The Juwes Graffiti

[DJA]

Hi DJA,

I suspect the cachous at some point came from a store. Whether they were bought by Stride's killer, as you are speculating, or whether Stride purchased them, which you have no evidence based reason to preclude, I don't know - note the lack of evidence.

No, but it's irrelevant. Presuming she was holding the cachous at the time she was killed, while I think that probable, itself isn't even a guarantee, particularly if her killer was JtR. If he was in the mood to "leave messages" (see GSG and apron debates), placing them in her hand after death could be his idea at that point in time (I don't really ascribe to that, but it's a possibility we cannot rule out based upon the evidence we do have).

Sure, if your speculation that she did have a death grip shock response is correct, which cannot be proven, that works. If they're placed there, or if the specifics of how she was assaulted precluded her letting go of them, however, then there is no need for your speculation to be true. It's an assumption.

Oh, and by the way, insults are most commonly resorted to when one has nothing of worth to say. They are vacuous and contribute nothing, and your post would have been better without. But you are free to do with that as you choose.

- Jeff

You could read the Inquest for facts,but you prefer to waste my time.
It is you who contributes nothing.

[GBinOz]

seven different people saw a man with a peaked cap the night of the double event-schwartz, smith, marshall, lawende and his two companions, and the anon church street sighting.

Hi Abby,

Smith described Parcelman as wearing a hard felt deerstalker, which is different to the detective deerstaker. Check out Wick's post #11 here:
https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...eerstalker-hat


It also looks a lot like a Billy-**** hat described by Best and Gardiner and is not dissimilar to a Wide-awake hat referred to by Packer.

Cheers,George

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby Normal,

It's not how many people saw a peaked capped man, it's how many different times was a peaked cap man seen. Meaning, you can't count Lawende and 2 companions as independent sightings - they all saw the same peaked cap man, so at most you have 5 different sightings, not 7.

Now, if the percentage of men wearing peaked caps is 100%, then the probability of JtR wearing a peaked cap is also 100% (minus whatever probability you think appropriate for "Jill the Ripper" I suppose), because every man is now wearing one. And, the probability of 5 different men being sighted and yet all wearing a peaked cap is also 100%, so in that case, wearing a peaked cap provides no information about whether or not it could be considered likely the 5 sightings are of the same man, or of up to 5 different men.

Peaked caps/hats cover a wide range of different hats, deer stalkers have a peak (two, one front and back), a "captain's hat" has a peak, a modern baseball cap has a peak, a "cheese cutter" has a peak, and so forth. So when two witnesses say "a peaked cap/hat", we don't even know if they are describing the same type of peaked cap/hat. However, we do know that Marshal describes a "round cap with a small peak like a sailor would wear", which dovetails with Lawende's description that the man has the appearance of a sailor. But Smith describes a deerstalker at the inquest, which is unlike a "round hat with a small peak like a sailor would wear". So while both are "peaked caps/hats", they are not the same type of peaked headgear, suggesting Smith and Marshal may have seen two different men, and if both did see Stride, it means she was in the company of multiple men that night, and at most only one of them can be JtR.

Packer describes a "wide awake hat", which has a brim, not a peak.

And the anonymouse Church Lane sighting describes another sailor type hat with a peak.

Schwartz describes a "black cap with peak", which is pretty vague, and if that is a cheese cutter (for example), it's a 3rd man, with a peaked cap. Pipeman had a hat with a brim, so not a peaked cap (so we know peaked caps are not 100% worn - there's now at least two fellow out there without one). But we now have 5/7 men, potentially different men, wearing peaked caps, and 2/7 with brims (pipeman and packer's man).

So if the "rate of peaked caps" is around 5/7, then the chance of seeing 5 random different men all wearing peaked caps is about 18.6%, and that's pretty common, certainly not in "slam dunk" territory in my books.

Now, there are 3 sightings that correspond with a bit more detail, the "sailor's cap" type thing, but sadly one of them is the anonymous Church Lane sighting which is never found anywhere else (we don't know who said it, it's not mentioned in any official police records, etc), so how much weight we give that is of concern. But B.S., if we presume he's Stride's killer, isn't one of those 3, nor is pipeman, nor is Packer's grape buyer (the last two are not even wearing a peaked hat of any sort).

So if sailor's hat a la Lawende is JtR's hat, and Stride is a victim of JtR, then B.S. and pipeman leave, and one of the sailor hatted men shows up again.

Or, the witness testimony is questionable, and some sailor hats were not sailor hats, and some peaked hats were not peaked hats, and some brim hats were peaked hats, and all the hats may or may not be similar, and so on.

I think it's safe to say JtR probably wore a hat, most men did. Whether or not any of these sightings are even of the same man, let alone that man being JtR, is not something I would bet too strongly on based upon nothing more than some fairly generic descriptions that include "peaked headgear".

