Frederick Abberline

[MysterySinger]

I'm going to submit a couple of posts - this being one of them - that may have some bearing on this. The first one I don't know whether I believe it all, but you know it could just have some legs. It is relevant to the discussion either way I feel.

https://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/the-true-meaning-of-the-word-juwes/

[Observer]

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.

I suspect not. As I have already pointed out the word "Juwes" does not hold a place apparently in the language associated with the Masonic fraternity. I believe Warren interptreted the word as meaning the Jews, the word that appeared on the wall in Goulston being nothing more than a mis-spelling. What is your interpretation of the word "Juwes"? What do you suppose it meant to Warren?

[GUT]

I'm going to submit a couple of posts - this being one of them - that may have some bearing on this. The first one I don't know whether I believe it all, but you know it could just have some legs. It is relevant to the discussion either way I feel.

https://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2009/...he-word-juwes/

And why would that link carry more wait than the ones that say it has nought to do with masonry?

[MysterySinger]

And also the attached link from which I quote below (and which has been quoted in other articles on the web) =

"others criticized Warren's hasty erasure of a potential clue, before it could be photographed. It was, after all, too late to stop the writing on the wall becoming common knowledge. Warren himself soon issued a statement that the word Juwes did not mean Jews in any known language, (earning the personal thanks of the chief Rabbi)".

It doesn't necessarily confirm Warren's interpretation of the word Juwes. In fact, I think he had a personal stake whether there was either a Masonic or Jewish connection given his history. However, if he thought that the man in the street would interpret it as the latter, then I think he could be forgiven for his action. However, it is just as likely that he saw it for what it was and thought the best course of action was to have it removed anyway.

http://www.dashinvaine.co.uk/warren%20page.htm

[MysterySinger]

And why would that link carry more wait than the ones that say it has nought to do with masonry?

It wouldn't, you cannot totally discount either, so do not dismiss one in favour of the other. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on the balance of what you (believe you) see. Opinions can, of course, be changed if something more convincing comes along. No one knows everything.

[MysterySinger]

I suspect not. As I have already pointed out the word "Juwes" does not hold a place apparently in the language associated with the Masonic fraternity. I believe Warren interptreted the word as meaning the Jews, the word that appeared on the wall in Goulston being nothing more than a mis-spelling. What is your interpretation of the word "Juwes"? What do you suppose it meant to Warren?

As per my post in #49, Warren was supposedly very clear that Juwes didn't mean Jews. It does, however, seem to confirm that the word was written as Juwes - would folks agree?

Supposition, of course, but I think Warren may well have seen a Masonic interpretation - he was a Freemason. Probably for the reasons in the link in my earlier post https://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2009/...he-word-juwes/

What do you think he interpreted having seen the links provided?

[Observer]

I'm going to submit a couple of posts - this being one of them - that may have some bearing on this. The first one I don't know whether I believe it all, but you know it could just have some legs. It is relevant to the discussion either way I feel.

https://kpoulin1.wordpress.com/2009/...he-word-juwes/

Quite honestly Mysterysinger, to put it bluntly, I believe the link you provided to be bunkum. "The" Is capitalised in the first line as is the same word in line two. If the writer meant Jews, i.e the Jewish people, which I firmly believe he did, then that word would have required a capital letter. To suggest the killer intented the letters JMB, to stand out, to me, is a non starter

[MysterySinger]

Quite honestly Mysterysinger, to put it bluntly, I believe the link you provided to be bunkum. "The" Is capitalised in the first line as is the same word in line two. If the writer meant Jews, i.e the Jewish people, which I firmly believe he did, then that word would have required a capital letter. To suggest the killer intented the letters JMB, to stand out, to me, is a non starter

And the other quote too?

[GUT]

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.

Typical of the faulty logic displayed by some.

We may not know who e was, but that doesn't mean something can't be shown to be wrong or someone cleared.

[GUT]

And the other quote too?

Well as for he "other quote" anyone who uses Dear Boss to underpin their position has a real problem to start with.

