Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but forgive me as I'm a little slow on the uptake (as apparently the Met Police were in 1888). I was sitting there reading a Ripper book when the meaning of this phrase finally hit home......


    granted, we will never know if this "The Juwes are the men..." graffiti was actually written by the killer or not. but assuming that it WAS written by the killer, I believe the police got the message totally wrong. the graffiti was not anti-semitic and was not meant to draw attention away from Jews. in fact, the point of the graffiti was the exact opposite.

    IF (big IF) the writer of the graffiti was indeed the killer, then we could be fairly sure that the man seen by Lawende and company was, in fact, the killer. These 3 men were Jews, in a neighborhood with a lot of Jews. now, up to that point, 2 of the prevailing theories on the killer were that.....


    1. the killer was a Jew, possibly a Jewish butcher. and a Jewish butcher named "Leather Apron" had previously been arrested and nearly lynched by an angry mob.

    or

    2. the women were killed by a gang of ruffians.


    now, here with Lawende and Friends, we have a GANG OF JEWS. not only did they fit the description of one of the prevailing theories, they fit BOTH descriptions. even if the killer didn't read the newspapers, he heard talk of the killings and the theories on the streets. he knew that this GANG of Jews (Lawende and friends) would probably be questioned as they were the last to see the woman alive in the streets and would probably still be in the area when at least Stride was found, if not both Stride and Eddowes were found. without doubt, some degree of suspicion would fall upon Lawende, Levy, and Hyrams.

    so, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" is basically the killer's way of saying, "hey cops, the Jewish guys that saw me back there with Eddowes aren't to be blamed for anything. they aren't the killers, I am, and they saw me."

    it was not an accusatory finger pointed at an entire race of people and it was not meant to throw the police off the trail. it was actually meant to put the police on the RIGHT trail.

    so, again assuming this was written by the killer, who was seen by Lawende and friends, the misspelling "Juwes" and the use of the double negative at the end would indicate that the killer was probably not the most highly educated person, probably low class with SOME education, but not much.

    also, it would point away from him being Jewish. what Jewish person would not know how to spell "Jews"? if he were indeed Jewish, then he obviously made the misspelling on purpose.


    now, if this were not meant as a message to the police to get their attention away from Lawende, Hyrams, and Levy, then it was apparently a message TO Lawende, Hyrams, and Levy saying "hey, you saw me with the woman and I'm a fellow Jew and we Jews aren't to be blamed for anything when the police come asking questions." this is also plausible.

    either way, now that this idea has struck me, I'm more inclined to believe that the graffiti was indeed written by the killer. which makes Warren's erasing it even more unforgivable. how that clown managed to keep his job is beyond me.
    Last edited by Pontius2000; 11-22-2009, 06:45 AM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by Pontius2000 View Post
    I'm sure this has been mentioned before, but forgive me as I'm a little slow on the uptake (as apparently the Met Police were in 1888). I was sitting there reading a Ripper book when the meaning of this phrase finally hit home......


    granted, we will never know if this "The Juwes are the men..." graffiti was actually written by the killer or not. but assuming that it WAS written by the killer, I believe the police got the message totally wrong. the graffiti was not anti-semitic and was not meant to draw attention away from Jews. in fact, the point of the graffiti was the exact opposite.

    IF (big IF) the writer of the graffiti was indeed the killer, then we could be fairly sure that the man seen by Lawende and company was, in fact, the killer. These 3 men were Jews, in a neighborhood with a lot of Jews. now, up to that point, 2 of the prevailing theories on the killer were that.....


    1. the killer was a Jew, possibly a Jewish butcher. and a Jewish butcher named "Leather Apron" had previously been arrested and nearly lynched by an angry mob.

    or

    2. the women were killed by a gang of ruffians.


    now, here with Lawende and Friends, we have a GANG OF JEWS. not only did they fit the description of one of the prevailing theories, they fit BOTH descriptions. even if the killer didn't read the newspapers, he heard talk of the killings and the theories on the streets. he knew that this GANG of Jews (Lawende and friends) would probably be questioned as they were the last to see the woman alive in the streets and would probably still be in the area when at least Stride was found, if not both Stride and Eddowes were found. without doubt, some degree of suspicion would fall upon Lawende, Levy, and Hyrams.

    so, "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" is basically the killer's way of saying, "hey cops, the Jewish guys that saw me back there with Eddowes aren't to be blamed for anything. they aren't the killers, I am, and they saw me."

    it was not an accusatory finger pointed at an entire race of people and it was not meant to throw the police off the trail. it was actually meant to put the police on the RIGHT trail.

    so, again assuming this was written by the killer, who was seen by Lawende and friends, the misspelling "Juwes" and the use of the double negative at the end would indicate that the killer was probably not the most highly educated person, probably low class with SOME education, but not much.

