The word JUWES

[Monty]

Hmmmm....
Can we conclude from this that high literacy and observation skills were not essential requirements for policemen?

Examinations were taken by candidates, however superintendents around the 1870s were complaining about the literacy levels of their men, around the time Long joined.

I suspect the copper plate style drew some confusion, but does not explain the lack of clarity.

Monty

[Joshua Rogan]

However Juwes was a Frisian or Friesland word.

Hi DJA,
Do you have a source for that?
I've tried several online translators that do Frisian, but not got that result. Probably not the most definitive sources, but none of the spelling variations seems to be recognised in Frisian, whereas the English spelling "Jews" converts to "Joaden"

Also, if it is indeed a Frisian word, what do you make of it's relevance?

[Joshua Rogan]

With the multiple variations on spelling and the uncertain whereabouts of the 'not', it almost makes me think that the message was wiped from the wall before anyone had thought to write it down.

[DJA]

"I do not know of any dialect or language in which 'Jews' is spelled 'Juewes'"

However Juwes was a Frisian or Friesland word.

Didn't Happy Days serve chips?

Wouldn't be difficult to get a feed of Rogan Josh either

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

Make that seven variations.

Letter from Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler to Sir Charles Warren—

"I do not know of any dialect or language in which 'Jews' is spelled 'Juewes'"

Source—Chaim Bermant, Point of Arrival / A Study of London's East End, London: Eyre Methuen, 1975, pp. 111-121.

Regards,

Simon

[Rosella]

I think we could conclude that, understandable though it was, the decision to wipe the GSG before it could be photographed was a great pity.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hmmmm....
Can we conclude from this that high literacy and observation skills were not essential requirements for policemen?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

The spelling of Jews variously reported at the inquest and in numerous internal police reports—

PC Long [inquest]—J-E-W-S

PC Long [6th November written report]—J-U-E-W-S

Unnamed Inspector [PC Long, recalled to inquest]—J-E-U-W-S

DC Halse [inquest]—J-U-W-E-S

Superintendent Arnold [6th November written report]—J-U-E-W-S

Swanson [6th November written report]—J-U-W-E-S

Home Office Minute [unattributed]—"J-E-W-E-S, not J-U-W-E-S"

And Warren's own handwritten transcription of the GSG, sent to Home Office [6th November written report]—J-U-W-E-S.

Six variations.

Go figure.

Regards,

Simon

[Joshua Rogan]

Four, if you include Jews (which is how Long wrote it in his notebook).

As the coroner said, there is a discrepancy!

[Michael W Richards]

Inspector McWilliam, head of the City Police Detective Dept, claimed the GSG was 'The Jewes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing' but he seems to have been in a minority. The Met and the Home Office seem to have agreed that the spelling was Juwes, according to the A-Z.

I believe that there are 3 versions in fact...Juwes, Jewes and Juewes.

[Rosella]

Inspector McWilliam, head of the City Police Detective Dept, claimed the GSG was 'The Jewes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing' but he seems to have been in a minority. The Met and the Home Office seem to have agreed that the spelling was Juwes, according to the A-Z.

[Joshua Rogan]

Weren't there some reports that the word was actually spelled Jewes, though?

[Mister Whitechapel]

Thanks David - a very reasonable assessment.

And thus closes my contribution to this aspect of the case LOL I actually had a vision that I had somehow 'cracked it'! ;-)

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel

[David Orsam]

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?

Hi Mr W,

When Ancestry produces very few results for a surname I'm always suspicious because of the possibility of transcription errors (either modern or old).

In the case of "Joshua Juwes" (the Portsmouth chap) I believe this is a modern transcription error and the correct name is Joshua Jewes. There are over a thousand results on Ancestry for the surname of "Jewes". It certainly can't be "Juwes" because the names on the original muster book/pay list are all in alphabetical order and "Juwes" does not fit in that location, whereas "Jewes" does fit there.

In the 1912 case of William Juwes, there is a thick line through the name on the original rate book which makes it difficult to be certain. It could be "Juwes", or it could be something else, but if it is "Juwes" then we must consider the possibility of a spelling error by the person who filled in the book.

In respect of William Juwes of 1672 there is no accompanying image on Ancestry but considering that the original is probably quite ancient and hard to decipher, the odds in favour of this being a correct transcription are slim.

For that reason, I'm afraid, I would not agree that your theory the word Juwes on the wall is "more likely" to be in respect of a family name than Jewish men in general.

[Mister Whitechapel]

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!

All very good points, Rosella. Personally, if I were to back up my previous, somewhat vacuous, post with some reasoning, I'd suggest that the fervour from Warren wanting the message immediately washed off due to the perceived anti-Semitic phrasing pushed the thinking strictly and solely down that avenue; fear it was a misspelling of "Jews" would therefore not necessitate further investigation as to whether this was, in fact, a surname of some local (relatively speaking) family.

Quite why someone would chalk this message is, of course, quite beyond me - why does anyone graffiti with messages? I've seen quite a few these days that make little sense without context known only to the writer (and, perhaps, the intended recipient). I remain unconvinced, however, that it was written by the 'Ripper' at the time of the murder.

However, it must be stressed I only raise this as an interesting alternative to the various other theories concerning the phrasing, since it does exist as a familial name (albeit currently not associated with East London circa 1888).

Yours,
Mister Whitechapel