|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 519
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 12:40 pm: | 
|
I've always heard it pronounced "GOOL-ston" by English as well as Americans. "GOOL-" to rhyme with "STOOL," that is.
Andy S.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 246
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Andy,
Thank you. What I was thinking, but glad to see a confirmation. Of course, that means it also rhymes with ghoul. Hmmmm.
Don.
|
Suzi Hanney
Chief Inspector
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 754
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 4:38 pm: |
|
Hi....Ghouls ton St eh!!! Spooky eh! Just think that with amount of grafiiti and general detritus about at the time that it was highly suspect that PC Long felt this particular piece to be of any consequence....he probably only noticed it because he happened upon the 'apron' and put 2 and 2 together and made 25!!Cant help but think that there was a lot of other unpleasantnesses around too at the time.....just maybe not as cryptic!!!
Cheers
Suzi |
Scott Suttar
Sergeant
Username: Scotty
Post Number: 28
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 8:24 am: |
|
Donald you are absolutely right, it's a moot point. If Warren had not been such a Pillock and had the writing removed it may have been some worthwhile evidence. As things stand we have no photographic evidence of the writing so we can only discuss the possible meaning of the writing (cryptic no matter who wrote it) and can gain no useful evidence about the writer himself.
Warren was foolish and I find it hard to believe that the Police could not have stopped all but a handful of people ever seeing the message.
Extraordinary.
Scotty.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 11:42 am: |
|
Sarah,
Ever contemplated that graffito was written by a Jew ?
If you have then can you see the context changes? Maybe brag isnt the right word but it seems a threat me. A sort of 'dont mess with/provoke us'.
Also, just to clarify, Im not saying its connected to Kates or anyone elses murder. Maybe a assault occurred in the area at the time or a gang warning.
The possibilities of the definition is high and varying. We are going to be here for ever deciphering it.
As Don said, its pointless anyway as it wouldnt get us any closer to Kates killer.
Monty
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 247
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 21, 2004 - 1:33 pm: |
|
Monty was spot on the other day when he wrote that the apron part is the really important clue found at Goulston Street. And while I often caution we don't even know JtR dropped it there, I say that only to underscore we can't take much at all for granted.
Without getting into another squabble about probability, I feel the odds are overwhelming our Jack carried it close, if not all the way, to where it was found. (I still won't exclude the possibility a dog or passerby worried it along a last few paces to where it was discovered.)
But, the apron part is the only physical clue we can be absolutely sure about apart from the crime scenes themselves and that is very important. Indeed, it is interesting that the Eddowes murder was so different in this respect. Not only was half the apron taken and then discarded, but there is the question of the graffito and the kidney part send to Lusk all associated with this murder. Are there reasons for this? something to ponder.
Don. |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2462
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 7:36 am: |
|
Don, re your last point, one possible interpretation of the message would be " If they're going to blame us Jews for ripping up women, then we'll rip one up and actually be guilty for a change."
I don't think that this is likely, though. I agree, the apron is the solid part of the evidence.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 520
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 4:53 pm: |
|
Robert,
I've often considered that if the writing was put there by the killer (which I still doubt), it may have been sort of a confessional taunt, i.e.:
"Those who blame the Jews do so for good reason because I, a Jew, am the killer."
This is one possible interpretation of the graffito. However, since we canj't even be certain of the wording we will never know.
Andy S.
|
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2004 - 1:08 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
It could refer to the death of Christ. A Jew may not be commiting the WC murders but The Jews are the men that would not be blamed for nothing. It could have been a religious statement.
All the best,CB |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 111
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 1:30 am: |
|
Hi Vincent,
"True enough, but what if the car broke down, and while I was scatching my head wondering how to fix it the beltway snipers opened fire at me from across the street?"
Unfortunately, I'm not following that analogy at all.
"You see, I would have not only had to have the singular misfortune to break down in that exact spot but at exactly the wrong time as well."
