Why hasnīt the Goulston Street Graffiti been explained?
My hypothesis is that it can be explained if you think outside the box, that is, if you use different thinking. So I would like to invite you to an experiment by posing two questions.
The general understanding of the text
"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"
is that it had to do with jews.
This understanding is created already in 1888. So that understanding is setting the frame for our understanding. And since then ripperologists have been trying to explain a content about jews.
But there has never been a real understanding of the text, since no one has managed to explain it. That it why we can not understand it today.
Another type of understanding of the text, also connected to the word "juwes", is that the person who wrote it - that is, the killer (if we do not hypothesize that the killer wrote it, there is no need for analysing the text) -
could not spell.
This idea does not fit with the rest of the text, since it is correctly spelled.
Those who have been trying to understand the word as being wrongly spelled, have also been trying to explain that. In this case there has been explanations saying that the killer must have come from a lower class. But the writing on the wall was in a schoolboys good hand.
So that does not fit with the idea of the text being written by an uneducated man or by someone from a lower class.
To summarize: The idea of the word "juwes" as referring to jews is a problem.
Another problem is the double negative "not be blamed for nothing".
But this construction must be seen as a secondary problem, since we do not have an explanation that generates understanding for the key word "juwes".
So as long as we do not understand that word, we will absolutely not be able to understand the double negative. Therefore, an hypothesis should be that if we manage to understand the "juwes", we will also understand the double negative.
As I said, I would like to invite you to an experiment.
Many have been used to thinking from inside of the box, and understand the writing from a perspective of the frame set by earlier generations and from people from 1888, from the police etc.
I think we need to get rid of the box.
Letīs start with two interesting questions and please try to answer the first and then the second:
1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews?
2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word?
As you can see, I am not asking about the meaning of the text but I am asking you about a method for thinking about the meaning of the text.
Kind regards, Pierre
Of course there is the problem first of what was actually written, and which version one would prefer.
and if there is a small range of versions of the word "juwes" there could be a few explanations to that.
For example, if the first transcription of the writing on the wall is "juwes", the rest of the writings about the transcription are results of hearing the word "jews" when they were talking about it.
But what is the spelling of the "juwes" a result of? Because the police (Warren) did not misspell the word "jews", did they?
And what do you think would happen if we assumed that the word had nothing to do with jews?
And what do you think would happen if we used a dictionary to understand it?
I have seen discussion of all sorts of other meanings on this forum other than Jews.
If the OP thinks he knows the meaning of the sentence then he should go ahead and explain it. I really don't think we need this 'experiment' which is nothing more than has already been done for the last forty years at least.
Like no-one ever thought to look in the dictionary.
Bridewell made an interesting post about 4 years ago that the word "Juwes" was a nickname for the City of London Police.
"In Paul Harrison's book, 'Jack the Ripper - The Mystery Solved' he claims that contacts within the Metropolitan Police have told him of resentment within the Met at being blamed for everything that was wrong in East London and at being compared unfavourably with the City Force:
"The message was nothing more than a jibe at the City Police. The word 'Juwes' should have been spelt 'Jewes' and was meant to refer to the nickname used by the majority of the Metropolitan Officers when referring to their City opponents. The nickname derives from the Old Jewry police headquarters of the City Police.
If the story is correct, a fact in which I have no reason to doubt, then it explains Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren's rival actions in removing the message".
That would also explain the superlative use of "the men" in the phrase "the jews are the men than will not be blamed for nothing". If the phrase actually referred to the jews, it would say "The jews will not be blamed for nothing".
By spelling the word "juwes", the writer drew attention to this word. As someone also mentioned before, the hand writing was neat and other words spelt correctly - why mis-spell "jews" unless it was deliberate.
Superintendent Arnold and Sir Charles Warren explained their decision to remove the message to the Home Office. It had nothing to do with an alleged nickname attributed to the City Police.
Intresting indeed, I don't remember reading this before.
But assuming the person who left the blood stain cloth was the killer/writer of the Chalk message, what does that tells us about him?
Is the theory that Jack was a Policeman from the Met ?
Not been around much recently. holiday and sickness.
One of the problems with the "Experiment" suggested is that there are many like myself who do not believe the text has anything to do with the apron found close by, nor the Killer and thus nothing to do with the MURDERS.
Now others of course disagree on this, but no one has been able to provide direct evidence of a link in the past 128 years. There is much discussion over and over again on this issue, unfortunately a consensus has and probably never will be agreed.
Those who see the murders as planned certainly will always argue in favour, those like me who see them as random and unplanned will always on the whole argue against and probably the majority who are in neither camp will change their minds over a link every so often.
Craig, interesting point, however do we have a secondary confirmation for the lines you quote. I would like a contemporary Source/Reference for the information, did the author give one i have not read Harrison's book?
Having said it is interesting i still have to say I see little to link the writing to the killer.
Given that we have:
No 100% accurate report of the spelling.
No 100 accurate report of the text.
And actually no accurate report of the layout, there are several versions flying about as we are all aware.
The terms "neat" and "schoolboy hand" are based on reports given at the time agreed; but they are highly subjective being based on the interpretation of the person giving the report, those terms should not be taken as sacrosanct. my view of neat and good schoolboy hand writing maybe and probably are different to the next persons.
Pierre, not had a chance to say hello since your return, Open to thinking outside the box, you finished your 1st post by asking 2 questions:
"1. What would happen if we forget about the interpretation of this word as having anything to do with jews?"
well yes that has already been done several times, the obvious well know version being the Masonic theories, Craig has now also offered a second view. I therefore do not see, how by answering that question we can think outside the "BOX", many already do believe what you contemplate.
"2. What would happen if one uses a dictionary to try and understand the word?"
Has David said already this has been looked at, i have just done an online search again, I can find nothing other than references back to the murders of 1888. Am I missing something?
Can one ask what your researches into the word have revealed? what dictionary have you used?
All the best
I have heard about that but we are still stuck in the same old box with it, since "Old Jewry" and "Jewes" both contain the word "jew".
And we are still in the old discussion now. But I did pose two questions to take us away from it.
Letīs see if someone will manage to answer them.
Kind regards, Pierre
|All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.