|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 December 29, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Is The Goulston Street Graffito All It Seems?:
Archive through December 29, 1999
Author: Desdinova
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 07:02 am |        | Hi all!
I was thinking to myself about Warren's actions to
wash off the Goulston Street Graffito, which, if
I am not mistaken says "The Jewes are not men to be blamed for nothing." Personally, I think Warren
was correct in getting rid of it, but it should have been properly recorded (photos). But I digress. If the Jewes are not men to be blamed for
nothing, then surely JTR is trying to tell us they
are to be blamed for SOMETHING? Which makes me think that JTR was very anti-Jewish, which then
eliminates all JTR suspects who are Jews. As he spells Jews the old way (Jewes), JTR could have a
heritage that includes Jews, or somehow a great knowledge of the Jewish faith.
Feedback?
Desdinova |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 07:42 am | | | The "old way"? I thought "Jewes" was a misspelling. Is it a more archaic form? Desdinova, you may have stumbled onto something here. |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 08:59 am | | Hi all,
Was it not really written 'Juwes' and erronously given as:
The Jewes are
The men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing
later?
Sugden's work here seems to be fairly solid, the bit about 'Juwes' and the freemasons and so on.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 09:34 am | | | Oops, you're right, Bob. Juwes it was. Still if there was an archaic form (Jewes) it might mean something. But wouldn't you expect to see the form "Jewes" in the KJV Bible (translated 1611) then? I will hie me to my dictionary. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 09:58 am | | From The American College Dictionary, Random House, New York 1969, page 657
JEW (Joo), n. 1. One of the Hebrew or Jewish people; a Hebrew; an Israelite. –adj. 2. Of Jews; Jewish.
--v.t. 3. (I excluded this part of the definition because it is irrelevant, offensive and antisemitic.) [ME Jeu, Giu, t. OF: m. Juieu, g. L Judaeus, t. Gk: m. Ioudaios, prop. One of the tribe of Judah, ult. Der. Heb. Yehudah Judah]
I can possibly see Jack being influenced by the French (Juieu)? Maybe another, better dictionary would be more helpful? |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 10:15 am | | Hi Diana,
Could it be that Jack was not overly schooled in the arts and simply wrote 'Jews' as he spoke it.. 'Juw' and as plural then 'Juwes'?
The Graffiti is of interest that only here is a spelling mistake, the sense of the sentence is correct but non-real name words start with a capital. 'The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing' is a correct expression, double negative or not. If we try to rephrase it to eliminate the double negative, how?
'The Jews are not the men who will be blamed for anything'?. No. Not the same.
'The Jews are not the men who will be blamed for nothing'? No. Different meaning.
And so on. I've tried a good many ways of deleting the double-neg without exactly catching the meaning.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Desdinova
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 10:16 am | | Hi all,
Didn't Warren talk to a Rabbi about the Goulston
Street Graffito?
And this Rabbi told him it was from some old language (sudden memory loss) and I think it was
Yappic? Well, begins with Y anyway.....
:)
If JTR is as smart as he seems, would he make a spelling mistake? That is of course, if he wrote
it....
But, assuming that he did write it, and that it wasn't a spelling mistake, wouldn't he leave other messages at his other crimes?
Cheers,
Des |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 01:30 pm | | Des -
You are thinking of the Chief Rabbi of London, Dr Hermann Adler, who pointed out in a letter to Sir Charles that "Juwes" did not mean Jews in Yiddish or in any known language. Sir Charles then released a statement to the press (which you may find in the "Daily News" of October 15), which specifically stated "Juwes" was not the Yiddish spelling of "Jews."
This was somewhat disingenous on his part, as everyone who read about the Goulston Street writing certainly believed the writer MEANT "Jews," no matter the orthographical anomalies. However, Sir Charles' responsibility was the keeping of public order and stamping out of anti-semitic violence; if he had to obfuscate the truth a little bit, it was in service to a higher responsibility.
CMD |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 02:40 pm | | By now, everyone should know that the apparent misspelling "Juwes" in fact refers to Julian Lennon. When John Lennon met Yoko Ono, he lost interest in his wife Cynthia, with the result they filed for divorce, throwing their son Julian into a depression. Paul McCartney, kind of an uncle to Julian, who called him Juwes because as a young child he was so hyper-active that it always seemed there were two Julians running around, tried to cheer him up by writing him a kind of happy song. It went like this--
Hey Juwes,
Don't make it bad.
Take a sad song,
And make it better.
and so on...
I can't understand why folks don't get this, for one and for all.
David |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 05:56 pm | | | David -- Bleagh! (-: |
Author: JackisBack
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 06:30 pm | | Lady Diana, just to keep your interest in this subject alive, and put a little "heat under the pot", you might want to refer to this short article at:
http://www.dooling.co.uk/stockscom.html
"Double Bubble, Toil and Trouble"
JiB |
Author: Searo Haga
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 12:50 am | | | I think it bears keeping in mind the point made by Donald Rumbelow. 'Juwes' looks quite neat in type, but the message was scrawled on a wall. While there can be little doubt the author intended 'Jews,' the French 'Juives' is the most easily mistranscribed as 'Juwes.' Were the author and the Ripper one and the same (by no means a certainty) this could imply that the Ripper was indeed 'foreign,' as various suspects were frequently described as appearing by witnesses. |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 07:03 am | | Hi Searo,
I believe the description 'foreign' tended to be directed at e.g. foreign-looking persons by facial appearance, colour or dress. If a frenchman would fall into this catagory or not would depend on many things. The 'u' in 'Juwes' having a french connection is not, I submit, especially likely. To rule it out would, however, be just as wrong.