I don't see how that applies to the location where Eddowes' apron was found at all. There's nothing time-sensitive about it at all that I can see, unless you assume that grafitti was extremely rare (indeed, as rare as a sniper attack), which seems like a very strange conclusion to jump to.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Rodney Gillis
Sergeant
Username: Srod
Post Number: 33
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 9:29 am: |
|
In today's world, we think of graffiti as more permanent (paint). Since the message was written in chalk, and that area of the world is damp, and that particular area was well used, I believe that the Ripper wrote it and he left the apron piece there to remove any doubt. With that being said, I wonder if the Ripper said what he meant. It seems to me that he was probably in a hurry plus he was feeling the exhiliration of a fresh kill. Could the second part of the double negative been placed in error? Perhaps the Ripper was having a hard time communicating what he wanted to say. He may not have been the wordsmith with which we have been giving him credit. |
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 8:01 am: |
|
Dan, my point was that the graffito was written the night of the double event, making it time-sensitive indeed. Someone used the analogy of their car breaking down to point out that coincidences do happen. I agree that they do. But when you throw in another variable (the snipers were my poor attempt to do so), then the possibility of it being a coincidence shrinks dramatically. And while graffiti is certaintly more common than a sniper attack Eddowes apron is perhaps rarer still. Let me put it this way: what is the possibility that someone totally unconnected to the murders chalked a message referring to Jews that night, and then Jack the Ripper just happens to commit two murders and then drops the apron in that exact spot the same night? I think the odds are astronomical against it. It had to be Jack who wrote it and Jack who dropped it.
Just out of curiosity, how common were dogs in Whitechapel anyway? I would think that they would have been a rarity. Anyone know? Regards, Vincent |
Dan Norder
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 113
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Vincent,
We don't know that the grafitto was written that night. We don't know if different grafitti was written there every night. If the apron were dropped in front of something other than grafitti we'd still have people reading significance into whatever it was, so graffito, boxes, specific buildings, signs, rubbish and other random elements in the vicinity aren't necessarily of any importance to the case. Any connection between the two is speculative.
If you think the odds against this happening are astronomical, then you need to show that graffiti was extremely rare. You can't just say, oh well, maybe it wasn't, but the apron was rare. The apron being unique doesn't automatically make anything it's sitting next to become unique. Assigning meaning to random events is how superstitions form. Not understanding statistics makes people believe all sorts of weird things.
The grafitto might have been written by the killer, but without some actual inherent link (like the text reading, "This apron (remnant of whore/thing I wiped my knife on/etc.) shows that the jujubes are not the sugary confections that will be blamed for nothing.") we can't know.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1139
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 4:01 am: |
|
Ignore
Duplicate post...sorry.
Monty
(Message edited by monty on May 24, 2004) |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1140
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 4:02 am: |
|
CB,
Yes, absolutely.
Another definition is produced. We could go on couldnt we ?
Monty
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1172
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 7:02 am: |
|
Monty,
I just personally can't see it as being written by a Jew and also I can't see it as a threat. To me it still seems to almost certainly be saying that the Jews won't be blamed without a good reason and so I don't understand why a Jew would write it.
That's just me though. I'm sure people could see almost what they want in it anyway, a bit like Sickert's paintings I suppose.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 7:13 am: |
|
Sarah,
I'm sure people could see almost what they want in it anyway,...
Exactly.
And this is why, as Don (along with Scotty an' all) correctly points out, the graffito should not be looked at as evidence.
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar...
|
Vincent
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:02 am: |
|
Dan, it is my opinion that it doesn't really matter how common or how uncommon graffiti was, only how long this particular piece of graffiti was there.
From Halse's inquest testimony: "Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing."
Here I am not sure if he means that people would have deliberately rubbed it out because it was perceived as anti-Jewish or simply that they would have rubbed up against it accidently as they went through the door.
I understand how this may not be enough evidence for some who doubt the graffito's significance. But the men on the ground who saw the writing, for all their inexperience in serial murder, certaintly possessed the same powers of observation that we do today.
Finally, I cannot believe that the police, when they made inquiries in the area, did not ask that building's inhabitants if the graffito was there some days or weeks before. I know this is nowhere in the official records but if the police were able to ascertain that it was written some other night that would have had to have been mentioned at the inquest.
Regards, Vincent |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Monty,
I didn't say it should be looked at as evidence. Whether the ripper wrote it or not it doesn't matter to me. If he wrote it then we still will have no idea what he meant by it for certain and so is still pretty flimsy evidence.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1148
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Sarah,
I never said you did...
