The word JUWES

[Bridewell]

1) The word [ Juwes ] a tedious and flimsy historical link to the origins of Freemasonry ( most definitely coincidence or misspelt )

Is there even a tedious and flimsy link, rather than just a mis-spelling?

2) Written on the Inner ARCH ( once again ridicules to assume a connection)

Ridiculous indeed, as it wasn't an arch and certainly not an inner one.

3) The Capitalized J M B ( again Coincidental, and nothing more )

My understanding is that the wording was:
"The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing".
The capitals are therefore: T J T W B. No capital 'M' - no masonic link.

4) The carefully sliced off and bloodied APRON.. I'm sure the killer had no real intention of deliberately taking any particular piece ( again Coincidence )

Part of the apron was cut off.

5) Eddows butchered in MITRE SQUARE .. ( uncanny coincidence )

Coincidence with what?

6) Warren .. Leading Freemason erases message from the wall ! ( Nothing suspicious there )

Erases message but preserves the content. Agreed - not suspicious. Not, in my view, the correct decision, but not remotely suspicious either.

Now it is obvious to me that all this is coincidence , and I'm sure that if we look hard enough, there are plenty other ways to make 6 solid connections between the GSG and anyone we desire ?

If there were six solid connections to anyone it would be interesting, but there aren't. The murder was committed near a club frequented by Jews; the apron was dumped in the entrance to a tenement occupied mainly by Jews and the GSG alluded to Juwes.

I doubt if the GSG has any connection to the murder - although I do think that it should have been preserved on a 'belt & braces' basis.

If this was an attempt to link the murders to Fremasonry, why not write:
'The Freemasons are The men that Will not be Blamed for these murders' so as to leave no-one in any doubt?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Mr Lucky]

Hi Mr Lucky,

Are you taking everything into consideration?

Light? Position? Distance?

Im intrigued on how you would tackle these 3 issues.

When would you have taken the photograph? From what position exactly would you have taken the photo, and what equipment would you have used?

Hi Monty,

Have we got any contemporary material which suggest that the reason the graffito was erased was due to Warrens belief that is was nigh on impossible to photograph? No, So where are we going with this?

But to give an answer, the position of the camera is a big problem, as directly opposite would be too close to focus. The easiest solution would be to take a photo of a 45 degree reflection in a mirror.

Edit - Oops, just thought backwards writing!

The Kelly photo was taken in what was a wider area than the door entrance of Wentworth Dwellings, also taken during the well lit afternoon. Comapring the two isnt a fair IMHO.

I’m not actually comparing the two photographs I’m making a judgement about the skill of the chap who took the photographs of mjk room, I think if he had had the right kit he could have taken a picture of GSG.

As I mentioned before white writing on a black background makes the whole exercise so much likelier to succeed than other combinations of colours, pink chalk on pale green background would have been a different kettle of fish altogether.

Anyway, As I said, I believe some of the difficulties are being over played, I’m not suggesting there are no difficulties. If you believe it could not be photographed that’s fine, but I’ll leave it at that.

[Monty]

Hi Mr Lucky,

I merely ask because I am curious, nothing more. So the defensive tone isn't required.

No, we do not have evidence that it was erased because Warren felt the writing could not be photographed. However we do have evidence in that the difficulties existed. That is the suggestion that they waited for the right lighting.

Yes, the position would have been the major issue. Your suggestion of using a mirror would mean either the camera or the mirror itself would have to be inside the entrance, and therefore in darkness. Plus the reflection of the flash would render such a photo useless.

I agree with background colouring, and the description of the Goulston st writing (white on black) made it ideal for photographing.

You have your opinion, and that's fine with me, however there were difficulties. Sure, these difficulties could have been overcome (though the position would have remained an issue) with time.

Unfortunately Warren felt they didn't have that luxury.

Monty

[Errata]

Here's what I don't get. Being a Freemason is part of being wealthy and elite. So why is a Freemason writing on a residential wall in one of the poorest neighborhoods to be had? Why be there at all, much less scribbling on walls?

