|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Profile of Jack
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Profile of Jack
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:00 pm |        | Philip,
Very interesting profile.
Why:
- around 1.80m in height ( and what would this be in feet?)
- was deformed or disfigured
- became aggressive due to situation
- was not sexually aroused by the acts of murder |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:35 pm | | Scott,
In Thomas Neagle's summary of eyewitness descriptions I don't interpret them saying 'upper class'. My take is they are making a distinction between middle class and working class, or to put it simply: indoor versus outdoor job apparel. All witnessed suspects wear suits or clothing suggesting they have indoor jobs. There can be a range of well dressed to shabby gentile that have indoor occupations. The people of Whitechapel would certainly notice this distinction.
If any of these witness descriptions did include JTR does this not argue for the sociopath profile? |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 07:45 pm | | Hi all,
The problem with profiling the Whitechapel murderer is that such a sketch necessarily depends on crime scenes. However, in this case, it is extraordinarily difficult to determine which of the murders are related.
This was a problem in the Atlanta child murders in the 1980s. The media portrayed a serial killer that had slaughtered almost 30 children. However, a close review of the case indicates that in a normal year dozens of children are murdered in Atlanta by different killers. Some were ascribing any child killed during the early 80s as a victim of the serial killer. This was probably untrue.
The eventual named suspect, Wayne Williams, was convicted of only two of the murders. The police announced the case closed and the media went away. Meanwhile, murders of children, albeit at a slower pace, continued to occur.
My point is most profilers make assumptions as to the number of victims in the Ripper series that may not be Ripper killings at all. Conversely, some killings that may be the work of the Ripper are ignored.
At the time of the killings, authorities opinion on the number of Ripper victims ranged from 4 to 11.
In the aftermath of the McNaughton memorandum, which cited 5 murders, it seems the general consensus has shifted to that number as well. However, McNaughton's notes are filled with errors on rather routine matters in the case.
I agree with Stewart Evans that if you look closely at modus operandi, there are only 3 murders that can definitely be linked (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes).
Stride and Kelly may not have been Ripper victims at all.
There apparently was a witness to the Stride assault in the person of Israel Schwartz. Schwartz also maintained that there was a man who may have been an accomplice lurking nearby.
It is popular to assume that Stride was a victim in the series who was not mutilated because the killer was interrupted. However, if the Schwartz testimony is to be believed, and the assumption that she was a victim in the series maintained, one must accept that the Ripper was assaulting a Stride with two witnesses present. There is no fact in the other killings that suggest the Ripper was so oblivious to discovery. As likely a scenario could be that Stride was being attacked by someone other than the Ripper.
The Kelly murder is a complete departure from the Ripper's methodology. The currently popular assumption is that since the killing took place in the privacy of indoors, the murderer may have felt more free to commit savagery not performed on the other victims. But it is important to consider that Kelly's murder being in her private dwelling is a departure from the killer's routine.
It is also possible that murders discounted in the series - Martha Tabram, Frances Coles, etc could be Ripper victims.
I don't know for certain who were the Ripper's victims (my hunch is 4). However, I question the ability to formulate a solid profile based upon presumptions that may not be true.
Rich |
Author: Robeer
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 10:00 pm | | Rich,
You make some very good points. Why did JTR decide not to strangle Kelly first as he apparently did with all other victims? Was he disrobed so blood spray didn't matter? The theory is Lizzie Borden was naked when she hacked her victims to death. She simply took a bath later. JTR did not have that opportunity but could have wiped off the blood. One similarity that may tie JTR to Kelly is the repeat circular incision into Kelly's anatomy as had been done to Chapman.
Stride may have survived the witnessed assault only to be murdered by JTR minutes later. There was about a 15 minute window for JTR to work in the Stride case. JTR had about a 10 minute window to do Eddowes. If the witnessed attacker did murder Stride then he took an awful chance knowing he had been seen by a witness. The attacker was attempting to pull Stride into the street not the alley. There was time for him to leave Stride alive only for JTR to arrive.
