|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 200
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2003 - 11:36 pm: | 
|
Immigrants from Spain or France in Whitechapel? Not many, I think.
Andy S.
|
Christopher T George
Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 382
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2003 - 2:40 pm: |
|
Hi Andrew et al.:
One of the police theories though was that the Ripper could have been a sailor on cattle boats going to Spain. See the following:
A POLICE THEORY.
The police believe that the perpetrator of the murders is a foreign Jew butcher employed on a cattle boat plying to the Continent. It was on Wednesday ascertained that some cattle boats arrived on Tuesday at the docks and sailed again next morning, and this has led the authorities to issue orders to the East-end Thames Police to watch all vessels about to leave the Thames, especially cattle boats which trade between London, Oporto, and other Spanish ports, and also America ports, and request the cattle men to give an account of themselves on the night of the 16th or the morning of the 17th inst.
Woodford Times (Essex), Friday, 19 July 1889
Leaving aside the possibility that the man was Jewish, the killer, according to this theory, could have been a Spanish or other foreign man on such boats.
All the best
Chris |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 26
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 1:09 pm: |
|
All intriguing. I was just commenting earlier to Sadaam on a different thread concerning this suject that I haven't read enough on this aspect of the case.
Let me play Sherlock Holmes (Badly) for a minute here.
Theory One: That the word is indacative of Masonic involvement. Given strictures against revealing lodge secrets I would discount this.
Theory Two: A disgruntled ex-mason or someone with an axe to grind against the Masons was involved in the murders and strove to implicate them. Possible given that we don't know JtR's motives
Theory Three: The Jews did it. Not likely. First off if a Jew was the culprit, they would likely not draw that sort of attention to themselves. Secondly an English born Jew, were he or she reasonably literate would know how to spell the word Jews if he were goping to implicate his own race. I would also think if a Jew was trying to implicate another Jew he would write in Hebrew or Yiddish.
Theory Four: Someone trying to implicate the Jews. Maybe not the killer but a distinct possibility.
Theory Five; That Jack the Ripper wrote it to have a lark with everyone. If so, the statement is likely a false clue to see where and how far off track it will lead the police. Just some ideas and i like the last one best as I believe he was playing a game with the police. This one goes to the top of the pile if any of the letters are written by the Ripper. Neil |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 240
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Neil,
You forgot theory six: The graffito was there all along and was not written by JTR. Remember, the letters were less than one inch tall and could easily have gone unnoticed for some time. I tend toward this conclusion.
Andy S.
(Message edited by Aspallek on November 14, 2003) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 1239
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 4:51 pm: |
|
Hi Neil
I don't believe that Jack wrote the message, but if he did, another possibility might be that "Juwes" was an acronym for something - maybe some obscure socialist sect. Jewish Union of Workers' Education Societies? Jewish Union of Whitechapel....
Robert |
Neil K. MacMillan
Sergeant
Username: Wordsmith
Post Number: 29
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Andrew: I did forget that one. However, if I remember correctly, wasn't the message written in chalk? If so, how long would it stay? The graffito was quite legible. Robert, If "Juwes" was an acronym would not all of the letters be capitalized? I don't discount either theory, as I stated in my post, I'm playing Sherlock Holmes here. Before discounting either, I would want to know what the weather for the last couple of weeks before the double event was and I would also try to do a search of orgaizations to see if there was one extant that would have that acronym. I tend to wonder on the latter because I believe given the tenor of the time and the fact that the police feared anti-semitic rioting that they would have investigated that possibility. No mention of that shows up in the files I have seen (this of course does not mean that said investigation didn't take place)
That's what I love about being a Ripperoligist (Even a neophyte one) So many avenues to pursue. Have a great weekend all. Neil |
Saddam
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 14, 2003 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Nota bene: None of the above explanations are on target. I'll monitor this board and report on any further attempts.
Saddam
P.S. The correct explanation of the term has never been published by anyone yet, to my knowledge.
|
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 135
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 6:45 pm: |
|
Oh here we go again! So what is it Sadders?
Cheers, Mark (well someone had to ask him) |
Andrew Spallek
Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 256
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 11:41 pm: |
|
"(well someone had to ask him)"
No they didn't. Sometimes it's best to ignore.
Andy S.
|
Erin Sigler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Rapunzel676
Post Number: 105
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, November 15, 2003 - 11:46 pm: |
|
My thoughts exactly, Andrew. |
Mark Andrew Pardoe
Detective Sergeant
Username: Picapica
Post Number: 138
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 16, 2003 - 3:22 pm: |
|
Yeeees, but it keeps him happy. And who am I to deny a bitter old man 
Cheers, Mark |
Matfelon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 4:23 am: |
|
stephen p. ryder wrote:
"Juives" in French is feminine. It doesn't mean "Jews," it means "Jewish women."
that's wrong, sir!
juives = jewish people, not only the women.
for example:
Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France, regroupe
l’ensemble des grandes organisations juives de France.
that's not a "jewish women liberation organisation"... ;-) |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3265
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:55 am: |
|
Hi Matfelon -
Thanks for your comment, but I respectfully have to disagree. Your example shows "Juives" in use as an adjective, not as a noun. Juif in French is both an adjective and a noun. As an adjective it will take on the gender and plurality of whatever noun it is modifying, i.e. Juif, Juifs, Juive, Juives. In your example above, it is modifying both "Institutions" and "Organisations", both of which are feminine nouns and so the adjectival form of "juif" would be feminine plural, i.e. juives.
When used as a noun, i.e. "The Jews", the French term "juif" is decidedly masculine. Because it refers to people, it also has a feminine form of "juives", but this refers specifically to Jewish women.
Hope this makes sense, and sorry to be so damned pedantic... French gender is one of those things you become a little insane about after being forced to study its intricacies for over a decade in secondary school and college. 
PS: What's up with all the grammar/punctuation conversation lately??
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
I know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
The word is 'jewes' anyway, and no-one questions the inclusion of the second 'e', they argue persistently over whether it is a 'u' or an 'e' following the 'j'. One day it will become clear..................... |
I Know Jack
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
Just read the for against debate in issue 59 of Ripperologist, interesting stuff but I was under the impression that Long initially spelled the debated word as "jewes" in his pocketbook before being bullied or overruled by a senior officer? |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 214
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:56 pm: |
|
Hi all,
Stephen:
"PS: What's up with all the grammar/punctuation conversation lately??"
Hehe...Good question!
It seems to be the main topic lately. Still, I guess it means we're working through some of the finer points.
That's a positive from it, for one!
I Know Jack:
"The word is 'jewes' anyway, and no-one questions the inclusion of the second 'e', they argue persistently over whether it is a 'u' or an 'e' following the 'j'. One day it will become clear....................."
Sadly, I don't think it will.