[Cogidubnus]

Here's what I don't get. Being a Freemason is part of being wealthy and elite.

Erm no...I know at least two bus drivers and one school caretaker who are Freemasons...and they're certainly not paid that much!

All the best

Dave

Edited to add PS - that's NOT to say I support any of the masonic theories!

[Supe]

Mr. Lucky,

But to give an answer, the position of the camera is a big problem, as directly opposite would be too close to focus. The easiest solution would be to take a photo of a 45 degree reflection in a mirror.

Edit - Oops, just thought backwards writing!

No, that is not how you would do it, nor would it be necessarily "too close to focus." And as for your "backward writing," you would simply flip the glass negative. While it resulted in some degredation of the printed image, it was done all the time for effect.

Don.

[RivkahChaya]

But to give an answer, the position of the camera is a big problem, as directly opposite would be too close to focus. The easiest solution would be to take a photo of a 45 degree reflection in a mirror.

What? then the light has to travel the whole distance to the wall, plus the distance to the mirror. You must not wear glasses.

Hello Lucky, Don. To see how difficult night time photography was in olden times, you might have a go at F W Murnau's 1922, "Nosferatu." The midnight meeting between Dracula and Jonathan Harker was filmed during the day. Rather spoils the effect

Cheers.
LC

In 1922, that scene was tinted in dark blue after it was developed. I saw a nicely restored DVD print on an HDTV a couple of years ago, and it looked great. It had all the tintings where they were supposed to be.

But year, that is a problem with any silent film, as the prints were tinted after they were developed. Sometime around the development of sound (a little, I think, but I don't remember exactly), cameramen starting putting filters on the lenses for nighttime scenes, and that was pretty much the standard up through the 1950s. Now, with CGI, sometimes things are shot in full light, and the "night" is added later by a computer. It's done that way, so the director can choose "how much night," so to speak. Once it's shot in the dark, it stays dark, but if it's shot in full light, you have choices.

Oh, and in Nosferatu, he's called "Orlock," not "Dracula." That was supposed to keep the Widow Stoker from noticing and suing, but it didn't work.

Hello Rivkah,

Er, aren't you doing exactly what you said you hate other people doing? Regarding Catherine, I mean? And hasn't it been established that there is no such thing as Bright's disease?

No, I'm not, because we have the word of at least one doctor that Eddowes intact kidney showed signs of Bright's disease, which I'm not claiming doesn't exist; it's just an old-fashioned term for a collection of nephritic conditions, and I'm not going to guess which one Eddowes had. People get the same diseases that used to be called Bright's disease, they just aren't called that. It like the way people don't get "dropsy" anymore, but they still get the same edemic conditions that used to be called that. I would like it if I had access to a good description of intact kidney, a family history, and her own medical history, or at least recent medical treatments, because then possibly a doctor could narrow down what sort of nephritic condition she had, because it would be good information to have about her. Unless I decide to write a work of fiction, I'm not going to speculate further.

But note that in Eddowes case, we are talking about a real person with at least some sort of illness attested to by a doctor at the time. Plus, I gave that example as something not to do, and someone else picked up on it. I probably should have kept shut about it.

With the JTR letters, you can't speculate that JTR was dyslexic, because you don't know anything about the writer. First, you don't know for absolute certain that it was JTR. Second, you don't know that whoever wrote them, whether the killer or a hoaxer, wasn't making a deliberate attempt to disguise his writing, and may therefore have made purposeful mistakes. You also do not know that the letters were not written when the writer was in a highly stressful state, and made mistakes he would not have made otherwise.

It's a little off topic, but I read an article once that people who are bipolar sometimes have handwriting that looks different when they are in manic vs. depressive states, and tend to make more mechanical errors in writing or typing when in a manic state. It was a preliminary study with a small sample size, but it was people who were previously diagnosed, not diagnosed for the study. I realize that may not have any bearing, because the excitable state of a psychopath who has just committed a murder may not be comparable to that of a bipolar person who is manic.

