An experiment

[David Orsam]

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.

Hi Phil, what are you saying the significance of that is?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373402]

Pierre

Many thanks for saying nice things, however , I must now inform you of a fact and add a few comments.

Sorry to disillusion you my friend, there was no out of the box thinking involved, finding Judges required nothing on my part.

I just followed the instruction you gave.

So a word starting JU ending ES, that criteria was put them into a search engine, Judges was one of a handful of words which could refer to men in the results. others were Jutes, Juries and Jupes.



You mean that you used a computer. It often helps. But did you use a dictionary?



I didnīt but I wanted to see what happened (and still do) when you forget about jew-s. And you say that you "looked at the options". How did you do that?

That is a police officer, who feels wronged, whose disclosure could damage various institutions and who had a problem with the establishment..
in addition

Not "feeling of guilt" but guilt as a synonym for blame to be correct, Steve. So since the word "Blamed" is in the text, what is your view of this word and its connection to the judges compared to a connection to the jews?

It was therefore either Juries or Judges, I suggested JUDGES and at that point opted out.

My dear friend your entire thread is based on the idea the We do not understand the GSG,

in post 110 you said

"Because no one has managed to give a plausible explanation."

again in post 141 you said

"I have never seen a plausible explanation and I guess that must be because I have high demands on an explanation".



My definition of the word "understand" differs from many others.



Yes, but you did well outside of the box.



What do you think about that?



Honestly I do not know, but I choose to believe the second option until someone proves otherwise.



Sure. I do not accept them as plausible since I have a responsibility as a researcher to understand the GSG as long as it is discussed in connection to the case. Historical sources are not allowed to be overlooked or misunderstood. So one must try with all means necessary to analyse and interpret them. That is my first motivation. The second is that this GSG is very problematic from the point of view of history and linguistics. So it is interesting and worth analysing.

Both those suggestion have more to back them than this experiment at blue sky thinking.

Really? What is that?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

Regarding the word "blamed". As I've now pointed out to you several times, this word makes perfect sense, from an historical perspective, if we accept the "disputed" word in the text as being "Jews". Contrastingly, "judges" makes no sense at all in this context.

Forgive me Pierre, but I think it obvious that you have settled on a suspect who is a major public figure. Therefore, regrettably, you are not considering this problem objectively: I believe you wish the word to be "judges" because, as the judiciary is part of the establishment, as is your suspect, this interpretation fits in better with your overall theory, although clearly not with the evidence.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil, what are you saying the significance of that is?

Hello David,

To be totally honest..I don't know.
But if pushed..I'd say the writing was written in better light.
Neat joined together writing that small is very hard in semi darkness..If there was any light available at all.

It increases the possibility. .In my view..of the writing having been written earlier..when..I'd do not know..but certainly with more light available.

You see..It looks..eats the word...composed?..as in..calmly written.
Ye olde killer would not be calm. Pulse racing..on the lookout for anyone coming along. .All ears and eyes open..This guy would have to be very very attuned ,or all possible sounds and write very quickly

That message looks calm and composed to me 3/4" high.
That's really tight with chalk.


But..I really don't know..its a hard one to judge properly



Phil

[Pierre]

Hi Phil, what are you saying the significance of that is?

As I have said previously, this means that it was no ordinary propaganda style graffiti.

It was a small message.

This also gives a higher probability that it was not correctly interpreted.

And a higher probability that the killer was able to write (and mutilate) under difficult circumstances. So why would he not be able to spell correctly?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

This also gives a higher probability that is was not correct interpreted.

You've done it again there Pierre. A perfectly spelt sentence apart from one word. "correct" should be "correctly".

"is was" is also a problem but nothing wrong with the spelling.

See how easy it is? And you are not writing on a public wall in the middle of the night.

[Pierre]

You've done it again there Pierre. A perfectly spelt sentence apart from one word. "correct" should be "correctly".

"is was" is also a problem but nothing wrong with the spelling.

See how easy it is? And you are not writing on a public wall in the middle of the night.

