Archive through March 3, 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 3, 2000

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion : Is The Goulston Street Graffito All It Seems?: Archive through March 3, 2000

Author: Caz Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 01:37 pm
Hi Jon, John, John and Leanne, I could be wrong John, but I don't think Jon meant you John when he said 'Finish reading the boards John,...all of 'em :-)', I think he meant the other John. Okay John? ;-) Love, Caz
Author: D. Radka Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 01:14 pm
Caz, Are you one of those ladies on the famous nude calendar now being sold in the UK? The one put out by that ladies club--Rysback or something, I believe. If so, I'd like to obtain a copy. David
Author: anon Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 02:31 pm
You are a warped individual, Mr Radka. Is that any sort of question to ask a lady? Go lurk in a sexchat room, for God's sake and get lost.
Author: R.J. Palmer Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 08:19 pm
Hello everyone. Sigh. It's lonely being a Druittist these days. I think I'm the only one in the world who doesn't think Macnaughten was an idiot. Yes, Leanne, M.J.D. is theatrically pleasing, but he also has subtle charms. Someday could someone who doubts the Druitt theory please offer a logical scenerio explaining HOW or WHY this hapless special pleader/school teacher who killed himself clear over in Chiswick ended as the #1 suspect on Macnaughten's report in 1894? It is IMPOSSIBLE that Druitt would have become a suspect in the winter of 1888/89 SOLEY on the weight of his timely suicide, since the police didn't yet know the murders had ended. It is equally absurd to think that he became an ex post facto, rhetroactive suspect a year or two later --when it was clear that the murders had ended--by police digging through old files of the Acton, Chiswick, and Turnham Green Gazette, stumbling on the notice of Druitt's death, and using him as a convenient scapegoat. There was something else that tied Druitt to Whitechapel, we just don't know what it is. Macnaughten might have been muddled in his "facts", but he didn't draw the name M.J. Druitt and the term "sexually insane" out of thin air. But, sorry. I'm getting off topic. So I'll use the Druitt board in the future. Cheers.
Author: Jon Smyth Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 08:42 pm
Considering much the same could be said about Kosminski & Tumblety.....what makes Druitt a better suspect than them?
Author: R.J. Palmer Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 04:31 am
Druitt more or less fits with the eyewitness descriptions, they don't. Tumblety was about 55 in 1888; Kosminski was 23 (according to Sugden who goes on to say "Kosminski does not match (their) descriptions particularly well." Kosminski roamed the streets for another 2 years after Mary Kelley's death. Is it really likely he would have suddenly stopped after killing 5 women in the span of a few months? In my humble opinion, he was just a poor mumbling soul who didn't like to take baths. I don't like Tumblety. I hope he IS proven to be guilty someday!! But he strikes me more as a charlatan than anything else.
