Archive through March 7, 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 March 7, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Is The Goulston Street Graffito All It Seems?: Archive through March 7, 2000

Author: Simon Owen Friday, 03 March 2000 - 05:17 am
Chris , the writing was I believe written to attract attention , hence its crypticness. It IS sinister with its double negatives. The fault for all the various interpretations of its meaning lies mainly with its writer , and if a photo of it existed it wouldn't change that very much at all. People would still interpret it. But lets take your supposition here that ' Juwes ' really means ' Jews ' ( yes ?). So the sense of the message is ' The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for nothing '. But does that mean ' The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for no reason ' ? Or ' The Jews are the men who will not be blamed for anything ' ? Or ' The Jews are the men who will be blamed for something ' ? Or ' The Jews are the men who should not be blamed ' ? Or ' The Jews are the men who will not be blamed , but they should be ' ? THERE IS NO SIMPLE EXPLANATION FOR THIS ONE ! Thats why we are still debating its content over a hundred years later.
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 03 March 2000 - 05:31 am
Chris , surely even you cannot deny the following : (i) That the word ' Juwes ' does not mean ' Jews ' in any known language. (ii) That ' Juwes ' in Masonic lore refers to the 3 Ruffians Jubela , Jubelo and Jubelum.( iii ) That Sir Charles Warren , being a senior Freemason , would know the sense of the word ' Juwes ' as it appears in point (ii) written above. ( iv ) That if the word ' Juwes ' really meant ' Jews ' then it is the only word misspelled in a sentence that includes more complicated words such as ' nothing ' and ' blamed '. ( v ) That the word ' Jew ' or ' Jewish ' would be spelt correctly by the local newspapers , and that Jack would be familiar with these.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Friday, 03 March 2000 - 09:12 am
No, Simon, there is no simple explanation. But as I have stated before, the only reason the Goulston Street writing is considered authentic is because the filthy swatch of Catherine Eddowes' apron was found nearby and because the tone of the message was obscure enough to posit some connection withe the "double event." I do not agree that the writing was designed to attract attention, unless you consider the fortuitous presence of Eddowes' apron piece as such. All surviving reports of it describe it as being rather small, possibly blurred, and not in an easily visible location. Were the apron not found in Wentworth Model Dwellings, the writing would probably have vanished into the memory hole long ago. The provenance of "Juwes" is difficult at this remove, and one wishes it could be settled. Certainly I think we may agree that the word itself does not refer to the Hebrew race, and is a Masonic reference to the "three ruffians." The question, however, is - would the word have been recognisable to a Mason in 1888? Paul Begg, in his "Uncensored Facts" states that Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum had been dropped from British Freemason ritual in 1814-1816, but that even when they were referred to, it was always by the term "ruffians" and not "Juwes." In his "JTR: A Reference Guide," Master Mason Scott Palmer also reiterates that the term "Juwes" does not exist in Freemasonry, and that the tale of the three men is revealed only in the ceremony of the third degree, when one becomes a Master Mason, rather than in the early stages of Freemasonry, as noted in the "A-Z." So are these gentlemen correct? IF they are (and as yet there seems to be a variance of opinion), then "Juwes," whatever it might mean, has no connection with Masonic ritual. It would not have been a term familiar to a junior Mason, and would be a nonexistent term for a Master Mason. "But," I hear you ask, "say the term really does not exist in Freemasonry. Why could not someone have created the plural themselves?" Entirely probable, and indeed possible, I think. But again - the thought assumes that JJJ (I tire of typing their names!) were part of British ritual in 1888. Begg tells us they were not. Palmer does not address this issue. If the three ruffians (for all purposes) didn't exist in 1888, then an 1888 "Juwes" reference cannot be back-postulated as referring specifically to them. It needs thorough research, and someone ought to do it. I agree with you that if "Juwes" really means no more than "Jews," it is an oddly-misspelled word . But variant spellings are hardly anomalous in Ripperine ephemera - see the "From Hell" letter, where correct and incorrect spellings dance together. I'm not quite sure I'm following your Warren argument, but you will, I hope, forgive me for not immediately answering, as I should like to collect my thoughts further and give this the attention is deserves. And a last note - I have hesitated to bring this up before, as it makes me sound a horrid prig, but. . .please call me Christopher, Christopher-Michael, CM or CMD as you wish, but not Chris. I don't care to be called Chris. As ever, CMD
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 03 March 2000 - 10:01 am
Sorry CMD about the name thing , no problem. Anyway , I don't think that it matters that the term ' Juwes ' had been dropped from British Masonic ritual in 1816 , it would have still figured in Masonic mythology and lore. It would have been a good name for a group of murderers and , if the Ripper gang had contained a master Mason with access to a good library , it is perfectly plausible that it should be used. There IS evidence that the Ripper gang were using an old Masonic book but I will not go into it here.