JTR may have witnessed the attack and actually come to Stride's aid sending the first attacker on his way. She stood up long enough for the mud to dry on her dress before JTR killed her. The witness would then identify someone else. All the better for JTR.
On the other hand, the first attacker could have been an inebriated JTR who was less cautious. Or maybe JTR was clothed in such away as to not worry about being identified at some later date. Maybe he was just taking greater risks each time for the thrill of it.
One of the JTR letters mentioned the first victim of the double event "squealed a bit" so either the first attacker was JTR or JTR witnessed the first attack. Would the hoaxers have known about this detail in time to include this info in a phony letter?
If your hunch is right and Kelly was not a Ripper victim and Hutchinson's remarkable description is true, then Tumblety is the only suspect known to dress in such a flamboyant manner. It seems impossible that anyone would go to Whitechapel at night dressed so affluently without a bodyguard or a weapon, such as a sword cane. Tumblety resided in the area at the time. It could be that Tumblety was a copycat killer and fled after this one murder.
If the witnesses were at all accurate the Chapman suspect looked 'middle aged'. Wonder what middle aged meant in 1888? The suspects of the double event looked younger (25-30). The suspect of the Kelly murder looked older (35). Evidently Tumblety (55) could pass for a 35 year old man. There has been some discussion on another board there was more than one Ripper.
As a matter of fact see Warwick Parminter's post of this evening in the following section 'Why bother speculating?' |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Tuesday, 23 October 2001 - 10:36 pm | | Hi Robeer,
I really have no idea whether Stride and Kelly were Ripper victims. My inclination is to believe that Stride was not.
Apparently, if you believe Swanson and Anderson, Schwartz identified Kosminski as Stride's attacker.
It is possible, though mere conjecture, that Kosminski was indeed Stride's assailant but that he was not Jack the Ripper.
Rich |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 07:30 am | | Hi Robber,
Thanks!.
"around 1.80m in height"
he had to be taller than the women he assaulted to be able to grab them from behind. Try grabbing somebody who is taller than you are? It takes to much energy and time. (I think it is around 6 ft.)
"was deformed or disfigured "
My opinion is that the whores turned him down as a "customer".
"became aggressive due to situation "
see above
"was not sexually aroused by the acts of murder"
There is no sign of rape or sexuall "action". Plus he did not take any souvenirs. Sexuall killers nearly always take a "keepsake" to remind them of the victims.
Philip
PS I think Stride was a victim but Kelly was somebody eles work. |
Author: Monty
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 08:30 am | | Phil C,
Thanks mate. Robeer asked the question I was pondering. But do tell, Why wasn't Kelly was one of Jack's and why do you think he wasn't religous ?
Must admit that your profile makes a lot of sense to me. Thanks again.
Monty
 |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 10:39 am | | Hi Monty,
my pleasure - I was in two minds in writing 1000 words or keeping it short. (The long version is half finished - so if you are interested...).
Kelly is very difficult. She fits if I am right in presuming him to be instable. He may have started by "just killing her", gone into a fit or been pushed over the edge. People who suffer from borderline syndromes can be pushed too far and then never find the way back to being "normal". If I am wrong, then she may not be a Ripper-victim.
SKs who have a religious side to their killings are very similar to sexual killers. They tend to use churches as their killing-fields or leave religious messages. None found.
I forgot something - the graffiti. I don't think Jack left the message. It was probably found by coincidence on that night. I can't prove it - just gut feeling.
I am of the opinion that too much is read into the killings. Not everything found belongs into the case. But as Richard stated none of us saw the crime-scenes which makes it very difficult in making a profile. Experience and gut-feeling are normally not enough.