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 05:37 am
I suppose you could say Druitt is relevant to this topic because we all wonder who dru itt in Goulston St. and why. Seriously though folks, for those who believe Jack wrote the message, which of the usual suspects, if any, do they consider the most likely to leave such a clue? For instance, could Druitt or Tumblety have been secretly wildly anti-Semitic? Or was Kosminski saying "I've just given 'em something they CAN blame us Jews for" just before dropping the piece of apron in favour of a mouldy crust.... Sorry, just trying to tie the threads together somehow :-) Anon, Thanks for giving David a kick up the arse for me. I guess he knows I'm the only one he can talk to like that and get away with it :-0 David, Sorry to disappoint, but at nearly 46, the only calendar I'd be good on would be Horse and Hound 2000. I'll get hubby to get his digital camera out tonight if you like and send you a nudie pic, but can I keep my sox on, it's bloody freezing here. Love, Caz
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 04:34 pm
Certainly it wasn't my intention to treat CAZ disrespectfully. The calendar I had in mind was made by a prestigious UK women's club, and was tastefully done, featuring their members of about Caz's age. It is not a pornographic calendar. I read about it on the BBC's web site. Sorry for any misinterpretation. David
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 28 January 2000 - 04:31 am
No offence taken David. But it's almost impossible to make out when you are joking or being serious. That's where smiley faces have a definite part to play. Now, do ya want me smiling or pouting and sultry? Can't promise tasteful though (LOL) Love, Caz
Author: John Dixon Thursday, 03 February 2000 - 09:45 pm
Sorry not to contribute again ... But I have another question rather than an answer. Is it likely that the graffiti refers only to the Eddowes murder. By all means direct me to where this has been discussed before. Again this might rationalise its placement ... if the killer felt that the 3 Jewish witness' caused Eddowes to be killed. jj. ( too many johns here ... which was the problem then too! )
Author: Caroline Anne Morris Friday, 04 February 2000 - 07:29 am
Actually jj, you raise an interesting question. Was Jack aware that these men had seen him with Eddowes and would go straight to the police when the news of her death was out? And would it be playing on his mind? Has anyone else ever suggested that 'The Juwes' could have referred specifically to these three witnesses? Has the message ever been seen as an attempt to deter Lawende, Harris or Levi from going to the police, by suggesting they might be implicated if they did so? Was Jack trying to warn them off by saying �The three Jews (who saw him with Eddowes) are the men who will get the blame (ie be accused of killing her)�? Caz
Author: Dr Gareth Twentyman Saturday, 12 February 2000 - 06:35 am
The message is often considered to be a deliberate attempt to throw the blame on or away from the "Juwes". But graffiti is often an expression of strongly felt opinions, not a sly attempt to create a red herring in a police investigation. What if a Jewish killer was simply expressing his exasperation with any scapegoating he might have suffered? If he feels he will get blamed for things which go wrong, (e.g. in his job) just because of his race, then perhaps he might feel he has nothing to lose by doing something that attracts opprobrium, and this is what he was sincerely communicating.
Author: JacksBack Saturday, 12 February 2000 - 05:45 pm
This has been bothering me for some time, and I have refrained from comment. But my experience with east end and cockney slang tells me that the expression "nothing" actually means "anything" and in this context of the whole graffito, the writer is trying to say that the "jews are the people who won't be blamed for anything" which, if this message actually does have anything to do with the Whitechapel Murders at all, which seems unlikely, says that the jews should be blamed for something, whatever the writer had in mind. Is it clearer now....JiB (ok so I lied about retiring, but it is such a good farewell speak that I just couldn't not resist using it for "nothing").
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 07:30 am
After my posts on Jack's bicycle , I thought I would venture an opinion on the Goulston Street Grafitti. In my opinion , the writing was done by Jack and the piece of apron was left there to prove it was so ; thus it seems that Jack definitely wanted to make a statement about something in this case. I don't accept Radka's theory that the ' Juwes ' were Louis Diemschutz and his pals from the Working Men's club , the message seems too cryptic for that. If Jack wanted to express his indignation at being interrrupted he would have written on the wall " Bastard Jews ! " in big letters , or something, he would have wanted to be clear as possible and would not have written a cryptic message which could have been misunderstood. He would have also written to the Times or something , gloating : ' Dear Boss them Jews spoiled mi fun but i ripped another... '. But he didn't. Besides , how difficult is it to spell ' Jews ' properly - and surely if one wanted to be offensive about Jewish people , the abusive term ' Yids ' could have been used ; this was in common usage amongst Gentiles in the East End during this period. If the Ripper had used the term ' Yids ' we would all be clear about who he was referring to. But he didn't. It is my opinion that if the graffiti had been written by someone else , and if it was anti-semitic as the police thought , then the term ' Yids ' or ' Jews ' would have been used : Sir Charles Warren indeed issued a statement stating ' Juwes ' did not mean Jews in any known language , which indeed it does not.