An experiment

[Abby Normal]

I can't help wondering if you think we are all stupid.

Basically what you are saying is that the writing on the wall did not say "Juwes" but a word that looked similar to "Juwes".

Why does it need about twenty posts and a thousand words to make this simple point?

And if there is such a word which you think fits the bill why not just tell us what it is?

Hi David
after going back and looking at pierres response to your suggestion of Jutes, I'm thinking that might be it. he dosnt deny It, just asks a bunch of questions.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373070]

Most detectives had good eyesight and were able to read QUOTE]

What is your source for that, David?

Regards, Pierre

that's like asking someone for a source for the sun rises in the east.

[Mirandola]

This stuff has been gone through at length and in detail many times.

There are four or perhaps five versions of what the Graffito actually said.

We have no way of knowing which, if any, was accurate.

Graffiti were commonplace in the London of the time http://www.dirtyoldlondon.com/

There is no evidence whatsoever apart from propinquity to connect the Graffito with the cut part of the apron.

[David Orsam]

Both naturally, since you wrote: "Most detectives had good eyesight and were able to read".

The reason I asked was because I was surprised that you require a source that detectives were able to read considering that promotion to detective required the passing of written examinations.

Anyway, if you really want a source I can do no better than "Capturing Jack the Ripper: In the Boots of a Bobby in Victorian London" (2014) by Neil R.A. Bell who, as you may know, is considered an authority on the subject of nineteenth century police. On page 36 he states (a) that every police officer was required to pass an eye test "to ensure vision was suitable as observation was a key weapon in a policeman's armoury" and (b) that every police officer was tested on the three 'R's - reading, writing and arithmetic.

[David Orsam]

Hi David
after going back and looking at pierres response to your suggestion of Jutes, I'm thinking that might be it. he dosnt deny It, just asks a bunch of questions.

That was noted Abby. I was surprised at the lack of patronising tone in his response which did make me wonder if I'd actually cracked it!

[David Orsam]

that's like asking someone for a source for the sun rises in the east.

Quite! Thankfully I have Monty.

[Pierre]

Out of exasperation, I was going to say jews, but you said it didn't have anything to do with jews.

are you saying all along the word was jews?

Hi Abby,

I was just an ironic comment.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

The reason I asked was because I was surprised that you require a source that detectives were able to read considering that promotion to detective required the passing of written examinations.

Anyway, if you really want a source I can do no better than "Capturing Jack the Ripper: In the Boots of a Bobby in Victorian London" (2014) by Neil R.A. Bell who, as you may know, is considered an authority on the subject of nineteenth century police. On page 36 he states (a) that every police officer was required to pass an eye test "to ensure vision was suitable as observation was a key weapon in a policeman's armoury" and (b) that every police officer was tested on the three 'R's - reading, writing and arithmetic.

They did tests, but that does not imply that every PC had good eyesight after working some years in the force. And misreadings occur even when people can read. So that is a problem.

[Pierre]

That was noted Abby. I was surprised at the lack of patronising tone in his response which did make me wonder if I'd actually cracked it!

Have you "cracked it"? Good, what are the arguments for this?

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

I was just an ironic comment.

Regards, Pierre

hi pierre
thanks. was the word Jutes, as David suggested. or possibly reeves as I suggested?

[Pierre]

hi pierre
thanks. was the word Jutes, as David suggested. or possibly reeves as I suggested?

Hi Abby,

how would I know?

Regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

how would I know?

Regards, Pierre

well since you started this thread-I assumed that you actually had a word in mind.

[David Orsam]

They did tests, but that does not imply that every PC had good eyesight after working some years in the force. And misreadings occur even when people can read. So that is a problem.

You might have noted that I very carefully said that "most detectives" had good eyesight and were able to read. So if you are trying to say that Detective Halse (and everyone else who saw the writing on the wall) had poor eyesight and difficulties reading then it is your problem, not mine.

[David Orsam]

Have you "cracked it"? Good, what are the arguments for this?

Well Pierre, it's your thread. Your "experiment". Your questions. You are the arbiter of whether I have successfully identified a word from the dictionary (where you suggested I look) that might have been confused for "Juwes". You were the one who put forward a hypothesis that the writing on the wall can be explained if we think out of the box.

So it's entirely up to you to tell me if I've cracked it.

[Pierre]

No-one knows who Jack the Ripper was, Pierre, so no-one knows what he knew or what his interests were.

But if Jack the Ripper was from Jutland, or was otherwise of Scandinavian descent, there is a fair chance he knew about the Jutes and was interested in them.

I thought we were simply trying to interpret the writing on the wall – which may or may not have been written by Jack the Ripper - but if your starting point is that we have to know who Jack the Ripper was before we can do so, and you think you do know who Jack the Ripper was, then perhaps you should tell us his identity and this might help us to understand what the writing means.

Hi David,

So the "Jutes" would not take the blame for what and should be blamed for what?

Had they done anything specific to deserve or not deserve blame?

Was "being a jute" a matter of honour?

Were there some "jute traditions" in England?

What arguments are there for the "Jutes" being an existing "group" in modernity?

Were they involved in migration?

Were there areas in London where the "jutes" were living and/or working?

Were they important in society?

Were they real "men", or even "the men" that people in London could meet and talk to - and blame?

Did the newspapers write about them?

How could a serial killers interest in an historical group of people like "jutes" (from the 5th century?) make him want to communicate that interest with society?

What would the point be?

Regards, Pierre