|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 669
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 2:07 am: | 
|
Hi Phil,
You wrote:
"It has never been in question that the Juwes were known in AMERICAN freemasonry."
There has never been a question that the Three Ruffians were known in American Freemasonry, but it is certainly a question whether "the Juwes" was a term used to describe them... in America or anywhere else for that matter.
Before someone can make an argument that Warren would have had the opportunity to have heard of the term and would know what it meant in the context of the Goulston St. Graffiti he or she first needs to show that the word ever actually existed. Nobody has come up with any evidence that it did that I've seen anywhere.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 493
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Thanks for that Dan, it just goes to show how careful you have to be in checking the accuracy of any statement made. I have only used secondary sources. But if what you say is true, then my point about making the link between Warren and the word "Juwes" has an extra gap (and perhaps an unbridgeable one). I leave it to Stan to respond on that, as I am sure he will.
The devil is, as always in the detail.
Are you saying, Dan, that when Stan writes:
At the time of the murders, 1888, only one book was available, that revealed the secrets of Freemasonry. That was an 1826 book by a Captain Morgan, a book on American Freemasonry. In American Freemasonry, the term "JUWES" was still in use, at least up until the publication of that 1826 book. Now here's another piece of analytical conclusion, which you hate. If someone read a book on American Freemasonry, what could they find? The term "JUWES". Anyone reading this 1826 book, and applying these secret ideals of the American Freemasons, would have easily thought that "JUWES" was a common term for the three men who murdered the Master Mason.
the implication that the 1826 uses the word "JUWES" and specifically links it to the Three Ruffians (as simon also does) is incorrect?
I want to be clear on this.
Thanks in anticipation,
Phil
Edited to remove unwanted bolding.
(Message edited by Phil on May 10, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 956
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
I too would be interested to have it clarified whether the word "Juwes" was ever used in this sense.
In his dissertation on this site debunking the Freemasonry theories, Dennis Stocks implies that the term had been thus used:
As for the word "Juwes" itself as a collective term for the murderers of Hiram Abiff - it had been dropped from English Masonic ritual in the early nineteenth century and is unlikely to have been known to Freemasons (let alone anyone else) in 1888. At that time they were referred to as "the Three Ruffians" as they are today(34).
http://casebook.org/dissertations/freemasonry/stocks.html
Unfortunately note 34 leaves some doubt as to whether this comes from Fairclough:
Fairclough (p.67) accepts this, but argues ...
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 80
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Monty,
You are correct that infiltration would have been the desired objective,and may have been achieved even.
It is the lack of reports stating what the situation was,that is infuriating.Where there should have been a mass of infomation on which to base an opinion,there appears to be nothing.
To others,
Be sure the grafitti was written by the murderer, before coming to conclusion's as to what it means in connection to the murders.Should it have taken four murders before the killer resorted to expressing himself in that way,and why no additional message at the Kelly site,when time and opportunity was in abundance?.
My opinion is that the apron and message being at the same location,was just coincidence. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1627
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Harry,
Yes, quite.
However, the lack of reports may be down to the fact that nothing was worth reporting. That said, there should have been an update log stating no movement at least.
Cheers,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 377
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 5:54 pm: |
|
Simon:
The book by Pike is entitled, Reprint of Rituals of Old Degrees, isn't it?
I read it back in February, but didn't see any usage of the word, JUWES , on the CD-Rom version of this material...
Is it there and did I just miss it ? The disc had 162 pages...
Thanks
(Message edited by howard on May 10, 2005) |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 211
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 7:40 pm: |
|
Howard , thats not the right book ! Pike wrote lots of books , it is his ' The Book of The Words '(1879) which mentions the Juwes and their names.
Books by Albert Pike
Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry
Beyond the Law : The Religious and Ethical Meaning of the Lawyer's Vocation
Book of the Words
Digest Index of Morals & Dogma 1909
Esoteric Work of the 1 Degree - 3 Degree, According to the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite
Evil Consequences of Schisms and Disputes for Power in Masonry and of Jealousies and Dissensions Between Masonic Rites, 1858
Ex Corde Locutiones: Words from the Heart Spoken of His Dead Brethren
General Albert Pike's Poems 1900
Historical Inquiry in Regard to the Grand Constitutions of 1786 - 1883
Hymns to the Gods and Other Poems
Indo-Aryan Deities and Worship As Contained in the Rig-Veda
Irano-Aryan Faith and Doctrine As Contained in the Zend-Avesta
Lectures of the Arya
Lectures on Masonic Symbolism and a Second Lecture on Symbolism or the Omkara and Other Inefable Words
Legenda and Readings of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry
Liturgies of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry 4 Degree - 30 Degree
Liturgy of the Blue Degrees
Lyrics and Love Songs - 1899
Magnum Opus or the Great Work: The Complete Ritual Work of Scottish Rite Freemasonry
Masonic Baptism: Reception of a Louveteau and Adoption
Masonry of Adoption: Masonic Rituals for Women Complete With the Verbatim Degree Lectures and the "Secret Work"
Meaning of Masonry
Narrative of a Journey in the Prairie - 1835
Old Cashier of the 33d Degree
The Point Within the Circle: Freemasonry Veiled in Allegory and Illustrated by Symbols
The Porch and the Middle Chamber: Book of the Lodge
Prose Sketches & Poems Written in the Western Country - 1834
Pythagoras and Hermes
Rituals of Old Degrees
What Masonry Is & Its Objects; Ancient Ideals in Modern Masonry - 1919
List from : http://www.threeworldwars.com/albert-pike.htm
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 213
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:13 pm: |
|
Phil,
Not really departing from this thread, like you said you would, huh?