The writing was never photographed, for a start. Sir Charles Warren ordered it to be scrubbed off before there was an oppurtunity to photograph it. Besides that, we then have conflicting versions from different policemen of exactly what the writing was. It's not just 'Juwes' / 'Juives' / 'Jewes' that varies. It's also the 'not's in the message. The generally accepted version of the message is: "The Juwes Are The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing." Some have suggested, however, that it was: "The Juwes Are Not The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing."
THEN there are the various versions of 'Juwes'.
So it's pretty confusing with all the possibilities.
"Just read the for against debate in issue 59 of Ripperologist, interesting stuff but I was under the impression that Long initially spelled the debated word as "jewes" in his pocketbook before being bullied or overruled by a senior officer?"
Yes, as far as I know, the 2 original versions of the word by the 2 different policemen were 'Juwes' and 'Jewes'.
Those 2 versions also varied from 'Are Not The Men' and 'Are The Men'.
But, I think 2 conflicting versions isn't really an issue. The writing was scrubbed off before daylight came, there was limited other light, and the writing was described as being in 'good schoolboy's handwriting', which would probably especially make it harder to interpret whether the word was 'Juwes' or 'Jewes.' E and U aren't unlike each other, especially in lower case.
So I guess the debate will go on, I don't think there'll ever be a general agreement over that one.
As for me, I consider the message to have been the version: "The Juwes Are The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing."
I also believe that the message was written by Jack the Ripper, and I've explained my reasons for that elsewhere before.
There are also other versions of the writing brought up since then, such as the version of the word 'Juives'.
With all these possibilities, will we ever know the truth? I'm very doubtful!
Only time will tell, though.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 535
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:39 pm: |
|
It may have very well said what the policeman Halse says it said...J u w e s.
RDS-supporters,such as myself, think that there is a possibility that it says J u i v e s.
To state that RDS was correct on the application of Juives, instead of JUIF would be incorrect as RDS made a mistake on its usage here. For some,RDS is an infallible superbeing whose formidable linguistic skills and acumen supercede Websters Dictionary......yeah...dream on.
Its as simple as that.
RDS,regardless of whether he wrote it or not,was wrong in its usage in this case as Steve pointed out incontrovertibly and conclusively.
Hey ! Even Jack The Ripper could make a mistake !!
HowBrown
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 217
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 11:53 pm: |
|
Hi Howie,
Whether RDS wrote it, George Chapman wrote it, a resident of the Wentworth Buildings wrote it, Sir Charles Warren wrote it, or Barnaby/Burgho wrote it, it doesn't really matter, because it was worded in poor English anyway.
One thing that has always confused me about the GSG is that it was described as being in 'good schoolboy's handwriting', and yet the ending of the Graffito, 'blamed for nothing', is obviously poor English. I know the standards of that weren't very high back in 1888, and some still talk that way, but it IS incorrect.
It's the same with RDS. It could have been a simple mistake, assuming he wrote it. (Even though I don't think he did.) So could 'blamed for nothing'.
What does that show?
Well, you know I think the Ripper wrote it, so to me, it means the Ripper was literate, but not a rocket scientist. It means he was smart enough, but not an Albert Einstein.
Do you agree?
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 631
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 1:41 am: |
|
One thing I'd put money on in this case, is that the word in question is NOT "Juives"!!
in any case it was almost certainly not written by Jack, so it is irrelevant to all but those with theories to peddle which don't have enough material evidence.
Sorry to be blunt, but face the facts, folks.
Phil |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 218
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 4:43 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
"One thing I'd put money on in this case, is that the word in question is NOT "Juives"!!"
I wouldn't be so sure. You might lose that money!
The difference between IV and W, in limited light, and especially if the Graffito was written in cursive handwriting ("good schoolboy's handwriting"), may have been difficult to discern. Yes, personally I think it was 'Juwes', and I don't think D'Onston wrote it either, but I wouldn't rule out 'Juives' so easily.
If you can make an E out of a U, then you can make IV out of W.
"in any case it was almost certainly not written by Jack, so it is irrelevant to all but those with theories to peddle which don't have enough material evidence."
Haha. That gave me a good chuckle.
OK. Let's talk material evidence. What material evidence can you offer which proves that the Graffito wasn't written by Jack the Ripper, Phil?
If there is evidence of that, then I would certainly love to see it!
As you know, I think it was written by Jack. I'd also be willing to say that there's more to suggest that Jack wrote it, than he didn't.
"Sorry to be blunt, but face the facts, folks."
I just did!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Hi Phil,
How can you claim that the message was 'almost certainly not' written by Jack?
Have you some special insight into Jack's character that even begins to back up this statement? Or are you just guessing like everyone else?
Are you saying that a man who could dilly-dally at his own crime scene to carve patterns on his victim's face would almost certainly not chalk a few ambiguous words on the wall where he stopped to drop that victim's apron piece, before retiring for the night?
If you don't have a theory in mind about Jack, how is it so easy for you to eliminate the message as a possible clue? Without it, one hardly has a clue at all! 
Love,
Caz
X |
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 220
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:51 am: |
|
Caz,
Great post. Well said, and I completely agree with you.
It certainly can't be said that saying Jack wrote the message is 'peddling' an idea that doesn't have enough 'material evidence', when it is completely likewise for saying he didn't write the message.
You're of course entitled to have that as your opinion, Phil, we have to agree to disagree on that, but claiming it to be facts, and saying other theories are 'peddling' without 'material evidence' is completely unreasonable.
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:08 am: |
|
Phil,
"What material evidence can you offer which proves that the Graffito wasn't written by Jack the Ripper, Phil? "
Pssst, Phil, not that you actually used the 'proof' word (almost certainly was the phrase wasnt it?), but tell 'em that the message itself is material evidence which supports the idea that Eddowes killer didnt write the message.
As Adam and Caz states the evidence isnt catergorical, but supports the nay rather than the yeay.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 634
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:46 am: |
|
My views on the graffito have been expressed very often on this Board in various threads.
The main reason that I think it almost certainly wasn't written by Jack, is that despite huge theorising over a long period, no one has yet suggested an explanation that attracts a concensus. this is probably because the writing does not relate to the murders at all.
Second, Jack did not do anything similar at any other time. Even if you assume he wrote the Lusk letter (for instance) there is no correlation. He had many opportunities to leave messages, not least with MJK (assuming Jack killed her) but did not.
Third - it is IMHO MUCH more likely that the graffito had been written by someone else earlier. Jack simply discarded the apron half in the open entryway without ever being aware of the writing. Why do I think this? For practical reasons because it was too dark to write much. Psychologically, because I don't think Jack would have paused at that point to start leaving meaningless statements.
