|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 October 25, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion:
The Goulston Street Graffito:
Archive through October 25, 2000
Author: Caz
Saturday, 29 May 1999 - 04:25 am |        | Well, strike a light! We have it in a nutshell. The graffito artist is an Englishman who THINKS he can write French racist slang AND cockney slang but does both imperfectly.
Isn't it obvious? He's heard the term 'juiverie' as in money-lending, and assumes the word for Jews must therefore be 'juives'. I would have made the same error (probably :-)).
QED?
Thanks to Rabbi Leen and Villon for showing us a possible way forward. Ah, Woodbines. They bring back memories for me, working in a tobacconist's shop some three decades ago. My Mum however preferred Senior Service Plain (ie untipped) at that time. I can still remember spitting out bits of tobacco when I used to pinch hers :-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jethro
Saturday, 29 May 1999 - 10:59 am | | Hello,
Having been a passive reader of these boards for a while now, and really enjoying the thoughts of so many experts, I've been very apprehensive about posting my own comments, but here goes; One mystery that surrounds the Apron, and Ghoulston Street message as I understand it, is the time delay from the murder of Catherine Eddowes (1:30-1:40 ?) to the police-man finding the Apron and the cryptic(?) message (2:30 ?).
There is a strong indication that he could have been very close-by, when all the commotion was stirring around the discovery of Polly Nichols body. The witness Patrick Mulshaw for example, could have seen the Ripper leaving the scene, along with the policeman standing over the body who noticed a man walking across the other side of the street, apparently showing little interest in the gruesome discovery.
I think the Ripper would have hung around in the gathering crowd following the discovery of Catherine Eddowes, which surely must have been a horrendous site. There is a little confusion about some of the reports written, with respect to the policemen at the scene. Take the Eddowes Shawl mystery for example, a shawl which was supposedly picked up and taken away by one of the first police officers at the scene(?). Yet reports are very unclear as to who was actually present following the discovery. Then there is a vague reference somewhere to a policeman who may have had a view of the killer shortly before the body was found. There are actually quite a few mysteries surrounding this incident alone.
The point I am making, and I hope I'm staying on topic here, is that I think the Ripper did hang around for a while, possibly then joining in as part of the crowd of onlookers, revelling in his own infamy. Of course he would have stood out if he was dripping with blood, but I don't think he was. He took great care to always ensure any spurt of blood was directed away from him. I think the only blood he would have got on himself would have been on his hands, and cuffs. For this he had the apron to wipe himself clean, and to possibly wrap his souvenirs in. The ripper does appear to have blended in very well with his surroundings, so I believe could have easily hung around for a while.
Then when heading home, he could have heard about the Berner Street incident from someone, and he thought to himself "hang on, this murder over at the Jewish working mens club has nothing to do with me, and I'm going to tell them so"! Hence the need to leave a chalked message, which I do believe was written by Eddowes killer, and leaving the apron would prove it genuine. I think the killer enjoyed his publicity. He got a buzz out of killing out in the open, where the thrill of discovery and capture, was all part of the ritual, and the horrific display was his message to the world. No way could his gruesome work ever be confused with the botched job of Stride, and this is why the message was written.
Thanks Everyone
Jethro |
Author: RED DEMON
Sunday, 30 May 1999 - 03:25 am | | Dear Jethro,
Very interesting observation, and certainly a possibility...but not probable. Here's why:
You're suggesting that Jack cut the apron piece, wiped his hands and knife, and used it to encase the stolen kidney. This isn't likely as witnesses state that it appeared as if the apron had been used to wipe a bloody knife or hands, therefore, was probably not saturated in blood as would have been the case had it held the kidney. Also, if he had used it to clean his hands, knife, or hold the kidney, then why would he suddenly remove it from his pocket and discard it in flight? Unless, of course, you are buying into my theory of how he left it to draw attention to the graffiti, which is possible...But most likely, the officer who discovered the graffiti and claimed the it wasn't there the last time he checked was probably simply mistaken and was being adamant in his claims to save his own job or reputation. I believe he was later dismissed for alcohol abuse. The story of the bloody water in the sink is just that, a story. There's nothing to back it up as there most suredly would have been if the story were true. Quite simply, I see it as most likely that Jack hung around Gouston Street long enough to wipe his hands (if he didn't do that in flight) and leave the message, but not as long as 45 minutes.
