An experiment

[IchabodCrane]

They add up, donīt they. So what do they mean?

Kind regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre,

The coincidences mean that the intention of the killer was to direct police suspicion towards a Jewish suspect.

Yes! Of course! And why not kill her precisely in front of the Synagogue? That would have made his "intention" clear!

Catherine Eddowes did not want to conduct her business there. An he preferred not to get caught.

"Intention". So why did he not write the word "Jews" on the wall instead of another very strange word?

He didn't know how to spell the word correctly. It sounds different than it is spelled. It can be deduced that not only was Jack a gentile but also not very highly educated.

Best regards
IchabodCrane

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

The coincidences mean that the intention of the killer was to direct police suspicion towards a Jewish suspect.

What is the source convincing you that you know anything about the "intention" of the killer?

Catherine Eddowes did not want to conduct her business there. An he preferred not to get caught.

What is the source convincing you that you know anything about what Eddowes "wanted"?

He didn't know how to spell the word correctly.

What is the source convincing you that you know anything about the spelling knowledge of the killer?

It sounds different than it is spelled. It can be deduced that not only was Jack a gentile but also not very highly educated.

What are the sources convincing you know anything about his religion and education?

Best regards
IchabodCrane

Kind regards, Pierre

[Rosemary]

Hmmmm

OK. I see now the level for this discussion.

No, I just can't, it's too easy cada cabeza, otro mundo.

[Geddy2112]

What is the source convincing you that you know anything about the spelling knowledge of the killer?

Jews = correct spelling.

Jewes/Juwes etc = incorrect spelling.

A source = http://www.dictionary.com/

[Pierre]

Jews = correct spelling.

Jewes/Juwes etc = incorrect spelling.

A source = http://www.dictionary.com/

Judges = correct spelling.

Juwes = incorrect spelling.

A source = http://www.dictionary.com/

Regards, Pierre

[Rosella]

Except that, as has been stated before, not one of the men who saw the GSG on that building thought that the word 'Jewes' was 'Judges'.

[Errata]

Except that, as has been stated before, not one of the men who saw the GSG on that building thought that the word 'Jewes' was 'Judges'.

Maybe it was Juvies. Those damned kids..

[GUT]

Except that, as has been stated before, not one of the men who saw the GSG on that building thought that the word 'Jewes' was 'Judges'.

A point that he of primary data doesn't seem to appreciate.

[Pierre]

Except that, as has been stated before, not one of the men who saw the GSG on that building thought that the word 'Jewes' was 'Judges'.

We do not know what they thought.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

We do not know what they thought.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

True we do not know what they were thinking when they saw the GSG, Rosella's post while understandable, is therefore not 100% accurate.

It would probably have been better to say that several versions of the word were reported and recorded. Checking the sources which are available to us, it appears that none of those versions gives us the word "JUDGES".
Given that, there is no evidence that any who saw the GSG thought that the word was "JUDGES".

Regards

Steve

[David Orsam]

We do not know what they thought.

We do if they were honest men.

[Pierre]

Pierre,

True we do not know what they were thinking when they saw the GSG, Rosella's post while understandable, is therefore not 100% accurate.

It would probably have been better to say that several versions of the word were reported and recorded. Checking the sources which are available to us, it appears that none of those versions gives us the word "JUDGES".
Given that, there is no evidence that any who saw the GSG thought that the word was "JUDGES".

Regards

Steve

Hi Steve,

I agree with everything here.

Regards, Pierre

[Ausgirl]

Omg, I have missed this place.

What new nuttery abounds! I was sitting on the page before Errata (hiya E!) posted this:



.. thinking, OMG, it's all about the cursive lettering, isn't it. And then voila, there's Errata. Spooky, as ever.

I was totally seeing "Jimmies" in that. If you give the letters a good rustle.

Pair'o'doilies, yeah? Work that one out, puzzlemongers.

You can pretty much see anything in a bunch of squiggles, if you squint hard enough. Especially if they don't particularly exist in any tangible form to begin with.

But what fun this thread has been.

I'm off to parse the rest of it (ok, I got bored and skipped ahead a bit) to see why and how judges/juries/jimmies/jennies might be related to the Ripper.

It does all get explained in some sort of lucid and logical, perfectly sane way eventually.............doesn't it?

I don't mind spoilers.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Pierre,

All we are doing is hypothesizing based on known facts and circumstances. I believe in my hypotheses, therefore I am convinced of them, until somebody proves me otherwise. That is the measure of science we can apply in the historical sciences also. If no proof is possible, several interpretations may remain valid. The way I see it you are far from any proof (or even strong arguments) that the word Jewes was meant to signify anything other than Jews, so your deductions are as valid as mine, although they are on the more remote side of the probability scale.

Quote:
The coincidences mean that the intention of the killer was to direct police suspicion towards a Jewish suspect.
What is the source convincing you that you know anything about the "intention" of the killer?
-> There is no source, as we don't have written statements from the killer. We are left with inference from circumstances, and judging the probabilities of too many coincidences.

Quote:
Catherine Eddowes did not want to conduct her business there. And he preferred not to get caught.
What is the source convincing you that you know anything about what Eddowes "wanted"?
-> Common sense. Yes it exists in post-structuralism also A prostitute seeks a dark corner to conduct her business.

Quote:
He didn't know how to spell the word correctly.
What is the source convincing you that you know anything about the spelling knowledge of the killer?
->He spelled Jews wrongly (as Juwes), it has been recorded by Long and Halse.

Quote:
It sounds different than it is spelled. It can be deduced that not only was Jack a gentile but also not very highly educated.
What are the sources convincing you know anything about his religion and education?
-> There is no source, as we don't know who the killer was. We are left with inference from circumstances, in this case, the wording of the GSG.

Best regards,
IchabodCrane

[Abby Normal]

Omg, I have missed this place.

What new nuttery abounds! I was sitting on the page before Errata (hiya E!) posted this:



.. thinking, OMG, it's all about the cursive lettering, isn't it. And then voila, there's Errata. Spooky, as ever.

I was totally seeing "Jimmies" in that. If you give the letters a good rustle.

Pair'o'doilies, yeah? Work that one out, puzzlemongers.

You can pretty much see anything in a bunch of squiggles, if you squint hard enough. Especially if they don't particularly exist in any tangible form to begin with.

But what fun this thread has been.

I'm off to parse the rest of it (ok, I got bored and skipped ahead a bit) to see why and how judges/juries/jimmies/jennies might be related to the Ripper.

It does all get explained in some sort of lucid and logical, perfectly sane way eventually.............doesn't it?

I don't mind spoilers.

Yes- Pierre thinks the police misread the word Judges as Juwes, and everyone else does not.