Fourth - we have no other indication that Jack might have been anti-semitic. All the other Jewish "possibilities" (clubs, synagogues, graveyards, Lipski) could be coincidence or in the latter case, not relate to JtR at all, if Kidney or A N Other was the man speaking!!
Enough for you?
To conclude, I have never seen a single argument since Knight's JUWES/masonic link which seemed plausible and proved mistaken, which has convinced me of any association between apron and writing apart from location and that, IMHO was accidental.
That said, I don't discount the possibility of a link entirely. That woukld be foolish. but I am 90:10 of the view that there is no link.
Edited because I realised that I had not addressed the "Juives" issue. Frankly, let's be grown up here and stop clutching at straws. I can think of no reason why jack should suddenly burst into a strange use of French (which Spry has pointed out relates to female Jews) at this point. It makes no sense, absolutely none.
If we had a French suspect in the frame and someone said "Oh, look!! The word could be "Juives"", then I might have more sympathy. But I am too old a bunny to get excited because someone seems to detect a different spelling in a scrawl we don't even have a facsimile of.
Phil
(Message edited by Phil on June 10, 2005) |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1043
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Adam
Yes, personally I think it was 'Juwes', and I don't think D'Onston wrote it either, but I wouldn't rule out 'Juives' so easily.
If you can make an E out of a U, then you can make IV out of W.
Quite possibly, but how can you make sense of a statement like:
The Jewesses are the men who will not be blamed for nothing?
Chris Phillips
|
Matfelon
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:36 am: |
|
mr. ryder,
thanks for your reply. maybe you're right, but my french/german dictionary from 1935 says: JUIVES = judenvolk. that's an old and very ugly german word for the jewish people. it refers to either feminine nor masculine, but as to the race. i'm far from being an expert on the french language but i have to agree with mr. brown, although i'm not a rds-supporter, there is a strong possibility that it says: j u i v e s.
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3267
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
Hi Matfelon -
Very interesting. I suppose anything is possible, though considering the political situation in Germany during the 1930s it might very well be that they decided to focus on the feminine form of "Juif" as just one more way of denigrating/emasculating the Jewish people.
Regardless, as Howard stated above - in the end it doesn't really matter if its "Juifs" or "Juives". Whoever wrote the message, if they did actually intend to write the French form of "Jews", could very well have just made an error in gender. This sort of mistake is commonplace among those for whom French is not their primary tongue, especially English speakers who are generally unfamiliar with the idea of grammatical gender.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Eduardo Zinna
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 82
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 5:21 pm: |
|
M Matfelon,
Je m'excuse de vous contredire, mais M Ryder a tout à fait raison. Le mot "juif", en tant que nom, c'est le nom donné aux personnes descendant du peuple sémite monothéiste qui vivait en Palestine et qui, en géneral, demeurent fidèles à la religion et les traditions judaïques. Le mot "juive" - en tant que nom - veut dire une femme juive. En tant qu'adjectif, "juif", appliqué à un nom masculin, veut dire relatif à la communauté des juifs anciens ou modernes. Si le nom est féminin,, l'adjectif doit être féminin aussi. Et le féminin de "juif" est bien "juive". Je sais ce que M Donston a écrit à ce sujet; hélas, il s'y est trompé.
Amitiés,
E. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 536
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 8:34 pm: |
|
Thats easy for you to say,Eduardo.
Not all of us know Swedish,so quit showing off !
Phil...
I don't feel Caroline or Adam or myself or anyone else who give the GSG more than the 10 percent chance [ Hey..you've given it a 1 in 10 chance...better than zero ] of being somewhat connective to the apron would have ever felt that way at all had the police done what Caroline said they should have done in the first place...
Take the apron...and forget about any graffiti or anything else at the location.
They, the police on the spot, didn't.
Thats the bottom line,sir....
Matfelon.... I certainly can understand your not believing in RDS being behind the GSG's magic second word for this reason....perhaps it being that RDS would not "revert' to French,as it was not his native tongue, when writing the message.
One thing that makes RDS "attractive" in regards to the GSG, for me at least, is the excessively long article,which is at one moment,didactic,and in another moment, totally erroneous. Of all people in the "suspect lineup"...RDS would have been to my mind,the ONLY one who would have NOT made this error in gender,if anyone else had also written a long, lecturely, and ethnically insensitive article [ Stead liked to play Savior of the Lost and yet allowed this Francophobic article on the front page...] in a paper,even if it was several weeks later when it appeared in the PMG. Stephenson was comfortable with various languages and probably more so than any known suspect. This article, had anyone at that time known what we do of RDS linguistic acumen and read it then with our knowledge, would have spotted these conflicting areas right off the bat. A polymath who "forgets" the gender of Jews, in French and yet studied in Paris...An erudite scholar who crudely posits an impossible to prove point on the linguistic skills of the French in order to promote his "ideas" on the GSG's origin.
Do you have any ideas,yourself,on the originator of the message? Another suspect,perhaps?
At least we aren't discussing the preposterous claims of some and they can only be called preposterous....that being that the Second Word said "James" as many here have seen the documentary that that idea was posited in.
HowBrown
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 226
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:11 am: |
|
Hi again all!
Monty:
"Pssst, Phil, not that you actually used the 'proof' word (almost certainly was the phrase wasnt it?), but tell 'em that the message itself is material evidence which supports the idea that Eddowes killer didnt write the message."
That sounds a bit backwards to me, Monty.
I don't see how the message itself is proof that Jack didn't write the message. Can't quite get my head around that one.
But I'm looking forward to reading your arguments when I get to the Graffito debate in "Ripperologist." Should be interesting!
Phil:
"The main reason that I think it almost certainly wasn't written by Jack, is that despite huge theorising over a long period, no one has yet suggested an explanation that attracts a concensus. this is probably because the writing does not relate to the murders at all."
Let me offer you an explanation of why no 1 theory has a concensus, Phil.
It's more straight forward for the people who believe the graffito wasn't written by Jack. It's a simple argument - the placement of the apron underneath the writing was coincidental, and nothing more. From what I've read, that seems to be the most popular explanation for those who feel Jack didn't write it.
However! For those, like myself, who believe Jack did write it, there are many different theories that could be used, and therefore, opinion is split. It's easy enough to say he wrote the message when he threw the apron off, sure, but then come some of the big W's - When? Why? Who? What? Only "Where" has been answered beyond doubt.
So having those extra questions to be answered, if you believe Jack wrote it, shouldn't it be clear that naturally opinion is going to be more divided than simply saying it was a coincidence that the apron was found underneath the writing?
"Second, Jack did not do anything similar at any other time. Even if you assume he wrote the Lusk letter (for instance) there is no correlation. He had many opportunities to leave messages, not least with MJK (assuming Jack killed her) but did not."
And exactly why should that be important?
