Frederick Abberline

[Observer]

The evidence is in the fact that there was a (seemingly) hurried clean up of the writing which contained the word "Juwes". It didn't have to be linked to the murders.

As Gut has pointed out there has not been a link forged between the word "Juwes" and Masonic practises anyway. In all likelyhood the grafitti was removed in order to prevent any hostility twoards the Jews should it have been seen in the early hours of the morning by the many people who would have attended the market stalls in Wentworth Street. Warren, on the spot, took a decision to have it wiped, I don't really think he can be blamed for this. In hindsight, he could have simply removed the word Juwes, but in the heat of the moment he decided to have it wiped.

[MysterySinger]

As Gut has pointed out there has not been a link forged between the word "Juwes" and Masonic practises anyway. In all likelyhood the grafitti was removed in order to prevent any hostility twoards the Jews should it have been seen in the early hours of the morning by the many people who would have attended the market stalls in Wentworth Street. Warren, on the spot, took a decision to have it wiped, I don't really think he can be blamed for this. In hindsight, he could have simply removed the word Juwes, but in the heat of the moment he decided to have it wiped.

I don't disagree with anything you say but all interpretations remain open. The significance of the spelling would have been immediately apparent to Warren I suspect.

[SuspectZero]

Could you post your source for this information?

Also, why do you think the Masons were involved in these cases?

PC Dunn - Here is the record of Frederick G. Abberline and Mr. Littlechild's initiations into Masonry. This is the source of my information in post #1 & 2.

[GUT]

I don't disagree with anything you say but all interpretations remain open. The significance of the spelling would have been immediately apparent to Warren I suspect.

Earlier you said you weren't proposing a theory now you say "The significance of the spelling would have been immediately apparent to Warren I suspect."


So which is it, are you proposing that there was some significance to the spelling or not?

[SuspectZero]

Earlier you said you weren't proposing a theory now you say "The significance of the spelling would have been immediately apparent to Warren I suspect."


So which is it, are you proposing that there was some significance to the spelling or not?

Mystery Singer has never said that he wasn't proposing a theory on this thread GUT. I said that, and I'm still not proposing any theories. You seem very quick to attack people.

[GUT]

Mystery Singer has never said that on this thread GUT. I did, and I'm still not proposing any theories. You seem very quick to attack people.

Sorry got the two of you mixed up there.

But yes I'm happy to take a long hard look at the BS that some post and point out the problems with it.

I don't attack people attack the BS they post.

And lately there seems to be a lot of that.

[MysterySinger]

Earlier you said you weren't proposing a theory now you say "The significance of the spelling would have been immediately apparent to Warren I suspect."


So which is it, are you proposing that there was some significance to the spelling or not?

I don't recall saying I wasn't proposing a theory - are you confusing my posts for someone elses?

[MysterySinger]

And yes, my thoughts are that the spelling was significant.

[GUT]

I don't recall saying I wasn't proposing a theory - are you confusing my posts for someone elses?

If you read the post above you see I admit that that is exactly what I had done.

[MysterySinger]

If you read the post above you see I admit that that is exactly what I had done.

Yes you had but posts are happening so quickly - it is all a question of how quickly one can finish and get the posts in first. Or to put it another way - if the post wasn't there when I started to reply I cannot possibly have read it.

[MysterySinger]

Sorry got the two of you mixed up there.

But yes I'm happy to take a long hard look at the BS that some post and point out the problems with it.

I don't attack people attack the BS they post.

And lately there seems to be a lot of that.

There is nothing wrong with reasoned arguments against certain theories, but really isn't it only BS if (and because) you disagree with it? The inference being that the only valid views are ones that are in agreement with your own so nobody need bother posting anything else.

[GUT]

There is nothing wrong with reasoned arguments against certain theories, but really isn't it only BS if (and because) you disagree with it? The inference being that the only valid views are ones that are in agreement with your own so nobody need bother posting anything else.

Nope it's BS when people are called and produce not the slightest piece of evidence to support the half brained idea is produced. Like the current t6rend to point the finger at anyone and everyone who has ever been named as having any connection to the case and they seem to be growing and growing with little more than, it seems he had this or that mental illness with no proof that he was ever diagnosed with such.

Or it has been hashed out and shown to be wrong over and over again.

Like Juwes, Like Royals, like so many other topics

And so many want to put the cart before he horse, "he had medical knowledge" "he was a mason" and on and on and on... (and that too is BS).

First prove the "Killer" had medical knowledge,,, then it may be worth looking at people with said knowledge. First prove that there was some Masonic connection, first prove that the Ripper know the victims then I may be interested.

[MysterySinger]

Yes I would agree that on many many occasions, opinion is posted as if it were irrefutable fact. It is easy to spot when this happens.

Given that we don't know who JTR was I can't see how it can be claimed that "Or it has been hashed out and shown to be wrong over and over again". How can anyone know that there was no masonic connection, for example? It might be someone's opinion, or even a consensus view, but one thing it isn't is a known fact, either way, as far as I know.

Unless it can be proved that the word used in the graffito was not "Juwes" there can be no reason for any post to be criticised for speculating as to the meaning or purpose of what was reportedly written there. If it is stated as a thought or opinion, and not represented as fact, there can be nothing wrong with that. But then, that's just my opinion.

[Fisherman]

Yes I would agree that on many many occasions, opinion is posted as if it were irrefutable fact. It is easy to spot when this happens.

Given that we don't know who JTR was I can't see how it can be claimed that "Or it has been hashed out and shown to be wrong over and over again". How can anyone know that there was no masonic connection, for example? It might be someone's opinion, or even a consensus view, but one thing it isn't is a known fact, either way, as far as I know.

Unless it can be proved that the word used in the graffito was not "Juwes" there can be no reason for any post to be criticised for speculating as to the meaning or purpose of what was reportedly written there. If it is stated as a thought or opinion, and not represented as fact, there can be nothing wrong with that. But then, that's just my opinion.

No, it' s not. You make a world of sense. So what ARE you doing out here...?

[MysterySinger]

Hi Fisherman - thanks for that (I think lol).