|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 2652
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:59 pm: | 
|
Hi c.d.-I was being ironic-on both occasions!
Nats |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 98
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 4:07 pm: |
|
Natalie,
Glad to hear it. I was afraid that you had interpreted it obliquely when I had really intended that it be interpreted hermeneutically. Happens all the time.
c.d. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1197
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:31 pm: |
|
5. “This "Juwes" definition,as written in print by Stephenson was wrong...as well as Dave Radka's "Juwes" or the "Juwes" of Masonic lore..”
>>And your evidence for these conclusions is exactly—what?
The evidence or rather the total absence whatsoever of evidence,that the "Juwes" referred to some organization [ whose name escapes me at the moment...some Jewish youth group,I believe...that Christian Jaud showed you was incorrect] that you insisted was the meaning behind the "Juwes" on Goulston St. You were wrong then...and of course,you're no closer to any sort of conclusion now. Your mentioning of Berkowitz is somewhat fitting,college boy, since you and he both share some common ground here. Berkowitz' messages and your adherence to this fantasy scenario...they only make/made sense to you two.
Stephenson's explanation and The Masonic "Juwes" are an even better bet of being true than what you splooge out.
Nude photo in the mail. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 6:31 pm: |
|
"Berkowitz was writing about his personal conditions, which the police wouldn’t know about. The Whitechapel murderer was writing about local social and ethnic conditions,"
The underlined section of this paragraph has not been proven. This is an example of Mr. Radka's shell game.
The trick to this underlined statement,is that a Gentile may have written it. If a Gentile wrote it,it may be an example of the local,social,ethnic conditions in Whitechapel at the time, according to its author.
If a Jewish guy wrote it, same thing. He's reflecting on the local,social,and ethnic conditons of the time...once again,according to its author. Mr. Radka adheres to a Jewish hand behind the graffiti. Thats his prerogative. In fact, in the long run, this conclusion,not unique to any one theorist,may be correct.
Much of what Berkowitz sent to newspapers was not misunderstood. The authorities were inevitably wise to the symbolism and the Satanic references. The same applies to the Police at Goulston Street. They recognized the word "Juwes" as meaning Jews,instantly not eventually, sans symbols..The general idea that in the case of Berkowitz, a disturbed Satanist was murdering people, was understood. In the case of the GSG author/ Ripper, the police likewise assumed a murderous and disturbed individual was at work,with an apparent grudge against Jews for some unknown [to all, but him ] reason. Berkowitz and the Ripper share this link of not being fully understood,although their murder and message[s] were somehow connected.....
What they both had/have in common is that the intrinsic meanings cannot be known until after they were/are caught. This is the problem with the WM. We now know what Berkowitz meant or at least have heard what "Son of Sam" meant to Berkowitz internally.. This cannot be said of the "Juwes" on the Wentworth and its author,no matter how dogmatically & repititiously Mr. Radka tries to browbeat people into believing his neat script fits all the criteria of the killer. We do not know what the word "Juwes" meant to the author in the manner it meant to him.
Mr. Radka knows as much as anyone else regarding the mental health of any member of the "clan" of people JTR is alleged to have emanated from....according to his theory.
That being....nothing. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1199
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 7:05 pm: |
|
"The Jews of that time had been blamed in eastern Europe from where they had been expelled, and they were being blamed for various disturbances and negative conditions, including the murders, in Whitechapel."
Another aspect of the "shell game"...that ALL Jews were being blamed and that they suddenly popped up overnight.
Jews had been in the East End for years...many had assimilated on their terms. One became Prime Minister, Disraeli.
The assumption that non-Jewish Britons were somehow in league with the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans and were passed the baton as soon as the Jews from the Pale and other areas,landed in England is untrue. England accepted the immigrants..not rejected them. What then, would acts of subversion or assumed subversion committed on the continent have to do with the statement..."The Jews were being blamed in Eastern Europe..." ?
Perhaps this: That Mr.Radka is at work trying to bolster [ there's that word again...] the graffiti-by-a-Jewish-psychopath theory based on events that may not have affected the real Jewish-psychopath in any way whatsoever. He may have been a Jewish psychopath,but from an older,assimilated Jewish family. Mr. Radka may have the right type of killer,for sure...but not for the reasons requiring a "history" of anti-Jewish pogroms or forced emigration within the community that were concomitant to the crimes as he says they were.
