|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through January 4, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Is The Goulston Street Graffito All It Seems?:
Archive through January 4, 2000
Author: Desdinova
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 10:10 am |        | Hey all,
I din't think of it like that.....
I suppose it could all have been a publicity
stunt :)
If Jack did write it (becoming more unlikely
by the minute) then he would have done so for a
reason probably only clear to his own twisted mind. Perhaps the thought of everyone spending
all their time over his little message gave him
kicks, or perhaps he was 'generally' insane, and
there is no method in his madness?
Happy New Year!
Des |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 10:13 am | | Hi, all:
The Juwes are
The men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing.
.....
Catch me when you can
Do these two pieces possibly written by the killer reveal a similar level of education? The double negative in the former and the use of "when" in the latter in a sentence where most people would use "if." Something to think about.
Chris George |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 10:31 am | | | Although "Catch me when you can." does not conform to the cliche, it is perfectly correct. I guess I kind of assumed that the "when" version was a sort of Britishism, rather like saying shall instead of will and that can only be confirmed or denied by our British friends. In fact the non-use of cliches is one of the hallmarks of a professional writer. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 11:23 am | | Happy New Year to All..
It was Detective Daniel Halse who reported the writing (graffiti) was in a good round schoolboy hand and the capitals were 3/4" tall and other letters were in proportion.
At no time was it ever stated how high the writing was from the ground, any suggestions along those lines is purely modern-day speculation.
Daniel Halse also said it was written in 3 lines, but which words were on which lines has not come down to us.
The Juews are the men
That Will not be
Blamed for nothing
The layout in the above example is possible, but we may never know for sure.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Desdinova
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 12:37 pm | | Hi all,
Just a quick post to say that I don't know if I speak for the entire British people, but I , and I don't think anyone else would say when in the above-but-two example.
Thanks,
Des |
Author: Desdinova
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 12:38 pm | | Oh, by the way I am British.
;) |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 01:34 pm | | Hello, all:
I think that Bob Hinton's mention of Mike Barrett is very apt. As many of you may be aware, his 10 April 1999 appearance at the Cloak and Dagger Club, Barrett claimed he concocted the Maybrick Diary in Spring 1992, dictating it to his then wife, Anne, who now goes under her maiden name of Anne Graham and who wrote it down. Whether Barrett's claim is so is still, of course, a matter of debate. Although I was not at that C&D meeting, I have a tape recording of the event. I think that the person who wrote the Goulston Street graffito and the person who wrote the Lusk ("From Hell") letter were probably very much like Mr Barrett, i.e., someone with some education but not a great deal of education. So here in the C&D meeting, we have the well-spoken Keith Skinner trying to interview Barrett, a man clever enough to devise the Diary, based on what he had read on the Ripper and Maybrick cases in several books, but not clever enough to realize that such a Diary, if it is what it purports to be, should have been written in Victorian handwriting (a point against the Diary noted very early on by Martin Fido, an expert both on the Ripper and on nineteenth century literature) and in a hand that matches James Maybrick's known hand.
Chris George |
Author: RLeen
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 02:21 pm | | Hello Everybody,
"Catch me when you can", is that not an Americanism? I had some friends from across the pond who said their goodbyes in something similar to this manner - "catch you when I can."
Bob Hinton made an excellent point about the graffiti writer being a tailor. I would agree with this after all it would be extremely likely that such a person would have some chalk in his pocket. I doubt the ages mentioned, i.e. 10 to 13, and would favour an older person.
The question that now springs to mind is, if JTR didn't write the graffiti, did the graffitist move the piece of apron? Was it originally inside the close or lying on the road? Who can tell but this notion would perhaps alter the perception of the personalities involved.
Thanking you
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Diana
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 02:49 pm | | | Rabbi -- In the USA we say, "Catch me if you can" to someone who is in pursuit of us for instance in a child's game of tag. We might say "Catch you when I can" to someone we want to interact with later. |
Author: NickDanger
Saturday, 01 January 2000 - 07:41 pm | | Hi Everyone,
First, best wishes to all for a great new year!
The current debate on the graffito prompted to try something that first occurred to me a number of years ago. I wrote the words of the graffito in cursive script with a variety of writing instruments and with lettering of different sizes. When examining the word 'Jews', depending on how prominent the loop in the letter 'e' and the connection between the letter 'w' and the letter 's', I wonder if the word 'Jews' is really misspelled at all. I came up with several examples of 'Jews' that looked like 'Juwes'. Is it possible that we have been barking up the wrong tree?
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Desdinova
Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 06:08 am | | Hi all,
You could be right there, I mean, Warren and his
mates didn't study the graffito particularly hard,
and if you have experimented with different writing styles, it seems we have all been wasting
our time.
Sigh.
Cheers,
Des |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 06:58 pm | | Hi all!
NICK: I thought the graffiti was printed rather than "scripted."