What's to say the message wasn't just a one-off?
Nichols, Chapman and Kelly were all singular murders. The message with the apron just happened to appear on the night of the Double Event, when Jack most likely killed 2 women. Why not write the message to 'cap off' what he had done that night, so to speak?
I don't think the fact that this was the only instance of Jack leaving a message is important at all.
"Third - it is IMHO MUCH more likely that the graffito had been written by someone else earlier. Jack simply discarded the apron half in the open entryway without ever being aware of the writing. Why do I think this? For practical reasons because it was too dark to write much. Psychologically, because I don't think Jack would have paused at that point to start leaving meaningless statements."
So Jack fled from Mitre Square, went right to Goulston Street (for some reason carrying the apron that far with him), 'just happened' to chuck it in a doorway and it 'just happened' to land underneath a message which could have been, and largely was viewed as a clue. Yeah, that's likely.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. I could accept that the apron and writing were so close together coincidentally if they were much closer to Mitre Square, or if they were 5 or 10 feet away from one another. But they weren't.
And furthermore, why would Jack carry a bloody, grimy apron with him as far as Goulston Street anyway? He had no purpose for it, except to perhaps wipe blood off his hands, wipe his knife, etc. But are we expected to believe that he spent the entire time from Mitre Square to Goulston Street wiping blood off!? If not, what other purpose could there be?
As for writing in the dark, it wouldn't be that difficult if he had practice, and knew what he was doing, I don't think. Not a big issue.
"Fourth - we have no other indication that Jack might have been anti-semitic. All the other Jewish "possibilities" (clubs, synagogues, graveyards, Lipski) could be coincidence or in the latter case, not relate to JtR at all, if Kidney or A N Other was the man speaking!!"
Well what does whether Jack was Anti-Semitic or not have to do with it? The message, to me, sounds like he, or whoever wrote the message, was defending the Jews (Or 'Juwes') for something, not accusing them. Unless, of course, it had a hidden meaning, or was a sarcastic message.
"Enough for you?"
Nope, I'm afraid not. None of what you have said it "material evidence", which you mentioned in an earlier post. Most is simple speculation, and is circumstantial.
"That said, I don't discount the possibility of a link entirely. That woukld be foolish. but I am 90:10 of the view that there is no link."
Fair enough. I am 90:10 that there is a link, and Jack wrote the message. Seems that we'll have to agree to disagree once again, Phil.
Chris:
"Quite possibly, but how can you make sense of a statement like:
The Jewesses are the men who will not be blamed for nothing?"
As has been said before, Chris, it may have been a simple mistake by the writer.
I took a French course last year, and my French is still pretty basic, but I can promise you, the differences between feminine and masculine words in French is very confusing, and very difficult to get your head around.
If the writer couldn't even get the message right at the end ("Blamed for nothing" is poor English), then what's to say he could get the feminine/masculine combination of the word "Juwes" absolutely, spot on correct?
It's a bit unreasonable, I think.
Howard:
Great post, and I completely agree with what you've written.
The police must have felt there was some kind of connection, too. And I can't see the writing and apron ending up together in Goulston Street 'by accident.'
"Thats easy for you to say,Eduardo.
Not all of us know Swedish,so quit showing off !"
Swedish!?
I thought it was Russian!....I was about to call on old Dr. Pedachenko to come in and translate it!
Oh well....I guess Eduardo's message will remain a mystery....just like the GSG!
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:02 am: |
|
Adam
So Jack fled from Mitre Square, went right to Goulston Street (for some reason carrying the apron that far with him), 'just happened' to chuck it in a doorway and it 'just happened' to land underneath a message which could have been, and largely was viewed as a clue. Yeah, that's likely.
Well, it is really unlikely?
In your hypothesis, he still "went right to Goulston Street", so that's neither here nor there.
In your hypothesis, he still "chucked it in a doorway", so that's neither here nor there.
And the only reason the graffito was considered a clue by anyone is because the apron fragment was near it!
There isn't a sequence of unlikely events here, as you're trying to suggest. There's only one event that could be considered unlikely - that there was a piece of graffiti near the place where the apron was left.
I could accept that the apron and writing were so close together coincidentally if they were much closer to Mitre Square, or if they were 5 or 10 feet away from one another. But they weren't.
I don't see how the closeness to Mitre Square is relevant at all.
And we don't know how far the apron and the writing were from each other. If the writing was on the door jamb and the apron was in the passageway, maybe they were 5 feet from each other.
The point is that you can't know how likely or unlikely the coincidence was, unless you know how prevalent graffiti were in Goulston Street.
And furthermore, why would Jack carry a bloody, grimy apron with him as far as Goulston Street anyway?
Well, why do you think he did? That seems to be one unquestionable fact, whatever we think about the graffito (except for those who think the apron was dragged there by a passing dog).
Chris Phillips
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3553
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Howie,
"Thats easy for you to say,Eduardo.
Not all of us know Swedish,so quit showing off !"
I suspect you wrote that with some kind of irony in mind,
but that post from Eduardo was probably as far from Swedish as one can possibly get.
I thought you said you had actually studied French, old boy...?
Adam,
"That sounds a bit backwards to me, Monty.
I don't see how the message itself is proof that Jack didn't write the message. Can't quite get my head around that one."
I don't know about proof, but it is really common sense. There is nothing in the Goulston Street message whatsoever that even implies anything about the murders. Not a single word. Those who feel it must be written by the killer, then refers to the apron, saying that the apron itself is a reference to some underlying meaning of the message.
That is a slight complicated solution, isn't it? Surely those killers who have written messages to the general public and the press or the police have been very clear on their communications -- The Zodiac being one example, but there are others who have left messages directly on crime scene walls, messages with very clear content, even though there is a butchered or shot victim lying underneath.
I fail to see the credibility in the Ripper leaving the Mitre Square crime scene, stopping in Goulston Streeet to write a rather cryptic message on a wall after dropping the the piece of apron.
There is not a single reference in the writing to the Ripper murders, and the apron is certainly not a strong enough link.
"But are we expected to believe that he spent the entire time from Mitre Square to Goulston Street wiping blood off!? If not, what other purpose could there be?"
That has already been debated to death, Adam. It's a tedious argument.
No, there are millions of explanations to that one. No one has said he used the whole distance to wipe off his hands and/or knife. As Monty has said, he could have stopped in the entrance because it was far enough from the crime scene (in case he was followed, he wanted to lay some distance behind him before he stopped) and then after he was finished threw it on the ground. There could be a number of explanations. But you and others just don't see them because you are convinced in your head of that the writing must have been penned by the Ripper.
As for the Ripper not writing any other form of communication on the other crime scenes, that is a very valid argument indeed. Usually this is a very constant part of a killer's approach, and fact remains that we have no signs whatsoever of any message delivered by the killer on any other crime scene.