Yours, Philip
PS Please do me a favour - I hate Phil :-)) |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 03:40 pm | | Robeer
Besides the man seen by George Hutchinson, who I said dressed and looked like an aristocrat, I said the other men were dressed like respectable looking middle-class or upper middle-class men. I did not say they looked 'upper-class'. What I did say was that I believe these respectably dressed middle-class or upper middle-class men, were in fact, upper-class or aristocratic men( besides the possibility of John Netley if he was there, which means there would have been some kind of Joseph Sickert/John Wilding "royal conspiracy"), and that the only one of these men that dressed up to his position in life, was the aristocratic looking man seen by George Hutchinson. Also, it is just as likely, and in my opinion, probably more likely, that Jack the Ripper was not some kind of Joseph Sickert/John Wilding "royal conspiracy", but was in actuality, J.K. Stephen and Prince Eddy involved together in the Jack the Ripper crimes.
In terms of the aristocratic man seen by George Hutchinson, in my opinion he was not Tumblety but Prince Eddy, with J.K. Stephen in the near vicinity. Mrs. Kennedy told Inspector Abberline that she saw a woman talking to two men in Miller's Court at around the time Mary Jane Kelly was supposed to be murdered. In terms of your point about the affluently dressed man seen by George Hutchinson not being seen with a bodyguard or a sword cane, both Prince Eddy and J.K. Stephen would have had knives on them. If there was some kind of Joseph Sickert/John Wilding "royal conspiracy", which I believe is less likely than J.K. Stephen and Prince Eddy together being involved in the Jack the Ripper crimes, then the aristocratic looking man seen by George Hutchinson would have been Randolph Churchill, and both he his accomplice( Mrs. Kennedy's statement about two men) would have had knives on them.
Graz
The man seen by Mrs. Long who she said looked foreign was, in my opinion, Prince Eddy. Prince Eddy could be said, with his coloring and dark eyes and dark hair, to be foreign or jewish looking. Mrs. Long, considering that she didn't get a good look at the man, and only saw him briefly and at night, and said she would not recognize him again, I contend that the age and the height of the man she gave was inaccurate.
The man George Hutchinson saw, who he said looked foreign or jewish, was, in my opinion, Prince Eddy. The age variation between the statement of George Hutchinson and Prince Eddy's age, was probably because Prince Eddy was somewhat dissipated looking and looked older than his age, because he was probably suffering from venereal disease. Also, George Hutchinson may have been off somewhat with the age he gave of the man , because he said that the man lowered his head, and had his hat somewhat over his eyes.
In terms of the alleged identification of Kosminski by Anderson and Swanson, this has been discredited by a lot of people, not the least of which is Philip Sugden, the author of one of the best books on Jack the Ripper. Also, Macnaughten, Abberline, Smith, Arnold, Reid and Littlechild did not believe that Kosminski was Jack the Ripper. Littlechild even said that Anderson 'only "thought he knew"'(Sugden pg.420). Also, besides the fact that the poor, mentally unbalanced Kosminski would not have been as well dressed as the middle-class or upper middle-class man seen by Israel Schwartz, this man who threw Elizabeth Stride down, when he saw Israel Schwartz, called out a warning or code word 'Lipski' to the pipe man( police report), or the pipe man called out a warning or code word to the man who threw Elizabeth Stride down( newspaper account). Whichever man said this, if he was jewish, he would not have called out to the other man a warning or code word 'Lipski' on seeing a fellow jew, Israel Schwartz. In terms of the differing accounts on which man called out to the other a warning or code word 'Lipski', I believe the Star's newspaper account was the correct one. Israel Schwartz could not speak any or much english, and when he gave his statement to the police, he used an interpreter. No copy of his original statement survives, only Chief Inspector Swanson's synthesis of the information given by Israel Schwartz. The Star's newspaper account is the correct one because, in my opinion, it's more likely that the man who threw Elizabeth Stride down was to busy to see Israel Schwartz first. The pipe man probably saw Israel Schwartz first, and called out to the man who threw Elizabeth stride down, the warning or code word 'Lipski'. In terms of the word 'Lipski', I believe it was a code word or warning between J.K. Stephen and Prince Eddy, that there was danger afoot. Israel Lipski was the name of a man convicted of murdering a woman, in a much publicized trial in 1887. The judge presiding over the trial of Israel Lipski was James Fitzjames Stephen, the father of J.K. Stephen. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:37 pm | | | Thomas, the man Mrs Long saw was right outside No 29 Hanbury St, at about 05:30 am on the morning of the 8th September, talking to Chapman. It would have been reasonably light by then, it wasn't dark, and it wasn't night. She even heard a question and answer pass between them, why should you doubt her? |
Author: graziano
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 04:45 pm | | Thomas,
that the man seen by Long was the same man seen by Hutchinson, I do agree.
