GSG j or d

[moonbegger]

Hello Caz ,

Misspelling the name of an individual or group, ie mucking about with their very identity, can be tantamount to a 'keep out, we don't want you here' notice, so I tend to see 'Juwes' in that context, putting the horrible spelling down to a bigot who disliked the Jews being 'over here' and able to live in posh new buildings like the Model Dwellings.

So do you think that most of the Jews in the area at the time , had a good enough command of the English language to even be aware of that big proverbial stick that was being poked at them ?

cheers

moonbegger

[caz]

I find it odd too. The writer was able to spell "nothing" correctly but not the word "Jews". He spelled that Juwes, (or was it Jeuws or Jeuwes? - We don't know).

Don't forget, where there is a will to misspell, there is always a way.

Otherwise perfectly literate posters have made some pretty awful balls-ups with the name Patricia Cornwell over the years, some obviously by design, others apparently by careless accident, but every last one of them I suspect due to their lack of respect for Cornwell's venture into ripperological waters.

Misspelling the name of an individual or group, ie mucking about with their very identity, can be tantamount to a 'keep out, we don't want you here' notice, so I tend to see 'Juwes' in that context, putting the horrible spelling down to a bigot who disliked the Jews being 'over here' and able to live in posh new buildings like the Model Dwellings.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

With the wisdom of hindsight we know that it wouldn't have helped. However, Warren and Arnold didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we do. Had a suspect, linked to the Eddowes murder, been arrested a few days later and found to have compiled documents in which the word 'Jews' was spelt incorrectly, it would have been evidentially of some value if, but only if, the exact nature of the GSG mis-spelling was available to the court. Its exact nature would have been known beyond dispute if, but only if, the GSG had been preserved, either in situ, or on a photographic record or, failing that, a consistent version had been recorded by the officers. None of these things were done. As it turned out, Warren got lucky and it didn't matter, but that doesn't make it the correct decision - not by (forgive the analogy!) a long chalk.

Another thing which no-one on here has ever managed to explain is exactly how the erasure of the GSG prevented a riot. It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest, as did the various versions of the wording recorded by the officers. Can it seriously be contended that if the writing had been seen by a few passers-by in the early hours of the morning there would have been a riot even though no such rioting occurred when the content was plastered over every newspaper in the country? On the most basic, common-sense level that simply doesn't make sense.

Great post, Bridewell!

As far as we know they didn't destroy any of the hundreds of hoax ripper letters they received, presumably just in case one turned out to have some evidential value, so I'm sure they could have done something to preserve at least most of the writing (minus 'Juwes' being the obvious solution) until a photo could be taken, without the fear that a crowd would assemble and grow ugly.

The first news of the message (and apron found beneath) presumably had to come from a police source originally, one way or another, so there would have been hell to pay if the feared riotous assembly had followed.

Love,

Caz
X

[moonbegger]

Except it wasn't written in Yiddish as Yiddish used Hebrew letters

Yes Mike .. but that was not the point I was highlighting with the post . Maybe I should have cut off the end

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest

Actually , it was in the public domain before it was confirmed by the inquest . Its seems like the only person edging to stop the imminent riot was indeed , Charles Warren !

A very strange, startling rumour as to the manner in which Sir Charles Warren performs the duty of Chief Detective of Scotland-yard is current this morning in the City. Those who repeat it assert that is will be verified at the inquest which is now proceeding and a report of which will be continued in succeeding editions. The rumour in question is to the effect that rather than face the danger of allowing a crowd to assemble in a public thoroughfare Sir Charles Warren deliberately destroyed a clue - the only clue which the City Police believed to afford any guidance as to the identity of the assassin.

moonbegger

[The Good Michael]

Pall Mall Gazette 11 oct 1888



Ahh .. The voice of reason !

cheers

moonbegger

Except it wasn't written in Yiddish as Yiddish used Hebrew letters

Mike

[moonbegger]

Pall Mall Gazette 11 oct 1888

If Sir CHARLES WARREN had but read pages 248-9 of Mr HOWARD VINCENT'S Police Code, he would have seen how flagrantly he was violating the first duty of a policeman in a case of murder. He was destroying evidence that might have been of priceless value, and hid that avowedly from a political motive. He feared that if the words remained on the wall, a crowd might assemble and there might be an attack on the Jews! So, rather than take the trouble of covering them up with a cloth and preventing access to the spot until the inscription was photographed, he rubbed it out, all out, refusing even to be content with erasing the one word "Juwes", as it appears to have been written in Yiddish, and so perished the only clue which the murderer has left us by which he might be identified.

Ahh .. The voice of reason !

cheers

moonbegger

[Phil H]

Yes indeed , at what point does " Don't let the local populace get wind of this, they will riot for sure " become " Let them know all the facts " ?

The authorities have to use their judgement - it is what they are for.

Any other approach and you'll have democracy, openess and freedom of informatio... oh we have!

But we didn't then - much healthier.

Phil

[moonbegger]

Another thing which no-one on here has ever managed to explain is exactly how the erasure of the GSG prevented a riot. It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest, as did the various versions of the wording recorded by the officers. Can it seriously be contended that if the writing had been seen by a few passers-by in the early hours of the morning there would have been a riot even though no such rioting occurred when the content was plastered over every newspaper in the country? On the most basic, common-sense level that simply doesn't make sense.

Yes indeed , at what point does " Don't let the local populace get wind of this, they will riot for sure " become " Let them know all the facts " ?