But for you I imagine it is not a problem, I guess, since you also believe he wrote a number of letters, even the Dear Boss letter.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on June 11, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Eduardo Zinna
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eduardo
Post Number: 83
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 6:49 am: |
|
Hello everyone,
Translation:
Mr Matfelon,
Excuse me for contradicting you, but Mr Ryder is entirely right. The [French] word "juif", as a noun, is the name given to persons descending from the Semitic, monotheistic people who lived in Palestine, and who, in general terms, remain faithful to Jewish religion and traditions. The [French] word "juive" - as a noun - means a Jewish woman (In English, also a Jewess). As an adjective, "juif", applied to a masculine noun, means relating to the community of the Jews, both ancient and modern. If the noun is feminine, the adjective must also be feminine. And the feminine of "juif" is certainly "juive". I'm aware of what Mr Donston has written on this subject; unfortunately, he was wrong.
Best,
E.
Mysteries when explained lose all their charm, don't they? Worse than jokes.
I would be interested in seeing the entry for "Juives" in Matfelon's 1935 French-German Dictionary, if he could find a way to scan it and post it in this thread. As a German speaker, or at least, a person who knows German, Matfelon is undoubtedly aware of gender. Indeed, German goes one up on French by having three genders, Masculine, Feminine and Neuter, as opposed to French's two: Masculine and Feminine.
I was not aware that "Judenvolk" was considered as "an old and very ugly german word for the jewish people", as Matfelon puts it. I'm sure he knows best, but to me the word means literally "Jewish folk", which is, as he also puts it, "the Jewish people". I'm sure, however, that there are nuances there that escape me. Yet, while I understand how the word "Judenvolk" would refer to neither feminine nor masculine, but to the Jewish race or people, as Matfelon puts it, I don't understand how the word "Juives", which is clearly and exclusively feminine in French, could be the primary equivalent of "Judenvolk" and have no feminine connotation. In fact, in grammatical and historical terms, the opposite should be true and the masculine word "Juifs" or "Les Juifs" should be the French equivalent of "Judenvolk" or "the Jewish people".
Aren't you glad I didn't get involved in the Big Apostrophe Debate?
Cheers,
Eduardo |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 541
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 1:25 pm: |
|
Glenn..
Yes,I knew that was in Swedish. I was being a wiseguy...
No sir, I have very little knowledge of French. I have enough on my hands dealing with English.
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3564
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Howie...
Did you do a mistake while writing, or did you misunderstand me?
I meant that Eduardo's text above was NOT in Swedish, but actually in French!
Just for clarification.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 545
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 3:54 pm: |
|
Of course I know what you meant,Glenn...I was just pulling your leg....and I know that E.Z. was parlez vous francais'ing ...I'm an English and Spanish speaker and a bit of Laotian [ well,all the curse words..]
Skoal !
HowBrown
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3567
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Ah, this American humour... 
Skål!
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 546
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
From my p.o.v.,not that it matters,the best argument against the GSG is why this killer had a piece of chalk with him.
Of all the arguments,and they are good ones,no doubt...this is the one that sticks out like a sore thumb for me. It would mean that the Ripper could see an opportunity on this very night that it rained to still put up a message. Its hard to concieve for us,I know. Of all the fine arguments against the GSG...this,imho, is the best one.
HowBrown
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 419
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 4:54 pm: |
|
Jeez,How, I really wish you hadn't said that!
Now we're going to hear about tailors.
Mags
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 550
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 11, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Mags...
I know you are just joking, but what I was referring to was not so much what type of person by occupation [ a tailor..a schoolteacher..anyone really,as chalk was the magic marker in 1888 for wallwriting types ] was behind the message...but since it had rained that night and before and during Stride's murder,...this indicates,at least to me,a prior intention to put up the "message" regardless and despite being aware of the rain that would have prevented a clear,freshly written,interpretable message such as the GSG was, if left on the front of any building. In short, he had to have gone out with the chalk prior to the murders ,if he wrote it at all. For him to stumble upon a piece of chalk is a stretch and a long one at that. Finding a chalk after the rain and murder of Eddowes [ at least ] and despite the rain and wet facades of the buildings,writing the message as an afterthought, is really pushing it...at least to me.
That idea that a tailor or someone with access to the type of chalk that they use, being responsible for the crime and message isn't a "bad" one,to me,imho...What sort of gums up the works for me,imho,is the use of the word J U W E S by a Jewish person,an equivalent of an Irish perpetrator with Fenian ties stating..."The Fenyuns are the men who will not be blamed for nothing..". But, thats just me and my opinion.
HowBrown
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 642
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 1:59 am: |
|
All these arguments, for me, lead to only one conclusion - SEPARATE graffito and apron unless and until other information emerges that might link them.
No two people appear to agree on the meaning of the words - however spelled - and the nonsense brigade ("juives") has been unleashed.
The words make far better sense if written by someone other than Jack with a different intent - perhaps a grudge against people in the building. It was clearly meant to be read by people using the entry way, not the street!!
Apron = Jack
Writing = someone else unconnected.
Simple enough for you?
Phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 641
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:35 am: |
|
Hi Eduardo,
The word 'Judenvolk' does indeed literally mean 'Jewish folk', but I'm quite sure that in pre-war Germany it was used as a derogative, perhaps something like the use of the name 'Lipski', or worse even. Although I'm not German, I know that the Dutch equivalent 'Jodenvolk' also sounds rather disdainful.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 642
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:07 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
“That sounds a bit backwards to me, Monty.
I don't see how the message itself is proof that Jack didn't write the message. Can't quite get my head around that one.”
In addition to Glenn’s response (great post, Glenn), I’d like to say the following. Why was the message he wanted to convey so unclear and why was it rather unclear that he’d written it in the first place? Of course, that’s no proof, but IMHO it’s certainly not something you can discard just like that either.
“It's a simple argument - the placement of the apron underneath the writing was coincidental, and nothing more. From what I've read, that seems to be the most popular explanation for those who feel Jack didn't write it.”
First of all, saying it was all a coincidence is not an explanation or argument – it’s an outcome, and secondly, this is not the only thing people are saying.
“I don't think the fact that this was the only instance of Jack leaving a message is important at all.”
I completely concur with Glenn here. Leaving messages or sending them to the public is important to the serial killer who does that. Perhaps an extreme example, but BTK springs to mind here.
“As for writing in the dark, it wouldn't be that difficult if he had practice, and knew what he was doing, I don't think. Not a big issue.“
Had the message been clear and clearly his, I would have agreed with you.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 232
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Hi again all!
OK...here goes the responses. Looks like I owe a few!
Chris:
"Well, it is really unlikely?"
