The word JUWES

[lynn cates]

graffiti

Hello Rivkah. Thanks. I suppose it is an old story that there was much graffiti in the East End in the LVP.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

interruption

Hello Abby.

"the Ripper was disturbed/interrupted by several Jews that night"

Really? Do we have any evidence for that?

Cheers.
LC

[moonbegger]

Hello Moonbegger,

1) Masons are not the only people to wear aprons. I could name many tradespeople that have nothing to do with 'builders' who wear them.
Butchers, bakers, candlestickmakers, upholsterers, tanners, leather boot workers,,,etc

2) Mitres and squares are tools used in a variety of trades. Including designers, in the case of a square.

3) Mitre Square is built on the site of an old priory, as is the top end of the John Cass school next to it. No Abbot reference in the murder, please note.

4) The placement of the intestines etc, by 'design' is not masonic in its design. Only Stephen Knight put that forward.

5) The writing on the wall reference to Juwes, in Masonic terminology, is not as Knight wrote it either. This has been explained elsewhere by others far more learned than I.
Thank Stephen Knight here too.

No. Incase you wonder. I am not 'on the square' lol.

Best wishes

Phil

Hello Phil ,

I thank you for your enlightenment , But a lesson i learned from Mr Fisherman and Co .. its not the singular clues sitting all by themselves that point a guilty finger .. but the collective ones that all point in the same direction .. I didn't even go down the mutilation and placement of intestines path .. but seeing as you threw it in there ( maybe as a prompt )

And that's not even including the V's cut into Eddows cheeks , her eyelids being sliced , stomach and abdomen being ripped open .. intestines thrown over or on the shoulder, all exactly as portrayed in William Hogarth's ( Reward of cruelty ) which depicts three Masonic Killers carrying out a ritual killing ..

Again , all this could be coincidence , who really knows ?

cheers

moonbegger .

[Phil Carter]

Never stated it was personal Phil,

Stated it was flaming, as it was.

I'm glad you are enjoying the view, may it carry on.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Then complain. By all means- if you KNOW better than me what I wrote and why- with full explanation supplied. If not, kindly stop this 'hidden meaning' assumption stuff. Go chase things that exist, and can damage. That you waste you talented brain doing it surprises me, as some would deem it beneath your good name.
Then again, what do I know? I'm no psychologist type looking for black cats in dark tunnels that arent there.

Thanks for the good wishes. There is never always enough time to enjoy the view fully. So one enjoys whilst one can.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

Then complain. By all means- if you KNOW better than me what I wrote and why- with full explanation supplied. If not, kindly stop this 'hidden meaning' assumption stuff. Go chase things that exist, and can damage. That you waste you talented brain doing it surprises me, as some would deem it beneath your good name.
Then again, what do I know? I'm no psychologist type looking for black cats in dark tunnels that arent there.

Thanks for the good wishes. There is never always enough time to enjoy the view fully. So one enjoys whilst one can.

Best wishes

Phil

Take your own advice and relax Phil.

Never stated anything about 'hidden messages', that's an assumption on your part.

You posted an antagonistic post designed to provoke and cause arguement. Its pretty clear. Nothing hidden in that.

Then make the most of the view and enjoy.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Take your own advice and relax Phil.

Never stated anything about 'hidden messages', that's an assumption on your part.

You posted an antagonistic post designed to provoke and cause arguement. Its pretty clear. Nothing hidden in that.

Then make the most of the view and enjoy.

Monty

Hello Monty,

you have been TOLD- by ME- the writer- the meaning and intentions.
1) it was NOT 'designed to cause argument.
2) it was NOT ' antagonistic'.

You accused me of a trait.

Firstly you accuse Simon of using sarcasm. He told you he didnt.
Then you accuse me of flaming. I told you I didnt.
BOTH were backed up with full explanations. Neither of which you acknowlege.
Then you accuse me of a trait.

It's a good job I dont read a trait in you, isnt it? Im not rude enough to suggest one either. But if you want a pattern of behaviour, look at your own before you judge others.

You have been told by the authors of two posts that your accusations and assumptions are wrong. You are clearly reading into something that isnt there.

