|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 04, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through March 04, 2001
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 12:23 am |        | David,
I'm going to attempt to translate what you just said into English...Basically, you don't have any single piece of evidence to prove it's authenticity, but when taking various seemingly unrelated parts of the case and tying them in, it points to the graffito being legitimate. Yes, I'm the same way. The meaning of the graffito makes perfect sense if having come from the Ripper, but makes no sense at all having come from someone else. Also, it is the perfect tie between the 'Dear Boss' and 'From Hell' letters, containing elements of both.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Harry Mann
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 03:40 am | | I am against it being the work of the ripper.
Graffiti writers tend,like serial killers,unable to stop once started,and I would have expected Kelly,s room to have contained some explicit message.
There he had both time and opportunity,and if his intention was to gloat and tantalize,then he passed up a golden opportunity.
regards H.M. |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 05:40 am | | | Probably not, I think. |
Author: Martin Fido
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 09:16 am | | I don't understand whether hands up are for or against the graffito being the Ripper's work (though I, too, love the cheerleader).
My vote, for what it's worth, is a positive conviction that the graffito was not only not the Ripper's work but had nothing whatsoever to do with the Ripper murders.
Cor! Opinionated, ain't I. But there it is.
Martin Fido |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 09:35 am | | | Simon, it might not! |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 09:39 am | | Simon, brick-work measurements normally come in 4'', 9'',18'' and 24''.
Closers, or joint breaks are seldom placed at the corner joint!
best wishes ED.
Get a book on brickwork.
Most buildings constructed during the Victorian era have been refurbrished since, I have worked on several, before I started my own career. ED
PS, study the table in Mary Kellys room! |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 11:42 am | | Tom,
I'm with you in all you say, except I'm not a "Dear Boss" man. I'm a canonical five-er (and a conditional Tabrammite), a Lusk-er, and a graffitist. But not a DearBoss-er or any other.
David |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 02:13 pm | | David,
Just to lay my cards on the table (but not Mary Kelly's table - Yuck!) I believe the canonical five as well as Tabram were by the same hand. I also believe the graffiti, the From Hell letter and the Dear Boss letter could have easily have come from the same author. In the 'Dear Boss' letter, the author pokes fun at the theories prevelant at the time (i.e. 'The joke about Leather Apron gave me real fits', and 'They say I'm a doctor now. Ha ha.'). That's exactly what the graffiti is doing by saying it's not the Jews. After the 'Leather Apron' debacle, the popular thought became that the Ripper was a Jew. As to the bad English and misspelling of the word 'Jews' as 'Juwes', this is very foreshadowing of what we would later see present in the 'From Hell' letter and it's companion pieces. Have you read my article 'Dear Boss & From Hell: A Missing Link?' in the latest Ripper Notes (Vol. 2 Num. 3). I believe it makes a decent case for the two opposing missives to have come from the same hand.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 02:44 pm | | Tom,
I am a subscriber, and will check it out.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Friday, 02 March 2001 - 05:44 pm | | Ed , have a look at Stewart Evans' earlier post on this board , 28th June 1999 I think. It shows the brickwork to be similar to how I have drawn it on the jamb of the archway !
I can only agree that the graffiti seems to make no sense in respect of the way that it is written unless it is a cryptic message , and the apron connects it to the Ripper.
I believe that the graffiti had to have been freshly written at least , otherwise the residents would have had it removed themselves earlier on. My argument is that , in general at least , graffiti is simple in syntax and phraseology , and to the point e.g. " Remember Bloody Sunday " to take an example pertaining to the time. This is not such a message.
Thus we have a freshly written piece of graffito and a freshly dropped piece of apron. Odds are its by the Ripper , or at least IMHO. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 02:11 am | | Simon,
I totally agree.
Harry Mann,
Are you forgetting the 'FM'? That hasn't been proven to have not come from the Ripper, and it doesn't get much more tantalizing than two indiscriminate letters smeared in blood above a mutilated corpse.
Martin,
Of course you don't believe the graffito to have been genuine, nor any of the letters. Wasn't David Cohen illiterate?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Harry Mann
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 04:55 am | | Tom,
The 'FM' is very debateable as to being more than
an interesting arangement of blood stains.
If the Goulston St grafito was by the ripper,I would have expexted a much more tantalising message in Kelly's room,followed by a very prominent signature.
Why change from Jack The Ripper?.Why just leave a signature and no message?.
