The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[etenguy]

As you might imagine, this has been debated for years. Way back around 2000/2001 or thereabouts, I decided to look over a Jewish website, purely on a hunch.
I found a post from a Jewish girl who spelled the Jews as "Juwes" in her post. It struck me that if actual Jewish people can and apparently do, use that spelling, then we are wasting our time looking for a meaning.

I have always thought the GSG was written by some 'John Doe', and is nothing of consequence. There was a Jewish school just around the corner from where this graffiti was found.

Not heard of Juwes used by Jews before. You'd have thought that would be more well known given the Stephen Knight theory. That would have debunked the freemason connection.

I have searched the internet for a reference or definition of Juwes - it's only the GSG and the freemason theory that I can find. Except that it is also a surname, but a rare one.

[DirectorDave]

Except that it is also a surname, but a rare one.

If we find a census record or some such with a Mr Theodore Juwes (Market trader - Juwes & Sons) living just off Goulston street we could all end up looking rather silly.

[Sam Flynn]

Not heard of Juwes used by Jews before.

I think Jon's example was of a spelling error, or at most a quirk in one person's spelling.

[etenguy]

If we find a census record or some such with a Mr Theodore Juwes (Market trader - Juwes & Sons) living just off Goulston street we could all end up looking rather silly.

Just because you said that, I had to check - no Juwes in London on 1881 or 1891 census. 1 Jewes family in London (Mile End) and one in Essex (Indians) on 1881 census.

[Wickerman]

I think Jon's example was of a spelling error, or at most a quirk in one person's spelling.

Casebook has been around now for about two decades, the subject of the GSG has never really disappeared, it has always been there. I can't imagine that any Casebook members who are Jewish, or have Jewish relatives would not be familiar with the spelling of Jews as Juwes, if it was a well accepted rendition of the Hebrew into English.
Someone would have said so before now.
So, you are probably correct, it may have been an anomaly.

A lot of years have passed since I came across that post.

[harry]

Steve,
In reply to your question,I assumed it was based on research carried out by tne authors.

One poster declares it would have been too dark to have been written without light, which,if true, means it was either written in daylight or by means of a light source.

Now Long declares it appeared to have been recently written.The question is,was Long meaning to imply it was written that night.If so,can we then leave out the buildings inhabitants.Why would any of them choose darkness and a light source when daylight would suffice?

So who is left? Well there is Long himself,and a murderer.Any evidence the ripper carried a light source?Matches,perhaps! Were any match sticks found nearby?

[harry]

Sometime ago,I corresponded with a noted Jewish person living in another country.He said he had no knowlrdge of Jews being spelled Juwes.I remember his name quite well.

[Elamarna]

Steve,
In reply to your question,I assumed it was based on research carried out by tne authors.

Ok Harry, that is why I always ask for sources to back suggestions, to ensure the reasoning is clear.

One poster declares it would have been too dark to have been written without light, which,if true, means it was either written in daylight or by means of a light source.

Again, just because someone says something it does not mean it is so.
One needs to look at the evidence, the sources to see how accurate a statement is.

Now Long declares it appeared to have been recently written.The question is,was Long meaning to imply it was written that night.If so,can we then leave out the buildings inhabitants.Why would any of them choose darkness and a light source when daylight would suffice?

That's a big assumption. Surely it depends on the lighting and the time a resident could come and go.
And Longs view it appeared recent is a subjective view. Which needs to be assesed: is he saying it was not noticed before fair, if based on the writing it is guess work and what is meant by "recent".

So who is left? Well there is Long himself,and a murderer.Any evidence the ripper carried a light source?Matches,perhaps! Were any match sticks found nearby?

[/QUOTE]
There is no mention so we do not know.
It could easily have been written before darkness fell as many beleive.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

what is meant by "recent".

I remember chalked graffiti on school walls still appearing very "fresh" for days, even weeks, after it was written.

[Joshua Rogan]

Steve,
In reply to your question,I assumed it was based on research carried out by tne authors.

These days, any Tom, Dick or harry - or Josh - can find the press reports in minutes online, but I believe when the A-Z was first written, this would have involved quite a bit of proper research.

Now Long declares it appeared to have been recently written.

For info, it was actually Halse who thought it was recent, Long said he could not form an opinion.

The question is,was Long meaning to imply it was written that night.If so,can we then leave out the buildings inhabitants.

Halse thought it was recent, explaining why;
Daily News
"A juror - How did you account for its being recent? - Because it seemed fresh, and if it had been long written it would have been rubbed by people passing."

To me, this implies the rubbing would have been incidental and resulted in blurring of the chalk but in the Telegraph account, this is worded slightly differently, possibly implying deliberate removal would have resulted;

"Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found."

Why would any of them choose darkness and a light source when daylight would suffice?

Who can say? Less chance of being seen? More likely to have been coming back from the pub?

So who is left? Well there is Long himself,and a murderer.Any evidence the ripper carried a light source?Matches,perhaps! Were any match sticks found nearby?

As posted above, Halse mentions looking for chalk dust below the writing. If there had been recently used matches there it seems probable to me that he would have seen them.

