|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3236
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 8:43 am: | 
|
Well,
glad to be of some use at any rate!!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 240
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 8:25 pm: |
|
Monty
I get your point, it is a fair one.
Thanks for the response.
regards
Julie
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2028
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 3:50 am: |
|
Julie,
Dont thank me, we all add a little.
Regards
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2356
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
In either way, it mentions Jews in connection with a piece of evidence (the apron) from one of the Ripper killings. I would say that would have been an explosive combination enough.
I know I must be getting boring, but the apron was found by a copper and presumably picked up sharpish. So the only people at the time a riot was feared who had to know that the message mentioning Jews could be connected with a piece of evidence from a ripper killing were policemen.
In other words, simply whip away the apron and your explosive combination is instantly defused.
What some of us would like to know is why the message in its own right, once the apron had been picked up was considered to be more of a powder keg than other, less ambiguous racist or political graffiti, that we are assured would have peppered the area and been largely ignored as an inevitable nuisance by the public.
Arnold didn't believe it was connected to the murderer, but he thought the market traders on their way to work (who need know nothing about the apron) would consider the message a clue because of its position. Why?
Hi Monty,
I do understand your position on the graffito. But I would like to explore your reasoning a bit further.
Could I ask you:
If the message, chalked by the entrance to the Jewish Dwellings, was not meant as some kind of slur against the inhabitants, or Jews in general, what alternative scenarios do you have in mind?
I'm really struggling to find reasons for a Jew writing that message on that building, or a non-Jew who had no anti-Semitic thoughts as he wrote it on that building, and what the message might have meant in either circumstance.
They say simple tends to hit the spot better than complicated. So if someone other than the killer chalked this message close to where Jack would later drop the only physical clue from his crimes, what would you consider to be the simplest interpretation of the message, and also who chalked it - Jew or non-Jew?
Many thanks.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 24, 2005) |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 494
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:48 am: |
|
Caz,
You made some excellent points.
And I would like to challenge our dear (yes, I mean it!) Monty, slightly further.
If this thing was written by a "defiant" Jew (other than Jack) Would it not be more probable that he wrote it somewhere where the gentiles would see it and somewhere that would be more linked to "them" (as opposed to Jews), rather than on his own turf?
I mean, what is the point of that?
What we must ask is "Who was the people supposed to read this"?
My answer is, most definitely the Jews.
Is it not then most probable that this was a slur against the Jews?
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)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2029
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Caz and Helge,
I had written a long response and posted it. It seems to have not appeared. Maybe my fault. Maybe cos Ive got a splitting headache right now and concentration is lax.
Reasons for a Jew writing a message on a Jewish dwelling? A defiant Jew at that?
The same reasons Muslim extremists are trying to ‘recruit’ for the jihad….a cause. And where better to recruit?
A non-Jew writing without anti-semetism?
Hinges on the word ‘Juwes’ (if that was the correct noting down of the word) doesn’t it? The natural assumption (and a valid one I agree) is that the word means Jews. However, if research uncovers another meaning for the word, a gangland meaning possibly akin to a gang name such as the Nichol gang, then the context of the writing changes to a warning. Basically the ‘Juwes are the men not to be fcuked with, so take heed’.
The simple fact is guys that there is no concluding phrase or word within the writing that makes me sit up and state yes, that’s what it means. There is reasonable doubt with your version and, agreeably, there is with my conclusion and many others.
Until the ‘blame’ is established and ‘Juwes’ is correctly defined we are doomed to continually chase tails.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:43 am: |
|
Monty made an important comment in the above post. In referring to Muslim extremists who want to put fear into "Uncle Tom" muslims, this method makes sense,as it knocks fence sitters to one side or the other.
Throughout the history of Jewry,particularly after the Diaspora, Jews have been known to engage in a form of self loathing, known as selbsthass. Its the German word for "self-hate"
What is interesting is that of all White sub-
racial groups...this "selbsthass" appears in Jews,and particularly Jewish men,in an extremely disproportionate,almost exclusively Jewish way.
For a few graphic,perhaps extreme, examples, Torquemada was a marrano, a convert to Christianity,but ethnically [ Sephardim ] a Semite. We all know what Tommy The Torq did in Spain...Every commandant of the Gulags in which Solzhenitsyn suffered in was an ethnic Jew. The majority of the leaders of the NKVD,Cheka, from Yagoda up to Beria,were Jews,and they persecuted Jews severely all in the name of world enslavement/Communism.
Other examples,like Danny Burros,Frank Collin,and Bobby Fischer,come to mind. The former were leaders of American neo-Nazi groups....and the latter a world class chess player who will sue you if you mention his emanating from a Yiddishe mama...there are several others,but I think these will suffice. The three men mentioned above were or are examples of life-long vendettas against their own...One committed suicide..one sent to prison for child molestation...and the other an exiled schnook.
Sorry for rambling, but Monty does definitely make a point about selbsthass being a viable and potential reason for the message possibly being left there by a Jewish JTR....in fact,considering the place it was left,its worth some serious consideration.