Nevertheless, your observation if far more worthwhile than a lot I've read (written?) on these boards. It certainly gives pause for thought, as it's commonly known that serial killers will hover nearby to see the chaos they have caused (Son of Sam). I'm anxious to see what others feel about this issue, and I look forward to more posts from you, Jethro. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Christopher George
Monday, 31 May 1999 - 03:01 pm | | Hi, Rabbi Leen, et al.:
Rabbi, in your post of Wednesday, May 26, 1999 - 08:46 am, you stated:
"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."
I have Knight's book, and have looked at the poor quality picture therein, as well as at the picture in A to Z and the two photographs in "Ripperana," January 1999 (the latter being publication of two of the photographs taken by Leonard Knight for his brother Stephen's book), and I am pretty sure what you are looking at is some wires that give the appearance of looking like a lamp. An even better perspective on what is around the doorway is given in the more recent (1997) photograph in Bob Hinton's "From Hell. . . The Jack the Ripper Mystery." Again, no lamp is evident, whether gas or electrified. There are however, two dark round marks to either side of the doorway that may have held lamps but more probably are circular holes made to let in electricity wires or telephone lines. In the republished picture from Knight reproduced in "Ripperana" in fact you can see several wires going into the round feature on the left of the doorway. I think it is this series of wires that you are mistaking for the shape of an old-time gas lamp.
In regard to D'Onston and the supposed use of the French "juives," the feminine form of "Jews", here is what the good doctor had to say in his December 1, 1888 article in The Pall Mall Gazette:
"Strictly and grammatically speaking, of course, it is the feminine form of Juifs and means 'Jewesses.' But in practice it will be found that (Frenchmen being the worst linguists in the world) most Frenchmen who are not either littérateurs or men of science are very inaccurate as to their genders."
It is also noticeable that the Goulston Street graffito, located in the doorway of 108/119 Wentworth Buildings, could be construed to be on the eastbound route between Mitre Square and the London Hospital, where D'Onston is known to have spent 134 days in 1888. . .
Chris George |
Author: RED DEMON
Monday, 31 May 1999 - 04:24 pm | | Hello Everyone!
CHRIS: I find it quite unusual that the Frenchman, as D'Onston states, would not know the words in their own tongue that signify their own sex...It seems that he was simply trying to build a case around his own theory.
However, through a chain of 'coincidences', it appears as if the case surrounds Mary Kelly. I have always been fascinated by this aspect of the case. And, considering Mary Kelly's French connections, the 'Juives' theory is an intriguing one. Although, seeing as how it means 'female' and in the sentence refers to 'men', it seems unlikely that this was the word used. More than likely it was 'Juwes' as was originally thought. Although I wouldn't count it out just yet. What are your opinions? Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: Villon
Monday, 31 May 1999 - 07:06 pm | | Chris & Red -
Thanks, Chris, for giving us the exact quote from D'Onston Stephenson. Red, your reflections on the French use of gender are quite correct: the gender of nouns (even those not referring to people) is one of the first fundamentals of the language, and something the most semi-literate native speaker would be unlikely to be sloppy over. As for D'Onston's other comments, I hate generalisations like this but in my experience, the French as a race have more pride than most in their language and its proper use. They even have an Academie Francaise specifically devoted to maintaining it in good order. I'm afraid the good doctor was talking through his anal orifice.
Or, who knows, maybe laying a deliberate false trail???
Mike |
Author: RED DEMON
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 02:28 am | | Hello Everyone!