Regards Harry Mann. |
Author: Jade Bakys
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 05:42 am | | | They are bloomin carotid spurts. Nope Cohen might not have been illiterate he just didn't speak any English, so therefore he couldn't write or spell any English, and that is my digital prognosis. |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 06:38 am | | Good grief, Tom! Is offensive speculation about other people's thought processes what you mean by the robust argument you favour?
For the record: I reached my conclusions about the graffito entirely separately from my conclusions aboutDavid Cohen - in fact months before I'd even given a thought to Cohen as the Ripper. (I.e. while I was still desperately chasing down Kaminskys). My arguments about its probable meaning and the double negative's implication were spelled out in an early chapter of my book, and, I hasten to puff out my chest and say, received imediate favourable comment from Richard Whittington-Egan.
I haven't the faintest quarrel with people who disagree with me. I have every quarrel in the world with people who use their imagination to devise distorted fictionalisations of my thinking in an effort to denigrate my work!
Martin F |
Author: Jade Bakys
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 07:24 am | | Ed & Simon
I have been reading the coroners inquest of Eddowes murder and Constable Long wrote: 'The Jews are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing', but Halse wrote 'The Juwes are not the men who Will be Blamed for nothing' It seems to me that Long got his version wrong because he mis-spelled Jews. Perhaps Sugden's publisher has not made a typing error afterall. It is three lines of writing. Both witness testimonies are dubious, and neither Halse or Long can make a positive comment on the Goulston Street Graffito.
Jade |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 09:50 am | | Jade
What you overlook is the fact that an Inspector corrected Long's spelling, comparing it to the original on the wall.....therefore you are suggesting that two policemen (PC Long + Inspector) read it wrong?
Did two policemen looking at the writing and comparing it to Long's notes, in an attempt to make the spelling accurate, actually get the words wrong?
Isnt that a little doubtfull? |
Author: Jade Bakys
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 10:42 am | | Jon
Sorry but this is a confusing issue at the present for me I have only read the witness testimonies. And there was discrepancy between the writing of the word Jews and Juwes, and the 'not' being in the wrong place. I wasn't aware that Long had had his version corrected, I may have skipped that on the inquest or maybe mis-read it. I will check it out. Thanks |
Author: Jade Bakys
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 11:13 am | | Hi Jon
here is the testimony and I cannot see anthing wrong with my reasoning:
Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
Then he goes off to get his pocket book and Halse gives his testimony
At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.
Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." [Coroner] Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."
[Coroner] Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.
[Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say.
[Coroner] At all events, there is a discrepancy? - It would seem so.
Why does the coroner say ‘But why did the Inspector write “Jews” then?, and why did Long agree that a discrepancy had been made, The Inspector knew Long had made a mistake but didn’t correct it in his own Inspector’s report?
The final two statements of both the coroner and Long are very confusing. Why didn’t Halse search the dwelling?
They may not have read it wrong, but they wrote it down wrong, so I would say on balance Sugden's version is correct.
Below is Halse's testimony section of the writing:
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
He didn't have an Inspector to verify it; but he seems quite certain. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 11:23 am | | Martin,
I'm afraid I didn't communicate my last thoughts well. I meant it to be two separate thoughts. The first being "Of course you don't believe the graffito and any letters to be real" meaning "We've all read your book". The second was a genuine question. I couldn't remember whether David Cohen was an illiterate or not. I happened to like your book very much, incidentally.
Harry,
When bringing the 'FM' to your attention I was only doing so because you didn't mention it in your last post. You'll have to forgive me as I've been gone from the Casebook for a long time and wasn't familiar with your knowledge of the case, or whether you had considered it's legitimacy. The apparent letters quite likely could be carotid spurts. If not, however, I would imagine them to be a message and not a signature. As to the wording and spelling of the graffito, I believe there are seven different versions, are there not?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 04:18 pm | | Jade
First the simple one....
You ask "why didnt Halse search the dwelling?"
I thought you took your above extracts from The Daily Telegraph, going by the format.
If so, you cannot have read Halse's entire statement, as he explains, while waiting at Goulston St. "...when Detective Hunt returned, enquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model-dwelling house, but we gained no tidings of anyone who was likely to have been the murderer"
But, back to Long's notebook.....
I am aware of the press coverage but I was mainly being guided by the actual Coroners Inquest, (L), 1888, No 135.
Where PC Long has this to say...
...the words were written on the wall...I copied the words from the wall into my report - I could not say whether they were recently written - I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews - there was a difference between the words spelling"
If you notice the 'strike-out' through the word 'words'...which also implies the words were correct, in Long's notebook.