Man..thats a lotta Jewry..I'm gonna take a break and go get a nice corned beef on rye [ cole slaw,pickle, and a dab of brown mustard.]
Anyone want anything,'cause I'm gonna get the sandwich now ?
Dave...be so kind as to write down their orders,would you,bubeleh? |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 655
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:09 am: |
|
"Write it again bigger, bolder and in blood if need be. Anything to say "don't you dare ignore me again." Yet, we don't see that. Very strange."
Kelly ? Perhaps the vignette in that room was his "bolder" message.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2040
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 4:27 am: |
|
Guys
"No one needs to put up with crank Ripperology any longer"
>> Heed the man. He is playing with you all. Why fall for it time and time again?
"Doesn’t anyone here have any sort of ethical sense to pursue the truth?"
>> Absolutely. And does anyone have the ethical sense to realise that constantly passing off theory as fact, based on the theorists own supposition and NOT ascertained fact, is substantially incorrect and morally corrupt?
It would seem not.
Regards,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:02 am: |
|
Write it again bigger, bolder and in blood if need be. Anything to say "don't you dare ignore me again." Yet, we don't see that. Very strange.
And before Kelly, the alleged kidney from Eddowes plopped through Lusk's letterbox, with a missive which boasted of eating the other half and teasingly suggested the bloody knif would follow.
Perhaps Jack had moved on from a message inspired by the public response to Leather Apron, and decided that going Irish was now de rigueur.
Was he joshing with the enemy - first with a public ready to blame a Jew, and second with the president of the Vigilance Committee, elected to help string him up?
Catch as catch can - but what sort of man?
Love,
Caz
X |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Hi all
The jury is out on whether the graffito was written by the killer. Nonetheless, even if the message in the graffito is hard to understand, with its double negative, it is unlikely, I think, to have been written in correct copperplate script (the "round schoolboy's hand") by a recent Jewish immigrant.
It seems to me more likely that the writer was someone used to writing in English in copperplate script, and possibly a play-actor such as Roslyn D'Onston, who may have been responsible for the Lusk and Openshaw letters.
Both letters bear similarities in terms of their Irishisms and the Cockneyisms, respectively, to the Cockney double negative seen in the graffito.
Tom Wescott in his dissertation "An Inspiration 'From Hell'" makes a good case that the person who wrote the Lusk letter was familiar with George MacDonald's Letters from Hell where the protagonist visits "The Great City of the Jews."
Roslyn D'Onston, later the author of The Patristic Gospels would likely have been familiar with this work.
In any case, for the reasons stated, I think a case can be made that the author of the graffito was not a Jew but someone who was making a statement about the Jews.
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
http://christophertgeorge.blogspot.com/
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 996
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Sorry this is late but I haven't had much time for the boards lately. D. Radka wrote about me:
Mr. Spallek seems to have dissolved himself into the common promiscuous pool of Ripperlogical cynicism and skepticism. The sarsons of Stonehenge are set into a chalk plain. Ever heard of the white cliffs of Dover? England is veritably built on a chalkberg. Chalk has been available to the English for eons, and was very cheaply available in Whitechapel in 1888. How do you know a merchant wrote the message? How do you know the writer wasn't educated? Whoever he was, he was able to handle a negative future passive in correct grammatical form, no easy feat for most modern-day college seniors, as I can attest having taught them. How many denizens of Whitechapel could do that? Something quite unusual, evidently, was up in the graffitus.
<sigh> I should know better than to try to reason with an unreasonable person. I did not say that I knew the graffito was written by a merchant. I said that scenario was "quite likely," i.e. very plausible. I don't know who wrote it -- and that's is precisely the point! It could have been written by anybody, including Jack the Ripper, a merchant, a schoolboy, anybody reasonably literate in the English language (including many immigrants). I do make the reasonable assumption that this is an example of poor grammatical skill. Could it be meant literally, written with complicated but proper grammar as you suggest? Yes. But that is not the most reasonable interpretation.
