the line leads to a scribble mark over those buildings. could that indicate that there wete no buildings?
The layout Foster copied to make that plan is a 1873 Ordnance Survey map which did not show the Model Dwellings, so Foster just scribbled out those buildings that had been demolished by 1888.
If you look back at that enlargement of the Dwellings (post #357) there are two houses (132 and 131) fronting on to Wentworth street that back on to the first block of the Model Dwellings (90-107).
The depth of those houses looks about 30 feet. I wonder if that is what the line is intended to indicate.
Though I fail to see the significance of pointing that out in notes.
with houses 131 and 132 ,not there,
30' from the edge of 90-107
so walking south on goulston
in 10' youre next to the lamp
20' after the lamp is doorway
i used the 31' street at the bottom of post 357 as reference
any ideas what star and A mean?
The big red 'A' is where the apron was found.
What looks like a star is made up of unrelated marks, one being the 'L' in "Goulston", the other being some kind of indicator which begins by the "L" and leads back to the building - its a pointer of sorts.
Regards, Jon S.
Last edited by Wickerman : 07-16-2017 at 05:29 AM.
It comes down to, did Long,at 2:20 AM, do his job and checked the Wentworth doorway.And/or was asked by higher-ups (most likely/believable) and said he did checked and the apron was not there,which made the police believe even more that the apron was placed in the doorway deliberately,together with the "fresh" graffito,trying to place the blame on the Jews ( Lawende and co. did not say if the killer was a "foreigner" or not) because why would the killer hang about and/or return to deposit the apron.
I do not know if the police's answers were somewhat screened before an inquest.
If Long did not check it's easier to believe that the apron was just randomly discarded,which is the simplest explanation.
In the inquest it was not asked, so we do not know if it was intentionally placed or not for intimidation ,lashing out or whatever reason,or if the napkin theory is viable.
Thus ''Constable Alfred Long =
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.'' was correct with no objections from the police in the inquest
If Long told superiors he did not actually checked the doorway his expected answer would be similar to Daniel Halse's
''By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron. ''
and Long's ''It was not.'' was certain and vastly incorrect and a lie.