The word JUWES

[MysterySinger]

[GUT]

Well we are talking about 1888.

Doesn't matter what year Psalm 117 refers to the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday to most people, but technically Fri evening into Saturday)

So to try and establish tha Ps 117, and a mention of possible Jews, means Sunday is wrong, pure and simple really.

[MysterySinger]

Doesn't matter what year Psalm 117 refers to the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday to most people, but technically Fri evening into Saturday)

So to try and establish tha Ps 117, and a mention of possible Jews, means Sunday is wrong, pure and simple really.

The quote was taken from here http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea...-of-sunday.cfm

The point being made was around the importance of Sunday as a possible reason for 2 murders being committed that day i.e. a day of worship. I did not mention Jews. You said yourself that Sunday only became a day of worship after Christ. By 1888 I suspect Sunday was well established as a day of worship.

[GUT]

The quote was taken from here http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-tea...-of-sunday.cfm

The point being made was around the importance of Sunday as a possible reason for 2 murders being committed that day i.e. a day of worship. I did not mention Jews. You said yourself that Sunday only became a day of worship after Christ. By 1888 I suspect Sunday was well established as a day of worship.

No doubt that by 1888 Sunday was a day of Worship.

But Psalm 117 isn't about Sunday.

If you want to make an argument about Sunday, by all means do so, but don't quote a Bible verse that has NOTHING, nothing at all to do with Sunday.

[MysterySinger]

No doubt that by 1888 Sunday was a day of Worship.

But Psalm 117 isn't about Sunday.

If you want to make an argument about Sunday, by all means do so, but don't quote a Bible verse that has NOTHING, nothing at all to do with Sunday.

Since I'm quoting from the web and from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops I think I'll accept their view of Sunday. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

[DJA]

Actually Psalm 117:24

Refers to the Sabath (Saturday) not Sunday.

Sunday inly became a day if Worship after Christ.

But hey let's not let facts get in the way.

The Saturday night was Michaelmas.

Start of the the teaching year or Michaelmas term.
Easy to understand a lecturer having chalk in his pocket.

Also the start of the legal Michaelmas term. Oddly.

Also a Blue Mass.

Suspect some Annual General Meetings might have been held around that date.

Juwes was a Frisian word for Jews.

So we have a possible lecturer capable of extracting a kidney very quickly who may have lived in a community with a Frisian percentage.

He may have attended an AGM at Alie Street placing him in that part of town.

Hmm.

Edit. First two murders were around Hanbury Street late at night/morning.

Perhaps that was his route home.

[Abby Normal]

For what it is worth I will repeat what I have said before.

Until some firm evidence is provided that the apron and GSG are linked I will continue to believe that the writing as no relationship to the murders.

Of course such proof does not exist. As far as I know, it is circumstantial. based on the location of the piece of Apron, and writing found near to it.

There are a hundred, if not more explanations of what the GSG means, none of which can be proven.

Must say Suspectzero that I do like yours, unfortunately I don't believe it.

I am quite prepared to accept that i may be 100% wrong on my view of the GSG
regards

Steve

Hi Steve
I think the ripper was NOT planning a double event. Like most serial killers he was intending to do what he had been doing before.And that was to kill, mutilate and take internal organs of a victim.

Therefore when he was interrupted with stride, he continued on until he found another victim in eddowes to complete his true intentions.

I Beleive he cut her apron to carry the organs in and then went to his bolt hole.

Since he was "interrupted" three separate times that night by Jewish men, one who had a "heavy" Jewish appearance whom he yelled a racial slur, it seems he was extremely angered by the Jewish witnesses.

The pc said the apron wasn't there the first time around, so it seems that the ripper did go home first, perhaps to clean up, drop off trophies perhaps get cleaned up a bit. But he's now got the apron also, that has served its purpose and he needs to get rid of it, but obviously doesn't want to just throw it out in his place. He needs to head back out and get rid of it. But he's still stewing about all those Jews who kept interrupting him, and who may be shortly giving his description to the police.

What better way to get back at them and to throw of the police than to implicate your accusers?

He grabs some chalk and heads out to the nearest building that's associated with Jews, drops the apron, and writes the graffiti.