Chalk is a common substance and England does indeed have it in abundance (although some names are misleading, like "Chalk Farm" in North London which does not refer to chalk at all). A stick of chalk would be a very common thing. It would be very useful to a merchant or shopkeeper. I see no real reason to suspect it likely that Jack the Ripper wrote this ambiguous graffito. I suspect that Warren (or whoever gave the order) also perceived this when he had it erased. |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 997
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Howard Brown wrote in response to me:
If it is "quite" likely, then that begs the question as to what possible reason a capitalist vendor would alienate his clientele? If a vendor worked in that section of town,why post a message with the implicit reference to what were,in all likelihood,his majority consumer base?
Boy, where do we begin? For one thing, a lot of these folks were socialists rather than capitalists. More to the point, however, is that the graffito is ambiguous. (1) We are unsure of the exact wording and (2) either version is open to multiple interpretations. It could be a slur against Jews. But it could also be a statement of Jewish solidarity: "If we Jews are always going to be blamed for things by gentiles, let's rise up and give them something to blame us for!" It's ambiguous. It need not have been meant or taken as an insult -- although it certainly could have been.
Andy S. |
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 505
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Andy,
Say it was a slur against Jews.
Regardless of whether the vendors on the streets were capitalists or socialists (although even a socialist vendor must have something of a capitalist mindset!)...would they like to have such a slur close to their business?
Say it was a statement of Jewish solidarity. Solidarity to what? The very ambiguity is a major point against that. But say it was...
Would the same vendors like to have a slur against their customers on the very street where they did business? Lots of their customers were in fact Gentile. A call for "solidarity" between Jews would probably not go so well with those people..and hence the vendors would risk alienating their customers.
None of those scenarios seem to point towards one of the vendors writing it. Actually the only thing that points towards that is that they were likely to have chalk in their pockets!
Besides, are we to believe that, if there was nothing sinister to the writing at all..the person that did it did not step forward to say so at all? The word must surely have reached almost everyone of the inhabitants of those streets. And such a statement might have toned down the "Jewish link" rather than reinforce it.
I totally agree with Chris George in that the writer was probably not a Jew, but making a statement about the Jews.
I also believe he was Jack, but that is more open to interpretation, of course.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
You folks are missing my point entirely. Yes, yes, yes, the graffito could have been written by almost anybody and that is precisely my point. There is no real reason to believe that it was written by the Ripper at all; it could have been written by anybody! I only mentioned merchants as an example of people would would likely have chalk in their pockets. The intent of my original post was to show that chalk as a writing implement was probably much more common in Victorian times than we would imagine.
Andy S. |
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 508
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
Andy,
But you miss my point
I don't think it was likely that the Jewish vendors themselves wrote it! That means that in my opinion (and it is just an opinion) it was not "anybody" that could have written it!
There is obviously one reason to believe it was written by the Ripper, and that is that he choose the very spot to get rid of his piece of apron.
This is no evidence that he wrote it, but it is still a good reason to think that he might have.
Dismissing the apron is actually the only argument for Jack NOT having written it, when all the dust settles at the end of the day.
Take away the apron and the graffito looses any connection whatsoever.
But no one can take away the apron because it was actually there!
By chance or design...take your pick. But ignoring it will never make it go away!
But you are of course quite right that chalk was widely used in the LVP. Exactly why Jack just might have had some in his pockets!
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 29, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 509
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
To answer the initial question of this thread...
Jack put the piece of chalk back into his pockets and walked home.
What else could he do? It was late, and his pub was closed.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 293
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 10:47 pm: |
|
Andy is absolutely right about the chalk and about the writer being almost anyone. It cannot be proven one way or another unless a diary turns up (oh God, no!)that says something. I still rest on the opinion that the graffiti was pro-Jew, not anti-semite. I see nothing that could make me think it was an attack on the Jews.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 105
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:19 pm: |
|
When Warren had the constables copy the message, I wonder if he instructed them to try to copy the writing style as well and not just the message itself. That would have been the prudent thing to do. It certainly would have come in handy since samples of Tumblety's and Druitt's handwriting should have been fairly easy to come by so that a comparison could have been done.
c.d. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:38 pm: |
|
C.D.
Warren himself wrote down the message and sent it on to the Home Office, where it was recieved on November 6th..
