Was the Artist Henri de Toulouse Lautrec Implicated in the Killings?

[Errata]

Here's the Met copy of the layout of the graffito.

Yeah, I've seen that. But I haven't been able to figure out if that is the layout, or the meter. In other words, did he copy the line breaks, or did he assign the line breaks based on how the meter sounded in his head?

And I know I am way overthinking it, but if you've never had to grade papers on Shakespeare, you have no idea how many ways people alter word order to suit their inner poet.

Which is why a photo really wouldn't have killed a guy.

[ChrisGeorge]

As for the two different transcriptions, that's a common mistake. People transpose words in their head all the time because when you read something, you aren't reading a series of words one by one in a sequence. You actually take in the whole meaning first, and parse the separate words later. I would guess that Long is the one that transcribed it correctly, because that particular syntax is less natural than Halse's version. Halse probably read it and transposed the words to a more natural order. In that case, Halse wrote down what he expected the word order to be, not what it actually was. Really common.

As for the capitalization, I couldn't say without knowing the layout of the graffiti. For example, if it looked like this:
The Juwes are the men
That
Will not be
Blamed for nothing

then the capitalization makes perfect sense. It's almost a haiku. But if it looked like this:
The Juwes
are the men That Will not be Blamed
for nothing

Then it is not a grammatical choice, which means the capitalized words have special significance to the author.

Of course, people with little grammar education or foreign speakers (and a good deal of us in the internet age) write the way they speak. They use a comma to indicate a pause in speech, as opposed to a pause in information. They capitalize words that would have emphasis when they were speaking. Essentially, it's almost the difference between writing a play and writing a thesis. They write the way the words are meant to be heard as if spoken.

And as for a capitalized "the" on one report and not the other, it could be anything. If the crossbar of the "T" was high, one man could have seen it as lower case and one upper case. Halse could have assumed the capital even though it was not present, or the reverse for Long. Or it could be that Halse's handwriting was a little on the vague side.

Here's the Met copy of the layout of the graffito.

[Errata]

Let us take a closer look at the message itself.

Police Constable Long recorded the message as follows, “The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing.”

However Detective Constable Halse recorded it as, “The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing.”

Note that the two transcriptions are almost identical but the word 'not' is in a different place each time. How can standing in a darkened doorway satisfactorily explain such a mis-transcription?

Also, why the use of capitals on certain words throughout the message? Has anyone any ideas about this?

Also note that the word 'The' has a capital before the word 'men' in Halse's transcription but not in Long's. Why is this?

If a cockney had written the message then surely it would have been easier to have written, "The Juwes won't be blamed for nothing".

The message it far too long winded and clumsy even for a cockney.

As for the two different transcriptions, that's a common mistake. People transpose words in their head all the time because when you read something, you aren't reading a series of words one by one in a sequence. You actually take in the whole meaning first, and parse the separate words later. I would guess that Long is the one that transcribed it correctly, because that particular syntax is less natural than Halse's version. Halse probably read it and transposed the words to a more natural order. In that case, Halse wrote down what he expected the word order to be, not what it actually was. Really common.

As for the capitalization, I couldn't say without knowing the layout of the graffiti. For example, if it looked like this:
The Juwes are the men
That
Will not be
Blamed for nothing

then the capitalization makes perfect sense. It's almost a haiku. But if it looked like this:
The Juwes
are the men That Will not be Blamed
for nothing

Then it is not a grammatical choice, which means the capitalized words have special significance to the author.

Of course, people with little grammar education or foreign speakers (and a good deal of us in the internet age) write the way they speak. They use a comma to indicate a pause in speech, as opposed to a pause in information. They capitalize words that would have emphasis when they were speaking. Essentially, it's almost the difference between writing a play and writing a thesis. They write the way the words are meant to be heard as if spoken.

And as for a capitalized "the" on one report and not the other, it could be anything. If the crossbar of the "T" was high, one man could have seen it as lower case and one upper case. Halse could have assumed the capital even though it was not present, or the reverse for Long. Or it could be that Halse's handwriting was a little on the vague side.

