The Goulston Street Juwes

[David Orsam]

Ouch!
I'm guessing the significance maybe the writer of the GSG didn't have his spellcheck on when writing the word "Juwes".
In my defence, I am on here using a phone rather than a PC, and my eyes arn't what they used to be.

Not a criticism of you spyglass, just an observation that a mis-spelling of single word in a sentence does not necessarily imbue that word with significance.

[Sam Flynn]

Not a criticism of you spyglass, just an observation that a mis-spelling of single word in a sentence does not necessarily imbue that word with significance.

Quite so; and your point is well-demonstrated.

[Bridewell]

Given that every word is spelt correctly in the above post other than the word "proberbly" what is the significance of that mis-spelling?

'Proberbly' none.

[Bridewell]

Not a criticism of you spyglass, just an observation that a mis-spelling of single word in a sentence does not necessarily imbue that word with significance.

Always assuming that it actually was a mis-spelling.

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=Pierre;372765]

Hi,

I think your post is a perfect example of critical thinking at a simple level. Very relevant and with really interesting questions.

The spelling isn't actually that terrible though, is it? Words like 'blamed' and 'nothing' are spelt correctly.

That is an extremely important comment. Yes, it seems it is the unique combination of letters here that makes up this seemingly incorrect spelling.



This is one of the best questions I have ever seen here on Casebook. It is rational and clear and gives a perfect frame for critical thinking.



And here begins the important explorative thinking that could lead us to really interesting answers, I think. Thanks, Bridewell, for a brilliant post.

Kind regards, Pierre

I think 'brilliant' may be a little over-generous - but thank-you anyway!

[The Good Michael]

And again, "Jewes" would not have been an incorrect spelling. It seems to have been one or the other, "Juwes" or "Jewes". How one wants it to be spelled makes a world of difference between the two.

Mike

[Rosella]

If the GSG was an accusation aimed at the City of London police, then why throw the apron down in the entry to a dwelling mainly used by Jewish people and chalk the message on the brick fascia of the building? Why not "The London City coppers are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"?

If it's aimed at the City police it's odd that Commissioner Smith wanted the graffiti kept and Warren insisted on it being rubbed out for fear of anti-Jewish riots. Unless of course, the message about the Jewes was too subtle for the police, in which case it entirely failed in its intent, didn't it?

[David Orsam]

Always assuming that it actually was a mis-spelling.

Yes, quite, Bridewell but your earlier post said "Why was that word, and that word only, wrongly spelt?" which is what prompted my observation about the spelling in spyglass' post.

[David Orsam]

And again, "Jewes" would not have been an incorrect spelling.

Really? Why not?

[David Orsam]

If the GSG was an accusation aimed at the City of London police, then why throw the apron down in the entry to a dwelling mainly used by Jewish people and chalk the message on the brick fascia of the building? Why not "The London City coppers are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"?

If it's aimed at the City police it's odd that Commissioner Smith wanted the graffiti kept and Warren insisted on it being rubbed out for fear of anti-Jewish riots. Unless of course, the message about the Jewes was too subtle for the police, in which case it entirely failed in its intent, didn't it?

I agree entirely and would add that if Paul Harrison is correct about the City Police having had such a nickname based on 'Old Jewry' it would probably only have been spoken but would naturally have been written as "Jews" (although I don't suppose anyone really was in a position to know) which not only seems to be a strange and confusing nickname but means that the writing on the wall still contains a spelling mistake and thus might equally have meant Jewish men. The theory expressed that by deliberately mis-spelling the word the writer was drawing attention to it thereby highlighting that he was referring to the City Police does not seem to me to make any sense.

[The Good Michael]

Really? Why not?

It was used by Puritans and was also used in literature, though uncommon.

Mike

[Qlder]

Cursive script

I recollect that a number of years back a poster (I think he was a Japanese gentleman) posited that the "J" might have been a misread "I" and that the "Juwes" might in fact have been a reference to the "IWES" (International Workingmen's Educational Society - although I think it was called a club rather than society). It might be improbable, but it is, I think, entirely possible. If it were a reference to the Workingmen's institution, which was effectively the site of Stride's murder, then that would make the juxtaposition of Eddowe's apron cutting an unmistakable message that both murders were by the same person.
I find it an interesting thought. One would then need to go back and reconsider the Saucy Jacky postcard referencing the double event and perhaps discount it as, if the murderer was in the business of taunting and dropping hints, why did he not reference the apron/kidney/graffito in the postcard?
That's my tuppence worth.
I now withdraw and leave it to better minds to carry on.

[Jon Guy]

I recollect that a number of years back a poster (I think he was a Japanese gentleman) posited that the "J" might have been a misread "I" and that the "Juwes" might in fact have been a reference to the "IWES" (International Workingmen's Educational Society - although I think it was called a club rather than society). It might be improbable, but it is, I think, entirely possible. If it were a reference to the Workingmen's institution, which was effectively the site of Stride's murder, then that would make the juxtaposition of Eddowe's apron cutting an unmistakable message that both murders were by the same person.
I find it an interesting thought. One would then need to go back and reconsider the Saucy Jacky postcard referencing the double event and perhaps discount it as, if the murderer was in the business of taunting and dropping hints, why did he not reference the apron/kidney/graffito in the postcard?
That's my tuppence worth.
I now withdraw and leave it to better minds to carry on.

Similarly, if the SJ letter was a hoax, and written by a "journalist", why didn`t he mention the apron/kidney/graffito ?

[Geddy2112]

When was the last time the wall was spotted graffiti free? Does this help with regards to if it could have been JtR etc?

[Jon Guy]

When was the last time the wall was spotted graffiti free? Does this help with regards to if it could have been JtR etc?

A good question that we hope the detectives asked the residents.
Maybe, the police did get an answer as internal police memo`s stated that the message was undoubtedly written by the killer.