It would have been "nice" if Warren & Co. had indicated which style [ most likely in cursive ] of writing it was for certain.
It would have been just as nice if Warren and Halse didn't conflict in the amount of lines it was written in....5,the former or 3,the latter.
I've read posts and even a declaration from an author that what Warren wrote down was a copy of the message.
This is probably only half true. Warren,of course,wrote down what was written but probably not concisely and perhaps for three reasons.
The first being that he didn't feel it was so important in the first place....a simple re-writing would do. Had Halse been in charge,we're talking a different story here..
The second is based in "mechanics". It's pretty unlikely that Warren copied,as in exact reproduction, the message as the author wrote it. This is what paved the way, in my view , for Stephenson to play games with the "u " in the word "Juwes", claiming that Warren and the gang mistakenly made a "w" out of an " iv "...hence creating "Juives". On the other hand, RDS may have written it himself....but thats for other threads for now...
The third reason would be the time of the letter's sending/arrival at the Home Office. They recieved the Warren memo 36 days after the actual event. Its more than likely that Warren wrote and sent this message to the Home Office fairly close to the November 6th reception for filing away. Remembering that he didn't get all riled up as say...hmm..I do, about the GSG...and make more ado about the matters of style...he more than likely wrote down the message again and then sent it off to the H.O. If it was as important to him as we would like it to have been,its probably a good guess that he would have been more concise in a couple of areas and sent it off immediately. This 5 week gap between events tells me that he wrote it down again and didn't send an "original-from that night-copy" of the message to the H.O.
One final thing my man...Writing in chalk and in pencil [ due to the gauge of the writing barrel ] will often [ not always...] change a person's writing style. In other words, H.B.'s and C.D.'s chalk writing style may be pretty close on inspection,but miles apart in pen/pencil writing....especially something as small as the GSG. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1203
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Dear Rosey O'Ryan:
Regarding your post from a few days ago [sorry to have overlooked it until tonight..], yeah,it could be very integral to the Case. For example:
A Jewish killer may have been telling the cops..."Hey,you got the wrong Jew back there earlier this [ Sept. ] month [ Pizer ]....you schlubs ! Right tribe,wrong guy !
Of course,this may not be your take on matters...but its one of the endless possibilities nacht wir? |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 108
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Professor Brown,
An excellent recitation of the facts. Clear and informative and you did it without using all dem big woids that you know. Very impressive. Thank you, Sir.
c.d. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 297
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:41 pm: |
|
How,
You meant 'Nicht war', not Nacht wir?
Nicht war= is that not true?
Nacht wir= we are night
Just trying to help big guy
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 657
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:51 pm: |
|
"Nacht wir= we are night "
I like that one better.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 298
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
It isn't so bad, come to think of it. It's ripperesque.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Helge --
My use of "anybody" is, of course, somewhat hyperbolic. Obviously, it had to be someone who could write and who had at least a rudimentary knowledge of English. However, since the message is ambiguous and we don't even know the exact wording for certain, I can't agree that it is "unlikely" to have been written by a Jewish merchant.
I see a cryptic message written in letters only one inch tall that happens to be on a wall above a piece of evidence from Eddowes' murder. For the life of me I can't see any real reason to connect this scrawl with the killer. Sure, the police did the right thing in taking note of it and they should have photographed it just in case it would have proved to be significant later on. But it never did become significant to the case. |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Mike:
Yes sir...You are correct. I got 'em backwards. |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 75
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 7:09 pm: |
|
1. Mr. Brown wrote: “This "Juwes" definition,as written in print by Stephenson was wrong...as well as Dave Radka's "Juwes" or the "Juwes" of Masonic lore..” Mr. Radka answered: And your evidence for these conclusions is exactly—what? Mr. Brown answered: The evidence or rather the total absence whatsoever of evidence,that the "Juwes" referred to some organization [ whose name escapes me at the moment...some Jewish youth group,I believe...that Christian Jaud showed you was incorrect] that you insisted was the meaning behind the "Juwes" on Goulston St.”
