Key question regarding the BBC 1973 series and the graffito

[APerno]

"

In the ritual of Master Mason, Hiram Abif was slain by three ruffians collectively termed The Juwes. The three ‘Juwes’ are named as Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum and obviously have a common root in Jubel." That's from Masoncode.com

If that is the case, then there is a hell of a convenience at play here; for the missive author to accidentally spell Jews incorrectly as Juwes seems quite the long shot. But who in Whitechapel would know such information, especially when most seem to agree that the term is usually associated with American Freemasons and not Brits.

[Michael W Richards]

IN the Barlow and Watt series, Watt identifies the JUWES as the three men who murdered the master mason, and points out the similairites in the killing style etc

Now this series appeared three years before Stephen Knight's book, which, as far as I understand it, was inspired by it.

According to Wikipedia there is no evidence for the term JUWES being linked to these men before Knight came along. So where did the BBC programme make the connection from? Did it come from Knight who was already preparing his book? Or is Wikipedia wrong and JUWES can in fact be proven to be the collective name for these men?

"

In the ritual of Master Mason, Hiram Abif was slain by three ruffians collectively termed The Juwes. The three ‘Juwes’ are named as Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum and obviously have a common root in Jubel." That's from Masoncode.com

[Herlock Sholmes]

Parroting the same crap. There is nothing complex about Knight’s nonsense.

This is yet another attempt by you to deflect questions that you cannot, not will not, but cannot answer. You’ve come onto this Forum to supposedly discus the case in general and the Knight story specifically. All of your posts have been Knight/Sickert-related. Unfortunately for you you’ve met with no one that treats the theory with anything but derision (were you surprised at this?). So, have you tried to discuss or to debate your point of view. No, you’ve stamped your feet, thrown your rattle out of the pram and then avoided answering any questions raised. Or when asked a question you’ve answered a different and unconnected one. 99.9% of posters on here if they felt that other posters weren’t fully understanding the complexity of a certain theory would then try to explain that complexity so that the conversation could move forward. Is that what you do? Again no. You just keep repeating the same meaningless phrases to try deflect the spotlight from highlighting the gaping, cavernous holes in the theory.

Its also worth noting that originally there were signs that you even felt that some posters might not have been familiar with Knight’s theory. This doesn’t scream of someone with an interest in the case in general as no-one, absolutely no-one interested in the case couldn’t be aware of Knight’s fantasy.

So, I think it’s a relevant question to ask why you joined in the first place? What was your motive? You clearly refuse to discuss details that don’t back up the theory. You clearly avoid answering questions and viewpoints which differ from your own. You continually made sweeping claims without ever (and I mean, ever) backing them up. You’ve had Simon Wood very politely requesting that you point out the errors in his research and yet predictably you refuse to do so. You keep repeating the same phrases. I think we all can think of a name for this kind of poster. It’s certainly one that no one can take seriously. You’ve have multiple opportunities to discus the case properly. The rest of the posters on here disagree all the time but we generally manage to continue. We usually answer each other’s questions. That’s the way it’s done. Not with you though.

Not surprising though is it. You came on here expecting everyone to be impressed by Knight. You found the opposite and you can’t cope with it. A bit babyish don’t you think?

But if that’s what you want. No problem. I just can’t understand why bring up a to[ic and then refuse to discus the detail simply because posters disagree with you?

[FISHY1118]

Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post
Knights theory is way to complex for you, but thats ok i know some people are a little slow to catch on.

leave it with you .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Knights theory is way to complex for you, but thats ok i know some people are a little slow to catch on.

Is this a joke?

There’s nothing complex about the Knight/Gorman fantasy. It’s very straightforward. We’ve all read the books. The problem is Fishy that we’ve also read real books on the subjects. Books that include honest, factual research. And most of us tend to prefer facts. Provable, demonstrable, written-in-Black-And-White facts. The other very obvious issue with you claiming that it’s too complex is that this is a Forum for debate and discussion and you have had numerous opportunities to explain the complexity to all of us. To put us on the right path. Unfortunately you’ve systematically avoided doing this. We can only draw the very obvious conclusion that you cannot do it. You are incapable of doing so. And incapable of admitting it. You’ve been found out in front of everyone Fishy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.Better you stick to your Lechmere theory. BTW HE WASNT JTR.