Yes, you do bother me Phil, because you are combatative, and it brings out a combatative spirit in me, rather than a manner of moving the case forward. As far as my rants Phil, you are entitled to your own opinion. What I would do, is learn from the information provided, even if you learn that I may be wrong, rather than saying things such as all I'm doing is ranting, when it is clear that I am sourcing information.
As far as all the other comments. I'm not sure what you want me to say. I am only going from what I have read and researched. I am forming opinions to help move this case, in my opinion, further along. Many authors have stated that "JUWES" was a term used in American Freemasonry, while trying to show that it was not used in English Freemasonry.
Warren was a Freemason, actually belonging to one of the greatest historical research lodges, the actual number escapes me right now, as my comp imploded and I am at a laundromat trying to defend my right to think here. From memory I believe it was Quoator Coronati something. The information is out there. And if Warren was a Freemason dedicated to Masonic History he would have known of the term JUWES.
Last comment for now from me
Please, do your own research people. Everytime I try to help someone out with an answer I get tons of negative posts back at me. I could spend the next 30 years providing background sources for all my information and hypothesizing, and the response will be, where did you get that from.
The case shall never be solved. Not because it can't. But because people don't want it to. And that is a real shame. I understand this now.
Maybe I'll help people out again with my obvious lies, which I keep showing came from somewhere, and maybe I won't. There will always be a Phil Hill around to make it seem that my efforts and using my brain to make logical deductions are worthless.
What's the point?
SJR |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 372
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:41 pm: |
|
As a nautical ripperologist, would someone please tell me were I can get hold of a copy of Ripper Boats?
Rgds
John |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 212
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 8:57 pm: |
|
Sir Charles Warren was elected Founding Master of Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, in 1884 , he founded the lodge with eight other men. Quatuor Coronati was ( and is ) the premier research Masonic lodge in England.
" The founders inaugurated what was to become a comprehensive library and which, in more recent times, has as a matter of convenience been amalgamated with that of the United Grand Lodge of England. [The lodge, however, retains control of its books and documents.] The founders further resolved to publish facsimiles of and to reprint rare and valuable books, manuscripts and papers; much has been done and the work continues.
The name of the lodge, Quatuor Coronati [Latin scholars would prefer 'Quattuor'!], was chosen because of its connection with the craft of the operative stonemason. The `Four Crowned Ones' were martyred on 8 November in AD 302 and were regarded as the patron saints of stonemasons throughout Europe from about 400 to 1600. The installation meeting of the lodge takes place on the second Thursday in November, this being the nearest practicable date to that of their martyrdom. "
-------------------
8th November - Warren resigned his commission on 8th November 1888 and then went to a meeting of his Lodge.
------------------------
I don't have a copy of ' The Book of the Words ' to quote it , but an e-book version can be obtained for about $4 from this site :
http://www.diesel-ebooks.com/cgi-bin/item/555142619X
I don't have a credit card so can't get it myself , but I would be interested to see if Pike mentions the word ' Juwes ' - I know he mentions their names so I am supposing he does.
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 637
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I have a feeling I can give some background on a minor point in this "masonic" mystery thread. Who is "Captain Morgan" mentioned above by Phil Hill in the following passage:
"Are you saying, Dan, that when Stan writes:
At the time of the murders, 1888, only one book was available, that revealed the secrets of Freemasonry. That was an 1826 book by a Captain Morgan, a book on American Freemasonry. In American Freemasonry, the term "JUWES" was still in use, at least up until the publication of that 1826 book. Now here's another piece of analytical conclusion, which you hate. If someone read a book on American Freemasonry, what could they find? The term "JUWES". Anyone reading this 1826 book, and applying these secret ideals of the American Freemasons, would have easily thought that "JUWES" was a common term for the three men who murdered the Master Mason. "
That is a new great mystery. "Captain" William Morgan is the possible source being discussed here. With your kind indulgence I will now give his biography from THE DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY, Volume 13: MILLS TO OGILSBY, pgs. 188 - 189. The article is by one Katherine Elizabeth Crane.
