - and who would have better reason than a non-Jewish man who had just killed twice, near Jewish clubs; been plagued by the presence of Jewish witnesses; knew that Leather Apron had been cleared of blame, and that the hunt was now back on big time?"
That's what I think. I only suggested the possibility that the killer intended to link the IWES yard attack with Eddowes's murder.
Monty,
"What is the only fact we have? That the writing was fresh or just the writing itself?"
I'd say both things. Firstly, that the police found Eddowes's apron right below that message and secondly, that this message looked fresh and its nature suggested that it hadn't been written by a local tenant.
As Caz says: "Diversion tactics would not have been beyond a Sutcliffe type in 1888."
"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: 1736
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:31 am: |
|
Inaki,
Yes, I understand Caz's valid point.
Its not fact that the writing was fresh, its assumption. Based on logic and assumption again...the assumption that a) the writing was anti-semetic and b) it would have been erased rapidly.
The only link between the message and the murder of Eddowes is the fact that the two items were located close to each other. That, with regards to this issue, is the only fact. And thats why the Police investigated the writing and its meaning.
Cheers,
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2120
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:22 am: |
|
Monty,Inaki,
with regards to the "freshness" of the chalk.I take your point Monty about the wording connected to Halse"s statement being able to be interpreted in a couple of ways-particularly the "thought".
In my experience as a user of chalk,on a vertical surface and one time on a daily basis,
its
a]not at all "easy" to write in a clear neat[by implication here]rounded
hand with chalk, on any surface that is hard and unyielding or slippery.In fact most people can"t, though there are ways round it by "rolling" the chalk so find a "key" etc.
b]for chalk to appear "fresh" it has to have been written on the same day in most cases as it rapidly draws to itself ,because of its porous, absorbent properties,all manner of dirt from the atmosphere which discolour the chalk and leave it "tired" looking.
Natalie |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:18 am: |
|
Nat,
How long would this process take?
Isnt that the question with regards to freshness?
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 110
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
It was widely accepted at the time,and never questioned by those who observed it,that the spelling of the word in the message was JUWES.
They observed it from close distance,by the light of police lanterns.It was on display for a considerable amount of time before being rubbed out.It was even copied by one officer.
So it is not a case of a witness seeing something for a few seconds,in poor light,and having to remember at some future time.If that were the case, then one could assume that a mistake might be made.
It was not Sutcliffe who made the calls that caused confusion.Sure he would have welcomed the diversion, but he didn't add to it.With the amount of confusion already in Whitechapel,neither did the Ripper need to add anything. |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 100
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 7:33 am: |
|
Hi all!
About the GSG:
"Several officers copied down the words, but they were all apparently different!" --From Hell, p. 91.
Apart from still being dark, the words were very close to the ground (which undoubtely hindered its being read confortably) and were extremely small, the largest according to one police officer was less than an inch in height! The JTR A-Z, p. 145 - From Hell, p. 90.
Those are some of the reasons for which Sugden 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). And "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).
Its being widely accepted that it was a misspelling of the word Jews was partly due to the fact that the building housed lots of Jews.
(Message edited by inaki on June 28, 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
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2121
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:31 am: |
|
Monty,
In my experience it could take about one to two days for "indoor"lettering in chalk to lose its
freshness.
I havent timed it though so I may be out by a day either way, but not more than that I am nearly certain.
Nats |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2122
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Inaki,
I had never before read that the lettering was THAT near the ground.What I had understood was that it was about shoulder height which for the average sized person would have been about a metre
from the ground or maybe a little more.
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 674
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:28 am: |
|
Hi Natalie, Inaki,
Yes, Natalie, you are quite right. According to an official report by one of the senior officers (I can't remember who just now), the writing was apparently at shoulder height. Perhaps somewhere around 4 feet (115 to 130 cm) from the ground would be a little more accurate.
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)
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:41 pm: |
|
Helge,
You wrote:
"But if we cannot accept that scenario based theorizing can lead anywhere, why stick on threads that do that"?
I have no problem with theorizing and maybe I am lingering because I'm still waiting to be convinced.
After all,Inaki's idea is new and quite interesting.Unfortunately it buckles easily when tested.
Inaki,I did rather "Go for the jugular" in my last reply and I apologise if my tone offended.
Best regards,
Kane |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 10:56 am: |
|
Hello Caz,
You wrote:
"It almost seems perverse to me to want to blame someone else for the freshly written message".
You are quite convinced then,that Jack did indeed chalk the message and worded it in such a way as to give the impression that a Jew was responsible for the killings.
Unfortunately,like so many commentators on this subject,you haven't given your own interpretation of the exact meaning of the message and how it relates to the murder(s),or more specifically in your case,exactly how it implicates the Jews.
