The word JUWES

[RivkahChaya]

Dear Rifkah,

Of course you have [something in regards to knowledge of dyslexia], 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.
C4

I haven't seen much on that, but what I have seen, three points: 1) he was acknowledged to be ill with something during his lifetime, it was simply the question of what that was not answered; 2) his doctors at the time kept copious notes; 3) modern doctors knowledgeable about such things have made this diagnosis, and tend to agree.

I am talking about people who are not doctors, or someone in a field where they have some expertise, like a person with a Ph.D in education, or psychology, or neurochemistry; usually, they are people who know something about an historical period, which seems like it should give them an edge over a shmo who knows nothing, but really, a Civil War expert is no more qualified to diagnose frontal lobe deficits in Stonewall Jackson than anyone else.

First, Jackson was not suspected during his lifetime of having a problem, and one criterion, probably the most important one, of Asperger's is that it causes impaired functioning. Second, the articles I have read are by people who have a very cursory knowledge of the syndrome. From what I can find out about their backgrounds, they do not appear even to have met a person actually diagnosed with the disorder by a qualified professional. Last, since there were no problems during Jackson's life, all the "evidence," such as it is, is inferential, anecdotal, and highly personal to the person making the erzatz diagnosis. Just as an example, most of what we know about Jackson is from his life as a military man. To judge that he, as a person, was routine-oriented, and "obsessive" about detail based on his life as a military man is unfair. Aside from "obsessive" being a really questionable adjective to use, when it doesn't come from a contemporary account, both those qualities are valuable in military life, and people who are in the military behave like that on active duty, but those are job skills, not personality traits. It would be like calling a secretary who can type 80 wpm without error a "perfectionist."

This is happening to more people than just Jackson. It's practically a hobby in the US to go fishing for historical figures with things like Asperger's syndrome. AS seems to be the favorite, I guess because it is possible to be fairly high functioning with it, although, honestly, if a child who is diagnosed with it achieves normal function before finishing school, the diagnosis is usually removed. OCD and bipolar disorder are also popular, probably because most people get their image of those from TV and movies.

I have no problem with qualified people trying to update a diagnosis of someone who really did have a problem. I'd love to know exactly what Catherine Eddowes had that was called "Bright's disease," particularly since some of the nephritic conditions that were once called that are frequently comorbid with diabetes. I'd love to know if she could have been less drunk than she appeared, because her blood sugar was very high, or very low, because if that was true, she could have become much more disoriented after she left the jail, without getting anything else to drink. I am not an endocrinologist. I have had diabetic clients, and a diabetic grandmother, and I have chronic and reactive hypoglycemia, so I know a little more than most people, but I'm not going any further with it unless there is a photo or very good description of Eddowes intact kidney somewhere, and I could ask a real doctor.

I just don't like seeing historical figures getting labels slapped on them, and I also don't like seeing people diagnosing people they met through Facebook, based on an article they saw on Wikipedia.

[Cogidubnus]

I haven't seen much on that, but what I have seen, three points: 1) he was acknowledged to be ill with something during his lifetime, it was simply the question of what that was not answered; 2) his doctors at the time kept copious notes; 3) modern doctors knowledgeable about such things have made this diagnosis, and tend to agree.

I am talking about people who are not doctors, or someone in a field where they have some expertise, like a person with a Ph.D in education, or psychology, or neurochemistry; usually, they are people who know something about an historical period, which seems like it should give them an edge over a shmo who knows nothing, but really, a Civil War expert is no more qualified to diagnose frontal lobe deficits in Stonewall Jackson than anyone else.

First, Jackson was not suspected during his lifetime of having a problem, and one criterion, probably the most important one, of Asperger's is that it causes impaired functioning. Second, the articles I have read are by people who have a very cursory knowledge of the syndrome. From what I can find out about their backgrounds, they do not appear even to have met a person actually diagnosed with the disorder by a qualified professional. Last, since there were no problems during Jackson's life, all the "evidence," such as it is, is inferential, anecdotal, and highly personal to the person making the erzatz diagnosis. Just as an example, most of what we know about Jackson is from his life as a military man. To judge that he, as a person, was routine-oriented, and "obsessive" about detail based on his life as a military man is unfair. Aside from "obsessive" being a really questionable adjective to use, when it doesn't come from a contemporary account, both those qualities are valuable in military life, and people who are in the military behave like that on active duty, but those are job skills, not personality traits. It would be like calling a secretary who can type 80 wpm without error a "perfectionist."

