|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 9, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Is The Goulston Street Graffito All It Seems?:
Archive through March 9, 2000
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 07:29 am |        | | Sorry Guy , its not down to Joe. I researched the book ' The Hiram Key ' by Christopher Knight ( no relation to Stephen ) and its there on pages 22-23 and on page 179.' The Juwes '( pronounced Joo-ease I think ). Christopher Knight is himself a Freemason and is told by a Master Mason of the 3 Ruffians , collectively known as the Jewes. Also see Dennis Stocks' article on the Freemasonry boards : " As for the word ' Juwes' itself as a collective term for the murderers of Hiram Abif - it had been dropped from English Masonic ritual in the early nineteenth century ". Stocks thus confirms the word derives from pre-nineteenth century sources therefore , and that it was not made up by Joseph Sickert. The fact it was an archaic word no longer used would have made it ideal for the name of the Ripper gang. |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 07:49 am | | | So , I think we can state one of two things : ' Juwes ' is either a mispelling of ' Jews ' or it refers to the 3 Ruffians. Since the murderer spelt a complicated word like ' nothing ' correctly , how come he spelt ' Jews ' wrong ? I would suggest the odd spellings in the Ripper letters do not apply here , as they are probably fake and the educated writer was trying incorrectly to replicate the diction of a crude and common person. But I have another point to make. The message is NOT ' The Jews will not be blamed for nothing ' : the key phrase is ' ...the men who... '. This implies the message is written about a GROUP OF MEN. For example , in WW1 a German propaganda phrase was ' God punish England ' because it referred to the nation of the English. The phrase was not ' God punish the men who are English ' because that excludes women , pets and the actual island.A way around this is if the writing was strictly anti-semitic , and the crime of the Jews referred to could be killing Jesus ; then the message would refer to the men present at Pilate's trial and would have nothing to do with the killings. But there is no passion in the graffiti , and anyway if you write something on a wall it usually refers to something current i.e. relative to the moment. I'd say this explanation would be correct if the murder victims were Jewish men , it would give us the motive for the killings . But the victims were women and they were Christians. So I don't believe it can be the case. |
Author: John Dixon
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:28 am | | Simon I am sure you are not pursuing a popular line of thought however allow me to offer a tidbit which may be worth researching. Check the letter sent by Roslyn D O'stephenson ( reproduced in the Mommoth book of JtR )16/10/88 in which he asserts that the word is Juives. I have had no time to chase this through but his assertion that the killer is therefore French may be an oblique reference the masons via their French Templar history. I don't have anything concrete to offer. Only that Stephenson's letter bears examination in relation to the writing. He certainly thinks he knows something.
A separate point not being clearly made here is that according to the Police Eddowes was killed at 1:45 the apron was not present at 2:20 (it was found at 2:50) - i.e. the writing may have been put there as much as an hour after the murder.
Incidently while I believe the writing is probably by the killer there is absolutely no compelling reason I can offer.
Earlier I mentioned the 3 jewish witnesses precisely because there were 3. Again the masons offer a little colour but no evidence. Pity. Good Luck Simon
John |
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 10:33 am | | | Sorry, Simon. The theory that the word juwes as used in the graffito is intended to convey a Masonic message most certainly DOES emanate from "Sickert". I thought that was what we were debating. As for your last posting - EH???? |
Author: Simon Owen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 11:08 am | | | The theory might , but the word has been in existence for ages. Sorry Guy , I thought you were suggesting Joe Sickert had made the word ' Juwes ' up : my apologies , I got confused. As to the other stuff , the point I was trying to make was that the grafitti writer included the words '...are the men who...' because he was referring to a particular group of men ; it was my assertion that if he had been speaking of the Jews as a race , he would have written ' The Juwes are not going to be blamed for nothing '. I hope that clears everything up. |
Author: Jim Leen
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 11:25 am | | Hello Everybody,
There seems to be many loose ends within this topic although my biggest bugbear concerns the notion that England is an island. On a similar vein I would also draw exception to the concept of the Masonic Order having Templar antecedents. Any organisation, of venerable age, always seems to intimate that they were drawn down from the mystical holy soldiers. Put simply, the Templars were exterminated in the 13th/14th century. A few hundred years later a Jacobean organisation arose in Scotland - which of course became known as the Masonic Order.
