An experiment

[Rosemary]

English is not my first language

[QUOTE=Pierre;373398]

Pierre,



Sure!



So did the Greeks think when they considered the earth being flat. It functions as a collective conscience to speak with Durkheim.



So perhaps you could answer these questions from inside of the box, since you seem convinced:

1. Why should Jews have anything to do with the Whitechapel murders to the extent that they should be blamed?

2. If the killer was criticising Jews publicly, why could he not even spell the word correctly?

3. Why should the killer be a Jew himself and refuse to take blame for what?

4. It the killer was actually a Jew himself, how come he could not even spell the word correctly?

5. Why could he spell the rest of the words correctly?

6. What connection could there be between jews and the victims?

Regards, Pierre

Are you saying you speak with/for/about/quote Durkheim? Just when I wanted to sleep, purchase to dream. As an ethno-historian, in the absence of valid primary documents, e.g., letters, documents, morgue notes, primary documents can and will always be of value to any well-trained historian.

[Pcdunn]

Yes-- King Solomon was a judge

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: Don´t you know about cases without a jury?

Regards, Pierre

Hello, Pierre,

I don't really agree with you about the logic(?) of the plurals, but be that as it may... Of course some cases were decided by a single judge, and no jury in historical times. We need only recall the story of King Solomon settling the quarrel of the two women claiming the same child. Or recall that ancient kings often decided the legal and criminal matters among their people by passing decisions and judgments down upon them.

[Rosella]

None of us have ever seen the Goulston Street Graffito, to state the bleeding obvious. However, several policemen did see it and the word under discussion was transcribed by a few among them as Juwes/Jewes. Did all these police suffer from bad eyesight? If there was a remote possibility that the word could have been or referred to 'Judges,' wouldn't that have been noted in at least one report?

Instead we have Superintentent Arnold immediately seeing the word 'Juwes' (or Jewes) and linking it to the possibility of anti-Semitic riots, consequently ordering a sponge be sent to Wentworth Model Buildings. Warren looked at what was written when he arrived at Goulston Street. Presumably Warren's eyesight was normal. He ordered the removal of the graffiti because of the possibility of anti-Jewish rioting as he put later in his report.

The graffiti was removed, admittedly to the deprecation of the City Police present. However, none of them seem to have said "No, sir. You are making a dreadful mistake. That word means 'Judges'. See! There will be no riots!"

Sometimes there are flights of fancy and a wish to find a new angle, a new hook on these very old questions that just clash with clear common sense.

[Shaggyrand]

None of us have ever seen the Goulston Street Graffito, to state the bleeding obvious. However, several policemen did see it and the word under discussion was transcribed by a few among them as Juwes/Jewes. Did all these police suffer from bad eyesight? If there was a remote possibility that the word could have been or referred to 'Judges,' wouldn't that have been noted in at least one report?

Instead we have Superintentent Arnold immediately seeing the word 'Juwes' (or Jewes) and linking it to the possibility of anti-Semitic riots, consequently ordering a sponge be sent to Wentworth Model Buildings. Warren looked at what was written when he arrived at Goulston Street. Presumably Warren's eyesight was normal. He ordered the removal of the graffiti because of the possibility of anti-Jewish rioting as he put later in his report.

The graffiti was removed, admittedly to the deprecation of the City Police present. However, none of them seem to have said "No, sir. You are making a dreadful mistake. That word means 'Judges'. See! There will be no riots!"

Sometimes there are flights of fancy and a wish to find a new angle, a new hook on these very old questions that just clash with clear common sense.

Be fair, common sense is a super power these days... Like flight or heat vision or something.
I submit that we've all misread everything because it did say "judges" and the police were scared of another judge riot like the one in 1854. The streets ran red with blood and white with wig. There were robes everywhere and the sheer terror of it led to its being scrubbed from history.

[Rosella]

Of course Shaggy, Thankyou for reminding me of that episode which was hidden for so long and only brought to light by the crusading Daily Mail tabloid in 1976.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Rosella;373428]

None of us have ever seen the Goulston Street Graffito, to state the bleeding obvious.

And still people think they know how the text looked.

However, several policemen did see it and the word under discussion was transcribed by a few among them as Juwes/Jewes.

"Several policemen" and "a few among them" is two policeman. And we have the inquest papers originals in transcription.