It's just that you have a very tiny sample, about which you know virtually nothing. I think any expert on dyslexia would tell you that you need a bigger sample, albeit, even if you had one, and could say that yes, this writer, assuming a normal education, was probably dyslexia, that tells us nothing about Jack the Ripper. All we know is that either JTR or one of the hoaxers had a high probability of being dyslexic. We can't make any conclusions about how dyslexia may have affected JTR without independent proof that the letter was written by him.

Then, too, I would wonder about someone with dyslexia, in the 1880s, choosing either to write to the police to taunt the, as the killer, or to send hoax letters. People with all but the very mildest dyslexia usually remained illiterate back then, unless they were from really wealthy families, and had private tutors. And, I really question diagnosing very mild dyslexia from a small sample.

[Mr Lucky]

No, that is not how you would do it, nor would it be necessarily "too close to focus." And as for your "backward writing," you would simply flip the glass negative. While it resulted in some degredation of the printed image, it was done all the time for effect.

Don.

Ok, if you can focus on the image, then there aren't any problems photographing it.

[Phil Carter]

Hello All,

Just to clear up a few Ripper connected Masonic related points, etc.

Stephen Knight expanded on Joseph Gorman Sickert's idea in his book 'Jack the Ripper' 'The Final Solution. Between them..and you'll pardon the pun, they painted a pretty picture. Gorman went on to team up with Melvin Fairclough and introduced more Freemasons into the plot after having first 'apparently' been annoyed by Knight who introduced Walter Sickert, not Robert Anderson as the third of an unlikely trio of killers (Gull, Netley, Sickert), then after a couple of years or so called his own, and Knight's story a 'whopping fib' and retracted it, then retracted the retraction and then Fairclough was fed the follow up story in ' The Ripper and the Royals'.
Knight was mo longer alive at this point in time.

Stephen Knight'wrote a follow up book ' Inside The Brotherhood' and this was an attempt to 'reveal' 'more' shady goings on within the movement.
Without going into detail, which isnt needed here, for the most part he failed, although a few startling facts did emerge, including an all police Lodge in central London, and the revelations that many of the highest ranked policemen of the Met were Freemasons, at that time.
He also repeated his claim that the Ripper Murders were committed by and on beihalf of Freemasonary, to clear up the PAV scandle.

Grand Lodge was, at this time, still very anxious to keep its secrecy in tact, and issued various statements on the subject. One of which was that Freemasonary was not a 'secret society' as had been claimed, but a 'society with secrets'. They also stated that according to their very complete secords, certain policemen that Knight and Gorman said were Freemasons, were infact NOT Freemasons.

However, such was both the popularity of the Ripper book and the ?two? masonic follow ups that pressure on the movement was immense, for them to become more open. It took a complete qe think for this to happen and today Freemasonary in England, through Grand Lodge, is a very open society, compared with the mid 70's.

One thing the books caused, and specifically the follow-up book, was an internal statement from Grand Lodge sent out to EVERY lodge in the country instructing all Freemasons to refrain from any sort of comment to any question relating to Stephen Knight's work. The reason was the bombardment of questions the individual7 were getting from non-members

Masonic terminology sprang forth at this time and questions Freemason's themselves purportedly used, such as 'Are you on the Square' became public knowledge to a greater degree than before. The tools 'Mitre' and 'Square' and suchlke were now woven into Ripper folklore. ANY possible 'connection' was looked for and made note of. People started to 'invent' reasons why the 'plot' was genuine. The one thing that did happen was the 'revealing' of which policeman from 1888 was or was not a Freemason. Though nearly ALL such comments were made anyoymously, for fear of 'reprisals'...whatever that meant.