- Jeff

i think you left out the most important part of your calculations professor-all were seen with the murder victim.
five different men seen with two murder victims that night all just happen to be wearing a peaked cap? no effing way.
its obviously one man wearing a peaked cap.
sorry jeff, ill go with Abberline on this one.


and we were getting along so splendidly on your geoprofiling stuff.

[JeffHamm]

You could read the Inquest for facts,but you prefer to waste my time.
It is you who contributes nothing.

Hi DJA,

I've read the inquest statements many times, but could have missed something.

Where do you see it saying that Stride was the one who bought them? The only thing on that matter I can find is in the summing up where it is noted that the cachous were wrapped in paper so where they were purchased could not be determined. How then have you been able to conclude that JtR purchased them, and was holding them at the time Stride was murdered? And if she was murdered while reaching or grasping them, why is it the evidence indicates she appears to have been cut either from the side or from behind? I'm fascinated to hear how you visualize this transaction.

And where in the inquest statements are you reading that they have excluded the possibility they were put there after her death? Oddly, you suggest JtR was holding them and she taking one from him when he attacked, so doesn't he have to be considered as possibily the one who puts them there even in your scenario? Yet you don't seem to have thought of that. Anyway, I agree the testimony on the cachous all appears to be based upon the assumption she was holding them at the time of her attack, but no where do I see them ruling out other possible explanations. Might they too have overlooked that alternative? It seems to me that was never explored so I'm on safe ground suggesting that it wasn't ruled out because it wasn't thought of at the time. But not being thought of doesn't mean it couldn't have happened (I know that's a bit abstract, but I hope you're following me). As I say, I'm not suggesting that must have been the case, just in case you didn't understand that I'm only suggesting a possible alternative not claiming to know it happened this way, but I see nothing in the inquest that precludes it as possible. I do, however, know of some theories that are based, at least in part, on JtR owning the cachous, but just because a theory requires it doesn't equate to proof it was that way. Not sure I've presented that in a way that is clear to you, so maybe if I just state the obvious; just because a theory can explain the evidence is not proof the theory is correct when other explanations still exist.

Anyway, I look forward to your references to the inquest testimony that proves JtR owned the cachous and gave them to Stride.

Also, I look forward to your explanation about how Stride reached for the cachous at the moment she was killed from behind either while falling or while on the ground (both options are listed in the inquest testimony, nowhere does it say she was killed while facing the murderer, and in fact they rule against her being killed while standing).

Finally, I look forward to your references to the inquest testimony where the possibility of JtR placing them in her hand after she was killed has been excluded as a possibility.

If you learn you cannot do those things, perhaps I've not wasted your time after all.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

i think you left out the most important part of your calculations professor-all were seen with the murder victim.
five different men seen with two murder victims that night all just happen to be wearing a peaked cap? no effing way.
its obviously one man wearing a peaked cap.
sorry jeff, ill go with Abberline on this one.


and we were getting along so splendidly on your geoprofiling stuff.

Different views is how ideas get explored though, so this is actually a lot more informative than when we agree fully. We're not really all that far apart here either, to be fair. Anyway, one thing is we don't know those 5 men were the same singular man, that's only one interpretation, or one possibility if you will. If Stride was soliciting, she might very well have been in the company of multiple men after all. And if so, then no matter what the chance odds are, we know they are all reported as wearing peaked caps. So despite the odds, even if they are low, if they were different men, they were all wearing peaked caps nonetheless (or at least, it is testified that they are).

Of course, if one of those men was JtR, then JtR was wearing a peaked cap, even if the chance probabilities were to be high. Given Lawende et co, if they did see Eddowes, surely must have seen her murderer, then JtR is wearing a sailor like peaked cap.

Of the men seen with Stride, we have two others, but not all, who are testified as having a "sailor's peaked cap". And Schwartz's less specific description, round dark hat with peak, could be describing a "sailor's cap" as well - it's not inconsistent with one at least, so can't be said to be different.

I can see a good basis for a hypothesis, that the "sailor cap" men may be one and the same man, which would expect the descriptions of them be similar enough to possibly be describing the same person. If that all holds up, and that "combined sailor man" also seems a good fit for Schwartz's "dark round hat with peak man", then you've got a defendable hypothesis.

I just wouldn't call it a slam dunk, but I'm more conservative on drawing such firm conclusions. I would, however, think you had some evidential ground on which to stand. And really, with JtR, that's not as common as it should be - so maybe I need to change my definition of what "slam dunk" means?

- Jeff

[caz]

Some theorists believe Jack only killed women who were actively soliciting; others that he only targeted women who had certain names; or even specific women who were trying to blackmail him.

In that vein, one could theorise that Stride only fancied men wearing peaked caps, and wouldn't give the time of day to anyone else.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fiver]

The Stride murder scene is totally different from the other murder sites, as is the time of the murder.

