Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[John G]

[QUOTE=DJA;395044]

Neat school boy hand,yet semi-literate.
Now, who's being simple

Relevancy? Do you think, for instance, that all neat schoolboys are great at spelling? What is your authority for this proposition?

Conversely, I have a degree, but my handwriting is spidery-as is that of many doctors in my experience-and my spelling's not great either!

[Harry D]

So if one PC is incompetent or lying, it would mean that another PC in another errand also may have been incompetent and lying.

Right, and that's a precedent you wish to avoid.

To begin with, that is rather a dumb suggestion. To carry on, you failed to recognize that I am one of the posters out here who has been hardest criticized on account of my pointing to how the police seems to have been incompetent, prejudiced and lax.

What does that prove? You wouldn't be the first suspect-based Ripperologist to switch the goalposts to suit his own narrative.

[PaulB]

Not precisely the same quote, but essentially saying the same things as quoted by Jones and Lloyd:

'I came through Goulston street about twenty minutes past two, where the apron was found, and then went back to Mitre square. I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to the station, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston street. I then went to Leman street Police station with Detective Hunt, and from there to Goulston street, and saw the place where it was found. I saw some chalk writing on the wall on black facia. I remained there while Hunt went on to arrange for having the writing photographed.' (Halse, Daily News, 12 October 1888)

And again, these aren't the words quoted by Jones and Lloyd, they express the same meaning, suggesting, perhaps, that we are talking about different editions, as was mentioned earlier:

'A portion of the apron worn by the unfortunate woman done to death in the latter locality was picked up at a distance therefrom of 500 yards, in the direction of the scene of the first murder. This is an indication that the assassin, after completing his second butchery, retraced his steps for a little more than a third of a mile; but it affords no clue to his subsequent itinerary, for, having dropped the tatter of bloodstained apron within hail of Berner‑street, he vanished as completely as though the earth had swallowed him up.' (The Daily Telegraph, 2 October 1888)

[Trevor Marriott]

Well Trevor if you are going to repeat almost word for word a post you made four months ago, I'm going to repeat my response.

The fact that Jews, in your view, and without any evidence, "was probably the most common known and identifiable word" in a local area does not mean that everyone in the country, or even in that area, could spell it correctly.

And there is a difference, isn't there, in a name being commonly known and it being commonly known in written form? Jose Mourinho is perhaps the most famous football manager in this country but loads of football fans can't spell his surname properly. That's even with it being in all the newspapers all the time. If you don't know how to spell a word you just don't know. The spelling might have derived from "Judas". Also, think of the word "true". It rhymes with "Jew" but is spelt very differently. If you are trying to work out a spelling of "Jew" based on how similar words or names in the English language such as "Judas" and "true" are spelt it can be very confusing.

As you are no doubt aware, the spelling of "Jews" as "Jewes" was common in the seventeenth century and one can find it spelt that way even in the nineteenth century. See my sub-article "Reading the Writing on the Wall" in http://www.orsam.co.uk/somethoughts.htm. It only needed (for example) someone to believe that the word "Jew" (or "Jewe"), which they were familiar with in spoken form, was derived from "Judas" (or vice versa) to think that the correct spelling was "Juwe".

If we followed the logic of your argument to its extreme conclusion we might say that it would be impossible for a well-known Ripperologist to be unable to correctly spell the surname of another well known Ripperologist. Yet in a post on this forum on 17 June 2010 you spelt the surname of Tom Wescott first as "Westcot" then, in the same post, as "Westcott", and in your book, 'Jack the Ripper – The Secret Police Files', you also spelt it as "Westcott". Unless you were talking of a different person than Tom Wescott how is such a thing possible?

You might also have missed me pointing out single spelling mistakes in a couple of otherwise perfectly spelt postings in this very forum. In one, the poster, despite spelling a number of long words correctly, spelt "diseases" as "deceases". In another perfectly spelt post the same person also typed "knew" instead of "new". A different poster, in an otherwise perfectly spelt post, wrote "proberbly" for probably.

All of those words were commonly known words but, for various reasons, people who can spell most words correctly can spell simple words wrongly at times. I could continue pointing such errors out on this forum but it would be rather tiresome and annoying for all concerned.

Well if we say 80% of the population of the East End were jews then it would be fair to say that the 80% would know the spelling of the word, or would be able to recognise it in its proper form, and for the illiterate jews amongs that 80%,you can bet that would be one word they might know. So that would leave a small minority of non jews, out of which how many would also know and be able to recognise the word jews. Leaving a small minority of illerate non jews who would not even be able to write anyway.

I would also say with that in mind that there were no other spelling errors in the writing so that would suggest you raise a mute point.

Furthermore had the writer been aiming at the jews as an ethnic group he could have written.

The Jews are they/the ones/those/them/the people

But the writing appears to be specifically aimed at the male gender

The Juwes are the men

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Well if we say 80% of the population of the East End were jews then it would be fair to say that the 80% would know the spelling of the word, or would be able to recognise it in its proper form, and for the illiterate jews amongs that 80%,you can bet that would be one word they might know. So that would leave a small minority of non jews, out of which how many would also know and be able to recognise the word jews. Leaving a small minority of illerate non jews who would not even be able to write anyway.

I would also say with that in mind that there were no other spelling errors in the writing so that would suggest you raise a mute point.

Furthermore had the writer been aiming at the jews as an ethnic group he could have written.

