An experiment

[DJA]

Yet Juwes is an Afrikaans word.

Given Warren's military service in Southern Africa.........

[DJA]

No. Statistics and French sociologists is my main interest within sociology.

Are you familiar with Pierre Bourdieu?

[David Orsam]

I quote here from the attached link:

"others criticized Warren's hasty erasure of a potential clue, before it could be photographed. It was, after all, too late to stop the writing on the wall becoming common knowledge. Warren himself soon issued a statement that the word Juwes did not mean Jews in any known language, (earning the personal thanks of the chief Rabbi)".

http://www.dashinvaine.co.uk/warren%20page.htm

So Warren said that the word was Juwes and (in public at least) that it didn't mean Jews.

This is the danger of relying on secondary sources. Sir Charles Warren did not, in fact, issue a statement saying that the word "Juwes" did not mean Jews. What he said that he was not aware of any language in which the word Jews was spelt "Juwes". That is very different. The reason for him saying this was due to press reports stating that the Yiddish spelling of Jews was "Juwes" which was not true and this is why the Chief Rabbi was grateful for the clarification.

Warren's reports to the Home Office make it perfectly clear that he thought the writer of the message was referring to Jews.

[MysterySinger]

Hopefully I'm not the only one to see some resemblance of the diagram on the letter received 9th October (post the double event and the GSG) and Masonic symbolism (in the form of a Masonic Apron from George Washington's Lodge in this case).

If true, then regardless of who wrote the letter, a connection had been made between the JTR murders with Freemasonry back then. Perhaps there's an apron with a closer likeness to the diagram. But the question for me is why would anyone make that connection in 1888?

Interesting too that the rays are supposed to be "symbolic of the power of the Supreme Being to penetrate the innermost reaches of the human heart" given the Kelly murder.

[David Orsam]

Hopefully I'm not the only one to see some resemblance of the diagram on the letter received 9th October (post the double event and the GSG)

You are definitely not the only one: Bruce Robinson spends a number of pages in his book, 'They All Love Jack', discussing the supposed masonic symbols in the artwork.

For myself, I only see symbols of death.

[MysterySinger]

This is the danger of relying on secondary sources. Sir Charles Warren did not, in fact, issue a statement saying that the word "Juwes" did not mean Jews. What he said that he was not aware of any language in which the word Jews was spelt "Juwes". That is very different. The reason for him saying this was due to press reports stating that the Yiddish spelling of Jews was "Juwes" which was not true and this is why the Chief Rabbi was grateful for the clarification.

Warren's reports to the Home Office make it perfectly clear that he thought the writer of the message was referring to Jews.

Thanks for the clarification David.

[MysterySinger]

You are definitely not the only one: Bruce Robinson spends a number of pages in his book, 'They All Love Jack', discussing the supposed masonic symbols in the artwork.

For myself, I only see symbols of death.

As a relative newcomer to all of this, whilst I have several books on the subject I haven't read Bruce Robinson's. I doubt there'll be time to get through the vast library of books out there.

[wigngown]

Robinson's book is quite an enjoyable read, if a little profanity laden at times! It's gives a good insight into the many social problems of that time.

[Pierre]

Pierre! You've become a sceptic! In that case you may compel me to invoke David Hume and the problem of induction. Of course, if Hume was correct we can safely dispense with statistical analysis, which I dare say is somewhat unfortunate for you as statistics seems to be your thing.

And you're a sociologist! Then perhaps I will invoke Karl Popper, who regarded sociology as a pseudoscience, i.e. because sociological ideas are not falsifiable.

In fact, maybe that's just what this thread needs: a philosophy debate!

I am no radical, John, and I donīt use philosophy but statistics for sociology and primary sources for history. Popper was working a long time ago when sociology didnīt use statistical hypotheses. In classical sociology there are inherent methodological problems which was later solved by French and American sociologists. I do not like "language philosophy" but it has been important for making progress and paved the way for both critical and reflexive thinking within the social sciences. Radical thoughts and ideas lead to change in paradigms, and even if the radical thoughts themselves often are incomplete, the are needed for development in scientific thinking. Philosophy has also a lot of inherent problems and it does seem to work almost exclusively in an internal way (within itself) and can not be applied to society in itīs pure forms.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

I am no radical, John, and I donīt use philosophy but statistics for sociology and primary sources for history. Popper was working a long time ago when sociology didnīt use statistical hypotheses. In classical sociology there are inherent methodological problems which was later solved by French and American sociologists. I do not like "language philosophy" but it has been important for making progress and paved the way for both critical and reflexive thinking within the social sciences. Radical thoughts and ideas lead to change in paradigms, and even if the radical thoughts themselves often are incomplete, the are needed for development in scientific thinking. Philosophy has also a lot of inherent problems and it does seem to work almost exclusively in an internal way (within itself) and can not be applied to society in itīs pure forms.

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre

Thanks for the reply. Just out of interest, do you accept that sociologists, such as Douglas and Atkinson, have highlighted inherent problems in utilising statistics for sociology?

