Archive through April 25, 1999

** 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 April 25, 1999

Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Letters: General Discussion: The Goulston Street Graffito: Archive through April 25, 1999

Author: Stephen P. Ryder Friday, 20 November 1998 - 12:33 pm
June 1996 One of the major contributing factors to the theories involving police corruption is the confusion around Warren's decision to personally erase the chalked message in Goulston street before police could photograph it. Briefly, it is believed to have read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing," and was written directly above a scrap of linen later discovered to have been torn from the clothes of Catherine Eddowes. Corruption theorists claim it was to cover-up Masonic involvement, while "purists" contend it was a necessary move to avoid the eruption of Anti-Semitic violence. What do you think? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:07:00 -0700 From: wolvie@sprynet.com I agree with the "purists". Sir Charles was acting in good faith and only trying to prevent the situation from getting more out of hand than it already was. The climate at the time meant that any refrence to "Jews" would only further inflame public outcry against the local jewish population. In hindsight he could have had only the part of the graffiti that talks about "Juwes" rubbed out, preserving the rest of the message to be photographed and examined. In summing up, erasing the message was a sensable act on his part. It is only the recent conspiracy advocites that have accused Sir Charles of sinister motives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 11:30:49 -0700 From: Kent Conwell Of the two explanations for the erasing of the words, the anti-semitic is more logical than the masonic. The masonic theory simply stretches credibility too far. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 15:03:03 -0400 From: Michael Rogers Even though Warren was no doubt a real bozo, I think he made a good call on this one. I'd bet the message had nothing at all to do with the killing. Here's Jack up to his elbows in blood, and guts, and sht, etc. running for dear life with the cops just minutes behind him. Does it really seem likely that he's going to take the time to stop and scribble this little message on the wall? I can't see it. The guy was crazy but not that crazy. I suppose it's possible that he wrote it before meeting Eddowes if he indeed picked his killing spots and escape routes ahead of time. But that doesn?t sound too likely either, does it? Also if he did stop to write the message, wouldn't there have been some blood on the wall too? Does this spark any ideas in anyone??? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:45:46 +-1000 From: Dennis Stocks Not this again! I agree with Paul Begg... There is very little evidence that the writing had anything to do with the murders. The writing was only "attributed" to JTR simply on the basis of the proximity of the piece of apron. Chief Inspector Swanson stated that it appeared to him to have been there for some time (although Constable Halse said it looked fresh) I could also argue that any anti-Jewish slogan would have been removed quickly by the residents anyway. As Dew said "Why should the murderer fool around chalking things on the walls when his life was imperiled by every minute he loitered?" I don't wish to go into the Masonic connections again here, but there is little that can be made from that line of thought. Highly unlikely. Hindsight is always 20/20. And it certainly is a pity that only the first words relating to the JUEWES were not destroyed, leaving the rest. But there really was a great fear of anti-Semitic riots in the mood of yet another killing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 08:48:38 -0400 From: Edward B. Hanna Warren, I believe, was acting out of a genuine concern that another anti-semitic pogrom would occur if the word got out that the Ripper might be of Jewish origin. Several attacks against Jews had already occurred in the East End because of unfounded rumors following the first few murders, and given the fear and volatile state of affairs in London at the time, especially in the slums and among the uneducated, Warren truly believed he was doing the right thing when he ordered the message erased. Of course it must be remembered that he was a soldier, not a trained police official (not that police officials were 'trained' in those days) and did not have the respect for evidence that a professional would have. Warren was of his class: a stupid man, stubborn and arrogant and opinionated. He was also highly eccentric. But I don't believe he was involved in a 'Masonic' conspiracy or anything of the sort (though later he may have been involved in an official conspiracy to coverup his department's ineffectiveness - but that's another story). His motive in ordering the erasure was a pure one, I believe, though decidedly wrong-headed. Edward B. Hanna Author, The Whitechapel Horrors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 19:49:54 -0700 From: ibbcsdo@ix.netcom.com I agree that this was just a "purist" act. It was also likely that the ripper may have not written this particular graffiti, but may have been written by a disgruntled customer or client that did not receive satisfactory service from a Jewish business. Then, probably, the ripper may have thrown the bloody apron in the corridor, without him knowing that there was that message written on the wall. But still you just can't stop thinking that that was one hell of a coincidence! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:49:22 -0500 From: Andrew J. Spallek The Goulston St. graffito is an interesting point. I tend to think that Warren's decision to have it erased was justifiable in light of the high racial tension of the time. I also am inclined to think that it was not written by JTR for the reason given by others in this conference, viz., JTR would have been too rushed to risk capture in such a foolhardy way. I don't believe that he would have been excessivley blood-stained, however, since his mutilations were committed post-mortem (no further circulation of blood, no "spurting", etc.). Why then, if the graffito was old (contra Halse), was it allowed to remain in this Jewish sector? Perhaps it is not anti-Semitic. It is most unfortunate that the photographer could not arrive on the scene before the graffito was erased. We have two different versions of the wording. Det. Halse (City) copied it as "The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing." If one takes the double-negative literally, this could be understood as a vindication of Jews, i.e. "The Jews are not the men who refuse to take responsibility for their actions (implied: Gentiles are)." Or, if we take it as Long wrote it, it can certainly be a vindication, i.e. "The Jews refuse to take responsibiliy for these killings" (this does not take the double-negative literally). Melvin Harris reports on a contemporary article by Robert D'Onston Stephenson that theoizes "Juwes" to be actually "Juives", the French word for "Jews." Stephenson himself is Harris' candidate for JTR. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Date: Thu, 04 Jul 96 01:01:18 -0700 From: Stephanie Richey Warren was probably sincere in his desire not to excite anti-semitic feelings in the city. There was enough of that already. It's just a damn shame he couldn't have waited, had it covered up and a constable posted guard, until it could be photographed. It's probably only a small piece of evidence, but small pieces are often the most important. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Date: Sat, 26 Oct 1996 00:07:43 -0400 From: richie@intercall.net Let me say right off the bat that I'm a conspiracy beleiver. Warren was in on it from the start. He should have brought in re-enforcements, but he did no such thing. He has the gall to mention the fact that the sun was about to come up, yet says nothing about taking a photograph. where was Abberline during all this? Why was arnold so set on erasing what he saw on the wall? Warren was the commisioner of police, in the middle of what was supposed to be one of the most intense man-hunts in history. One more thing- why does he bother to talk about what a rabbi has to say about the word 'juwes' ? Collecting evidence didn't seem to be upper-most in his mind when it should have been. Being more freightened of a mob, or at least pretending to be, can't be called proper behavior for a man in Warren's position. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 22:47:11 -0800 From: dt999 One of the many things that puzzle me about the message scratched inside the entrance of Goulston Dwellings is: If it was written by Jack, did he habitually go out to select, stalk, attack and eviscerate his victims with a piece of chalk in his pocket, just on the off-chance that he might be able to scrawl a highly-cryptic message at some point during the night? If he did, then why was no message written at Miller's Court, where he had a perfectly good wall, privacy, and light from the fire to see what he was writing? I tend to the view that the message and the apron fragment are coincidentally in the same place, and that our Jack was probably too preoccupied with cleaning himself up to notice that someone else had chalked that message there. It does point, however, to Jack having a local's knowledge of the area, in that he knew that here was a place where he could wash himself. I doubt if anyone from outside the area would have known of this place, and then find it unerringly in the dark under the stress of knowing that the Police are frantically combing the area for him. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Date: 22 Jan 1997 00:20:34 -0000 From: Mark Feldman Hi. My name is Mark Feldman, and I'm not a Ripperologist, but fear that I'm becoming addicted like the rest of you! Right now, I'm reading the excellent (and fascinating) book by Philip Sugden. I'm kind of interested in the chalkwritten message. I just finished reading the comments on it. I completely agree with your reader, Stephanie Richey, that the police should have covered the message with a poster or something until it could be photographed. What a loss! It is so hard to get a straight story from a human. (This is assuming that a photo wasn't* made.) It would have been fascinating to compare the handwriting of the chalk message with the handwriting of the "From hell" letter. It does seem hard to believe that a hotly pursued murderer would: 1) just happen to have a piece of chalk in his pocket; 2) scrawl a strange, enigmatic message on a wall; and 3) be able to write in the dark (I presume it was dark--why would someone hide in a lit place?). On the other hand, as someone else wrote, it sure is one hell of a coincidence! A couple of days ago, I suddenly had a wild thought: could it be that the chalkwritten message had indeed been made by JTR because he was angry that he had been interrupted earlier (when he presumably was with Elizabeth) by some Jewish men passing nearby? Could the murderer have been blaming the second murder on the Jews because they had interrupted him, preventing him from mutilating Elizabeth further, thus "making" him seek another victim that night to satisfy his "bloodlust"? It seems at once so far-fetched, and yet so logical too. What isn't far-fetched about a monster like JTR anyway? I think that victimizers often blame others for their own actions. I haven't read this theory anywhere; I wonder what your thoughts are on it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Date: Mon, 7 Jul 1997 18:01:13 -0400 From: Okorszeg@aol.com Hi, I have a question, which I hope you can help me with. Doesn't the graffiti on the wall attributed to jack say the 'Juwes'? I know the crank Steven Knight tried to push this argument, but since it was hand-written could the message actually have been the 'Judes'. If it could then I wonder if there is real investigative promise in this area since the very first vigilance committee set up (after the tabram murder) saw 70 men gather to form the St Judes Vigilance Committee. Given our knowledge that serial killers often enter the investigation and the only possible genuine note from the ripper was to Lusk and a vigilance committee - do you think there could be a link? Could the ripper have been on the St Judes VC and was taunting his fellows? What do you think? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 13:00:04 +0800 From: Len Bresland Jack probably left only one clue; the chalk message (if indeed he wrote it) which was removed by a pest who should have handed in his badge. No doubt many others have examined the words for a coded message and I have some ideas which appear to implicate Tumblety (fingered by Evans and Gainey) who it seems would have been crazy enough to do the crime and the rhyme. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 01:48:36 +0000 From: Neil Jones The word Juwes as used on the wall in Goulston Street is used in medieval and middle english text and it does mean jewish people.
Author: Anonymous Monday, 01 February 1999 - 07:46 pm
Several individuals question what someone would be doing with a piece of chalk in their pocket. Who would be likey to have a piece of Chalk? A teacher, maybe, or a student. As to the original question, the erasing of the graffiti has to be one of the worst decisions of the entire ripper investigation. It is perfect fuel for conspiracists. There were entirely too many options to erasing the message. Photograph. Poster. Erase only "Juwes". Was it Anderson who called this erasure utter stupidity, or some such thing? He was right. But really though, what does the sentence mean? I have never been able to make any sense out of it. If one wanted to make scurrilous comments about Jews, one wouldn't need to be so cryptic about it. I guess we'll never know on this issue.
Author: Yazoo Monday, 01 February 1999 - 10:38 pm
Nice ideas on the chalk, Anonymous. I noticed the note from Neil Jones above yours, and I wanted to comment on that too. I've looked for that spelling of "Juwes" for Jews in The Chaucer Glossary and in other Middle English reference works a while ago. I couldn't find that spelling anywhere and just gave up. Now I see Neil Jones already thought of it. I'm no Middle English scholar, but the word has a Middle English look to it. Does anybody know more about Middle English to settle that question? And if the answer is in the affirmative, maybe you could give a guess as to what English dialect (locale?) would have preserved a Middle English spelling (or pronunciation -- spelling phonetically) into the late 19th century? Yaz
Author: Anonymous Saturday, 20 February 1999 - 03:50 pm
The photograph of the grafitto that was taken has been found. I reproduce it for your consideration: I remain anonymous to protect myself and my family from the inevitable controversy.
