Archive through July 12, 2000

** 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 July 12, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: Specific Suspects: Contemporary Suspects [ 1888 - 1910 ]: Druitt, Montague John: Anagrams implicating Druitt: Archive through July 12, 2000

Author: Stephen P. Ryder Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:38 pm
June 1996 Of the literally dozens of odd coincidences in the case, one which has been advanced most recently has been the idea of anagrams in the Ripper's "writings." Concerning the chalked message on Goulston Street, JUWES was said to have been written in a "rounded schoolboy hand" and the W could very well have been a U and a V. We now have JUUVES, and upon moving one letter back in the alphabet we have ITTUDR -- an anagram for DRUITT. Also, in the Dear Boss letter, the author writes "... I can't use it. Red..." This is a perfect anagram for "I can see Druitt." Are these just a few more coincidences to throw on the pile, or actually clues pointing to the verification of M.J. Druitt as Jack the Ripper? Are there any other hidden anagrams in the case? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:20:08 -0700 From: wolvie@sprynet.com First of all I don't feel that there is any reason to beleive that the Ripper wrote the Goulston St. graffiti. The message is described as blurry which is an indication that it was old and not written on the murder night. Furthermore, the "Dear Boss" letter is probably also a hoax. In any event, you can find anagrams in just about anything if you look hard enough!! These little tidbits are amusing, but should be discounted. Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 15:03:03 -0400 From: Michael Rogers Anagrams! I mean, come on. I know we're all a little obsessed by all this but let's try and keep our heads here. That's even more ridiculous than that Maybrick watch with the victims' initials scratched in it. As a journalist, a good rule of thumb is that anything that seems too contrived to be real IS too contrived to be real, so don't believe it. Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996 18:36:38 +0100 From: Matthew Fletcher I am afraid I am responsible for the anagram suggestion. To expand slightly on the introduction: The 'Dear Boss' letter and followup have never been validated or disproved. There is no real evidence either way and (quite rightly) they are generally regarded as suspect. The first 'Dear Boss' letter contains "You will soon hear of me with my funny little games." The very next sentence ends "... I cant use it. Red ". The consecutive letters "t use it Red" give "See Druitt!" - or the "I can" can be stuck on the front. The previous sentence can certainly be read as flagging the reader that a little game to find the author's name is coming up. I certainly agree that you can find anagrams in anything - but this isnt SO contrived is it? When combined with the fact that JUWES ( or JUUVES ) can be shifted to Druitt I think its worth a look. Killers often send letters to the authorities to boast and give clues away. Hasn't someone recently decoded a name from the Zodiac killer letters? Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:45:46 +-1000 From: Dennis Stocks Anagrams are a nice intellectual exercise and all manner of messages can be found. Those who champion the Druitt theory will continue to argue so on the basis of Macnaughten's destroyed papers. Yet Macnaughten probably formed his opinions from second-hand sources. If you look at Druitt's cricket fixture schedules, it is highly unlikely that he could have committed three of the canonical murders. Note that the 1894 report (both versions) Macnaughten refers only to "private information" and not to any official inquiry. In 1903 Abberline put the Druitt "case" in context when he said "Soon after the last murder in Whitechapel the body of a young doctor (sic) was found in the Thames, but there is absolutely nothing beyond the fact that he was found at that time to incriminate him". Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 14:19:16 -0700 From: Nicholas A. Racht I find the suggestions concerning anagrams to be fascinating even if they are reaching a bit. In my opinion, as a third party observer to the debate I believe that there may be something to this but perhaps not what you think. If I were presented with the case facts which showed not only the use of anagrams but also of encrypted anagrams (JUUVES) I would certainly deduce the involvement of some form of secret society. I would not believe however that they were directly involved in the murders. Rather it would seem that they knew who was involved and were attempting to communicate this information to those of their members who were in a position to do something about it. The use of the encryption would also indicate that they felt it was neccessary for the incident to be handeled with some measure of discretion (to perhaps avoid scandal or to ensure that the society was not forced to reveal itself in order to aid the authorities). Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 18:26:31, -0500 From: Al Terego Yes, there are many coincidences. However, I cannot see Druitt or anyone else to take this much detail to write HIDDEN messages. If Druitt wanted to be caught, he would have made it easier. Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Date: Thu, 04 Jul 96 01:04:50 -0700 From: Stephanie Richey You could turn most any sentence into any other sentence, or word if you scramble the words, or letters enough. I don't put much credence in anagrams as evidence. But it is fun to consider. Post Reply to Conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Date: Sat, 27 Jul 96 18:09:51 +0500 From: Tom and Raphael Wilding, author of Jack the Ripper Revealed cites anagram "evidence". He claims the Goulston chalk message is an anagram. It reads: "F.G.Abberline. Now hate M.J.Druitt. He sent the women to hell" And the Liverpool letter, dated "29. inst." is, according to Wilding, an anagram too. It reads: "To Charles Warren: 1. A Annie Chapman did not hold Bertie's 2 souvenirs. 2. I work at it - I lie in wait; i.e. the 9th November, Montague Druitt and I gag a bitch. I rip open Kelly. I save HRH crown an a 12th stroke. James Stephen." But not enough: The Prince William Street letter, as an anagram, reads: "I kill. Can the police trap me? I live in a Watling Street harem with people who love to fight fire. Come here. Yours, James Stephen. V.R." Concerning an address, where Bertie used to stay for some doubtful entertainment, women as well as fire fighting. Is there no mathematician amongst us, which could give us a probability calculus of sense making anagrams? Wilding claims, his three anagrams would be accepted by any court as an evidence.
Author: Tone Cardinale Monday, 26 April 1999 - 05:29 pm
in relation to the 8th entry, I had to comment by saying this. When I visited London, I took a tour on the Ripper and I learned of the possible, Juwes anagram, using F.G Abberline, hate, and "he sent the women to Hell, and I believe that Druitt was perhaps a schizophrenic, as others do, and that by saying he sent the women to Hell, it was merely John's better half trying to expose his darker. I think woman is really WOMEN, and I thoroughly believe much like others on this page, that M.J druitt was the infamous Jack the Ripper. But you probally have already heard this theory.
Author: D. Radka Tuesday, 27 April 1999 - 08:42 am
Hello Zippity, are you there? David
Author: joel todd Monday, 10 January 2000 - 07:40 am
hello i am new to the ripper case. i know a lot of people think that the ripper didn't write the chalked message. i have read that maybe the ripper used the piece of apron to wipe the blood from his hands. i have also read that a public sink was found with bloody water in it. if this is true why wouldn't he drop the apron cloth wherever the sink is or by the body or wherever he cleaned up. unless he wanted it to be known that the message was written by him. as far as the anagrams i think it is interesting that all 46 letters form the hidden message. i would like to know about the probabilty of such a message. also the only way you can put the message in it is to spell jews j u w e s. i don't know but was that a common way of spelling the word then?
Author: Leanne Monday, 10 January 2000 - 04:59 pm
G'day Joel, welcome, This is the way I see it: The Ripper sliced a small piece of Eddowes' apron before he fled to avoid capture, ran to Goulston Street, ducked into the nearest available doorway, wiped his hands and blade, discarded the cloth as he emerged, (or maybe accidently dropped it). From there, if Major Henry Smith is to be believed, the killer went to Dorset Street, washed the remainder of the blood from his hands, (or maybe some dribbled somewhere, that he didn't see before). Smith didn't state the exact location of this sink. His memoirs were published in 1910, and are the product of his memory. LEANNE!