"WILLIAM MORGAN (August 7, 1774 - 1826?). Freemason, was born probably in Culpepper County, Va., served an apprenticeship as a stonemason in Madison County, removed to a western state, possibly Kentucky, returned to Orange County, Va., and then wwent to Richmond. It has been claimed that he fought with [Andrew] Jackson in the War of 1812. For all these as well as for most of the other statements about his life there seems to be no proof and many of them have been denied in the course of the bitter, long-extended controversy over the circumstances of his death. It is agreed that about 1819 he was married to Lucinda Pendleton, that in 1823 he was living in Rochester, N.Y., and that shortly afterward he went to live in the neighboring town of Batavia, as a brick-and-stone mason. It has been asserted that at this time he was a respectable though not distinguished member of the community and, on the other hand, that he was a drunken knave. It has been denied that he was ever properly initiated into Freemasonry but there is no doubt that he gained admittance to the order and took an active part in the proceedings and that, on May 31, 1825, at Leroy, N.Y., he became a Royal Arch Mason. The next year there were rumors that he was writing a book, to be published by David C. Miller of Batavia, in order to expose the secret ritual of the Masonic order. The records of the copyright office show that on Aug. 14, 1826, he made copyright registration of the title of the book, ILLUSTRATIONS OF MASONRY. That summer he was several times sued and imprisoned for small debts. On Sept. 11, arrested on a charge of petty theft, he was taken to Canandaigua to answer the charge. From that place he never returned, and of him there has never appeared any authentic trace. A body found a short time afterward near Oak Orchard, N.Y. was with equal show of probability declared to be that of William Morgan and to be that of one Timothy Munro. For a generation after his disappearance there sprang up various rumors of his existence in many parts of the world as a merchant in Smyrna, an Indian chief in the Rocky Mountains, a pirate hanged in Havana, a hermit in northern Canada, and a professed Mohammedan on the shores of the Mediterranean.
His disappearance caused great excitement. It was freely charged that the Masons had murdered him in order to prevent the publication of the book he was believed to be writing on Masonic secrets. These charges were uniformly denied by Masons in good standing, and the claim was brought forward that he had disappeared of his own free will. Gov. DeWitt Clinton, a high officer in th Masonic organization, offered a reward of $1,000.00 for his discorvey, if alive, and $2,000.00 for the discovery and conviction of his murderers if he were dead. Committees were organized by each faction to procure evidence in the matter. Later indictment and trial of several persons failed to reveal the facts. In the autumn of 1826, probably in October, was published the first edition of the ILLUSTRATIONS OF MASONRY. Of the book the Masons said, variously, that it was merely plagiarized from JACHIN AND BOAZ, published in London in 1762, that it was actually the work of David C. Miller who corrected and rewrote Morgan's illiterate manuscript, and that it was unimportant since the true secret of Masonry was the developement of the spirit rather than the outward form of a ritual. On the other hand, a group of men who had been Masons met to declare solemnly that it was true revelation of Masonic practice. The book was pirated, translated into several European languages, and sold widely. Almost at once the affair assumed a political aspect furnishing the occasions for the organization of existing objections to all kinds of secret societies and for the rise of the Anti-Mason party in which various factors played a part and in which the fate of William Morgan soon lost its importance."
"[Of the great number and books and pamphlets on the subject, a collection is in the State Hist. Lib. of Wis.; records of the copyright office are in the Lib. of Cong., among the partisans accounts are Henry Browns, A NARRATIVE OF THE ANTI-MASONIC EXCITEMENT (1829); Rob Morris, WM. MORGAN (1883); P. C. Huntington, THE TRUE HIST...OF WM. MORGAN (1886); S.U. Mock, THE MORGAN EPISODE (1930); David Bernard, LIGHT ON FREE MASONRY (copr.1858); S. D. Greene, THE BROKEN SEAL (1870). For bibliography see Charles McCarthy, "The Antimasonic Party," AM. HISTORICAL ASSOC. REPORT...1902, vol.1 (1903), which, however, does not discuss the Morgan episode.]"
So that is who "Captain" Morgan is. It certainly puts into question the value of anything concerning Masonic rituals that appear in his book (or in the book ascribed to him). It is interesting that Morgan's disappearance (and possible murder?) is one more side issue mystery that gets tangentially connected to Whitechapel.
Jeff
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1737
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:19 am: |
|
Hi Stan,
Please, do your own research people. Everytime I try to help someone out with an answer I get tons of negative posts back at me.
I know the feeling. 
The trick is to not react negatively yourself, which only plays straight into the hands of those negative posters.
Although it's easier said than done sometimes.
Don't forget, the information you provide is read and considered by a whole lot more readers than posters. So for every negative poster shouting long and loud, there are almost certainly many others, listening in silence, who appreciate any efforts to provide them with new info for free, whether they agree with your hypothesising or not.