That the different sightings of the different witnesses discard the shabby lunatic Kosminsky used to look for food in the gutters and probably very dirty (already in such a state in 1888 ?), I do agree.
That it was Pipeman who shouted "Lipsky" and not the attacker of Stride I do admit that is an interesting theory.
For a jew not calling "Lipsky" a fellow jew, there are jews who do not like other jews.
Remember that there were in London two big groups of immigrant jews at the time, the "chots" (only quite sure about the term, I must check), coming from Holland and neighbouring Belgium, and the "polacks" (this time I am sure) coming not only from Poland but also from Russia, Lithuania and other eastern european countries.
Very few things in common, not even the language (Yiddish was only spoken by the "eastern jews").
If the formers had a common way of life with the jews already established in England since some centuries, the latters had with them nothing in common.
The jews in London at the time did not represent a single community.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Scott E. Medine
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 06:15 pm | | Hi Robeer and all,
When we look at the crime scenes we see a very disorganized killer. The only organized trait is that he brought his own weapon. The killer killed in a frenzy. Overkill is a disorganized killer's hallmark. Some organized killers do partake in the over kill of victims but it is USUALLY because they suddenly snapped for some reason.
Organized killers tend ot be more to the psychopathic aka socio-pathic side. They are charming. in a past post i stated kinda like a used car salesman. NOW DON'T EVERYONE TAKE THIS AS SAYING THAT I SAID ALL USED CAR SALESMEN ARE SOCIOPATHIC OR HOMICIDAL AND I MEAN NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE OUT THERE WHO IS A CARSALESMAN OR IS RELATED TO A CARSALESMAN. Organized killers plan their crimes. Edmund Kemper used to ride around and try his pick up lines on women to see if they would work before he used them to lure a victim. Zodiac planned his killings with the intensity of football coach preparing his game plan. He is likely to be military, combat arms, as he had back up plans.
If the organized killer is the cunning fox then the disorganized killer is the rabid dog. There is very little or no method to his madness. He is fueled by his psychosis and feeds his needs like a drug addict.
M.O. versus signature. The killer's M.O. can change and evolve. His signature usually does not.
Now I say usually while people like John Douglas and other profilers say the signature NEVER changes. As far as we know, a killers signature has never changed. Can a killer change his signature? I don't know. Maybe one day one will come along and actually change his signature.
The M.O. is how the perp committs the crime. The signature is what he does to make him feel the crime has been completed. A little analogy.
Athletes and their coaches are some of the most supersticious people in the world. Sparky Anderson, who coached the Cincinatti Reds to the World Championship in their hey day, never stepped on the third base line. My brother is a high school football coach. He always grabs a pinch of grass from the endzone and puts it in his poscket before the start of each game. His game plan may change from week to week depending on the players available and the team being played and their strengths and weaknesses. But he always pulls up that pinch of grass at the start of the game. The game plan is his M.O. the placing of the grass in his pocket is his signature.