Thank you for that post Fishy as it illustrates to everyone you’re inability to read and understand posts.

No one on this Forum has argued against the Lechmere Theory anymore than I have. To say that I’m a proponent of Lechmere is about as wrong as anyone could get on any subject.

[FISHY1118]

Actually ,no they didnt , Knights theory is way to complex for you, but thats ok i know some people are a little slow to catch on .Better you stick to your Lechmere theory. BTW HE WASNT JTR.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Came across this post from PaulB , i wonder if he told you that he made the whole thing up too ? , be interested to know more about the meeting . At the very least im sure we can safely say Joseph believed what was told to him, and not just a made up story he invented for his and knights benefit, as some would believe.

Nope. The most this can mean is that Gorman believed that he was Sickert’s son before the Ripper fantasy was invented. And, as we know from properly documented evidence, there isn’t a word of truth to it. Gorman became embarrassed at Knight’s fantasy and admitted that it was a lie. Then when Melvyn Fairclough wanted to write a book on the subject Gorman retracted his admission and went along with it due to the smell of ££. Then we get the bizarre situation of him distancing himself from Knight but associating himself with Fairclough and the obviously forged Abberline Diaries.

You couldn’t make it up

Well..... actually someone did make it up.

[FISHY1118]

I think I am right in saying that the genesis of the Freemasonic association came out of an early conversation which Ian Sharp had with Joseph Sickert and Harry Jonas when the BBC were in pre-production and had just approached Joseph. "It was purely as a result of a comment by Joseph Sickert that researcher Ian Sharp went to the London Library in St James's Square one afternoon in January 1973 to see if there was any traceable connection between the world's most mysterious society and its most mysterious series of murders". [Knight, hbk, p151]

The new A To Z carries an updated entry for Joseph Sickert which notes that Joseph changed his name legally by Deed Poll to Gorman-Sickert on 8 July 1970. This was approximately two and a half years before BBC were put in touch with him (and five months before Dr. Stowell's theory that Jack the Ripper was the Duke of Clarence was published in The Criminologist. Joseph believed the Duke of Clarence to be his maternal Grandfather, and as far as I know, and I have met Joseph and his family, his daughters recall growing up with that story, so wherever it came from it was not of recent vintage and was something Joseph believed.

All of which pre-dates the involvement of Stephen Knight.

Came across this post from PaulB , i wonder if he told you that he made the whole thing up too ? , be interested to know more about the meeting . At the very least im sure we can safely say Joseph believed what was told to him, and not just a made up story he invented for his and knights benefit, as some would believe.

[Heinrich]

This graffito is a red herring, unrelated to the murder as a clue. It could have been there for days before.

[Carol]

Hi c.d. and Archaic,

Thanks for your posts. Really appreciate them!

Love
Carol

[Archaic]

Hi Carol. You’re right, as is c.d.

There were several different versions of the message reported that we know of, with some of the words slightly rearranged. The reports also contained different spellings of the word 'Jews'. If I remember correctly, two had it as 'Juwes', one as 'Juws', and one as 'Juews'.

Best regards,
Archaic

[c.d.]

Hello Carol,

This seems to imply that only one person actually saw the writing which doesn't seem very likely. And wouldn't someone have questioned his spelling saying are you sure that is how it was written?

c.d.

[Carol]

As some of you already know my knowledge of the Jack the Ripper mystery can be placed on a pinhead and still leave enough room for some angels. Now - I have a recollection of reading somewhere (can't remember where) that the graffiti was rubbed out on the order of a police 'chief' before anyone had actually copied it, and the policeman who had originally seen it wrote it down afterwards. If this is correct, then the spelling of 'Juwes' might have been HIS spelling and the actual wording of the complete sentence might not be EXACTLY as originally written.

Please be kind when you are correcting me.

Love
Carol

[caz]

Further up the street he also wrote "Fatty Finkelstein smells" but that's beside the point.

So not semi-literate then! Ha!

Juwes was the only duff spelling in his neat little sentence so I plump for the carefully placed or casually flung insult.

Love,

Cazual Caz
X