|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 615
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 10:00 pm: | 
|
Hi all,
Written on smooth brick, were they imagining what they saw? Sometimes chalk slides over a smooth surface without leaving a mark where one intends. What if it said "The clues are the means that will now be blamed for nothing"? Being a sort of enigmatic hint that he was leaving a false clue, as in the apron. Or maybe he was leaving a clue that he just wanted them to think was false. That would also rid of us the spelling and grammar errors.
Any other ideas what the writer might have intended the message to read?
That's not to say the original interpretation was incorrect; just trying to open things up a bit. Nor does it prove that Jack wrote it in the first place.
Best wishes,
Stan
(Message edited by sreid on November 23, 2005) |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1173
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 10:16 pm: |
|
Just a thought here Stan..
The time it takes to write that message, to me, indicates more than a random graffiti,since it was outdoors. An indoor message,taking the same amount of time,wouldn't be such a stretch. |
Dan Norder
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 1:24 pm: |
|
Hi Stan,
I can't really picture how "clues" would end up looking like "Juews/Juwes/Jewes" or etcetera. I think there is room for some level of misinterpretation, but there's only so much that would make sense, especially as the writing was said to be in a good schoolboy hand and not all messy and hard to read.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 616
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Hi Dan,
A c and an l could be run together to look like a J. Beyond that, all you have to explain is the w which could have been a late ending of the u and an early beginning of the e run together. The w could also be an artifact of previous graffiti that had not been completely erased. That might be jumping through hoops but who can say for sure. They may well have gotten it right but there was some disagreement even at the time. Too bad the picture was never taken.
Stan |
David Radka
Detective Sergeant
Username: Dradka
Post Number: 68
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 8:42 pm: |
|
Mr. Reid wrote:
1. "That's not to say the original interpretation was incorrect; just trying to open things up a bit."
>>You "open up" nothing, Mr. Reid. You are completely incompetent. Unless you offer a reason to believe an interpretation that coincides with the case evidence, you are spinning fairy tales.
2. "A c and an l could be run together to look like a J. Beyond that, all you have to explain is the w which could have been a late ending of the u and an early beginning of the e run together. The w could also be an artifact of previous graffiti that had not been completely erased. That might be jumping through hoops but who can say for sure."
>>Who can say for sure? YOU can't say anything, because you have no evidence of these things. You are a particularly incompetent and promiscuous skeptic, Mr. Reid. You know nothing.
David M. Radka
Author: "Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders"
Casebook Dissertations Section
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 623
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:09 pm: |
|
Hi David,
Thanks for answering my question. I shall put you down as a no on that. If we had proof, the case would almost certainly be solved.
Stan |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 624
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 11:48 am: |
|
The evidence is the use of the word that instead of who indicates that he was referring to something other than a person or a people. What is the evidence that Juwes, which isn't even a word, means Jews?
Stan |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 80
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Stan,
"I shall put you down as a no on that."
Great response, Sir. I got a laugh out of that one.
c.d. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 625
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Hi c.d.,
Thanks. It's silly to get upset by these matters.
Stan |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