Good point,Montagu. A real good point.... |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
..."What is interesting is that of all White sub-
racial groups.."--- Bigmouth, above..
This is an error. Jews are not a race,but a people. My mistake. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2030
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:06 am: |
|
How,
*eyebrows raised*
A Jewish JtR?
And the height it was found at? Ideal if you were entering the building from the Wentworth street end.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3245
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
ok,
im lost now
height?
height???
whatty what?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 651
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
"I'm really struggling to find reasons for a Jew writing that message"
I think it can also be read as a Jew boasting of his crime(s). It would appear that Godfrey Lushington held that point of view.
It could very well be that we are trying to torture meaning out of a 'Son of Sam' type letter. I remember everyone in New York wracking their brains to figure out who the &^%! Sam was, and it turned out to be the murderer's neighbor's dog. The message only made sense to Berkowitz....
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1177
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Monty:
Using a hypothetical scenario where a nice Jewish boy,but psycho , as Bob Anderson mentioned with Berkowitz and his message that made sense to his mind only, above... and the possible self-loathing,which you didn't mention,but nonetheless reminded me of...yeah...sure. Why not ? Its possible,if the guy was schooled in Britain...or attended a schul ,which emphasised handwriting. We ain't looking for a guy of any persuasion who couldn't write in "good schoolboy".
The height ? I'm still sticking for the inside of the Wentworth,not the archway. But if it was on the archway..its anybody's guess as to why it was begun at 4 feet. Maybe he squatted down,as he wiped his hands one final time...I dunno. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2363
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 7:15 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
Thanks for your suggestions.
Reasons for a Jew writing a message on a Jewish dwelling? A defiant Jew at that?
The same reasons Muslim extremists are trying to ‘recruit’ for the jihad….a cause. And where better to recruit?
So one Jewish extremist writes - in English, mind - "The Juwes are [are not] the men that will not [will] be blamed for nothing".
How would that get his message or 'cause' across to another Jew, or group of Jews?
You concede that if a non-Jew wrote it with no anti-Semitic intention then Juwes would have meant something other than Jews, despite being chalked on the Jewish Dwellings.
If it's that ambiguous, and the message was by a Jew, goading other Jews into some kind of action or change, you'd have thought he'd have written it in a language other than English and in words it would be difficult for his target audience not to comprehend.
Hi Sir Robert,
I absolutely go along with your suggestion that we could be trying to torture meaning out of something conjured up by a complete odd-ball.
The harder such a message is to fathom, the more likely IMHO it was done when the writer's mind was all over the place.
"Go home Jews" it wasn't.
Or we'd all have gone home by now on this one.
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2032
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:18 am: |
|
Caz
“If it's that ambiguous, and the message was by a Jew, goading other Jews into some kind of action or change, you'd have thought he'd have written it in a language other than English and in words it would be difficult for his target audience not to comprehend”.
My ex of five years was born in Kenya. Her parents came from the Gujarat area of India. At the age of 3 she came to England. Though fluent in Gujarati she could not read it in the written form. English yes, Gujarati no. This is quite common amongst second generation Hindus, Punjabis, Pakistanis, Bengalis, Sri Lankans etc. The best she could do was to recognise her first name.
Now it appears that the most fervent support the Sub continent origin British based extremists receive comes not from first generations living in Britain but second and third. The same generation who struggle to read the language of their Parents or Grandparents. Would this differ in 1888?
With this on board, I do not find it odd that IF (note the if) the writing was such a call, it is written in English. I have seen such writings around the Highfields area of Leicester. Though not as ambiguous granted, the meaning was far clearer, but it was written in English.
I did note that the grammar was incorrect (the Leicster writing that is), which led me to conclude that the writing was completed by a person whose control of English was second to their own natural tongue. Again, this may (and I stress may here) explain the queer construction of the Goulston Street writing. This obviously goes against my earlier reason that second generation would find English a more favourable language to read (and would have the ability to construct comprehensible sentence), but if you are writing in a lesser favoured language and trying to entice a second generation recruit, then the Goulston street writing does become clear as to why it is in English and why the construction is odd.
Again, if intended to be a ‘cause’ message, it wouldn’t surprise me if such radicals targeted such a dwelling. Again my experience here, I have seen ‘recruitment’ attempts at two places in Leicester. One was outside a bookstore (I will not mention the location) and the other was outside the entrance to a block of flats (since destroyed)
“You concede that if a non-Jew wrote it with no anti-Semitic intention then Juwes would have meant something other than Jews, despite being chalked on the Jewish Dwellings”
You assume its author knew Jews inhabited the dwelling. That is prejudiced thinking and whilst I concede that the author may have known this it is not an ascertained fact.
I am not trying to promote a view here. I am merely trying to point out one of the possible meanings and reasons behind the writing.
I am in total agreement with Sir Robert and yourself…..the real possibility that only the author knows the true meaning.
And you have a great weekend also.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
what stuck out from your post Monty was the word Leicester. here at last i thought is something i know about!!
