|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 37
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 7:44 am: | 
|
Just an interesting thought...
If the Goulston Street Gaffito was written by JTR, I feel it might refer directly to Eddowes.
"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
In the police station, the very night she was killed, she had given her name as "nothing". What if she is the nothing the writing is referring to.
Also, if any of the JTR letters are real, a letter dated the 17th of Sept.1888 states; " So now they say I am a Yid when will they lern Dear old Boss"
It is like he didn't want the Jews to get the credit for the killings.
What do you think?
I'll duck down now,
Carolyn |
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 361
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:06 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
I had never, ever thought of the wording in that context before............there would have course be some serious provisions........but it is at least as you say, an interesting thought!
It would depend on whether or not someone was of the opinion that the Goulston Street graffito was genuine to begin with......and this is always under debate.......but truthfully if the word 'nothing' if being used here as a proper noun, it does actually seem to make more sense than it does otherwise!
It is true that she did give her name as 'nothing' in the Police Station that night....I wonder if that was something she did more frequently than just on that occasion at the police station? That would have to be the case if the writer of the graffito was referring to Catharine...........was it just a one off occurence or was it a regular habit of hers? One might even consider a police connection, in view of the speed that the writing was erased......... worth a second thought at least........
I do have to say that it is a really interesting idea and I have heard a great deal more far fetched than that on the boards...........
Sometimes thinking outside of the box, does yield dividends...........if no-one ever had innovative ideas.......we would still be thinking that Dr Stanley did it!!!!!
Lots of Love
Jane
xxxxxx |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 565
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:02 pm: |
|
If "nothing" referred to Eddowes because she was fond of calling herself that, then the other thing that has to happen is that Jack has to know her well enough to know she called herself "nothing." I suspect he picked her up at random outside St. Botolph's that night. |
Robert Clack
Chief Inspector
Username: Rclack
Post Number: 515
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
I've been having various thoughts along similar lines. Firstly I've been thinking that 'Nothing' may be a reference to prostitutes in general, or that killing a few prostitutes was meant 'nothing' to him.
A recent thought I had was that Jack didn't murder Elizabeth Stride, but he had heard of her murder next to a Jews club. And that The Jews would not be blamed for her murder, but he knew he would be.
Just thinking out loud.
Rob
P.S. Hi Jane |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 217
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 1:49 am: |
|
A graffito aimed at drawing attention to something HAS to be intelligible.
Now it could be intelligible to the writer, or mean something to him/her, but be garbled in the writing because the writer is mixed up or has difficulty with words.
It can be unintelligible because we (the readers)don't get something in it.
But it strikes me that for the "nothing" theory to work several conditions need to apply:
a) the writer has to know Eddowes used the name "nothing";
b) perhaps to know she had used it that night (would that mean the writer had to be a policeman with access to the station records or to have been present when she spoke?);
c)to believe that somehow the name "Nothing" and the apron would be enough to get a message across to others.
But why should anyone with a complex enough mind to play a joke involving a pseudnym (nothing) and the apron scrap, write so apparently unintelligibly - and why should he use a name (nothing) that few if any were likely to know?
Nothing I have said here settles anything, of course. Just thoughts, musings and questions.
But if the "nothing" theory is right - would this not push the Cutbush's back into the frame as being in a position to know/have acess to police information?
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1580
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:20 am: |
|
Phil,
Just a thought I think you missed.
That is the possibility Eddowes herself informed her killer the she used this pseudonym with her arresting officers at Bishopsgate.
This would obviously remove the Police/Cutbush element.
Regards,
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 221
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:08 pm: |
|
But why use a name (nothing) that no one else might recognise?
At least in the mind of the murderer one has to assume that it made some sense and that he thought someone would understand what he was saying.
Phil |
Lee McLoughlin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 59
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 12:56 pm: |
|
An intresting theory but I cant subscribe to it. The words are clearly just suggesting the Jewish Community were being accused of everything. It is just poor English with mis-use of language that gives it a sense of vagueness.