[galexander]

Let us take a closer look at the message itself.

Police Constable Long recorded the message as follows, “The Juwes are the men That Will not be Blamed for nothing.”

However Detective Constable Halse recorded it as, “The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing.”

Note that the two transcriptions are almost identical but the word 'not' is in a different place each time. How can standing in a darkened doorway satisfactorily explain such a mis-transcription?

Also, why the use of capitals on certain words throughout the message? Has anyone any ideas about this?

Also note that the word 'The' has a capital before the word 'men' in Halse's transcription but not in Long's. Why is this?

If a cockney had written the message then surely it would have been easier to have written, "The Juwes won't be blamed for nothing".

The message it far too long winded and clumsy even for a cockney.

[Bridewell]

Juwes

I admit, it's been a realllly long time since I've spoken french, but I think they also use the double negative in such an instance. They don't say things like "I ain't got no money" but "I haven't got nothing" I think is the correct syntax. The big mystery is the way "Jews" is misspelled. There is that masonic theory which I don't even want to think about. But "Juwes" or even "Jewes" is not a phonetic spelling. Joos might be, Juws even. But Juwes/Jewes is just not how an English speaking person would misspell that word. So either it isn't misspelled, or it was misspelled by someone who who natively spoke another language. Given the misspelling, French seems a good bet.

I think Galexander is arguing that the GSG was actually written in French & noted down in English by Pc Long & Dc Halse:

I suggest that the differences can be explained by two separate translations of the same foreign text.

If that is the contention, it might explain the minor discrepancy in wording, but I would have to query why the two officers translated most of the text, but left "Juives" in the original French.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Errata]

The syntax of the message sounds Cockney. It has the Cockney double negative... most authorities agree on that. The lettering was only a half inch high written in chalk on brick. You try to transcribe it in a darkened doorway just with the aid of the light a bulls-eye lantern with the hue and cry on. I bet your transcription might not match mine.

I admit, it's been a realllly long time since I've spoken french, but I think they also use the double negative in such an instance. They don't say things like "I ain't got no money" but "I haven't got nothing" I think is the correct syntax. The big mystery is the way "Jews" is misspelled. There is that masonic theory which I don't even want to think about. But "Juwes" or even "Jewes" is not a phonetic spelling. Joos might be, Juws even. But Juwes/Jewes is just not how an English speaking person would misspell that word. So either it isn't misspelled, or it was misspelled by someone who who natively spoke another language. Given the misspelling, French seems a good bet.

[ChrisGeorge]

The conventional explanation for the poor spelling in the GSG is that the author was of poor literacy.

But that does not explain why PC Long and DC Halse recorded the message quite differently. You would have thought that two policemen with pencils and notepads could at least have recorded the same content. However they couldn't.

I suggest that the differences can be explained by two separate translations of the same foreign text. The fact that the GSG was in a foreign language and that the Ripper therefore could have been foreign as well, was possibly suppressed by the authorities not wanting to stir up xenophobia.

I think that the syntax of the message sounds French.

The syntax of the message sounds Cockney. It has the Cockney double negative... most authorities agree on that. The lettering was only a half inch high written in chalk on brick. You try to transcribe it in a darkened doorway just with the aid of the light a bulls-eye lantern with the hue and cry on. I bet your transcription might not match mine.

[galexander]

It was indeed recorded differently by Pc Long & Dc Halse, but I don't see how it is possible, from that, to draw a conclusion that it was originally in French. If you have a solid basis for that conclusion, I would be very interested to read about it.



I don't share your belief that HTL was the Ripper, but we are in complete agreement on this.

Regards, Bridewell.

The conventional explanation for the poor spelling in the GSG is that the author was of poor literacy.

But that does not explain why PC Long and DC Halse recorded the message quite differently. You would have thought that two policemen with pencils and notepads could at least have recorded the same content. However they couldn't.

