An experiment

[Abby Normal]

Well, Pierre, your two questions have been answered so now perhaps you would be so kind as to answer a couple questions yourself.

1. Do you have a notion as to what the word "Juwes" actually meant in the writing on the wall?

2. If so, what is it?

I can't help but wonder if it is going to turn out to have some sort of "metaphorical" meaning that only you are able to decode for us but perhaps you will put any such thoughts to bed by answering these questions.

I think he means that it was intentionally misspelled, so that the letter "e" in jews is replaced with the letter "u", meaning "you". as in you police. (since the police would be the ones reading it.)

"The police are the men that wont be blamed for nothing."

did I nail it Pierre?

[David Orsam]

I think he means that it was intentionally misspelled, so that the letter "e" in jews is replaced with the letter "u", meaning "you". as in you police. (since the police would be the ones reading it.)

"The police are the men that wont be blamed for nothing."

did I nail it Pierre?

I must say that sounds very Pierre-like, Abby, but where does the dictionary come into it?

[Abby Normal]

I must say that sounds very Pierre-like, Abby, but where does the dictionary come into it?

the word "police" is in it.

[John G]

perhaps the writer just mis spelled it?

what a revolutionary concept.

Hi Abby,

Hurrah! This is, of course, by far the most sensible solution. And, after all, if the killer was a local man, and I believe he probably was, there's every reason to believe that he would have been relatively poorly educated, hence the misspelling.

However, I fear that this argument will not be deemed to be esoteric enough for Pierre, who I fear seems to be taking a Stephen Knight approach to the subject, i.e. rejecting the patently obvious in favour of hypotheses of Byzantine complexity.

I can't help but feel that more of a scientific approach is called for, such as that which you might expect from, say, an academic historian!

[Pcdunn]

Hello, Pierre,

Well, replacing "juwes" with ANY word from our dictionary might be pointless. I suggested in my second post in this thread that perhaps we should try a foreign language dictionary, not an English one (several posters have already indicated "juwes" can't be found in any English dictionary.)

[Craig H]

The words "the men" in the sentence ""The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" seems out of place. It's redundant.

If we want to say "Christians don't like cheese" we don't say "Christians are the men that don't like cheese".

The sentence format implies that he is talking about a specific set of men who are called "the juwes". By mis-spelling "Jews" - when the rest of the sentence is correct in good handwriting - it highlights that he is not talking about the "jews".

This suggests that it could be referring to the City Police (as per previous post about Bridewell's suggestion) who were based in the Old Jewry.

I'm not sure if it's being critical of the City Police, or defending the City Police as it depends on double negatives and whether there was a missing "not" in the sentence.

If we accept the idea that JTR could have been a police official who killed to embarrass the Police force, then the GSG makes sense as a way of attacking or defending the City Police.

All the best

Craig

[David Orsam]

By mis-spelling "Jews" - when the rest of the sentence is correct in good handwriting - it highlights that he is not talking about the "jews".

This suggests that it could be referring to the City Police (as per previous post about Bridewell's suggestion) who were based in the Old Jewry.

Hi Craig,

I don't understand. Could you explain for me why spelling "Jews" incorrectly suggests that the writer is talking about the City Police?

[Craig H]

Hi David

By correctly spelling "Jews", it would communicate that he was talking about "the jews".

By spelling it incorrectly, it implies that he is using a nick name or referring to something different.

The alternative is he deliberately mis-spelt it as "juwes" to imply he was not well educated. However, the rest of the sentence was correctly spelt.

What's your thoughts on why the words "the men" were in the sentence as seems redundant.

I'm not sure of this.... just following through on the idea that JTR was a police official

Craig

[David Orsam]

Hi David

By correctly spelling "Jews", it would communicate that he was talking about "the jews".

By spelling it incorrectly, it implies that he is using a nick name or referring to something different.