The Jews are they/the ones/those/them/the people

But the writing appears to be specifically aimed at the male gender

The Juwes are the men

Firstly, Trevor, your argument using statistics which you have pulled from the air is ridiculous and gets us absolutely nowhere in respect of the single individual who wrote the graffiti.

Secondly, this is the second occasion on which you have failed to comment on your own failure to spell Tom Wescott's name correctly.

Thirdly, your own post contains two spelling mistakes. "illerate" for "illiterate" which you had already spelt correctly, so a typo, but it just shows how easy it is to make a mistake. And you also wrote "mute point" when you meant "moot point". Given that all other words in your post are correctly spelt should I conclude that you deliberately wrote "mute"? Or was it just an error?

Fourthly, could the author of the graffiti have been referring to Jewish men do you think?

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Right, and that's a precedent you wish to avoid.

Then why is it that I repeatedly say that the police was prejudiced, to a significant degree incompetent and lax? How does that show that I am trying to avoid that exact view?
I donīt think you have managed to explain that as yet. Furthermore, given the circumstances, I am dead certain that it is not possible to do. At least not to any degree of intelligibility.
Once you take in that I have always been pointing out the shortcomings of the victorian police, your statement is completely and utterly rubbished, Harry.

What does that prove? You wouldn't be the first suspect-based Ripperologist to switch the goalposts to suit his own narrative.

It proves that you are barking up the wrong tree when you claim that I am desperately clinging on to the infallability of the police. And it therefore also proves that you forgot to think before you posted. And it was not the first time that happened...

[Fisherman]

I would also say with that in mind that there were no other spelling errors in the writing so that would suggest you raise a mute point.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A... "mute" point? Really?

PS. Just noticed that David beat me to it....

[Trevor Marriott]

Firstly, Trevor, your argument using statistics which you have pulled from the air is ridiculous and gets us absolutely nowhere in respect of the single individual who wrote the graffiti.

Secondly, this is the second occasion on which you have failed to comment on your own failure to spell Tom Wescott's name correctly.

Thirdly, your own post contains two spelling mistakes. "illerate" for "illiterate" which you had already spelt correctly, so a typo, but it just shows how easy it is to make a mistake. And you also wrote "mute point" when you meant "moot point". Given that all other words in your post are correctly spelt should I conclude that you deliberately wrote "mute"? Or was it just an error?

Fourthly, could the author of the graffiti have been referring to Jewish men do you think?

"NO"

What on earth has the spelling of Tom Wescotts surname name got to do with the word Jews and the Gs graffiti?. The writer of the graffiti either couldn't spell the word jews or he wrote another word in the way he thought that word should be spelt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

"NO"

What on earth has the spelling of Tom Wescotts surname name got to do with the word Jews and the Gs graffiti?. The writer of the graffiti either couldn't spell the word jews or he wrote another word in the way he thought that word should be spelt.

Because it's essentially the same thing.

Let me repeat what I already wrote:

"If we followed the logic of your argument to its extreme conclusion we might say that it would it would be impossible for a well-known Ripperologist to be unable to correctly spell the surname of another well known Ripperologist."

So when you made you post and wrote your book either you couldn't spell "Wescott" or you were referring to a different individual called Tom Westcott.

[PaulB]

Trevor,
Back in Post 593, you said that at 2:20am PC Long would not have made a thorough search because he was not at that time aware that a murder had been committed. I observed that he was not aware of a murder having been committed at 2:55am either. If I am correct then David’s observation that you were making an assumption based on no evidence would appear to be correct - namely that the way PC Long patrolled this beat would have been no different at 2:55am than it was at 2:20am. On the face of it, this suggests that you actually know very little about PC Long’s actions. Would you care to comment?

[Pierre]

If you were the killer they would have hung you !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So why didnīt they?

[Pierre]

Hi Simon.
Who's more of a dumb ass? You trevor or Pierre?

Abby, I do not care if the apron belonged to Eddowes or not. I care only for the apron being placed in front of the GSG.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;395045]

I dont think the word Jews was mispelt. All the other words were spelt correctly. The word Jews would have been just about the most common known and identifiable word in The East End at that time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree with you. It wasnīt misspelt.

And there is no point in hypothesizing that the apron being placed in front of the writing was some sort of coincidence.

We are dealing with a very rare serial killer, not some average criminal.

Rare criminals do rare things.

Actually, there are many things people can not understand in the case of this serial killer. That is also the reason for the general confusion and speculations.

It is easier to understand a serial killer like John Wayne Gacy.

[David Orsam]

Abby, I do not care if the apron belonged to Eddowes or not. I care only for the apron being placed in front of the GSG.

I don't think Abby had only your posts about the apron in mind Pierre.

But let me ask you this. If the apron didn't belong to Eddowes then what reason is there to suppose that the CSG was written by her killer?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

At the Eddowes' inquest the Coroner suggested the operative word was spelt J-U-W-E-S.

PC Long, returning with his notebook, said it was spelt J-E-W-S.

The Coroner asked, "Both here and in your inspector's report the word "J-E-W-S" is spelt correctly?"

"Yes," replied PC Long, "but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "J-U-W-E-S."

The Coroner asked, "Why did you write 'J-E-W-S' then?

PC Long replied, "I made my entry before the inspector made the remark."

Five weeks later, in his 6th November report, PC Long spelled it J-U-E-W-S.

Regards,

Simon