An experiment

[John G]

And I'm still not holding my breath while I wait.

I think at this point he's more likely to reveal the name of his suspect!

[Elamarna]

Pierre

Many thanks for saying nice things, however , I must now inform you of a fact and add a few comments.

Sorry to disillusion you my friend, there was no out of the box thinking involved, finding Judges required nothing on my part.

I just followed the instruction you gave.

So a word starting JU ending ES, that criteria was put them into a search engine, Judges was one of a handful of words which could refer to men in the results. others were Jutes, Juries and Jupes.

I had to put no ideas aside at all to do this, as the machine did the search.

It was fairly obvious that you had a word in mind from the start of the thread, it was just a question of looking at the options to see which might fit your theory:

That is a police officer, who feels wronged, whose disclosure could damage various institutions and who had a problem with the establishment..
in addition you suggested that the word blame and the feeling of guilt could be involved, these fitted to Judges, but could have been applied to juries too.

It was therefore either Juries or Judges, I suggested JUDGES and at that point opted out.



My dear friend your entire thread is based on the idea the We do not understand the GSG,

in post 110 you said

"Because no one has managed to give a plausible explanation."

again in post 141 you said

"I have never seen a plausible explanation and I guess that must be because I have high demands on an explanation".

Therefore the reality is that you do not understand the GSG not that we do not.


For myself i believe that juwes is meant to be jews, we are not even 100% sure about how it was actually spelt!

What I do not know is :

1. Was the GSG written by the killer? if so it was aimed to put the blame on the local Jewish population.

2. Was the GSG just local anti-Semitic graffiti and nothing to do with the murders.

Honestly I do not know, but I choose to believe the second option until someone proves otherwise.



Could you explain why neither of these options is plausible in your view?

Both those suggestion have more to back them than this experiment at blue sky thinking.

And while I found the thread fun at first, it became a bore.
it has lead us nowhere, has advanced research on the murders by not one inch. Indeed the very suggestion that Juwes was Judges was, has others have pointed out, not a new idea achieved by out of the box thinking, it was old.

[GUT]

Pierre,

Okay let's just rewind a little. None of the contemporary sources were in any doubt that the "disputed" word was Jews misspelt. There was certainly no suggestion that it was "judges". And, as I pointed out in my earlier post, this makes perfect sense in both a social and historical context.

I'm afraid it really is that simple. No need for elaborate, and over-although new theories. No need to resort, Fox Mulder-style, to extreme possibilities, and pseudoscientific thinking. And, happily, this is a conclusion that should accord with the academic approach that you previously advocated.

and each of those that refer to "Juwes" is a primary source (in which Pierre place so much credence).

[John G]

and each of those that refer to "Juwes" is a primary source (in which Pierre place so much credence).

Good point. Of course, Pierre might now wish to revise his opinion of primary sources!

Just amended my earlier post. Of course, I meant to write "over-thought", not "over-although!" Predictive text issue!

[John G]

Pierre

Many thanks for saying nice things, however , I must now inform you of a fact and add a few comments.

Sorry to disillusion you my friend, there was no out of the box thinking involved, finding Judges required nothing on my part.

I just followed the instruction you gave.

So a word starting JU ending ES, that criteria was put them into a search engine, Judges was one of a handful of words which could refer to men in the results. others were Jutes, Juries and Jupes.

I had to put no ideas aside at all to do this, as the machine did the search.

It was fairly obvious that you had a word in mind from the start of the thread, it was just a question of looking at the options to see which might fit your theory:

That is a police officer, who feels wronged, whose disclosure could damage various institutions and who had a problem with the establishment..
in addition you suggested that the word blame and the feeling of guilt could be involved, these fitted to Judges, but could have been applied to juries too.

It was therefore either Juries or Judges, I suggested JUDGES and at that point opted out.



My dear friend your entire thread is based on the idea the We do not understand the GSG,

in post 110 you said

"Because no one has managed to give a plausible explanation."

again in post 141 you said

"I have never seen a plausible explanation and I guess that must be because I have high demands on an explanation".

Therefore the reality is that you do not understand the GSG not that we do not.


For myself i believe that juwes is meant to be jews, we are not even 100% sure about how it was actually spelt!

What I do not know is :

1. Was the GSG written by the killer? if so it was aimed to put the blame on the local Jewish population.

2. Was the GSG just local anti-Semitic graffiti and nothing to do with the murders.

Honestly I do not know, but I choose to believe the second option until someone proves otherwise.



Could you explain why neither of these options is plausible in your view?