Monty,
you assume someone whos first language was english would be able to write gramatically correctly?
Jenni
ps resisting asking what you were doing strolling around Highfields, lol!!
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 86
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Heighth? I remember a Sherlock Holmes story in which the great detective stated that people tend to write at their own eye level. Certainly makes sense.
c.d. |
Jo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 5:47 am: |
|
}Tumblety was the ripper, it MUST have been him or Druitt. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 498
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, November 27, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
Monty,
Admittedly you are only advancing your supposition that Juwes might have meant something else than Jews...and that is admirable. But I have not heard one single believable alternative to what it might have meant other than Jews. Have I missed something?
Correct me if I am wrong. Was not this entire street well known by all locals of Whitechapel as a Jewish district? And is it not possible that that, as such, may be more important than the bulding itself?
Jo,
It can't have been Druitt because it MUST have been Tumblety... Or perhaps Mr. Driscoll C. Lewitt?
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)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:37 am: |
|
Helge,
But I have not heard one single believable alternative to what it might have meant other than Jews.
So 'Juwes' certainly means Jews?
Have I missed something?
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 499
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Monty,
Well, it might be a good idea to come up with an alternative explanation before one claim it might mean anything OTHER than Jews.
After all, we know people at the time believed it meant Jews, so that kind of makes sense. I certainly can't come up with anything else.
But that may only be me, of course. Still, those that claim it might have an alternative meaning would do much for their case by coming up with such an alternative meaning...
Don't you agree?
Juwes ARE mentioned in some masonic texts as meaning the three Jews (the cursed ones) that killed Hiram Abiff (the Master Mason that knew the Secrets of the Pharaoh). It is also known to have been an archaic spelling of Jews. I'm not proposing a masonic connection here, but it is clear that the word has existed and does exist in connection to Jews. My Babylon translator tool even come up with Jews as a possible meaning of Juwes.
Anyway, just for fun, let us see what is the origin of the masonic (theoretical) link:
"When they were brought before Solomon, they confessed to their guilt, and Jubela said ‘Oh, that my throat had been cut across. And Jubelo said ‘Oh, that my left breast had been torn open and my heart and vitals taken and thrown over my left shoulder.’ And Jubelum said, ‘My body severed in the midst.’"
I'm all for speculating, but in order for any alternative theory to the words meaning to be viable at least there must be a possible alternative.
If there is none, I'd say it is 99.99999% chance that it meant Jews, whether it was misspelled or spelled that way on purpose.
The remainder 0.00001% chance would be that there was a link to the masons, the Priory of Sion and the holy bloodline.
If no other alternative can be found, we might as well discuss whether the writer had blue eyes and chewed tobacco.
Well, it ain't impossible!
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)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2035
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Helge,
“Well, it might be a good idea to come up with an alternative explanation before one claim it might mean anything OTHER than Jews.”
When I was asked for another possible reason for the meaning of the writing, I provided another possible reason. Maybe it was missed by you.
Just because an alternative meaning of Juwes (though we are still working to find the original meaning) is not known to you or I does not mean the alternative does not exist. We play in different worlds. You state Juwes is Jews. I ask why? What categorical evidence leads you to this conclusion? You have none except you own belief.
The Police at the time certainly thought ‘Juwes’ had an official connection with Jews. However this theory was clearly knocked back by Acting Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler. Even one of the most prominent Jewish persons in the country was struggling to understand its meaning and therefore the definition of Juwes as Jews is questionable.
The Masonic connection you mention is purely Masonic, no Yiddish connection whatsoever.
“I'm all for speculating, but in order for any alternative theory to the words meaning to be viable at least there must be a possible alternative”
I know you are all for speculating, that’s the base of your theory on the writing.
The possible alternatives certainly exist.
No matter what your beliefs are.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 500
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:08 am: |
|
"Just because an alternative meaning of Juwes (though we are still
working to find the original meaning) is not known to you or I...."
Ok, I'll admit there may be a phantom meaning (as in being unknown at present). Do give me a clue as to when, how or if it comes to light.
The masonic meaning I mention is not Yiddish. Since when did that exclude it? Maybe Jack was a 33rd degree mason.
For all we know...
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 28, 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)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2036
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:12 am: |
|
Helge,
The masonic meaning I mention is not Yiddish. Since when did that exclude it? Maybe Jack was a 33rd degree mason.
For all we know...
There you go.....an alternative.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 501
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:16 am: |
|
Monty,
That was IRONY..but at least it IS an alternative.
And boy, are you fast...
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)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2037
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Helge,
Yeah, cos IRONY comes over oh so easily in posts !
That was SARCASM !!
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 502
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Monty,
Irony or not, its a fair cop...
No scorn intended.
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)
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, November 28, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
You wrote: "Juwes ARE mentioned in some masonic texts as meaning the three Jews (the cursed ones) that killed Hiram Abiff (the Master Mason that knew the Secrets of the Pharaoh)."