Now. KINDLY stop reading into things that arent there. If you want to play games, go play in another yard. If you assume something, check before you accuse.
As I said 4 times now. You are wrong. End of. And if you again carry this on it shows a pattern to deliberately antagonize when told CLEARLY that you ARE in error of judgement of TWO posters intentions.
You are wrong. Period. And whilst you are playing traffic cop on this site, check your own signals. Thank you.

Time for bed said Zeberdee. Am outa here. Boing!

Best wishes

Phil

[RivkahChaya]

"the Ripper was disturbed/interrupted by several Jews that night"

Really? Do we have any evidence for that?

This is an excellent point. Even if we knew for a fact that JTR killed Liz Stride, and that he didn't get to finish whatever he planned because Louis Diemschutz interrupted him, we still don't know that JTR knew that the person who interrupted him was Jewish.

I would suggest for being directly or indirectly to blame for the murders.

Sure they could. But what are the chances that:
It would happen to be found just above a bloody portion of an apron taken from a murder victim.
It would happen to be there in its probable brief appearance at the same time as the apron.
That it would reference Jews, who just happen to have interupted said murderer that night.
That it would have some cryptic message that the Jews are to (or not be) blamed for something.

First of all, whatever the circumstances of the apron and the graffito ending up together, the odds are 100%, because it happened. When you specify an event after it happens, it's an entirely different matter, statistically, from specifying it before it happens. It's like the difference between throwing a dart at a target and hitting the center, or throwing a dart at the wall, and drawing a target around it.

If the apron and graffito hadn't ended up together, the apron would have ended up somewhere. If it ended up some place where it got found, then everything around it would be subject to excessive scrutiny. If there were any graffito, it would be studied. If there were a dead animal, it would probably be taken to the morgue and studied, to make sure it wasn't killed by the same hand, in spite of the fact that there are probably lots of dead animals around. If someone found an old shoe, we would be forever debating whether or not JTR left the crime scene in such haste, that he lost a shoe, and was afraid to stop and pick it up, or whether he left it on purpose, then doubled back, to throw the police off his trail, or whether it wasn't his shoe at all.

I still think the quote sounds like a response to something. Someone says "Don't buy from the [fill in group]; they use shoddy materials," someone else says "At least, they gave me my money back; Jews use shoddy materials, overcharge you, and won't admit when something is their fault," and then someone else agrees that Jews won't take responsibility for anything, in mock-Yiddish dialect: "The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing." He thinks it's funny to suggest that an immigrant Jew can't even spell the word "Jew."

Now, I'm not proposing that is what actually happened. I'm just saying that the phrasing and emphasis make it sound to me like it is a response to something. If I say "I do like that," as opposed to simply "I like that," you don't have to hear the previous conversation to infer that there was some doubt over whether I would like whatever it is. That's how the quote seems to me. But, then, I don't speak 1880s Whitechapel. On the other hand, since it seems to have puzzled even people who did, I'm still going with "we don't have the whole conversation."

I wish a could remember a specific example, but I know that sometimes in New York, you'd see gang graffiti with what seemed like really bizarre insults; things like "Jesus likes cold soup." First, you have to know that "Jesus," pronounced "Hay-soos," is a really common Hispanic name, and has nothing to do with the deity, but then you still don't know whether "cold soup" is a code word for something, like "sloppy seconds," or whether it's the tail end of a conversation, that started out having nothing to do with soup, or maybe it's a veiled threat, that Jesus' drug dealing territory better end at the restaurant that serves vichyssoise.

[Monty]

Hello Monty,

you have been TOLD- by ME- the writer- the meaning and intentions.
1) it was NOT 'designed to cause argument.
2) it was NOT ' antagonistic'.

You accused me of a trait.

Firstly you accuse Simon of using sarcasm. He told you he didnt.
Then you accuse me of flaming. I told you I didnt.
BOTH were backed up with full explanations. Neither of which you acknowlege.
Then you accuse me of a trait.

It's a good job I dont read a trait in you, isnt it? Im not rude enough to suggest one either. But if you want a pattern of behaviour, look at your own before you judge others.