I never said you said the graffito should be looked at as evidence. I would like you to find the evidence which states that I specifically stated you said that the graffito is evidence. If you do then I shall debunk your evidence as false evidence because I have evidence proving that I never stated you said the graffito is evidence.
OK ?
That said, some do. Our most recent theory uses the graffito as evidence to support it. Its NOT evidence. Its NOT pretty flimsy evidence. Its circumstantial evidence.
Monty
Face cream.....now thats just gayness in a jar...
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1178
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Monty,
You pointed out that the graffiti shouldn't be looked at as evidence. It sounded like you were correcting me.
It's pretty flimsy evidence to me.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to
Smile too much and the world will guess
|
Thomas C. Wescott
Detective Sergeant
Username: Tom_wescott
Post Number: 52
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 1:19 am: |
|
Hello all,
Halse spent more time in the vicinity of the graffiti than anyone, and was in the best position to comment on its appearance - he took it to have been fresh. He and his colleagues questioned the inhabitants of the dwellings and learned nothing that altered Halse's estimation of the graffiti's appearance. Reports relating to the graffiti were requested from most of the parties involved as late as November 6th, 1888,suggesting that officials still considered it a matter of importance. The graffiti was most likely produced on the evening of the 'double event', and we know from the portion of apron that the Ripper was in that immediate vicinity. I would not disregard the graffiti as evidence, nor would I attempt to build a case for a suspect around it, either.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:33 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Thanks for taking the time too answer my post.
Hi all,
Is the graffito` evidence or not is a trickey question. It all depends on if you believe the ripper wrote the message. If you do then of course it is evidence. However, I dont think you can build a case based on your preferd definition of the message. I agree with Monty and others. I feel the message can be interpeted to fit many suspects.
All the best,CB |
Erin Sigler
Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 2:16 am: |
|
One possibility that has not, to my knowledge, been considered, is that while Jack didn't write the message, he saw it as he was cleaning his knife and decided for sport to toss the piece of apron down beneath it. If he was in fact Jewish, and he interpreted the message as anti-Semitic, tossing the apron bit in the direction of the message could have been a sign of contempt--as if to say "So the Jews don't take responsibility for their actions? Here! I just did!" Or, if he were a Gentile, he could have been sending the message that the Jews were not, as many suspected, responsible for the murders. It could also be that in his deluded mind, the Jews were in some way responsible for the murders, and that by tossing the cloth down under the message he was venting his frustration at a population he despised. (This could also hold true for a self-hating Jew.)
These are just a few of the myriad possibilities to consider if we suppose that Jack didn't write the message but in his own way acknowledged and perhaps even commented upon it as both a private joke and a gesture of contempt--for the Jews, for the police, for Eddowes, for the world itself. In other words, he was more or less giving everyone the finger. |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 284
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 28, 2004 - 12:20 pm: |
|
Erin you stimulated my thinking. Heres another possible permutation. He wrote the graffito himself before he went hunting that night. For some reason it was important to him to retrieve something from his victim, run back to Goulston Street and drop it there. Could he have been trying to incriminate someone who lived there? Could he have been a rabid antisemite? Imagine for a moment that the night of the double event had gone the way he planned, without an interruption from Diemschutz, and without the graffito being erased. Stride is found murdered and mutilated outside the IJWC. A few blocks away, something from the crime scene is found under a graffito mentioning Jews. Could he have been trying to provoke a pogrom? Eddowes then was an impromptu, plan B. |
timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 2:58 pm: |
|
I think one of the more interesting claims to come out of David Radka's A?R theory was the suggestion that (and I paraphrase here) the killer used Eddowes' kidney to 'validate' the Lusk letter and similarly used the apron to 'validate' the graffito.
Assuming for a second this might be true, let's list three known facts in quick succession:
Half an *apron* was left in Goulston Street.
The graffito refers to the "Juwes".
"Leather Apron" was widely believed to be Jewish.
timsta
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 567
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Timsta,
Those ideas predate Radka'a A?R theory by more than a century. In fact they were the default conventional wisdom on that topic since the murders.