    also, it would point away from him being Jewish. what Jewish person would not know how to spell "Jews"? if he were indeed Jewish, then he obviously made the misspelling on purpose.


    now, if this were not meant as a message to the police to get their attention away from Lawende, Hyrams, and Levy, then it was apparently a message TO Lawende, Hyrams, and Levy saying "hey, you saw me with the woman and I'm a fellow Jew and we Jews aren't to be blamed for anything when the police come asking questions." this is also plausible.

    either way, now that this idea has struck me, I'm more inclined to believe that the graffiti was indeed written by the killer. which makes Warren's erasing it even more unforgivable. how that clown managed to keep his job is beyond me.

    Interesting theory.
    Is the reason the graffitti was associated with the killer because it was written on the wall above where the piece of apron was found?
    Welcome to Casebook, welcome to the hunt.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Presicion25 View Post
      Interesting theory.
      Is the reason the graffitti was associated with the killer because it was written on the wall above where the piece of apron was found?
      it was written somewhere in the area of where the apron was found, in a building inhabitated by mostly Jewish people. the exact location, wording. and spelling of "Juwes" or "Jewes" differed between the Met and the City cops. there was plenty of graffiti to be found in London, so it could've been completely unrelated. but it wouldn't seem likely that one of the Jews living in the area wouldn't know how to spell "Jews".

      but either way, the police got the message wrong. believing that the message was an indictment of Jews or a false lead to point attention away from Jews seems to me to be pretty moronic. of course, Warren proved himself to be pretty much a moron when it came to police work.

      also, it was said to have been written in cursive, not block print, which further points to Warren being an absolute idiot for not allowing it to be photographed.

      Comment


      • #4
        Ok, points of clarification

        Firstly its was Arnold who initially felt it should be removed, not Warren. Warren made the final descision true but he considered ALL altenatives before deciding.

        Secondly, the anti semitism that was born from the Leather Apron rumours and the overt abuse of the Jewish people in the area at that moment in time justifies Warrens choice.

        Thirdly, in order to understand you have to educate yourself on life in the area at that specific moment in time. To judge without background knowledge is rather unfair no?

        Warren had a metropolis to police as well as a series of murders. His priority, as cold as this sounds, is to maintaining order and protect the living populous.

        To call him for making a considered call is a cheap shot in my opinion.

        Monty


        PS One question....how does photographing a piece of writing that may or may not be from Eddowes killer aid an investigation?
        Monty

        https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

        Comment


        • #5
          Pontius2000 wrties:

          ""The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing" is basically the killer's way of saying, "hey cops, the Jewish guys that saw me back there with Eddowes aren't to be blamed for anything. they aren't the killers, I am, and they saw me."

          Does that not mean, Pontius, that if you are correct, the message should have read "The Juwes are the men than SHOULD not be blamed for nothing"?

          Please note that the word "will" implies that what blaming that could be done was something that seemingly belonged not to the authorities - but to the writer of the message.

          My own take on things - if I am to try and explain the writing as a message from Jack, and I actually donīt think that very credible - would be that as Jack knew he had been seen with Eddowes, he also realized that the three men could have him hanged.
          And so, anticipating that the game was finally up, he stated that although these three men would become his downfall by reporting him, he would not feel any grudge against them for doing so. Or, putting it differently: "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" - by reporting him they were only doing what they felt they must do.

          The best,
          Fisherman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Monty View Post
            Firstly its was Arnold who initially felt it should be removed, not Warren. Warren made the final descision true but he considered ALL altenatives before deciding.

            Secondly, the anti semitism that was born from the Leather Apron rumours and the overt abuse of the Jewish people in the area at that moment in time justifies Warrens choice.

            Thirdly, in order to understand you have to educate yourself on life in the area at that specific moment in time. To judge without background knowledge is rather unfair no?

            Warren had a metropolis to police as well as a series of murders. His priority, as cold as this sounds, is to maintaining order and protect the living populous.

            To call him for making a considered call is a cheap shot in my opinion.

            Monty


            PS One question....how does photographing a piece of writing that may or may not be from Eddowes killer aid an investigation?

            Warren gets the blame, he was the man in charge and the one that made the call. against the wishes of the London police who had already sent for a camera. as we've seen, the exact location, wording, and spelling were being debated soon afterwards. a photograph would've ended such debate. also, cursive writing rather than print, a photograph would've helped. 2 solid pieces of evidence, or potential evidence, came out of this case....1) the apron and 2) the wall graffitti. Warren willfully destroyed 1 of the only 2 pieces of good evidence. yes, I feel pretty good about calling him an idiot.

            Comment


            • #7
              Pilate,

              yes, I feel pretty good about calling him an idiot.