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Friday, 03 March 2000 - 01:51 pm
Simon - I think you're missing my point. My point is not whether or not Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum would or would not be recognisable to a British Mason of 1888 - I would grant you an outside possibility that it might be so - but that the term "Juwes" is, apparently not a Masonic word. If, as I said, before, this is correct, then we have no reason for assuming it to have anything to do with Freemasonry, unless, as I pointed out above, we wish to postulate that "Juwes" was someone's clever pluralizing of the three men. We need a historian with Masonic credentials to settle this matter.
Author: Dave Sceats Friday, 03 March 2000 - 02:38 pm
Hi I don't know if this has any relevance to the case, but perhaps the word "Juwes" could be a misspelling of "Jewels", perhaps some one out there can match a link with "Jewellery" and the murders?. All The Best Dave
Author: eastender Friday, 03 March 2000 - 08:43 pm
This is my first message at the boards, but is it entirely possible that the murderer (or author of the graffiti) could have intentionally MISSPELLED the word "Jews"? Have you ever observed graffiti? How often are all the words spelled correctly? How often are words intentionally distorted by the author/artist for stylistic emphasis? On another tack, does any other word except "Jews," or even "Juwes"--referring to the speculated Masonic legend--even make sense in context with the rest of the sentence?
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Saturday, 04 March 2000 - 11:35 am
Welcome to the boards eastender. The most likely meaning of the word Juwes, is of course, Jews. It makes sense in the context of the sentence and in the prevailing anti Jewish sentiments that surrounded the Whitechapel murders. Some, who are trying to bolster wild and implausible theories, will argue otherwise but you will notice that no real hard evidence is ever put foreward. Wolf.
Author: Thomas Ind Saturday, 04 March 2000 - 02:11 pm
How common was graffitti in the eastend in 1888? Was it as common as it is now?
Author: Jeffrey Saturday, 04 March 2000 - 04:29 pm
Hello Eastender, Thomas Ind & Everybody, I do believe that graffiti in a variety of forms was quite common. Another factor of the time that I personally feel had a serious effect on the people and the atmosphere in the eastend were the many posters and displays proclaiming the full horror of the Ripper murders as depicted in such rags as the "Penny Dreadfuls", advertising newpspapers, theater productions, and such. Realistically though, these horrific crimes and the publicity they received had a great impact on the people of London and brought a fair amount of trade and money to the area. The fact that we're still discussing these crimes over 100 years on has quite obviously much to do with the publicity created in order to sell magazines and newspapers. I understand posters depicting the crimes, showing knives dripping with blood as red as best printing techniques of the day could produce were hanging everywhere. There is an excellent newspaper article here on Casebook on this aspect, that I found very interesting. I think the publicity had a great deal to do with the circus' that were to be the inquests in to the victims, and many people, prominent doctors, police and such had their 15-minutes of fame (Good & Bad) during these few months. With specific regard to the Ghoulston Street graffiti the glaring omissions of the police, (after the discovery of the message), not to question the occupants of model dwellings if they had ever seen it before, or if they did, never recording the facts is unbelievable. We know that the police knocked on every door in that, and every other premesis in Ghoulston Street, yet it seems rather strange that noone was asked if they had noticed the cryptic graffiti before ? I think it negelecful on the part of the police, that we are still unsure today whether this was ever a clue or not. Cheers All ! It's early days for me. I do hope I haven't spouted a load of old rubbish in my enthusiasm to post. Jeff D
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden Saturday, 04 March 2000 - 09:37 pm
Tom, not only was the East End covered with graffiti, but there were also other examples of graffiti supposedly written by the Ripper. As Walter Dew wrote: "There was no reason, so far as I can see, why this particular message should have proved more useful than many others which Jack the Ripper was supposed to have written. As I have said before, it is questionable whether these messages were the work of the murderer at all." Wolf.
Author: R.J. Palmer Sunday, 05 March 2000 - 07:09 am
Hello. I was on Goulston Street about five years ago; if my memory serves me right (I hope it does) isn't the doorway across the street from an intersection? If so, there is the possibility of foot traffic coming from three different directions. Thus, it would be rather a foolhardy move for a fleeing killer to pause at this particular spot and write a note. ( And it certainly wouldn't have been an easy task either, the doorway would certainly have been dark). Also, the Ripper would have had to have been carrying a piece of chalk with him, which would make the graffiti practically a premeditated act. Do the muddled events of the 'Double Event' really seem well-thought out or premeditated? They seem like impulsive, high-risk crimes to me. By the way, I stumbled across a book today that may be of interest to some: "The Trials of Israel Lipski: A True Story of a Victorian Murder" by Martin Freidland. The author is a law professor from Toronto. It gives some background to the anti-semetism in the East End just before the Whitechapel murders. In the last chapter Freidland writes about Jack the Ripper, Goulston Street, etc. and suggests the idea that the crimes were meant to discredit the Jews in Whitechapel. (An idea that has been tossed around by others). I personally don't think the theory is very likely, but the book is proving to be a good read, nonetheless. Best wishes, RJP
Author: Stewart P Evans Sunday, 05 March 2000 - 12:10 pm
I thought that the Goads map of the location of 108-119 Model Dwellings Goulston Street in relation to New Goulston Street would be of interest.