Many of the police at the time thought it was written by the killer, and they might have other more reasons to Beleive this, other than just their opinion. Maybe they knew something else we don't know? Either way many police continued to think that it was written by the killer, unlike other writings that police eventually came to beleive were hoaxes.

The police don't mention any other graffiti in the area and anti Semitic graffiti wouldn't last the light of day in the doorway of Jewish residence, so it's likely that the graffiti was recent and probably unique for the immediate area at that time.

If you look at the big picture, adding this all up, IMHO it seems most likely that the graffiti was written by the killer, probably because he was angry with being interrupted by Jews that night and or to throw off the police.

And I would also guess that he probably lived pretty close to the went worth buildings.

[GUT]

Since I'm quoting from the web and from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops I think I'll accept their view of Sunday. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

And therein lie the problem.

I'm quoting from the primary source, the Bible.

[GUT]

The Saturday night was Michaelmas.

Start of the the teaching year or Michaelmas term.
Easy to understand a lecturer having chalk in his pocket.

Also the start of the legal Michaelmas term. Oddly.

Also a Blue Mass.

Suspect some Annual General Meetings might have been held around that date.

Juwes was a Frisian word for Jews.

So we have a possible lecturer capable of extracting a kidney very quickly who may have lived in a community with a Frisian percentage.

He may have attended an AGM at Alie Street placing him in that part of town.

Hmm.

Edit. First two murders were around Hanbury Street late at night/morning.

Perhaps that was his route home.

More likely than the attempt to try and tie the Sabbath to Sunday.

Genuine question that I have researched yet.

Did lecturers (or ven school teachers) use chalk in 1880s?

[DJA]

Yep.

Often on big double upward sliding green boards.

Effectively four to six boards to be prepared for Monday.

One piece of chalk will not do the job.

Probably had several in his pocket.

In a neat schoolboy hand of course.

[Scott Nelson]

IMHO it seems most likely that the graffiti was written by the killer, probably because he was angry with being interrupted by Jews that night and or to throw off the police.

And I would also guess that he probably lived pretty close to the went worth buildings.

He wouldn't know he was interrupted by Jews. And, yes, the young lad who wrote the graffito lived "close" to the Wentworth Buildings.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve
I think the ripper was NOT planning a double event. Like most serial killers he was intending to do what he had been doing before.And that was to kill, mutilate and take internal organs of a victim.

Therefore when he was interrupted with stride, he continued on until he found another victim in eddowes to complete his true intentions.

I Beleive he cut her apron to carry the organs in and then went to his bolt hole.

Since he was "interrupted" three separate times that night by Jewish men, one who had a "heavy" Jewish appearance whom he yelled a racial slur, it seems he was extremely angered by the Jewish witnesses.

The pc said the apron wasn't there the first time around, so it seems that the ripper did go home first, perhaps to clean up, drop off trophies perhaps get cleaned up a bit. But he's now got the apron also, that has served its purpose and he needs to get rid of it, but obviously doesn't want to just throw it out in his place. He needs to head back out and get rid of it. But he's still stewing about all those Jews who kept interrupting him, and who may be shortly giving his description to the police.

What better way to get back at them and to throw of the police than to implicate your accusers?

He grabs some chalk and heads out to the nearest building that's associated with Jews, drops the apron, and writes the graffiti.

Many of the police at the time thought it was written by the killer, and they might have other more reasons to Beleive this, other than just their opinion. Maybe they knew something else we don't know? Either way many police continued to think that it was written by the killer, unlike other writings that police eventually came to beleive were hoaxes.

The police don't mention any other graffiti in the area and anti Semitic graffiti wouldn't last the light of day in the doorway of Jewish residence, so it's likely that the graffiti was recent and probably unique for the immediate area at that time.

If you look at the big picture, adding this all up, IMHO it seems most likely that the graffiti was written by the killer, probably because he was angry with being interrupted by Jews that night and or to throw off the police.

And I would also guess that he probably lived pretty close to the went worth buildings.

Hi Abby

Agree with you up until "Bolt hole". The rest I will have to disagree with you on.


I don't see how he was interrupted three times by Jewish men:

Once by Schwartz possibly yes.
When the Pony arrived possibly two, but if Schwartz had already interrupted surely he was gone by then( I really don't see that as 2, I think its either one or the other, but understand you making it 2)

He was possibly seen by others at Church Passage but not interrupted and may well not have even noticed them.
I am not 100% convinced the couple were Eddowes and killer, can see it as low as 60%, probable, but not certain, and that a discussion for another day.