Author: Caroline Sunday, 21 February 1999 - 08:02 am
Of course! Sooty had to write it all down. He was dumb as well as yellow, wasn't he? I must get my brain back in gear. Trouble is, my first Harvey has just slipped down a treat, and I'm on the slippery slope to Sunday night. Carly sums it up by saying she loses the will to live when mum and dad are glued to Antiques Roadshow. Funny, in my day, it was Sing Something Simple that did my head in! Kaz
Author: Jeff D Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 10:06 am
Hello Everyone ! I was just going through, and re-hashing a number of books recently, and something has stayed in my mind that I would really appreciate if anyone could shed further light upon. Basically, I'm talking about the Ghoulston Street message, but a particular report, by a certain policeman, which stated that the message was undoubtedly left by the murderer. I am a little unsure as to who the policeman was that made this report, where it was made and when, and would appreciate any further information anyone could give. The thing is, I am a firm believer that first impressions last, and it is only when people are given time to reflect, that they ever change their mind, add further detail, or whatever. Could someone help and give me more information of the specific hand-written report that I am referring to? I am sure that there was more than one report on the graffito, but this is one that I had seen a copy of, and I thought was very interesting. I would very much appreciate the chance to delve into the details of this report further, so any help, or pointing in the right direction would be appreciated. Many Thanks ! Jeff D
Author: Stewart P Evans Saturday, 20 March 1999 - 12:30 pm
The report you are seeking was written by Chief Inspector Henry Moore on October 18, 1896, as a result of a comparison of the early communications with a letter commencing 'Dear Boss,' and concluding 'Yours truly Jack the Ripper.' This letter was written in red ink and was received on October 14, 1896. The letter contained the phrase "Winters coming 'The Jewes are people that are blamed for nothing' Ha Ha have you heard this before" In this report, ref- MEPO 3/142, ff 157-159, Moore states, "Considering the lapse of time, it would be interesting to know how the present writer was able to use the words - 'The Jewes are people that are blamed for nothing' [Here there is a marginal note by Swanson, "Were not the exact words 'The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing'? DSS?]; as it will be remembered that they are practically the same words that were written in chalk, undoubtedly by the murderer, on the wall at Goulston St., Whitechapel, on the night of 30th Sept., 1888, after the murders of Mrs. Stride and Mrs. Eddows [sic]; and the word Jews was spelt on that occasion precisely as it is now." Hope this helps.
Author: SirWilfred@aol.com Monday, 05 April 1999 - 04:27 pm
Dear Mark Feldman, I find your theory to be a very interesting one. I am a Ripperologist and try to be open to all of the different theories, whether they are conspiratorial or not. It's all just so fascinating. I believe that Sir Charles SHOULD have photographed the chalk message before rubbing it out--that was just plain bad judgement on his part. And bad police work. I don't doubt for a moment that the message was penned by JTR--I believe that coincideneces are not always coincidences, and as outlandish as it sounds, I believe that there are logical answers to each of the three questions you pose. It is entirely possible that JTR carried the chalk with him at the evening of the double murder. True, it was dark, but if JTR had an accomplice, that person could have scrawled the message earlier (or while the murders were being committed!. The case, as a whole, was very strange so why not add to it by scrawling the message? I found your comments very interesting--feel free to e-mail me with more of your thoughts.