So far all actual references to the use of Juwes in this way have been very modern: Stephen Knight's book and later. All references to the Three Ruffians prior to Knight's book that anyone here has been able to find conspicuously lack the term. If you have a pre-Knight reference, or better yet a pre-20th century reference (so we can speculate that someone back in 1888 might have heard of the term), I'd love to see it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 503
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:49 am: |
|
Hi Dan,
Well, off hand I cannot come up with any published sources prior to 1888 that mentions the word Juwes, but that is not really the point.
The point is that the word have been used rather extensively in masonic and Alchemical texts, and unless you think that use was somehow influenced by the Ripper incident, it still proves that the word is not an invented one. It is, as I said, used extensively in alchemy and masonry.
The problem with believeing that the use of the word in freemasonry is a modern one is that in 1888 there were many secrets within freemasonry, and it would be difficult to find written texts about this at all. Today the situation is different. Most secrets are no longer secrets. In fact, it is known that the Juwes is a sentral theme in freemasonry.
Here is one example; it is incorporated in the secrets of gematria:
The word three in Hebrew is ShLVSh and has a gematria value of 636. Three times 636 makes 1908, which is the gematria value of The Juwes - all three of them. Thus the three candidates in the Royal Arch degree seem to signify the three Juwes resurrected - at the start of a new cycle.
For more information on this I recommend: C.C. Zain, Ancient Masonry - The Spiritual Meaning of Masonic Degrees, Rituals and Symbols, The Church of Light Press, Los Angeles, 1994.
This is all rather academic, however, because I never said it was likely that the use of the word Juwes in the GSG was influenced by freemasonry. On the contrary, you will see that I thought that was very unlikely indeed.
On that one we seem to be in perfect agreement. It is very unlikely that anyone NOT a mason should know about the three Juwes at all in 1888.
On the other hand, there is always the chance that the word Juwes may not necessarily have been exclusively used by Freemasonry.
Anyway, what is certain is that the word was not invented by the writer of the GSG, and we may speculate then whether it was a misspelling or the use of an archaic word.
How (or indeed if) the writer of the GSG knew this word is unknown to me. Yet it is a fact that it is not an invented word. It is also a fact that the known use of the word is connected to Jews.
That was my point. I find it highly unlikely that there should be any masonic link to the GSG or the Ripper murders. For one thing, the major problem with that theory is that there were not three persons killed, they were not Jews, and they were not men. Poor female prostitutes have very little in common with the three Juwes!
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: 504
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
Actually the word Juwes was in use other than by Masons. This is from a german poem 1498 (Reynke de Vos):
Ik sprack: >neen, vruwe, des syd bericht,
Lesen eft schriuen kan ick nicht.
Juwes kyndes ick ock nicht enbeghere,
Men Ysegrym wuste gerne, wo yd were;
De heft my heer ghesant to yw.<
And, yes, Juwes read as Jews.
Also, I found the sentence:
"juwes rades unde juwer anwisinghe gherne volghen"
in Deutches Rechtswörterbuch 1332.
This is the earliest use of the word I found so far. So it was out there..and it meant Jews.
Back to Jack...
One Riddle. Who was actually involved and also first Master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076?
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)
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
You wrote: "Well, off hand I cannot come up with any published sources prior to 1888 that mentions the word Juwes, but that is not really the point."
Yes, I would agree that's not the point. I asked for you to provide examples of any published sources prior to Stephen Knight's book. You can't claim the Masons used it that way when there is no evidence to support it. Yes, Masons kept secrets, but then it's also true that they created publications intended for other Masons that since then have been found by members of the general public. None of them use the word "Juwes" to refer to the Three Ruffians.
So my point here is that you shouldn't be repeating the claim that Masons used the term as if it were true when it hasn't been shown to be, and in fact when all the evidence that has been gathered shows the opposite.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 511
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Dan,
But you still miss the point!
It is well documented that modern masons do use the term Juwes! Do you think they invented it after Jack the Ripper? Or Stephen Knight?
Do you think Freemasonry cares for Ripperology?
I said I cannot provide examples of masonic texts mentioning Juwes prior to Knight. Why should I? I never claimed I could, and I certainly do not defend Knight, and have never done so. I even explained why such sources probably do not exist. I did mention one modern source, however. Juwes ARE a part of masonic lore whether it was published before Knight or not!
And whether Ripperology is aware of it or not!
The point I was trying to make is that even though it was an unpublished fact (as far as I know) also prior to 1888, this does not mean Freemasons of the time did not know about it!
In fact, most higher members of Freemasonry WOULD have known about it! The art of gematria that I gave you an example on is ancient, certainly far older than 1888! And yet, here we see Juwes incorporated. I will even tell you why Freemasons use the archaic term Juwes...it is because it has a numerical value, and has had so for centuries! Changing it to a modern spelling would upset that. So the archaic spelling must be retained.
If the debunkers of Knight relies only on the assumption that the word Juwes did not exist before his book, then they have done a poor job.
Not that I think Knight was right... But they still did a poor job. Do anyone believe modern freemasonry picked up Juwes from Knight? That is ridiculous!