Author: Leanne Perry Monday, 06 March 2000 - 04:44 am
G'day Folks, The 'A-Z' says how: 'Walter Dew, subsequently remarked that the graffito was ONE AMOUNG MANY in the district, purporting to be by the murderer', and: 'he did not believe any of them to be genuine'. Chief Inspector Walter Dew, was actively engaged on the Ripper case, working 'on-the-ground'. The residents were, I believe, questioned about seeing the graffito there earlier, but this was AFTER it had been errased. LEANNE!
Author: Jeffrey Monday, 06 March 2000 - 07:54 am
Hello All ! The more I think about the actual spelling of the word Juwes/Juewes, the more I tend to believe that we can't just dismiss the message totally out of hand. The spelling of the word itself might eventually prove to be the clue as to whether the graffiti was genuine or not. Certainly the police of the time felt it important enough to have very senior police officials present at the scene, visiting the site of the apron, before even the murder itself ! This may be of more significance that we actually appreciate today, with the few scanty details we are left with. I do believe that the threat of an uprising of the Jewish community in Whitechapel was a very real one, for example. Playing devils advocate for a moment, imagine a killer pumped up with adrenaline, fleeing from the scene of the Eddowes murder. He has seen such Jewish people as Lawende Harris and Levy, and Jewish people do appear to figure prominently in the events of the "Autumn of terror" and certainly of that particular evening. He needs to, and hastily scribbles the message, only mis-spells, he writes "J"-then starts to write a "w" and half finishes this character before he realises his mistake. Rather than erase the �-w carries on to write the "e" next, then (of course) "W-E-S". This would, to my logic make the word spelled "JUEWES". Just think, drop the �-w here, and we have no problem. This man openly displayed his handi-work, so leaving a message, with the apron as proof of it's authenticity "could" make sense. I am still not yet convinced one way or another whether the message was genuine, but it is relevant to the events of that evening, and of the series of murders as a whole. I do enjoy the postings of people trying to fathom what may be the few clues we are left with, and wonder if people felt this interpretation might be worthy of further discussion. Thanks also Leanne for the information. In my own readinigs I don't recall coming across reference to the response of any resident who was questioned, even if the answer was "I don't know". See ! You do learn interesting things from open discusions here on these boards ! I just hope that I might be able to mention something, sometime that instigates further discussion from people who are more clever than myself (which shouldn't be too difficult). Many Regards Jeff D PS; Many thanks David R, CMD and all for your comments
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 06 March 2000 - 08:20 am
Its possible Jeff , but I think the correct spelling was ' Juwes ' and not ' Juewes ' , I will explain why. Constable Halse , who had been with the grafitti much of the night , is probably the man able to give most accurate rendition of the spelling and he gives it as ' Juwes '. Conversely , Sir Charles Warren arrived at the scene fresh after some sleep and he also gives the spelling as ' Juwes '. Constable Long gives an alternate spelling of ' Juews ' but he had spent the night pounding the beat and was probably tired , as well as not having spent much time with the message. It is most probable the spelling was ' Juwes ' therefore.
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 06 March 2000 - 08:29 am
As to the suggestion that ' Juwes ' was not a Masonic word , this is a possibility. But Sugden is wrong when he suggests the theory that it was promulgated ( brought to light ) by Stephen Knight. This is simply not the case. The word was discovered by BBC researchers working on the 1973 BBC TV programme ' Jack the Ripper ' and does not emanate from Knight at all. If I am correct I may have seen it used by Freemasons themselves in a book called ' The Hiram Key ' although I am not certain about this at all , I will try and research it further when I am able.
Author: Guy Hatton Monday, 06 March 2000 - 08:57 am
The idea that "Juwes" was a Masonic term appears to stem from the BBC programme first, and subsequently from Knight. In both cases, of course, the source is the same - Joseph Gorman "Sickert". All the Best Guy
Author: Simon Owen Monday, 06 March 2000 - 09:40 am
Oh shoot ! You could be right Guy , I'll check out my books and see if there is evidence for this.
Author: Guy Hatton Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 04:09 am
Believe me, it's down to Joe. The BBC were apparently directed to him by an unnamed police contact. This is sometimes construed as evidence that JGS was only repeating the "truth" which was already known to the authorities, but on the other hand, there is evidence that he had started to pester people (perhaps including Scotland Yard) with his story some time after Stowell's Criminologist article in 1970. In this context, it could be argued that the police contact was merely referring the researchers to a "good story" that he had recently encountered. All the Best Guy