The word JUWES

[RivkahChaya]

Regarding graffiti in London at the time: how common was it? I'm originally from a part of Manhattan called Morningside Heights, and it is not possible to drop a piece of apron there, without having it land within 30 feet of some piece of graffiti. It would be ridiculous to associate a piece of dropped apron with the nearest piece of graffiti.

However, I've been to other places where graffiti is so rare, that when someone finds some, it makes the newspapers. I'm not kidding. Where was 1888s London in there? if graffiti was a remarkable rarity, then I suppose there's a pretty good chance it went along with the piece of apron. One the other hand.... Yes, I'm aware the building was new. In Morningside Heights, that means nothing. A spanking-new building can be covered overnight, and the more security, the more fun, as far as some people seem to be concerned.

Also, considering that no one agrees on how the word "Ju/ew[e]s" was spelled, isn't it likely the word was smudged, or something? Maybe the writer couldn't decide how to spell it, and wiped it out, and tried again, so it wasn't as clear as the other words. Or maybe he started writing an E, and changed his mind halfway through. Or maybe the whole thing was sloppy, so that the words that were obvious, people's brains filled in, and the other ones, not so much, which is why people had trouble remembering the order of the words.

[RivkahChaya]

Hello Rivkah,

Far be it from me to belittle your training and experience, but dyslexia has nothing to do with intelligence and if your work was with special needs adults perhaps it would be not quite the same thing for you to diagnose it in highly intelligent children.

When I worked in special ed., I saw lots of highly intelligent children (mostly teens) who were dyslexic.

I overreact to people who try to diagnose anything in historical figures, especially when they aren't professionals-- and you'll note that actual professionals don't spend time doing this. If I have to read one more article on how Albert Einstein or Stonewall Jackson had Asperger's Syndrome, someone is going to get hurt.

Anyway, a lot of people make the mistake in thinking that dyslexia is a simple matter of seeing letters out of order, because in the 1970s, in the US, there was some printed matter that tried to show non-dyslexics what dyslexia felt like, by printing some paragraphs with letters out of order, or letter substitutions.

The last research I saw was that dyslexic people have difficulty parsing phonemes. It seems odd, because most people think of it as an intuitive skill, but it is something like this: if you learn how to spell "hill" and "keep," and then how to spell "upkeep," you can figure out how to spell "uphill," because you have the ability to parse phonemes. Lacking that ability, dyslexic people need to have this explained to them (depending on how serious the case is, they may or may not grasp it, even when it is explained in very simple terms), and then they need hours and hours of drill and practice to learn it.

No, it's not a function of intelligence, because it turns out that the ability to read is a part of language ability (which we know from brain imaging-- writing is yet another skill). It's not just a skill we learn entirely by rote. Unfortunately, "entirely by rote" is how the most severe dyslexic people learn to read. I've been to symposia on this. I've also kept up with the literature since I've been staying home with my son, and haven't been working (well, for money).

[GregBaron]

Chalk a message...

Hi all,

The latest Ripperologist has an excellent article about the newly discovered graffiti and its commonality in general. It certainly doesn't appear it was a rarity...

I think smudging would have been mentioned if it occurred with JUWES RivkahChaya. It's more likely faulty recollection of an odd word choice...

To the plagiarist police, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In my school days said rules were bludgeoned into us repeatedly. Severe punishment resulted from transgressions.............I believe some youngsters, who grew up in the cut and paste world, haven't been properly warned of its seriousness....


Greg

[Michael W Richards]

Hi All,

Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler — J-U-E-W-E-S

PC Long [inquest] — J-E-W-S

PC Long [6th November written report] — J-U-E-W-S

Unnamed Inspector [PC Long, recalled to inquest] — J-E-U-W-S

DC Halse [inquest] — J-U-W-E-S

Superintendent Arnold [6th November written report] — J-U-E-W-S

Chief Inspector Swanson [6th November written report] — J-U-W-E-S

Home Office Minute [unattributed] — "J-E-W-E-S, not J-U-W-E-S"

Sir Charles Warren — J-U-W-E-S.

And you think you're confused?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

That is a peculiar list of variations, specifically Longs change of heart which he re-iterates and how neither versions agree with Halse's version. Since they were both at that spot one would think they might have jotted it down quickly or at the very least committed it to memory.

I also find it interesting that Long changes the second letter from an "E" to a "U", then switches it back. That seems quite odd to me,...unless he was influenced by the other statements in the interval and finally went back to his original recollections.