With Jack we see a definite M.O. and signature. We see the M.O. evolving. The signature does not change. His M.O. is attack by knife and post mortem mutilation is the signature. The attacks on Martha Tabram and Polly Nichols show a person being beaten and then savagely attacked with a knife. True Nichols had her throat cut, Tabram was stabbed 39 times but the knife attack is there. The killer may have found he likes slitting throats better than stabbing. Maybe he learned that cutting the throat is a faster way of silencing his victim. Post Mortem Mutilation? Forensic evidence shows, without doubt, that the first stab to Tabram was the one to the heart, the rest was post mortem overkill. With the forensic dat available, I have already proved the time of death for Martha Tabram is off by an hour. Her time of death is closer to 3:30 than 2:30 and the killer was more than likely disturbed by Alfred Crow's return home. If it were not for this then Ms. Tabram would have been just as bad as Ms. Chapman.
Nichols, a little more obvious and a little more in depth.
Chapman, was strangled and then had her throat cut. The killer evolved to the point that the strangulation was more efficient than throttling the crap out of someone, The killer was also in a more secured area. Post Mortem, killer was in a more secured area so the mutilation could be a little more indepth, but it is still a post mortem mutilation and is his signature. Surely, this didn't kill the victim.
Stride a secured area but he was almost discovered and he fled. Kate Eddowes suffered the full frenzied attack that was meant for Ms. Stride.
Mary Jane Kelly.......... pictures are worth a 1000 words.
Peace,
Scott |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 07:05 pm | | Hi all,
Speculation about the murderer's class is problematic. Former FBI profiler John Douglas, who studied this case, believes the murderer is probably lower class but dressed as affluently as he could afford so that he might attract and gain the favor of his victims more easily.
Douglas's position would appear to refute the claim by some that the murderer was upper middle class or upper class. Of course, this all is sheer speculation.
Rich |
Author: Tom Wescott
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 10:27 pm | | Hello all,
I've only been scanning the above posts, but allow me to comment on Kelly's candidacy as a Ripper victim. I believe there's enough evidence to suggest she was killed by the same person as Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes (and, in my opinion, Tabram and Stride). Kelly's legs were propped up in the familiar position, with her head tilted to one side, and her arm purposefully placed over her torso, as was the case with most the other victims. Also, we find portions of the body strategically (to the killer, anyway) place about the room, particularly at the feet and head, exactly the same place Chapman's killer placed her belongings. In fact, this murder is in every way similar to Chapman's, with the exception that it was done indoors so the killer felt free to go all out. There's really only one logical conclusion, and that is that Kelly was killed by the Ripper. And who said she wasn't strangled?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 10:54 pm | | Hi Tom & all,
It's quite possible and perhaps probable that Kelly was a Ripper victim. And Tom correctly notes some of the similiarities of the Kelly murder with those of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes. However, there are significant differences too. Those are explained by some to be the result of the Ripper being able to take his time to conduct any mutilation desired. I merely suggest that while this is plausible, it is by no means definite.
I confess to be in the minority on the Stride killing. The only real similiarity of the Stride murder to the other assaults is the depth of the throat cut and some bruising. There are significant dissimiliarities:
1. Stride was not mutilated
2. Stride was attacked in front of a witness
3. There may have been two men involved with this killing
4. Stride was killed near the doorway of a building that was lighted, occupied, and filled with noise people inside
Some explain away the first difference by claiming the Ripper was interrupted by a passerby. This is sheer conjecture.
Points 2 and 3 relate to the testimony of Israel Schwartz. Now, some may claim Schwartz to be a liar. I find no evidence for this. Others have claimed that perhaps Stride was assaulted by two different men within 15 minutes (the latter being the Ripper, the former being the man who Schwartz saw). This is again conjecture and quite a coincidence.
In all of the other killings, the murders took place in quiet, dark secluded areas presumably so the killing could be unwitnessed and mutilations would occur.
In this case, though, the assailant begins his assault in public, conducts his attack beside a building that is noisy and busy, and does not commit a mutilation.
These are clear departures from the murderer's modus operandi. And while proponents of the view that Stride was a Ripper victim have explanations - they are all theory.
My own view is that the Stride killing is not clearly established as a Ripper attack. Therefore, it is dangerous to use this assault in constructing any profile of Jack the Ripper.
