|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 May 28, 1999
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through May 28, 1999
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 06:02 pm |        | Hi, Christopher-Michael:
I don't consider you "a windy bastard" at all. Your ponderings on the problem are most interesting and cogent. I was interested in your statement at the end, that the murderer possibly spent some time "fumbling with chalk and matches. . ." in order to write the graffito. It would be interesting to know if the police observed any burned match stalks in the entranceway. Possibly burned matches would have been a regular phenomenon to observe in the entrance of a building, and thus the existence of such provoked no comment. However, if Jack did use matches to illuminate his writing of the enigmatic graffito, the evidence of his presence was probably evident in a small accumulation of spent matches under the graffito. Intriguing. . .
Chris George |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 08:32 pm | | Hi Chris George, Christoper-Michael, Rabbi Leen & the rest of y'all.
Regarding C.M.'s post - "Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson wrote to the City of London police on October 16, 1888. Part of his letter read:
'Try it in script. . .[n]ow place a dot over The Third upstroke (which dot was naturally overlooked by lantern light) and we get, plainly, The Juives which,' ..."
It appears D'Onston:
1) Had only seen the Grafitto writing in the newspapers where it appeared in printed form.
2) Habitually unnecessarily capitalized the word "the" in mid-sentence.
These could mean any of several different things.
1)
a. D'Onston wasn't the Ripper.
b. D'Onston was the Ripper, but didn't write the grafitto.
c. D'Onston was JtR and wrote the grafitto.
IF b. or c. were true, Jack was the type of serial killer who enjoyed manuevering into the investigation in order to play mind games with the police, thereby exhibiting his alleged control, power & superiority over them.
2)
Same as a., b., c. above. No matter who authored the Grafitto, the sample of D'Onston handwriting could be "evidence" that Victorian handwriting regularly featured random capitals.
This can explored by checking the many letters sent to the police by "concerned citizens" who used their real names. I'd appreciate input from any posters fortunate to have copies of these.
CM: If reading the full letter would change any of the suppositions I made above, please let me know.
Several indications in the investigation lead me to believe JtR probably smoked. I smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day for 25 years (non-smoker as of 2 years ago) ... In my experience, stress brings on an overwhelming compulsion to smoke - even during times when physical exertion left me gasping for breath - I "had to" light up.
I think it probable JtR did NOT author the grafitto. Possibly Jack lit a pipe or cigarette in Wentworth's doorway (maybe using the momentary light to examine a probable accidental knife cut on his hands.) Perhaps he threw the apron piece down, caught sight of the chalked message & spontaneously kicked his bloody "rag" directly underneath the grafitto.
In order to escape the scenes of so many crimes, Jack had to be the kind of person who could "think on their feet." I believe he decided on the spot to screw with the police by leaving a false clue. No, I don't see JtR chuckling madly as he left, but perhaps a small icy smile crossed his face for a second.
Ummm, just had a random thought. Leaving a lit cigarette dangling in the corner of his mouth would act as a teeny-tiny flashlight for Jack, plus serve as a stopwatch ... I mean who could attack in a sexual frenzy & keep an eye on a watch at the same time? When the cigarette began to burn his lip, it was like an alarm clock, telling Jack to wind down the mutiliations & get the heck outa there before a beat cop showed up.
Because bartending kept my hands full all the time, I frequently smoked in the above manner. I always smoked cigs down to the filter & if memory serves, that took 3 minutes. Perhaps some posters here who refer to a three-pipe-problem know more than they're revealing. :^)
Sorry - got carried away there for a second. So, anyway, let me hear your thoughts on the above. BTW, don't know much about D'Onston Stephenson yet ... am I correct in believing he was tall - also was he a smoker? IF I came to believe he was JtR, I wouldn't ascribe the motive to mumbo-jumbo occult stuff.
Take care,
Ashling |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 08:37 pm | | Thank you, Chris.
Actually, you raise a good point; when I spoke of matches, I was baldly assuming there was no illumination. So here is a question to the assembled multitudes: does anyone know if there would have been lamps near the entrance to Nos. 108-119, or at the entrance itself? If the "Juwes" message was from the Ripper, how much light did he have to chalk it, and would he have had to pull out a packet of lucifers?
If so, it seems almost as suicidal a gesture as attacking Stride in full view of witnesses. . .