Knight's books were a mixture of truth, false mistruths and misunderstood truths due jo varying reasons, including mixing up English Freemasonary and Scottish masonry.
Scottish variety being more connected to the American version than the Engiish one.

So anyone looking today for 'links' to Freemasonary havea problem that with the exceptioo of a few Royals being members, together with the known names from the police at the time, any 'words' are purely coincidence. Symbolistic claims within the murders or the way the murders were carried out are mostly a product of Messrs Gorman and Sickert themselves. Read anything else and one is indeed tightrope walking.

Thanks to the recent openess of the society, people are not now advised to not answer if they aqge a Mason, but to answer truthfully. Also, the main comment is that the focus is far more on its benevolentcy than any secrets,

best wishes

Phil

[moonbegger]

This is Long's testimony as reported in The Echo of 11 October 1888:

Police-constable Alfred Long, of the Metropolitan Police, deposed to finding a portion of the murdered woman's apron in Goulston-street - in a passage leading to 118 and 118 [sic], a model block of dwellings. In the wall above where the apron was found was written in chalk "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." Witness took the piece of apron to Commercial-road Station, and reported the matter to the inspector on duty. Witness had passed the spot at 2.20. It was not there then. He discovered it at 2.55 on the morning of the murder.

I think it was also published a few days before in the star ..

So my question is , if it was such a big worry for everyone concerned if this anti semitic graffiti reached the street on the morning of the murders , Why was it perfectly OK to release all the information ( give or take the absence of the word "Juwes" ) just a few days later, for the whole of London to ponder over ?

cheers

moonbegger

[RivkahChaya]

Were the people responsible for deciding to remove the graffito aware of the body of Stride being found just outside a Jewish club, and by the time the words were published, and they cleared all the men in the club (by alibi)? Maybe the assumption was that the graffito referred especially to the Stride murder.

I always sort of thought the reluctance to drop Stride from the canon was partly because the postcard that mentioned the "double event" went with her, but also the graffito, since she was the one who was around Jews that night.

[Monty]

This is Long's testimony as reported in The Echo of 11 October 1888:



I think it was also published a few days before in the star ..

So my question is , if it was such a big worry for everyone concerned if this anti semitic graffiti reached the street on the morning of the murders , Why was it perfectly OK to release all the information ( give or take the absence of the word "Juwes" ) just a few days later, for the whole of London to ponder over ?

cheers

moonbegger

Beacuse Arnold had then time to organise his forces to cover such incidents.

Monty

[curious4]

Were the people responsible for deciding to remove the graffito aware of the body of Stride being found just outside a Jewish club, and by the time the words were published, and they cleared all the men in the club (by alibi)? Maybe the assumption was that the graffito referred especially to the Stride murder.

I always sort of thought the reluctance to drop Stride from the canon was partly because the postcard that mentioned the "double event" went with her, but also the graffito, since she was the one who was around Jews that night.

Hello Ritvah,

I have had difficulty in posting and no time to post in full again, so will say only this in the true spirit of the Jtr Casebook message boards: I'm right, you're wrong! I suspect logic doesn't cut it with you anyway.

C4

P.S. Once again, it wasn't a jewish club, it was a socialist club, a working men's club.

[Fisherman]

Rivkah:

"I always sort of thought the reluctance to drop Stride from the canon was partly because the postcard that mentioned the "double event" went with her, but also the graffito, since she was the one who was around Jews that night."

Donīt forget that the Imperial Club was a Jewish club, Rivkah - and that there was a synagogue (hereīs a link: http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...?album=5&pos=9) directly nearby, as Eddowes was killed. Myself, I donīt invest much in the Jewish connection - it would have been hard to find a strictly un-jewish venue to kill in, in them parts.

The best,
Fisherman

[Errata]

Erm no...I know at least two bus drivers and one school caretaker who are Freemasons...and they're certainly not paid that much!

All the best

Dave

Edited to add PS - that's NOT to say I support any of the masonic theories!

Yes, freemasonry has many working class people. But it was not always so.