Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by MrBarnett 37 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 46 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 8 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by drstrange169 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - by DJA 10 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - by Joshua Rogan 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (20 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (9 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (8 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: What was occuring in 1888? - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Mary Kellys Inquest - (3 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-06-2016, 09:58 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default An experiment

Hi,

Why hasnīt the Goulston Street Graffiti been explained?

My hypothesis is that it can be explained if you think outside the box, that is, if you use different thinking. So I would like to invite you to an experiment by posing two questions.

The general understanding of the text

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

is that it had to do with jews.

This understanding is created already in 1888. So that understanding is setting the frame for our understanding. And since then ripperologists have been trying to explain a content about jews.

But there has never been a real understanding of the text, since no one has managed to explain it. That it why we can not understand it today.

Another type of understanding of the text, also connected to the word "juwes", is that the person who wrote it - that is, the killer (if we do not hypothesize that the killer wrote it, there is no need for analysing the text) -
could not spell.

This idea does not fit with the rest of the text, since it is correctly spelled.

Those who have been trying to understand the word as being wrongly spelled, have also been trying to explain that. In this case there has been explanations saying that the killer must have come from a lower class. But the writing on the wall was in a schoolboys good hand.

So that does not fit with the idea of the text being written by an uneducated man or by someone from a lower class.

To summarize: The idea of the word "juwes" as referring to jews is a problem.

Another problem is the double negative "not be blamed for nothing".

But this construction must be seen as a secondary problem, since we do not have an explanation that generates understanding for the key word "juwes".

So as long as we do not understand that word, we will absolutely not be able to understand the double negative. Therefore, an hypothesis should be that if we manage to understand the "juwes", we will also understand the double negative.

As I said, I would like to invite you to an experiment.

Many have been used to thinking from inside of the box, and understand the writing from a perspective of the frame set by earlier generations and from people from 1888, from the police etc.

I think we need to get rid of the box.

Letīs start with two interesting questions and please try to answer the first and then the second:

1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews?

2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word?

As you can see, I am not asking about the meaning of the text but I am asking you about a method for thinking about the meaning of the text.


Kind regards, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 03-06-2016 at 10:03 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-06-2016, 10:07 AM
spyglass spyglass is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: gravesend,kent
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Hi,

Why hasnīt the Goulston Street Graffiti been explained?

My hypothesis is that it can be explained if you think outside the box, that is, if you use different thinking. So I would like to invite you to an experiment by posing two questions.

The general understanding of the text

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

is that it had to do with jews.

This understanding is created already in 1888. So that understanding is setting the frame for our understanding. And since then ripperologists have been trying to explain a content about jews.

But there has never been a real understanding of the text, since no one has managed to explain it. That it why we can not understand it today.

Another type of understanding of the text, also connected to the word "juwes", is that the person who wrote it - that is, the killer (if we do not hypothesize that the killer wrote it, there is no need for analysing the text) -
could not spell.

This idea does not fit with the rest of the text, since it is correctly spelled.

Those who have been trying to understand the word as being wrongly spelled, have also been trying to explain that. In this case there has been explanations saying that the killer must have come from a lower class. But the writing on the wall was in a schoolboys good hand.

So that does not fit with the idea of the text being written by an uneducated man or by someone from a lower class.

To summarize: The idea of the word "juwes" as referring to jews is a problem.

Another problem is the double negative "not be blamed for nothing".

But this construction must be seen as a secondary problem, since we do not have an explanation that generates understanding for the key word "juwes".

So as long as we do not understand that word, we will absolutely not be able to understand the double negative. Therefore, an hypothesis should be that if we manage to understand the "juwes", we will also understand the double negative.

As I said, I would like to invite you to an experiment.

Many have been used to thinking from inside of the box, and understand the writing from a perspective of the frame set by earlier generations and from people from 1888, from the police etc.

I think we need to get rid of the box.

Letīs start with two interesting questions and please try to answer the first and then the second:

1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews?

2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word?

As you can see, I am not asking about the meaning of the text but I am asking you about a method for thinking about the meaning of the text.


Kind regards, Pierre
Hi Pierre,
Of course there is the problem first of what was actually written, and which version one would prefer.


Regards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-06-2016, 10:25 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyglass View Post
Hi Pierre,
Of course there is the problem first of what was actually written, and which version one would prefer.


Regards
Hi Spyglass,

and if there is a small range of versions of the word "juwes" there could be a few explanations to that.

For example, if the first transcription of the writing on the wall is "juwes", the rest of the writings about the transcription are results of hearing the word "jews" when they were talking about it.

But what is the spelling of the "juwes" a result of? Because the police (Warren) did not misspell the word "jews", did they?

And what do you think would happen if we assumed that the word had nothing to do with jews?

And what do you think would happen if we used a dictionary to understand it?

Regards, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 03-06-2016 at 10:28 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-06-2016, 11:37 AM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
The general understanding of the text

"Th<script id="gpt-impl-0.8648267881239241" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_81.js"></script>e Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

is that it had to do with jews.