This is happening to more people than just Jackson. It's practically a hobby in the US to go fishing for historical figures with things like Asperger's syndrome. AS seems to be the favorite, I guess because it is possible to be fairly high functioning with it, although, honestly, if a child who is diagnosed with it achieves normal function before finishing school, the diagnosis is usually removed. OCD and bipolar disorder are also popular, probably because most people get their image of those from TV and movies.

I have no problem with qualified people trying to update a diagnosis of someone who really did have a problem. I'd love to know exactly what Catherine Eddowes had that was called "Bright's disease," particularly since some of the nephritic conditions that were once called that are frequently comorbid with diabetes. I'd love to know if she could have been less drunk than she appeared, because her blood sugar was very high, or very low, because if that was true, she could have become much more disoriented after she left the jail, without getting anything else to drink. I am not an endocrinologist. I have had diabetic clients, and a diabetic grandmother, and I have chronic and reactive hypoglycemia, so I know a little more than most people, but I'm not going any further with it unless there is a photo or very good description of Eddowes intact kidney somewhere, and I could ask a real doctor.

I just don't like seeing historical figures getting labels slapped on them, and I also don't like seeing people diagnosing people they met through Facebook, based on an article they saw on Wikipedia.

I hope you don't mind but in my honest opinion that's one of the most thought-provoking posts that I've seen on here for a while...if for nothing else but the Eddowes possibility...

All the best

Dave

[Mr Lucky]

Pretty much, you needed sunlight. I'm not sure at what point electric light became powerful enough to photograph by, but it would have been reserved for photographer's studios. This was not a time when a photographer could bring long power cords and lamps to a location shooting. Flash photography was still a ways off, too, and at any rate, that just lit up a day time picture well enough that the subject did not have to hold perfectly still for an uncomfortable period of time.

Hi RivkahChaya

First photograph taken underground used an electric arc lamp (about 1860)
Within ten years they were using magnesium flares as lighting, also used chemical mixtures like Bengal light as flares, to photograph underground.
Dry plates were in use by 1880's, a lot of the difficulties in photographing the GSG are being overplayed, IMHO.

[Supe]

Mr. Lucky,

a lot of the difficulties in photographing the GSG are being overplayed, IMHO.

I disagree. In order to successfully photograph chalk writing on brick you would almost assuredly have to use available light. Problem with flash would be that the intense light from any flash powder would overwhelm the image, especially since the writing was small (capitals said to be three-fourths of an inch in height) that a close-up would benecessary. To take a photograph of the GSG was considerably more tricky than taking underground photos with flash powder. And, wet plates or dry plates, the emulsion was still very slow.

As has been pointed out, the latest issue of Ripperologist proves at least one graffito was photographed, but not knowing any of the particulars involved in shooting that bit of writing, no comparisons between the difficulties it presented and those presented by the GSG are valid. Moreover, the intent of the photographed graffito was clear -- vain boasting -- and did not contain any possible aspersions upon the Jews of Whitechapel.

Don.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Supe

It's white writting on black, the fact that it is chalks not a issue, unless you're refering to smudging. Im not suggesting using a flash, but a bright contant light source, like magnesium ribbon, as used underground.

Slow emulsions fine, it's not moving. I'd would say the chap that took the MJK photos could have done it, no trouble.

[Supe]

Mr. Lucky,

Did you read what I wrote, specifically: no comparisons between the difficulties [the Ripperologist graffito]presented and those presented by the GSG are valid. Do you know more than the authors about the photographed graffito? Moreover, I have many decades of professional photography experience as well as more than a passing interest in the history of photography and I say photographing the GSG by anything but available light would have been nigh unto impossible.

Don.

[lynn cates]

saucy

Hello Phil. Thanks. Couldn't help but notice that the very first one referred to "Saucy."

Small world.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Gentile on my mind.

Hello Rivkah. Thanks.

"So, the idea that the graffiti could have been there by coincidence looks better?"