To put it in a word - Yes!
"In your hypothesis, he still "went right to Goulston Street", so that's neither here nor there."
Well obviously there's nothing to show exactly how he went to Goulston Street - as in running, walking, jogging, etc. Nor is there anything to suggest what direction he took. That's why I simply said he "went" to Goulston Street, because that covers any and all possibilities. We know he 'went' to Goulston Street, because he atleast dropped the apron off there. The speed he went there, and the direction he went there, is open to debate.
But as far as my personal opinion goes, I feel he simply walked to Goulston Street. He had to maintain an appearance of normalcy on the outside so he wouldn't attract attention to himself. A guy running from the direction of a murder scene with a bloody apron in his hand isn't something I could see happening. But that's simply my opinion.
"In your hypothesis, he still "chucked it in a doorway", so that's neither here nor there."
I don't get that. I mean, what else do you expect me to say here?
"There isn't a sequence of unlikely events here, as you're trying to suggest. There's only one event that could be considered unlikely - that there was a piece of graffiti near the place where the apron was left."
There's more unlikely events than that.
For example, why Jack carried the apron all the way to Goulston Street in the first place, for no apparent purpose (according to those who feel Jack didn't write the message.)
That, for one, doesn't make sense to me. Why not leave it closer to Mitre Square? Why Goulston Street?
"I don't see how the closeness to Mitre Square is relevant at all."
Well, I do.
Let me explain. Let's say, for example, that the apron was tossed into Church Passage, leading off from Mitre Square. The same message that was in Goulston Street was on or near a wall at Church Passage. From that, it would seem much more likely that it was a simple coincidence that the 2 ended up together, because of the short space from the killing site they were. However, because of the distance between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, I find it much more unlikely, almost out of the realms of possibility, infact, that they would still coincidentally end up so close together by accident.
That's what I meant by the distance factor.
"And we don't know how far the apron and the writing were from each other. If the writing was on the door jamb and the apron was in the passageway, maybe they were 5 feet from each other."
That is, of course, possible. But that could also depend on the height of the message on the wall. In any case, there's nothing to show the exact distance, but it's fair to say they were very close together.
"The point is that you can't know how likely or unlikely the coincidence was, unless you know how prevalent graffiti were in Goulston Street."
Well I've never read about any graffiti being immediately near the message found close to the apron. If there was, then it certainly wasn't viewed as a clue as that message was.
But the fact that the writing was only quite small, not covering much space, makes it even more unlikely that the apron came to be near it by accident. If it was scrawled all across the wall in capital letters, sure. But it wasn't, it was almost the exact opposite!
"Well, why do you think he did? That seems to be one unquestionable fact, whatever we think about the graffito (except for those who think the apron was dragged there by a passing dog)."
Why do I think he did? Well, (this is just my opinion, nothing more), I feel Jack carried the apron with him that far so he was clear of any police that might be near the area, and was far enough away from the Mitre Square murder scene. Bear in mind it was over an hour after the murder was committed, almost 3 AM, before the writing and apron was even found. When he felt he was in safe enough territory, he decided he had to discard the apron, and at the same time, wrote a quick message, near the apron, to leave with it. "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" - nothing too much, just a 12-worded message, with most of the words under 5 letters long. Wouldn't have taken him long. After that, he simply continued on to wherever he was going.
That's just my theory. I don't think Jack pre-planned to leave a message, it was more of an 'on the spot' decision when he had the chance.
So, what about you? Why do you think he took the apron so far with him?
Glenn:
Interesting...I thought you weren't interested in debating with me anymore, Glenn? Eh? ;)
"I don't know about proof, but it is really common sense. There is nothing in the Goulston Street message whatsoever that even implies anything about the murders. Not a single word. Those who feel it must be written by the killer, then refers to the apron, saying that the apron itself is a reference to some underlying meaning of the message."
Well the apron certainly helps, that's true.
The crucial part of the message, though, is "blamed for nothing." Blamed for what? What was the writer saying the 'Juwes' shouldn't be blamed FOR? Stealing the writer's toothbrush?
I don't think so. The message certainly sounds like a clue to me.
It was found on the night of the Double Event. Two horrible murders in 1 night, especially the murder of Cathy Eddowes. With the horror of the night, and with a bloody, grimy apron from Eddowes right near it, did the message really need to say anything else? Why wasn't what the message said already enough?
I guess you can never satisfy the nay-sayers though. It wouldn't matter if Jack had written "2 victims tonight. Ha ha. Soon there will be more. Look down, I left you a keepsake. Ha ha. Your pal, Jack." - the nay-sayers would still try and find a way around it, I'd say. So I'm quite content to say that what the message said is enough for me personally to say that Jack wrote it.
"I fail to see the credibility in the Ripper leaving the Mitre Square crime scene, stopping in Goulston Streeet to write a rather cryptic message on a wall after dropping the the piece of apron."
Really? Interesting.
On the flip side, I can't see the credibility in the Ripper carrying a bloody, grimy apron with him all the way from Mitre Square to Goulston Street in the vicinity of 2 murder scenes, therefore putting himself at some risk, for no particular purpose at all except to put it in a doorway and continue on his way.
"There is not a single reference in the writing to the Ripper murders, and the apron is certainly not a strong enough link."
Yes, you've already said that, Glenn. I got you the first time.
"No one has said he used the whole distance to wipe off his hands and/or knife. As Monty has said, he could have stopped in the entrance because it was far enough from the crime scene (in case he was followed, he wanted to lay some distance behind him before he stopped) and then after he was finished threw it on the ground."
Ahhh, I see. So he went from Mitre Square to Goulston Street with blood on his hands and quite likely partly up his cuffs/arms, with police in the area, to stop as far away as Goulston Street, take a breather and wipe his hands clean, then toss the apron aside?
And it 'just happens' to be the part of Goulston Street where the doorway is, which 'just happens' to have a potential clue written on the wall close by, and the apron 'just happens' to be thrown right there?
Hmm. Sorry, but I think there's more chance of the dog carrying the apron to Goulston Street than that one...
"But you and others just don't see them because you are convinced in your head of that the writing must have been penned by the Ripper."
That's correct. And you seem convinced that it wasn't the Ripper who wrote it, and it was all a bunch of freaky coincidences.
Same difference.
"As for the Ripper not writing any other form of communication on the other crime scenes, that is a very valid argument indeed. Usually this is a very constant part of a killer's approach, and fact remains that we have no signs whatsoever of any message delivered by the killer on any other crime scene."
I don't feel it's such a valid argument, Glenn.
As I said earlier, personally I think the Ripper writing the message on the wall was more of an 'on the spot' decision while he had the time, oppurtunity and space to do so. I don't think it was pre-planned. Why should it be?
I don't think it necessarily had to be a constant thing at or near the scenes of every murder.