We are only guided by our individual interpretations of what was meant, but the actual Inquest statement (above) I have interpreted as meaning they (Long & Inspector) were present at the graffiti when the correction was made, as opposed to being sometime later. And as two people were taking notes and making corrections then surely we may rely on the result of this exchange. That Long's notebook was the correct version.
(This boils down to a City vs Met. issue.)
But, as always, we may view things differently.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Martin Fido
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 04:41 pm | | I'm sorry to be so touchy and to have misread your intention, Tom. But there's plenty of evidence back along the boards of people who slip very quickly (and quite possibly unaware in some cases) from legitimate difference of opinion or justly impassioned dispute with the logic of one's argument, to personal abuse, sometimes couched in rather silkily covert language, and the more sneakily dangerous for that.
Martin |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 10:18 pm | | Martin,
I suppose you have a different perspective on these boards being a successfully published author on the subject. People obviously will treat you differently. Often for the better, sometimes for the worse. I didn't know what the hell you were raving about until I read your post twice and then went back and read mine, then the bells went off. That's the bad thing about communicating in print. I'm certain that had we been talking in person, no miscommunication would have arose. That post to you was the last one I wrote last night. I was beat tired and trying to spit things out in as few words as possible. I take full responsibility for the misunderstanding. Rest assured that I'm far too mature to personally abuse you simply because I may not agree with your assessment of the graffito. You may have noticed that I recently got called an ass by some chick because I had the audacity to suggest that Eddowes was a prostitute! So, I know where you're coming from. I am rather lacking in tact, so if if I don't like you, you'll know, but I like your book and you crack me up in interviews, so I don't see why I'd ever have bad blood for you. So, anyway, was Cohen an illiterate or not?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 10:23 pm | | | No you were called an ass because you said that because they were prostitutes, they should not be treated with the repect that they were given by the members of the boards. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 11:51 pm | | Ally,
First I was called an ass, then I wasn't called an ass, now I was called an ass again. This is beginning to sound like CNN announcing the presidential winner. It's no wonder you misquoted me. What I said was not that they shouldn't be afforded respect because they're prostitutes, I was simply pointing out that we have a tendency to over-romanticize them. Writers have stated that Eddowes wasn't a prostitute when the facts state otherwise. THAT'S IT! I'm not condoning their murders or suggesting no one should afford them their respect. If my wanting to call a spade a spade makes me an ass, then an ass I shall be!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: R Court
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 05:36 am | | Hi Tom,
Without calling you, or anyone else, an ass, the fact is that Eddowes, as opposed to the others, was described by a number of witnesses as being no prostitute (e.g. ...never..heard of her making love with anyone except Kelly..). As Phil Sugden in his CH suggests, Eddowes probably did indulge in some casual prostitution, but her friends and aquaintances fairly strongly denied this, for whatever reasons they may have had.
This is not true of the other can. 5, although even there it was not trumpeted about. Indications that Eddowes may have had an appointment with someone, and the fact that she'd had money earlier with which to get roaring drunk, could suggest that she had gone to Mitre Square for reasons other than prostitution. (e.g. Hush-money and the meeting arranged for more... only then....). Unlikely, but not impossible.
Prostitution and romance:
In 1888 most of these street women were hungry, destitute, alchol-ridden, unclean, sick, uncared-for dregs. With little or no hope, medical attention or even rights, these women were helpless. They were robbed, beaten up, raped and sometimes even murdered with little compunction by their 'guests'. It took the sort of murder done by Jack to even raise interest over more than a line or two in the press.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Jade Bakys
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 05:42 am | | Hi Jon
I see now, in the inquest version on this site, it doesn't show the way you have shown with the strikethrough of 'words' and of course your explanation of it shows your interpretation as quite logical. Thanks |
Author: Harry Mann
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 05:54 am | | Tom,
I took the oportunity to voice an opinion as you requested regarding the grafiti.Not a bad idea of your's,as the results show a far from unanimous vote as to whether it was the Ripper's work.Of course this has been apparant to most posters for a long time,but newcomers may find this diversity of opinion an opportunity to voice their thinking on the subject,and perhaps sway the balance.
The most persuasive arguement I find,is the lack of a prominent message in Kelly's room,and the inconsistancy of the supposed writer.He begins by sending communications containing a message and a signature.In Goulstan St it is a message without a signature and in Kelly's room a signature without a message.
