Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The word JUWES

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wickerman
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Wickerman,

    Intentionally deceptive?

    I wrote "at approximately the same moment."

    You chose to leave out the qualifier

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by DJA; 08-05-2017, 04:47 PM. Reason: Approximately

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pierre
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
    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!".

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Joshua,

    I thought it was intriguing.

    Glad you did, too.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Joshua,

    Click image for larger version

Name:	HALSE 1881 CENSUS.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	65.0 KB
ID:	667047

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Originally posted by YomRippur View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joshua Rogan
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X