I suggest that the differences can be explained by two separate translations of the same foreign text. The fact that the GSG was in a foreign language and that the Ripper therefore could have been foreign as well, was possibly suppressed by the authorities not wanting to stir up xenophobia.

I think that the syntax of the message sounds French.

[Bridewell]

Quote Captain Hook: He was, in short, a dead ringer for Astrakhan man.

Short being the operative word. Astrakhan Man was described as 5' 6". Henri de Toulouse Lautrec - at most - 5' 1", probably less?

Regards, Bridewell

[Captain Hook]

Bridewell,

I never joke.

Cheers,
Hook

[Bridewell]

Lautreckies

Galexander,

I wish you luck with your book. But I want credit. Look at the date of the post below.

Hook


#60

02-04-2012, 01:35 PM


Captain Hook

Casebook Supporter


Join Date: Apr 2008

Location: Neverland

Posts: 101

Casebook Supporter



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello all,

Vincent Van Gogh was not Jack the Ripper. Paul Gauguin was not Jack the Ripper. Walter Sickert was not Jack the Ripper.

Henri de Toulouse Lautrec was Jack the Ripper.

Like the Ripper, Toulouse Lautrec was upper class, related to the ancient nobility of France. He suffered from a physical handicap, was an alcoholic and consorted with prostitutes. He spoke English fluently and signed "Yours Truly" hs letters to his mother, otherwise written in French. He visited London frequently. He was swarthy and looked foreign (to an Englishman) or even Semitic. He was, in short, a dead ringer for Astrakhan man.

Case closed.

Hook

__________________
Asante Mungu leo ni Ijumaa.
Old Swahili Proverb

Dear Hook,

Please reassure me that you're joking. I can just about handle the thought of one Lautreckian, but not plurality (Lautreckies?).

Regards, Bridewell.

[Captain Hook]

Credit

Galexander,

I wish you luck with your book. But I want credit. Look at the date of the post below.

Hook


#60

02-04-2012, 01:35 PM


Captain Hook

Casebook Supporter


Join Date: Apr 2008

Location: Neverland

Posts: 101

Casebook Supporter



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello all,

Vincent Van Gogh was not Jack the Ripper. Paul Gauguin was not Jack the Ripper. Walter Sickert was not Jack the Ripper.

Henri de Toulouse Lautrec was Jack the Ripper.

Like the Ripper, Toulouse Lautrec was upper class, related to the ancient nobility of France. He suffered from a physical handicap, was an alcoholic and consorted with prostitutes. He spoke English fluently and signed "Yours Truly" hs letters to his mother, otherwise written in French. He visited London frequently. He was swarthy and looked foreign (to an Englishman) or even Semitic. He was, in short, a dead ringer for Astrakhan man.

Case closed.

Hook

__________________
Asante Mungu leo ni Ijumaa.
Old Swahili Proverb

[ChrisGeorge]

Why is it people seem to want to claim famous artists or painters were Jack the Ripper? Other than making a fast buck?

Hi John

To my mind, as soon as Prince Albert Victor was named as having been Jack the Ripper it became open season to name anyone and everyone who happened to live at the time as Jack the Ripper. The Ripper can be whomever you want him to be. So thus, we have had recently Henri de Toulouse Lautrec, Vincent Van Gogh, and Robert Louis Stevenson. It doesn't matter how outlandish the claim is or that the "suspect" had a clear alibi at the time, those who want to name such suspects don't seem phased by such problems. The myth of the Ripper being a gentleman with top hat and cape doesn't help, or the idea that he was a Jekyll and Hyde personality.

All the best

Chris

[Fisherman]

Every time the Brits get to vote about who the Ripper was, they always opt for the Royal conspiracy, John. And they are not paid for it.
The more sensational the better, it would seem ...

The best,
Fisherman

[John Wheat]

Why Artists and Painters

Why is it people seem to want to claim famous artists or painters were Jack the Ripper? Other than making a fast buck?