The word JUWES

[Joshua Rogan]

Today's Jewin Street was apparently known in earlier times as Jews' Garden, or variations theeof. Including, it seems, Jewesgardin and Juesgardyn.
Spelling was a more fluid thing in those days....did the graffito simply feature an archaic spelling of Jews?

[Harry D]

The killer was perhaps hastily retreating back to East End after a hectic night of double murders and, thus, might have had trouble observing proper spelling. Also, writing on a wall or any surface that is not perfectly flat may cause some letters to be illegible. The "u" in "Juwes" might have been an "e", but wasn't clearly written.

That's exactly it. Don't know why people are so resistant to this straightforward and perfectly cogent explanation.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,



Regards,

Simon

[Joshua Rogan]

Thanks Simon, that's very intriguing!
If nothing else, it might explain his spelling of the GSG in his notebook, if not on the wall.

Seems I was a bit behind the times saying "today's Jewin Street"....alas both it and Jewin Crescent have disappeared, but at least have been replaced with some greenery - Thomas More Residents Garden.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

I thought it was intriguing.

Glad you did, too.

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

Today's Jewin Street was apparently known in earlier times as Jews' Garden, or variations theeof. Including, it seems, Jewesgardin and Juesgardyn.
Spelling was a more fluid thing in those days....did the graffito simply feature an archaic spelling of Jews?

Pretty sure you right.
Believe it was Frisian/Dutch.
Jack's father and uncle were master mariners from West Acklam trading in the Baltic.
James Cook was a pretty good captain from the area
Middlesbrough still has a ferry link to Friesland.

Hi Simon,
Gawen Carew says "Hi!".

[Pierre]

Police legitimation for destroying evidence

The police made a mistake by rubbing out the writing on the wall.

They destroyed evidence.

So they used the idea of the Jews to legitimize their destruction of evidence.

The legitimation of the police in 1888 has become the historical interpretation.

Pierre

[DJA]

Perhaps some high ranking police knew who Jack the Ripper was and what the real story was.
That handwriting might have identified him.
A teaching pathologist would be carrying chalk at the start of the Michaelmas term.
Ever wonder who WE Gladstone got his ideas from for his letter to The Times concerning the murders.
Hint,Jack was his protege.

[Joshua Rogan]

Pierre,
There were members of two police forces present in Goulston Street. City officer Halse did not want the GSG erased, yet he still confirmed that the Met police discussed the idea of the message causing a riot against the Jews before it was rubbed out.

[Simon Wood]

Two police witnesses in Goulston Street at approximately the same moment. Yet neither reported seeing the other, the piece of apron, or the chalked message. Yet, within the hour, one of them would discover the piece of apron before anyone knew it was missing, and the other would be the first to notice it was missing from the deceased.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Simon, "same moment" is too precise.

It takes more than one minute to walk the full length of Goulston street.
Is 2:20 when they entered the street, or when they left two or three minutes later?

Or, was one leaving the north end when the other entered the south end?

Claiming they were both at the same place, at the same time, seems intentionally deceptive to me.

[DJA]

Approximately the same moment.
Both of them had the same Juwes message within two words ie that will vs who will.
Long recorded Jews in his notebook,however his Inspector remarked it was Juwes.
Halse recorded Juwes.

[DJA]

Pierre,
There were members of two police forces present in Goulston Street. City officer Halse did not want the GSG erased, yet he still confirmed that the Met police discussed the idea of the message causing a riot against the Jews before it was rubbed out.

Funny that.

Reckon Major Smith knew who Jack the Ripper was.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Intentionally deceptive?

I wrote "at approximately the same moment."

You chose to leave out the qualifier

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon.

My interpretation is confirmed by your, "yet neither reported seeing each other", implying they should have seen each other, in your opinion.

Which in turn shows that your "approximately" was not intended to allow them sufficient time to miss each other.

You do believe they should have seen each other, am I right?