Author: Ashling Monday, 05 April 1999 - 07:10 pm
Hi y'all. I don't see JtR fleeing in a blind panic. By the time he killed Eddowes his MO was probably down pat - Not just how to act before killing, but afterwards too. IF he lived in the Whitechapel or surrounding area - he likely began plotting his escape route the moment he & Kate stepped foot into Mitre Square. Assuming the above to be true for a moment & IF the grattifo was left by Jack - Did he step into that particular doorway by design, rather than chance? Did he try to frame the inhabitants of the Wentworth Model Dwellings as a whole (it's my understanding that most of the tenants were Jewish) - or perhaps even an individual he knew? I think I've read something bringing up this question before, but has it been followed up on? Are the tenants of the Wentworth listed in the city directories for 1888 & 1889? Exactly what we'd look for, I don't know ... I guess anyone that was remotely connected to anyone in the case, be it victim, police, witness, or suspect. Not that any findings would be conclusive, but it wouldn't hurt to look. Jack taking time out of his busy schedule (work all day, troll for victims all night - the man needed to sleep sometime) to plot & frame anyone doesn't fit my understanding of his psychology. However, I've been wrong before, so I try to keep an open mind. Take care, Ashling
Author: l anseaume Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 04:01 pm
The chalk message left behind by the killer was an attempt to baffle and confuse as it accomplished just that! The bloody cloth was left behind to attest that the writng was left by "Jack". No blood was left on the wall as the killer had just used the cloth to wipe his hands. Some killers delight in confounding and confusing police authorities and are so "cocky" they think they will never be caught, hence the term used in the letter " my funny little games". Erasing the message would be sound if it were first recorded as it apparently was done. If the police wanted to totally get rid of the message they could have done so and we would never know the content of the message to this day! Police sometimes make mistakes and destroy evidence accidentally Example: The O.J. Simpson trial. I also understand that the word "Juwes" left at the scene does in fact refer to Jews and also to Masonic legend, but I also seem to remember that a policeman at the scene said that it was possible that the word was written down wrong.
Author: Jon Smyth Wednesday, 21 April 1999 - 07:40 pm
Good evening... I anseaume - Whether the chalk message was left behind by the killer is open to despute. - The confusion comes from those who try to interpret it as part of the Ripper mystery. - The apron was dropped in the archway by the killer, we know of no reason other than he needed to discard it. - We have no idea as to any traces of blood been left on the black wall, in the dark, at night, then been washed/rubbed out in early morning. - Now you assume the 'funny little games' letter was penned by Jack. - In the Eddowes Inquest Papers, Alfred Longs testimony mentions the word 'Jews' 4 times. It is written 'The Jews are the men....' then it follows 'The Jewes are the men....' Then he states that 'Jews was spelt Juews....' and this is followed by the testimony of Det. Daniel Halse who states that 'The exact words were "The Juwes are not the men ...." ' Regardless of how the word was spelt, Jews/Jewes/Juews/Juwes, I maintain that the meaning is unchanged whether the wording was; 'The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing' or 'The Jews are not the men that will not be blamed for nothing' It is simply turn of the century cockney double negative talk. No hidden, cryptic, secret message. Just an irate cockney with a grievance against the Jews for not taking blame in some matter, but is it Ripper related ? I was pointing out the string of assumptions that you mentioned at the start of your post that lead you in a certain direction, likely without you realizing it. Regards, Jon
Author: Caz Thursday, 22 April 1999 - 05:41 am
Hi Jon, Absolutely right, mate, with regard to the irate cockney slang. I think it was ripper related though. I think Jack wanted the police to think that A) the ripper chalked the message, and that B) he was an ill-educated, graffito-scribbling Jew-hater AT THAT POINT, to throw them off the scent, should he be stopped and questioned that very night. My Jack would have then come across to Mr Plod as the complete opposite of the chalker-upper type, thereby fooling him completely, and sloping off home safely. Now then, guvnor, wot do ya fink? I ain't doing all this for me 'elf ya know, am I? Gor blimey, you ain't seen nuffink yet! Love, Cockney Sparra Caz
Author: D. Radka Thursday, 22 April 1999 - 10:54 pm
Caz, Please explain anglicisms impenetrable to me: Cockney Blackeney Arsy-versy Limey pheeze Thank you so much! (I offer same service for americanisms.) David PS Do you remember Lonnie Donnegan's skiffle music? A real giant of the trade if you ask me. "If tin whistle's 'r made o'tin, Whadda they make fogguns outta? Boom Boom!"