Also, I dont really believe that JTR wrote the grafitti. I believe that he lived nearby and saw it, had a cheeky laugh and decided on his way back from Mitre Square to leave something by there.
If I am wrong and JTR did write that message I believe that he wrote it on his way to Mitre Square. I can't imagine anyone hanging around long enough to write a small message (as in size of wording rather than length of message) in a area with no lighting and on a small section of an entrance after committing a murder.
Best Wishes,
Lee |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 282
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:04 pm: |
|
Just an opinion,but there is a possibility that our difficulty in interpreting the "not be blamed for nothing" was an intentional play on words by the author...
The author of the graffiti,by virtue of his handwriting which displays a mark of discipline [ according to Halse...] could be likewise assessed to be aware of what he was writing.
And,of course,in the aftermath of just ripping open Eddowes,he made a gaffe...didn't erase it...and it stayed as is.
How Brown
JTRForums
www.jtrforums.co.uk
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 222
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 3:51 pm: |
|
Howard - are you saying the pun was intentional, or a gaffe? |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 359
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
After reading the above postings, a couple of thoughts occur to me.
The very point of graffiti is, it is put in a prominent place for a focussed audience to read
and to vent frustration at not being able to get the message out there in another way.(Think of frustrated school kids in love).
Also, the graffiti is placed where that target audience will see it.
By placing the chalked message inside a doorway to apartments suggests the message was directed at one or all of the occupants.
The use of the double negative suggests one of two things. Either the writer was literatate, and pretending not to be, using the double negative so common amongst EastEnders of that age ( and later).Or they were genuinely using their own style which suggests a hardly-schooled local.
Because there are no published reports on the frequency of graffiti in East London, it is hard to know if scribbled (antiSemitic or other)messages were common on Whitechapel walls.
I think it possible the graffiti was a separate campaign, connected with the recent surge in antiSemitism (mentioned elsewhere on these boards) and placed in the foyer of the Goulston Street building known to be tenanted by Jewish families, by some semi-literate local with access to chalk.(Worked at the markets, nicked it from a pub, or from a "Shove-Halfpenny" game).
It is possible the apron was a genuine Ripper souvenir, discarded in the dark night by an escaping murderer.I doubt he could even see the graffiti.
To my mind, the two are not related. After all, if the Ripper engaged in BTK styled "Catch-Me-If-You-Can" games, there would be many more examples of curious graffiti to be puzzled over.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 584
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:38 pm: |
|
The idea that the "nothing" in the graffiti referred to Eddowes has been discussed a few times on these boards. You might try a search to bring up the old threads, of which I'm fairly certain some were made after the switch over to the new boards and thus still available for the public to read. If you have the Casebook At Home CD or DVD I guarantee it will be in there several times.
As far as whether it was likely or not, I think it's certainly possible. All that would have had to happen was Kate told the guy who was picking her up something like, "Wait here for a few minutes for the police man to go by, I don't want to be arrested again. Yeah, I just got out. I was minding my own business having some fun and an officer asked me who I was, and I said 'Nothing' like that was my name, which he didn't like. So there I sat until they finally let me out in time to run into you. Lucky you then. Alright, he's gone, let's go." And then Jack could have tried to leave a message for the police, knowing that they had a record of arresting "Nothing" that night.
It's possible, but then I don't know what the odds are that it really did happen. It's hard to say. My gut feeling says the normal meaning of the word is probably more likely.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 285
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 7:55 pm: |
|
Dear Phil.
Actually I was just opinionating that the GSG could have been a play on words or a gaffe the author made during the graffiti. They're just two possible explanations,among the many others,for the unusual syntax.
John...
"Because there are no published reports on the frequency of graffiti in East London, it is hard to know if scribbled (antiSemitic or other)messages were common on Whitechapel walls."
Amen. There's never been any proof that there was any graffiti,by either an 1888 reference or otherwise, that states that any other graffiti was present at the Wentworth or on either side of it... Never.
Yet people take it as a given that there was.