But again he cart us going before the horse.

First prove JTR wrote the GSG then Prive what was actually written there, then we can discuss the impact if it. Because if JtR didn't write it why bother, and until the wording is proven we can't decide what it meant.

Pretty basic research technique really, historical or criminal.

[MysterySinger]

Typical of the faulty logic displayed by some.

We may not know who e was, but that doesn't mean something can't be shown to be wrong or someone cleared.

Well now is your chance to shine GUT - what has been shown to be wrong and who has been cleared (with relevance to this thread of course)? One example of each category?

[GUT]

Well now is your chance to shine GUT - what has been shown to be wrong and who has been cleared (with relevance to this thread of course)? One example of each category?

Well I very much expect that Ostrogoth was cleared when he was shown to be in prison. Or Van Gogh when he was shown to be in France.


I also suspect that it was shown that any connection between Abberliene and the Masons was useless unless you can "prove" (theres that pesky word again) that there was some connection between Jacky and the masons.

And as I have said before that would need proof

1. that Jack wrote the GSG

2. What was written there

3. That the word "Juwes" was the word used

4. That the word Juwes WAS related to Masonic rituals or beliefs.

I'm not sure that any of those things are anywhere near proven, regardless what your standard of proof may be, unless it's just yeah sounds good, or fits my pet theory.

[MysterySinger]

Well I very much expect that Ostrogoth was cleared when he was shown to be in prison. Or Van Gogh when he was shown to be in France.


I also suspect that it was shown that any connection between Abberliene and the Masons was useless unless you can "prove" (theres that pesky word again) that there was some connection between Jacky and the masons.

And as I have said before that would need proof

1. that Jack wrote the GSG

2. What was written there

3. That the word "Juwes" was the word used

4. That the word Juwes WAS related to Masonic rituals or beliefs.

I'm not sure that any of those things are anywhere near proven, regardless what your standard of proof may be, unless it's just yeah sounds good, or fits my pet theory.

You seem to have missed the key quote - so I'll give it again.

"others criticized Warren's hasty erasure of a potential clue, before it could be photographed. It was, after all, too late to stop the writing on the wall becoming common knowledge. Warren himself soon issued a statement that the word Juwes did not mean Jews in any known language, (earning the personal thanks of the chief Rabbi)".

1 - He is quoting the word Juwes - no mistake there?
2 - He is saying it does not mean Jews - in any known language - he knows that.
3 - The word Juwes refers to "Jubela", "Jubelo" and "Jubelum" - it clearly says so here - http://www.christian-restoration.com/fmasonry/hiram.htm

So, from that, I am inferring that Warren could have seen a masonic connection to the words in the Graffito. It doesn't matter whether or not it was written by JTR - the connection to the Graffito was made before the words were wiped off.

1 - I don't think I have said that JTR wrote them (you say if he didn't then why bother - because of what it might imply in the mind of Warren or any Freemason. We are theorising - not prosecuting - a possible piece of jigsaw).
2 - What was written there has been reported several times - that's basic research.
3 - Sir Charles Warren quoted the word "Juwes".
4 - The Masonic connection has been established.

What I can't understand though is the connection of Ostrogoth or Van Gogh to this thread? Far more pertinent would be an example of where it has been shown that there was no Masonic connection in these cases.

I will answer your other post in a moment.

[MysterySinger]

Well as for he "other quote" anyone who uses Dear Boss to underpin their position has a real problem to start with.

But again he cart us going before the horse.

First prove JTR wrote the GSG then Prive what was actually written there, then we can discuss the impact if it. Because if JtR didn't write it why bother, and until the wording is proven we can't decide what it meant.

Pretty basic research technique really, historical or criminal.

Why are you quoting Dear Boss?

Whether JTR wrote the GSG and what was actually written there I've covered in my last post - so no need to go over it again here.

[MysterySinger]

Involved in hush up, the killer being a fellow Mason?

And it was Observer who mentioned a hush up first.