The graffiti itself may be imbued with any detail desired strictly because of the fact that two versions were copied down by two different hands. It may be construed as anti-Papish, for instance, as it was the Romans that arrested and executed Jesus Christ. [Incidentally, heavy irony there.] If you start off with a theory, a slight distortion or omission of basic facts can soon lead to the graffiti supporting any viewpoint. The composition of the lines, say, neatly match the syntax of classical Japanese poetry. What can one infer from that?
Thanking you etc.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: David M. Radka
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 11:38 am | | Hello?
Let's acknowledge here that in dealing with the masonic theory in whatever form, Sickert point-blank admitted that he'd blown the whole thing right out of his ass--that he'd made it up entirely. Let's not mind dissemenation, but think twice concerning defecation.
David |
Author: Thomas Ind
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 12:27 pm | | I'm interested in Simon's point that Graffiti normally refers to something current. He's quite right. And if it was written in chalk then it can't be put along side the graffiti at the London Hospital that say 'free Nelson Mandella'!
What other events could it be related to? |
Author: Stewart P Evans
Tuesday, 07 March 2000 - 02:15 pm | | I think that the point being missed here is that the graffiti may well have referred to the murders and yet not have been written by the killer. The Jews were taking a lot of stick in the papers regarding the murders and 'Leather Apron' (Pizer) was a Jew.
In my humble opinion the graffiti had nothing whatsoever to do with the killer himself. Such graffiti was common at the time (Bachert had 'Ripper' graffiti scrawled on his wall) and the piece of apron being disposed of there was merely coincidental. |
Author: Harry Mann
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 04:36 am | | For those that believe the graffiti was the work of the killer,and to those who think some letters were also written by him,why was nothing written in Kelly's room,and why were no letters sent after her murder.
He had the perfect opportunity after killing her to write whatever he wished,and one would think that after commiting the most audacious murder of all and gotten away with it,he would at least left or sent some gloating reminder.
H.M. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 04:38 am | | I have to say here that Stewart's opinion seems the most realistic, and that Jim's point is well made. The biggest problem we have with the graffito is that we really don't know for sure what the correct wording was, and hence any attempt to impose a meaning upon it is liable to be misleading. while Simon is quite right to point out the almost inevitable topicality of the writing, we're in no position to drawn any firm conclusions beyond that.
Regarding the Masonic (or otherwise) origins of the word "Juwes", I do not know The Hiram Key, and so cannot confirm or deny the reliability of the information contained therein, save to say, that there appear to have been conflicting statements, at various times, from supposedly Masonic sources, as to whether or not the word has ever had a Masonic connotation.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 04:41 am | | I have to say here that Stewart's opinion seems the most realistic, and that Jim's point is well made. The biggest problem we have with the graffito is that we really don't know for sure what the correct wording was, and hence any attempt to impose a meaning upon it is liable to be misleading. while Simon is quite right to point out the almost inevitable topicality of the writing, we're in no position to drawn any firm conclusions beyond that.
Regarding the Masonic (or otherwise) origins of the word "Juwes", I do not know The Hiram Key, and so cannot confirm or deny the reliability of the information contained therein, save to say, that there appear to have been conflicting statements, at various times, from supposedly Masonic sources, as to whether or not the word has ever had a Masonic connotation.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Guy Hatton
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 04:47 am | | I just knew that one of these days I'd get caught out by that thing where the "Post this Message" button doesn't seem to work. Sorry all!
Guy |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 05:43 am | | | David ,whether Sickert made up the theory or not is irrelevant. We can create a similar theory about the word ' Juwes ' ourselves , simply by looking at the evidence. Sadly we cannot be sure what the spelling was of the word was after all this time , but the spelling was NOT ' Jews ' we can be certain. It was either ' Jeuwes ' or ' Juwes '. Sir Charles Warren certainly thought it was ' Juwes' and , being a high level Freemason , he would have known this referred to the 3 Ruffians. As to the apron , why would the killer merely toss it away at random when it was a valuable clue ? Where had he been for the last 30 - 45 minutes with it ? |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 08 March 2000 - 03:30 pm | | Harry
Just to remind you that some say that he did leave grafitti in Kelly's room. JM!! Ugg!! Please don't think I believe this. |
Author: Harry Mann
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 04:04 am | | | Perhaps Thomas the two letters were his humorous way of saying,'Just Me'.No I don't think he left anything either although he had every opportunity,and plenty of writing material.I also am of the opinion that no letters were written by him. |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 05:00 am | | | One good thing about that ' Jack the Ripper : the psychic investigation ' book was that it had a blown up photo of the Kelly murder scene , really big. And by examining it closely you can see that , although the ' F ' looks to be a realistic letter , the ' M ' is actually just a bunch of scratches or blood splashes ; it doesn't look much like an ' M ' at all. If anyone can blow up the photo and retain the clarity they will see this to be the case. There was NEVER any writing on Kelly's wall , Bagster Phillips would have noted it if there was anyway. Thus Maybrick's Diary is proven a shameless hoax. |
Author: Jeffrey
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 05:35 am | | Hello Everybody !