Of course,there was graffiti present in the East End...thats undeniable....
Even in the great book, Letters From Hell,by SPE and Skinner, there's the statement on page 24 or 25 [off the top of my head] that says "what if" the apron was left at another spot adjacent to the Wentworth....perhaps we would be examining another graffiti instead....or words to that effect.
Based on what information and from whom ?
This whole GSG may well be a red herring....but to base it upon assumptions,even from heavyweight authors or those with superior knowledge of London's history doesn't make the statement a fact.
In fairness,the authors of that book weren't focusing on the GSG,but rather giving an overview of the situation.
Mr.Ruffels touches base with me,at least,when he says the GSG was left for a "target audience".
In my view,that would be the police. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 225
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:03 am: |
|
Based on the fact that the graffito was facing inwards - and assuming the apron got moved or was ignored - how precisely would the police have recognised the link - or even see it?
Second - it occurs to me, do we know that the police recorded Eddowes name as "nothing? Or was that just what she told the arresting officer, who later recalled it? In the latter case, how would the link have been made?
To me this connection is to narrow - Jack would have used a phrase like "the woman in Mitre Square" or "the woman killed tonight" (depending on whether he knew street names). He would not have used an obscure nom-de-plume (as it were).
I still remain unconvinceed by any link between apron (which shows Jack was actually there) and the - to me probably pre-existant - graffito. I too believe THAT was intended for a target audience, in the dwellings, and NOT by Jack.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 57
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 3:22 am: |
|
Some old sayings with the word nothing being used.
Teacher,"what have you got in your hand?.
Pupil,"I aint got nothing sir".
Mother,"What have you been doing?.
Child,"I aint been doing nothing mum".
Make of it what you will,but the term nothing was used in many ways and could mean many things.
Slang in other words. |
Legion
Inspector
Username: Crix0r
Post Number: 375
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:18 am: |
|
Carolyn -
Very interesting thought indeed. Though I'm with Phill.. the writer would need to have the knowledge that the victim used the name "nothing" earlier in the evening. Of course if it was common for the ladies to substitute that name for their own, he could have gotten lucky and just guessed. If that was the case, however, he could have been referring to any number of "nothing"'s. I haven't given it much attention just yet, but I'm fairly certain it's just poor english written in a hurry
So long as no one calls it 'graffitus', I say dive into the subject :P
Legion
"Our name is legion, for we are many"
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 361
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 9:45 pm: |
|
I was not aware previously someone had raised the possibility of "nothing" linking to Catharine Eddowes police station statementand the graffiti.
I was impressed when I read Carolyn's deduction. It is not nothing: it is ingenious.
(But I'll bet you pounds to peanuts that what she actually said was..."nuffink").
Isn't there a line somewhere in "My Fair Lady" or "Pygmalion" where Eliza Doolittle, the cockney flower seller from Covent Garden trying to improve her speaking style, where she says the word "nothing"?
I'll bet stating your name as "nothing" in a police station was very common, just being smart..
I grew up with a lot of Cockneys and they, "never done nuffink, not ever, well, 'ardly ever.." |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 6:11 am: |
|
Hi All,
I think we can safely assume that the writer of the message either had no idea that his meaning might not be perfectly clear to anyone who read it - and seriously misjudged it, or his intention was to cause confusion and make his readers wonder what on earth the message was getting at.
I tend to suspect the former, but either way, this suggests to me someone with an eccentric view of himself and his position in the world; self-obsessed, assuming others would automatically pick up on the workings of his mind, or a self-obsessed player of games who wanted to stay ahead of a private game that no one else could join in.
And yes, the idea that 'nothing' could have been a reference to the name Kate gave was knocking around to my knowledge as far back as 1999.
It's still a neat idea, thought up independently by several different commentators.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 241
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:32 pm: |
|
That's a post that situates the appraisal, Caz!!
...someone with an eccentric view of himself and his position in the world; self-obsessed, assuming others would automatically pick up on the workings of his mind, or a self-obsessed player of games who wanted to stay ahead of a private game that no one else could join in.