MIKE: Yes, you are right, though I don't know how much stock I can put into the D'Onston theory. However, it is by far not the most outlandish one I've heard. Ha ha. Tell me, Mike, do you support a suspect? D'Onston, or perhaps another? Let us know. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: RLeen
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 12:39 pm | | Hello Mr. George and everyone.
I note your comments regarding my thoughts about the gas lamp bracket which remained in place and I understand the confusion. In my initial post I had quite a large sentence which tried to use the door number plate as a landmark, and relate the gas bracket to that. To make the sentence read better, and make some sense, I cut it down. Bad editing I'm afraid because the door number plate is about nine feet off the ground. But looking directly above the figure 8, to an approximate height of 14 feet, clearly shows an old lamp bracket. The round marks which you mentioned, which are decorative motifs cut into the stone, lie on a plane roughly halfway between the number plate and bracket. To the left of this is what appears to be an old flower basket, complete with wires hanging down.
Perhaps I should point out that you are not looking for anything shaped like a lamp, merely a length of pig iron butting from the wall, which held the lamp.
Trusting that this latest missive is understandable, of some use, and that you are all well.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher George
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 03:04 pm | | Greetings, Rabbi Leen:
I appreciate your clarification. I am not talking about the round decorations on the lintel, as it were, above the doorway, I am talking about round holes either side of the lintel, made in the brickwork. I wish you would look at the clearer version of the photograph from Knight republished in "Ripperana" January 1999 and there you will see that there is no lamp or evidence of a lamp to the upper left of the doorway.
Chris George |
Author: Villon
Tuesday, 01 June 1999 - 04:08 pm | | Hi Red
No I don't really support any suspect on the basis of my reading so far (though there are several I'm fairly confident about ruling out!). D'Onston seems one of the less far-fetched among those I've read up on to date.
This doesn't really belong here, does it?
See you around
Mike |
Author: RED DEMON
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 01:36 am | | Hello Everyone!
RABBI LEAN AND CHRIS: This is a very interesting and informational discussion...I'm afraid that I don't have anything to add that you haven't already said. KEEP IT UP!
MIKE: Touche! Actually, I think getting our primary opinions regarding JtR out in the open is condusive to good discussion. For instance, if you were supporting a suspect, we'd have to bare that in mind when reading your posts, as you would have an 'ulterior motive' for your opinions. Do you understand all this? I believe the question and the response were totally appropriate. Let me know what you think. Until then...
Yours truly,
RED DEMON |
Author: RLeen
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 08:43 am | | Hello Mr. George,
Like any other sixteen stone person I firmly endorse the theory that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. To that end, would it be possible for you to pass on an address or a contact number for "Ripperana".
If so, I would certainly take out a subscription and, hopefully, be able to obtain a Jan. 1999 issue.
Trusting that you are all well
Rabbi Leen |
Author: RLeen
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 08:51 am | | Hello Mr. George again,
Could you also tell me which of the Goulston Street pictures is the earliest. Leonard Knight's picture dates from 1975. It would of course follow that if the "Ripperana" picture is post-1975 then any alterations occurred sometime between the Bay City Rollers and Boyzone.
Trusting that the implication is obvious though free from offence and smugness and that, as ever, you are all still well.
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 09:05 am | | Good morning, Rabbi Leen:
Having recently been put on a diet by my doctor, I feel in the same boat as yourself and Paul Begg (Whoah! Are we sinking???!!!). Hopefully we can get ourselves straightened out and live a healthier lifestyle from here on in.
Here is the information you requested about Ripperana:
Ripperana
The Quarterly Journal of Ripperology
16 Costons Avenue
Greenford, Middlesex
UB6 8RJ
ENGLAND
The editor is researcher and practising surgeon Nick (N. P.) Warren who wrote about "A Postal Kidney" in the "Criminologist" Spring 1986, in which he contended that the kidney sent with the Lusk letter was the left kidney from victim Catherine Eddowes.
I understand you can send them a request for information on the journal, and they will send you a complimentary copy to see if you are interested in purchasing a full subscription.
