An experiment

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;383690]

Technically the above emboldened quote is inaccurate, he wasnt absolutely sure about the writing,...but he stated without reservation that the cloth "was not there" when he first passed by after 2am. My point is that Longs empirical pronouncement suggests that the apron section was not taken directly from the murder scene. Which then suggests the cloth was intentionally left there over an hour after the crime, which leads one to surmise that the message, if left by the killer, is related to its location. A housing development almost entirely occupied by Juwes/Jews/Juewes....not Judges/Judgez/Jugis.

It is accurate. Long was not sure about the spelling. You have that in the original source.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;383678][QUOTE=Pierre;383671]

Pierre

we are getting somewhere.

If it is not connected to the structure, we are left only with the words contained in the GSG are we not?

Halse stated it read:

"The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."

Which of those words can be the "something very important in the GSG which indicates a connection"?

Apart from Juwes the other words seem reasonably innocuous, and it is hard to see how they could link to another Data source?

Am I wrong on that assessment?

Hi Steve,

I am afraid you are.

However have you not said that Juwes is wrong, and it should read Judges?

If that is the case, and I say if:

There is actually nothing in the GSG as recorded by Halse or indeed any other witness, which indicates a connection, as Judges is not one of the recorded words.

Would you like to comment?

Steve

I would like to comment this but it is difficult.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;383732][QUOTE=Elamarna;383678]

Hi Steve,

I am afraid you are.



I would like to comment this but it is difficult.

Regards, Pierre

let me clarify, you say there is something in the GSG that shows a connection

You say it is not the structure?

That leaves the words.

Are you saying saying this connection is contained in the words?

"The *****are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."


However has you have already said the structure is not repeated in any source, we are looking at random, words:
The, are, not, the, men,that, will, be, blamed, for and nothing.

It is hard to see how these words could form a probably connection to another source

If however you are not claiming the connection is in those words are are you saying it is the J word?

If the connection is IN the GSG, has you say, it has to be of the other, given you have eliminated the structure?

There is nothing else IN the GSG



Steve

[Michael W Richards]

[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

My point related to the fact that almost 100% of those particular dwellings were occupied by Jews, a ratio that isn't uniform across the East end. I believe also that a relative of the International Club on Berner lived there, which adds some context to my comments...... if the writing was done by the same person who brought the cloth there, and he did not kill anyone on Berner Street. As to recognition phonetically of a word like Jews, I agree, as to recognition of a particular spelling, I don't. Even the police, most semi-literate at least, used different spellings of the word.

[David Orsam]

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

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.

As you are no doubt aware, the spelling of "Jews" as "Jewes" was common in the seventeenth century and one can find it spelt that way even in the nineteenth century. See my sub-article "Reading the Writing on the Wall" in http://www.orsam.co.uk/somethoughts.htm. It only needed (for example) someone to believe that the word "Jew" (or "Jewe") was derived from "Judas" (or vice versa) to think that the correct spelling was "Juwe".

If we followed the logic of your argument to its extreme conclusion we might say that it would be impossible for a well-known Ripperologist to be unable to correctly spell the surname of another well known Ripperologist. Yet in a post on this forum on 17 June 2010 you spelt the surname of Tom Wescott first as "Westcot" then, in the same post, as "Westcott", and in your book, 'Jack the Ripper – The Secret Police Files', you also spelt it as "Westcott". Unless you were talking of a different person than Tom Wescott how is such a thing possible?

You might also have missed me pointing out single spelling mistakes in a couple of otherwise perfectly spelt postings in this very forum. In one, the poster, despite spelling a number of long words correctly, spelt "diseases" as "deceases". In another perfectly spelt post the same person also typed "knew" instead of "new". A different poster, in an otherwise perfectly spelt post, wrote "proberbly" for probably.

All of those words were commonly known words but, for various reasons, people who can spell most words correctly can spell simple words wrongly at times. I could continue pointing such errors out on this forum but it would be rather tiresome and annoying for all concerned.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;383766]

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.

"Anyone in the country" was not living in Whitechapel. Most people living in an area with a large population of jews would have been able to spell the word jews correctly if they were able to write the rest of the GSG. And that is exclusively an hypothesis which is not testable.

So there is actually no point in discussing this, we have to little evidence for the issue even if Trevor has a point. Often, this is what happens in ripperology, someone has a point, someone else think it is worth noticing, but in the end we need evidence. Trevor´s point is just relevant for constructing a hypothesis but it is not testable.

As you are no doubt aware, the spelling of "Jews" as "Jewes" was common in the seventeenth century and one can find it spelt that way even in the nineteenth century. See my sub-article "Reading the Writing on the Wall" in http://www.orsam.co.uk/somethoughts.htm. It only needed (for example) someone to believe that the word "Jew" (or "Jewe") was derived from "Judas" (or vice versa) to think that the correct spelling was "Juwe".

You can not deduce from the 17th Century nor can you deduce from what "someone" - who is that? - could have believed. It is not relevant to the case.

If we followed the logic of your argument to its extreme conclusion we might say that it would be impossible for a well-known Ripperologist to be unable to correctly spell the surname of another well known Ripperologist. Yet in a post on this forum on 17 June 2010 you spelt the surname of Tom Wescott first as "Westcot" then, in the same post, as "Westcott", and in your book, 'Jack the Ripper – The Secret Police Files', you also spelt it as "Westcott". Unless you were talking of a different person than Tom Wescott how is such a thing possible?

The knowledge of ripperologists about the spelling of a name is not relevant. Wrong population, wrong time, wrong place.