I can't think who you might have in mind!!??
Not a putative Diary writer by any chance?
Well, at least you made me laugh.
Phil
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 363
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:57 pm: |
|
So Caz,
Does your last post mean that you think the Goulston Street graffiti was chalked up by "Jack The Ripper" ?
Or have I misread it? |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 9:11 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
Good to know you laugh occasionally. I was beginning to think you were competing for the boards' misery guts of the year title. 
Hi John,
I think it probably was chalked by Jack, yes.
But my assessment stands either way. Someone wrote a message that has proved almost impossible for anyone to interpret with any degree of certainty.
No obvious "Jews go home" or "Jews are to blame for everything bad" sentiment here. So whoever wrote it either had no idea - or didn't care - that his words would be hard for anyone else to interpret, or he designed the message to be confusing.
And that might tell us a little, though not a lot, about the emotionally immature mind of this particular graffiti artist.
Love,
Caz
X |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 243
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:13 am: |
|
You obviously don't read my posts that carefully then Caz. But why should you?
Or maybe you just don't appreciate irony.
Phil |
Carolyn
Sergeant
Username: Carolyn
Post Number: 38
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 12:19 am: |
|
Hello all,
Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond to your great comments, but my computer has been down for about a week. I was not ignoring you.
I feel IF the words were written by JTR there may very well be a connection with Eddowes. Also, another way he could have learned her name is that is the name she gave him, as in the police station. There doesn't have to be a police station connection.
I have been reading the old boards and I was not aware that somebody else had made this connection. I was not trying to "steal" anyone's ideas, and I am sorry if I have offended anyone.
Thanks,
Carolyn |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 591
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 1:41 am: |
|
Hi Carolyn,
I don't think anyone could call it stealing when people independently come up with the same ideas. It happens all the time. Nobody can keep track of every idea someone previously offered on this case, because there are just too many of them out there.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 364
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:23 am: |
|
For anyone interested there are several Web pages which show up in a Google search when you punch in the word:" NUFFINK".
One of them, in particular, is an essay on why English people should not shed their regional accents for upward mobility.Very interesting. |
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Caroline or Phil or anyone, SOS - need assistance
I have a dilema that I cant seem to sort out and have been losing sleep over for a month. I wasn't sure of the correct thread to get on to, to sort out my problem, so I chose this one.I apologise if it is the wrong thread to ask this question. I would be eternally greatful if you could help me out so I can get some proper sleep.I studied every minute detail of the ripper letters section on this site, and cant sort these dilemers out.
1. The Dear Boss letter was recieved on 27th at CNS. In it the ripper said " you will hear of my games soon", and " I shall clip the ladies ears off". The double event occured 2.5 days later and an attempt was made to sever Eddow's ear off.It appears on this site, many believe that the letter was hoaxed by a reporter at the CNS.For those who support this , are they saying the hoaxer got lucky with the timing of the next murders , and the attempt to cut through the earlobe of Eddow's? If so, the hoaxer sure hit the jackpot here.He must have been exultant with his good fortune.
2. This has been affecting my sleep.The ' Suacy Jacky' postcard was recieved on Monday at the CNS.Experts say it could have a hoaxer who read the early morning paper.I CLEARLY SAW THE POST OFFICE PROCESSING STAMPS ON BOTH CARD AND ENVELPOE.Where I live in Australia, it takes one day via'EXPRESS POST', and 2 days normal, to recieve a posted letter with modern processing techniques. It is the same in most countries. WAS IT ACTUALLY POSSIBLE to get a letter processed and recieved via the postman the same day it was sent in 1888? That is assuming there was no express post in 1888?
If not, than how could this person who wrote the post card ,have got the infomation on Sunday.Judging by the text- " you 'll hear of my work tommorow ", it was written and posted on the Sunday before the release of the infomation publically.This leads me to conclude: it was iether the killer or someone the info was leaked to by the police?