Author: Jon Monday, 10 January 2000 - 08:00 pm
Seeing as how were on the subject of Major Smith's memoirs,..... What he says on page 153, after refering to Goulston Street...In Dorset Street,with extraordinary audacity, he washed them at a sink up a close, not more than six yards from the street What rarely gets mentioned is a further reference to the same event on page 161, which makes it clear (sort of) that he is confusing the 'sink' thing with another event. The text is discussing Jack being able to clean himself up after a murder..... On three occations - the only three of which I can give reliable details - there was no need to provide the murderer with hot water and sunlight soap. In Berners Street he did not mutilate the woman, and probably had very few blood stains about him; in Mitre Square he used the womans apron; and in Dorset Street he carefully washed his hands at the sink. This tends to suggest to me that the three occations he refers to were three separate murders. Hence.....he never went to Dorset Street as he first suggested on page 153, that is due to a confused memory. Regards, Jon
Author: Antony Palmer Monday, 10 July 2000 - 02:55 pm
With regards to the Goulston street grafitti it was almost certainly written by the ripper. It was found below tenemants largely occupied by Jews and I find it inconceivable such inflamatory writing could have been there for any length of time. Plus it would be an incredible coincidence if the bloodied apron had been dropped directly below it. I think we can safely say JTR wrote those very words.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 10 July 2000 - 03:00 pm
Yes , I agree. But what words were they ?
Author: Antony Palmer Monday, 10 July 2000 - 04:35 pm
Well we only have the evidence of those policemen that saw it. What do you suggest they were?
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 10 July 2000 - 06:17 pm
I think it must have been pretty earthshattering to Sir Charles Warren because he wanted it removed without it being photographed. So I think it must have been , as Roslyn Donston Stephenson said , ' juives ' or ' jueves ' as an alternative spelling. If the word simply was ' Jews ' why the variant spellings by the police at the scene ? It could have been ' Jews ' mispelled as ' Juews ' or ' Juwes ' or something , but IMHO I don't think thats likely due to the complex sentence structure and the fact that the complicated words ' blamed ' and 'nothing ' are spelled correctly. If it was 'JUUVES' then that puts Druitt directly in the frame , and he is not my preferred suspect : if we could show Druitt was fond of word puzzles and anagrams I would take it more seriously. It must have been the French word IMHO. Sir Charles Warren wouldn't know for definite , if the word was ' Juwes ' , that it was the Masonic word that was intended and so I don't think that can be the reason he had the words erased. The other tantalising possibility is that SIR CHARLES RECOGNISED THE HANDWRITING , and to protect who he believed to be guilty he erased it before it could be photographed. Just a thought...
Author: Antony Palmer Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 11:38 am
That all sounds a bit too cryptic for me and I really don't see it. I'm sure the spelling MUST have been correct. We are talking here about a large number of policemen and their superiors, many of whom were in disagreement on the case. Druitt surely is not a serious candidate due to if only his playing in several cricket matches at very close proximity to the dates of the crimes. Sounds rather far fetched. I seriously believe we are looking for a 'foreigner' here. Whether he was a Jew is open for speculation but I think Hutchison's detailed description may well have scared him off, at least for a time and maybe even out of the country. Only a suspect socialising primarily among a tight knit group or none at all could have vanished so quickly without anyone suspecting him. It is of course of great disappointment that Warren decided to destroy the only tangible evidence left by the ripper. However Juwes is not a masonic word. This was a concoction first propulgated by Stephen Knight and has been used by some others ever since. There is just no evidence for that at all. It seems more likely that it was a slang term. The fact that the ripper could write....such a message or even write at all does lead to the belief he did have some education. Unfortunately I don't see any uncovering of the ripper possible. We may even have a perpetrator who was never interviewed or even suspected.
