GSG j or d

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by moonbegger View Post
    And why was it that Det Halse was on Met ground in the first place ?
    moonbegger .
    Halse went onto Met ground because a murder had taken place on Mitre Square which was close to the City boundary.
    Goulston street was being adequately covered by Long ,
    Halse would have had no prior knowledge of the disposition of Metropolitan Police officers.
    Halse managed to be on same street at the same time as long , but remain unseen !!!
    I'm more concerned with the reason why Halse didn't see Long who was, after all, in uniform and so should have been easily recognised.
    Last edited by Bridewell; 06-12-2013, 09:45 PM. Reason: Halse v Long

    Leave a comment:


  • moonbegger
    replied
    And why was it that Det Halse was on Met ground in the first place ? Goulston street was being adequately covered by Long , Halse managed to be on same street at the same time as long , but remain unseen !!!

    moonbegger .
    Last edited by moonbegger; 06-12-2013, 06:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • moonbegger
    replied
    Ahh , so it was .. but it all fits together so much better the other way round !

    cheers ,

    moonbegger

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    Originally posted by moonbegger View Post
    Yes, I also think this is very much a front runner .. Especially when we take into account Eddows "Nothing" comment earlier that evening .. Was the City Police telling the Met , " Don't blame us for Eddows ( Nothing ) Just because she was murdered on our ground , when up until an hour ago , you had her in your cell's , then you released her into the hands of her Killer at the very time he would be out hunting " .

    Moonbegger
    Hi MB,

    It was the City Police themselves who had had Eddowes in custody earlier in the evening. I think the theory, as originally advanced, was that the 'Met' were having a go at the City Police, rather than the other way round.

    Leave a comment:


  • moonbegger
    replied
    Hello CF ,

    I believe that the confusion about the spelling actually clears up one point- the writing was in script, rather than block letters, and it was written sloppily. Write all the variant spellings in script and see how similar they appear. It also opens up other possibilities- such as 'James'
    Good call , And this line of thinking also opens the door up for "The Jane's"
    The Jane's are truly the folk that will not be blamed for anything


    Jainism, traditionally known as Jaina dharma, is an Indian religion that prescribes a path of non-violence towards all living beings and emphasises spiritual independence and equality between all forms of life. Practitioners believe that non-violence and self-control are the means by which they can obtain liberation from the cycle of reincarnations.
    Still confused

    moonbegger .

    Leave a comment:


  • moonbegger
    replied
    Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
    "The Jewries" remains an intriguing outside bet IMHO, especially if written in the proverbial good schoolboy hand. It might also explain a desire by Warren not to have the GSG photographed - and the GSG's own reference only to "the men" as opposed to "the ones".
    Yes, I also think this is very much a front runner .. Especially when we take into account Eddows "Nothing" comment earlier that evening .. Was the City Police telling the Met , " Don't blame us for Eddows ( Nothing ) Just because she was murdered on our ground , when up until an hour ago , you had her in your cell's , then you released her into the hands of her Killer at the very time he would be out hunting " .

    This for me , puts all the questionable and unanswerable facts about the GSG to bed .. in particular , why Arnold first suggested its removal to Warren , and the whole " where's Waldo" malarkey regarding the Apron .

    Moonbegger

    Leave a comment:


  • Bridewell
    replied
    "The Jewries" remains an intriguing outside bet IMHO, especially if written in the proverbial good schoolboy hand. It might also explain a desire by Warren not to have the GSG photographed - and the GSG's own reference only to "the men" as opposed to "the ones".

    Leave a comment:


  • RivkahChaya
    replied
    There you go. Jack the Ripper was one of those "mad cows" you've had such a problem with over in the UK.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    I am surprised that the folks who believe the ripper was a "press invention" haven't chimed in expressing their view that it was really an "n" .


    Personally, I think it was a "m". I think he had a thing against cows.

    Leave a comment:


  • moonbegger
    replied
    Hello Riv ,

    We have only the second-hand reports, that seem to be done mostly from memory-- I'm not sure anyone wrote anything down on the spot.
    I think both Long & Halse copied it directly from the wall .. ( Daily News 12th Oct )

    ( PC Long )
    You did not copy from the wall? - Yes, I copied from the wall into my pocket book.
    (Halse)
    Before it was taken out you had taken note of it? - As plain as I could see it in the dark - for I had no light - I wrote down "The Juwees are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
    The more we see , the less we know

    But I think one thing is for certain , it was fairly dark , and mistakes were made ..

    moonbegger

    Leave a comment:


  • RivkahChaya
    replied
    Given that we don't have a photo, we have it only on faith that the other words were spelled correctly. I've seen comments regarding the supposed ability of the graffito writer to spell "nothing" correctly, but we don't actually know that. We have only the second-hand reports, that seem to be done mostly from memory-- I'm not sure anyone wrote anything down on the spot. But even if someone did, the human brain fills in blanks, so there may have been other errors, or smudged letters, but only one word made sense, so people looking at the graffito at the time saw that word. The word "Juwes" (or whatever) is contentious because we can stick any numbed of nouns or proper names in there, and have the sentence still make sense. Not perfect sense, but you could diagram it.

    Leave a comment:


  • C. F. Leon
    replied
    I don't know about any "Duwes", but there is a "Dew" involved in the case. If someone only heard the name and didn't know (or care) how it was properly spelt...

    I believe that the confusion about the spelling actually clears up one point- the writing was in script, rather than block letters, and it was written sloppily. Write all the variant spellings in script and see how similar they appear. It also opens up other possibilities- such as 'James', or the 'J' may have been a 'T', an 'F', an 'L' etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • RivkahChaya
    replied
    Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
    Except it wasn't written in Yiddish as Yiddish used Hebrew letters

    Mike
    Since it happens that I don't think JTR wrote the graffito, I think what the the letter is, is irrelevant, but I thought I'd note that I've found it difficult to convince some people whose native language used an alphabet without capital and lower case letters, that the distinction is important. They'll use all caps, all lower case, or mix them randomly, and not understand why my brain hurts.

    As far as what the letters actually were-- if you use a use a piece of chalk to write a lower case "e," it can end up being end up, I don't know, "cleft," I guess, and look like a "u." The extra "e" in the plural is a result of over-applying a rule. In fact, plurals like "Jewes" were correct once, so it may not have mattered how often the graffito writer saw "Jews" in the paper every day.

    Also, is there any dialect where "Jews" would be a two syllable word, or the vowel would be a diphthong?

    Leave a comment:


  • moonbegger
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    I have no idea, moonbegger. But once it all got into the papers there can't have been many people in the area - Jewish or otherwise - who didn't get the message that the word Jews had been used and misspelled.

    However, I doubt the author gave much thought to how many passers-by/residents would be able to read or understand his words.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hello Caz ,

    But once it all got into the papers there can't have been many people in the area - Jewish or otherwise - who didn't get the message that the word Jews had been used and misspelled.
    So , you are implying that it was indeed the killer who was responsible for the graffito , otherwise how would the Author know his ramblings would get into the papers ?

    the word Jews had been used and misspelled.
    Or just maybe Caz , it had not been misspelt , but misinterpreted

    Cheers

    moonbegger

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    I have no idea, moonbegger. But once it all got into the papers there can't have been many people in the area - Jewish or otherwise - who didn't get the message that the word Jews had been used and misspelled.

    However, I doubt the author gave much thought to how many passers-by/residents would be able to read or understand his words.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X