If it was a journo at the CNS , than how were his predictions coming true? Will anyone entertain the new possibility that someone at the CNS was in cahoots with or new the Whitechapel killer? Would be greatful for input.
Thankyou kindly, Stuart.
|
mJck
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
The Glstn Strt Grfft ws ctlly wrttn by Jms Mybrck, hw nnyng tht mst b t sm ppl. It's nt hrd t wrk t why thr. Ppl wth n ntrst n JTR, t pprs, just cn't s th wds fr th trs, nd spnd ll thr tm pntfctng n trv nstd f lkng bt hrdr. |
Bill Shakespeare
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Maybe he meant "nothing" as in "noting." See, eg., :http://dsc.dixie.edu/shakespeare/muchess.htm
Thus, the "Juwes are the ones that will not be blamed for taking note of these crimes...."
Okay, it doesn't really make sense, but I just wanted to make a plug for one of my plays.
Bill |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:15 am: |
|
Hi all,
I always assumed that the detectives who worked the case thought that the Goulston ST. Graffiti was not written by the ripper. I have changed my mind. Detective Chief Inspector Henry Moore on October 1896 wrote in an report that the Ripper "udoubtedly" wrote the Goulston Street Graffiti. Moore was Abberlines susseccor and it would not be to hard to imagine that he was influenced by the opinion of Abberline. I now believe that the detectives who worked the field believed the grafitti to be genuine. The interesting thing to me is the graffiti was not sighned Jack the ripper. It would have taken just a few seconds more to sighn his name. This may be an idication [If the graffiti is genuine.] that none of the contemperary letters or any of the letters sighned Jack the ripper were written by the killer. The one letter that some believe to be from the killer was the Lusk letter and it was not sighned. If the killer wrote the Jack the ripper letters and he wrote the lusk letter he would have sighned his name and he would have sighned the wall. The lusk letter and the Graffiti have one thing in common. The killer produced positive proove that he had contact with the victim. The piece of appron along side the wall and the kidney [If genuine?] sent with the Lusk letter.
Hi Carolyn,
Original ideas. I agree that if he did write the graffiti he was claiming that he was not a Jew. I am not sure if he cared if they got credit for the murders. I just think he may not have wanted to be associated with them. He may have been saying, Hey the Jews are not responsible for the killings but they are the men who will not be blamed for nothing. He may have been refering to the death of Christ.
Your friend,CB |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 280
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:02 am: |
|
Stuart - I have been told by colleagues that the postal service in London, with multiple collections and deliveries each day, was good enough that as late as the 1950s, a civil servant working in Whitehall could be told of a late meeting, put a post card or letter in the mailbox before noon to tell his wife (in north London)that he would be home late and to delay dinner, and that his wife would get that letter/card in the late afternoon - in time for it to be useful..
I think on that basis the card could have been written quite late, and a hoax is more than likely.
Phil |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 592
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
Hi Stuart,
Welcome to the boards.
Regarding the first bit, people were making all sorts of claims that the killer would remove such and such other part from the next killing. An ear is certainly one that could have been thought up by a hoaxer. I don't think the evidence shows that Eddowes' ear was purposefully targeted. It looks like it occurred as part of a facial mutilation that just happened to hit the ear. The letter writer claimed that he would remove the ear and send it to the police. It seems illogical to think the Ripper could have removed a kidney and knicked eyelids but not had time or skill to remove an ear successfully.
Regarding the second bit, the letter was postmarked October 1. The murders happened early morning of September 30. That's well over 24 hours that the author, whomever he was, could have heard about the killing, and this was old news in the area by that point. Regarding how fast the mail could be delivered, it was not uncommon for something mailed off in the morning to make it there by the afternoon if it was the same part of the city. The postmark and delivery date being the same confirm that.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Stuart
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Interfering with police bussiness is a serious crime, and sending hoaxed letters in a murder investigation would mean a hefty fine or gaol time if caught today. I am wondering how serious the police were in warning the public of hoaxing letters, and the legal consequences of doing so? It seems, by the number of people doing it, it was only a misdemeanour with no real deterent. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