CMD |
Author: D. Radka
Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 09:44 pm | | C-M,
Please quote where you read about matches being found 'neath the graffito. Thank you.
Rabbi,
I am a non-Jewish man, who has found many Jewish friends over the years. Two of my most beloved professors were Jewish. I am presently working under Jewish people.
I wish to be respectful to you in asking the following, but am largely ignorant of Judaic speaking.
I am writing a paper on the case, and would like to use two Yiddish expressions I've heard, but don't quite understand. One is a word I've heard Jewish people using to describe non-Jewish people. I would transcribe it "goische," as in "The goische people live in Fleet Street." Is this correct? What exactly does the word mean? Is it a noun, an adjective, how does it work?
The other is a Yiddish word which I believe means "crazy";" it would seemed to be rendered as "meshuggina" or "meshugga," as in "Jack the Ripper sure was meshugga, wasn't he?" Is meshugga the adjective, and meshuggina the noun?
I hope I have not accidentally offended. Thank you very much for your help, which I appreciate.
David |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 25 May 1999 - 11:52 pm | | Hello Ashling, CMD, et al.:
In the matters of D'Onston's height and smoking habits, he is said to have been five feet ten inches tall and a pipe smoker.
I cannot see Jack smoking while performing his dirty deeds -- but who knows???!!!
In regard to the capitalization of the letter "T" in the middle of sentences in D'Onston's letter of October 16, this is certainly how this letter is transcribed in Melvin Harris's "The True Face of Jack the Ripper" (pp. 111-12) and in "The Mammoth Book of Jack the Ripper" (pp. 447-48). I happen to have a copy of the manuscript letter (Corporation of London Records Office (CRO) Police Box 3.23, no. 390), sent to me by the kind offices of Stewart P. Evans, and I do think this transcription is actually faulty. These are lower case "t's" as shown by reference to D'Onston's "t's" elsewhere where they occur in the middle of the word: he forms a lower case "t" so that the horizontal line sits on top of the upstroke rather than making a cross. The capitalized "T" as written by D'Onston in beginning the sentences, "The murderer unconsciously reverted. . . to his native language." and "The man was a Frenchman.", is a far grander, curvier, and spikier affair. .
In the last day, I looked over the copy of D'Onston's letter in trying to find a version of a late nineteenth century letter with capitalization in the middle of sentences. I saw none, so I am glad to clarify that I believe Harris and the Mammoth book are mistaken in their reading of the letter. . So the charge in Mammoth book that he capitalized as in the graffito may be wrong -- unless P.C. Long interpreted the "t's" written by the Goulston St. writer as capital "t's" because the horizontal stroke sat on top of the upstroke???
As for whether D'Onston knew the graffito was written in script, I would have to say he did, and that is why he said the police had misread the word, i.e., the loops of the words "Juwes" or "Juives" were misread, to quote D'Onston's December 1, 1888, unsigned article in the "Pall Mall Gazette," because "a dot has been overlooked by the constable who copied it, as might easily occur, especially if it were placed at some distance, after the manner of foreigners." As D'Onston states, the "Gazette" article gives "a facsimile of [the word] in script" to show how the constable copied it and got it wrong.
I will have more to say about Dr. Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson in an article "A Strange Suspect" about to be published in the new quarterly publication from Casebook Productions Inc., "Ripper Notes" (see the CP web page http://business.fortunecity.com/all/138/). His different and conflicting statements about the Ripper case are a piece of work in themselves. So, if he was the Ripper, what do we make of his statement in the December 1 article:
"It will be remembered that a chalk inscription (which it is not denied was written by the murderer) was found on the wall in Mitre-square, just above the body of the murdered woman."
Was this statement, with its faulty geographical location vis-à-vis the body of Catherine Eddowes, that--as D'Onston begins the article--"the murderer was kind enough to (so to speak) leave his card with the . . . victim. . .", only as the good doctor states in his October 16 letter (in lower case "t's"!), "written. . . to throw a false scent" or, as Harris would have it, his intrusions into the case "were used as smokescreens, meant to mislead by diverting any suspicion away from him"????
Chris George |
Author: Wolf
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 01:50 am | | Hey all.