Is there no chance IYHO that the graffito artist simply spelled Jews wrong? Or must he have got his 'Juwes' from an old book, or from a high-up Freemason of his acquaintance perhaps?
Love,
Caz
X
(Message edited by caz on May 11, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 965
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 4:58 am: |
|
Stan
Many authors have stated that "JUWES" was a term used in American Freemasonry, while trying to show that it was not used in English Freemasonry.
We seem to be back to secondary sources on this question of whether the term "Juwes" was really ever used by Freemasons.
Please could you clarify one thing before you go? You referred to the book by Morgan written in 1826, and said that "Anyone reading this 1826 book, and applying these secret ideals of the American Freemasons, would have easily thought that "JUWES" was a common term for the three men who murdered the Master Mason". Are you saying that Morgan actually uses the word "Juwes" in his book?
Chris Phillips
|
Stan Russo
Inspector
Username: Stan
Post Number: 214
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:43 am: |
|
Simon,
It's not enough. They want more. They want a picture of you and Warren sitting together, smoking cigars, holding a Masonic history book, with the word "JUWES" written on it, with the killers in the background.
Even then they'll ask for more.
Logic has no place anymore in this case. Analysis from research has come and gone. All these people want are facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts.
It doesn't matter that your idea comes from an analysis of facts. It doesn't matter that your theory answers the questions other researchers don't ask because their theory does not. It doesn't matter Simon. It's actually quite pointless.
See what these people fail to realize, is that this case is still unsolved, and I know they will say that they do, and I am being condescending. But the truth of the matter is they don't realize this. If they want facts facts facts facts facts facts and only facts, they are really studyinmg the wrong case. They should go to the Son of Sam website. That case has loads of facts, because it is solved. This case isn't, yet these people refuse to allow any deductions. Once anyone makes a deduction, or an analysis of any piece of evidence, they get thrashed. This is exactly why Evans, Fido and Begg left. They became tired of offering help to people who wanted to sincerely know about the case, while getting yelled at by idiots like Phil Hill, who do not have an insightful bone in their bodies.
So keep on trying if you like. It's not getting anywhere. I applaud you Simon but I've seen the light. It will never end, primarily because they won't allow it to end.
SJR |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 970
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 8:06 am: |
|
Stan
It's not enough. They want more. They want a picture of you and Warren sitting together, smoking cigars, holding a Masonic history book, with the word "JUWES" written on it, with the killers in the background.
Even then they'll ask for more.
Logic has no place anymore in this case. Analysis from research has come and gone. All these people want are facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts facts.
I'm sorry, but this is plain silly.
If you're going to theorise about a masonic significance of the word "Juwes", then the one thing you really need to be sure of is whether the word "Juwes" was ever used by Freemasons.
How can you apply logic or analysis if you have no facts to go on? What good is research, if it doesn't begin by establishing the relevant facts?
Chris Phillips
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 511
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:05 am: |
|
Chris, Stan has made his logic plain, please accept it.
I quote:
Warren was a Freemason, actually belonging to one of the greatest historical research lodges, the actual number escapes me right now, as my comp imploded and I am at a laundromat trying to defend my right to think here. From memory I believe it was Quoator Coronati something. The information is out there. And if Warren was a Freemason dedicated to Masonic History he would have known of the term JUWES.
This boils down to the following - almost a syllogism:
1)Warren was a Freemason
2)He belonged to a major research lodge
3)As such he would have known of the term JUWES.
Now note that although we have no evidence to show that Pike's or Morgan's books were published in the UK; no evidence from Warren's writings (private or published) that he used the term or mentioned either author; no evidence that the Quatuor Coronati library contains copies or that Warren possessed such a book; we must accept the inherent logic in the connection.
Any logician would see the syllogism as false.
I'm sorry but this won't do. The reason, I think, that Stan finds me "combative" is that I consistently challenge his assumptions and totally unreasonably ask for "evidence" to support hypothesised assertions.
Why am I so unreasonable and difficult? Why do I hold this "hypothesising" approach in such contempt? Because I have seen in the case of Richard III, the way in which such unrestricted mythmaking (not reliant on evidence) creates a story that is accepted without question for generations and is totally erroneous and unfounded. Look how difficult it is to get rid of the "black legend" of Richard III now. Think how difficult it is for serious students to rid Ripper studies of ill-founded conspiracy theories
which these JUWES speculations seek to propagate.
Caz - The trick is to not react negatively yourself, which only plays straight into the hands of those negative posters.
Is it negative to ask for evidence to support assertions? Is it negative to explore unfounded speculations?
I utterly endorse Chris' wise and timely remark:
How can you apply logic or analysis if you have no facts to go on? What good is research, if it doesn't begin by establishing the relevant facts?
The answers are you cannot, and none. there have to be rules and those rules revolve around evidence and its interpretation.