The prices are £6 in the U.K., £10 overseas, and $15 US per year, for four quarterly issues. Make checks or money orders payable to N. P. WARREN or RIPPERANA. Payment can not be received by check or money order in foreign currency due to bank charges. Overseas subscribers are asked to pay by Sterling Orders (e.g. Thomas Cook Currency Services or Canadian Postal Orders) or in cash
using U.S./U.K. currency.
Ripperana is a small pamphlet of around thirty pages which showcases short articles concerning the case. It also has information on other murder mysteries and research, as well as reviews of new books and videos. While it does not carry many illustrations, there is usually a photo section at the back of the magazine. In the January 1999 issue two photographs taken by Leonard Knight for Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution" are republished side by side. The photograph on the left is the one used in the book.
Chris George |
Author: Christopher George
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 09:24 am | | Hi, again, Rabbi:
Again, to clarify, the two photographs in Ripperana were both taken in 1975 by Leonard Knight for his brother Stephen's book. The photographs were taken after researcher Richard Whittington-Egan determined that Wentworth Buildings where the graffito was found were still standing.
Besides the photographs themselves there is a write-up within the pages of the issue that talks about the photographs, and says that the photo on the right shows the doorway as a "Masonic Temple." I have not quite worked out what is meant by this. Perhaps someone can clarify this point. You see the column within the doorway next to the stairwell more in shadow than in the left photo and this (I suppose) gives an exotic (maybe) masonic look, but what significance that has I do not know. I am also curious about the decoration above the doorway which to my eye at first looked Art Deco. More clarification is given by the 1997 photos in Bob Hinton's "From Hell" of the doorway itself and of the view of the building from a nearby street corner, which appear to show that the decoration over the doorway seems consistent with architectural decoration elsewhere on the building, which is presumably Victorian.
Chris George |
Author: John Malcolm
Wednesday, 02 June 1999 - 09:52 pm | | Hello everyone,
Just a quick correction regarding the subscriptions to Ripperana: (As of April '99)
U. K. 8 quid, overseas 13; or $20 U. S.(no checks) |
Author: Jeffrey
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 11:07 am | | Hello All !
There has been some interesting discussion touching on the Ghoulston Street graffiti recently, so I thought I might resurrect this thread. Actually, there is something very fundamental usually missed in the argument on whether the Ripper did or did not write the Ghoulston Street chalked message.
All graffiti is written for a purpose. Often it can be a simple joke, it can very frequently be written by someone who has something to say to the public. Graffiti is always written anonimously (unless your name is Kilroy), yet it often conveys a real message that not only means something important to the author, but can in some way be understood or related to, by any person who would read the message.
If the Ripper did not write the graffiti, then who did and what was their reason for writing this message ? I just think that whether written by the Ripper or not, the message has to have some meaning to someone. Usually most people would have an idea of what the artist is trying to say, yet over 100 years on, and with many intelligent minds pondering this message, noone can even come close to a reason why anyone should make such a statement. Maybe it would be worthwhile to discuss the graffiti without trying to determnine if it was written by the Ripper, so my question would be this.
If this message was chalked by an oridinary resident of Whitechapel, like a 15 year old punk with a piece of chalk in his hand, a fire in his eyes and an injustice to be put right, or anyone with something to say for that matter, what do you think he was really saying ? It's not a very funny joke so has to mean something to someone, don't you think?
Regards
Jeff D |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 01:38 pm | | | I had an idea about this graffitti and why it is so worded , Jeff. Is it a Bible quotation ? I don't know the Bible very well , but perhaps someone does who might be able to explain it. As for myself , I think the important word was probably ' juives ' now , that Masonic stuff was a bit far-fetched at the end of the day. But why use the French spelling ? |
Author: David M. Radka
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 01:46 pm | | Simon,
Are you now a D'Onstonian?
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Monday, 08 May 2000 - 05:37 pm | | | OOOOOH NO ! |
Author: Jim Leen
Thursday, 12 October 2000 - 03:48 pm | | Hello Everybody,
I've just come across a quotation that entirely justifies Warren's actions with regard to the destruction of the graffito.
