An experiment

[Pierre]

We have a winner!!!

Well done Ms Weatherwax.

Actual spelling being "Justices".

Or, in other words, magistrates.

Another juridical word.

But instead of
Ju - - es with the two positions for v+v = w you put in
Ju - s t i c - es, with four positions.

What is the excitement, David?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Sorry MsWeatherwax I jumped in too quick before you had a chance to amend the spelling.

But congratulations and thank you for getting it because I can now go and have some dinner!

[David Orsam]

Another juridical word.

But instead of
Ju - - es with the two positions you put in
Ju - s t i c - es, with four positions.

What is the excitement, David?

Oh hold on, I might have guessed. I already predicted that Pierre would attack the word for being too long.

There's no excitement Pierre. It's just another word which begins "Ju" and ends "es".

It doesn't matter how many letters there are in between as long as those letters could potentially look like a "w". And of course there is no way that anyone would mistake a d and a g for a w because the tail of the g goes below the line.

I did say it works best if the word had been regarded as "Juewes".

In real life, everyone who looked at the word on the wall saw a "w" in it so it's very likely there was a "w" there.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;383384]

Oh hold on, I might have guessed. I already predicted that Pierre would attack the word for being too long.

"Attack the word"? I do not attack words. It is a simple fact that 4 letters are more than 2.

There's no excitement Pierre. It's just another word which begins "Ju" and ends "es".

With a very similar meaning and built on the same stem.

It doesn't matter how many letters there are in between as long as those letters could potentially look like a "w". And of course there is no way that anyone would mistake a d and a g for a w because the tail of the g goes below the line.

Well, this is expanding the possibility for interpreting the GSG. It now has two good interpretations. Judges or magistrates. Remember Lord Mayor´s Day.

I did say it works best if the word had been regarded as "Juewes".

In real life, everyone who looked at the word on the wall saw a "w" in it so it's very likely there was a "w" there.

Likelihood does not work here. Historical methods do.

Regards, Pierre

[Rosella]

Excellent. You know I didn't sleep last night,(Oz time) David. Tossing, turning, Jubes, Judes, juries, Juves,....!

[drstrange169]

Hello Rosella,

>>Jubes, Judes, juries, Juves ...<<

As coincidence would have to, I recently discovered "judes" was a word in reasonably common usage in Victorian times.

Various theorists will love it too;-)

It comes from "Judges" in the bible where it referred to a charioteer and in LVP it was used to refer to carman!

[Pcdunn]

Justice(s) at last! Well done...

Re "Judes", I can across it too, but it was in the context of "Jews" again (German "Juden" of course), so too obvious-- the reference to carmen is interesting, and another odd coincidence... or is it?! Lol...

[Mort Belfry]

I've got an experiment too.

Dunk your forearms in a bucket of blood and try writing a chalk message on a wall without any transference.

[Rosella]

But, Mort, the apron was not dropped and, perhaps, the GSG was not chalked, immediately after the Mitre Square murder. Unless Jack went and did a very short shift at a nearby horse slaughterers or committed another murder we don't know about, he may, just may, have gone somewhere to have a wash and brush up between the Mitre Square murder and scuttling along Goulston street with his little gift to the police and local Jews. Therefore his paws may have been reasonably clear of blood, or it may have dried by then.

[Mayerling]

Justice(s) at last! Well done...

Re "Judes", I can across it too, but it was in the context of "Jews" again (German "Juden" of course), so too obvious-- the reference to carmen is interesting, and another odd coincidence... or is it?! Lol...

Hi Pat and Rosella,

Now we know - the writer of the Graffito actually meant that clumsy London cabbies would not be blamed for injuring pedestrians or horses!

Jeff

[David Orsam]

Well, this is expanding the possibility for interpreting the GSG. It now has two good interpretations. Judges or magistrates. Remember Lord Mayor´s Day.

Ah, you finally woke up to the fact that the words are similar so that someone who wrote "Judges" in the CSG sentence could equally have written "Justices", although both would seem very strange choices. Not sure what Lord Mayor's Day has to do with any of this.

And you do realise don't you that saying "Likelihood does not work here. Historical methods do." is basically saying something with no meaning.

[David Orsam]

Excellent. You know I didn't sleep last night,(Oz time) David. Tossing, turning, Jubes, Judes, juries, Juves,....!

That's the thing, I guess these days no-one thinks of 'Justice' as a plural word to mean magistrates but in 1888 it was very common. So it eluded everyone, even from a dictionary search.

[David Orsam]

However, it looks more like 'justices' in your edited version than the original. I'd never havegot it from that.

The very opposite to what I was trying to achieve!

[Elamarna]

Dear All

Pierre is right when he says "Justices" is just a word, so however is "Judges".


My Earlier point that Pierre saying the word meant nothing without knowing the word is proven. Both words have very similar meanings and can be applied to the same group of persons.

Neither word matches the number of letters recorded by the witnesses, the argument that either is a more correct spelling of the GSG is of course unprovable, and the probability that either is correct is low.


The point we are missing is that Pierre discovered the real word, which we have all mistaken to be Juwes.

How did he do this? Did he discover some ground breaking document?

Or did the following process occur:

1. You have records of some writing which may or may not be linked to the killer (GSG).

2. There is some dispute over the exact spelling of one word, this allows for creative(not scientific) theorising.


3. You have a suspect, whom you believe is linked to a certain type of person. Therefore would he not mention them if he were the killer and he wrote the GSG.

4. You therefore ignore the argument that the GSG has nothing to do with the murders, but is graffiti aimed at the local population, which is not only possible but indeed probable.
To prove your suspect, substitute the word which fits your theory for the actual words recorded.

This of course is possible because it cannot be disproved.
The only data for the wording is that which you are disputing and reinterpreting for the hypotheses.

However the probability of such happening is low.


Steve

[c.d.]

I can't help but think of the old Woody Allen movie where he hands the bank teller a note that says give me all the money I have a gun. The teller reads it and says what's a "gub"? A discussion then ensues as they debate whether it is a g or an n.

c.d.