There may be some meaning more than coincidence there, and there might not be. The kidney is probably the less likely of the two (as a doctor's assesment said it was too fresh to be from the murder), but I don't know what sort of odds I'd put on either one.
Now if the item of clothing were something other than the most logical thing to take and use to clean up with and the graffiti were something other than something that sounds like standard racist scrawlings and the body part sent to Lusk was something that was actually taken but not discussed at great length in the newspapers, well, then the coincidence argument would have less strength. If Jack was trying to leave a message it would have been nice if he had picked things less ambiguous.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Fitch
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:09 am: |
|
Less ambiguous could result in the hangmans noose, if a message in the graffito was too telling. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 7:30 pm: |
|
Timsta wrote:
1. “I think one of the more interesting claims to come out of David Radka's A?R theory was the suggestion that (and I paraphrase here) the killer used Eddowes' kidney to 'validate' the Lusk letter and similarly used the apron to 'validate' the graffito.”
>>Thank you, Timsta. I’m sorry that we don’t have a proper thread to discuss the A?R theory at the present time, it having been closed by the management. But the theory’s ideas can fairly be discussed under other rubrics, as it deals with the whole of the case evidence.
2. “Assuming for a second this might be true, let's list three known facts in quick succession:
Half an *apron* was left in Goulston Street.
The graffito refers to the "Juwes".
"Leather Apron" was widely believed to be Jewish.”
>>An excellent point. In that the psychopath had imitated the behavior of Leather Apron in Berner Street earlier, it is reasonable to think he might have carried forward the motif to Mitre Square and Goulston Street later that evening in his use of half of Eddowes’ apron. After all, he wanted the public to perceive him as Leather APRON that night.
3. Mr. Norder answered: “Those ideas predate Radka'a A?R theory by more than a century. In fact they were the default conventional wisdom on that topic since the murders.”
>>Please show us where this is true, Mr. Norder. Give us a full citation. Timsta is thinking originally in connecting the half apron found at the Wentworth Building to the Leather Apron affair, especially in the form of a complex thought. I don’t believe anyone contemporaneous with the murders did as much.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2034
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
David,
let me see if you can follow if i explain this for you
Timsta wrote: -
"I think one of the more interesting claims to come out of David Radka's A?R theory was the suggestion that (and I paraphrase here) the killer used Eddowes' kidney to 'validate' the Lusk letter and similarly used the apron to 'validate' the graffito. "
Dan wrote:-
"Those ideas predate Radka'a A?R theory by more than a century. In fact they were the default conventional wisdom on that topic since the murders."
got it?
ie he was not referring to Timstas second point connecting Leather Apron to the graffitio in mentioning the A?R theory.
At least thats not how I read it(but I am an idiot, according to you, maybe I am wrong?).
If you must butt in to every thread Dan posts on (STILL!!!) in order to, i don't know, maybe you have some kind of vendetta, it sure seems that way and it's boring in so many ways to idiots like me. if you want to make him look like an idiot at least check out what you are saying makes sense before posting it could you?
Thank you very much for this.
Jenni
"Uncle Bulgaria,He can remember the days when he wasn't behind The Times"
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 546
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 3:37 pm: |
|
"the killer used Eddowes' kidney to 'validate' the Lusk letter and similarly used the apron to 'validate' the graffito.”
Perhaps so. Yet, if I recall (and my apologies to Mr. Radka if I missed this---I don't think I did) nowhere does Radka actually explain why the murderer took Kate Eddowe's kidney. His theory is mute on this point. Mr. Radka evidently has concluded that the Lusk Letter was an attempt to 'blackmail' (for lack of a better term) Lusk into demanding reward money. Fine and good, it's a clever idea, and compliments his theory of the murderer's psychological motivations. Yet---alas---this conclusion is based on Lusk's pulbic correspondence with the authorities which took place after the murder of Kate Eddowes. The Lusk Letter therefore cannot and does not explain the murderer's initial motive for extracting the kidney; it only give an ex post facto explanation of the Lusk Letter, if you can see the distinction.
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 578
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
David,
You keep asking me to provide evidence to support something I say when that evidence is all over these boards and in just about every book about the Ripper that exists is getting really tedious.