Speculation has its place, of course, but clearly labelled as such and with appropriate health warnings for the unwary.
In any other direction lies chaos.
Phil
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 545
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Stan,
It doesn't matter that your idea comes from an analysis of facts. It doesn't matter that your theory answers the questions other researchers don't ask because their theory does not.
Interestingly enough, David Radka has also used research and logic to propound a theory and, at least in terms of the GSG, you and he are NOT in agreement.
However I may feel about David's theory, he is quite intelligent and a serious researcher and I will take your word that you are the same. Yet, there is no agreement in terms of theories. So, it would seem that something more than research and logical analysis is required to find a consensus. Or, because it is your analysis are we asked to take it on faith as being correct?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Hi all,
This thread is a perfect example of how intelligent people can over think a case. I think the ripper murders have been over thought for years. Researchers looking for the big answer, when the answer is a simple one. There was a crazy person, [Maybe two.] killing woman. No coverup, no great conspiracy. The reason the ripper was never caught was, unless someone could catch him in the act of killing, there was no way of proving his guilt.
The phrase, The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing, has inspired all this commentary. The post are interesting, and I learn from reading them, but we have to keep it in prospective. The simple answer is, we have a man that could not spell the word Jew, and a police official who made a poor decision.
I think that Tumblety was the man who was arrested on October 4, 1888. I think that George Hutchinson's description led to Tumblety's arrest on November 14th, 1888. If Macnaughten had connected the ripper to the leader of an assasination plot of Mr. Balfour, then he connected Druitt to such a plot, or he connected Druitt to people that he thought were involved with the plot. The word Jew was spelled incorrectly. Charles Warren made a bad police decision.
Your friend, Brad
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 11:10 pm: |
|
Hi all,
I think the word Jew was spelled wrong. I do not know if the ripper wrote the graffiti or not, but if he did, he spelled the word Jew wrong. The spelling of the word Juwes is exactly how you would spell the word if you did not know the correct way to spell Jew. The writer spelled the word the way it sounded. with a u instead of an e. A simple expanation, and yet we have all this discusion.
The intersting thing to me is, Abberline's succesor believed "undoubtly" that the ripper wrote the graffiti. In my opinion, if Abberline's succesor believed the ripper wrote the graffiti, then Abberline most likely did as well. The clue may be genuine, but what does it mean? Warren thought, that someone was trying to blame the Jews. He had the message erased. I believe his explanation. He was trying to avoid riots.
In my oppinion, The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing, is a religious comment. The ripper was saying, hey, I am not a Jew, but the Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing. He was refering to the death of Christ. He was saying that the Jews were not responsible for the WC murders, but they were respnsible for the death of Christ.
Two clues that the appron and graffiti give are, The ripper was heading back into the eastend, and he may not have been to bright. The only firm clue is, the ripper was heading back into the eastend.
Your friend,Brad |
Simon Owen
Inspector
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 213
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Its also speculation to suggest that Jack really meant to write ' Jews ' but spelled it ' J-u-w-e-s 'instead.
The word was 'Juwes ' , thats what Warren thought it was anyway and he saw it up close. And ' Juwes ' was a Masonic word meaning the Three Ruffians. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 380
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 7:49 pm: |
|
Simon...
A quick thank you for the nice effort in posting all these books by Pike. I appreciate this effort.
You are correct,sir,that Warren "thought" it said "Juwes". Someone else wrote an article...well you know the rest.
The only definitely ascertained fact about the night of the "Double Event" is that I could kick Warren's ass for not having that damned thing photographed.
Thanks again !
How |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 523
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 1:46 am: |
|
Simon, when you write:
The word was 'Juwes '... And ' Juwes ' was a Masonic word meaning the Three Ruffians.
My point is that you have yet to prove that connection and that it was known in the UK in 1888.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 81
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:41 am: |
|
Brad,
I am getting on in years, and before reading and posting here,I knew the word only as Jew/s,no silent 'e',and no other way of spelling the word.So maybe an unknowing person in 1888 might have written Juw/s also without the 'e'.The 'e' does seem to make a difference,if only I knew what that difference was?.
I feel as you do that there is a simplicity to the crimes that is overlooked.My opinion is that the graffiti and apron piece both have a connection to the building in Goulstan St,but no connection to each other.
The type of killer that I presume the ripper was,would be that of a self centred individual,who neither cared who was blamed,or felt a need to protect others. |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 528
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 7:03 am: |
|
I feel as you do that there is a simplicity to the crimes that is overlooked.My opinion is that the graffiti and apron piece both have a connection to the building in Goulstan St,but no connection to each other.
The type of killer that I presume the ripper was,would be that of a self centred individual,who neither cared who was blamed,or felt a need to protect others.
Harry, I think that, for once, you and I agree.