"But for you I imagine it is not a problem, I guess, since you also believe he wrote a number of letters, even the Dear Boss letter."
Haha. I love your wise cracks, Glenn. Except I'm afraid you've spoiled your otherwise good and strong post, because your final sentence has backfired, with you being incorrect on 2 counts.
First of all, you state that I believe a 'number of letters' were written by Jack. That is incorrect. I have only ever said that I didn't rule out "Dear Boss", "Saucy Jacky" and "From Hell" as being from the killer. That's just 3, and technically only 2 count as letters, because "Saucy Jacky" was a postcard. That doesn't come into the category of a 'number of letters', Glenn. An incorrect exaggeration on your behalf.
Secondly, while I may have said that some months ago, I have never said it in recent times. That is because, as you know, I took some time off the forums. In that time, I did quite a bit more reading about the Ripper, and eventually came to the decision that "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" weren't from Jack, and "From Hell" was pretty flimsy. "From Hell" is the only one I give any credence at all to now.
Yes, I know you wouldn't have known that, but it was an unfair comment anyway, because it's not at all relevant to this thread, and based on comments I made months ago, in my earlier days on the forums. But atleast now you know that much has changed, I guess.
Phil:
"All these arguments, for me, lead to only one conclusion - SEPARATE graffito and apron unless and until other information emerges that might link them."
And after 118 years, what information do you feel could possibly surface now which will link the 2 together beyond doubt? I don't think it will happen. And in any case, as I said earlier, the nay-sayers will always find some way to worm around it.
"No two people appear to agree on the meaning of the words - however spelled - and the nonsense brigade ("juives") has been unleashed."
Juwes is the more popular version, Phil. Juives isn't total nonsense, it might well be possible, but it doesn't seem to popular either. And I'm yet to see anyone on this thread seriously say they think it was Jewes, or any other version.
So Juwes is the most popular version. But as with everything in Ripperology, there is bound to be atleast a degree, no matter how small, of varied opinions.
"The words make far better sense if written by someone other than Jack with a different intent - perhaps a grudge against people in the building. It was clearly meant to be read by people using the entry way, not the street!!"
If it was a grudge against people in the building, why was the writing so small? Why wasn't it bigger so it could be seen clearer, or atleast in capital letters? But it wasn't. Whoever wrote the message obviously wasn't too concerned with making sure everyone possible saw it.
"Apron = Jack
Writing = someone else unconnected.
Simple enough for you?"
Oh yes, I understand you, Phil.
It's just that I don't agree with you. ;)
Regards,
Adam.
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Adam Went
Inspector
Username: Adamw
Post Number: 233
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:21 am: |
|
Hi Frank,
Sorry, I missed your post in my last reply!
Here goes...
"In addition to Glenn's response (great post, Glenn), I'd like to say the following. Why was the message he wanted to convey so unclear and why was it rather unclear that he'd written it in the first place? Of course, that's no proof, but IMHO it's certainly not something you can discard just like that either."
Yes, it was a great post by Glenn, huh? I seriously do agree. Just a pity that he had to spoil it by a couple of incorrect comments right at the end.
To answer your question, and as I mentioned in another response in my last post, I don't think he had to make it any clearer. Two horrible murders in 1 night, with a bloody apron left near the message, cut off from the latter of the victims. It wasn't necessary for him to write any more than he did. It was viewed as a clue, and it was right near the apron. It's easy to look at it in retrospect and say it wasn't written by Jack because nothing was suggested about the murders, but this was on the same night as the Double Event, it was found with the apron from Eddowes, and that was enough to say it was the killer had written it. It's important to look at it from a September 30, 1888 perspective, not a 2005 perspective.
"First of all, saying it was all a coincidence is not an explanation or argument - it's an outcome, and secondly, this is not the only thing people are saying."
Well, what other arguments are there, then?
Plus, saying it was all a bunch of freaky coincidences isn't really an outcome, it's an argument for saying why people think Jack didn't write it.
"I completely concur with Glenn here. Leaving messages or sending them to the public is important to the serial killer who does that. Perhaps an extreme example, but BTK springs to mind here."
Again, you must look at it from an 1888 perspective. We're in the wrong century, again.
As I said, I feel Jack just had the oppurtunity and place to write a message, so he did. He didn't have to write messages at or near every murder scene, it could have just been a one-off because he had the chance to do so.
"Had the message been clear and clearly his, I would have agreed with you."
Clear in what way, Frank?
I agree it's not clearly Jack's, but just because he didn't sign it or leave a confirming clue, doesn't mean he didn't write it altogether. Not at all.
Regards,
Adam.
(Message edited by Adamw on June 12, 2005)
"Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once."
- Kirsten Cooke,"Allo' Allo'"
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 643
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:26 am: |
|
Hi all,
In addition to what Phil, Glenn and Chris P. have written, I’d like to say the following.
From his crimes and crime scenes it may be deducted that the Ripper was a practical man who didn’t beat around the bush. He undoubtedly attacked his victims fairly quickly after arriving at the crime scenes. He first silenced them swiftly, laying them down in the right position to do his mutilations. Then he most likely cut their throats in such a way that the flow of blood was directed away from him, and finally he did his really dirty work, all the while keeping a keen eye and ear out for his surroundings. He was never caught in the act; in fact he was never seen or heard leaving any of those scenes. In Eddowes case he took with him a piece of apron, which was most probably used for whatever practical reason(s).
So, forced or not, the Ripper seems to have been a practical man, to the point and doesn’t seem to have done things in a roundabout way. However, if it was his, the graffito wasn’t to the point. And, like I already said, it wasn’t clearly his either. So, to take time to write it doesn’t seem to fit.
Then, like I’ve also written earlier, people who don’t believe in coincidence seem to look at what was found at the entrance as a rather isolated thing. Sure, they involve all the possible Jewish connections, but they seem to forget what it was that actually led Jack up to the entrance.
He had just killed at least one woman. He might have expected the police to find out about it sooner rather than later, in fact it’s even quite feasible that he heard Morris blow his whistle right after Eddowes was discovered. Furthermore and not ‘umimportantly’, he carried a bloody apron, some organs and a knife with him. Even if the police wasn’t right on his tail, he must have realised there was a very real possibility that he was stopped and searched, so he must have been eager to get to his hide-out before that would happen. So, why take time to write some cryptic message in a dark entrance?
Another point for me would be that, besides possibly the Lusk letter, there were no other Ripper communications. And I think How’s suggestion is something to consider, too.
Furthermore, there were lots of Jews living in the East End, there must have been lots of Jewish buildings, clubs and institutions in the area and there must have been anti-Semitic feelings at least since the Lipski case in 1887.