The apron could have been missed on an earlier beat, that is possible I think.

The writing of a message to throw off the scent is too complicated for me, always take the simpler choice unless evidence to the contrary on anything

Your point about the some police believing it is related is of course true.
The same was however true of the tape recording received by the Police in the Yorkshire Ripper case, which of course was a fake.
I will say as I do to to any I disagree with, there is lack of real evidence in my humble opinion to support the argument, in this case for the GSG.


The police did not not mention( double neg, see us Londoners still do it)any other graffiti, so that is I believe neutral, it does not preclude there being any.

Yes it may not last long, but if it were written the evening before, then it is still possible it would have been there at the time the apron was found. Indeed it is probable it would still be there, the PC only saw it using his light.


Sorry Abby, I never have accepted the GSG as related, and will continue to do so until someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary.

we do agree that it wasn't planned

all the best

Steve

[Abby Normal]

He wouldn't know he was interrupted by Jews. And, yes, the young lad who wrote the graffito lived "close" to the Wentworth Buildings.

well considering he yelled lipski at one of them...

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Agree with you up until "Bolt hole". The rest I will have to disagree with you on.


I don't see how he was interrupted three times by Jewish men:

Once by Schwartz possibly yes.
When the Pony arrived possibly two, but if Schwartz had already interrupted surely he was gone by then( I really don't see that as 2, I think its either one or the other, but understand you making it 2)

He was possibly seen by others at Church Passage but not interrupted and may well not have even noticed them.
I am not 100% convinced the couple were Eddowes and killer, can see it as low as 60%, probable, but not certain, and that a discussion for another day.

The apron could have been missed on an earlier beat, that is possible I think.

The writing of a message to throw off the scent is too complicated for me, always take the simpler choice unless evidence to the contrary on anything

Your point about the some police believing it is related is of course true.
The same was however true of the tape recording received by the Police in the Yorkshire Ripper case, which of course was a fake.
I will say as I do to to any I disagree with, there is lack of real evidence in my humble opinion to support the argument, in this case for the GSG.


The police did not not mention( double neg, see us Londoners still do it)any other graffiti, so that is I believe neutral, it does not preclude there being any.

Yes it may not last long, but if it were written the evening before, then it is still possible it would have been there at the time the apron was found. Indeed it is probable it would still be there, the PC only saw it using his light.


Sorry Abby, I never have accepted the GSG as related, and will continue to do so until someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary.

we do agree that it wasn't planned

all the best

Steve

hi steve
fair enough. I just find when all things taken together and looking at the big picture, I just come to the conclusion that it was written by the killer. But of course it may not have been.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

Agree with you up until "Bolt hole". The rest I will have to disagree with you on.


I don't see how he was interrupted three times by Jewish men:

Once by Schwartz possibly yes.
When the Pony arrived possibly two, but if Schwartz had already interrupted surely he was gone by then( I really don't see that as 2, I think its either one or the other, but understand you making it 2)

He was possibly seen by others at Church Passage but not interrupted and may well not have even noticed them.
I am not 100% convinced the couple were Eddowes and killer, can see it as low as 60%, probable, but not certain, and that a discussion for another day.

The apron could have been missed on an earlier beat, that is possible I think.

The writing of a message to throw off the scent is too complicated for me, always take the simpler choice unless evidence to the contrary on anything

Your point about the some police believing it is related is of course true.
The same was however true of the tape recording received by the Police in the Yorkshire Ripper case, which of course was a fake.
I will say as I do to to any I disagree with, there is lack of real evidence in my humble opinion to support the argument, in this case for the GSG.


The police did not not mention( double neg, see us Londoners still do it)any other graffiti, so that is I believe neutral, it does not preclude there being any.

Yes it may not last long, but if it were written the evening before, then it is still possible it would have been there at the time the apron was found. Indeed it is probable it would still be there, the PC only saw it using his light.


Sorry Abby, I never have accepted the GSG as related, and will continue to do so until someone provides compelling evidence to the contrary.

we do agree that it wasn't planned

all the best

Steve

hi again steve
why do you think he cut the apron and dropped where he did?