Are you a school teacher now?

[David Orsam]

It was a small message.

This also gives a higher probability that is was not correctly interpreted.

Using the logic that it is strange that the writer only misspelt one word, the same logic applies that it would be strange that all the readers of the message only misread one word when they had no problem reading the rest of the sentence.

[David Orsam]

Are you a school teacher now?

You're missing the point Pierre. I'm not correcting your spelling. I'm pointing out that, not for the first time, you have written an otherwise perfectly spelt sentence which nevertheless contains a single spelling error.

There is nothing odd about it. It happens.

[Pierre]

Using the logic that it is strange that the writer only misspelt one word, the same logic applies that it would be strange that all the readers of the message only misread one word when they had no problem reading the rest of the sentence.

Well, I am not using the logic that it is strange that the writer only misspelt one word. I am using the logic that it would be strange if he misspelt one word, taking into consideration that the rest of the spelling was correct.

And I am not using the logic that it was strange that the readers only misread one word. I am using the logic of the actual reading conditions:

It was dark, the wall had a rough surface and the size of the writing was small.

Therefore, it is not strange that the readers misinterpreted one word. It is only logical.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

As I have said previously, this means that it was no ordinary propaganda style graffiti.

It was a small message.

This also gives a higher probability that it was not correctly interpreted.

And a higher probability that the killer was able to write (and mutilate) under difficult circumstances. So why would he not be able to spell correctly?

Regards, Pierre

I'm not sure of your logic here. In fact, many educated people struggle to spell correctly, and research has demonstrated that half of Britons can't spell simple words:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...mon-words.html.

And, as I keep noting, we cannot even be sure that English was the first language of the author, particularly as the locality had a large immigrant population.

In any event, David's analysis is correct: the word isn't "judges".

[David Orsam]

It was dark, the wall had a rough surface and the size of the writing was small.

Let's be accurate about this Pierre. The Commissioner of Police said "it was just getting light". The police in any event had lanterns. Whatever the surface and size of the writing, they had no difficulty whatsoever in seeing the writing because you don't dispute that the words "The - are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" are all absolutely correct. Yes, there is a problem with the letters "u" and "e" which, even at the best of times, can easily be confused with each other. But there is no reason to think that a "d" and a "g" in small letters can be confused with a "w". You clearly recognise this yourself which is why you suggested earlier that the key word might have been written in capital letters. I'm sorry Pierre but there is no rational basis at all to suggest that the word was "judges".

[FrankO]

Therefore, it is not strange that the readers misinterpreted one word. It is only logical.

Why, if the killer wrote it, would he want to risk not getting across the message that he wanted to get across? Why bother writing it at all, then?

[David Orsam]

If we follow your logic Pierre, this otherwise perfectly spelt sentence from the Edinburgh Evening News of 2 November 1878 must be saying "Hundreds of Judges are leaving Palestine", or maybe Jutes, because it can't mean Jews.

[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.

David, the point is that it doesnīt matter if a number of policemen saw it - if they did not make any transcriptions.

The earliest and most reliable sources give the same word "Juwes".

And it doesnīt matter if people believed it was a text about the Jews. History has proven that people in the past believe the wrong things. Often.

And donīt say that you "are sorry". You are not sorry. You only want to prove me wrong. That is your main interest. But I donīt care fore that. You only waste your time. The "truth" (if you believe in that) lies not in what you say, David. It lies in the sources.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

David, the point is that it doesnīt matter if a number of policemen saw it - if they did not make any transcriptions.

The earliest and most reliable sources give the same word "Juwes".

And it doesnīt matter if people believed it was a text about the Jews. History has proven that people in the past believe the wrong things. Often.

And donīt say that you "are sorry". You are not sorry. You only want to prove me wrong. That is your main interest. But I donīt care fore that. You only waste your time. The "truth" (if you believe in that) lies not in what you say, David. It lies in the sources.

Regards, Pierre

And the sources tell us the word was "Juwes" so there goes "Judges"!