An experiment

[David Orsam]

Back in the old box, I hear. Being convinced that the letter in the middle of a word written on a black brick wall in 1888 was a "w" and could never have been anything else. Convinced that it had to do with "jews". Steve managed to forget that. You didnīt.

Not at all Pierre. In this thread alone I have suggested "Jutes" and "Jubes" as alternatives. Have you forgotten this already?

And I would say that "juries" is just as good a possibility as "judges" if not better. But I thought you were trying to think out of the box, not regurgitate suggestions made by others years ago.

The problem you face is that at least four witnesses saw the letter "w" in the word on the wall, including the Chief Commissioner of Police, and none of your armchair theorising is going to change that fact.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373346]

Hello Pierre,



Comfortably living a quiet life in the old box.



The earth is flat. This was clearly the unanimous view at the time before the classical period by the sensible Greeks.



At one of the murder sites of American serial killer David Berkowitz, the police found a letter near the bodies. The letter contained the phrase "I am the Son of Sam". It makes perfect sense, given the wider social and historical context: the letter was found in a neighbourhood with a significant male population where many were called "Sam". Uncle Sam is also a metaphor for the United States, and that was widely known among the folks in that neighbourhood.



In fact, during the times of Berkowitz and especially in his fathers generation, there was a wave of naming boys Sam and Samuel. It was very popular. This resulted in a flood of people called Sam. It was so popular that women called Samantha also used it. Many of those lived in New York at that time, where the murders took place.

I'm sorry to have to say this, Pierre, but your approach at times seems less than academic-ironic given your earlier claims-relying instead on the purely whimsical: applying fanciful and elaborate solutions to simple problems; a reliance on metaphors that only you, apparently, can understand; and, on one bizarre occasion, resorting to a near homonym by way of a explanation!



I donīt. I donīt care for "credibility", you see.

may I respectfully suggest that you read Philip Sugden's book.

I have. But it is incomplete. You need the original sources, not the opinions of a single historian. And he did not manage to solve the case. He did not even try, as far as I know (I might be wrong).

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre
sugdens book is actually called the "Complete History of Jack the Ripper" so its pretty funny you say its "incomplete"- and is considered one of the best and most comprehensive books on the subject.

He also focused on going back to use only primary sources as he noted that many untruths occur over the years in ripperology as authors rely heavily on non primary sources and repeated errors.

not sure if anyone can "solve the case" but he did put forth a suspect that he thought was the best bet of the major suspects-chapman.

but at least he named a suspect, unlike yourself.


Good luck. hope you "solve the case". LOL.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373346]

Hello Pierre,



Comfortably living a quiet life in the old box.



The earth is flat. This was clearly the unanimous view at the time before the classical period by the sensible Greeks.



At one of the murder sites of American serial killer David Berkowitz, the police found a letter near the bodies. The letter contained the phrase "I am the Son of Sam". It makes perfect sense, given the wider social and historical context: the letter was found in a neighbourhood with a significant male population where many were called "Sam". Uncle Sam is also a metaphor for the United States, and that was widely known among the folks in that neighbourhood.



In fact, during the times of Berkowitz and especially in his fathers generation, there was a wave of naming boys Sam and Samuel. It was very popular. This resulted in a flood of people called Sam. It was so popular that women called Samantha also used it. Many of those lived in New York at that time, where the murders took place.

I'm sorry to have to say this, Pierre, but your approach at times seems less than academic-ironic given your earlier claims-relying instead on the purely whimsical: applying fanciful and elaborate solutions to simple problems; a reliance on metaphors that only you, apparently, can understand; and, on one bizarre occasion, resorting to a near homonym by way of a explanation!



I donīt. I donīt care for "credibility", you see.

may I respectfully suggest that you read Philip Sugden's book.

I have. But it is incomplete. You need the original sources, not the opinions of a single historian. And he did not manage to solve the case. He did not even try, as far as I know (I might be wrong).

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Thanks for the reply! By the way, I've noticed that you've developed a worrying tendency to write lengthy, meandering posts that don't really mean very much. Still, I must acknowledge that they're occasionally amusing!

Regarding thinking out of the box: unfortunately you seem to have propelled yourself so far out of the box that, dare I say it, the result appears to be a disconnect from the word of reality in favour of the realms of fantasy! By the way, is the character Fox Mulder, a hero of yours? I seem to remember he also liked to open his mind to extreme possibilities!

As for the respected Philip Sugden. He didn't solve the mystery because, at this late stage, it's probably unsolvable (he did suggest George Chapman but, as a proper historian, he was sensible enough to admit the case against him was "Not Proven".

