The word JUWES

[GUT]

Jack the Nipper

This mob probly don't know what a nipper are

[curious4]

This isn't really the kind of graffiti a child would write, though. Apart from the latest "rude" words they had learned, an anti-jewish message is more likely to be personal. "Old Isaac is a w*nker", for example. Or something they could earn a penny or so such as "use Bloggs' blacking, it's the best!). I looked up some Victorian graffiti some time ago and as far as I could see it was mostly along these lines.

I don't see a child writing the GSG.

Best wishes
C4

[DJA]

This mob probly don't know what a nipper are

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vic...eb2fdb6f2f1b1e

[Abby Normal]

This isn't really the kind of graffiti a child would write, though. Apart from the latest "rude" words they had learned, an anti-jewish message is more likely to be personal. "Old Isaac is a w*nker", for example. Or something they could earn a penny or so such as "use Bloggs' blacking, it's the best!). I looked up some Victorian graffiti some time ago and as far as I could see it was mostly along these lines.

I don't see a child writing the GSG.

Best wishes
C4

Good point-either do I.

And it was probably meant to be confusing and ambiguous.

[Elamarna]

Dear Abby and Curious4

Scott was talking about a 15 year old, in 1888 it is debatable if that was a child, indeed it still is today in many quarters.

Uk the age of consent is 16.
Scotland you can vote in local elections at 16.

While 15 year olds may not be fully adult, many, not all, should certainly not be considered as children from a mental development point of view.
I feel it is a gross generalization that a 15 year was not capable of writing the GSG

cheers

steve

[Harry D]

When all's said and done, you can go around and around in circles and exhaust every avenue, but only the person who wrote that graffiti knew the true sentiment they were trying to express. If it was written by the Ripper then it's little more than the vague scribblings of a madman.

[curious4]

Dear Abby and Curious4

Scott was talking about a 15 year old, in 1888 it is debatable if that was a child, indeed it still is today in many quarters.

Uk the age of consent is 16.
Scotland you can vote in local elections at 16.

While 15 year olds may not be fully adult, many, not all, should certainly not be considered as children from a mental development point of view.
I feel it is a gross generalization that a 15 year was not capable of writing the GSG

cheers

steve

Insomuch that a fifteen-year-old would be capable of writing the words, but in my experience fifteen-year-old boys have their minds on completely different things and the message itself is somewhat sophisticated for a fifteen-year-old. Actually I took the post for a joke, but if
It wasn't, who was he?

Best wishes
C4

[Elamarna]

Insomuch that a fifteen-year-old would be capable of writing the words, but in my experience fifteen-year-old boys have their minds on completely different things and the message itself is somewhat sophisticated for a fifteen-year-old. Actually I took the post for a joke, but if
It wasn't, who was he?

Best wishes
C4

Honestly Curious4 I have no idea , I assume someone Scott has come across in his research. Interestingly I took it he was serious, funny how we all interoperate differently.

guess we would need him to confirm what he meant.

cheers

Steve

[Errata]

The author lent it as much significance with his language as "Eat At Joe's". The double negative lends it a sinister air the actual message probably doesn't really deserve. One hears an uneducated drawl in his/her head when we read it, like a stereotypical bully or a street kid from the 30s. One not about to burst into song (it happens). But the message itself is almost word salad. And people who like puzzles LOVE word salad. It seems so significant, like if you could just peek under one more layer you would get it.

Not only do I not know why the Ripper would write such a thing, I don't know why not the Ripper would write such a thing. Like some poor kid got dared to write something on the wall, and his mind suddenly emptied of any innuendo, curse words, slang, or vitriol. And in his completely blanked state he wrote quite possibly the mildest epithet ever to be passed down through the ages. And that happens. Anyone here who is funny knows exactly what happens when at a party and a friend says "Oh! Say something funny!" and suddenly all you can think of is the weather forecast for the weekend. I wonder if this is an example of someone failing when put on the spot? Even maybe the Ripper, who got the chalk out with foul intentions and when faced with the wall felt his mind completely empty. Or lock up like an intransigent vault. Like someone said to him "Oh! Say something significant and full of portent!" and like anyone else in that situation, he choked.

Maybe he can't be good at everything.

[Pierre]

1. We are given a religious text from a prophet, obviously this is important!

The importance lies in the theme of the text. It is functional and applies not just to the traditional suffering servant.

2. We are given a line which is poorly constructed in English.

3. The 3rd sentence just states what is true of everybody, we all have a history.

But our history usually don´t influence us to become serial killers.

4. Another sentence which talks in generalisations, at some stage we all feel wronged.

And we usually don´t murder because of that.

5. Having started with a religious text, now we are told it has nothing to do with religion.

Yes, and it hadn´t.

6. A line which says if we are smart we will understand, if we do not we are obviously not smart

It is a matter of being smart or smarter perhaps.

This could be from a horoscope, its the trick they use: generalise, say something which can seem important to anyone or about anyone.

Comparing this to irrelevant things says nothing.

I do wonder looking at the above:
Does Pierre feels wronged?

Certainly not. The text is about the killer. Not about me, Steve.

or does he see himself in the role of the prophet?

Definitely not. I don´t like prophets.

Delivering us from the evil of the VAMPIRE as he taken to calling the killer.

I am not sure people want to be delivered. They seem to like him. They all love Jack.

The post is without true purpose other than to serve the writers ever increasing need.

I just want to make way for some good understanding of the world of the killer.



Fortunatly both Lewis Carroll and C S Lewis wrote better.

I agree. And I am not a writer.

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vic...eb2fdb6f2f1b1e

Think you've gotta be a subscriber.

[c.d.]

When all's said and done, you can go around and around in circles and exhaust every avenue, but only the person who wrote that graffiti knew the true sentiment they were trying to express. If it was written by the Ripper then it's little more than the vague scribblings of a madman.

Damn, Harry.

You nail it every time. You are one of the most common sense posters on these boards.

c.d.

[DJA]

Think you've gotta be a subscriber.

Oops.

It was really good too. White pointers and everything......um.not sharks

Just checked with a Pommie who comes out here once a week.....nippers are small children there also.

Not miniature life saving heroes but.

[Mister Whitechapel]

Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere on these boards, on in this very thread, but just wanted to flag - perhaps even just for myself - that "Juwes" appears as a surname in Ancestry.co.uk, granted not very frequently (once in 1672, once in 1816, and once in 1912).

Whilst I cannot find reference to that name in London (closest is Portsmouth), it is not more likely that this less to be about the Jewish population, despite Warren's concern, and more an unfortunate co-incidence that the writer had an issue with the male members of a local, but currently undocumented, Juwes family?

Again, apologies if this has already been covered.

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[Rosella]

Interesting, Mr Whitechapel. However, why would someone who had a bone to pick with a local family named Juwes choose to chalk a message to said family on a wall of the Wentworth Dwellings? If there was a family of Juwes living there fair enough, but wouldn't the police at the time have checked on the names of all tenants when pursuing their investigations into the apron being thrown down in the entry, and put two and two together? Perhaps they were remiss and didn't bother, who knows, but it's to be hoped that they did!