You don't know no one who don't need no one to do nuthing for them, do you? This rather bizaar statement is a famous saying that displays the Newfoundland mode of speaking with negatives. It, and the Irish, Scots tongue that it comes from, can probably find it's equal in Cockney and therfore I find it very doubtful that the Ghoulston Street writing was written by a "foriegner" of some kind.
To the two Christopher's, George and Michael, what can I say now that the two of you have echoed my very thoughts and have saved me valuable net time. To the two of you, excellant work.
Why indeed would the Ripper cut a piece of Eddows apron when he had never needed to before, surely a quick wipe of the hands on a skirt or shawl would all he needed but for the first time he had to take some cloth away with him. For what reason, we'll never know but it was done for some reason.
The writing on the wall can never be posativly identified as having come from the Ripper, no matter how much we all go back and forth. This is one reason why I have never really given it much thought beyond the certainty that it is anti semitic in nature and is saying "Jews never get blamed" or more appropriatly, "Why is it that Jews never get blamed." I fail to see the anti semitic nature of the murders of the five women. They are purely sexual in nature and show a great hatred towards women in general and mother figures in particular. One possible connection between the Ghoulston writing and the Ripper scare in general could be that the writer was trying to vent his frustration that John Pizer was exhonerated two weeks earlier. Remember it was up until the Dear Boss letters were published, that everyone was searching for Leather Apron. If the writer had heard about the Stride murder he might have wanted to vent his hatred against Pizer, the Jewish population and the authorities for setting Pizer free.
Wolf. |
Author: RED DEMON
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 03:00 am | | Hello Everyone!
WOLF: Very good idea. Even though I believe that the graffito was written by the Ripper, you offer a sound alternative to it's meaning. Keep up the good work!
The Ripper smoking while he killed? Funny.
CHRIS: I'm sorry that I got so defensive, but I became a little tired of having the word 'assume' attached to my name. EVERYONE on this board assumes, most of them with wilder ideas then me, but nobody jumps on them because where the big issues of this case are concerned, it seems that you have all convinced each other of your own theories, and I'm the lone gunner with mine. I suppose that opens me for attack.
Christopher-Michael: Wonderful Message! Finally, a regular contributor with an open mind.
In answer to the ongoing question of why the Ripper would risk his neck by pausing to leave the graffito, allow me to offer two possible explanations...
1. First of all, this one is not an explanation...it is simply to point something out that has been overlooked. To most of your minds, the Ripper would not have paused, but simply walked, ran, or jogged through Goulston Street, tossing the apron aside as he went. Here's the problem with this..If he had dropped or even tossed the apron in flight, it could not have ended up where it did. He would have had to have WALKED over to the doorway to have put it down there. It was too far back from the walk. That puts the Ripper PHYSICALLY in front of the graffiti, and OUT OF THE WAY of his fleeing path.
2.In terms of the Ripper being overly concerned with being caught, let's bear in mind the following. At Goulston Street he was already away from the murder scene, and while he would have been apprehensive, he would have relaxed a little. When it came to the murders, our Ripper was evidently a little cocky. Also, he may have needed to rest, or, if he had hurt his hand, stop to doctor it. Or he simply may have stopped to duck into the passageway as someone was coming down the street. These are very plausible reasons for the Ripper to have had the time and inclination to have written the graffiti. Also, let's not forget that Stride was killed outside of a building filled with singing people, and that Chapman was killed in the backyard of a house that saw 16 people coming and going at all times, AND she was killed at almost sunrise. If he had the balls to do all that, then he had the balls to pause for two minutes to write the graffiti.
RABBI LEAN: A non-Jewish Rabbi? Interesting...Personally, I thought your last contribution was very interesting. You offer a unique take. Keep it Up! By the way, I'd love you to e-mail me your sketch. Thank you!
As always, let me know what you think. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: RLEEN
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 08:46 am | | Hello All,
With regard to Karoline, ostensibly dropping a Spaniard in the works, juif and juive are indeed the masculine and feminine forms of JewISH. However, used as a noun juive simply means a JEW.
Now to the nitty-gritty.
I am sure that as recently as the late 1970's there remained an old gas lamp standard on the left hand face of the Goulston Street doorway. For those with Stephen Knight's book you can see it quite clearly about nine feet from the ground.