Author: NickDanger Tuesday, 11 July 2000 - 08:36 pm
Hi all, On the subject of the Goulston Street Graffito, to satisfy my own curiosity I did some writing experiments using various writing materials and media and at different speeds. I wrote the sentence in script using the word 'Jews' spelled correctly. Depending on how the letter 'e' and the connector of the letter 'w' were constructed, I came up with several examples that could easily have been transcribed as 'Juwes'. Some time ago I posted something on the message boards urging others to try some writing tests of their own. I would be very interested in their results, but to my knowledge, up to now, no one has. As the 'Double Event' is the most fascinating aspect of the case for me, I will simply state that, as of now, I think it is at least questionable that the word 'Juwes' was actually spelled that way. Whether the message was written by the murderer is an entirely different matter. I am still undecided on this question. But I'm inclined to agree with Stewart Evans when he says that if the apron piece had been dropped into the next doorway on Goulston Street we would be discussing a different piece of graffiti. Best regards, Nick
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 02:28 am
Hello Simon: As far as I know, there is no indication that Sir Charles Warren actually saw the graffito, so I do not think the possible scenario that you suggest, that he recognized the handwriting, was possible. I believe--correct me if I am wrong learned colleagues!--that the wording was reported to Warren and he ordered the erasement to take place but that he was not actually on the spot to see the offending words. Chris George
Author: Antony Palmer Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 04:37 am
Hi Nick, Your point about writing experiments is interesting and yes the word 'jews'..'Juwes' is a very deliberate word in terms of writing it. Warrens and Superintendant Arnolds decision to destroy the evidence has of course been the main evidence used by those alledging some sort of conspiracy by the establishment. What was actually written on that wall? Well any number of policemen from the lowest ranks right up to Sir Charles Warren...and yes Chris he did visit Goulston street, would have seen the message. I'm sure they all had an opinion as to what was written yet there has been NO other version given by any of them. I can't imagine a level of incompetence that would lead to a misspelling of any word and particular the only word of any contention. If so why have none of those present, and they are the only people who can realistically offer any opinion, not given one. As for Stewart Evans's theory I don't see it at all and neither did any of those met and city police. Every figure connected with the case was of the opinion that the author was the ripper. We are talking about a very brazen confident murderer and he is teasing the police here. regards Tony
Author: Antony Palmer Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 05:17 am
To add, if we cover the ripper murders as a whole the only object ever taken and found from any of the murders was the Eddowes bloody piece of apron. This is it, so clearly the ripper is leaving his calling card if you will. This piece of apron becomes the prime piece of evidence connecting him to the murder. Why take it from the scene of the crime unless he was going to use it. He wanted the police to find the writing and believe its authenticity beyond any doubt. So he left the apron piece which he had cut off deliberately, at the base of the message. From a psychological perspective this is not without precedent. Serial killers like to leave clues, it gives them a self inflated level of importance. As far as I'm concerned there can be no doubt jtr was the author.
Author: Christopher T George Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 01:01 pm
Hello Tony: You are stating the traditional or perhaps more correctly to say popularly held view that the Ripper was the author of the graffito, as he was also the author of the taunting letters, neither of which is a proven fact. Most modern-day researchers take a more skeptical view in both instances. It is not true that, as you put it, "he left the apron piece . . . at the base of the message." According to his testimony at the inquest on Catherine Eddowes, P.C. Long, the constable who found the piece of apron, stated that he only noticed the graffito when he walked around the area looking for blood stains. The writing thus was not immediately apparent, was written in small lettering of some three-quarters of an inch high, and some way up the wall (we don't have an exact height above the floor). I am assuming from Long's testimony that the writing may not even have been immediately above the piece of apron. All of this being so, Stewart Evans's remark implying that the graffito may not have had anything to do with the piece of apron has validity, and you should not dismiss it so lightly. Chris George
Author: Antony Palmer Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 06:47 pm