I have read a lot of esoteric manuscripts, and I can tell you that Juwes are no modern invention. It is even mentioned in certain ancient Alchemical booklets. Ripperology can hardly claim to have the final expertise on Freemasonry or Alchemy, anyway. Certain things used to be solis sacerdotibus, but are no longer so. Although the actual meaning of many things are known by few, even today.
But I can't see why you ask me to provide proof for anything relating to Knight's theories. I think the probability for a masonic link is negligible. So I am not the right person to defend this.
What I did show, and what you did not comment, is the fact that Juwes is an ancient germanic spelling of Jews, and thus it becomes much more likely that this is where the spelling derives from. English is a germanic language, and has been influenced by, among other languages, ancient norse for example...which is also a germanic language, much closer to german ca 1300's.
Thus there is the possibility that Jews was known by some people as late as 1888 as being spelled Juwes.
My personal opinion is that, since I see no other masonic link to the murders, there are none. So why should there be in the GSG?
Of course, on the other hand, Sir Charles Warren, being a Freemason of high degree, would instantly interpret Juwes as a masonic word, even though it probably was not meant as such. And this may be the reason he erased it so promtly.
That part of the story may actually be true.
Although, even so, it is still more probable that Warren got it wrong and Jack simply could not spell.
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)
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 11:27 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
No, Helge, you miss the point... and quite dramatically at that.
"It is well documented that modern masons do use the term Juwes! Do you think they invented it after Jack the Ripper? Or Stephen Knight?"
Yes, some modern Masons use the term. Most modern Masons do not. There is no evidence of anyone, Masons or otherwise, using the term before Stephen Knight. Many modern Masons deny that the term was ever used in Freemasonry. Yes, it could very well be that some of them picked up the term after reading one of Knight's books. He did after all write the leading anti-Mason book and many Masons (probably moreso that non-Masons) did read it.
The problem here is that you admit that no sources prior to Knight use the term, but then you jump to believing with no evidence whatsoever that the term really did exist prior to Knight, despite thorough research into numerous old Mason documents discussing the Three Ruffians which conspicuously do not use the term.
"If the debunkers of Knight relies only on the assumption that the word Juwes did not exist before his book, then they have done a poor job."
Do you have any EVIDENCE for this conclusion, or is this yet another example of you making conclusions up in your head and insisting that the rest of the world follow along and believe you just because you say so?
"Do anyone believe modern freemasonry picked up Juwes from Knight? That is ridiculous!"
And why exactly is that ridiculous? Because you refuse to believe it?
"I have read a lot of esoteric manuscripts, and I can tell you that Juwes are no modern invention. It is even mentioned in certain ancient Alchemical booklets."
If that's true then you should have no trouble at all PROVING this.
"What I did show, and what you did not comment, is the fact that Juwes is an ancient germanic spelling of Jews, and thus it becomes much more likely that this is where the spelling derives from."
I did not comment on it because it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If you trudge through ancient manuscripts you can find all sorts of similar spellings and words throughout time, but that in no way means that any of them are necessarily related to each other. You just sort of assume that because Juwes is an old ancient archaic form of Jews that it somehow must have been used to refer to three people who killed someone in a Masonic legend centuries later? Seriously, dude, what the hell? The ruffians in the story killed someone who was a Jew, so why on Earth would they use the term "Jews" to refer to them? You are picking and pulling pieces from out of nowhere and trying to force them to fit to support yourself on something you have no evidence for, and furthermore if it were correct there would very likely be solid evidence of it, but there isn't any.
"Of course, on the other hand, Sir Charles Warren, being a Freemason of high degree, would instantly interpret Juwes as a masonic word"
Again, if you have any evidence that any Freemasons, high degree or otherwise, would think that Juwes was a Masonic word, please provide it. All you are doing is jumping to wholly unsupported conclusions.
It's really rather simple: If you state something as true, you should be able to back it up, not just continue to declare it true over and over and call people who have evidence on their side but disagree with you ridiculous. This is a fundamental concept in presenting an argument and trying to get other people to believe it.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Ben Holme
Detective Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 65
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
My take on the graffti is that it was probabably penned by a Gentile resident of the East End, accustomed to using double negatives in everyday speech (e.g. "I ain't done nothing").
I feel the whole issue of the spelling of "Juwes" is too often invested with magical signficance. The most likely explanation is that the author simply didn't know how to spell the word correctly. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 294
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 11:27 am: |
|
This whole Freemason thing... It's a men's club for goodness sake. There is a lot of ceremony built into it, but it is all pomp and no substance.
Perhaps conspiracy types can find something esoteric and sinister in a men's club, but I can't. There are no ties to the Templars, nor to Egypt, nor to Tubal Cain the tool-maker. Any connections are 16th-17th century creations, as are the lodges.
Helge I never heard the idea that 'Juwes' was some ancient Germanic, written word. It can't be that ancient as the first Germanic, written language was Gothic at about the 5th century, and that was only used for translating a portion of the bible.