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 09:46 am
(continued) So what does the graffiti mean then ? Well , it is my assertion that ' Juwes ' , as has been mentioned before , refers to the 3 Ruffians of Masonic Lore , the 3 Murderers of Hiram Abif the Architect of the Temple. I AM NOT SUGGESTING A MASONIC CONSPIRACY THOUGH !!! We can be certain that , if the killers were Freemasons as I am suggesting , their respective lodges did not know about it and could never have condoned their behaviour ; rather , the killers were individual Freemasons who were operating without the knowledge of the Brotherhood and who were bound together by their bonds of Freemasonry. In actual fact the term ' The 3 Ruffians ' was used by Masons to represent the Juwes , but a student of Masonic lore or a high ranking Freemason would have recognised the term ' Juwes ' for what it really did mean. Such a man was Sir Charles Warren , a man who had excavated Herod's Temple in the 1860s and who had founded his own Lodge , No.2076 Quatuor Coronati , in Victorian London. My explanation of the grafitti is that it is a taunting message addressed to the police and to Sir Charles Warren , who the killer knew to be a Mason. In fact this is even more likely if the killer believed he had killed Mary Kelly , the object of his hunt ( in actual fact he had killed Catherine Eddowes who gave her name as Mary Kelly or Jane Kelly ) ; he would have felt justifiably smug and might have allowed himself a little indulgence. Below I will give my explanations of how I believe the message to read.
Author: Simon Owen Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 10:21 am
Here are my explanations of the Goulston Street graffiti. EXPLANATION 1 : the message means ' The Juwes (murderers) are the men / who / will not be blamed for nothing ( i.e. anything ) ' , i.e. the Juwes will not be blamed , i.e. the murderers will not be blamed , i.e. the murderers of Mary Kelly will not be blamed and therefore will not be punished. This could be because the murder had been commited and no-one had any evidence to convict or identify the killers. But it could also mean that the killers could not be punished because they were Freemasons , Warren not being allowed to harm them because of their common oath of Brotherhood , with the word ' Juwes ' giving them away. EXPLANATION 2 : ' The Juwes (murderers) are the men who / will not be blamed for nothing ( i.e. no reason ) ' , i.e. the Juwes (murderers) are guilty , i.e. we are the murderers and we are guilty. The killers here use Juwes as a synonym for murderers and are boasting that they , like the 3 Ruffians , are guilty. Again , using the word Juwes gives away the fact that they are Freemasons for the meaning of the word would only be known to Freemasons. Thus , the sense is ' We are Masonic murderers and we are proud to say we are guilty of the murder of Kelly '.EXPLANATION 3 : ' The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing ( i.e. for having done nothing , i.e. wrongly ) , i.e. the Juwes were not wrongly blamed for murder therefore , by inference , if you blame us for the murder of Kelly then that blame will not be misplaced because we are guilty. The killers identify themselves with the Juwes (murderers) and say " We did it ". It is also possible that ' the Juwes ' was a term used by the killers to represent themselves , again the writing is boasting that they did it , sort of like ' Kilroy was ere '. This was , after all , grafitti.
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 01:47 pm
Simon, I love the way you dissemenate your theories, man! You just wind up your pelvis, and let it all blow out everywhere! Keep spilling your guts, man! David
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 02:27 pm
Why is the simplest explanation for things never considered in Ripperology? I sometimes wish poor Sir Charles HAD photographed the damned "Juwes" writing, so we wouldn't have to plow through reams of tortuous bloviating about hidden meaings and cover-ups and bloodthirsty renegade Masons. I admire your enthusiam, Simon, but this is a prime example of why crime historians think Ripperologists to be a dotty breed apart.
Author: David M. Radka Thursday, 02 March 2000 - 08:30 pm
LOVE THAT WORD, BLOVIATION. WARREN HARDING, NOW, HE WAS A NORTORIOUS BLOVIATOR. DAVID
Author: Simon Owen Friday, 03 March 2000 - 04:59 am
David , I'm winding up for some more bloviating !