Well Chris, Why would the ripper take a piece of apron which was clearly cut deliberately from her apparel. Let's go over events again. The suspect had never left a clue before. This is a very deliberate conniving yet careful murderer. If he wanted to wipe his hands clean he would have done it at the scene of the crime not risked taking a piece of her clothing for that purpose. The only objects he is interested in taking are internal organs. He had for whatever reason taken that night a particular interest in Jewish establishments. The Stride murder is sited at a Jewish socialist club. Before this he allegedly shouts 'lipski' at a Jewish man or another man. He dumps the bloody cloth at the entrance to tenemants lived in by primarily Jews. Do you see what he is attempting here. Either he is directly trying to falsely implicate the 'Jews' in the murders or he is drawing it on himself thus brazenly teasing the police who he clearly feels are beneath him. This guy is shouting it from the rooftops. 'I'm the ripper...and here's my calling card' In answer to the rest of your points, no I don't believe in all the letters. Clearly the only 'possible' one is the lusk kidney. I'm not sure where you get your information from but I have read in countless books, Philip Sugden's for instance, that the apron WAS found beneath the writing. If you don't believe (and for that matter Mr Evans) that it is his graffiti, please tell me why he takes the piece of apron from the scene of the crime? Antony Palmer
Author: LeatherApron Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 06:59 pm
Nick my friend, I too have always been fascinated by the "double event". Here are some of my musings about the Goulston graffito (for what they're worth) after having become interested in it again because of a conversation in the chatroom. I realized after thinking about it that it actually fits right into my opinion that Jack was not "lucky". Let me make it clear before beginning that I do not believe the graffito was meant to implicate freemasons and if it was written by the killer at all, it's probably a red herring. So what are some cases for and against it being written by the killer that haven't already been discussed in length (e.g. "Juwes" is masonic, etc.)? First, was there sufficient light for the killer to see what he was writing? Remember, it was absolutely pitch dark except for street lights. The answer is that from a survey map produced by Jon Smyth (thanks, Jon) there was in fact a street lamp (which I believe might still be the same one that is there today) across the street from where the graffito was found at an angle to the entrance (meaning, if it is the same street lamp, it is not straight across the street as you emerge from the doorway, but to the left). Assuming that it is very unlikely that the killer actually carried his own lantern around, we have to concede that light was at least available and might have been adequate enough for the killer to see. Was the light adequate? Well, that depends upon where the graffito was located. On the doorway facing out to the street there was sufficient light almost for SURE. Inside the entryway, in the shadows there would presumably not have been enough light. This brings up another question, it had been raining that evening, that was the reason that witness Joseph Lawende and the others had given for why they were out so late. They remained at the club until after the rain stopped. If it was raining, it was cloudy. If it was cloudy, it was pitch dark. Furthermore, if it had been raining only a few hours before the graffito was found (approximately 3 am) then shouldn't the walls have been wet making it impossible to write a "chalk" message? (granted, it might have been dry on the lee side, giving us another possibility) Assuming that the message was on the inside of the doorway, was therefore not wet, and the killer had adequate light... let's continue. Now we have the "message". It has 12 words and after several trials it took me approximately 23 seconds (average) to write the message while keeping the letters around the same height as reported (approximately 3/4" - People, Oct. 14). The entire message takes up barely half a standard 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper. Not very big. My 2 hands will cover it easily. First off, that's about a half minute. The police had beats that brought them (in an alternating fashion) by the same area every approximately 5 minutes (if memory serves, this was typical and could be as much as 9 minutes). Nearly 30 seconds is quite a lot of time spend chalking a message when the police are after you. Even so, it is still believable for one as ruthless as our Jack. First, where in relation to the ground was the message located? There is no debate that it was immediately above the piece of apron. But, was it at eye-level or near the ground? Since it was "immediately" above the apron, let's say that it was not at eye-level but somewhere near the ground. The killer would have to sit down to write a message that takes nearly