Okay but what I'm asking is why that something different would be the City Police. I mean, presumably their nickname, based on Old Jewry, if Paul Harrison is to be believed, was "the Jews", right? So wouldn't any deviation from that spelling lessen rather than increase the likelihood that the writer was talking about "the Jews", i.e. the City Police?

[Craig H]

Yes - good point. I'm not sure.

Interested in what others think

Craig

[Elamarna]

I think he means that it was intentionally misspelled, so that the letter "e" in jews is replaced with the letter "u", meaning "you". as in you police. (since the police would be the ones reading it.)

"The police are the men that wont be blamed for nothing."

did I nail it Pierre?

Hi Abby,

you know i personally don not think the killer wrote the GSG and would score it 95% against instead of your 95% for, however your suggestion is interesting.

if correct, its not the the stem we should ignore, as juwes appears to have none, not being a real word, but the pronunciation! This is something Pierre has used in the past with cautious and cachous if i remember correctly.
So it quite possible .
However i don't see any reason to believe one version over the other, ( maybe because i don't accept the GSG in the first place) surely that will depend on what you want to put forward, if you see The masons of even a Jewish connection you will go one way, if the poilce, you will go another.

Craig point out that "the men" appears to be superfluous.
If your suggestion is correct, it is even more so, I would translate the GSG in that case as:

" The You's (police) are the men who will not be for nothing (will be blamed)"

If your suggestion is the answer I dare to suggest it is not out of the box thinking at all! just standard manipulation of the case has done for years by various persons.

I do hope Pierre meant something else.
regards

Steve

[Pierre]

I think he means that it was intentionally misspelled, so that the letter "e" in jews is replaced with the letter "u", meaning "you". as in you police. (since the police would be the ones reading it.)

"The police are the men that wont be blamed for nothing."

did I nail it Pierre?

Hi Abby,

No, that idea has never struck me. Why should it be about police?

The word does not contain any p, o, l, i or c.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

It appears you do Pierre, good.

I assume Abby is suggesting police as you have proposed a police official as the killer

regards

Steve

[Pierre]

"If you would like to answer the second question (instead of practicing the contents of the question) - what would your answer be?"


Pierre, not sure what you mean by practicing the contents of the question? a typo?

Ok if we say ignore the word stem, already saidi struggle with the stem for a non existant word, so it could be jew,

Hi Steve, are we back in the old box again?

(given juwes does not occur) or more probably juw or even juwe at most we are left with es or s are we not.

we must be looking for a word other than the word in the text, but I have no idea where to start, will think again about it overnight.

What letter would be the simplest to start with?

while I am prepared to ignore the stem of one word form a line of text can I ask what the logic is for for doing such?

On a separate point in the original post you said:

"Another problem is the double negative "not be blamed for nothing". "

This is not a problem for those of us raised in London,

That is funny! Being raised in London does not help people to interpret a graffiti from 1888.

in the "working classes" which I was born into, such use of language was common even 20 years ago, true with the influx of American TV shows it is less so now, but

I have never seen it as problematical.

So you donīt think it is a problem that we can not understand who the men in the text are that will not take the blame and who the men are that should be blamed - at the same time? That is the problem, Steve.

you continue :

"So as long as we do not understand that word, we will absolutely not be able to understand the double negative. Therefore, an hypothesis should be that if we manage to understand the "juwes", we will also understand the double negative."

Whilst I am fully prepared to accept Juwes does not mean Jews I see no reason at present to think the text has any other meaning than what it clearly states.

I agree with this with the exception for the men that does not exist - the "Juwes". Non existent men can not refuse to take the blame and can not be blamed.

However if something comes forward to challenge this view it will be interesting to see what that is.

Thinking outside the box is only needed if you cannot find a solution that works, on the issue of the double negative I do not see why such thinking is required. Where as it may be for the word juwes

regards

s

Regards, Pierre

[Craig H]

Hi Pierre,

If the stem of "juwes" is "ju"; are you suggesting it could refer to the three ruffians, ('Jubela', 'Jubelo' & 'Jubelum') who attacked Hiram Abiff in the ancient story ?

Rgds

Craig