|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Arthur Conan Doyle? Should he now be considered a suspect?
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Suspects: General Discussion :
Arthur Conan Doyle? Should he now be considered a suspect?
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 06:31 pm |        | Jack,
while writing this I realise we all have different interpretations of the same thing,--the words were,--"The Juwes are not The men That Will be Blamed for nothing", To me that means the writer thinks the Jews are being blamed for something that they didn't do,-- they are being blamed for nothing, and the writer is saying, Jews won't accept that. In the AtoZ the name is spelt JUWES, not JUEWS. They spell it that way more than once and thats the way I accept it to have been spelt. Though since coming on to these boards in August 2000, I've seen so many ways to spell that word, so many outlandish suspects, so many variations of how and where the women were murdered--(that flies in the face of the facts that were written at the time, by police, newspapers and doctors). For instance, if Mary Kelly's left(?) thigh had been split or broken, why didn't the NUMEROUS doctors who reassembled her, who performed the post-mortem on her body, even mention such an obvious thing, they mentioned everything else!.
Rick |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 19 February 2001 - 07:55 pm | | In relation to Kelly's thigh I could not agree more Rick.If Kelly was attacked with an axe it would have shown up on the post-mortem report.
Deducting such information from a photo of Kelly is grasping at straws.The line on the thigh bone (concidered by some as evidence of an axe cut ) could relate to any number of factors. I also believe that Jon is correct in relation to what the apron piece was used for. Jon is also correct to state that it is a requirement to have a suspect when writing on the subject. When I sent my work to Headline Book Publishing they called in Martin Fido to check it out. While he stated it was original and interesting it lacked a suspect.The book was sent back and I spent the next 3-4 years working on the suspect. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 09:06 am | | Thankyou Ivor.
The origin of the axe....
My interpretation of the axe being found at the murder scene (IF it is true?) is that this was what was used to force the door open. The Doctors would surely have noted any axe wounds to the body, the existing testimony suggests there were none. The press describe the axe as a pickaxe, but knowing their consistant lack of accuracy I just take that to be an exageration for a normal hand axe.
Rick, I knew an older cockney lady some years ago who would commonly use double negative phrases, when complaining about some troublesome teenagers she would say "them kids wont be blamed for nothing (nuffing?)", and this is how I read the graffiti, and that both Halse & Long's versions are the same in meaning, regardless of where the 'not' is inserted. Simply put, "The Jews wont take the blame for anything they do", which may or may not have anything to do with the murders.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 09:25 am | | Dear Jon,
When I was at school (Yesterday) we learned that a double-negative makes a positive,
hence:"The Jewes are the men to be blamed for everything"!
...which may or may not (!) have anything to do with the murders.
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 09:36 am | | Hi Rosemary
Yes, this is true.
The writer is of the opinion that jews are to blame for something that they will not admit to.
But remember this is only the view of the writer, and not a fact. It still may have nuffink to do wiv no murders.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 10:10 am | | Dear Jon,
The one word that that is incontestably noted by its absence, is the word "Jew". I am absolutely certain that this word would not have aroused the
curious enquiry -made into an enigma -in the minds of intelligent people as the word, "Juwes/ Jeuwes/Jewes".
How odd of God to chose the J...s?
Love,
Rosemary |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 04:57 am | | Hi All,
Cockney double negatives don't make positives.
The phrase, "You ain't seen nuffing", doesn't mean "you've seen something", it means "you've seen nothing".
In other words, if the writer was a Cockney, and, depending on whether his 'for nothing' meant 'for no wrongdoing', or 'for no reason', and if the writer was Jack, this might tell us something. On the other hand it may not tell us nuffing at all.
(I'm married to a real live Cockney - or he would have been if Bow bells had still been around and ringing when he was born. :-))
Love,
Caz
PS I am told that, while the double negative is a feature in more than one language, it is a fact that a double positive never makes a negative in any language.
(Yeah, right.)  |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Wednesday, 21 February 2001 - 09:45 am | | Caz,
Do we not agree with each other, or don't we?? Personally I can't see no double negative in the chalked writing!! Up and down England people have different ways of speaking, different pronounciations, if it's wrong, doesn't mean they don't know, (I'm one for saying "am you" instead of "are you", it's Shropshire lingo, and I can't stop). Most everybody will use a double negative sometime, and I think the writing mean't what it said, written by (possibly) a Jewish person, with (possibly religious) feelings, or perhaps indignant at the way Jews were being blamed for everthing wrong in the Eastend, when in actual fact they had done nothing to warrant it. I don't think the writing had anything to do with the murders, he didn't know it was there, the rag just happened to land there where he slung it, in a doorway, out of sight, as he hurried by. Perhaps Halse and Long only saw that piece of apron and the writing because they were alerted to anything and everything by then.
Best regards Rick
Thanks for your comments IVOR. |
Author: jennifer pegg
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 03:34 am | | i don't think conan doyle ever wrote a jtr book, murder by decree (film) not written by him.....
didn't i see on a docu drama on bbc 2 that he thought he knew who jtr was....... |
Author: jennifer pegg
Wednesday, 09 January 2002 - 03:35 am | | | think the answer was dr cream in this case who murdered his girlfriend alegedly |
|
|
|
|