Phil |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 9:52 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Thanks for your responce! The Graffiti may or may not have been written by the ripper. I think it was, and I think the detectives who worked the field thought it was. Goulstan St is were the ripper left his only clue. The piece of appron tells us wich direction the ripper was heading after the Eddowes murder. He was heading back into the eastend. This is the only real clue Goulstan St. provides. The graffiti itself, is sort of useless. The message can be interpreted so many different ways, and it is not clear if the ripper even wrote the message. If I was constructing a theory, the graffiti would be the last piece of the puzzle I would connect. I would not start with the graffiti, and build a theory.
I agree, if someone really did not know how to spell the word Jew, he may spell the word Juws. I spell alot of words incorrectly, and Juwes is exactly how I would spell the word if I did not know the correct way to spell Jew.
Do you think that Tumblety was the man arrested on October 4th, 1888? I am just trying to stay on topic. If Stan is correct, I think Tumblety's arrest record is interesting.
Your friend,Brad |
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 127
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 3:01 pm: |
|
Hello Phil,
You obviously speak with great authority re the word 'juwes' and masonic history/ritual. Are you on the 'square'?
Andy P. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 548
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 3:50 pm: |
|
Brad,
I don't mean to be harsh, but there is a point to made. You have several times now mentioned that the apron-half is proof that JtR was headed back to the East End from Mitre Square.
You may well be right; indeed, the odds are that is on the mark. But we don't know it for sure, do we? Yet, to take that for a given and theorize from there is to invite serious error.
We don't know in what direction the agent who left the apron-half was headed (that agent could actually have been headed back toward Mitre Square after a series of zigs and zags, for example); we don't know what time the apron-half was deposited (which could have a bearing on direction) and we don't even know if it was JtR who ultimately left the apron-half where it was discovered.
It is a damnable thing about this case that so little is solid fact. Anyway, if you have not seen it, there was a very informative thread on this topic a few months ago in which Monty Burns, Mephisto and David Radka, among others, made some interesting comments. It's worth hunting for.
Meanwhile, keep your own keen interest in the case.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 406
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
"we don't even know if it was JtR who ultimately left the apron-half where it was discovered. "
To add further obfuscation, there are some theorists that believe Jack had an accomplice. If so, it is possible that Jack zigged one way, and his "assistant" zagged towards Goulston. It would explain what otherwise appears to be very risky behavior....
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 867
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
It's true there are little facts to go on, but why obfuscate when there are simpler explanations?
Since there were smears marks of blood and apparent fecal matter on the Goulton Street apron, observed by Dr. Brown to be wipe marks (Ultimate, p. 250), then doesn't it follow that the apron was used by the person who performed the abdominal mutilations on Catherine Eddowes, which featured blood and fecal matter?
Just my opinion,
Dave
|
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 407
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
" doesn't it follow that the apron was used by the person who performed the abdominal mutilations on Catherine Eddowes, which featured blood and fecal matter? "
Probably that was indeed the case, but as far as simple explanations go, heading from Mitre Square to Goulston was a rather risky venture. I'd say crazy, except we are talking about a homicidal maniac...The zig zagging might be more readily explained by Jack having had a lookout/accomplice.
Just with respect to Goulston Street, it might be the "simpler" explanation.....
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 534
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:36 pm: |
|
David - your logic is spot on. Don't be distracted from it. Other theories are fine (I try to hold them all in a sort of balance in my head), but they are glosses on the central facts, not a replacement for them.
Andy and Sue - no. I claim no authority on Juwes or masonic history. Nor did I think I had shown any such (non-existant) expertise. In this thread I have been doing nothing more than asking for evidence, challenging unsupported and unsubstantiated statements and seeking clarification!! |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 5:40 pm: |
|
Sir Robert
Probably that was indeed the case, but as far as simple explanations go, heading from Mitre Square to Goulston was a rather risky venture.
Why would heading to Goulston Street be riskier than heading in any other direction?
Chris Phillips
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 869
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Hi Robert,
Since this thread is about a Times article, I thought I'd post on a more appropriate thread. Follow me on over if you feel like it.
Cheers,
Dave |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 549
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:12 pm: |
|
David,
doesn't it follow that the apron was used by the person who performed the abdominal mutilations on Catherine Eddowes, which featured blood and fecal matter?
Yes, I would think it overwhelmingly probable that JtR took the apron-half from Mitre Square and wiped himself, the knife, whatever, with it. But that doesn't mean he deposited it where it was found on Goulston Street.
I'm not necessarily plumping for a theory that he didn't leave it there, but since the apron-half is the one physical clue removed from a murder scene and later found and because there are so many questions about the artifact and its discovery I am simply arguing that we must be mindful of those questions when building any theories based upon it.
Such as it proving JtR was headed to the East End. Its discovery location suggests that surmise, but there are other possibilities.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Hi Don,
I get where you're coming from. There's not much to be sure of, is there? I just favor the simpler scenarios.