The former Chief Rabbi, Nathan Adler, wrote the following words to the Rabbis of Eastern Europe in 1888:
"Every Rabbi of a community; kindly to preach in the synagogue and house of study, to publicise the evil which is befalling our brethren who have come here and to warn them not to come to the land of Britain for such ascent is descent".
If Britain's Chief Rabbi was taking such steps to warn future immigrants of what awaited them in Britain, is it any wonder that a man dedicated to protecting the community, Warren, would eliminate any possible flashpoints at the earliest instalment.
Oh dear, I haven't inadvertently spoiled the Masonic Theory have I?
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Keith Rogan
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 04:07 pm | | Good point, Jim!
Having just waded through several hundred notes about the Goulston Street Graffito, I find myself thoroughly puzzled by all the various theories and suppositions based on this "clue".
I think you're entirely correct about Warren's motive for erasing the graffiti. There was simply no point in allowing it to stay since nobody even knows whether the Ripper wrote it!
A couple of points that everyone seems to have missed:
The "kind of dado" that is mentioned in the testimony is most likely the black border shown in the photo right here on Casebook - not properly a "dado", but a "kind of dado" as it were. The photo is not dated but it's an old one clearly showing a black border extending about 1 1/2 bricks in width on either side of the doorway.
That's almost certainly the "dado" they are talking about for several reasons.
1. It's stated that the letters were only 3/4" tall.
2. The sentence is written in sections of 3-5 words, in descending order.
There's no reason to write that small unless you have limited space. There's no reason to break the sentence into descending elements unless you have limited space.
If you look at the doorway picture (I have no idea how to "paste" a picture in here), you can clearly see that if one wanted to write that sentence on the black bricks in that doorway as pictured, you'd have to write just as described - 3/4" of an inch tall - and you'd still have to break up the sentence a couple of times to continue on the next level of bricks.
None of this means a thing since we'll never know if the Ripper wrote those words. One look at the contemporary photo of Goulston Street is enough to let you know that the street was packed with thousands of people every day - any one of which could have chalked those words up.
Keith |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 14 October 2000 - 05:51 pm | | (round of applause)
Excellent Keith, thats exactly the kind of solution the evidence suggests.
Regards, Jon
(as opposed to those who maintain it was inside on the wall) |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 03:06 pm | | | I was just reading some older posts on this thread and found Simon Owen's question about the graffito being a Bible quote. I have studied the Bible for many years now and I could not think of any verse that would fit. I just spent a good long while poring over my online Bible. I had it search and find every verse with Jews, Blame, Blamed and Fault in it. The only verses I found are very far fetched and iffy. John 18:38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find no fault in Him at all. Hebrews 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. I wonder if it would pay to search the works of Shakespeare. I can't recall the play right now but Will wrote a play with a villainous Jewish moneylender in it, thus revealing his own antisemitism. Was it Twelfth Night? I'm off to see if I can find a Shakespeare site. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 03:29 pm | | | I'm back. I was wrong. It was the Merchant of Venice I was thinking of. I found this nice little site, www.allshakespeare.com. They had the text of all the plays, sonnets, quotes, etc. and a search function so I fed in the word "Jew" and came up with lots of quotes about Jews (the Bard was not always a nice man) but nothing like the graffito. What other literary works could we check? Maybe the graffito was a translation of something in a non-English piece of literature? |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 03:35 pm | | | I just thought of something else. When I checked the Bible I checked the protestant King James Version. I believe the Roman Catholic Bible has some books in it that protestants don't. Since I'm not Catholic I wouldn't be familiar with them. Anybody out there have a Douay Rheims handy? I'll go look and see if my online Bible contains a Catholic translation. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 04:08 pm | | | Found a website with the Catholic Bible but no verses anything like the graffito. I'm out of ideas. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 04:41 pm | | | Its not in the Koran, either. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 15 October 2000 - 07:18 pm | | | Anybody familiar with RLStevenson's Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde? It was playing in London at the time. Could the line have been from it? |
Author: John Dixon
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 09:39 am | | Diana,
Completely opposite to your ( & my ) line of thought I had the quote explained to me by some other researchers as "the jews are not the men who should be blamed for nothing" ( or whatever the actual message is ... it is late here )
where
"Nothing" is read as the name Kate Eddowes gave at the police station before she was killed.