Rich |
Author: Robeer
Wednesday, 24 October 2001 - 11:26 pm | | Thomas,
Prince Eddy certainly had the wardrobe to dress like the suspect Hutchison purportedly saw with Kelly. If Eddy had an accomplice that takes care of the bodyguard issue. I've read on these boards that Eddy has been placed at locations outside London on some of the dates the victims were murdered. How does this affect your opinion of him as a suspect?
Tom,
I said she wasn't strangled. I think Rumbelow indicated she wasn't strangled because of the obvious blood spray on the wall next to the bed. Could she have been strangled enough to lose consciousness but still have a heartbeat? If so that may explain the spray on the wall. If there is evidence of strangulation then it is one more indication of JTR and his MO.
Mary Kelly's mutilations are similar to Chapman. One aspect that is different is the savage external attack on Kelly, as if the killer wanted to deprive her of all of her beauty.
Is it possible that Kosminski killed Stride, Tumblety killed Kelly, and JTR killed the rest? |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 08:11 am | | Philip C,
Sorry but my laziness got the better of me when typing your name.
Yes of course I would be interested in the long version.
So you don't think the graffito is a religious message then?
Monty
|
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 11:29 am | | Hello all,
Stride's neckerchief was reported to have been pulled by tightly in a restrictive manner. As she was lying on the ground when she had her throat cut, and there were people in the windows just above her who didn't hear a scuffle, and there was no real sign of a struggle, it seems hard to escape that Stride was indeed strangled first. Therefore, if the murderer merely wanted to kill her, he would have finished there. But instead we find him positioning her like the other victims and then slicing her throat before fleeing. That Diemshutz interrupted the killer is only one theory, but a very good one considering she had JUST met her death when he came strolling in. Another good theory was given by the 'Saucy Jacky' postcard which claimed Stride did indeed cry out, apparently not enough to rouse the party-goers, but enough to make Jack nervous and flee. These are both good theories.
Rich,
You are willing to accept that another killer was on the loose at the same moment and in the same square mile as Jack, but denounce that Stride may have been attacked by two different men within 15 minutes? And that's only if Schwartz were correct in his assessment. The woman he saw may very well have not been Liz Stride, considering the circumstances. We are at the mercy of his interpreters as to what he actually saw. I think it's important to note that a contemporary press report stated they weren't taking Schwartz's testimony all that seriously.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 11:32 am | | Hi Monty,
I don't think Jack left the graffito.
Philip |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 11:52 am | | Hello Philip,
so what a simple passer-by could have meant by that kind of sentence, if there is any significance in it ?
And to whom do you think this simple passer-by could have had the intention to address it ?
Interested in your opinion.
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Richard P. Dewar
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 12:20 pm | | Hi Tom,
You raise some interesting points. My position is not that I believe or disbelieve that Stride was a Ripper victim. I don't know. To me the information is inconclusive.
The value of Schwartz testimony was discounted by some and regarded as highly valueable by others in the police department.
I would still maintain that the attacks differed from the others in several significant ways : no mutilation occurred, the attack may have occurred while a witness was looking on and an accomplice lurked near by, the killer struck in a very dangerous, public site.
Finally, and I know that this will be contentious, I think the fact that Stride had been murdered makes it more unlikely that he would have killed Eddowes just moments away.
I would have expected the Ripper to be in flight, and in fear, had he just murdered a woman. Especially if he knew a witness was about who might identify him. And even more so if, as many suggest, Diemschutz nearly caught him in the act.
Yet again, as so many things in the case, I admit I am engaging in conjecture.
Rich |
Author: graziano
Thursday, 25 October 2001 - 12:20 pm | | Sorry Philip,
I do not want to give you the impression to be willing to cheat you (asking and in the same time being already prepared to discard your answer, whatever it is), but I do really think (I already gave an explanation of my opinion under the board "Wentworth Model Dwellings, Goulston Street, still there ?") that the weakness of not believing that Jack(s) wrote the graffito resides right in the impossibility to find another viable and realistic explanation, even if not knowing the meaning of the same graffito.
