Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Artizan Dwellings writing photograph

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    That was then this is now.

    You really haven't got a clue what I am thinking.

    For some things I am profoundly grateful.

    Phil H

    Comment


    • #32
      Hi all!

      The question why this chalk was photographed by the City police is probably best answered by the fact that the GSG was not.

      The City police wanted to take a photo of the GSG, but Warren - having had it written on Met territory - decided against such a thing.

      I think the whole brawl about it would have made the City decide to shoot ANY graffiti that could relate to the murder series, just in case. They were forensic photo pioneers, compared to the Met.

      If this message was singled out among many others, and if it was not customary to take pics of all potentially Ripper-related chalked messages (and given the wording of the GSG, how would anybody know what was potentially Ripper-related and what was not ...?), then I think a very good guess will be that it was judged that the writing style of this new message closely resembled the style of the writing in Goulston Street.

      Which begs the question: Is this new message written in a good, round schoolboys hand? And is there anything at all in the photo that may lend itself to an interpretation of how large the letters were?

      All the best,
      Fisherman

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
        None yet Debs. We're still looking.

        Rob
        Originally posted by Monty
        Hey Debs,

        I must confess, I have been doing a little delving into this, all focused on William G Parker. Nothing to report as yet however there is a logic path Im following which I intend on picking up after York.

        As most likely, it will probably lead no where.

        Monty
        Thanks guys. Hopefully you will turn something up soon. There must be a clue out there somewhere.
        ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

        I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
          [B]
          ...But I don't think it is a pity. What use would a photograph have been? Just more fuel for pointless discussion.

          hil H
          Personally, I think it is a pity.
          At least if it had been photographed there would be no doubts about the spelling of 'Jewes' and the exact phrasing of the writing?
          ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
            Personally, I think it is a pity.
            At least if it had been photographed there would be no doubts about the spelling of 'Jewes' and the exact phrasing of the writing?
            Quite right Debs, but you can't use common sense here

            Rob

            Comment


            • #36
              Suppose per impossibile we actually found a photo of the GSG but that it told us nothing new. I think it would still be worth having for its own sake. It's a subjective thing. One day we might actually find out who JTR was. That would be the final goal as far as I'm concerned, but someone uninterested in JTR might shrug his shoulders and say "So what?"

              Comment


              • #37
                Sentence

                Oxford Compact Dictionary:

                'Sentence':

                "Grammatically complete series of words with (implied) subject and predicate. A sentence is the basic unit of language in use and expresses a complete thought".

                The GSG hardly constitutes a sentence.
                Why not?

                Regards, Bridewell.
                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                Comment


                • #38
                  For one thing it contains a double negative, which makes it grammatical nonsense.

                  Phil H

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                    Perhaps to compare to the handwriting of suspects and other writings? Good grief.

                    Are you seriously suggesting that you can compare chalk writing on a tile surface with someone's usual handwriting - written using a nib and ink? Get real.

                    I couldn't have done it with my schoolmasters in the days of chalkboards and fountain pens and i saw their writing every day.

                    We really appear to churning up some dud thinking in this thread. but that's what happens I guess when you snatch at cobwebs.

                    Phil H
                    Oh really. Well its erasure at the time created quite a controversy as some of the police thought a photograph of the possible culprits writing could have been a clue.

                    While obviously writing with and on different materials would not be exactly the same you could still find similarities, such as how the writer formed the letters, trends and distinguishing charactaristics (such as if the writer always capitalized his T's or, as Debs pointed out-How the writer actually did spell the word Jews).

                    We really appear to churning up some dud thinking in this thread.

                    The only "dud" thinking on this thread I see is your gibberish comparing other posters to "Wooly Mammoths" and "lemmings".

                    Ironically, these insults comming from someone who is constantly whining about the lack of civility on these boards.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                      For one thing it contains a double negative, which makes it grammatical nonsense.

                      Phil H
                      For one thing, you did not even address his point about it being a sentence or not and secondly- double negatives are grammatically correct, which makes your reply not only incorrect but total nonsense. Which seems to be par for the course.
                      Last edited by Abby Normal; 09-28-2012, 03:53 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Lovely to cross paths with you Abby. We must do it more often.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Reverting to Type

                          Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                          Lovely to cross paths with you Abby. We must do it more often.
                          You've been behaving yourself very nicely since your return, Phil.

                          But Abby was quite correct about the double negative aspect of the wall writing.

                          If you want to get sarcastic with me also, please feel free.
                          allisvanityandvexationofspirit

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Rob Clack View Post
                            Quite right Debs, but you can't use common sense here

                            Rob
                            Baa humbug, you knit wit.
                            ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                            I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              You've been behaving yourself very nicely since your return, Phil.

                              Thank you for your condecesion, Stephen.

                              I wasn't aware that I had behaved myself badly before. Maybe you have the wrong Phil in mind. It's happened before.

                              Phil H

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Maybe a photograph would be useless after all.
                                I read that the latest idea is that the spelling may be as was reported (dunno which version) but the writer actually meant to write a different word altogether, not Jews?
                                ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                                I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X