I've never seen it in Futhark, Old Saxon, Old English, or Old Norse which certainly weren't ancient, written languages anyway.
Can you give us the source of this information? I would love to read it.
Thanks,
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2379
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:05 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Please excuse the delay in responding.
And thanks for explaining why the message might make sense being in English but of an odd construction, if someone was writing in a lesser favoured language and trying to entice a second generation recruit.
Again, if intended to be a ‘cause’ message, it wouldn’t surprise me if such radicals targeted such a dwelling.
I concede both points, but I still wonder what good this particular message could have been in such a context, even if its intended recipients could read reasonably basic English.
Juwes? Not the men who will blamed for nothing?
How would that be picked up as an enticement for new recruits? (It doesn't help that I keep thinking of Village People, camping it up to "We want you, we want you, we want you for a new recruit"  )
I wrote, concerning your alternative scenario that Juwes meant something other than Jews, that this would have to be despite being chalked on the Jewish Dwellings.
And you countered with:
You assume its author knew Jews inhabited the dwelling. That is prejudiced thinking and whilst I concede that the author may have known this it is not an ascertained fact.
I was assuming nothing about the author's knowledge. I was merely pointing out the fact that in your scenario he would have written Juwes, meaning something other than Jews, by the entrance to the Jewish Dwellings.
I do see that your scenario would make better sense if he didn't know the building was inhabited by Jews and he wrote it there purely by coincidence. Not much point writing Juwes, and meaning something other than Jews, if he knew the building was full of them and that everyone would interpret his Juwes as Jews - if you see what I mean.
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on November 30, 2005) |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:13 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
I believe Robert Linford also found examples of 'Juwes' meaning Jews in a 15th century text that was put up for auction in - believe it or not - August 1888, as announced in The Times.
If I have any of the details wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me toot sweet.
Love,
Caz
X |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 295
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Caz,
Did you really mention the Village People? I sooo did not want to revisit them.
Maybe I can go run a few laps or lift weights down at the YMCA to put them out of my mind. Or.... maybe a sea voyage would help? I've always wanted to be in the Navy.
Cheers
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 656
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 1:44 pm: |
|
"I believe Robert Linford also found examples of 'Juwes' meaning Jews in a 15th century text that was put up for auction in - believe it or not - August 1888, as announced in The Times . "
I wonder if there is any record of the winning bidder.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Helge Samuelsen
Chief Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 513
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Dan,
The trouble here is that you don't even listen to what I say.
What I say is that the word Juwes do exist in several contexts. And so far all contexts seem to point in the direction of being translated as Jews.
That does not suit you, so that is utterly stupid rantings in your opinion.
I have not said one of these contexts can be proven to be related to the GSG. I have only said that the word exist. And no matter how much you do not wish that to be true, well..it is.
Yet you say that basically it is all coincidence and I am absolutely a dimwit for thinking otherwise.
Which is fine.
And you may congatulate yourself for making me realize that trying to discuss anything on Casebook is utterly futile. Ever since I joined here I have been ridiculed for every attempt on trying to think differently than the majority opinion.
Maybe I am wrong on some points. Maybe several in fact. But oh, so tedious to follow the main stream thinking..which in the case of Casebook leads absolutely nowhere anyway.
That is fine. Have your Casebook, have your ideas. I will not post any further on any topic.
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)
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1607
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Helge,
Dont be a defeatest..
I have been a casebook regular for years on the old boards as well as the new, sometimes i get ridiculed for my theorys some tongue-cheek, sometimes what i believe to be serious points.
I even cancelled my trip to Brighton, which was a most convienient venue for myself, because i was annoyed about remarks that were made because i ridiculed a certain 'Diddles'
The very point is the casebook is a very passionate discussing venue, each person has the answer to everything and rampant debate will occassional hurt ones pride, but i suggest that you do one of the amazing comebacks like many proffesional acts have done in the past, and grow thicker skin.
Regards Richard. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 245
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Ben Holme,
I also feel that the spelling of the word Juwes was an error on the part of the writer, not magical or otherwise.
It is possible that the writer had a specific accent, and spelled the word as he himself pronounced it. The person may not have been well educated and sounded out the word spelling it as it sounded to him. Ju wes, as two sylables instead of one.
Just an opinion, however I've though this for some time.
regards
Julie
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1040
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Helge,
You wrote: "The trouble here is that you don't even listen to what I say."
No, I read what you wrote, I just totally disagree with what you said because you are making claims of fact that are simply not supported by the evidence.
"And no matter how much you do not wish that to be true, well..it is."
And, what is this, an attempt to declare what's true or not based upon your word alone? If it is true, then you should be able to dig up evidence in support of it. It's that simple. Elementary, even.
"Ever since I joined here I have been ridiculed for every attempt on trying to think differently than the majority opinion."
Thinking differently is fine. I think differently about the case than most of the authors out there. Wanting other people to take you at your word that things that don't fit the evidence as we know it are completely factual and that everyone else is being ridiculous for not believing you is not fine. You have argued about a number of points that, if true, should be quite easy to prove. If you are unable or unwilling to provide the evidence to support them, well then I guess that's where it stays for now.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Rodney Peters
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hello Richard
I like your style my friend.