In this case, yes, the theory that the killer used the kidney to show that the Lusk letter was authentic and the apron to show that the Goulston Graffiti was authentic is as old as the events themselves. I mean, come on. That's why the various police officials thought those two things were written by the killer (even though some of them doubted the Lusk letter, based upon the finding that the liver was in too fresh of a state to be the one taken from Eddowes).
Instead of constantly challenging me to prove what everyone else knows is obvious, perhaps you ought to maybe read books for what they actually say instead of just to try to twist them so you can proclaim yourself a revolutionary thinker. The vast majority of your allegedly new findings in A?R are not only not new, but the standard cliches of the case. The whole concept of the killer being a Polish Jew, basing the murders on the Jekyll and Hyde play, being a psychopath, etc., are standard. The only things genuinely new that you present are astoundingly ridiculous ("Juwes" referring to a term that was actually wasn't used until more than 50 years later, the killer purposefully trying to wait for a witness to show up to watch him attack a victim, the facial cuts on Eddowes being tailor's marks intended to convey a message using secret symbols you yourself invented and that never actually existed, etc.).
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Hi RJ,
An astute observation, Palmer! I bet you have lots of similiar observations based on a thoroughly 'weeded' knowledge-base. I think you also have a profound grasp of the traps n'devices that thought invents for its own amusements, i.e.,that most dreaded of all... Solipsism, upon whose dizzy peaks a priori and post-priori slug it out.
So is there AN answer to this kidney-incident other than as a Trophy-become-Validatory Event?
As Ever, Rosey :-)) |
Raffa M.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:10 pm: |
|
Hello,
He was "SHINING".
R.M |
timsta
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 2:49 am: |
|
Dan:
"Now if the item of clothing were something other than the most logical thing to take and use to clean up with ..."
Without committing myself either way, I'll just remark that half an 1880s woman's apron is a big piece of cloth.
timsta |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote: “Those ideas predate Radka'a A?R theory by more than a century. In fact they were the default conventional wisdom on that topic since the murders.”
Mr. Radka wrote: “Please show us where this is true, Mr. Norder. Give us a full citation. Timsta is thinking originally in connecting the half apron found at the Wentworth Building to the Leather Apron affair, especially in the form of a complex thought. I don’t believe anyone contemporaneous with the murders did as much.”
>>Let me repeat my request, Mr. Norder. Please show us, providing full citation, where a possible relationship between the half-apron found at the Wentworth Building and the Leather Apron affair was discussed contemporaneously with the murder series. I believe Timsta has an original thought here. I do not believe that this is an idea that “…predates Radka'a A?R theory by more than a century,” or that it was “…the default conventional wisdom on that topic since the murders,” as you say.
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “The vast majority of your allegedly new findings in A?R are not only not new, but the standard cliches of the case.”
>>But they do not appear as clichés in the A?R theory, Mr. Norder. They are constituents of an organic whole, based upon the epistemological center, accounting fully for the empirical case evidence. They had been made into clichés previous to me, before I introduced critical thinking to the case. I saw through the clichés, as you are unable to do.
2. “The whole concept of the killer being a Polish Jew, basing the murders on the Jekyll and Hyde play, being a psychopath, etc., are standard.”
>>Please site work done on the case previous to mine in which these elements are ordered by an epistemological center, and solve the case. If you want to criticize my work, your criticism has to itself be critical. But your postings are entirely pre-critical, and inadequate for the purpose. Your complaints about my work do not address how my methodology works.
3. “The only things genuinely new that you present are astoundingly ridiculous ("Juwes" referring to a term that was actually wasn't used until more than 50 years later,…”
>>Nothing of the sort has been proven, as I have indicated many times before. Additionally, the interpretation of this term in the graffitus has no bearing on the A?R theory, taken as a whole.
4. “…the killer purposefully trying to wait for a witness to show up to watch him attack a victim,”
>>”Astoundingly ridiculous,” your term, is used entirely relatively as a valuation by you. My perspective is sensible when viewed in terms of the empirical case evidence, however. It logically solves for the case evidence. Why didn’t Schwartz say he saw Broad shoulders prior to turning the corner onto Berner Street?