>>I did not “insist” on anything, Mr. Brown. The interpretation of the term “Juwes” according to the A?R Summary is peripheral to the truth of the theory, as I’ve patiently pointed out on these boards over twenty times. If you don’t like what A?R says about the term, simply forget about it. There is no effect on the theory as a whole, one way or the other. You and your buddy Mr. Norder do not continue repeating this junk critique of me because you’ve forgotten it’s irrelevant—you both know da*n well it’s irrelevant—you repeat it because you know many people reading here aren’t well enough aware of the issues to realize it’s irrelevant, and would be inclined to believe what you say. You like to try to hurt me by controlling the court of public opinion, a highly political and critically unsophisticated approach.
2. “You were wrong then...and of course,you're no closer to any sort of conclusion now. Your mentioning of Berkowitz is somewhat fitting,college boy, since you and he both share some common ground here. Berkowitz' messages and your adherence to this fantasy scenario...they only make/made sense to you two.”
>>The A?R theory is quite conclusive, Mr. Brown. It asks and provides concise, rational responses to all Ripperlogical questions. I have no changes to make to it since its publication here in April 2004.
3. "Berkowitz was writing about his personal conditions, which the police wouldn’t know about. The Whitechapel murderer was writing about local social and ethnic conditions," The underlined section of this paragraph has not been proven. This is an example of Mr. Radka's shell game. The trick to this underlined statement,is that a Gentile may have written it. If a Gentile wrote it,it may be an example of the local,social,ethnic conditions in Whitechapel at the time, according to its author. If a Jewish guy wrote it, same thing. He's reflecting on the local,social,and ethnic conditons of the time...once again,according to its author. Mr. Radka adheres to a Jewish hand behind the graffiti. Thats his prerogative. In fact, in the long run, this conclusion,not unique to any one theorist,may be correct.”
>>The A?R theory is designed to incorporate various either-or scenarios, but this is one of its many strengths. I’ve got the whole shell game rated, in other words. I don’t exactly know under what shell the pea necessarily is; but no matter, I don’t have to know, the theory holds anyway. I identified one of the great weaknesses of all previous Ripperlogical theories: excessive empirical reliance on mechanical explanations. I’ve incorporated flexible explanations instead. I wouldn’t expect someone on your plane of consciousness to be able to appreciate this sort of thing—you are a mechanic limited to the species level, whereas I am a philosopher functioning on both the genera and species levels as appropriate. *** My conclusions are not offered piecemeal, Mr. Brown, but as parts of a unified whole. This whole is manifestly unique to me as an author.
4. “Much of what Berkowitz sent to newspapers was not misunderstood. The authorities were inevitably wise to the symbolism and the Satanic references. The same applies to the Police at Goulston Street. They recognized the word "Juwes" as meaning Jews,instantly not eventually, sans symbols..The general idea that in the case of Berkowitz, a disturbed Satanist was murdering people, was understood. In the case of the GSG author/ Ripper, the police likewise assumed a murderous and disturbed individual was at work,with an apparent grudge against Jews for some unknown [to all, but him ] reason. Berkowitz and the Ripper share this link of not being fully understood,although their murder and message[s] were somehow connected.....What they both had/have in common is that the intrinsic meanings cannot be known until after they were/are caught.”
>>In the case of the Whitechapel murderers, adequate information about contemporary social, ethnic, political, local, historical and other conditions is available to fix the graffitus into an adequate interpretive matrix. In the case of Berkowitz, nobody knows who Sam is until the murderer is caught. You are conflating two different situations as one.
5. “This is the problem with the WM. We now know what Berkowitz meant or at least have heard what "Son of Sam" meant to Berkowitz internally.. This cannot be said of the "Juwes" on the Wentworth and its author,no matter how dogmatically & repititiously Mr. Radka tries to browbeat people into believing his neat script fits all the criteria of the killer. We do not know what the word "Juwes" meant to the author in the manner it meant to him.”
>>As I’ve said here many times, Mr. Brown, we cannot attempt to read the Whitechapel murderer’s mind. I do not do so, I interpret the empirical case evidence taken as a whole. Whether you are prepared to imagine it or not, Mr. Brown, my interpretation of the meaning of the graffitus fits the case evidence.
6. “Mr. Radka knows as much as anyone else regarding the mental health of any member of the "clan" of people JTR is alleged to have emanated from....according to his theory. That being....nothing.”
