An experiment

[Pierre]

Junkers. (Prussian nobles, not German aircraft-- or junk dealers, I suppose.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Junker

It canīt be, since it ends not as Halse stated, -es, but -ers.

We must do as little damage to the word as possible and remove just the wrong letter.

Regards, Pierre

Halse stated that the word was Juwes.

Ju- is a common word stem, Juw- is not a common word stem, -es is a normal plural ending. So the only letter making the word incorrect is w.

It will be interesting to see Davidīs substitute for that wrong letter, w.

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Jubes?

[David Orsam]

Where Pierre will attack this word is in its length, as it contains more than five letters. But then so does Judges.

If the word that everyone had seen on the wall had been "Juewes" I could definitely see my word being confused with this at a glance.

[Yabs]

I was going to say jurors

Or juries, that would look similar to juwes when written

[David Orsam]

It canīt be, since it ends not as Halse stated, -es, but -ers.

We must do as little damage to the word as possible and remove just the wrong letter.

Regards, Pierre

Halse stated that the word was Juwes.

Ju- is a common word stem, Juw- is not a common word stem, -es is a normal plural ending. So the only letter making the word incorrect is w.

It will be interesting to see Davidīs substitute for that wrong letter, w.

Regards, Pierre

You substituted two letters, d and g which, together in normal script, look nothing like a w.

[David Orsam]

Not jubes or juries.

[Pierre]

Junkies? Not sure if that was a word back then.

Ju - nki - es gives as much as three letters in the middle.

Ju - w - es is worth two letters in the middle. It is a double v.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Ju - nki - es gives as much as three letters in the middle.

Ju - w - es is worth two letters in the middle. It is a double v.

Regards, Pierre

It depends on how it's written though doesn't it Pierre? There are no rules here about the exact number of letters. Like you have said, it was a dark night, small writing in chalk on a rough surface.

[Pierre]

You substituted two letters, d and g which, together in normal script, look nothing like a w.

The GSG was not a "normal script".

It was blurred.
It was written under specific circumstances on a brick wall.
It was not read under normal circumstances.

I donīt give a **** about the GSG. Believe me. And I donīt care about the killer. I just go where the sources take me.

Looking forward to seeing your new word tomorrow!

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

The GSG was not a "normal script".

Yes it was actually. As per the evidence of Detective Halse at the inquest.

As for the rest:

It was blurred - Not according to any witnesses but it might well not have been sharp due the diffusion of the chalk on the rough surface, which is probably what Swanson meant.

It was written under specific circumstances on a brick wall - Yes, certainly.

It was not read under normal circumstances - No, true enough.

[David Orsam]

Looking forward to seeing your new word tomorrow!

And you certainly will.

[Pcdunn]

What about "jacks" (small "j") meaning "fellows" or "sailors" -- as well as any unknown or anonymous men?

After this is rejected, I will respectfully retire from the contest, and tune in tomorrow.

[jerryd]

What about "jacks" (small "j") meaning "fellows" or "sailors" -- as well as any unknown or anonymous men?

After this is rejected, I will respectfully retire from the contest, and tune in tomorrow.

Jacks also refers to policemen. Which Pierre would like.

[David Orsam]

What about "jacks" (small "j") meaning "fellows" or "sailors" -- as well as any unknown or anonymous men?

After this is rejected, I will respectfully retire from the contest, and tune in tomorrow.

REJECTED

See you tomorrow!

[Yabs]

Jilted.
A little bit of a stretch with the capital D that could resemble an S