half a minute to write if he didn't want it to be hopelessly misshapen and illegible. Imagine the nerves of steel it would take for a murdererer on the loose with the police swarming around the area to stop, sit down, wipe off the bloody knife, toss the apron, put the knife away, pull out some chalk, then calmly sit and write a message for the police! Again, it is possible, just not very likely. Now we finally get to the reason why I believe it still could have been written by JtR and the reason that JtR was not "lucky". It is well known that PCs could be heard approaching from afar off. That is because they had not gotten around to inventing the "sneaker" just yet and their large noisy boots (coupled with the narrow buildings and sound reverberations) would definitely had advertised their presence as they walked the empty streets during the wee hours of the morning. It is then not at all farfetched to assume that Jack heard the PC's boots as he approached Mitre Square and would likewise be able to keep his ears attuned to that familiar and alarming sound while chalking a message in Goulston street. As there are no deaf suspects that I'm aware of, they all could have been capable of this perfectly obvious and distinctly predictable event. Anything that is predictable, should not be put down to chance (meaning, no luck is involved here). The difficulty that comes with the question "was the Goulston graffito written by JtR?" is typical of the burden of proof one finds with this entire case. That burden being -- it's not up to the skeptics (of which I'm one) to DISPROVE that it was written by Jack, rather it's up to the believers to PROVE that it could NOT have been written by anyone else. That is extremely difficult in this murder case, if not impossible to do. The PC (Alfred Long, I believe) said himself that he could not be sure if the graffito was there or not. The apron he WAS sure about, but not the graffito. It could have been there already and could therefore have been written by someone OTHER THAN the killer. And in fact, the observation by PC Long is still probably true today. Do we all know for sure what graffiti exists and when it appeared all around us? Probably not because it's usually insignificant and meaningless junk and as such we do not pay close attention to it on a daily basis. But if the message was written by the killer, it is so cryptic that it A) either doesn't amount to anything because they didn't know english, or B) was purposely made terse for the sake of misleading the coppers and was intended to be (and is) a red herring. I'm sure this isn't without errors as I'm doing it from memory (like Major Smith and his memoirs), so if you're a novice ripperologist please don't take everything I say as fact. I certainly would appreciate any comments, corrections and/or clarifications by those who have studied the case as long as I have or longer. On another note, I'm really enjoying the discussion about "did Jack sharpen his knives, etc." It's given me some fresh material to chew on. ;-) Regards, Jack P.S. I will be back in town on and probably in the chatroom this Saturday or Sunday. Please refer to the attached codicil. ;-)
Author: Jon Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 07:56 pm
Hi Jack The lamp I mentioned was one that was on an ordinance survey map of Aldgate #7.67 (1873-1894) and it was situated across from the New Goulston St. intersection, on the same side of the road as Wentworth Dwellings. As you stand in the road opposite the dwelling, facing the archway. The street lamp is to your right. But I saw a problem with this, for Jack to have wrote anything on the inside of the arch, using this lamp for light, he would be writing in shadow. Courtesy of Stewart Evans It is always assumed that the writing was on the inside jam of the archway, to the right, where you see the well worn surface about shoulder height. This jam surface is about 12-14" wide. But, if he used the lamp to the right (off picture) then he quite possibly wrote his 'scribble' on the left inside of the archway. Where he would have street light over his shoulder. I have been digging through sources to find if it is mentioned at which side of the arch the writing was found. Even most artistic dwg's of the scene appear to depict the writing at the right side. But why? Nowhere can I find it stated on which side of the archway it was written. Quite possibly we have been wrong all these years, and the writing was actually to the left side of the archway, where a streetlamp would be behind him as he wrote. Caveat: We cannot state with any certainty if the streetlamp was there in 1888. The ordinance map includes all details placed in the vicinity between 1873 & 1894. Though it has raised an interesting possibility that everyones assumptions have been wrong all these years. Regards, Jon
Author: Jon Wednesday, 12 July 2000 - 08:09 pm
Ooops.....my above poste was not intended to support the idea that Jack wrote it, .....I'm just trying to apply a practical answer to a perceived problem. :-) Jon (playing Devil's Advocat)