We've had our disagreements about the Kelly murder, but your message to Helge is spot-on. There are quite a few on these boards who think they are God's gift to the Ripper investigation.
I won't give names, but they know who they are every time they look in the mirror.
The stark fact is, that they know NOTHING, like the rest of us, but erroneously believe that they are superior. Their forte is simply to try and belittle those who have the temerity to disagree with them, whilst displaying a total absence of common good manners. Your attitude to this does you credit.
Helge
Take Richard's advice and stick to your guns.
Treat these ill-mannered displays with the contempt they deserve.
Regards
ROD |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
"juwes rades unde juwer anwisinghe gherne volghen"
in Deutches Rechtswörterbuch 1332.
The similarities between modern dutch and middle german are quite amazing!
Modern dutch:
"jouw raad en jouw aanwijzingen gaarne volgen"
English translation:
"pleased to follow your advice and your instructions"
Like modern german deines/deiner and ihres/ihrer, the words "juwes" and "juwer" are the male and female inflexions of the same word: your.
So I'm afraid there is no connection with jews whatsoever.
Regards,
Martin |
helge
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 5:28 pm: |
|
Richard,
My skin is thick enough
And my feelings are not hurt in the slightest. I just do not feel like this is serving any purpose whatsoever.
And now.. That was my final post. I promise.
Helge |
an armchair detective
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
"juwes rades unde juwer anwisinghe gherne volghen"
in Deutches Rechtswörterbuch 1332.
The similarities between modern dutch and middle german are quite amazing!
Modern dutch:
"jouw raad en jouw aanwijzingen gaarne volgen"
English translation:
"pleased to follow your advice and your instructions"
Like modern german deines/deiner and ihres/ihrer, the words "juwes" and "juwer" are the male and female inflexions of the same word: your.
So I'm afraid there is no connection with jews whatsoever.
Regards,
Martin |
Helge
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 4:01 am: |
|
Dan,
Your post that made me decide to leave Casebook was such a personal attack that it simply made me sick of it all.
I will not give you any further proof, because you clearly will not treat it seriously, as you have not treated seriously any of the other proof I mentioned.
Do you seriously think Knight invented the use of Juwes in Freemasonry? Ripperology is simply not that influential. Read up on Freemasonry. I did mention one source that speaks about Juwes. There is probably hundreds of other references to the use of that word elsewhere.
Do you seriously think Juwes is not a real word meaning Jews? Think again. I did mention two sources. I could have mentioned more. But what is the point?
Read what posters think before attacking them. The point here is that there is no other known use of the word Juwes other than it means Jews, and I provided ample evidence for that it has that meaning. I will not provide evidence that Juwes is predominantly a Freemasonry thing, because it is not, and I never said so. I think that is a logical inference from me mentioning it being used elsewhere.
Juwes means Jews. Whether the writer of the GSG knew this is beyond the point. That cannot be proven. But do stop acting as if no one really know what Juwes might have meant!
I have also said that it is possible that it was a misspelling. A misspelling for what, you may ask? Well, that is what I also would ask. Phonetically there is only one possibility, IMO, and that is Jews. You may disagre.
Maybe it is clearer now that what I am saying is that there is quite a lot of reasons to believe that Juwes might have meant Jews, and very few (if any) reasons to believe it might have meant something else.
And that was my point. I refuse to be drawn into a debate on freemasonry as I clearly stated that that possible link was a really improbable one to begin with!
Helge |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 301
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Dan,
"I think differently about the case than most of the authors out there. Wanting other people to take you at your word that things that don't fit the evidence as we know it are completely factual and that everyone else is being ridiculous for not believing you is not fine. You have argued about a number of points that, if true, should be quite easy to prove. If you are unable or unwilling to provide the evidence to support them, well then I guess that's where it stays for now."
While I agree with you in principle, it is nearly impossible to prove anything because any evidence is quickly refuted by those who don't choose to believe. It is the Creationists refuting Evolution because their unscientific beliefs are so deeply rooted. It is the way things are on Casebook, and you are no different than the rest of us in this regard. You cannot prove that there was no bolster on the table, and while I believe it was flesh, or at least lean that way, I can't prove it was flesh just because a bolster wasn't mentioned in the report. We could debate the causes of the Revolutionary War in the states and I might say it was all about taxation without representation and an Englishman might say it was about the colonies not wishing to have meager taxes levied on them to pay for the French and Indian Wars. Who's right?
There is no black and white anywhere except in mathematics, and I'm sure a Mayan would say our math is wrong. In Helge's mind he has proven his point and many agree. YOU don't have to, but you also don't have to browbeat anyone. You support your arguments well, but you can't beat people into submission.
There comes a time when 'agree to disagree' is a necessity if civility is to defeat arrogance. Too often you miss that moment. Please keep your eyes open for the next time it may arise.