>>Psychopathy is a type of personality, Mr. Brown, not a mental illness, as I’ve many times pointed out. You are correct; I don’t know empirical specifics about the Lubnowski, Abrahams, or Kosminski clans. But I don’t have to know that to know the solution to the case, because the A?R theory fits the case evidence, and the case evidence is sufficient for me to draw certain conclusions.
7. Mr. Radka wrote: "The Jews of that time had been blamed in eastern Europe from where they had been expelled, and they were being blamed for various disturbances and negative conditions, including the murders, in Whitechapel."
Mr. Brown answered: “Another aspect of the "shell game"...that ALL Jews were being blamed and that they suddenly popped up overnight. Jews had been in the East End for years...many had assimilated on their terms. One became Prime Minister, Disraeli.”
>>So what if some Jews may have been considered assimilated, and out-of-bounds for blame for the Whitechapel murders? Tens of thousands of them clearly were not so considered—they were thought of as an unruly bunch likely to protect the murderer from the police and Gentile justice if he were one of them, especially the Polish Jews. Considerable internecine strife existed among them as well. The A?R theory is sensitive to the actual conditions of the times. What you write deviates significantly from the historical evidence.
8. “The assumption that non-Jewish Britons were somehow in league with the non-Jewish Eastern Europeans and were passed the baton as soon as the Jews from the Pale and other areas,landed in England is untrue.”
>>The A?R theory makes no such assumption. You must be half daft to think it does.
9. “England accepted the immigrants..not rejected them. What then, would acts of subversion or assumed subversion committed on the continent have to do with the statement..."The Jews were being blamed in Eastern Europe..." ?
>>Time out, Mr. Brown, put your beer stein down, try to focus your fenestrated brain matter for a moment. The Jews were absolutely being blamed in Eastern Europe. Hundreds of thousands of them were cast out when they wouldn’t convert to the Czar’s faith. Joseph Fishman has two good books on the subject—read them for yourself, if you can. Further, the A?R theory makes no statement about “acts of subversion committed on the continent.” The murders I am writing about occurred in England.
10. “Perhaps this: That Mr.Radka is at work trying to bolster [ there's that word again...] the graffiti-by-a-Jewish-psychopath theory based on events that may not have affected the real Jewish-psychopath in any way whatsoever.”
>>I don’t have a “graffiti-by-a-Jewish-psychopath theory,” I have a unified theory of the entire case evidence, taken as a whole. This is obviously beyond the purview of your cognitive powers. You are prone to helplessly try to understand complicated things by arbitrarily chopping them up into bite-sized chunks. You can’t do this with the A?R theory; you’ve got to take a position on how it logically puts the whole together, and then support what you say logically. That is much too much to ask of someone like you.
11. “He may have been a Jewish psychopath,but from an older,assimilated Jewish family.”
>>My theory doesn’t work that way, Mr. Brown. It identifies a relative or close associate of Aaron Kosminski who was a psychopath as the murderer, not a Jewish psychopath taken in the abstract. There is nothing about the graffitus taken in itself, viewed separately from the rest of the A?R theory, to indicate it was written by a Jewish psychopath. You are running your thoughts together chaotically. You present a false version of how the theory works, liable to prejudice unknowing readers.
12. “Mr. Radka may have the right type of killer,for sure...but not for the reasons requiring a "history" of anti-Jewish pogroms or forced emigration within the community that were concomitant to the crimes as he says they were.”
>>You talk as if I’ve got to bend over backward to convince people to accept the “required” complex social and historical conditions of the crimes as a part of their basic nature. I don’t think I have to do that, Mr. Brown, at least not concerning smart people. I think the surrounding circumstances of the murders are integral to thinking causally about what happened. These two aspects of life in Whitechapel at the time seem to have been connected and related. Haven’t you got the ability to appreciate the connections among things? Please demonstrate to us the notion that things are seldom or never connected, specifically arguing against the several indications they are in this case. Not a very agreeable proposition to argue is it, Mr. Brown? Keep in mind we’re not merely talking about sexual serial murderers and how they kill, but rather an account of various events over a period of time in history for which we have detailed empirical data.
13. “Man..thats a lotta Jewry..I'm gonna take a break and go get a nice corned beef on rye [ cole slaw,pickle, and a dab of brown mustard.] Anyone want anything,'cause I'm gonna get the sandwich now ? Dave...be so kind as to write down their orders,would you,bubeleh?”