Cheers,
Dave |
Sir Robert Anderson
Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 408
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:24 pm: |
|
"Since this thread is about a Times article, I thought I'd post on a more appropriate thread. Follow me on over if you feel like it. "
Normally, I'd say fine, but if you look at the last 30 or so posts on this thread, the discussion has moved far afield from the Times article. So I have no idea what the "appropriate" thread is, given that we're discussing Juwes/the graffiti/zig zag routes/Warren/substantiated vs unsubstantiated statements/Freemasonry.
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 871
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 6:34 pm: |
|
Whatever, Robert. You can either reply to my post here or there, or not at all.
Dave |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 550
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 12, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Dave,
I'm here now, so I'll add my thoughts to this thread. Anyway, I too favor the simplest answers whenever possible, but as you said, there isn't much we can be sure of.
What particularly intrigues me about this aspect of the case is the timing and the actions of DC Halse and PC Long and those considerations, of course, have implications for how and when the apron-half got to Goulston Street.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 196
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 12:23 am: |
|
Hi all,
Sorry to butt in and if this has already been covered please put me back in my box. Are people trying to argue that if the term "Juwes" was not written down somewhere in a contemporary published work that it could not have been in use in England in the late 19th Century? If people are trying to argue that then I find it a very strange leap of faith to make. Surely all that needs to be discovered is whether the term predated 1888. Documented proof that it was a term used by Freemasons in London at the time would be great of course, but a lack of that evidence proves nothing.
I see an implication earlier on this thread that even if the term was in common use in America that perhaps it was not in England. To me it seems that even back in 1888 there was clearly a lively trade of all things between the two continents and as always it is not just goods that are traded but also customs, cultures, and language.
I am not as accomplished a resercher as some here so perhaps I am ignoring established research rules but what I have said seems logical to me, being a layman.
Scotty.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 677
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 1:45 am: |
|
Hi all,
I paid for the The Book of the Words Simon mentioned above, which he claimed mentioned the names of the Three Ruffians and would probably refer to the word "Juwes."
Guess what?
The word Juwes is not mentioned in there at all. The word Ruffians is not mentioned in there at all. In fact, the characters that this whole thing Juwes storyline is supposed to be about -- Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum -- also are not mentioned... with the exception of Jubelum, who does not appear as part of a trio of ruffians but on his own in a completely different context. In fact the term is explicitly described as a combination of the words Jahweh, Baal and Om, used to codify the concept that the god of the Hebrews, Phoenicians and Hindus is actually the same god... So not only is Jebulum/Jabulum not one member of three notorious bad men, he's one combination of three highly revered deities.
So, basically, everything Simon claimed and assumed about this book turned out to be wrong.
That means there is still no evidence that the word "Juwes" was ever actually used in Freemasonry.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 536
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 2:00 am: |
|
Scott,
1) the main question is whether the term JUWES has EVER been in use in freemasonry/whether it has ever been specifically an alternative term in the US for the 3 Ruffians.
2) From there, my questions have focused on asking what evidence exists to show that Warren could have known of the word and it's meaning.
So far as the use of evidence is concerned, MJK and Sir Charles were both alive in 1888. But no one would be safe simply to ASSUME that they knew one another just because they were living in London in the same year.
An historian would look for connections, did either mention the other in surviving writings? Did a third party or other records show them as having met or even attended the same event? If any such evidence existed, there is a good chance that the two people knew each other (how well is, of course, another question).
Failing that one would look for evidence that the two people concerned moved in the same circles, had mutual friends, belonged to the same organisations. This sort of circumstantial evidence might allow some conclusions to be drawn but not many.
In the case of JUWES/3 Ruffians, I am seeking the following answers:
a) how well known was the alleged connection in the US pre-1888 if it was known at all? (this is just making such that the strongly made assertions are factually based - simply checking the facts if you like;
b) is it known whether the books were published in the UK? Do we have evidence that they were imported? (A very rare or obscure publication might not do so - I have no idea whether Pike is a major author or not prolific though he obviously was);
c) was the book in any place where Sir Charles might have read it or known of it - his own library, or the library of his own masonic lodge;
d) finally did Warren ever mention the term or the book in his published or unpublished writings?
That would form a conclusive chain of evidence. Even partial completion would be helpful.
Is any of that unreasonable Scott?
Phil
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 982
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 4:36 am: |
|
Dan
I paid for the The Book of the Words Simon mentioned above, which he claimed mentioned the names of the Three Ruffians and would probably refer to the word "Juwes."
Guess what?
The word Juwes is not mentioned in there at all.
Here is an online version of Morgan's "Illustrations of Masonry", which has also been referred to in this thread (though I couldn't clarify whether it was actually being claimed that Morgan used the word "Juwes"):
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/captmorgansfreemasonrycontents.htm
The text has been indexed by Google, and a search limited to the domain utlm.org certainly doesn't show up any appearance of "Juwes". However, the three "ruffians" do appear, and are named as Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum.
