An experiment

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;383695]

One point which appears to have been overlooked is that in 1888 the East End was heavily populated with Jews. In fact the word Jews was probably the most common known word, and even the most illiterate person would have probably be able to recognise the word Jews, and if that person only knew one word to write it might have been the word Jews. So I fail to see how anyone can say that the word spelt Juwes relates to Jews as an ethnic group.

Especially as there were no spelling mistakes in the rest of the writing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree,Trevor. A person who can spell the word "nothing" correctly is not likely to be illiterate. More likely the word is spelt as it is intentionally or has been misread.

[Bridewell]

I don't think this has been overlooked at all. The fact that Jews, in your view, "was probably the most common known word" does not mean that everyone in the country could spell it correctly. Unless you are saying that no-one alive in 1888 could possibly have mis-spelt the word Jews I don't see your comment as having any relevance

.

I don't think Trevor is suggesting that "no-one alive in 1888" could have mis-spelt the word 'Jews'. He merely points out that all the other words are correctly spelt. As these include 'blamed' and 'nothing', neither of which is straightforward or spelt phonetically I think he makes a valid point - though not one that others are necessarily forced to agree with obviously.

[David Orsam]

I don't think Trevor is suggesting that "no-one alive in 1888" could have mis-spelt the word 'Jews'.

Well I'll just rephrase what I wrote to Trevor:

Unless you are suggesting that no-one alive in 1888 who was able to correctly spell the ten other words in the sentence could possibly have mis-spelt the word "Jews" I don't see your comment as having any relevance.

[Bridewell]

Pierre, forgive me; I don't know if you are actually French or just using a pseudonym.

The Lord Mayor, like the Lord Lieutenant of a County, might technically be a magistrate - but in name only. He or she would not sit in court. (Having posted that I now see Mystery Singer's post indicating that Lord Mayor Staples did sit at the Central Criminal Court, so I'll look into his life for an explanation.)

Having just done some (admittedly cursory) research on this it seems that the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London are entitled to sit on the judges' bench during a hearing at the Central Criminal Court. They do not, however, take any active part in proceedings and certainly do not preside. I believe the same is true, in the shires of the Lord Lieutenant of the relevant county.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well I'll just rephrase what I wrote to Trevor:

Unless you are suggesting that no-one alive in 1888 who was able to correctly spell the ten other words in the sentence could possibly have mis-spelt the word "Jews" I don't see your comment as having any relevance.

You clearly didn't interpret my original post in the way it was intended, and if you have read my book then you will know what my interpretation of the graffiti is, and how I arrive at that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

Well I'll just rephrase what I wrote to Trevor:

Unless you are suggesting that no-one alive in 1888 who was able to correctly spell the ten other words in the sentence could possibly have mis-spelt the word "Jews" I don't see your comment as having any relevance.

Thanks, David. If I were Pierre I'd now be pointing out that there are eleven other words in the sentence, not ten (but I'm not so I won't!).
Having said that, I still think it likely (not certain I concede) that a man who could spell the word "nothing" would be able to spell "Jews". For what it's worth, my take is that (if the GSG has any relevance at all) it might be that the writer's first language was either German or French and that he began to write either 'Juden' or 'Juifs', realised halfway through and did as much as he could to correct the situation without smudging or obliterating what had already been written. For that reason I wonder if the actual word written wasn't "Juews" which (slightly embarrassingly for me as I have always preferred Halse's!) I now see is Long's version. Perhaps I've been doing him an injustice.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;384329]

I agree,Trevor. A person who can spell the word "nothing" correctly is not likely to be illiterate. More likely the word is spelt as it is intentionally or has been misread.

or someone was spelling a word as to how it sounded !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

You clearly didn't interpret my original post in the way it was intended, and if you have read my book then you will know what my interpretation of the graffiti is, and how I arrive at that.

Why not just clarify it here:

Are you suggesting that no-one alive in 1888 who was able to correctly spell the ten other words in the sentence could possibly have mis-spelt the word "Jews"?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why not just clarify it here:

Are you suggesting that no-one alive in 1888 who was able to correctly spell the ten other words in the sentence could possibly have mis-spelt the word "Jews"?

If that writer wanted to write another word and he was writing that word as to how it sounded to him. You are supposed to be smart amylase the graffiti.

The answer is that if the writer was aiming it at the jews as an ethnic group he could have written

The Jews are the ones
The Jews are those
The Jews are them

But the graffiti is aimed directly at the male gender the Juwes are the men so not aimed at the ethnic group.

so who are the juwes answers on a £50 note ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Having said that, I still think it likely (not certain I concede) that a man who could spell the word "nothing" would be able to spell "Jews".

Thanks for conceding the uncertainty. But that's my point. Likelihood is irrelevant here. You have to say it's impossible.

Wouldn't you say it is likely that a person who can spell the words "succumbed", "research" and "different" would be able to spell the word "disease"?

If so, how would you explain this post by Pierre on 5 April of this year:

"So, is it "possible" that the killer succumbed to an illness?

1. What sort of possibilities were there for becoming ill, according to medical
research in his own time?

2. And what were the different types of deceases?

3. How high were the risks?

4. And how high were the risks to die from the different deceases? "

Things aren't as simple as you like to think and I am sure that spelling was more flexible in 1888.

[David Orsam]

If that writer wanted to write another word and he was writing that word as to how it sounded to him. You are supposed to be smart amylase the graffiti.

The answer is that if the writer was aiming it at the jews as an ethnic group he could have written

The Jews are the ones
The Jews are those
The Jews are them

But the graffiti is aimed directly at the male gender the Juwes are the men so not aimed at the ethnic group.

so who are the juwes answers on a £50 note ?

Okay Trevor but are you suggesting that no-one alive in 1888 who was able to correctly spell the ten other words in the sentence could possibly have mis-spelt the word "Jews"?

[Bridewell]

amylase the graffiti.

I hope that's not as painful as it sounds.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay Trevor but are you suggesting that no-one alive in 1888 who was able to correctly spell the ten other words in the sentence could possibly have mis-spelt the word "Jews"?

No I am not suggesting no one alive. I am suggesting that the writer of the graffiti in all probabilities having regards to getting the rest of the spelling correct would have known how to spell jews as an ethnic group correctly if that is what he wanted to write.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I hope that's not as painful as it sounds.

It might be to Mr Orsam !

[Bridewell]

Thanks for conceding the uncertainty. But that's my point. Likelihood is irrelevant here. You have to say it's impossible.

Wouldn't you say it is likely that a person who can spell the words "succumbed", "research" and "different" would be able to spell the word "disease"?

If so, how would you explain this post by Pierre on 5 April of this year:

"So, is it "possible" that the killer succumbed to an illness?

1. What sort of possibilities were there for becoming ill, according to medical
research in his own time?

2. And what were the different types of deceases?

3. How high were the risks?

4. And how high were the risks to die from the different deceases? "

Things aren't as simple as you like to think and I am sure that spelling was more flexible in 1888.

Pierre's a good example if, as I suspect from his posts, his first language isn't English.

It's perfectly possible that the writer mispelt just that one word but I'm afraid I don't accept that likelihood is irrelevant here. What we know to be true (from all the various versions) is that the writer spelt every word but one in the sentence correctly. That must allow for the possibility that the person concerned either knew how to spell the word "Jews" correctly but elected not to do so, or began to write the word in his native language and belatedly corrected himself, or intended something other than "Jews" which was misread by those who were there. "Jews" is the likely intention but it's not the only possibility; that's all I'm saying.