This understanding is created already in 1888. So that understanding is setting the frame for our understanding. And since then ripperologists have been trying to explain a content about jews.
This thread is based on a false premise. Since 1975 ripperologists have, amongst other things, been discussing whether 'Juwes' was a reference to the three ruffians, Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum, who were said to have murdered Hiram Abiff in Masonic folklore. This theory first appeared in 'The Ripper File' by Elwyn Jones and John Lloyd and then in Stephen Knight's 'Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution' where it was said that the murders were conducted according to Masonic ritual.

I have seen discussion of all sorts of other meanings on this forum other than Jews.

If the OP thinks he knows the meaning of the sentence then he should go ahead and explain it. I really don't think we need this 'experiment' which is nothing more than has already been done for the last forty years at least.

Like no-one ever thought to look in the dictionary.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-06-2016, 12:00 PM
Craig H Craig H is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 273
Default

Bridewell made an interesting post about 4 years ago that the word "Juwes" was a nickname for the City of London Police.

"In Paul Harrison's book, 'Jack the Ripper - The Mystery Solved' he claims that contacts within the Metropolitan Police have told him of resentment within the Met at being blamed for everything that was wrong in East London and at being compared unfavourably with the City Force:

"The message was nothing more than a jibe at the City Police. The word 'Juwes' should have been spelt 'Jewes' and was meant to refer to the nickname used by the majority of the Metropolitan Officers when referring to their City opponents. The nickname derives from the Old Jewry police headquarters of the City Police.
If the story is correct, a fact in which I have no reason to doubt, then it explains Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren's rival actions in removing the message".


That would also explain the superlative use of "the men" in the phrase "the jews are the men than will not be blamed for nothing". If the phrase actually referred to the jews, it would say "The jews will not be blamed for nothing".

By spelling the word "juwes", the writer drew attention to this word. As someone also mentioned before, the hand writing was neat and other words spelt correctly - why mis-spell "jews" unless it was deliberate.

Craig
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-06-2016, 12:13 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig H View Post
If the story is correct, a fact in which I have no reason to doubt, then it explains Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren's rival actions in removing the message.
With all due respect to Bridewell, the logic of that statement escapes me.

Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren explained their decision to remove the message to the Home Office. It had nothing to do with an alleged nickname attributed to the City Police.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-07-2016, 04:15 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
With all due respect to Bridewell, the logic of that statement escapes me.

Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren explained their decision to remove the message to the Home Office. It had nothing to do with an alleged nickname attributed to the City Police.
Just for the record, it's not my logic. The quotation is from Paul Harrison's book, so the words (and logic) of the statement are his, not mine. I've not seen anywhere else that Juwes/Jewes/Jewries was a nickname the Met had for their City counterparts, but that doesn't mean it wasn't so at one time - or that it was.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-07-2016, 04:27 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,645
Default

I've just put Juwes into Google translate and it 'detected' it as being Afrikaans (pronounced yoovuss) but offered no translation. Juwe comes up as a Yoruba word meaning 'prescribe' ???????????
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:03 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
With all due respect to Bridewell, the logic of that statement escapes me.

Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren explained their decision to remove the message to the Home Office. It had nothing to do with an alleged nickname attributed to the City Police.
And with all due respect to you, David, what I posted was a quotation from a book, not my own opinion.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-19-2017, 02:54 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
And with all due respect to you, David, what I posted was a quotation from a book, not my own opinion.
Ah, the wonders of this forum where someone replies to a post I made on 6 March 2016, well over one year ago.

I wouldn't mind Bridewell - and perhaps you've had a senior moment - but you already replied to my post the next day, on 7 March 2016 (#80). And you were more articulate on that occasion, as you posted:

"Just for the record, it's not my logic. The quotation is from Paul Harrison's book, so the words (and logic) of the statement are his, not mine."

I didn't bother to respond because that was fair enough - you made your point in case there was any misunderstanding - but now I feel the need to mention that it was Craig H who posted in #5 in this thread on 6 March 2016:

"Bridewell made an interesting post about 4 years ago that the word "Juwes" was a nickname for the City of London Police."

He then quoted the extract from Harrison's book to which you refer, making clear it was an extract from his book which you had originally posted. I was well aware of this but, in my response (#6), - which was a response to Craig's post - I said, in respect of a statement by Harrison:

"With all due respect to Bridewell, the logic of that statement escapes me."

You can take it, Bridewell, that anyone reading the exchange between myself and Craig was aware, as I was, that I was challenging something said by Harrison, not by you, and I can confirm that now for you in writing if you need it said. I only mentioned you because Craig had said that it was your post and you had originally reproduced the quotation (which I imagine you did because you thought it was an interesting point of view).

I hope, with all due respect, that this resolves the incident to your satisfaction and I look forward to discussing this with you further in about September 2018.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.