In fact to give a viable answer to the questions above.
Still interested in your opinion nevertheless.
Thanks. Graziano. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 04:17 am | | Hi Grazinao,
1) "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for noting"
2) Translated into German "Die Juden sind die Menschen, die nicht beschuldigt werden für nichts"
3) Translated into correct english "The Jews are the people who are never blamed without a reason"
A friend of mine asked 100 Germans to spell "Jews", 85 of them spelt it j-u-w-e-s.
In my opinion the graffito was written by a German who has lived in London for some time but was not able to write correct english. That it was written on the wall of building where Jews lived is a certain sign for "typical anti-Semitic" thinking. It was found and wrongly brought into the Jack mystery.
Cheers, Philip |
Author: graziano
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 06:11 am | | Hello Philip,
your theory is a very new one for me, and by this fact a lot interesting.
Well, notice that translated into French, it gives:
" Les Juifs sont les hommes qui ne seront pas blamés pour rien",
which, translated into correct english gives exactly the same result you pointed out above.
So, I could say that the graffito was written by a french who has lived in London for some time but was not able to write correctly in english.
Now, you notice that the word "blamés" (currently used) in French is a lot nearer to "blamed" than is "beschuldigt" in German and that you do not need in the french sentence any comma after the word "hommes" as you are bound to put it in German (in this sentence) after "Menschen".
But I must admit that this is only vegetables and I point this out of mere conjecture and so to speak, because all in all, I think you make an excellent point.
I always wondered why the reference in the graffito only to "men" and not to "people" in general.
Well, you give an excellent possible explanation of that with the erroneous translation by the author of the word "Menschen".
Das ist völlig und aufrichtig gut ! (Meine echte Meinung).
Good point also for Juden/Juwes.
Nevertheless I suppose we could extend (only for purpose of curiosity at this stage) the possibility of a foreigner who wrote it to someone who spoke not German, but Yiddish (there were a lot in this area).
I do not know Yiddish so I cannot check it right away but Yiddish presents a lot of similarities with German and in facts it comes right away from it and it is very near to it, so it could be worth checking.
Having said that, even if you are right, thus the graffito is not somewhat of a coded message related to the night of the "double event" and it was written by a german who did not know english very well, it could still have been written by the murderer (who could have been this german or someone used to german or german based language).
When you say "..it was written on the wall of building where Jews lived is a certain sign for "typical anti-semitic" thinking.",
I agree 100%.
When you say "It was found and wrongly brought into Jack mistery",
there I am afraid I am not of the same opinion.
First, as you know it was written with chalk.
Hard to believe that it could have lasted long, and in fact, if my recollections are good, it was stated at the time by the police (I do not remember exactly who) that it could have been easy erased by people coming from and going into the dwelling.
So we have to admit that it would not have lasted long and that it should have not been written a long time before.
But it was there, fresh to read at the right time for the "double event".
If we believe in the total extraneity of the two things, we must agree that it is at least an astonishing (even if possible) coincidence.
Then, not only it was there at the right time, but also at the right place.
It happened to be right there where the murderer would have then left the apron.
There, at least in my opinion, it becomes a very incredible coincidence.
But let us assume that still, you are right.
It was an incredible coincidence and the author of the graffito had nothing to do with the murders but was only an anti-semitic foreigner.
As I said on another board, if you want to write an anti-whatever graffito the odds are that you want people to read it and so to be attracted by it just passing-by, you want people to understand it, and if you want to offend someone with it, the odds are that you will try to be as harsh as you can.
Does this graffito attract the attention of a passer-by ?
Hardly so.
It is a long sentence, you have to stop if you want to read it.
It is written in small letters and not even on the side street of the wall.
Not really to attract the attention of anybody.
Is the significance of this graffito easy to understand ?
Hardly so.