Well, from my point of view. If some Gentile felt cheated in a transaction, such a blurb might be almost natural. But for a murderer?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Nosferatu

Hello Lucky, Don. To see how difficult night time photography was in olden times, you might have a go at F W Murnau's 1922, "Nosferatu." The midnight meeting between Dracula and Jonathan Harker was filmed during the day. Rather spoils the effect

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Did you read what I wrote, specifically: no comparisons between the difficulties [the Ripperologist graffito]presented and those presented by the GSG are valid.

What comparisons?? I haven't done that have I, what are you talking about?

Photography as far as exposure, lighting, focal length is science, of course comparisions can be made

Do you know more than the authors about the photographed graffito?

I haven't mentioned photographed graffito

The GSG wasn't photographed. What are you babbling about?

Moreover, I have many decades of professional photography experience as well as more than a passing interest in the history of photography and I say photographing the GSG by anything but available light would have been nigh unto impossible.

Oh bully for you!! and I believe your opinions wrong for the reasons I have all ready given.

Look if had wanted to talk to you about this, I'd have posted something earlier. Some one asked about electric lighting/photography so I told the first underground photgraph by Nadar, Paris catacombs, used electric arc lighting, thought they might be interested.

Did you read what I wrote

I'll not waste my time doing that again.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Lynn

Moving pictures, totally different

[Monty]

Hi RivkahChaya

First photograph taken underground used an electric arc lamp (about 1860)
Within ten years they were using magnesium flares as lighting, also used chemical mixtures like Bengal light as flares, to photograph underground.
Dry plates were in use by 1880's, a lot of the difficulties in photographing the GSG are being overplayed, IMHO.

Hi Mr Lucky,

Are you taking everything into consideration?

Light? Position? Distance?

Im intrigued on how you would tackle these 3 issues.

When would you have taken the photograph? From what position exactly would you have taken the photo, and what equipment would you have used?

The Kelly photo was taken in what was a wider area than the door entrance of Wentworth Dwellings, also taken during the well lit afternoon. Comapring the two isnt a fair IMHO.

Cheers
Monty


PS I think Don is referring to the Artizan Dwellings wall writing photograph which has recently been published.

[curious4]

Hello Rivkah,

Er, aren't you doing exactly what you said you hate other people doing? Regarding Catherine, I mean? And hasn't it been established that there is no such thing as Bright's disease?

I think there are signs of dysphonesia and dyseidesia in the letters I have mentioned, and the graffito, and I think, if we had more evidence, there would probably be signs of dysnemkinesia. This is a THEORY which I believe would throw light on Jack's mental state (in part, that is). No-one can say definitely who wrote what, although I personally believe there is a good chance he wrote the letters I have mentioned, including the threatening letter. However, I believe that whoever wrote them was dyslectic. Ok?

Regards,
C4

[curious4]

Hello again Rivkah,

Don't remember writing what you have put in brackets when quoting my post? What I actually meant, if it was unclear, is that I am sure you have tried to keep up.

C4

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

Now i Know that it is obvious to everyone , That there is absolutely nothing to connect in any way, shape or form , the GSG with Freemasonry , and i am fully aware that it is ridicules for anyone to suggest such a thing .. and anyone who does indulge in such silliness should be locked up in the Tower,

1) The word [ Juwes ] a tedious and flimsy historical link to the origins of Freemasonry ( most definitely coincidence or misspelt )

2) Written on the Inner ARCH ( once again ridicules to assume a connection)

3) The Capitalized J M B ( again Coincidental, and nothing more )

4) The carefully sliced off and bloodied APRON.. I'm sure the killer had no real intention of deliberately taking any particular piece ( again Coincidence )

5) Eddows butchered in MITRE SQUARE .. ( uncanny coincidence )

6) Warren .. Leading Freemason ereses message from the wall ! ( Nothing suspicios there )

Now it is obvious to me that all this is coincidence , and I'm sure that if we look hard enough, there are plenty other ways to make 6 solid connections between the GSG and anyone we desire ?

Just thought it was interesting to highlight these 6 coincidences ..

I think Warren was probably giving too much weight to the possibility of social unrest as a result of the GSG being seen and perceived as anti-semitic. No doubt the Leather Apron issues were in his mind, perhaps too the fact that Stride's body had been found adjacent to a Jewish socialist club.

This post by Phil , to my mind still makes a lot more sense


cheers

moonbegger