5. “…the facial cuts on Eddowes being tailor's marks intended to convey a message using secret symbols you yourself invented and that never actually existed, etc.).”
They were put onto her face following the Duke Street sighting. Their meaning in that context, and in the wider context of the murders taken as a whole, is quite clear. But here again, some people are not internally complex enough to think dynamically, and critical thinking goes over their head.
|
C. Shaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:51 am: |
|
Howdy all,
Is anyone here interested in the opinion of an expert on this matter.This is the sort of thing I live for and wish to God I had known about it sooner.I have studied social sciences, modern and past, and well informed on the subject of GRAFFITI.
If any one out there is for real, than they would know that the words ' The juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing ' is not graffiti, but a pertinent message. No graffiti writers anywhere leave this type of message. I have looked at millions of graffiti messages. Graffiti messages are crass, and the people who leave them are crass.
Even in important historical periods where graffiti was used to convey political messages, it was still crass. Even in Nazi Germany the messages were terse, such as " Actung Juden " or " Jews out", or "Yids go away". This famous ripper message is trivial and meant to be puzzled over. Even the spelling of Juw was a puzzle thrown in.
The fact that a piece of one of the victims apron was directly in front of it leaves absolutely no doubt at all.I am not sure whether this person killed Stride, but whoever killed Eddow's left the apron piece at the message to leave no doubt as to this fact: " I killed Eddow's and this is my message".
If any of you suggest it was all a coincedence, as I read that some of you do, than this case will become the 'Mad Hatters Tea Party', it will never be solved.
Thanks a bunch, Chris |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
1. Mr. Palmer cited timsta: "the killer used Eddowes' kidney to 'validate' the Lusk letter and similarly used the apron to 'validate' the graffito.” Mr. Palmer then wrote: “Perhaps so. Yet, if I recall (and my apologies to Mr. Radka if I missed this---I don't think I did) nowhere does Radka actually explain why the murderer took Kate Eddowe's kidney. His theory is mute on this point.”
>>This is not true. See the Summary, item #12: “As soon as he has Eddowes’ throat cut and her blood pumped onto the cobblestones, the murderer stops briefly to consider what he needs to get from this crime scene, especially in light of the complexities of the Duke Street sighting. He determines he needs two pieces that can be readily tied to Eddowes, one to identify his graffitus, the other to save for Lusk.” I am clearly stating that the psychopath made a special effort, and special incisions on Eddowes’ body, to obtain the kidney to identify a planned package for Lusk. Therefore he hatched the plan for the Lusk kidney no later than at the Eddowes crime scene.
2. “Mr. Radka evidently has concluded that the Lusk Letter was an attempt to 'blackmail' (for lack of a better term) Lusk into demanding reward money. Fine and good, it's a clever idea, and compliments his theory of the murderer's psychological motivations. Yet---alas---this conclusion is based on Lusk's pulbic correspondence with the authorities which took place after the murder of Kate Eddowes. The Lusk Letter therefore cannot and does not explain the murderer's initial motive for extracting the kidney; it only give an ex post facto explanation of the Lusk Letter, if you can see the distinction.”
>>This is not true. The conclusion is based on information about Lusk that was widespread well before the September 30 double event. Local businessmen had established a reward early in September. Lusk was made President of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee on September 10 and immediately began attempting to parlay the existing merchants’ reward into an additional government reward by writing to the “Times,” thus drawing public attention to himself. The terms “Lusk” and “reward” were linked together in the public consciousness, and this awareness was available also to the murderer. Whitechapel MP Samuel Montagu supported Lusk’s requests and wrote to Warren about it immediately. Warren at this time also strongly supported a Home Office reward. Lusk additionally had his Vigilance Committee Secretary, Mr. B. Harris, write to the Home Secretary requesting a reward, dated September 16. This entire hustle bustle was going on well before the double event. Thus while it is true that the psychopath mailed the package upon notification that Matthews had come out against the reward after the double event, certainly this wouldn’t have prevented him from identifying Lusk as his primary foil before the double event.