You have been told by the authors of two posts that your accusations and assumptions are wrong. You are clearly reading into something that isnt there.

Now. KINDLY stop reading into things that arent there. If you want to play games, go play in another yard. If you assume something, check before you accuse.
As I said 4 times now. You are wrong. End of. And if you again carry this on it shows a pattern to deliberately antagonize when told CLEARLY that you ARE in error of judgement of TWO posters intentions.
You are wrong. Period. And whilst you are playing traffic cop on this site, check your own signals. Thank you.

Time for bed said Zeberdee. Am outa here. Boing!

Best wishes

Phil

Sigh,

And here we go.

Look at was has now happened. The point has been proven.

I've noted your 'kind' request and decided to ignore it. You know how to make a complaint by now, please feel free to do so.

Monty


PS As for Simon, he speaks for himself. And yes, he was being sarcastic, as were you.

[JDow]

<wades in clutching tuppence>

Man goes to get shoes from a jewish shoemaker. Takes them home. They don't fit. He goes back and asks for them to be adjusted. Shoemaker says it'll cost ya. Man says, no you made them wrong. Shoemaker says they fitted fine before - it's not my fault they don't fit now. Later that evening the disgruntled customer scribbles a nasty note on the wall outside the shoemaker's house.

As plausible as anything. My belief is that the graffito's only significance is that it was written where the apron fragment was found. I don't believe the two are in any way related.

<hands over tuppence, exits stage left>

[Monty]

Thanks for the tuppence Mr Fido.

Monty

[JDow]

Thanks for the tuppence Mr Fido.

Monty

I'll take that as a compliment

[RivkahChaya]

Here's a great example of completely misunderstanding something, until you have the correct context:



(It's a .png. If it doesn't post correctly, I may have to play with it. Be patient.)

That's lifted from Facebook, in case anyone doesn't recognize it.

[Phil H]

I agree entirely that only the presence of the apron scrap caused any attention to be given to the graffito.

The most likely explanation is that Eddowes' killer simply threw the piece of material into the entry, which was the first he came too after finishing cleaning himself up.

No logical or clear interpretation, linking the wording to the killings has ever been offered. Also, the killer does not appear to have used graffito in connection with any other murder.

Like the letters, I see the fascination with the GSG - it provides almost the only sense of character we have for "Jack". But like the letters and the name, I see no reason to believe that Jack had any connection with them or was even aware of them.

The Facebook lift is relevant, and informative.

Phil H

[RivkahChaya]

Another note about erasing it.

By itself, the graffito isn't really alarming. To me, it sounds like someone is suggesting that Jews never have to answer for wrongs they commit, either because the police are afraid of them, or because they close ranks tightly, and protect one another. There were surely much more anti-Semitic things being written and said at the time. I have been personally accused of killing Jesus, and it has also been suggested that I should accompany a collector of WWII memorabilia to a gun-and-knife show, to function as a target. Simply suggesting that I can get away with unspecified crimes for an unspecified reason is nothing. It was only in conjunction with the apron that it became inflammatory, particularly since it was cryptic enough that it can mean almost anything you want.

I can imagine all sorts of things, including the idea that someone else at the crime scene had cut part of the blood-stained apron, and planted it with the graffito, either in an attempt to draw police attention back toward Jews, from which it had wandered since the "leather apron" thing hadn't panned out, or actually to frame someone.

I don't think a passerby cut the apron. I think either JTR did, or, less likely, but plausibly, Eddowes did at some earlier time. I'm just saying that all it takes is someone shouting a conspiracy theory to start a riot, and that's what police were afraid of. The police actually had more to fear from the graffito being an inauthentic attempt the frame or at least falsely accuse the Jewish community, than they did from its being an authentic clue from the Ripper.

That makes me think the police suspected the apron-graffito pairing was a simple coincidence.

[moonbegger]

Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.

This was not a crime scene , Long had taken the apron to the station , there was nothing to connect GSG with the Ripper .. there was anti semitic graffiti everywhere ( apparently ) so why would Warren head down to Goulston street and inflame the whole situation by rubbing out this specific graffiti ..
did he wipe out all the anti Semitic graffiti between there and Mitre Square also ?

moonbegger