Best regards,
Janice |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 07:09 pm | | JON: All kidding aside, believe you know by now that I don't adhere to any conspiracy theories & I do credit the police with doing the best they could under nightmarish conditions. However, it's recently occurred to me that since the graffiti was washed off in the hope of preventing a racial riot - it would be self-defeating to turn right around & blab the contents of the writing all over the neighborhood. Worth some consideration?
Best regards,
Janice |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 08:15 pm | | Very astute Ashling
However if they intended to keep a lid on it, they would hardly have announced it at the public inquest.
I guess we might consider a graffiti out on the street as an uncontrolable situation, but interviewing individuals one by one is both controlable & necessary.
Regards, Jon |
Author: NickDanger
Sunday, 02 January 2000 - 08:17 pm | | Hi Janice,
Happy new year to you. I was under the impression that 'round schoolboy hand' referred to cursive writing. If that is incorrect, I extend my apologies. I seem to recall seeing a depiction of the writing on TV some years ago. With my permanently impaired memory it's difficult to remember whether it was one of the centennial programs or possibly the Barlow and Watt programs, but the graffito was shown in script. Can someone clarify the script vs. printing question? If it was written in cursive script, has anyone else tried this experiment?
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 03 January 2000 - 09:54 am | | Hullo, all -
The standard description of the writing is that it was in "a good schoolboy hand" (please forgive me; I cannot locate the source of this statement at the moment), which would tend to indicate cursive writing, probably along the lines of the "Dear Boss" letter.
[N.B. - in "Jack the Ripper" by Katie Colby-Newton (ISBN 0-89908-081-2), there is an illustration of the writing as script. I know I have seen this same illustration before, but I've a streaming cold and cannot for the life of me find another example of it]
With regards to Sir Charles Warren and the writing, it was bound, I think, to become common knowledge anyway what with Warren's report on it to the Home Office and his instructing several PCs nearby to copy it down for future study. As the residents of Wentworth Model Dwellings were interviewed as to the writings' provenance, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that some of them would speak to the press, and no doubt this was taken into consideration at the time.
I think that Warren's concern was to eliminate a specific target. If the "Juwes" message was in the newspapers, it would be read by people all over England, but many of them would not take the time to travel to WMD themselves - they would, in any event, be busy gawping at Berner St and Mitre Square. Had the writing been left up to await the arrival of a photographer, then a crowd would be gathering around a specific, identified target. A building full of Jews, a taunting message about Jews and two more women dead - who is to say events would not have quickly escalated and WMD attacked by a heated crowd? Remove the immediate provocation, and you lessen the chance of immediate reprisal.
My own thoughts. Apologies for any incoherence; it's a damned good thing human viruses don't travel over the aether.
Happy New Year to you all,
CMD |
Author: D. Radka
Monday, 03 January 2000 - 07:40 pm | | In his book THE TRUE FACE OF JACK THE RIPPER, page 114, Mr. Harris presents evidence that D'Onston sent a letter to the police attempting to show that the Ripper was attempting to represent the French noun "Juives," meaning "Jews," in script in the graffito. I've always thought it would be pretty GD hard to write script in chalk on standard-sized bricks. I'd think you'd need to print, and to do so in a pretty open style, to have a chance for legibility. Does this mean Harris is wrong about D'Onston? Comments appreciated.
David |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 03 January 2000 - 09:52 pm | | G'day CMD,
In the book 'The First American Serial Killer' by Stewart Evans & Paul Gainey, There are photographs of the original 'Dear Boss' letter and the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Monday, 03 January 2000 - 10:15 pm | | G'day again CMD,
After reading your post again, I realize now that you are after an illustration of the graffitto, not the letters.
In the book 'A Treasury of Victorian Murder' with illustrations by Rick Geary, in cartoon form, there is a picture of the writing on the wall on pages 29 and 30.
Here the writing is large, and all in capital letters. I believe the actual writing was small and in upper and lower cases.
The caption below, says: 'Most likely the message was left by a prangster or malcontent who lives in that very building'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne
Tuesday, 04 January 2000 - 01:58 am | | G'day again,
In 'The Simple Truth', Bruce Paley writes: 'It was said to have been written in a good round hand, with the capital letters standing about three quarters of an inch high.'
At the back of this book, he says 'The size and type of hand was described by the 'People', 14 October.'
This being quoted from a contemporary newspaper, causes me to believe that the reporter was on the spot, probably just after it was errased, and had interviewed someone who actually saw it: 'It was said to have been...' - note the past tense.
I don't think this was just 'drama', because I think he would have said: 'It was said to have been big, ugly and grotesque.'
The graffitto was erased, in favour of putting up a cover, suggesting that it was visable from the street. If the murderer was fleeing the scene of the crime and hid in the building to wipe his knife, why would he pause, stand in a risky spot, take out his clean chalk and write a small message, that wasn't 'straight to the point'?
LEANNE! |
|
|
|
|