No double negitive that way.
Interesting isn't it ? John. |
Author: Jon
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 12:24 pm | | "Nothing"
Was Eddowes response when she was admitted to Bishopsgate police station.
Not to be confused with the name she gave on leaving.
Regards, Jon |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 03:55 pm | | Hi all,
This being the designated board for the Goulston Street Graffito, I'm going to try this one more time. I hate to be tiresome, but this is the third time in a year I am posting this and I hope that this time I can at least get a response to it, even if it's only to tell me that the idea is bonkers.
Some time back I tried some writing experiments and I would be very interested if other people were to try this on their own and let us know what their results were. I set out to write the GSG, but with the word 'Jews' spelled correctly 'J-e-w-s', not 'J-u-w-e-s'. I tried this with various writing instruments (including chalk) and on different media with different textures. We know the GSG was written in script with letters about three quarters of an inch high. In writing the GSG with the word 'Jews' spelled correctly, I came up with several examples that could easily have been transcribed as 'Juwes'. The differences are really not that great. It depends on how the connectors between the letter 'e' and the letter 'w' were formed, and the connector between the letter 'w' and the letter 's'. Writing with chalk on a rough medium may well have influenced the formation of the script letters and their connectors.
The police who transcribed the message were, quite properly, attempting to duplicate exactly what they saw, not necessarily what the writer intended the word to be. If the transcription of the word 'Juwes' is another example of an assumption that has never been challenged, we may be able to look at the message with a new perspective. What a different story it would be if there wasn't even a hint of Masonic mischief or speculation about the French word 'Juives'.
I hope that others will try this experiment and see what happens, but I suspect that few will even question let alone abandon the transcribed word 'Juwes' in favor of the word that the writer may very well have been attempting to spell correctly.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: Roger O'Donnell
Monday, 16 October 2000 - 04:30 pm | | Nick,
It doesn't sound unreasonable. Writing legibly on brick with a small bit of chalk can be problematic, as can writing on a glazed or painted surface with same. There is also the (slim) chance that the writing could be further obscured by the writer being left handed (Being a south paw myself, I know how much of a mess you can get as you drag yr hand over yr own writing)
Regards
Roger |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 17 October 2000 - 10:27 am | | Hi Nick,
You make a reasonable point, and I'm sorry I seem to have missed your previous posts on this subject. I'll certainly get my chalks out and give it a go.
However, as a counter-argument (there's always one of those blighters with JtR), when I first glance at a sentence, say a small headline in a newspaper, I sometimes see a word or words which turn out to be quite different when I go back and read it through more carefully. I see what I am expecting to see. So, in a situation where graffiti and anti-Jewish feelings were both common, wouldn't it be likely that this word would be seen and assumed, at first glance, to be 'Jews', and only when methodically transcribing each word would a misspelling be noticed and recorded?
Love,
Caz |
Author: NickDanger
Wednesday, 18 October 2000 - 09:23 pm | | Hi all,
Thanks to Roger and Caz for their replies. Caz makes an excellent point here and I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one who scans written material and then finds on more careful reading that I've misinterpreted words. Heretofore I had attributed this to my brain becoming the consistency of a soggy Quiche Lorraine as I move on into senile dementia.
The issue here is to try and recognize that the differences between a script 'Jews' and 'Juwes' is really not very great. It's difficult to describe verbally, but when you actually try the writing experiment it's infinitely easier to see the similarities.