I find the erasure of this message, which it clearly seems to be to me, almost laughable. At the time it was found it could have been lantern lit and photographed before the sun rose, and before most of the early market folks might pass by it. Surely a single official version of it should have been handwritten recorded on the spot, to avoid the confusion that youve pointed out.

Im wondering who Warren thought might find offense and riot over the content....local Jews or local gentiles, because its outside a residence that is almost 100% Jewish. I suppose thats the answer...they felt the Jews might riot over it.

Why the hell they thought that is beyond me.

Cheers my friend

[curious4]

Dear Rifkah,

Of course you have, and I admire your tenacity.

Would you care to elaborate on your objections to diagnosing historical personages? Most people seem to have no problem in accepting that George the third suffered from porphyria, after all.

Best wishes,
C4

[Sally]

Hello Sally,

As I remember it Chaucer was the first to write in colloquial english. I don't think there was "standard spelling" at the time.

Best wishes,
C4

Hi C4

Yes, I know that - 'standard' spelling was a lot later than Chaucer, too. Nonetheless, Medieval spelling was more 'standard' than you may suppose - some consensus had to exist or the reading public would never have got the hand of it - and I doubt that 'Juwes' was ever more than an oddity. Still, as I say, the British Library could confirm, no doubt.

Anyway....

[moonbegger]

Hello Lynn, Greg, Don, Whoever ,

I agree wholeheartedly with your condemnation of plagiarism and i applaud your stance , But since Lynn has put me back on the stand for a crime i did not or had no intention of committing i would like to add ,

When i originally posted it a month or so ago , i was unfamiliar with the [Q caption function] and i just figured the relevant text had been posted twice before on here so people would be familiar with it .. And yes , i should have put Q marks around it anyway , in fact i thought they was already on it from the Previous lift and the one before that . But in all honesty i thought the way i presented the Text " Have a look at this " was more than enough in itself to suggest it was not my work . I guess i am also guilty of giving the reader more credit than perhaps deserved in being able to distinguish two completely different writing styles .. It really is chalk and cheese !

However, i apologize to all those who may have been fooled into thinking that the clap-trap from God knows when , was actually written and researched by me , it really was not my intention. And if it had been written by me it would be a lot more humorous and to the point ! ( i am pretty sure 99% of posters on here fully get that). My ears have been clipped and i will strive to be more attentive in class in the future , but i cant promise

That's all folks !

Can we now get back to the Topic of this thread ?

moonbegger .

[Krinoid]

I am suprised someone mentioned my posts from long ago, the link is here, the woman was someone called RoseyO'Ryan

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5068

Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 7:24 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Norder,

As you are well aware, the term "Juwes", exists in medieval manuscripts pertaining to that people who refer to themselves as "Jews" yet transliteration variation in this period uses the the term "Juwes". Since Freemasonary bases its foundation on manuscripts of this earlier period...not the 19th century...we may assume that this term "Juwes" could be a direct reference to the three enigmatic figures in the medieval lore of earlier Freemasonary, i.e., the construction of the House of Wisdom, aka, 'Solomon's Temple'. This era of frenetic philological speculation of those three rogues was long before the birth of America and Freemasonary in general.
Gosh, we have so much to learn about alphabetical desires, in general. But I guess Warren knew better than we do...since he was an expert on medieval manuscripts about the "Juwes" and the "Temple of Solomon".
As Ever, Rosey :-)

[Krinoid]

Rosey O'Ryan
Unregistered guest
Posted on Monday, October 03, 2005 - 5:59 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Norder,

Now you are putting words in my mouth, you rascal!
Simply put, the word "Juwe" and "Juwes" existed prior to the use of the word "Jew". This word "Jew" appears in the English language after the translation of the bible (King James) from Latin into Anglo-Saxon (English). Hence it is a relatively modern transliteration of the Hebrew, "Iudhi/Iudha".
Ergo, the word "Juwes" existed as the term for those referred to in historical documentation as "Jews" long long ago...and surprising, during 1888 and even TODAY! It exists in the British Museum Library (just down the road from Whitechapel) and the Bodlian Library, Oxford (just up the road from Whitechapel), in fact, up and down, and in me Laydis Chamber.
Who would know of this term "Juwes", in 1888? I ASSUME scholars of the ilk of Warren, Anderson, and of course, the Chief Rabbi.
Hic Rhodus hic saltus!
Rosey :-)

[Supe]

To Krinoid and all,

Somehow I should have known that Norder would be at the bottom of the entire kerfuffle.

Don.