>>You give your readers very little food on which to sustain themselves, Mr. Brown.
14. Monty wrote: “Guys, (Mr. Radka wrote): "No one needs to put up with crank Ripperology any longer" Monty answered: Heed the man. He is playing with you all. Why fall for it time and time again?”
>>Ripperology is loaded with cranks, folks. One of the main points of being an adequate Ripperologist, as I see it, is coming up with a means to filter the crankery out. I’ve tried to analyze this crankery as I’ve found it in the many books I’ve read about the case as best I can, and incorporate a remedy for it into my unified theory. Many of you, I think, just aren’t ready for that approach.
15. (Mr. Radka): "Doesn’t anyone here have any sort of ethical sense to pursue the truth?" (Monty): Absolutely. And does anyone have the ethical sense to realise that constantly passing off theory as fact, based on the theorists own supposition and NOT ascertained fact, is substantially incorrect and morally corrupt? It would seem not.”
>>You are full of prunes up to your eyeballs, Monty. I’ve been quite clear from Day One that A?R is a unified THEORY of the case. I DO NOT argue as fact anything but the well-known empirical facts of the case. I add no new empirical material whatever!
16. Mr. Spallek wrote: “D. Radka wrote about me: Mr. Spallek seems to have dissolved himself into the common promiscuous pool of Ripperlogical cynicism and skepticism. The sarsons of Stonehenge are set into a chalk plain. Ever heard of the white cliffs of Dover? England is veritably built on a chalkberg. Chalk has been available to the English for eons, and was very cheaply available in Whitechapel in 1888. How do you know a merchant wrote the message? How do you know the writer wasn't educated? Whoever he was, he was able to handle a negative future passive in correct grammatical form, no easy feat for most modern-day college seniors, as I can attest having taught them. How many denizens of Whitechapel could do that? Something quite unusual, evidently, was up in the graffitus.”
Mr. Spallek responded: “<sigh> I should know better than to try to reason with an unreasonable person. I did not say that I knew the graffito was written by a merchant. I said that scenario was "quite likely," i.e. very plausible.”
>>”Quite likely” because of what, Mr. Spallek? You seem to me to be merely speculating, and quite unreasonably at that. Thousands of different people could have written the message; cobblers, boot riveters, hairdressers, schoolchildren, prostitutes, tailors, sailors, carpenters, bakers, on and on. You say merchant, but you show us no means by which to home in on reasonably why. If you do, please give it out here. Sure there were lots of merchants in the area, and sure they often used chalk. But why say that it is “likely” a merchant wrote the graffitus? You are trying to pass off your fantasies as logic.
17. “I don't know who wrote it -- and that's is precisely the point! It could have been written by anybody, including Jack the Ripper, a merchant, a schoolboy, anybody reasonably literate in the English language (including many immigrants). I do make the reasonable assumption that this is an example of poor grammatical skill.”
>>But by saying this you are just blowing off any relationship the graffitus may have to the rest of the evidence! Who are you to do that? Haven’t you got any desire to link the graffitus to the rest of the evidence in terms of a theory on the murderer’s situation and intentions? I don’t think the graffitus an example of poor grammatical skills on the murderer’s part at all; I think it a surpassingly shrewd, albeit pathological scheme to intimidate his witnesses without giving himself away. It is NOT reasonable to assume the graffitus is “an example of poor grammatical skill.” I have good grammatical skill, but I can write any way I want!
18. “Could it be meant literally, written with complicated but proper grammar as you suggest? Yes. But that is not the most reasonable interpretation.”
>>BALONEY on all counts. I do not take it literally, and I do not take it as proper grammar. I take it in terms of the rest of the case evidence.
19. “…(A stick of chalk) would be very useful to a merchant or shopkeeper. I see no real reason to suspect it likely that Jack the Ripper wrote this ambiguous graffito. I suspect that Warren (or whoever gave the order) also perceived this when he had it erased. …I only mentioned merchants as an example of people would likely have chalk in their pockets.”