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;373356]

Hi Pierre
sugdens book is actually called the "Complete History of Jack the Ripper" so its pretty funny you say its "incomplete"-

Abby - it is just a title. Compare for example Sugdens use of the original sources to the transcriptions of the original sources in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Evans & Skinner and you will see that it is very incomplete.

and is considered one of the best and most comprehensive books on the subject.

But that does not make it complete.

He also focused on going back to use only primary sources as he noted that many untruths occur over the years in ripperology as authors rely heavily on non primary sources and repeated errors.

I know, but using primary sources is already a minimum criteria within history as a science. So it doesnīt make Sugden outstanding in any way.

not sure if anyone can "solve the case" but he did put forth a suspect that he thought was the best bet of the major suspects-chapman.

but at least he named a suspect, unlike yourself.
Good luck. hope you "solve the case". LOL.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373363]

Regards, Pierre

Well Pierre you are wrong when you say "using primary sources is a minimum criteria within history as a science". now me I don't claim to be ab Historian, but my wife does, She holds a PhD, she has been a Lecturer and work she has authored has been required reading at Universities around the world, she makes two observations:

1. History is a Social Science not a science.

2. Secondary Sources can be every bit as valid as Primary sources. But firstly you need to understand the difference between the two in an history context.

[Pcdunn]

I'm unhappy that Steve gets praised for coming up with "JU- DG - ES", when my own suggestion of "JU -RI - ES" fits your suggestion as far as keeping some of the "juwes" letters; refers to a group of men (American juries back then were all male, surely it was the same in England?), and has more to do with the "Blamed" reference, because juries determine guilt, while the judge determines the sentence.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=GUT;373369]

Well Pierre you are wrong when you say "using primary sources is a minimum criteria within history as a science". now me I don't claim to be ab Historian, but my wife does, She holds a PhD, she has been a Lecturer and work she has authored has been required reading at Universities around the world, she makes two observations:

1. History is a Social Science not a science.

2. Secondary Sources can be every bit as valid as Primary sources. But firstly you need to understand the difference between the two in an history context.

GUT,

History is a science, but history is not natural science.

Did I write that historians donīt use secondary sources / literature? No, I did not.

And using primary sources is a minimum criteria for establishing facts.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm unhappy that Steve gets praised for coming up with "JU- DG - ES", when my own suggestion of "JU -RI - ES" fits your suggestion as far as keeping some of the "juwes" letters; refers to a group of men (American juries back then were all male, surely it was the same in England?), and has more to do with the "Blamed" reference, because juries determine guilt, while the judge determines the sentence.

Hi Pcdunn,

Well, sorry to hear you are unhappy. But how could "juries" be "the men"?

Juries are groups, not individuals. One jury, two juries: "The Juries" are the men?

Judges are individuals, not groups. One judge, two judges: "The Judges" are the men!

And I have to ask you too: Donīt you know about cases without a jury?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

(American juries back then were all male, surely it was the same in England?)

Correct. Juries were all male in England at the time.

[IchabodCrane]

I for my part am very happy to stay safely inside the box. The word Juwes makes a lot of sense, since the murder locations of that night were clearly planned ahead to direct further suspicion against the Jews, after the reports on Leather Apron had already led public opinion in that direction. 3x Jews does not make a coincidence.

[David Orsam]

One judge, two judges: "The Judges" are the men!

Why not just say "The judges will not be blamed for nothing"?

They could only have been men, so writing " are the men who" was superfluous wasn't it?

[David Orsam]

And I have to ask you too: Donīt you know about cases without a jury?

I think we are all waiting for you to tell us about them.

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373379]

GUT,

History is a science, but history is not natural science.

Did I write that historians donīt use secondary sources / literature? No, I did not.

And using primary sources is a minimum criteria for establishing facts.

Regards, Pierre

Which once again is wrong.

But that seems common with your posts.

[GUT]

I think we are all waiting for you to tell us about them.

And I'm still not holding my breath while I wait.

[John G]

Hi Pcdunn,

Well, sorry to hear you are unhappy. But how could "juries" be "the men"?

Juries are groups, not individuals. One jury, two juries: "The Juries" are the men?

Judges are individuals, not groups. One judge, two judges: "The Judges" are the men!

And I have to ask you too: Donīt you know about cases without a jury?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Okay let's just rewind a little. None of the contemporary sources were in any doubt that the "disputed" word was Jews misspelt. There was certainly no suggestion that it was "judges". And, as I pointed out in my earlier post, this makes perfect sense in both a social and historical context.

I'm afraid it really is that simple. No need for elaborate, and over-thought new theories. No need to resort, Fox Mulder-style, to extreme possibilities, and pseudoscientific thinking. And, happily, this is a conclusion that should accord with the academic approach that you previously advocated.