For whichever intrepid souls try the writing experiment, it's just possible that we can partially de-mystify this intriguing icon. Whether the graffito was written by the killer or not isn't really the most important point here, but in a case filled with red herrings, perhaps with more careful examination, we can put at least one back in the can.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: NickDanger
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 01:40 am | | Hi all,
Still no takers on the writing test except for the ever intrepid Caz? Oh well, I promise not to pout but I still can't help being a bit disappointed. I would have genuinely liked to see the results that others may have gotten especially since it's such an easy experiment to perform. No Spectochromatographic equipment required, no acetone to sniff and unless chalk contains chloracetamide, none of that either.
In any case, I think we would be on very shaky ground to unquestioningly accept that the transcribed word 'Juwes' was actually spelled that way.
Best regards,
Nick Danger |
Author: Jon
Monday, 23 October 2000 - 12:33 pm | | Nick
I have not tried your experiment, mainly as I have written with various types of chalk for various reasons, and I know you cannot easily determine small loups as specific letters.
I suggest it is in the eye of the beholder as to whether an 'e' was a 'u'.
I have also spent many an hour trying to settle in my own mind as to the 4 or so, various spellings of 'Jews' in the hand written Eddowes inquest documents.
I have posted on this site about the various spellings by the inquest recorder before, and because of this, any argument in this case that rely's on 'Jews' being spelt a particular way is on questionable grounds to start with.
I think it is doubtfull that anyone can identify, with any degree of certainty, how this word is spelled in the inquest documents. And the person responsible in this case certainly was well educated, but you still cannot pick a 'u' from an 'e'.
If someone wishes to see an example I will scan the relevent text when I get home tonight.
Regards, Jon |
Author: NickDanger
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 09:12 pm | | Hi Jon,
Thanks very much for your post. I am embarrassed to say that I must have missed your previous posts on this subject but definitely grateful that you have refreshed my memory. I still think it may be worthwhile for others to try the writing experiment if only to confirm the difficulty in interpreting individual letters in the words 'Jews' and 'Juwes', as you have pointed out.
However, I'm relieved to see that my concerns about the GSG and the spelling of the word 'Jews' aren't isolated or slightly loopy. It's something that has bothered me for some time and I appreciate your taking the time to update us. My main problem with discussions of the GSG were the more fanciful interpretations concerning rogue Masons or various foreigners. I thought that by exploring the graffito in more detail, we might be able to dispense with apocryphal formulations without wasting more time and space on them.
It would be great if you could post the handwritten transcripts of the Eddowes inquest. I was not aware that the spellings of the word 'Jews' were that varied in this document and it provides additional reasons to be cautious when we attempt to explain this odd message.
I also want to thank you for your posts on John Sanders. This is something that has always intrigued me and I'm sure your contribution (along with those of Viper and Jon Ogan) is appreciated by many who follow the message board discussions.
Best regards,
Nick |
Author: LeatherApron
Tuesday, 24 October 2000 - 11:15 pm | | Nick,
Hope you didn't think that I was ignoring you. I had already agreed with the notion that the "jews" part of the GSG was probably simply misread as "juwes" and therefore didn't feel that I had anything helpful to add. It's not that farfetched to believe one could write script so badly it could subsequently be read any number of ways including, dare I say it, "james" as alleged in the documentary about Maybrick. This red herring, unfortunately, still stinks. Wish they'd shot a photo.
Regards,
Jack |
Author: NickDanger
Wednesday, 25 October 2000 - 01:11 am | | Hi Jack and all,
Thanks very much for your post. I've also enjoyed your posts on the other message boards so keep up the good work (and the good humor).
If we can agree that the word 'Juwes' in the GSG, is, at the very least, highly questionable then that is all I hoped to accomplish. It kind of grates when I see yet another far fetched interpretation of the graffito and I thought that by proposing the writing experiment, we might be able to minimize these speculations by demonstrating this. In any case, I'm very relieved to see that I'm not alone in this view, and for those who remain skeptical, I invite you to try the experiment for yourself.
Best regards,
Nick |
|
|
|
|