>>A stick of chalk would also be very useful to thousands of people beyond merchants and shopkeepers, Mr. Spallek. Tailors, carpenters, teachers, you name them, all abundant in Whitechapel. How do you know Jack the Ripper didn’t write the graffitus? Your personal suspicions above are not based on squaring with the evidence as a whole, but are mere disjointed guesses on your part. Put a few of these together and what have you got? A mobile army of arrogance and disorder.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
LEPRECHAUN
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 1:40 pm: |
|
My mortal friends,
How can a word so seldom used
cause as much CHAOS as the word Juwes?
Well, perhaps the "Dear Boss" letter writer didn't fully loop the e when he wrote the graffiti? Thus, Jewes became Juwes!
So, then, isn't it possible he meant:
The Jewes are people that are blamed for nothing?
A trick question? :-O |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2043
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 8:56 am: |
|
David
>>You are full of prunes up to your eyeballs, Monty. I’ve been quite clear from Day One that A?R is a unified THEORY of the case. I DO NOT argue as fact anything but the well-known empirical facts of the case. I add no new empirical material whatever!
>> Full of what? C’mon, where is that cutting Radka come back? Poor attempt David. F.
The fact that I did not mention your name leads you, empirically of course, to assume my statement was about your own theory. Now if come to this conclusion do I take you adopt the same methodology with regards A?R ?
If so, it may be wise to look closer to home when trying to rid ‘Ripperology’ of crankery…if that is a word.
Have a good day now.
Monty
x
It begins.....
|
Andrew Spallek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 05, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Mr. Spallek responded: “<sigh> I should know better than to try to reason with an unreasonable person. I did not say that I knew the graffito was written by a merchant. I said that scenario was "quite likely," i.e. very plausible.”
>>”Quite likely” because of what, Mr. Spallek? You seem to me to be merely speculating, and quite unreasonably at that. Thousands of different people could have written the message; cobblers, boot riveters, hairdressers, schoolchildren, prostitutes, tailors, sailors, carpenters, bakers, on and on. You say merchant, but you show us no means by which to home in on reasonably why. If you do, please give it out here. Sure there were lots of merchants in the area, and sure they often used chalk. But why say that it is “likely” a merchant wrote the graffitus? You are trying to pass off your fantasies as logic.
<sigh> OK, I'll try one more time. I was using "merchant" merely as an example of a person who would be likely to have chalk in his possession. Yes, Mr. Radka, it could have been written by a hairdresser, cobbler, tailor, etc., etc. I think a merchant is perhaps a more likely candidate than other alternatives but I do not know that it was written by a merchant nor do I fantasize about such possibilities neither do I care. It doesn't make a bit of difference who wrote it as long as it wasn't written by the Ripper -- that is my point!!!
One last time: My point is that the graffito could have been written by anybody who could write and who had a rudimentary knowledge of English. With this fact established I see no reason to attribute it to the Ripper merely because this small (one inch high!) but of writing was found near a piece of evidence (the piece of apron).
Please make an effort to understand my point.
Andy S.
(Message edited by aspallek on December 05, 2005) |
Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 1:35 pm: |
|
Hi All,
A syllogistic soliquy:
"The Juwes are the Men who ...
are the Juwes.
The Juwes are the Men who...
are the Jews.
The Jews are the Men who...
are the Juwes.
The Jews are the Men who...
are the Jews.
Apropos the negative:
The Juwes are not the Men who...
are the Juwes.
The Juwes are not the Men who...
are the Jews.
The Jews are not the Men who...
are the Juwes.
The Jews are not the Men who...
are the Jews."
Take your pick! Either one of the above statements is false and the other statements are true; or, one of the above statements is true and the other statements are false; or, all the above statements are false; or, all the above statements are true.
Rosey :-)) |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Leprachaun, I am in agreement with your theory and have posted the point before. Quite simple really, taking into account the thickness of a piece of chalk?, a rough wall and relatively small writing. I believe the spelling was 'jewes' as P.C. Long, first at the scene originally stated.
So much debate and chaos as you say over one word.
And still no debate on the inclusion of the second unnecessary 'e'! |
leprechaun
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 16, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
I Know Jack,
Good point. Now we'll have to convince Rosey to add it to her soliquy:
The Jewes are not the men who will be blamed for Jack!=Nothing :-) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page