[Bridewell]

I find

the erasure of this message, which it clearly seems to be to me, almost laughable. At the time it was found it could have been lantern lit and photographed before the sun rose, and before most of the early market folks might pass by it. Surely a single official version of it should have been handwritten recorded on the spot, to avoid the confusion that youve pointed out.

Im wondering who Warren thought might find offense and riot over the content....local Jews or local gentiles, because its outside a residence that is almost 100% Jewish. I suppose thats the answer...they felt the Jews might riot over it.

Why the hell they thought that is beyond me.

And me. It all came out at the inquest anyway. In fact more attention may have been devoted to it than would otherwise have been the case because of the discrepancies over the spelling.

It all came out. Nobody rioted.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

That is a peculiar list of variations, specifically Longs change of heart which he re-iterates and how neither versions agree with Halse's version. Since they were both at that spot one would think they might have jotted it down quickly or at the very least committed it to memory.

I also find it interesting that Long changes the second letter from an "E" to a "U", then switches it back. That seems quite odd to me,...unless he was influenced by the other statements in the interval and finally went back to his original recollections.

I find the erasure of this message, which it clearly seems to be to me, almost laughable. At the time it was found it could have been lantern lit and photographed before the sun rose, and before most of the early market folks might pass by it. Surely a single official version of it should have been handwritten recorded on the spot, to avoid the confusion that youve pointed out.

Im wondering who Warren thought might find offense and riot over the content....local Jews or local gentiles, because its outside a residence that is almost 100% Jewish. I suppose thats the answer...they felt the Jews might riot over it.

Why the hell they thought that is beyond me.

Cheers my friend

Ok, just a few points.

Can anyone show me any victorian night photos? You'd be hard pressed to find any. Taking images in darkness was an extremely difficult process, even if lit by a lantern, which really would be of no benefit.

Due to its position, taking a photograph head on would have been very difficut too.

Finally the police did not have their own photographers, they had to rely on privateers who would have been summoned, most likely Joseph Martin in this case. He would then have to gather his box of kit and transport it from Mile End way over to Goulston Street, which obviously takes time.

I'm in agreement with my good buddy Robert McLaughlin when he states the 'Graffito' is a non clue.

Its ambiguous, it states nothing connected to the murders, what evidence of guilt does it bring? None.

Photographing would have been of no benefit whatsoever.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi all,

The latest Ripperologist has an excellent article about the newly discovered graffiti and its commonality in general. It certainly doesn't appear it was a rarity...

I think smudging would have been mentioned if it occurred with JUWES RivkahChaya. It's more likely faulty recollection of an odd word choice...

To the plagiarist police, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In my school days said rules were bludgeoned into us repeatedly. Severe punishment resulted from transgressions.............I believe some youngsters, who grew up in the cut and paste world, haven't been properly warned of its seriousness....


Greg

Thanks for the kind words Greg,

The main question why arose out of the article was not what it looked like, what it stated but rather why it was photographed and kept.

Monty

[curious4]

Jewes

Hi C4

Yes, I know that - 'standard' spelling was a lot later than Chaucer, too. Nonetheless, Medieval spelling was more 'standard' than you may suppose - some consensus had to exist or the reading public would never have got the hand of it - and I doubt that 'Juwes' was ever more than an oddity. Still, as I say, the British Library could confirm, no doubt.

Anyway....

Hallo Sally,

Jewes not Juwes. Do you have any examples of pre-chaucer english texts? People were used to reading in latin and french, so I don't think reading the language they spoke every day would have presented a problem. I have a poem written at approximately the same time. I will try to fish it out for comparison but I don't think the word "juwes" or even "jewes" is mentioned. Although I do rather think we are way off topic here, only answered because someone asked about spelling in the middle ages

Regards,
C4

[Sally]

Hallo Sally,

Jewes not Juwes. Do you have any examples of pre-chaucer english texts? People were used to reading in latin and french, so I don't think reading the language they spoke every day would have presented a problem. I have a poem written at approximately the same time. I will try to fish it out for comparison but I don't think the word "juwes" or even "jewes" is mentioned. Although I do rather think we are way off topic here, only answered because someone asked about spelling in the middle ages

Regards,
C4

Hi C4

The original claim - not mine - was that the word 'Juwes' was commonplace in the Medieval period. If it was, then perhaps one might tenuously propose a link to the Freemasons - although I would have thought personally that it would be very tenuous. I do not think I have seen that spelling. Jewes, yes - makes perfect sense.

I think - as stated earlier - that Juwes is probably nothing more than a mispelling; and nothing more sinister than that.

We are way off topic yes. To address your other points would take us into another conversation altogether, so probably best to leave it there.