              As Monty tried to suggest in a polite way, unless you have a thorough grounding in the social and religious tensions at work in Whitechapel at the time it is difficult to assess fully the decision to erase. And without such background knowledge it is rather foolish and presumptuous of you to do so.

              Moreover, however "good" you may feel about your name-calling, you obviously are totally ignorant of the details of Sir Charles Warren's life. One may disagree about his decision at Goulston Street but for you to call the war hero and eminent amateur archeaologist a "moron" and "idiot" is childish and almost criminally uninformed.

              Don.
              "To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."

              Comment


              • #8
                I guess its not just familiarity that breeds contempt Don, ignorance plays a part also.

                Monty
                Monty

                https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                Comment


                • #9
                  If they had photographed the writing, perhaps, someone could have compared it to some of the letters to see if the writing was from the same person? I have no idea if graffiti writing would be similar to actual writing but if it was cursive then there may be indicators?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pr1mate View Post
                    If they had photographed the writing, perhaps, someone could have compared it to some of the letters to see if the writing was from the same person? I have no idea if graffiti writing would be similar to actual writing but if it was cursive then there may be indicators?
                    And if a match was made?

                    Monty
                    Monty

                    https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      And if a match was made?

                      Monty

                      Really? Hmmm..

                      Then there would be direct evidence that the grafitti, more than likely, connected with the ripper case rather then just random graffiti. It would also show the person that wrote ripper letter X was also in proximity to evidence from a ripper crime so, they would be, more than likely, the ripper himself or someone who knew the ripper. Now you can start comparing handwriting with some of the suspects, if available, and if a match is found then that is your most likely suspect. So really, just taking 1 picture could have come a long ways in solving the ripper case. At the very least we would have a pic of graffiti from 1888 and can see how far the hoodlums have come with that art form since then

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Whatever anybody may think about Arnold's concerns and Warren's orders, the act of erasing the writing (possible 'evidence' that it may have been) was supported by the Chief Rabbi who said that Warren had averted a potential local disaster.

                        And the Chief Rabbi must surely have been aware of the surrounding religeous/political Jewish problems in the district.

                        But a photo would have been desirable at the end of the day. Could resolve a number of concerns, perhaps.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          After becoming more informed about that area and the year (s) that preceded the Ripper killings and the erasure of the grafitto, Ive come to realize that in the larger scheme of things, a possible clue for a few Ripper slayings of the homeless had to be weighed against their ability to suppress a gentile riot directed towards Jews if the message was seen and interpreted as antisemitism.

                          The great unwashed group of vagrants in The East were not all Jewish, and the years of influx of immigrant Jews to that specific area created some real tension that the poor might revolt against the immigrants and the government itself. There are stories within these cases of men being chased by a mob that suspected they were Leather Apron or the Ripper himself, demonstrating clearly that the residents were not about to leave their own safety in the hands of the men that clubbed many of them the year before on Bloody Sunday. The Police were just as wary of them.

                          The erasure has to be viewed in the larger picture of the times to be understood...and in that context, it can be. Nothing that occurs in that area in that time can be seen clearly in isolation....including the killings themselves.

                          Best regards all.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Supe View Post
                            Pilate,

                            yes, I feel pretty good about calling him an idiot.

                            As Monty tried to suggest in a polite way, unless you have a thorough grounding in the social and religious tensions at work in Whitechapel at the time it is difficult to assess fully the decision to erase. And without such background knowledge it is rather foolish and presumptuous of you to do so.

                            Moreover, however "good" you may feel about your name-calling, you obviously are totally ignorant of the details of Sir Charles Warren's life. One may disagree about his decision at Goulston Street but for you to call the war hero and eminent amateur archeaologist a "moron" and "idiot" is childish and almost criminally uninformed.

                            Don.

                            sorry, being a "war hero" and "eminent amateur archeaologist" does not indicate that one is not an idiot when it comes to POLICE WORK. the crimes didn't call for a war hero or an archeologist (and honestly, I'd have to question how great an archeologist he was if he didn't see the importance of photographing the graffitti), they called for someone who could lead a police force to solve an epic series of crimes. and Warren showed he had not a clue, literally. the London Police certainly felt that way. the Home Office demanded an answer as to his reasoning for destroying evidence. and by their silence, one can suspect that Swanson and Abberline probably thought it was a dumb move too.

                            you have to work with what you've got to solve a crime. there was no DNA or fingerprinting. to wash away the graffitti without so much as a picture is unforgivable. all others seemed to be in agreement that if he was so worried about a riot, washing away the word "Juwes" and leaving the rest to be photographed would have sufficed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I understand why they erased it but I do not understand why a simple pic or 2 was not snapped before.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X