Cheers
}}}}
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 8:46 pm: |
|
Helge,
"Your post that made me decide to leave Casebook was such a personal attack that it simply made me sick of it all. "
If you think I personally attacked you you should report it to Stephen. Frankly, you have been attacking all sorts of people here for a while now, and if you feel personally slighted now then you know how a great many other people feel about your actions. But I have not personally attacked you, I've simply asked you to back up your claims, which apparently you choose to take as a grave insult.
"I will not give you any further proof, because you clearly will not treat it seriously, as you have not treated seriously any of the other proof I mentioned."
Well, considering that you haven't offered any proof whatsoever, there's nothing to take seriously. All you do is state things as facts, insult people who don't believe you, and then complain about being picked on. Give it a rest.
"Do you seriously think Knight invented the use of Juwes in Freemasonry?"
It's the best conclusion from all available evidence at this point. If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, please present it.
"Ripperology is simply not that influential."
No, but then Knight also later wrote a book solely making attacks on Freemasons in general, and that was certainly very influential within Freemasonry. The only other books that mention the term Juwes as being in Freemasonry cite Knight as their source. So I guess then that the authors of these books are, what, lying or something, because obviously they couldn't really have been influenced by the source they themselves refer to, because that would mean that you are wrong, and we can't have that, can we?
"Read up on Freemasonry. "
I have... I own several 19th century references, have poured through Masonic encyclopedias, and have specifically researched the Three Ruffians legend for any use of the word Juwes prior to Knight. That's how I can say that there is no evidence that Juwes was ever a term in Freemasonry until extremely recently, and those people from their comments clearly got it from Knight, directly or indirectly.
"I did mention one source that speaks about Juwes."
A source from centuries earlier that speaks about Juwes not in a Masonic sense at all.
"Read what posters think before attacking them."
Ah, yes, the ever popular "you don't agree with me even though I offered no evidence to counteract all the negative evidence that exists out there, so it must simply be that you didn't read what I said because I can't be wrong and the mere fact that you disagreed with me and pointed out my error is a grave personal attack, even though I toss out insulting comments left and right and think I can get away with it" argument. A few people on these boards have tried that one. It doesn't work for them, so I'm not sure why you think it will work for you.
This is just a question of being honest with yourself and others. You state something as fact and you have nothing to support it. I point out a number of sources contradicting you. What's the rational response here? A) Admit you were wrong and go with the evidence... Would be nice, but then most people aren't quite capable of this. B) Admit that you don't really have evidence and that the evidence against is there, but that you still feel that you are right and that there may be mystery evidence out there to support you... a little wishy washy, but OK. C) Still declare yourself right, attack the side with the actual evidence as ridiculous, and complain about being attacked personally to try to disguise the fact that you've got no support for anything you've said... an unfortunately popular choice around these parts, but one that isn't at all helpful towards getting to the truth.
It's all too obvious which option you've chosen here... and to top it off you toss in a threat to leave, as if it really matters one way or another. Stay, don't stay, whatever... But if you do stay and want to state something as a fact, either give evidence for it or don't throw a tantrum when someone asks you to either do so or to admit that it's your opinion and not a proven fact. This is a pretty basic concept, and if you can't play by those rules, you obviously are going to be frustrated in any attempt to debate any topic, here or elsewhere.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Hi Mike,
I agree to disagree all the time... I disagree with lots of people and generally have no problems. But there's a difference between arguing for an opinion and what Helge (and a handful of others) do here, which is to present things that are not only highly dubious and unproven but contrary to the evidence that we do have as facts, and then be insulting and misleading when called on it.
It's a simple matter of how information is presented and the ways in which people try to support it. If someone wants to make arguments for something, fine, great, and then the opinion can stand or fail on their own merits. That's not what Helge was doing on this thread at all.
The main problem in this field is that there are too many wholly unsupported ideas and often outright falsehoods being tossed around as if they are facts. These should be exposed to keep things honest. This will undoubtedly upset some people. On the other hand, if you think I am arguing for a wholly black or white perspective, I'm afraid you've missed my true intentions. I often argue both against certain claims made by both sides in any major controversy, solely based upon whether the evidence or arguments for that particular one thing is valid or not. I've been accused of being pro- and anti-Maybrick, biased against all police officials and a Macnaghten/Abberline/Warren apologist (though I don't think anyone's ever accused me of making excuses for Anderson, thank goodness), stubbornly against modern profiling and also supposedly its biggest cheerleader, as well as astonishingly both "vehemently against anything and everything Cornwell says just because it's her" and also "on Cornwell's payroll and secretly advancing her goals among the gullible and misinformed," I kid you not.
I'm about as grey when it comes to black and white positions in this field as it comes, but unfortunately that just means pretty much anyone who has taken a side gets frustrated with me, and the more severely they are in one camp or another the more we inevitably bump heads. Those people who are completely off in the ether with no grounding in reality whatsoever have convinced themselves that I am evil incarnate. That's fine though, somebody has to play devil's advocate.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