Both those suggestion have more to back them than this experiment at blue sky thinking.

And while I found the thread fun at first, it became a bore.
it has lead us nowhere, has advanced research on the murders by not one inch. Indeed the very suggestion that Juwes was Judges was, has others have pointed out, not a new idea achieved by out of the box thinking, it was old.

Excellent post, which I completely agree with.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;373392]Pierre,

Okay let's just rewind a little.

Sure!

None of the contemporary sources were in any doubt that the "disputed" word was Jews misspelt. There was certainly no suggestion that it was "judges". And, as I pointed out in my earlier post, this makes perfect sense in both a social and historical context.

So did the Greeks think when they considered the earth being flat. It functions as a collective conscience to speak with Durkheim.

I'm afraid it really is that simple. No need for elaborate, and over-although new theories. No need to resort, Fox Mulder-style, to extreme possibilities, and pseudoscientific thinking. And, happily, this is a conclusion that should accord with the academic approach that you previously advocated.

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

[IchabodCrane]

And while I found the thread fun at first, it became a bore.
it has lead us nowhere, has advanced research on the murders by not one inch.

The same could be said about other aborted attempts at out-of-the box thinking, such as the moving bed or the story of Mary and Elisabeth. All too often the realm of reason is left behind in the box. Mostly there is a reason for the box being there.

[GUT]

Good point. Of course, Pierre might now wish to revise his opinion of primary sources!

Just amended my earlier post. Of course, I meant to write "over-thought", not "over-although!" Predictive text issue!

Don't you hate that predictive Text, I've got some eye problems (due to medication) and am currently having to use a tablet to post, a nightmare.

[jerryd]

The other thing Pierre is forgetting is Daniel Halse recorded The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing. Both Halse and Long saw the writing on the wall, they can't both be right.

So are the 'Judges' to be blamed or not to be blamed, Pierre? You seem to want the Judges to be blamed to fit your scenario. Don't you?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;373394]Pierre

Many thanks for saying nice things, however , I must now inform you of a fact and add a few comments.

Sorry to disillusion you my friend, there was no out of the box thinking involved, finding Judges required nothing on my part.

I just followed the instruction you gave.

So a word starting JU ending ES, that criteria was put them into a search engine, Judges was one of a handful of words which could refer to men in the results. others were Jutes, Juries and Jupes.

I had to put no ideas aside at all to do this, as the machine did the search.

You mean that you used a computer. It often helps. But did you use a dictionary?

It was fairly obvious that you had a word in mind from the start of the thread, it was just a question of looking at the options to see which might fit your theory:

I didnīt but I wanted to see what happened (and still do) when you forget about jew-s. And you say that you "looked at the options". How did you do that?

That is a police officer, who feels wronged, whose disclosure could damage various institutions and who had a problem with the establishment..
in addition

you suggested that the word blame and the feeling of guilt could be involved, these fitted to Judges, but could have been applied to juries too.

Not "feeling of guilt" but guilt as a synonym for blame to be correct, Steve. So since the word "Blamed" is in the text, what is your view of this word and its connection to the judges compared to a connection to the jews?

It was therefore either Juries or Judges, I suggested JUDGES and at that point opted out.

My dear friend your entire thread is based on the idea the We do not understand the GSG,

in post 110 you said

"Because no one has managed to give a plausible explanation."

again in post 141 you said

"I have never seen a plausible explanation and I guess that must be because I have high demands on an explanation".

Therefore the reality is that you do not understand the GSG not that we do not.

My definition of the word "understand" differs from many others.

For myself i believe that juwes is meant to be jews, we are not even 100% sure about how it was actually spelt!

Yes, but you did well outside of the box.

What I do not know is :

1. Was the GSG written by the killer? if so it was aimed to put the blame on the local Jewish population.

What do you think about that?

2. Was the GSG just local anti-Semitic graffiti and nothing to do with the murders.

Honestly I do not know, but I choose to believe the second option until someone proves otherwise.

Could you explain why neither of these options is plausible in your view?

Sure. I do not accept them as plausible since I have a responsibility as a researcher to understand the GSG as long as it is discussed in connection to the case. Historical sources are not allowed to be overlooked or misunderstood. So one must try with all means necessary to analyse and interpret them. That is my first motivation. The second is that this GSG is very problematic from the point of view of history and linguistics. So it is interesting and worth analysing.

Both those suggestion have more to back them than this experiment at blue sky thinking.

Really? What is that?

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373398]

Pierre,



Sure!