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 559
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:22 pm: |
|
Rosie--you've reappeared after the Spring thaw (!) In case you're wondering, I'm ducking the question. So what do you think of Mr. Shaw? He seems very confident. Facinating.
Dave--Thanks. It's always a pleasure. Maybe I'm splitting metaphysical hairs, but let's look at what you write (under #21):
"The psychopath mailed the package to Lusk a few days after Lusk was portrayed in the press as having tirelessly extended his marathon reward campaign by having mailed yet another in a long series of letters, dated 10/7/88 to Home Secretary Mr. Henry Matthews, this time requesting Matthews agree to offer both a substantial government reward and a pardon to an accomplice turning in the murderer. Although Matthews had once again rejected Lusk’s proposals immediately (10/12/88-draft), crucially this time he also had agreed to keep them under review, thus placing Lusk into an odd limbo...'
Well, yes, I acknowledge that Lusk already had his foot in the door; he did get some press back in September. Yet it still seems to me that by stressing that Lusk's "odd limbo" was the impetus for the grisly communication, we (the readers) are stuck with the impression that the psychopath is "sitting" on the Kidney, somehow knowing how the future is going to unfold. No? Why else wouldn't he got off his arse and mail the organ on October 2nd? Something to consider, nothing more. |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 808
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 9:34 am: |
|
Why didn’t Schwartz say he saw Broad shoulders prior to turning the corner onto Berner Street?
Without wanting to wade into these murky waters again, this is an astounding question. Astounding in that an educated five year old could answer it. The answer is, because Commercial Road was a busy thoroughfare and Berner Street was not. Even at this time in the morning, in fact especially at this time in the morning which was the time many public houses were emptying their customers onto the streets, there could very easily have been two, three, five, ten people in between Schwartz and Broad-Shoulders. But these two turned the corner and the others did not, thus once they were on Berner Street they were two people alone on a quiet side road.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1748
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 30, 2005 - 10:23 am: |
|
I have just read C.Shaw"s post-Howdy Chris!- and was immediately struck by it saying the same thing
as my husband says when I have discussed the graffito with him on occasion.Interestingly, although he is no graffito expert, his degree is also in Sociology and whenever he discusses human behaviour and practices including aberrant and anti-social behaviour such as the rippers, he
looks at it from this discipline[rather than that of say a criminologist or detective].Apart from the written dialogue on these boards he is the only person I can discuss the case with really
so Mr Shaw"s words have a very familiar ring to them.In other words from a social scientisys point of view the ripper probably did write the words and left them deliberately above the apron saying "This is my work and this is your clue as to why"-----but the trouble is noone knows what he meant by it![for what its worth I used always to think the chalked message pointed to Druitt for the reason that a schoolteacher would have been the most likely person to have handy a piece of chalk in his pocket.These days I veer more towards Cutbush though---despite Machnaghten"s protestations!]. |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Can the style of the graffiti writer change over the years,and can more than one style be evident at the same time.
I rarely go out nowadays,but in my youth,the 1930/40s,public toilet walls were covered in graffiti.Some were one liners,others many verses long,and some were even riddles.
Whether it was upbringing,the presence of patrolling constables or just self restraint,there was little of this writing on public or private property as is the case today.
What style was prevelent in 1888,I do not know,but for the life of me,I find it hard to believe that the message needed an extra input of the apron piece to give it meaning,or to ensure its discovery. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 299
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:00 am: |
|
Hey Chris Shaw !
I like the way you think there pal....
I'm with you.
The Not-so-Mad Hatter |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 287
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 6:18 am: |
|
C Shaw:
You wrote: Even the spelling of Juw was a puzzle thrown in.
The spelling was in fact Juwes - but tell me: How can one distinguish between an illiterate person spelling badly and a "puzzle thrown in"?
I am puzzled,
Phil
Edited because it turned out I couldn't spell!!