According to these, Hall wrote down a copy of the writing on the wall, as did Long.

Hall wrote:

"The exact words were

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

Long, on the other hand, says in the inquest that the words were

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

Did all these police suffer from bad eyesight?

"All these police", i.e. two policemen, did not have to suffer from bad eyesight to get the writing on the wall wrong.

As you can see:

1) they did not even manage to write the same word, Juwes / Jewes and
2) they did not even manage yo write the same word order; "...are not the men that will..." / "...are the men that will not..."

If there was a remote possibility that the word could have been or referred to 'Judges,' wouldn't that have been noted in at least one report?

That question could be applied to the sources. But the problem with that question is the concept "remote possibility". The past does not present itself as remote possibilities. It presents itself through sources. And these two sources is what we have.

The rest is the rest, i.e. belief and not knowledge about how many policemen saw it, what they saw, how poor their eyesight was or wasn´t, how dark it was, how rough the wall was, how much stress was involved with the finding of the GSG, how the word JUWES was positioned on the brick wall, how fast the killer wrote it, if the killer wanted it to be clearly visible (it was a small writing) etc.

So with these two sources at hand, it is obvious that the interpretation of the word as having anything to do with Jews is made by Long and not by Halse. And Long stated in the inquest that the inspector noticed that Long had spelt the word differently in his book. And in that particular statement, Long says that "the Inspector noticed that the word Jews was spelt Juews".

This means that Long has given no less than three different spelling alternatives at the inquest, whereas Halse did give only one and did also notice a difference in Long´s interpretation.

From the writings of Long and Halse, the interpretation of the word as referring to "Jews" led the police to erase it.

That is the first step in making the word "Juwes" into the word "Jews". From thereon, the press has it and starts to spread the belief that the text on the wall referred to "Jews".

And then the correct word is gone. Since there is no such word as "Juwes" in the dictionary. And since everyone who saw the spelling of Long (wrongly spelt according to Halse) and who knew about the Jewish population in Whitechapel could not understand why the word "Juwes" was written above the apron that the killer left, they only used the simplest explanation. But that does not mean it is the right explanation.

(And another thing: We do not actually know if all the letters were capital letters or small letters. Serial killers can mix these letters in their communications.)

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;373409]

Pierre

please see below.

Steve,

read my answer to Rosella above, #261.

Regards, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

[
"Several policemen" and "a few among them" is two policeman.

Only two policemen saw the writing.
Really ?

What about Supt Arnold, PC Bettles and DC Hunt ?
Charles Warren also saw it.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Jon Guy;373453]

Only two policemen saw the writing.
Really ?

This is the point:

1) In our imagination any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

2) In the past any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

3) According to the transcription of the original inquest sources only two policemen wrote down their interpretation of the writing.

1) Our imagination is not a valid or reliable source so we can not use it as a source.

2) We do not have access to "the past" since the past is gone so we can not use it as a source.

3) The transcription of the original inquest sources contains two - not several, not many, not a few but two - witness statements about the writing.

What about Supt Arnold, PC Bettles and DC Hunt ?
Charles Warren also saw it.

Yes, what about them? What are the sources for these people having seen the GSG? Newspapers?

Regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373454]

This is the point:

1) In our imagination any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

2) In the past any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

3) According to the transcription of the original inquest sources only two policemen wrote down their interpretation of the writing.

1) Our imagination is not a valid or reliable source so we can not use it as a source.

2) We do not have access to "the past" since the past is gone so we can not use it as a source.

3) The transcription of the original inquest sources contains two - not several, not many, not a few but two - witness statements about the writing.



Yes, what about them? What are the sources for these people having seen the GSG? Newspapers?

Regards, Pierre

Arnold saw it.
He was standing there sponge in hand....

[Jon Guy]

I`m glad you have replied to for once, Pierre.
I want to help you

1) In our imagination any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

True, but luckily I rely on the facts at hand to build a picture of events.

2) In the past any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

No, there was finite number of policemen who were at the location of the writing. Using sources we can name most of them, but not all.

3) According to the transcription of the original inquest sources only two policemen wrote down their interpretation of the writing.

No, only two policeman were called to the inquest that spoke about the writing.

1) Our imagination is not a valid or reliable source so we can not use it as a source.

Agreed

2) We do not have access to "the past" since the past is gone so we can not use it as a source.