Halse also was there, he passed the spot at 02:20. He also had been to the murder site, and worked at Old Jewry Street, so makes a much more plausible suspect than Long. He didn't have a lamp, though.

[harry]

Steve,
Just because someone says something,it doesn't mean it is so.I am pleased you wrote that.
Would not that also apply to Long?To the papers?To most of the so called evidence? To posters who who post here?
No Steve,the lighting was not an assumption of mine..I distinctly said it was written by a poster that it would have been too dark for the murderer to have written it.
Again I was quoting a source.If you believe that statement to be incorrect,address the poster that made it.

[PaulB]

Steve,
Just because someone says something,it doesn't mean it is so.I am pleased you wrote that.
Would not that also apply to Long?To the papers?To most of the so called evidence? To posters who who post here?

If I may interject here, yes, it would indeed apply to PC Long, just as it does to a book author or a poster. The thing is, though, that we don't generally question things we're told unless we have a reason for doing so. Then we ask for elaboration. Authors and posters (if available) can be asked to elaborate, but PC Long can't. So there is no alternative to acceting what he said - not unless there is something in the sources that suggests he was misreported, mistaken, or lied. or did anything in between. And there would also have to be other source-based evidence to support the suggestion. If there is real cause to think a source is wholly unreliable then one sometimes has little choice but to leave it out altogether, otherwise the source has to be treated with caution. But I don't see how either of those alternatives would appply at all to PC Long's testimony. Is there any evidence at all that events were other than he stated?

[Elamarna]

Steve,
Just because someone says something,it doesn't mean it is so.I am pleased you wrote that.
Would not that also apply to Long?To the papers?To most of the so called evidence? To posters who who post here?

Hi Harry

Yes but you need evidence to challenge any if those. Not just hunches.

Let's look at all of those you mention:

PC Long: do we have any actual evidence to suggest he did not tell the truth?
I have seen none produced; however it seems to some that such is not needed, hunches will do. That is not the way to produce research which stands up to ANY form of serious scrutiny.

The Papers: here we need to differentiate between general articles which, I demonstrated in Bucks Row Project 2, are often grossly inaccurate and different stories often occur in not only same paper, but article; and inquest reports which on the whole appear to be reasonably accurate, yes we get typos and sometimes mistakes, but by analysis of many reports one can normal reach a consensus.

Most of the So Called Evidence?

What exactly do you mean?

We have very little physical evidence, and so have to use the witness statements.
I sense a wish to discard what does not fit preconceived ideas. IF that is so, and I say IF, we might as well just give up and treat the whole subject as fiction.
Such is done by many writers on the subject, and it is no surprise the subject is often looked at with distain by the outside world.

Other Posters: everything ANYONE posts needs to be backed by evidence/sources.
There is a trend to say such is not needed, this is the pathway to "Ancient Aliens" territory.

The Bury people put forward a case based on fact, I personally do not agree but their argument is supported by evidence.

The Apron not being worn is not backed by the evidence, either the paper reports or the Official Report. The idea is reached by selectively discarding or rejecting evidence, the reasons for most often are semantics.

No Steve,the lighting was not an assumption of mine..I distinctly said it was written by a poster that it would have been too dark for the murderer to have written it.
Again I was quoting a source.If you believe that statement to be incorrect,address the poster that made it.

Actually my first comment on that subject did not say you had, the second comment was in relation to your apparent conclusion on what "recently" meant, it is an assumption.
A posters comments are not a source they are an opinion. If they supply data they become a source.



Steve

[etenguy]

If I may interject here, yes, it would indeed apply to PC Long, just as it does to a book author or a poster. The thing is, though, that we don't generally question things we're told unless we have a reason for doing so. Then we ask for elaboration. Authors and posters (if available) can be asked to elaborate, but PC Long can't. So there is no alternative to acceting what he said - not unless there is something in the sources that suggests he was misreported, mistaken, or lied. or did anything in between. And there would also have to be other source-based evidence to support the suggestion. If there is real cause to think a source is wholly unreliable then one sometimes has little choice but to leave it out altogether, otherwise the source has to be treated with caution. But I don't see how either of those alternatives would appply at all to PC Long's testimony. Is there any evidence at all that events were other than he stated?

Just to emphasise your point and to add that not all witnesses are equal. If there was a contradiction between a member of the public and a policeman, who was taking notes as events unfolded - the weight of probability would lie with the policeman's testimony. Unless there was good reason to believe otherwise.

[harry]

Isn't all that has been written about the graffito opinion based?Except that there is overwhelming evidence that it existed, what other evidence is there?
All I have said about Long,is that by his own testimony,he was in that building.If the words were written that night,he had opportunity.What evidence denies that.None. What I haven't said is that he wrote it.Do I have to keep repeating that.
You can twist and turn as much as you wish,but what I read in a book,and repeated in my posts,is fact.Word for word.It was written by noted authors.Give one good reason why I should not have believed it to be factual.
Etenguy,
A policeman in court,is just another witness.His evidence is considered no more valuable than any other witness.It requires the same provenence,
Now if you believe policemen cannot be wrong or do not lie,then check out your beliefs.Historically or otherwise there is plenty of evidence they can,and do.