Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 11 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 11 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 23 minutes ago.
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - by Michael W Richards 37 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 38 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Michael W Richards 43 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (67 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Bucks Row Project - (1 posts)
Visual Media: New play about Jack the Ripper (Denver, CO) - (1 posts)
Goulston Street Graffito: The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications > Goulston Street Graffito

View Poll Results: Did Jack write the GSG?
YES 75 38.66%
NO 119 61.34%
Voters: 194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2621  
Old 10-09-2017, 10:01 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You do not know what you are talking about.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I think he knows perfectly well what he's talking about, but if you don't then the obligation is on you to clearly say why.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2622  
Old 10-09-2017, 10:06 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You are two faced. In one breath you castigate me for what you term personal opinion and in the next breath you are giving an opinion yourself albeit in your inimitable way of manipulating words to suit your own purpose.
Pardon?

Let's look at what I said.

"If it was large" so qualifying what is too follow.

" it suggests another good possible reason for Long investigating it."

So not the reason, just another possible reason.


So far I see no theory proposed, just a possible suggestion.

As purely a suggestion, it needs no support, if however I wish to turn it into a theory or hypothesis I would need to provide evidence.

While it may be possible to hypothesis on the possability of a large portion being enough to take the attention of Long, we will not be able to prove it and it will remain an unproven and unsupported idea. That's fine so long as we don't try and use this as the main thrust of any argument.

With regards to the size, that is impossible to hypothesis, which i said in the post.

My opinion that I did not see it as being particularly small, is just that An Opinion its not factual, its not evidence, its not supported by an source; in fact it's exactly the same as you present as evidence and of course IT IS NOT!.

This is what you do not seem to understand, make as many suggestions as you like, but to turn them into theory you actually need evidence.


That is not being two faced, I am consistent in that opinions are not evidence unless supported.

I require an apology for that personal attack,.

Quote:
I am not going to argue with you anymore. I dont have the time or the inclination. You see things one way, I see them another, at the end of the day perhaps neither of us are right. But will we ever know. I have a feeling we might in the not to distant future.

You have some actually evidence do you Trevor or is it just another upcoming publication?
I see no response to post 2614, along with several others, too difficult?




Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2623  
Old 10-09-2017, 11:57 AM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post

My opinion that I did not see it as being particularly small, is just that An Opinion its not factual, its not evidence, its not supported by an source; in fact it's exactly the same as you present as evidence and of course IT IS NOT!.

This is what you do not seem to understand, make as many suggestions as you like, but to turn them into theory you actually need evidence.
'Don't let facts get in the way of a good story' a slight variation of the Mark Twain quote. Just came to mind as I was reading the last few posts.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2624  
Old 10-09-2017, 05:49 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,683
Default

Wickerman,
My point is that if you carried out the test as I described,you are left with the blood and excrement so mixed it w ould be well nigh impossible to tell what the mixture contained.Except for the smell,but smell is not mentioned.So If the killer used the cloth to wipe himself what tests defined what was on the piece of cloth.
Or was it all conjecture? Or did Long have experience of starting out in the butcher business.

When the commissioner is called to a scene that itself has no evidence of being the scene of a crime,and remember neither the cloth or the writing had been connected to Eddowes murder when Warren arrived at Wentworth Building,it might be of value to know what evidence brought him there,and what proceedures had been put in place.
Did others,like Long,ignore procedure?
I know, where is my evidence of what I write.W here is the evidence that disproves it?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2625  
Old 10-09-2017, 06:04 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,683
Default

Something I forgot.Maybe the apron was homemade.What did a homemade apron look like.Well my grandmothers looked like a half apron.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2626  
Old 10-09-2017, 07:32 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,797
Default

Harry.

I could see where you were going with the question, but if blood & fecal matter was mixed, and presumably in your view unrecognisable, then I doubt the stains would be described as if they were separate.
My interpretation is that there were spots & smears of blood, plus a wet corner, and some fecal stains. Others may disagree.

Warren's concern was the potential for a local disturbance due to the wording of the graffiti being found next to a blood stained cloth, on the night of two murders.
The public will sense a connection, even if there was none.

When they hear about two murders, and the finding of a blood stained cloth next to some anti-semitic accusation blaming Jews, there's a potential for violence in the streets.
Warren's immediate concern was not to whom the apron belonged, nor if it was evidence of a crime.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2627  
Old 10-10-2017, 08:31 AM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
There is a bit of a footnote to this query by Harry.