The actual message simply tells us that the Jews will not take the blame for anything,so how can that possibly have been written by somebody trying to give the impression that HE was both the murderer and a Jew?It just doesn't ring true.
If the message did in fact refer in some way to the murders then I think the following scenario far more likely:
The person responsible for the graffito was not the killer but just one of the many local people who wanted to see a Jew hanged for the murders. They were fed up with the continued failure of the police and the judicial system to do just that and it was this that promted an anti-semite to write the message.Clearly a message written buy a Jew hater,not somebody trying to fit "THE JUWES"up.
Of course,back in 1888,the police were also struggling to make sense of this most ambiguous of messages,and all because the Ripper had discarded that filthy piece of apron in a doorway that just happned to contain anti semitic graffito.
What are the chances that there were more examples of anti-semtic graffiti in the vicinity.
Pretty high I think.
Kane
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 6:14 pm: |
|
Inaki,
Thanks for the support. Within the bounds of reason I see no harm in exploring the possibilities and I echo your sentiment that we should not get locked into one narrow approach. To do so would be careless. I'm glad that you, too, feel no adherence to one theory or another and I applaud your open-mindedness. As I've said previously I tend to believe the straightforward "Jews" explanation, but I'm prepared to be open-minded and accept alternative views, particularly if they reveal leads that were otherwise blocked by adherence to accepted dogma.
Cheers!
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:00 am: |
|
Hi Helge
Are you Glenn Andersons wife?
Cludgy |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
He planned the graffito well in advance and left the apron piece there to draw attention to it. Before doing that he carried the kidney in the apron piece to avoid too much blood in his coat pocket, went to his lodgings to clean up and eat 'cold kidney for tea'. The word is 'jewes' as far as I can tell and still no-one debates the unnecessary second 'e'. |
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 24, 2005 - 7:09 am: |
|
Helge,
Firstly have a good holliday!Maybe you'll read this when you get back.
My first posting in response to Inaki's "IWES" theory,began with words of praise for his enthusiasm and determination.However,I also made it clear,early on,that the theory didn't work for me!
My initial reaction was ...hey,here is something new.this looks interesting.
Unfortunately a few moments thought had this one crashing to the ground.
So let me ask you Helge, are you of the opinion that there is no place on these boards for the debunker or for challenger of theories?
Should we only take part in discussions dealing with theories or ideas that we support?
I wonder if some of us have become TOO polite and in consequence have stiffled good old healthy debate.
There is of course no place for rudeness or personal insult,but I feel that sometimes,putting a point across with a slightly aggressive edge,can help make that point.
Kane
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 103
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Hi all!
About where the message was written:
Paul Begg in Ripperologist, January 2005, p.10: "The writing was not at man's height -whoever wrote it was not standing up- but on the black facia of the bricks, which were only painted black to a height of about for feet. The writing was low down and the writer was probably on his haunches when he wrote it."
This is one of the reason for which it's been proposed that the GSG was chalked by a child.
If I'm right in coverting inches into centimetres, the message was chalked at aprox. one metre height. I wouldn't call that "shoulder height", even if XIX people weren't as tall as nowadays.
Howard Brown carried out the following experiment: "Six co-workers of various heights were asked to write the message just as I had done. Their heights were 6'2'' down to 5'2'' and despite this disparity in height all six had to be on their haunches to write the last line of the message. The shortest of the six had to stoop to make sure that the line was legible." Ripperologist, January 2005, p.13.
And there's more: "It may be worth noting that the only word that was not universally understood at once was the word 'Juwes' (...) This latter experiment was done, rest assured, with the compliance of five people who knew what I had written yet had difficulty interpreting what I had just written." Ripperologist, January 2005, p.13.
"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: 104
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
As for the 'freshness'...
Quoting Howard Brown in Ripperologist, May 2005, p.23: "Remember the rain that had fallen that night; not only would any other graffiti that might have been around been affected, but the description of 'fresh' is not how an average graffiti or one irrelevant would be described. 'Fresh' is current, newly placed, not oxidizing from light, not smeared from shoulders or knees or by hands in an attempt to erase it..."
(Message edited by inaki on June 28, 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: 105
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Kane,
No need apologising. As long as I perceive a 'healthy attitude' in the poster, i.e. a constructive critic, I take no offense.
(Message edited by inaki on June 28, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 643
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Dear Kane Friday..
Your comments,as above...
"If the message did in fact refer in some way to the murders then I think the following scenario far more likely:
The person responsible for the graffito was not the killer but just one of the many local people who wanted to see a Jew hanged for the murders. They were fed up with the continued failure of the police and the judicial system to do just that and it was this that promted an anti-semite to write the message.Clearly a message written buy a Jew hater,not somebody trying to fit "THE JUWES"up."