(Message edited by Phil on March 31, 2005) |
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 563
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Harry makes a solid point. The Victorians wrote 900 page novels, afterall. (I know this the hard way, having read every bloody page of Romola). In the 21st century with its shrinking attention spans, sound-bytes, and overload from a zillion bits of advertising, it's no wonder that graffiti tends to be trite. I think Mr. Shaw is probably right about 'racial' graffiti, but certainly all graffiti isn't "crass?" I was driving up the river in a remote area sometime ago, and stopped in to use the men's room in a tavern. It was a creepy dive. Over the urinal someone had written "Mister Kurtz, he dead." I laughed, and thought immediately of both Joseph Conrad and Marlon Brando's fat, bald head in Apocalypse Now; it described the place perfectly. Seamus Heaney wrote about one in Belfast: "Is there life after birth?" There used to be a message scrawled up not far from where I live: "It's always been like this, it's never been that other way." As far from 'crass' as I can imagine. Still, I liked the point. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1410
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 12:09 pm: |
|
Hi R.J.
I believe I may have quoted this before which shows how boring I am. Those who have heard this please excuse the repetition.
The modern poet Robert Wallace discovered this "found poem" in a men's room--
Graffito
Born a virgin
died a virgin
laid in her grave
.
.
.
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 291
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Some favorite graffiti of mine:
In a pub in Covent Garden, London, in the 70s:
"Inner Temple Boot Boys Rule, OK!" (Think about it.)
And in another pub:
"How do you keep an Irishman amused for hours? See other wall." And on the other wall: "How do you keep an Irishman amused for hours? See other wall."
Chris, yours reminds me of a mock proverb sent to a New Statesman competition years ago: "Even nuns get screwed in their coffins."
Hope I haven't offended anyone.
Phil |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Phil Hill wrote: The spelling was in fact Juwes...
It appears today that most people accept "juwes" as the spelling of jews, however it may not necessarily be the case and we will never unfortunately know for certain. It should be remembered that the writing was very small and not written with the best material, it was also on a brick wall.
We should also be reminded that the first bobby on the scene Alfred Long, wrote it down as "jewes" but was overruled in his opinion (for officialdom purposes anyway)on the spelling by a senior officer. So, today as then, the spelling is open to interpretation.
A final interesting point I would refer to regarding the spelling can be found in "Letters from Hell" by Keith Skinner and Stewart Evans (pg.62)and is contained in some Home Office minutes, it states: "ii The word on the wall was "Jewes", not "Juwes". This is important; unless it is a mere clerical error".
I also find it odd that no-one questions the extra 'e' in the spelling. It may be important!
IKJ |
C. Shaw
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, March 31, 2005 - 3:25 pm: |
|
Hi,
Not all graffiti conveys messages, that is correct.Most of it is the marking of territory, such as ' Warriors ' or ' The Midnight Men'. The context I was talking about were messagers, which is the point of this thread. Anything you will see in or around a toilet relating to sex or homosexuality is crass or offensive. Most political graffiti , as I mentioned above is terse or plainly crass.There are other pointless messagers that are written out of boredom, such as popular movie lines like" I love the smell of 'Metho' in the morning."
Phil Hill: It is not known if 'Juwes' was a deliberate ruse, or clumsy spelling from an illiterate killer.The jury is still out on that point, I agree.It is the context he meant it in that is the point, and even if he was illiterate, it does not change his angle of context.This type of message is not crass or offensive.It is an informative statement.
Natalie Severn: When you say you suspect Druitt, it was because being a teacher he may have been carrying a piece of chalk. There were no spray cans in 1888, the weapon of choice for modern graffiti artists, so I think some graffiti may have been in chalk, inspiring the ripper to follow suit.Glancing at Druitt's suspect profile, I see almost no tangible evidence on him anyway, but that is another point altogether.As to what he meant by it I can only see three possibilities:
1. He was Jewish,he felt guilty and wanted to indicate that Jews were culpable for something.
2. He was antisemitic, and used the murders in unison with the message, and a currantly volitile politcal environment, to start something serious(which he nearly did).
3. It was a totally meaningless ruse to deflect the police and public away from his real motive, purpose or agenda.
The rareness of this message is important, I honestly can't strain this enough.I see an above posting which sais that the message itself, without the apron, would have been serious enough for the authorities to examine.This is absolutely correct.The fact that a piece of clothing from one of the recently murdered victims was found directly in front of the message, removes all doubt for me.As I said above, if anyone believes this was all a coincidence, the case is doomed for stalemate.
Thankyou all Chris
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