You might also have missed me pointing out single spelling mistakes in a couple of otherwise perfectly spelt postings in this very forum. In one, the poster, despite spelling a number of long words correctly, spelt "diseases" as "deceases". In another perfectly spelt post the same person also typed "knew" instead of "new". A different poster, in an otherwise perfectly spelt post, wrote "proberbly" for probably.

The spellings in a forum on the internet is not relevant. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong population.

All of those words were commonly known words but, for various reasons, people who can spell most words correctly can spell simple words wrongly at times. I could continue pointing such errors out on this forum but it would be rather tiresome and annoying for all concerned.

And it would also be 100 percent irrelevant. You must have the right population, the right time and the right place. Whitechapel 1888. And a random selection of x individuals (at least 50) who is put to the test of writing the word "Jews". Then you must perform significance tests on it.

So no more of this talk, thanks.

Regards, Pierre

[DJA]

Hi,

To summarize: The idea of the word "juwes" as referring to jews is a problem.

Kind regards, Pierre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

[MsWeatherwax]

David made perfectly relevant points, Pierre.

Even without taking into account that someone rushing to scrawl graffiti on a wall may make a spelling error, language is constantly changing and evolving. Local dialects and accents can massively complicate the issue, particularly if the writer relies on phonetic spelling.

Respectfully, it is not up to you to dictate what may or may not be discussed on the forum. Personally, I doubt the graffiti is even relevant, but the discussion is still interesting.

[Pierre]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia

And you wanted to say?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

David made perfectly relevant points, Pierre.

Even without taking into account that someone rushing to scrawl graffiti on a wall may make a spelling error, language is constantly changing and evolving. Local dialects and accents can massively complicate the issue, particularly if the writer relies on phonetic spelling.

Respectfully, it is not up to you to dictate what may or may not be discussed on the forum. Personally, I doubt the graffiti is even relevant, but the discussion is still interesting.

No, David did not make relevant points. They are anachronistic and drawn from the wrong populations. So they are not relevant at all. Not even a bit.

But good for you that you like it.

Regards, Pierre

[DJA]

if the writer relies on phonetic spelling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews

The phonetic spelling is the third word in the main body.
A "u" is used.

[MsWeatherwax]

No, David did not make relevant points. They are anachronistic and drawn from the wrong populations. So they are not relevant at all. Not even a bit.

But good for you that you like it.

Regards, Pierre

If you've quite finished patronising me... If you are completely unable accept that someone in 1888 could have made a spelling error without the use of a TARDIS and a sample of 50 or more random Victorians Pierre, I hold absolutely no hope for the validity of your research. That's a kind of inflexibility that will only ever lead you nowhere.

[DJA]

And you wanted to say?

Regards, Pierre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Spearman

[David Orsam]

"Anyone in the country" was not living in Whitechapel. Most people living in an area with a large population of jews would have been able to spell the word jews correctly if they were able to write the rest of the GSG. And that is exclusively an hypothesis which is not testable.

Firstly, we don't know that the person who wrote the CSG lived in Whitechapel - there is simply no evidence for that. All we know is that this person was in Whitechapel at the time the words were written.

Secondly, I did not refer to "Anyone in the country", I said, "anyone alive in 1888". That was simply to cover the possibility that the person who wrote the CSG did not live in Whitechapel (or London, or even England).

Thirdly, what "most" people living in the area could spell is irrelevant. My point is exactly the same whether we refer to people in the entire country or just the area of Whitechapel. Unless you are saying that no-one living in the area could possibly have spelt "Jews" incorrectly in 1888 you are wasting my time.

I happen to know that it's not possible for you (or Trevor) to make such a statement, ergo you are wasting my time.

So there is actually no point in discussing this

I agree but it was Trevor who made the point and I was rebutting it. What's your excuse?

You can not deduce from the 17th Century nor can you deduce from what "someone" - who is that? - could have believed. It is not relevant to the case.

You really do talk nonsense Pierre. Of course I can point to the fact that "Jews" was often spelt as "Jewes" in the seventeenth century but I went further (which you might have missed) in that I said that this spelling was also carried into the nineteenth century.

The knowledge of ripperologists about the spelling of a name is not relevant. Wrong population, wrong time, wrong place.

You are wrong about this. People make spelling mistakes for the same reasons in 2016, in any population and any place in the world, that they did in 1888.

The spellings in a forum on the internet is not relevant. Wrong time, wrong place, wrong population.

You are wrong about this. People make spelling mistakes for the same reasons in 2016, in any population and place in the world, that they did in 1888.

[Michael W Richards]

There is no reason to surmise that the message wasnt written by someone local, nor that the person wasnt aware of the extremely high concentration of "Jewes' at that very address. As for spelling errors, its obvious that officers recalling the writing differed in the spelling, and that its possible one or more was using incorrect spelling which "sounded" right to them.

These boards have deteriorated an amazing amount in recent years due to threads and posts which focus on superfluous aspects of these cases. When I joined people wanted to know whether 2 women were killed by the same man on the Double Event night..highly improbable....or whether evidence suggests that the killer might change his spots after Chapman...it doesnt...or whether Polly was still alive when found, what time Chapman actually died...or who Sailor Man was....or why Senior National Security/Counter Espionage personelle are abundant in these murder investigations.

Now its guessing who should be suspect before any evidence is found to connect anyone to anything, and second guessing what for the most part are reasonable and well supported conclusions about what so and so means, or what so and so really said.

Revisionist dribble.