So, on the one hand, Jack the Ripper may well have been influenced somehow by the anti-Semitic feelings that were present, but on the other hand, if he was, he certainly wasn’t the only one. So, why couldn’t any other have written the message?
Seeing that the Wentworth Model Dwellings were primarily inhabited by Jews and that the writing was in small letters inside the entrance, like Phil suggests, it may very well have been meant only to be read by people using the entrance and thus, may not have been written by the Ripper at all.
On the other hand, the police at the time seriously considered the possibility that the two items were linked; like Caz suggests, we don’t have any way of knowing what actually went on inside the Ripper’s mind and there might have been only few other graffito’s around. Despite all this, for now I tend to believe the writing and the apron weren’t connected.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 644
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 8:44 am: |
|
"I guess you can never satisfy the nay-sayers though. It wouldn't matter if Jack had written "2 victims tonight. Ha ha. Soon there will be more. Look down, I left you a keepsake. Ha ha. Your pal, Jack." - the nay-sayers would still try and find a way around it, I'd say."
I'm sorry, Adam, but that is the biggest load of crap I've read on this thread. Besides, Jack wasn't known as Jack yet, by that time.
Still, all the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 558
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
May I add this question to the thread specifically for those who are "anti-GSG-ers" ?
P.C.Hill and/or P.C.Andersson find the apron underneath the message on the night it was found back in '88.
They are there at the point of discovery of the apron. They see the message in exactly the same way that Long and Halse saw it. Inspector Van Oploo is called down to the Wentworth to make a determination on erasing or just forgetting this message completely.
What would all of you gents do any differently than what these people did in the exact circumstances that these three were in ?
Is it possible that "anti-GSGer's",such as you three men are, depend just a little bit on looking back at the scene from your perspective and not how the people who were there did?
"Pro-GSGer's" are just as guilty at times of adding elements based on personal "feelings". Nobody is perfect....
But I'm curious as to why the GSG ever even got as far as it did [ in the PMG article by RDS etc...] if it was such a red herring. Of course, newspapers are newspapers and are out for sales first...yet if the men on the spot had to testify at the Inquest of Eddowes 11 days later,almost two weeks difference, surely if it had been so easily determined a red herring,the head officials would probably have instructed Halse,in particular, to just skip over what wasn't a clue at the Oct. 11th inquest and not even mention this message at all. Know what I mean ?
Thanks gents...
HowBrown
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 645
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:17 am: |
|
Hi Adam,
“To answer your question, and as I mentioned in another response in my last post, I don't think he had to make it any clearer.”
As it turned out, he may not have, no. But could he have been sure about that? After all, it was written inside an entrance, at the bottom of a staircase leading to dwellings primarily inhabited by Jews and the message seems to have been directed at Jews or about them, at least.
“Again, you must look at it from an 1888 perspective. We're in the wrong century, again.”
I doubt if things were very different, back in 1888. For instance, exactly like today, lots of hoax letters were written. And I don’t know if there were a lot, but at least a number of men turned themselves in, saying that they were the killer, just like we see today. So, as far as such things are concerned, I doubt if they were much different.
“Clear in what way, Frank?”
In its meaning, of course – what else?
“I agree it's not clearly Jack's, but just because he didn't sign it or leave a confirming clue, doesn't mean he didn't write it altogether.”
I believe I haven’t stated that anywhere lately (or perhaps even ever). It’s just that, at the moment, I find the arguments against stronger than those in favour. Maybe that’ll change in time.
All the best,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3578
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Frank,
An in credibly good post. Kudos.
-------------------------------------
Adam,
Since Frank has covered all the vital stuff in an excellent way there is no need for me retort more elaborately to your post.
Just some comments on the more personal side, old boy:
Yes, Ive been back temporarily because I need some things to try out and put in perspective as a part of my research, and there is nothing better than doing that on the Boards -- discussion gives you a great insight and makes you polish your own thougths and arguments.
The only downside is, is that it is time-consuming and therefore I will soon get back into my shell again.
"Well the apron certainly helps, that's true.
The crucial part of the message, though, is "blamed for nothing." Blamed for what? What was the writer saying the 'Juwes' shouldn't be blamed FOR? Stealing the writer's toothbrush?"
Well, you tell me. It certainly does not implicate the murders or contain anything that should be reckoned as a vital clue.
"Yes, you've already said that, Glenn. I got you the first time. "
Then why do you answer?
"First of all, you state that I believe a 'number of letters' were written by Jack. That is incorrect. I have only ever said that I didn't rule out "Dear Boss", "Saucy Jacky" and "From Hell" as being from the killer. That's just 3, and technically only 2 count as letters, because "Saucy Jacky" was a postcard. That doesn't come into the category of a 'number of letters', Glenn. An incorrect exaggeration on your behalf."
Well, I wrote "a number of" because I didn't really know with certainty how many communications you thought were genuine, I have only heard you mentioned Dear Boss, the Saucy Jack postcard and the From Hell letter, but there could have been more. How should I know?
Yes, Saucy Jack is a postcard, but of course I should have written "communications" instead.
"Secondly, while I may have said that some months ago, I have never said it in recent times. That is because, as you know, I took some time off the forums. In that time, I did quite a bit more reading about the Ripper, and eventually came to the decision that "Dear Boss" and "Saucy Jacky" weren't from Jack, and "From Hell" was pretty flimsy. "From Hell" is the only one I give any credence at all to now.
Yes, I know you wouldn't have known that, but it was an unfair comment anyway, because it's not at all relevant to this thread"
Indeed, how was I supposed to know that, and yes it is relevant because it has bearing on what type of person you think the Ripper was. As has been stated earlier by Frank and myself, leaving communications in different form is generally a trait that is important to a serial killer who does such things.
As for your change of heart, well you really have your own to blame, because when you go out with such strong ideas and opinions as you have done on this and some other matters, you can't expect people to read your mind if you have second thoughts. You have to advertise that change of heart equally strong! Just an advice, a good way to avoid misunderstandings.
Then, I am surprised to see that we actually finally seem to agree on that particular matter (lo and behold) and it's fair enough that you can admit that you've changed your mind about it.
I think it is beyond doubt -- and a lot of facts indicate -- that at least the Dear Boss letter and the Saucy Jack postcard (but probably several others) were an invention of a pressman in order to boost the story; they needed a name of the killer and they needed to hear him speak, and so they created Jack the Ripper. Besides, very few people would know the address to or the existens of the Press Agencies anyway. The ordinary man on the street would probably write directly to the papers or the police. It is also interesting to note, that the killer didn't become known as Jack the Ripper until after the so called Double Event. Up til then it was the Whitechapel Murderer or Leather Apron.
As for the Lusk letter, I am not 100% convinced and probably never will be, but I agree on that the one that is most likely to come from the killer is that one.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