Chris Phillips
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 82
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
Brad,
I have not really been interested in Tumblety.The wording of Littlechild's letter seems to indicate an interest of sorts in that person,but to what degree it relates to the murders,is not apparent.
I would not oppose Stan's view on the matter,but whether it was Tumblety or some other that was arrested that day,we would need to look elsewhere for information linking Tumblety to the murders.
Phil,
Good to understand we can agree sometimes. |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 198
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 8:49 am: |
|
Hi all,
Phil, no that all seems reasonable. My questions above do not have a strong opinion of mine lurking in the background. I am merely curious. I also appreciate that you are trying to gather evidence one way or the other and I think that's a good thing. I was merely pointing out that a lack of evidence, if that is what results, proves nothing. You are right in what you say above that if all the pieces came together you could form a chain of evidence to support the term Juwes as being clearly associated with Freemasonry in London in 1888. And I applaud you for that.
On the other hand I have what I call my Nessie Analogy. It goes like this. You can prove the Loch Ness Monster exists, you can never prove that it doesn't. One day someone might catch the beast or find it's corpse, or capture it definitively on film, etc: In this way we would know that it did exist. Even if we drained the Loch (if that were possible which it isn't) and found no trace of the Monster we still couldn't say for sure it did not exist, because that Loch connects to the sea.
I feel the same about trying to make this Juwes connection. We certainly could prove it and that would be great, but a lack of evidence for it does not prove that it was not so.
Can I pose the following question? None of us are questioning that this is a term that has been and still is used by Freemasons and in books about the history of Freemasonry right?
Curious to know.
Scotty.
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 540
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:01 am: |
|
Scott,
I remain wholly confused as to whether JUWES was ever a widely used term EITHER in the US or Uk. Whether it specifically referred to the "Three Ruffians"? Or whether it is still a term in use today?
I have had no clear answers on these.
Phil |
Scott Suttar
Inspector
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 199
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
I spoke to my Father today and whilst I have had previous discussions with him regarding the term Juwes I asked him where his knowledge of the term came from. He was unsure but he thinks he learned it after becoming a Freemason in the late 60's early 70's. He seemed to think it was a commonly known term among Freemasons in at least his Lodge at that time.
I am fairly certain that the term was used in a book I read a few years back called "The Hiram Key" but I couldn't swear to it.
So I think it is a commonly used term now, but I can't shed any light on 1888 in London.
Scotty.
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 987
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Scott
I think the suspicion is that, though the term wasn't a genuine masonic one, because of the claims of various modern authors, it has been absorbed, certainly into the pseudo-masonic literature.
I'm afraid "The Hiram Key", published as recently as 2001, would come into this category.
But if your father could be definite that he heard it in the 60s, for example, that would at least place it as a genuine masonic term before the likes of Knight and Fairclough wrote their books.
Having said that, it's still a long way from 1888, and even if the term was used before 1888 most people will take a lot of convincing that the Goulston Street graffito was referring to a masonic term.
Chris Phillips
|
Andy and Sue Parlour
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tenbells
Post Number: 128
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Hello All.
,
If you want to know the history of the word
'Juwe(s)'in connection with freemasonry I suggest you read 'Born in Blood', the lost secrets of Freemasonry by John J Robinson. Published by Century 1989.
John is a writer with special interest in the history of Medieval Britain and the Crusades. He heads a family trust dedicated to historical research and publication. John is a member of the Medieval Academy of America, the Organisations of American Historians and the Royal Overseas League of London. He lives in Kentucky USA.
John explains the role of the three ruffians Jubalo,Jubelo and Jubelum collectively known to Masons as the 'Juwe'.
He tells of the re-inactment of the murder of Hiram Abiff in the initiation ceremony to master mason and how on hearing of the death of Hiram Abiff King Solomon orders the hunting down and capture of the 3 'Juwes' and subsequent execution.
The point that I am making here is, the 3 'Juwes' aka as the 3 Ruffians are considered the 'enemies' of freemasons and certainly not co-conspirators in any so-called conspiracy in relation to the Whitechapel murders.
Andy P.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Hi Donald,
Thanks for your responce! I post to learn, not to inform, so dont wory about sounding harsh. Thanks!
Your friend, Brad |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 13, 2005 - 6:30 am: |
|
Hi Harry,
Stan does not believe that it was Tumblety who was arrested on the 4th, I do. Go back a page and take a look at the days that Tumblety was arrested and compare them to the days the ripper struck. The ripper killed 5 women in a three month period. The interesting thing to me is, Tumblety seemed to be arrested on days leading up to or days right after ripper murders. Just odd.
Thanks for your comments. If it was not for people like you I would be posting to myself, and that would not be much sport.
Your friend, Brad |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