That, to me, is a plausible reason. One worth examining for what we can glean from it.
May I offer a brief "counter" to that,without appearing dismissive,because your idea is as good as anything I have...and I have thought of something along the lines of yours before, only to be more inclined to see it a little bit differently for one specific factor...
If someone was making a statement which reflected the non-Jewish, or that occasional self-hating Jew, community-at-large feeling of resentment,anger,disapproval of police efforts,or any of the other possible motives for placating that graffiti, then there is a need to explain how the graffiti,which was, for the sake of argument here, relatively new...remained where it was inside a building filled with Jewish people, if not written just prior to the murder of Mrs. Eddowes.....placed at the height it was [ rather unusual,wouldn't we think, for a sign of resentment? ] and written recently,up to 22 to 23 days after the previous murder of Mrs. Chapman on September 7-8. To be honest,Kane, the author of this graffiti doesn't display the usual requisites for a "hatemonger" or "message bearer" to me... It is possible that the possible author,other than the Ripper,who may have written the message, held a three week long grudge for one or more of the reasons we could collectively think of.
I will say that IF a reason for writing the message, by anyone else other than the Ripper existed,your idea above is, to me, the best. A reflection of a sizeable portion of the community,albeit a blanket generalization and anti-Semitic to boot,through the hands of one person.
Thanks very much for posting that scenario in your post from earlier today.
HowBrown
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 675
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 6:16 pm: |
|
Hi Iñaki,
On 6 November 1888 Superintendent Thomas Arnold wrote in a report: “… having in view the fact that it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out of the Building.”
Long stated he didn’t see the writing immediately after discovering the apron piece, although his light was on. He only saw it when he started looking around for other marks of blood, which implies that the writing indeed wasn’t directly above the apron.
Halse deposed at the inquest:“It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing.”
He didn’t say ‘rubbed out by the people who saw it’, but ‘rubbed out by the people passing’ which generally corresponds with what Superintendent Arnold wrote and may well have meant exactly that.
Furthermore, Halse deposed: “There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion.”
From Arnold’s report we might conclude that at least one of these lines was at shoulder height. If there were in fact only 3 lines in such small letters, then there must have been at least 1.5 foot between each of the lines, or at least some 10 inches if there were 4 lines. That just wouldn’t add up.
Another point that might be of interest is that Long had been temporarily drafted from Westminster to serve in Whitechapel and was even referred to as ‘a stranger to the neighbourhood’. Even thought he wasn’t familiar with the area in general and probably the building in particular, PC Long seems to have independently taken the meaning of the second word of the graffito to be ‘Jews’.
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)
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 647
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
Hey Frank !
In your post above,you do mean that Long,as well as Arnold [ the former at the October 11th inquest and in a Nov. 6th report with the latter,Arnold ] both spelled it Juews, but meant Jews, correct?
HowBrown
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 108
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Hi all!
Frank,
Thanks for your comments.
"it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out of the Building"
Take into account that those shoulders would also have included the children's shoulders and very short people's shoulders, too. Bear in mind that that's one of the reason for which a child's hand has been suggested.
Paul Begg is quite clear about this: "The writing was not at man's height -whoever wrote it was not standing up- but on the black facia of the bricks, which were only painted black to a height of about for feet. The writing was low down and the writer was probably on his haunches when he wrote it." --Ripperologist, January 2005, p.10
Besides, we have Howard around. He could throw some light about it.
"Long stated he didn’t see the writing immediately after discovering the apron piece, although his light was on. He only saw it when he started looking around for other marks of blood, which implies that the writing indeed wasn’t directly above the apron."
No, not at all. The answer is simplier than that. Long states over and over again that the message was above the apron.
What happens is that when Pc Long discovered the bloody apron he started to search the staircase for traces of blood or recent footmarks --The Ultimate JTR Sourcebook, p.214.
Or as Paul Begg puts it: "...he did not associate the piece of apron with that crime, but, perhaps with the case of Martha Tabram in mind, he thought instead that a murder had been committed on the stairs or corridors within Goulston Street Buildings..." --JTR, The Facts, p.179.
One more quote: "The constable inmediately started to cast about for other signs of blood." ---Sugden, 1998, p.183.
Long just cast the light of his torch on the piece of apron, which contributed to cover all the surronding area in shadows, and started searching around for a blood trail (not a message).
(Message edited by inaki on June 29, 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: 1743
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Inaki,
Paul (or rather information he quotes, taken from a news source) is describing the stairwell and is by no means a certain description of the door jamb, which is where the writing is cited to have been.
Cheers,
Monty
I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