So did the Greeks think when they considered the earth being flat. It functions as a collective conscience to speak with Durkheim.



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,

Ah, you appear to be revealing yourself as a quasi-sociologist! Anyway, back to the matter in hand.

Firstly, the Greeks didn't believe the earth to be flat-that's a common misconception. Mind you, I think this also demonstrates fairly conclusively that you're not an historian!

Secondly, we do not know that the graffiti was written by the killer; that's mere speculation. However, as I've noted before, if it was written by JtR then there are various explanations for the misspelling of the word "Jews", i.e. he may have been only semi-literate, or perhaps English was not his first language (the German for Jews is "juden" so, as a German immigrant, for example, he may have inadvertently combined the two spellings.)

As to why the killer would make such a statement well, frankly, who knows what goes on in the distorted mind of a serial killer. You can't assume that he was acting or thinking rationally and, even if he was, the meaning could be esoteric, i.e. known only to the author.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;373403][QUOTE=Pierre;373398]

we do not know that the graffiti was written by the killer; that's mere speculation.

It is also mere speculation that the GSG was not written by the killer. Remember this.

However, as I've noted before, if it was written by JtR then there are various explanations for the misspelling of the word "Jews", i.e. he may have been only semi-literate, or perhaps English was not his first language (the German for Jews is "juden" so, as a German immigrant, for example, he may have inadvertently combined the two spellings.)

Have you ever heard of misreading?

As to why the killer would make such a statement well, frankly, who knows what goes on in the distorted mind of a serial killer. You can't assume that he was acting or thinking rationally and, even if he was, the meaning could be esoteric, i.e. known only to the author.

Madness has its own rational dimensions. But "madness" as a concept explains almost nothing when you are studying serial killers.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373404][QUOTE=John G;373403]

It is also mere speculation that the GSG was not written by the killer. Remember this.

However, as I've noted before, if it was written by JtR then there are various explanations for the misspelling of the word "Jews", i.e. he may have been only semi-literate, or perhaps English was not his first language (the German for Jews is "juden" so, as a German immigrant, for example, he may have inadvertently combined the two spellings.)

Have you ever heard of misreading?



Madness has its own rational dimensions. But "madness" as a concept explains almost nothing when you are studying serial killers.

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

Well, strangely enough, I would tend to agree with your point about madness. Personally , I doubt the killer was mentally ill; more likely he had an antisocial personality disorder, i.e he was psychotic.

Of course, any statement the killer may have made, via the graffiti or an alternative medium, doesn't have to be true. Sutcliffe, for example, claimed he murdered prostitutes because he was acting in accordance with divine instructions-an explanation I don't believe for a second!

[John G]

Don't you hate that predictive Text, I've got some eye problems (due to medication) and am currently having to use a tablet to post, a nightmare.

Yes, time and time again predictive text has got me into trouble on this site. It's very embarrassing at times, particularly if you only realize the error after running out of time to make corrections!

[Elamarna]

Pierre

please see below.



[QUOTE=Pierre;373402]

Pierre


You mean that you used a computer. It often helps. But did you use a dictionary?


NO


I didnīt but I wanted to see what happened (and still do) when you forget about jew-s. And you say that you "looked at the options". How did you do that?



Well I looked at the list of words the computer provide, excluded those that could not refer to people, then compared this list with the clues/hints you have given in the past to see which did and did fit those clues


Not "feeling of guilt" but guilt as a synonym for blame to be correct, Steve. So since the word "Blamed" is in the text, what is your view of this word and its connection to the judges compared to a connection to the jews?

it is just a word in a sentence which says some people are to blame for something, I see no reason to think it is written by the killer, it is anti-Semitic graffiti




My definition of the word "understand" differs from many others.

That may well be, but you said we do not understand the GSG when you meant you don't accept the views held by most.

THAT IS NOT THE SAME THING IS IT





Sure. I do not accept them as plausible since I have a responsibility as a researcher to understand the GSG as long as it is discussed in connection to the case. Historical sources are not allowed to be overlooked or misunderstood. So one must try with all means necessary to analyse and interpret them. That is my first motivation. The second is that this GSG is very problematic from the point of view of history and linguistics. So it is interesting and worth analysing.

So sorry Pierre, I asked why you do not find either of the two views plausible? When asking a question like that I expect a reply which gives me your reasons for rejecting either, this you have not done!

Please Answer the actually question asked, not one which has not been, which is what you have done.


Really? What is that?

They are both based on Primary sources, and there is no compelling reason to to dismiss either.
Therefore there is no need for blue-sky thinking in this particular case.