To D.Radka,
No offence has been taken on my part with regard to your questions. In fact I am only sorry that it is neccessary in these days, (O Tempora! O Mores!) to preface a simple request of this nature with your sincere wish not to cause any offence. Once again, no offence taken.
So, "goische" is a term for non-Jewish persons but I am pretty sure it originates from Germany and so I am afraid any analysis would merely border on speculation.
However, back on home turf, "mesuganah" derives the adjective "meshuga" which you quite rightly state means crazy. Therefore "meshugas", or craziness, is the noun.
I hope that this helps with your pamphlet.
Trusting that there is some element of use in this melange of, if you will, expression.
Rabbi Leen.
P.S. With regard to my sketch, a friend has promised to educate me in the use of the CC thing, so it'll be zipping over the wires shortly. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 01:47 pm | | Rabbi -
Ah, you beat me to the punch! I could have told David about goyim and meshugga people, but there it is (incidentally, there was once a brand of mixed nuts sold in Massachusetts under the trade name "MeshuggaNuts." I wonder whatever happened to them).
Your comment about the gas lamp standard in Goulston Street sent me back to my copy of Knight. I will have to take your word for it that the object partially cut off at the left of the picture is a gas lamp. "Ripperana" published a larger version of the same photograph in their January 1999 issue; the contrast is a little off and confuses perception, but the "standard" looks more like some sort of metal protruberance, possibly to hold a sign or awning. Has anyone else on these boards seen the lamp? Is this the sort of thing that would be indicated on a survey map for 1888?
In any event, if there was a lamp there, then obviously the Ripper would not have needed to provide his own illumination for scribbling.
David - I have never seen it written anywhere that matches were found at Goulston Street. I was making an unjustifiable assertion that the location would have been pitch black and the Ripper would have needed a box of matches to see what he was doing. I should have stated more clearly that I was only theorising using an unproven claim. My apologies.
Secondary to this, however, and to Ashling's thoughts about the Ripper smoking while he worked, I should note that one of the major plot points in Edward Hanna's Sherlock Holmes pastiche "The Whitechapel Horrors" are the smoked down remains of gold-tipped cigarettes found at the different murder scenes.
Red Demon - two excellent thoughts about the Ripper in regards to Goulston. To the first, I could only say that I have always pictured the Ripper stopping at GS to wipe his hands and blade clean in a semi-obscure area, then checking the coast and moving on. This, in fact, is a view concurred with by Ripper scholars much more knowledgeable than I, who say that the open doorway of WMD was the first open/dark area the Ripper would have reached on leaving Mitre Square.
Although, this again brings us to the point I raised earlier - why did the Ripper (if he killed Eddowes) need a piece of cloth from her corpse when he didn't need one with Chapman, Nichols and (what the hell) Tabram? It does seem to lead us in the direction that the location of apron and writing were a bit more than random chance.
As to the second - well, I grant you the Ripper was cool as ice, and got himself into very risky situations. I tend to believe, however, that while the thrill of possible detection made him take risks (Hanbury Street, Miller's Court, Mitre Square), I can't see him deliberately drawing attention to himself, which is why I look askance at the Schwartz sighting, and why I find it hard to imagine him deliberately pausing to write graffiti. But as I'm only gassing off the top of my head here, I think you are probably much closer to the mark than I!
CMD |
Author: RED DEMON
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 03:37 pm | | Dear CM,
He didn't do it at the other sites? What about the blood-soaked newspaper? Hmmmm.
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Villon
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 04:36 pm | | Rabbi -
The French theory is certainly intriguing and I hate to pour cold water on it. However - and I am wide open to correction here from any native French speakers - as far as I remember from my degree French 'Juif' is the masculine form of the noun as well as the adjectives. The only French language sources I have to hand containing the word are my large Harrap's dictionary which gives 'Juif' as the masculine substantive and 'Juive' only as the feminine, and a fifteenth-century poem (by the donator of my pseudonym, incidentally) which similarly uses 'juifs' as the collective. Nothing nineteenth-century or modern, I'm afraid, but my personal feeling is that 'le juive' sounds all wrong - like 'she's a Frenchman'.
Mike |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 06:40 pm | | Red Demon -
Even I, self-proclaimed Sage of Whitechapel, can sometimes be caught flat-footed. What "blood soaked newspaper?" It's got to be something incredibly obvious, but you've lost me. Do tell.
