An experiment

[Elamarna]

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.

spot on.

Steve

[curious4]

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.

I think I know what your reply, or lack of will be, but can you give an example of this?

C4

[David Orsam]

can you give an example of this?

Certainly, post #674 above.

[curious4]

Certainly, post #674 above.

As far as I can make out, it says "justices" - plural.
Any better examples? Of "justice" being used as as plural? In print, perhaps?
C4

[Pierre]

Jacks also refers to policemen. Which Pierre would like.

But not in 1888 surely? I haven´t seen any evidence for that.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383417]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,

Hi Steve,

Linguistically Judges does match the number, since w is a digraph composed of two letters = vv.

Justices does not match the number, since it has four letters where Juwes has two.

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.

If someone could show that there was a connection between the motive of the killer and the word, then we would get an explanation for the GSG. Wouldn´t that be great?

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

Yes.

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

Yes.

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.

No, that is the wrong process, Steve. The right process is to try and disprove every hypothesis you have so that you can throw the whole theory based on those hypotheses in the rubbish bin. WHY?

Because there is no meaning in believing. The only meaning is knowing. If you do not know, a theory is totally worthless.

Do you understand what I mean Steve? For me it is either black or white in that case. Very boring but necessary. No funny stories, no creativeness, no intriguing theory about Prins Albert or Aaron Kosminski. So I am utterly boring. Not an artist. Just a simple historian sitting here with his small scraps of sources from the past.

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

Trying to disprove the sources is what I work with. Very boring.

But that does not mean that history, i.e. a set of established facts, are boring! Quite the opposite! History can be very intriguing and altogether amazing!

Best wishes, Pierre

[David Orsam]

As far as I can make out, it says "justices" - plural.
Any better examples? Of "justice" being used as as plural? In print, perhaps?
C4

Perhaps I should explain. My point was that when looking through a dictionary under the letter 'J' one might see the word 'judge' and it would be a simple matter to envisage the plural being 'judges'. When seeing the word 'justice', however, one would not naturally add an 's' to the end to make 'justices' because we tend to think of justice as the concept of fairness, forgetting that it also means a magistrate.

I was trying to explain, in other words, why everyone had failed to think of 'justices' as being the possible word in the CSG. I wasn't saying that 'justice' without an 's' was a plural word.

[curious4]

Perhaps I should explain. My point was that when looking through a dictionary under the letter 'J' one might see the word 'judge' and it would be a simple matter to envisage the plural being 'judges'. When seeing the word 'justice', however, one would not naturally add an 's' to the end to make 'justices' because we tend to think of justice as the concept of fairness, forgetting that it also means a magistrate.

I was trying to explain, in other words, why everyone had failed to think of 'justices' as being the possible word in the CSG. I wasn't saying that 'justice' without an 's' was a plural word.

I see. It just sounded as though you did.

C4

[David Orsam]

Linguistically Judges does match the number, since w is a digraph composed of two letters = vv.

Justices does not match the number, since it has four letters where Juwes has two.

Firstly, that's not true. If you take the letter v then, yes, there would be two of them but if you take the letter i or the letter l then there are four of them.

The number of letters involved, however, is irrelevant; all that matters is whether, when written in manuscript, the letters - however many of them, would look like a 'w'. The combination of 'dg' does not look like a 'w' when written in lower case (which the CSG was) and, consequently, there is no good reason to believe that everyone who saw it mistook it for a 'w'.

[Pierre]

Perhaps I should explain. My point was that when looking through a dictionary under the letter 'J' one might see the word 'judge' and it would be a simple matter to envisage the plural being 'judges'. When seeing the word 'justice', however, one would not naturally add an 's' to the end to make 'justices' because we tend to think of justice as the concept of fairness, forgetting that it also means a magistrate.

I was trying to explain, in other words, why everyone had failed to think of 'justices' as being the possible word in the CSG. I wasn't saying that 'justice' without an 's' was a plural word.

The point is that you have now provided people with one more possibility for interpreting the GSG. Lord Mayor was the Chief Magistrate of the City of London. A magistrate could function as a type of judge in the British Empire.

That is the theme connecting the murder of Stride and Eddowes to the murder of Kelly. Serial killers often want to express themselves. They have motives.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

pierre

"If someone could show that there was a connection between the motive of the killer and the word, then we would get an explanation for the GSG. Wouldn´t that be great? "



"Yes."

agree


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


"Yes."



Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?

I mean in plain English, does it say "I did it", no metaphors, no code. Just I wrote the GSG and it means this!

If you have such a document, then I see no reason not to name, you are not saying he is the killer, he is!!

There is no moral problem with that, publish the document, if need be with the name and signature redacted, and let others check it.



Steve

[David Orsam]

Lord Mayor was the Chief Magistrate of the City of London. A magistrate could function as a type of judge.

So what?

Isn't your theory that the Ripper turned against the Lord Mayor because he called him a 'mad dog'?

That didn't happen until October. So why would the Ripper be focusing his attention on the Lord Mayor in the CSG at the end of September?

[Pierre]

So what?

Isn't your theory that the Ripper turned against the Lord Mayor because he called him a 'mad dog'?

That didn't happen until October. So why would the Ripper be focusing his attention on the Lord Mayor in the CSG at the end of September?

Hi David,

Thank you for very interesting questions about historical hypotheses and historical theories.

A historical theory about a motive of any killer must be based on a set of sources for a motive that has stability over time. If you hypothesize that a serial killer, any serial killer, had a motive for committing murders at some points in time, those points in time must be connected through a solid motive of that serial killer. The stability of the motive of a serial killer gives coherence to a theory about the murders, but one minor single event happening randomly in time is not good enough for a solid theory. There must be much more. A minor single event is illustrative at the best. It matches the underlying set of hypotheses well, but cannot in itself be used for building a theory. As I said, there must be much more. And of course, if there are sources showing that a motive of a serial killer disappears at the same point in time when the murders stop, that gives such a historical theory even more coherence.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Pierre]

pierre

"If someone could show that there was a connection between the motive of the killer and the word, then we would get an explanation for the GSG. Wouldn´t that be great? "



"Yes."

agree


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


"Yes."



Are you saying you have a document signed which says "I wrote the GSG" ?

I mean in plain English, does it say "I did it", no metaphors, no code. Just I wrote the GSG and it means this!

If you have such a document, then I see no reason not to name, you are not saying he is the killer, he is!!

There is no moral problem with that, publish the document, if need be with the name and signature redacted, and let others check it.

Steve

Well, Steve, as I have tried to explain to you before, the past is not a shop where you go in and buy what you like. And it is not Xmas. And I´m not Santa.

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Thank you for very interesting questions about historical hypotheses and historical theories.

A historical theory about a motive of any killer must be based on a set of sources for a motive that has stability over time. If you hypothesize that a serial killer, any serial killer, had a motive for committing murders at some points in time, those points in time must be connected through a solid motive of that serial killer. The stability of the motive of a serial killer gives coherence to a theory about the murders, but one minor single event happening randomly in time is not good enough for a solid theory. There must be much more. A minor single event is illustrative at the best. It matches the underlying set of hypotheses well, but cannot in itself be used for building a theory. As I said, there must be much more. And of course, if there are sources showing that a motive of a serial killer disappears at the same point in time when the murders stop, that gives such a historical theory even more coherence.

All you have done here, Pierre, is avoid answering a very simple question by stringing together a large number of words in a way that not only has no meaning but doesn't deal with the question you were asked or address the point I made in my post.

The short point is that it doesn't make any sense to say that the word "Justices" in the CSG on 30 September (if that word was in there) would have any particular application to the Lord Mayor, which was the only point I was querying with you.