I doubt that the people in the area, mostly foreigners knowing only superficially english, could have understood the significance of it.
And still today we have to translate it in other languages to get a possible meaning of it.
Is it offensive against Jews ?
Had I been the author I would have preferred:
"I p*** on the Jews" and I would have written it on the side street and in big letters.
Had I been willing to connect the Jews with the murders, I could have chosen: "I f*** the Jews who rip open our women".
And this whatever my intellectual level or my english speaking fluency.
There I would have been sure of the result.
But in the way the author wrote the graffito, he absolutely could not be sure of any result.
Hadn't it been for the apron, the graffito not only wouldn't have ever been noticed but it wouldn't have ever had any significance and use at all (am I not mixing up the negatives here ?).
Hardly to believe this to be the aim of the author.
Useless to say that if we do not see any significance and use for the graffito without the apron, we are bound to tie it with the night of the "double event" and with Jack the Ripper.
My way of reasoning, but you have convinced me that the murderers had a "german" bias.
Bye. Graziano. |
Author: Philip C. Dowe
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 06:56 am | | Hi Graziano,
I did not that you speak German! You are right. The message has been used to bring in the freemasons and that is buls**t.
All those who believe that Jack is foreigner (polish?) can connect the grfitto with Jack and all those who believe him to be pure English should not believe that he wrote it. Yes Thomas Eddy spoke German but PLEASE no royal theory!
See you Philip |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 26 October 2001 - 09:03 pm | | | The way it is written in French seems much more likely than the way it is written in German Graz. |
Author: Monty
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 11:24 am | | Philip c,
I have gone through your profile again and I was just wondering what your feeling are on him being employed?
Monty
PS any idea on when the long version will be ready? |
Author: Thomas Neagle
Saturday, 27 October 2001 - 04:05 pm | | Warwick
In terms of what I said about the man seen by Mrs. Long, I made one mistake. It was not night when she saw him, but 5:30 in the morning. The rest I said is true. Mrs. Long did not get a good look at the man, and said that she did not see the man's face and would not recogize him again. I contend that she was off a little bit in the man's height, and off a little bit more in his age. The rest, the dark complexion and the deerstalker hat, would of course fit Prince Eddy. If the man wasn't Prince Eddy, then in my opinion, he was Randolph Churchill, which would mean some kind of Joseph Sickert/John Wilding "royal conspiracy".
Robeer
I am leaning somewhat to the belief that Jack the Ripper was J.K. Stephen and Prince Eddy together, involved in the Jack the Ripper murders. But only somewhat. Jack the Ripper may very well have been some kind of Joseph Sickert/John Wilding "royal conspiracy". The other possibility, but I don't think is as probable as the first two, is Dr. William Gull going insane and committing the murders in a carriage, without some kind of Joseph Sickert/John Wilding "royal conspiracy". Also, J.K. Stephen, a patient of Dr. William Gull, who would either have been involved in the Jack the Ripper crimes with Prince Eddy in the first scenario, or had been involved as an accomplice of Dr. William Gull in either the second or third scenarios, would have wrote most of the published Jack the Ripper Letters and poems, as well as the Goulston Street Graffito.
If Prince Eddy was involved in the Jack the Ripper murders, he would have been, in my opinion, involved with J.K. Stephen. If this was true, the royal family or the government would have lied and wrote that he was here this day and there that day, of course. He was second in line to the throne. If he was where he was said to have been on one or more days, he would have slipped out in the late afternoon or early evening, taken a train to London, met J.K. Stephen, they both would have went to the East End, committed a murder, then cleaned up themselves in a place that one of them had rented or a J.K. Stephen's place, then Prince Eddy would have left by train and slipped back in the early morning of the next day. A further explanation of this can be found in my posts of July 22 2:25 pm; July 24 12:35; July 25 9:09 pm; and July 26 11:26 pm, in the Ripper Suspects:General Discussion:Jack The Ripper was "one of the highest in the land" section. |
|
|
|
|