Thus, Durkheim, in his famous study of suicide, relied on suicide statistics as a means of determining the sociological causes of suicide rates. Therefore, on the face of it, this is an objective approach. However, it is argued that an analysis of the official data fails to take into account issues of reliability and validity-Atkinson believed they were more of a reflection of the coroner's assumptions, as the coroner cannot ask the diseased why they killed themselves- and therefore the real suicide rate cannot be known.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;373560]

Hi Pierre,

You've actually revealed one of your qualifications! You know what, I think I shall reciprocate. My degree is Law and Politics, so perhaps, in the context of this thread, I will have to concede that your qualification may be slightly more relevant than mine- I do have a sociology qualification but I haven't studied the subject at degree level.

This is something I shall have ponder.

Hi John,

Your education may be as relevant as mine. But whatever degrees we have, they tend to influence our thinking. And since sociology is a science studying society, it is also a science about science. So it gives great possibilities for a scientific self reflexivity.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hello Pierre

Thanks for the reply. Just out of interest, do you accept that sociologists, such as Douglas and Atkinson, have highlighted inherent problems in utilising statistics for sociology?

Thus, Durkheim, in his famous study of suicide, relied on suicide statistics as a means of determining the sociological causes of suicide rates. Therefore, on the face of it, this is an objective approach. However, an analysis of the official data fails to take into account issues of reliability and validity-Atkinson believed they were more of a reflection of the coroner's assumptions, as the coroner cannot ask the diseased why they killed themselves- and therefore the real suicide rate cannot be known.

Hi,

Well, of course the construction of the data he used was a problem. But not just because the data was constructed for another purpose. Durkheim was working before the use of computers and standardized statistical methods and had to try and use crosstabs without the possibility of performing any probability tests. Naturally the reliability and validity was low. Nowadays we perform regression analysis which means your models have to be tested as well before we can start analysing and draw any conclusions. As a sociologist you have to read Durkheim and the other early ones but you donīt have much use for them in your practical work. One thing I like though is to see how Durkheim tried to establish sociology and especially a "social fact". It is interesting from an historical point of view as well.

Regards, Pierre

[IchabodCrane]

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

Hi Pierre,
I didn't find these questions answered in the thread, so I am trying some answers although the questions were not directly addressed to me, but posted publicly:
1. Why should Jews have anything to do with the Whitechapel murders to the extent that they should be blamed?
-> Because in the weeks leading up to the double event, there were widespread rumors on the streets and newspaper reports about a Jew known as 'Leather Apron' being the possible ripper

2. If the killer was criticising Jews publicly, why could he not even spell the word correctly?
-> he may have been semi-literate

3. Why should the killer be a Jew himself and refuse to take blame for what?
-> if the writer of the GSG was the killer, there is a high probability that he was not a Jew himself, but wrote the message to direct futher suspicion towards the Jews

4. It the killer was actually a Jew himself, how come he could not even spell the word correctly?
-> if the writer of the GSG was the killer, there is a high probability that he was not a Jew himself, but wrote the message to direct further suspicion towards the Jews. Also he may have been semi-literate

5. Why could he spell the rest of the words correctly?
-> the other words are simple words. However he did not get the grammar right.

6. What connection could there be between jews and the victims?
-> if the writer of the GSG was the killer, there is a high probability that he was not a Jew himself, but wrote the message to direct further suspicion towards the Jews. He also chose the murder locations on the night of the double event to establish a connection to the Jewish community.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=IchabodCrane;373704]Hi Pierre,
I didn't find these questions answered in the thread, so I am trying some answers although the questions were not directly addressed to me, but posted publicly:

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

->

Because in the weeks leading up to the double event, there were widespread rumors on the streets and newspaper reports about a Jew known as 'Leather Apron' being the possible ripper

But why should they, or "Leather Apron" be blamed by the serial killer?

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

he may have been semi-literate

But that hypothesis is just potential. He "may have been".

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

->

if the writer of the GSG was the killer, there is a high probability that he was not a Jew himself, but wrote the message to direct futher suspicion towards the Jews

But the text is referring to two groups of men: Those who will not take the blame and those who should be blamed.

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

->

if the writer of the GSG was the killer, there is a high probability that he was not a Jew himself, but wrote the message to direct further suspicion towards the Jews. Also he may have been semi-literate

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

the other words are simple words.

Is "jew" a difficult word?

However he did not get the grammar right.

How do you know that?

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

->

if the writer of the GSG was the killer, there is a high probability that he was not a Jew himself, but wrote the message to direct further suspicion towards the Jews. He also chose the murder locations on the night of the double event to establish a connection to the Jewish community.

He was primarily interested in killing and mutilating destitute women. Why bother with ethnic groups?

Regards, Pierre

[Rosella]

Why bother with ethnic groups indeed, Pierre. Except--Polly Nichols was murdered quite near an old, abandoned Jewish cemetery, Liz Stride on the premises of a working men's club where Jews gathered to debate and socialise, and Kate Eddowes near to the Imperial Club in Duke St.

If Jack was a Gentile, and I agree we are never likely to know, IMO this points to a man who, like many Whitechapel locals, intensely disliked Jews. In fact he may well have been anti-Semitic in his intent to throw suspicion on Jews for these murders in the hope of starting riots that would injure them and their property.

On the night of the double event I don't think he could have pointed the finger any more clearly, (the Workingmen's club, the semi-literate message, the apron thrown in the entry to a Jewish dwelling, the Imperial club from which he'd seen Lawende and co. emerge) if he had thrown Eddowes' body on the steps of the Bevis Marks synagogue itself.