There is no mention of extra forces being called in or made ready for the publication of the inquest report ! If a riot is to be expected surely counter measures would have been set in place .. Or why even allow it in to the inquest ?

cheers

moonbegger

[Phil H]

However, Warren and Arnold didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we do.

No one making a judgement call ever does - they have to use their own skill, assessment of priorities and determine the most appropriate course of action. Caution is not always an option.

The riot? Warren and his aides were in a position to know much more than we do. They could evaluate the atmosphere in the East End - we may disagree with them, fail to understand them; say "a riot never happened, it never would have done" - but they took a decision - end of story.

Warren was a soldier, a man who had shown nerve in tight scrapes - not the brightest of men maybe, but a professional and no fool. Certainly not the old fogey shown in films - he was still fairly young in 1888.

He had to balance the political sensibilities and sensitivities against whatever other issues might intrude (the value of the GSG as evidence might be one such). He made his choice and acted on it. I think it was the right one, others may differ.

Phil

[Bridewell]

The graffito, and the absolute way it was written is a matter that might be of interest only to us today, although no one on here has ever managed to explain exactly how it would help.

With the wisdom of hindsight we know that it wouldn't have helped. However, Warren and Arnold didn't have the benefit of hindsight that we do. Had a suspect, linked to the Eddowes murder, been arrested a few days later and found to have compiled documents in which the word 'Jews' was spelt incorrectly, it would have been evidentially of some value if, but only if, the exact nature of the GSG mis-spelling was available to the court. Its exact nature would have been known beyond dispute if, but only if, the GSG had been preserved, either in situ, or on a photographic record or, failing that, a consistent version had been recorded by the officers. None of these things were done. As it turned out, Warren got lucky and it didn't matter, but that doesn't make it the correct decision - not by (forgive the analogy!) a long chalk.

Another thing which no-one on here has ever managed to explain is exactly how the erasure of the GSG prevented a riot. It's existence became public knowledge at the Eddowes inquest, as did the various versions of the wording recorded by the officers. Can it seriously be contended that if the writing had been seen by a few passers-by in the early hours of the morning there would have been a riot even though no such rioting occurred when the content was plastered over every newspaper in the country? On the most basic, common-sense level that simply doesn't make sense.

[Bridewell]

I find it odd that the only word that is apparently misspelt is a word that would have stared the author in the face every single day of his life , be it in the newspapers , shops , almost anywhere in whitechapel , even other graffito .

I find it odd too. The writer was able to spell "nothing" correctly but not the word "Jews". He spelled that Juwes, (or was it Jeuws or Jeuwes? - We don't know).

[moonbegger]

So the writing is irrelevant.

Yes it may well have been Phil ... IF the men on the spot did their job properly and noted down exactly what was in front of them .. unfortunately this is not the case .. We have different spellings , different phrasing , different layout , and maybe even different letters and words !

As previously mentioned, and without wishing to over egg the pudding ,

reads as not too intelligible. And once again , reading it in the dark with the aid of a not too great bulls eye lamp .. The mind will automatically form and suggest the first word that makes sense .. And if that word just happens to be a word that is already running around the mind of the observer(s) .. then BINGO !

The very fact that there was no general consensus amongst those who jotted it down .. Lends weight to the possibility that they all may have misidentified a vital letter at the head of a word which may have introduced a possible Surname into the mix ..

just my Logic ..

cheers

moonbegger .

[Albert]

In 1888, unless the writer had been caught in the act and subsequently been proved to be JtR - I see no use for it whatsoever.

In all my years I have never seen a single convincing argument to link apron-piece and writing. I have yet to see an interpretation of the words that attracts widespread agreement or is even remotely impressive. [I think Stephen Knight came closest with the Masonic interpretation of "Juwes", but that and the whole conspiracy theory is now rightly blown away.]

Despite much (in my view) niaive wishful thinking that material and writing might be connected, they remain resolutely separate. The most reasonable interpretation is that the graffito was pre-existent and has no connection. Until or unless some definite link emerges, that should logically remain the default position.

So in 1888, what would the police have done with the writing - if photographed or even recorded "accurately"?

I doubt experts could have matched the writing (chalk on tile/brick), to a possible "Ripper-letter" (ink or pencil on paper). There were no other indications that the killer of Nichols or Chapman was a graffti-artist - so nothing similar to compare - even for linked "messages.

I doubt forensic/chemical tests in 1888 could have match a chalk mark to a particulr stick of chalk....

So the writing is irrelevant.

Just my logic and opinion, of course.

Phil

Phil,
For what it's worth, I totally agree.
Albert

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar,

I understand your argument of course, but I see it as next to impossible. As for the misspelling, it was the only word that was a proper noun, a word which the author may never have written before.

Mike

Hello Mike ,

There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion.

I think this Halse quote suggests some education behind the author , especially in a neighborhood where the word Jew or Jews would have been common sight .

Also , baring in mind, the capitol letters were 3/4 inch and the other letters smaller , just below the half inch I would guess .. So , now try to write in a "good round hand" using chalk on brick in a hurry , with not too much light , and using the same proportions as Halse witnessed .

Not only , is it not too easy , but also reads as not too intelligible. And once again , reading it in the dark with the aid of a not too great bulls eye lamp .. The mind will automatically form and suggest the first word that makes sense .. And if that word just happens to be a word that is already running around the mind of the observer(s) .. then BINGO !

But I do agree with you Mike , in that , it is extremely unlikely , but it is still not quite beyond the realms of possibility ..

And just to add ... there was indeed at least two family's with the name "Duwe" living in the area at the time .

cheers

moonbegger