Some months ago we had a bit of a debate over why PC Long did not bring his pocketbook to court, an experienced officer would have known to do that. This was just another criticism made against Long, but as I read through the various press reports of his testimony I noticed something I had not seen before.

It appears PC Long copied the notes from his pocketbook into a report for him to bring as evidence to the inquest. Which is why he had no need to also bring his pocketbook.
The Coroner was questioning whether he had copied the graffiti accurately from his pocketbook into the report.

In the court version we actually do read: "I copied the words from the wall into my report".
(Which must have meant "from the pocketbook into my report")

Long also added: "I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews".

In the Daily Telegraph we also read the Coroner asked if he had made a note of the graffiti at the time, to which Long replied: "Yes, in my pocket-book."

After this exchange the Coroner asked if Long could go get his pocketbook.
On Long's return, the Coroner asked him: "Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly?"

"Both here, and in your inspectors report".
We are looking at two sources. The report he had to make for the inspector, presumably after his duty that night, and his original notes made at the scene in his pocketbook.
This was the reason he did not bring his pocketbook to court, he had a copy of the graffiti made in his report which he brought to the inquest.

PC Long is justified once again.
I'm afraid not. If an officer wishes to refresh his memory whilst giving evidence he is usually allowed to do so, but it has to be from his original notes. The above-mentioned exchange with the coroner seems to confirm that Long had been referring to something copied from his original notes. That conflicts with the 'best evidence' principle with regard to documentary evidence which requires that, wherever possible, the original document only is adduced, not a copy. Hence Long was sent to retrieve the original note, his pocket book - which is what he should have brought with him in the first place.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2628  
Old 10-10-2017, 09:18 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Wickerman,
My point is that if you carried out the test as I described,you are left with the blood and excrement so mixed it w ould be well nigh impossible to tell what the mixture contained.Except for the smell,but smell is not mentioned.So If the killer used the cloth to wipe himself what tests defined what was on the piece of cloth.
Or was it all conjecture? Or did Long have experience of starting out in the butcher business.

When the commissioner is called to a scene that itself has no evidence of being the scene of a crime,and remember neither the cloth or the writing had been connected to Eddowes murder when Warren arrived at Wentworth Building,it might be of value to know what evidence brought him there,and what proceedures had been put in place.
Did others,like Long,ignore procedure?
I know, where is my evidence of what I write.W here is the evidence that disproves it?
No quite right it does not mention smell , it just records that the apron piece was stained with blood and excrement.

To suggest that because it does not mention smell such did not occur and that tests would be required is unrealistic. The description although impricise clear says there are distinct and seperate stains/material on the Apron.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2629  
Old 10-10-2017, 01:28 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bridewell View Post
I'm afraid not. If an officer wishes to refresh his memory whilst giving evidence he is usually allowed to do so, but it has to be from his original notes. The above-mentioned exchange with the coroner seems to confirm that Long had been referring to something copied from his original notes.
Thankyou, yes, but the coroner uses the term, "Inspectors report", so whatever PC Long is referring to it appears to be something more official than some private notes made by him.
Do you agree that when a constable comes off duty, and there has been an incident of some significance, then the constable is required to make out a report for his inspector?

Here's a question for you, if you don't mind.

When a constable records some details in his pocket book which will need to be entered into evidence, assuming he does not hand the complete pocket book over (what about everything else that is written inside?), nor does he tear the pages out and hand them over.

What does he do, what is the correct procedure?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2630  
Old 10-10-2017, 02:09 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Thankyou, yes, but the coroner uses the term, "Inspectors report", so whatever PC Long is referring to it appears to be something more official than some private notes made by him.
Do you agree that when a constable comes off duty, and there has been an incident of some significance, then the constable is required to make out a report for his inspector?

Here's a question for you, if you don't mind.

When a constable records some details in his pocket book which will need to be entered into evidence, assuming he does not hand the complete pocket book over (what about everything else that is written inside?), nor does he tear the pages out and hand them over.

What does he do, what is the correct procedure?
The thing is that the inspector also viewed the GSG with Long, so the coroner may be referring to a report made by the inspector, rather than Long's report to him. It's worth noting that whatever Long is reading from, the second word is spelled JEWS, confirmed by his notebook version when he finally returns with it. But the 6th Nov report for the home office spells the word JUEWS, as per the inspector's observation.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.