I know the counter arguements will say the apron was the signature and Kelly's body the message,
but,and I think this would have been apparent to the killer,The words Jack The Ripper had a common and conclusive message,and left nothing to the imagination.Why change something that had meaning.
Regards H.Mann. |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 09:03 am | | Tom,
On the Eddowes board you asked for the subject to be dropped so I did. Then on this thread I find you saying "Some chick called me an ass because I called Eddowes a prostitute"(paraphrased). I did not wish to debate the semantics of whether I called you an ass or said your argument makes you seem like one in this thread. So clarify: Do you wish to drop this line of debate or not? I will accommodate either way. If you do not wish to drop it as you claimed previously then let's move it back to the Eddowes board. |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 09:36 am | | Tom - I quite agree that many differences would never arise if we were all talking face to face and not typing out hurried responses, often at peculiar times. And I repeat my apology for misunderstanding your posting and thinking it could be yet another lead-in via distorting my thinking and work methods into attempted character assassination.
In fairness to the unpublished, they are at risk of quite as much unacceptable abuse from those who go in for that as an alternative to argument. I'm not sure, however, whether they suffer quite so much patronising superiority from those who have internally bred a high level of contempt through their familiarity and disagreementwith the published works.
Martin |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 10:41 am | | Hi Jade
This is the actual inquest note.....
and the typed version....
I wanted you to see what I was talking about so the discussion is balanced.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jade Bakys
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 11:08 am | | Hi Jon
Thankyou for the above I appreciate it. It is helpful to see a graphic version of the testimony.
Jade |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 11:11 am | | Bob,
You are correct in saying that it's 'possible' that Eddowes was in Mitre Square to get some hush money, although it is unlikely as the evidence, including John Kelly's inquest testimony, suggests otherwise.
Ally,
Consider it dropped.
Martin,
If anyone holds contempt for published authors perhaps they should stop reading books!  I've enjoyed every Ripper book I've read to one degree or another, with the possible exception of the Smithkey book ($26.00 and 48 pages!!!). I admire honest success and hope to enjoy my own someday. I suppose everything must have it's downfalls, though.
Jon and Jade,
That's a great discussion you're having, and the samples you've posted, Jon, are very interesting indeed.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 11:14 am | | Hi, Jon:
The transcription of the graffito in the written inquest testimony appears to be spelled "Jewes" not "Jews" although the typist in his/her version made it "Jews." No wonder the different versions of the graffito are totally confused. As we have said before, if the thing could have been photographed there would be less debate about the actual wording, although the controversy about what it means and whether it was written by the Ripper would remain.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: David M. Radka
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 12:32 pm | | Juews, not Juwes--
Now we have another spelling!
David |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 01:11 pm | | Yes Chris, Dave.
In the Inquest file the word 'Jews' is spelled 5 different ways, Jews, Juews, Juwes, Jewes, Jeuwes(?), certainly 4.
But as the poor handwriting is not easy to interpret, especially a succession of 'loops', then it may all be in the eye of the beholder as to whether an 'e' is a 'u' or an 'eu' is 'ue' or 'ew' is 'uw' or 'we' or vice-versa.
Regards, Jon
(you get the idea) |
Author: Martin Fido
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 03:02 pm | | Hi Tom,
The only thing I think I should add is that the published also get huge returns by way of kudos and compliments from friendly people on the boards. I'd hate to seem to be whingeing about what is actually a very privileged position.
Martin |
Author: RSattherwaite
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 05:41 pm | | Dear Tom,
We've been called an ass many a time by the same "chick". Some power hungry debate teacher insists on having the last word on all. Glad to see she does this to others. Would hate to be the new kid in her class!
Respectfully yours,
Rob |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 05:46 pm | | Rob,
For your info, I have never called you an ass (though what I have thought is another matter). Second, if you have a problem with being blocked out of the chatroom, take it up with the person who did it. Your full block was the result of your own actions and it was not I who flipped the switch. Although I fully supported it. |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 07:36 pm | | Hello Alegria,
Thank you for the photo/scan tip, it worked, but when it came out, would you believe it,-- I didn't like it, so being the vain creature that I am,-- I shall remain in glorious wide screen. Thank you anyway.
Best regards, Rick
P.S. there are some thin skins walking the boards tonight, aren't there? |
Author: Alegria
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 07:50 pm | | Rick,
The picture is adorable. We are both in love with the dog. You are, of course, admired as well.  |
|
|
|
|