The coroner at the Stride Inquest disagrees with you.

"In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful. "

[Fiver]

What aspects do you think link her to the other murders?

According to the coroner.

"In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successful. "

* absence of motive
* type of victim
* time of the killing
* place of the killing
* method of killing
* ability for the killer to escape unnoticed

[Fiver]

Juwes is the Masonic spelling for the 3 Juwes/Jews Jubela, Jubelo and Jubelum who murdered Hiram Abiff in the Masonic ritual.

That 'fact' was made up as part of the Royal Conspiracy theory, which is an admitted hoax.

[Vfor]

That 'fact' was made up as part of the Royal Conspiracy theory, which is an admitted hoax.

I don't think it is anything to do with the JTR Masonic theory, I think the 3 "Juwes" is a Masonic thing outside of the JTR universe, but I'll have to double check if that is right after what you say. (Incidentally I'm not a holder of the JTR Masonic theory myself though the Juwes graffiti did make me doubt and think that maybe it possibly does ponit to Masons or Jews.) Thanks & sorry for the delay.

[Michael W Richards]

There is context available to support the contention that the writing referred to specific Jews, but generally. The fact that "juwes" were involved in the first killing of the night, the one least likely to have been committed by a serial mutilator. And that these same jews sought to evade blame for what happened. Thats what makes the cloth so interesting, was this the mitre square killer now so comfortable that he need only leave a bit of evidence and he is the automatic ripper suspect? Was the cloth a signature, and at the end of a message?

[Fogelpa]

How do people feel about Tom Wescotts idea that the reason for confusion could be that the word was not juwes or jews at all but rather iwmes,the club Stride were killed in front of?

[GBinOz]

Different views is how ideas get explored though, so this is actually a lot more informative than when we agree fully. We're not really all that far apart here either, to be fair. Anyway, one thing is we don't know those 5 men were the same singular man, that's only one interpretation, or one possibility if you will. If Stride was soliciting, she might very well have been in the company of multiple men after all. And if so, then no matter what the chance odds are, we know they are all reported as wearing peaked caps. So despite the odds, even if they are low, if they were different men, they were all wearing peaked caps nonetheless (or at least, it is testified that they are).

Of course, if one of those men was JtR, then JtR was wearing a peaked cap, even if the chance probabilities were to be high. Given Lawende et co, if they did see Eddowes, surely must have seen her murderer, then JtR is wearing a sailor like peaked cap.

Of the men seen with Stride, we have two others, but not all, who are testified as having a "sailor's peaked cap". And Schwartz's less specific description, round dark hat with peak, could be describing a "sailor's cap" as well - it's not inconsistent with one at least, so can't be said to be different.

I can see a good basis for a hypothesis, that the "sailor cap" men may be one and the same man, which would expect the descriptions of them be similar enough to possibly be describing the same person. If that all holds up, and that "combined sailor man" also seems a good fit for Schwartz's "dark round hat with peak man", then you've got a defendable hypothesis.

I just wouldn't call it a slam dunk, but I'm more conservative on drawing such firm conclusions. I would, however, think you had some evidential ground on which to stand. And really, with JtR, that's not as common as it should be - so maybe I need to change my definition of what "slam dunk" means?

- Jeff

I'm with you on this Jeff. Best & Gardner, Smith and Packer saw Stride with a man wearing dark clothing and a brimmed hat. Brown saw no headware on the man and no flower on Stride, and was probably viewing the young couple spoken of by Mortimer. Marshall saw a peaked cap on the man but no flower on Stride, so this couple may not have been Stride and companion. The man seen by Lawende et all wore a pepper and salt jacket and a grey soft peaked cap. Schwartz's BSM wore a dark jacket and a black cap with a peak.

I am seeing Stride with one man, Schwartz seeing a different man and Lawende seeing a third man.

Cheers, George

[Aethelwulf]

in the message, The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing, I've read about it being a dialect of the region indicating a certain type person, that the misspelling indicating the writer was a certain nationality. Which are believed to be more believable?

Worth rembering there is some other mis-spelled chalk graffiti associated with a very strong ripper suspect, although authorship is debated:

‘Jack Ripper is in this seller’

Although Juwes and seller look very wrong, phonetically they are correct.

In his fake job offer letter, Bury used the company name ‘Oglive’ at the start then bizarrely misspelled it ‘Eglive’ at the end.

[DJA]

How do people feel about Tom Wescotts idea that the reason for confusion could be that the word was not juwes or jews at all but rather iwmes,the club Stride were killed in front of?

IIRC Tom got the idea from someone else.

As juwes is not spelt with an "i",I subscribe to the idea.

In fact Juwes is an old Frisian word which also suits me.

iwmes rules but.