CMD |
Author: John Malcolm
Wednesday, 26 May 1999 - 09:34 pm | | | Has anyone ever suggested R. D. Stephenson, alias Dr. D'Onston,(and being a fellow journalist)might be the "Dr D." mentioned in Littlechild's letter to G. R. Sims? Being contributing writers on the Whitechapel Murders for different publications at the time may explain why Sims would have been aware of Stephenson; and this may also ease the suspicion that Littlechild was ignorant of the Macnaghten memoranda... |
Author: Caz
Thursday, 27 May 1999 - 05:21 am | | Hi All,
The only way I can think of 'juives' being used correctly to encompass all Jews, would be if certain collective nouns tended to be feminine in French. In my dictionary, all words such as 'nation', 'race' or 'people' are masculine, so I would imagine this is not the case. Maybe we are looking for a semi-literate Frenchman? Or an Englishman pretending to be a semi-literate cockney French Jew? The plot thickens....:-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: RED DEMON
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 12:00 am | | Hello Everyone!
JOHN M.: As a matter of fact, John, I suggested that at one point on these very boards. I am not sure, however, if it had been suggested prior to that.
CHRISTOPHER-MICHAEL: I regret to say that I do not have time at the moment to referrance my books for the actual information, but it was either near the Nichol's murder sight, or the Chapman murder sight that a blood-soaked newspaper had been discovered. At least, that is what I've read. I implore anyone else to either validate or correct this statement. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Joseph
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 02:54 am | | Hi Caz,
An Englishman pretending to be a semi literate,
Cockney,Jew, hmmmm ! I got it, Anthony Newly. :-)
Best at ya
Joseph |
Author: Caz
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 05:12 am | | Hey Joe!
You saw through my slightly tongue-in-cheek post, you little devil, didn't you? :-)
We could go even further and say the graffito artist was suggesting all Jews were Jessies or something. That would have been a real anti-Semitic message.
The question is, how many different opinions do we now have, and are any of them really relevant unless we think our Jack wrote the bloody thing? :-)
You leave my poor late Tony Newly alone, d'ya hear? I saw him not too long ago on the stage playing Scrooge (almost as well as Alastair Sim in the old film version IMHO). I had a soft spot for Tony (no, not my brain everyone :-))
Have a great weekend all.
Love,
Caz
Nah mate. |
Author: RLeen
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 12:23 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I read Villon's posting with some interest and, dare I say it, I was ready to concede defeat with good grace and humility. After reading the posting I thought, "What Kind of Fool Am I?", but as I stood in my kitchen, preparing to bake a humble pie, I realised that such an attitude of complaceny was the anithesis of the Maccabean spirit of my forebears. Furthermore, I realised that my manner was unintentionally caused by Ashling's referral to being nicotine free after many years use of the dreaded weed, a situation which I have yet to attain though I do try to stop.
So, after a quick Woodbine, I decided to consult my own battered copy of George Harrap. And here lies the twist, because this tome states that "juive" is the substantive noun. The only way this will be cleared up is by getting the opinion of a French person. Which basically leaves us free to argue about whether the killer actually wrote the message.
Thanking you to stop the world because I want to get off.
Rabbi Leen. |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 01:15 pm | | Hi y'all.
RABBI: Too many puzzles here already, no fair creating new ones. Me becoming a non-smoker inspired complacency or humility or grace in you? Ya lost me on that one. :^)
Take care,
Ashling
P.S.
Can't comment on the grammar ... I flunked French. |
Author: Villon
Friday, 28 May 1999 - 01:31 pm | | Rabbi and all -
Sorry to prolong the agony, but briefly:
MY kind Mr Harrap says distinctly,
'Juif, f. Juive. 1. a[djective]. Jewish. 2. s[ubstantive]. Jew, f. Jewess',
and in his English-to-French section,
'Jew, s.m. Juif.
Jewess, s.f. Juive.'
This seems to make it pretty clear that, in my humble edition, Juive is the feminine form only and gives no suggestion that it can be used as a collective.
There is a noun 'juiverie' which means either 'the Jewish race' or in the racist slang of older days, the activity of money-lending. Maybe Stephenson was confusing this word with the masculine collective 'Juifs' when he made his comment on 'les Juives'.
Mike |
|
|
|
|
