Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Halse version

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Halse version

    Yes, I know, yet another wall writng thread....yawn.

    Its confession time. The wall writing has many variations with the most common one, 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" being the most favoured.

    However, I personally take Halses version, "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing". Don Rumbelow is of similar mind and cites his reason for taking Halses version as the fact Halse was at the scene for some time, and her also argues this version conforms to the 3 lines described.

    Now I know Warren had it copied and to be honest, my conviction isn't 100%. Also, as some of you are aware, I do not feel the killer wrote it.

    The versions change little but what I'm interested in is if Halses version is the correct one, does it change peoples interpretation of its meaning?

    I'm just merely curious.

    Monty




    Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

  • #2
    Hi Monty

    Frankly whichever version was the correct one, and I do think you make a good argument for Halse being right with his rendering, there is still the same double negative. Thus, the statement remains rather nonsensical and hard to interpret in either version.

    All the best

    Chris
    Christopher T. George
    Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
    just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
    For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
    RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

    Comment


    • #3
      versions

      Hello Neil. I think you have an astonishingly good idea here.

      You are right that Halse spent a good deal of time looking at the graffito and, if I recall properly, made a good bit of noise concerning Sir Charles' proposed deletion of it.

      As regards meaning, I think Halse's version makes a good bit more sense than the standard one. Whatever one's view of the GSG, the standard version is all but meaningless.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Monty View Post
        The versions change little but what I'm interested in is if Halses version is the correct one, does it change peoples interpretation of its meaning?
        Both versions have exactly the same meaning and the same number of words. Only the word 'not' is in a different place and this does not affect the meaning of the message. I imagine that the officer who was ordered to transcribe the message before it was erased would have taken care to get it dead right. In my opinion the sentence includes a simple double negative (not/nothing) and hence means 'stop blaming the Jews for everything' and a frenzied disemboweller who had killed one or two women not a million miles away would not, I think, play silly word games.
        allisvanityandvexationofspirit

        Comment


        • #5
          Interesting, Neil. I had forgotten about Rumbelow's endorsing the Halse version. However moving the "not" doesn't aid in my interpretation of the message. I still don't understand it and, in any event, like you, I don't believe that it was written by JtR.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Stephen Thomas View Post
            ..... a frenzied disemboweller who had killed one or two women not a million miles away would not, I think, play silly word games.
            And for those he think he might, then he had ample space and time in Kelly's room to scribble to his hearts content, but nothing....

            Well, besides the FM, lets say


            But to the question of the thread, Longs' version, which incidently appears to have been witnessed by the Inspector, who corrected his spelling, tends to suggest to me that, "The Jews will not accept blame for anything they do". Whereas, Halse's version reads like, "The Jews are not the people to be blamed for just anything".
            So I think the placement of the "not" does influence the intended meaning, but in any case, the small size of the scribble is not consistent with a "hey, look what I did!" attitude argued to be the reason behind the writing in the first place. So, no, not written by the killer.

            Regards, Jon S.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • #7
              connotation

              Hello Stephen, Ken, Jon. Although logically there is no difference, yet the Halse version seems to connote, "If you blame us, then we'll give you a reason to do so."

              Cheers.
              LC

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm constantly amazed at people here who don't understand the use of the double negative which is used in common English speaking for emphasis and has been for hundreds of years. As Spock might have said 'It's grammar, Captain, but not as we know it'. Here's Elvis with a fine double negative in the middle eight of this song.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNNYFdklVJI
                allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                Comment


                • #9
                  "I ain't never did no wrong" - that's a triple negative, isn't it?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                    Hello Stephen, Ken, Jon. Although logically there is no difference, yet the Halse version seems to connote, "If you blame us, then we'll give you a reason to do so."

                    Cheers.
                    LC
                    Hi Lynn, excellent observation.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      truth values

                      Hello Stephen, Robert. Yes. Logically, one need only count the number of negatives to determine truth value. For odd values, T becomes F and vice versa. For even numbers, truth values remain unchained.

                      Cheers.
                      LC

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Brouwer

                        Hello David. Thanks. I am thinking in psychological terms--as in a Brouwer double negative.

                        Cheers.
                        LC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
                          Logically, one need only count the number of negatives to determine truth value. For odd values, T becomes F and vice versa. For even numbers, truth values remain unchained.
                          Thanks Lynn

                          Ahhhh, it all makes perfect sense now...

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brouwer...-point_theorem
                          allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            double negation

                            Hello Stephen. Thanks.

                            The simple version is that Brouwer does not like double negation. He is right insofar as double negation can be used to convey certain psychological states.

                            For example, instead of saying, "It is likely that X" we may say, "It is not unlikely that X." This takes off the harsh edge of a criticism.

                            Cheers.
                            LC

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Monty View Post
                              Yes, I know, yet another wall writng thread....yawn.

                              Its confession time. The wall writing has many variations with the most common one, 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" being the most favoured.

                              However, I personally take Halses version, "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing". Don Rumbelow is of similar mind and cites his reason for taking Halses version as the fact Halse was at the scene for some time, and her also argues this version conforms to the 3 lines described.

                              Now I know Warren had it copied and to be honest, my conviction isn't 100%. Also, as some of you are aware, I do not feel the killer wrote it.

                              The versions change little but what I'm interested in is if Halses version is the correct one, does it change peoples interpretation of its meaning?

                              I'm just merely curious.

                              Monty
                              The former reads to me as: The Jews will be blamed because they deserve it.

                              The latter reads: The Jews will not be blamed for that which is not their fault..

                              The former by a gentile hand.

                              The latter by a Jewish hand.

                              In the event this is an accurate interpretation, it clearly has implications for the author as Jack pointing the finger at 'The Jews' school of thought.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X