Author: Caz Friday, 23 April 1999 - 05:42 am
Hey David! I'll have a stab at the first one, if other Londoners are earwigging, perhaps they will set me straight where I err: A true Cockney was someone born within the sound of the Bow bells, except I don't think they exist any more, and I don't count as one, having been dropped on me 'ead in Queen Charlotte's Hospital in 'amersmiff (Hammersmith, West London). Limey sounds familiar, but I don't know the origins. The others have got me totally stuffed, I'm afraid. Lonnie Donnegan is however a different kettle of fish (are you out angling for old trout this weekend perchance?) My first memory of a Lonnie song (is he still with us?) was "Putting on the agony, putting on the style, that's what all the young folk are doing all the while", except that, in my childish brain, I thought the words were, "Pudding on the Stile", which made me muse on songs with strange lyrics from thereon in. (I swear this is true!) When people today complain about modern music having nonsensical unromantic words, I point them in the direction of that old song "Mares eat oats and does eat oats and little lambs eat ivy, a kid'll eat ivy too, wouldn't you" (sing it quickly and it's total drivel). Have a great weekend all, Love, Caz
Author: Joseph Friday, 23 April 1999 - 04:11 pm
Hello Mr. Radka,and Caz, Limey, I belive is an American term, first used in the early 19th century.It refers to the practice of British sailors putting to sea with fresh lemons, and limes. They did this in order to prevent scurvy. Best Regards Joseph
Author: Leather Apron Friday, 23 April 1999 - 09:34 pm
Just to avoid confusion, I believe Joseph is right, but I just wanted to clear up the use of the word...limey is an American derogatory term used to refer to British people...kind of a no no....at least where I live :)
Author: Caz Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 08:11 am
I can hardly believe that David would confuse an americanism for an anglicism. And I thought 'Limey' might have had something to do with Lime Street, but the scurvy thing sounds right too. How this could be seen as derogatory, however, I cannot imagine, as it sounds pretty smart to have learned about the benefits of vitamin c in those early days. I therefore have my doubts that any free-thinking American would not have thought of a far better way of 'insulting' us Brits by now. Limey sounds quite an affectionate term to yours truly. Come on, Leather Apron, you can do better than that if you really want to wind us all up (grin). You'll have a job though, we weren't all born yesterday (double grin). Love to all, Caz
Author: Joseph Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 11:16 am
Leather Apron, Please accept my appologies, I had no intention of offering the definition of "limey" as an insult. I first heard of it in 4th, or 5th grade, just last week I heard it again on PBS(public broadcasting system). This is the same tv channel that introduced me to Monty Python, Benny Hill, Inspector Dalgleash,and many other British tv programs. My favorite was Yes Minister. During WWII my dad served in the U.K.. I recall him saying, that you lot referred to us as Yanks, and we referred to you as Limies,neither side taking offence, but I would imagine there where also people who used both terms in a derogatory fashion. This was not my intent. Again, my appologies. Best Regards Joseph
Author: Jon Smyth Saturday, 24 April 1999 - 11:47 am
It's not derogatory Joseph, and yes I believe it was from the use of Lemons/Limes, .....the Yanks could just as easily called us Lemons ......now that would have pissed 'Winnie' off good 'n propper. And I think Cobber was used for the Aussies, nothing wrong with all this..... (Just a minute ....what has this gotta do with Jack?????) :-) Jon
Author: Caz Sunday, 25 April 1999 - 11:04 am
Nuffink, mates, but it keeps us all on the same side (grin). Whenever anyone descends from the ether in future to divide Yanks from Limeys, Cobbers from Frogs (I'm part French), men from women, or even 'intellectules' from dumbos, let us think very carefully indeed before we fall for it. It's just someone's peculiar idea of a 'good time' to play the wind-up merchant, while saying, "let me introduce my selves, I'm new to this ripper stuff, but...." My idea of a good time is hugs all round, plenty of booze, sex and rock 'n' roll, and a common (extremely common!) urge to find JtR, but there again, I'm eccentric! Love, Caz