Not sure what you mean by using the past as a source

3) The transcription of the original inquest sources contains two - not several, not many, not a few but two - witness statements about the writing.

The police and HO files allow us to build on this number.



Yes, what about them? What are the sources for these people having seen the GSG? Newspapers?

No, Bettles and Hunt are mentioned at the inquest
Arnold and Warren provided reports on the subject.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373450]

Steve,

read my answer to Rosella above, #261.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre
i could repeat to you the question you asked David over and over again:

"what was my question to you?"

However that would be pointless.



The points you put in Post #261 can indeed be used to discuss the merits of either option, they do not invalidate either option however!

If you wish to say these points make those option implausible the same points must also apply to the interpretation of "JUDGES", as the same Primary sources are the starting point for all the discussions.

If the use of the points raised in Post #261 to say the other 2 views are implausible in your view, the same MUST apply to "JUDGES"

My friend you are arguing from within a box yourself, you approach this from the point of view that the other views are wrong; do you not see that?

regards

Steve

[David Orsam]

(And another thing: We do not actually know if all the letters were capital letters or small letters. Serial killers can mix these letters in their communications.)

We do know that the letters were all "small letters" actually Pierre. The evidence at the inquest of Detective Halse was that the writing "was in a good schoolboy hand" (Times, 12 October 1888). This automatically excludes the possibility that the writing was in either capital letters or a mixture of capital and lower case letters because such writing would not be described as a "good" schoolboy hand. It simply must have been normal script. Being in normal script, it is highly unlikely that the letters "d" and "g" would be confused with a "w" hence your "judges" theory fails.

[David Orsam]

This is the point:

1) In our imagination any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

2) In the past any number of policemen could have seen the writing.

3) According to the transcription of the original inquest sources only two policemen wrote down their interpretation of the writing.

1) Our imagination is not a valid or reliable source so we can not use it as a source.

2) We do not have access to "the past" since the past is gone so we can not use it as a source.

3) The transcription of the original inquest sources contains two - not several, not many, not a few but two - witness statements about the writing.



Yes, what about them? What are the sources for these people having seen the GSG? Newspapers?

Regards, Pierre

I really do hope you are not querying whether Sir Charles Warren, Superintendent Arnold and others saw the writing on the wall Pierre. If you would care to consult the primary sources reproduced in chapter 9 of the Ultimate Sourcebook you will see a report to the Home Office by Sir Charles Warren dated 6 November 1888 in which the Commissioner says that he went to Goulston Street to see the writing on the wall when it was just getting light and that:

"There were several Police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City".

Sir Charles had already reported in writing to the Home Office on 11 October 1888 that the writing on the wall read "The Juwes are the men That will Not be Blamed for nothing"

In a separate reported dated 6 November 1888, Superintendent Arnold stated that: "An Inspector was present by my directions with a sponge for the purpose of removing the writing when the Commissioner arrived on the scene".

Further, a report by Inspector McWilliam of the City Police dated 27 October 1888 recorded that Detectives Halse, Lawley and Hunt all went to Goulston Street, at which point Halse remained by the writing and Lawley and Hunt returned to Mitre Square where they informed McWilliam of the writing on the wall which McWilliam later ordered to be photographed. McWilliam recorded the words on the wall to be "The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

You will appreciate, therefore, that there is solid evidence from unimpeachable primary sources that more officers than just Long and Halse saw the writing on the wall. Everyone who saw it believed it be referring to the Jews.

I'm sorry Pierre but these are the facts.

[Phil Carter]

We do know that the letters were all "small letters" actually Pierre. The evidence at the inquest of Detective Halse was that the writing "was in a good schoolboy hand" (Times, 12 October 1888). This automatically excludes the possibility that the writing was in either capital letters or a mixture of capital and lower case letters because such writing would not be described as a "good" schoolboy hand. It simply must have been normal script. Being in normal script, it is highly unlikely that the letters "d" and "g" would be confused with a "w" hence your "judges" theory fails.

Hello David

Additionally, the letters were only 3/4" high.

The "good schoolboy hand" was pretty dextrous..In semi darkness writing with a piece of chalk on tiny writing.

If the so called written copy of the writing by the police is anything to go by, I'd say that the lump of chalk used was pointed at the written end..producing such writing only 3/4" high. But hey..what do I know. I just use chalk every day to write with.


Phil