The point about the writer and Jack being the same or not, the piece of apron is suggested as being placed so as to draw attention to the writing. If that is correct, Jack wrote it. Jack never left any sort of clue behind him except this one time. If it wasn't by accident, and I don't believe that, then he deliberately left the piece of apron where he did. If the piece lay under the writing, we can assume that Jack wanted to point to it, hence- Jack wrote it.
If I understand the facts correctly, this was the case. The chances are then, that that was Jack's writing. Proven, not.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 07:42 am | | So we may be looking for Jaques the Ripper. I seem to recall reading somewhere that "foriegn" in the East End in 1888 was a euphemism for Jewish. If you believe the profiler, Douglas, Jack or Jaques would not have wanted to communicate in writing with anyone anywhere.
The night the graffito was written, Jack was presumably interrupted by Israel Schwartz while preparing to kill Stride, and having yelled, "Lipski" (an antisemitic sentiment), he drags Long Liz into Dutfield's yard, finishes her so she can't talk and is preparing to run. (All he knows is that Schwartz saw him and then ran off. Schwartz may return at any moment with a policeman.) Then, just as he is about to make his escape along comes Louis Diemschutz in a pony cart. Jack hides behind the gate and barely eludes capture. If both Schwartz and Diemschutz looked Jewish and Jack is as antisemitic as we think he is, he is now very frustrated and he directs that anger at the Jews. He runs off to Mitre Square and murders Eddowes, but his antisemitic rage is not dissipated. In his crackbrained way he is blaming the whole Jewish race for his murder of Eddowes. "If those Juwes had not stopped me when I was in the middle of #1 I would not have had to do #2. It's all their fault." ( I believe unbalanced people frequently find ways to blame others for things they do.) As a result he writes the graffito. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 10:03 am | | Hi, all:
Diana and Searo Haga make some good points. Diana, although there is some doubt that Elizabeth Stride was murdered by Jack the Ripper, if it was indeed our Jacky, the scenario you describe of him being disturbed by Diemschutz could have made him want to later chalk a message blaming the Jews for not allowing him to finish his work on Stride as he desired. Again, if it was Jack and we remember the incident that he was possibly seen by Israel Schwartz, a Jew, and by pipeman who shouted out "Lipski!"--yet another Jewish connection--your scenario seems even more probable as a model for what might have occurred that night.
Searo Haga echoes Rumbelow's point that while the graffito looks quite neat in type, the message was scrawled on a wall, low down. In my opinion, however, the spelling "Jewes" (or "Juwes") might be put down to haste more than that the writer could not spell the word. I would not necessarily infer that the writer's first language was a language other than English. On the contrary, the double negative in the message, a typical Cockney word construction, makes plausible the argument that he was a local resident who spoke English.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 12:40 pm | | With regards to David's post -
When the Beatles were preparing to release the single of "Hey Jude," Paul McCartney (in a rather silly publicity stunt) whitewashed the windows of the out-of-business Apple boutique store in Baker Street with the words HEY JUDE as a teaser for the record. However, local residents believed this to be an anti-semitic taunt and promptly smashed the windows.
Proving that there is truth even in jesting.
CMD |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 01:30 pm | | Hi, CMD:
Excellent point about the smashing of windows of the defunct Apple Boutique after McCartney had daubed "Hey Jude" on them as a publicity stunt, with the word "Jude" being taken as an anti-semitic taunt by the populace: "Juden" of course being the word used by the Nazis only a few decades before during their excoriation of the Jews.
Chris George |
Author: Desdinova
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 03:01 pm | | I doubt that Jack was a Jew personally, but he was
trying to impersonate one. The apron would be typically associated with the Jewish race as a form of stereotyping. If JTR was anti-sematic, then he would leave the apron to incite public hatred of the Jewish race.
Cheers again,
Des |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 04:14 pm | | Hi Desdinova:
I don't think anyone is saying that Jack was trying to impersonate a Jew. I am not sure about your allusion to apron being "typically associated with the Jewish race as a form of stereotyping." This is not so, as far as I am aware. Although I may be opening a can of worms here, aprons ARE, however, associated with masonic ritual. I think though we can be fairly confident that the only meaning that the apron has in this instance is that it was half of the apron that had been worn by Catherine Eddowes.
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 11:01 pm | | Seeing as how the City Police went through Wentworth Model Dwellings, unit by unit, and there were 12 units (108 - 119), questioning the residents. The Met. police also interviewed the residents & locals. The press chased down any residents, tenents & locals in search of a lead.
Has it ever crossed anyone's mind why not one person apparently spoke up and said "Oh, that graffiti was there yesterday" ?
These people passed though that doorway, must be at least twice a day, and they knew their surroundings much better than we do today.
Why did they all let the press, police & public believe it was recent graffiti?
Was it a collective conspiracy?
Did they all rehearse the ploy?
:-)
Or maybe......just maybe.......
Food for thought?, Jon |
|
|
|
|