I love it when I see posts from such as Stewart Evans, the Rabbi and others, which remind me to always keep my feet firmly planted in reality.
I still wonder if at times we make too much of the graffiti, (whether genuine or not) and we are in danger of building a house of cards if using the graffiti to expound any theory. I am constantly reminded that the simplest solution is often the correct one. I don't discount anything that anyone has said, either pro or anti graffiti, it is always necessary to keep an open mind but I do think we're heading into murky waters by associating the message with conspiracies.
I do believe we have to give the graffiti some credence, it was a chalk message that couldn't have been there too long. It could have obviously be written by anyone, and the probability is that we will never know the author, or the true meaning. If it had been there any length of time, or if it was discounted by any of the residents, we would surely know it today. Similarily, if any of the local Jewish residents had seen it and taken offense, there would probably have been an attempt to obliterate it. Of course we can't discount that it, and numerous other forms of graffito were so common, and meaningless and people didn't give it a second look.
By writing here on the boards, I have realised how I may be misled myself, so I shall endeavour to keep an open mind. I had felt for a period, that the police were not a great deal short of negligent, if they hadn't followed up what might have been a valuable clue and this has made me realise that I don't know enough to attempt any sort of critisim of the police or their actions. Here were men a great deal more intelligent than I and they were at the scene. I'm sure that someone knows more about this particular item and whether it was ever a clue or not, than I ever will.
I do wonder then, what kind of information might just have been held back from the public on that night. I think that a few of the myths that surround the murders, might have originated from the police while disseminating information to the public, always holding back one-or-two items that only the murderer would know for sure. For example, if it had been felt that the Ghoulston message was written by the killer, he and only he would know the correct spelling and wording. People were confessing to the crimes (as they do today) all the time, so the police had to have something, especially with credible suspects that would guage their involvement in the crimes.
I had thought for a while that the police must have been totally stupid. Yet here amongst others were one of the most senior police officers in the city. Surely these men, no matter how clumsy we think they were, knew what they were doing with the few clues that they may have had. They had been scouring the neighbourhood, they were following up any and every lead they could, yet here is what could have been a valuable clue, and we believe they acted casually, just scribbling it down, then rubbing it out ? Even the letter from Warren, explaining his actions would not have divulged any real evidence, or explain fully the course of the investigation they were undertaking.
I think the apron, the presence of Mr. Warren (& others) gives the graffiti a great deal of credence. It might simply be that the killer would be able to recall the message right where he dropped the apron. If it was written by the killer (while I believe the spelling of the word could have been a simple mistake), only a few men, including the killer and senior officers would have known exactly what was written. Having to be kept as confidential as possible would explain why there is not more documentation on the graffiti than we would expect, and this again could give the message some credence.
Cheers All, sorry for the long-winded post !
Jeff D |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 06:53 am | | | I agree Jeff that we need to consider the grafitti ( and apron ) as a very important clue indeed. I cannot believe that the killer would toss the apron away for the police to find , someone as clever as Jack wouldn't be so stupid. It would confirm to police that he lived in the area. Unless of course he didn't. Throwing the apron away , like the letters , might be a trick to make the police think he was a common Eastender rather than an educated man of some means who was committing the crimes. If ' Juwes ' was a deliberate mispelling of ' Jews ' it would tie in with this theory quite nicely. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Thursday, 09 March 2000 - 09:09 am | | Maybe our man was clever. Maybe he was just lucky. You might think that a murderer who had avoided detection thus far would not be so stupid as to thrown the apron away. By the same token, though, you would think that a man who had killed 13 women and maimed 7 others, and had survived being interviewed by police on nine seperate occasions, would know better than to go out looking for another victim with false number plates hastily taped onto his car. Yet that is exactly what Peter Sutcliffe did, and that was his undoing. We need to be careful how intelligent (or otherwise) we assume a murderer to be.
All the Best
Guy |
|
|
|
|
