Height of GSG a Clue?

[DVV]

All we have to make a strained connection between 'it' and the Whitechapel murders is the active imaginations of a few theorists.
:-)

I'm not sure that the Jews are the men that have not be blamed for nothing in September 1888 since the first and infamous Star's article on Leather (piece of) Apron...

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
the fact that it doesn't compare to letters that were not written by the murderer is hardly an argument "against" the GSG, isn't it? -though, of course, it doesn't make it a Ripper's communication.

Yes, I guess that didn't come over as I meant it to.
The letters to the press were written mostly in a confrontational manner, and some were worded with the intent to connect them with the crimes.
The writers all attempted to challenge the authorities.
The GSG is neither, its not confrontational, and there is no direct attempt to connect it, or the author, with any crimes. There is no challenge to the authorities.
The writer of the GSG could have mentioned whores, Mitre Sq, knives, body parts, blood, the police being fools, a body count, - there's nothing like that!

All we have to make a strained connection between 'it' and the Whitechapel murders is the active imaginations of a few theorists. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny!

I know, nobody likes a party-pooper...
:-)

[DVV]

Neither does it compare with the tone of any of the letters mailed to the authorities.

Hi Jon,
the fact that it doesn't compare to letters that were not written by the murderer is hardly an argument "against" the GSG, isn't it? -though, of course, it doesn't make it a Ripper's communication.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

What I'm thinking Gareth is that what was said at the time was enough.

I'm with you there, Jon - and fully agree with the rest of your post, in every respect.

[Stewart P Evans]

Fresh

on the 12th of October The Telegraph printed this version of Longs statement regarding the writings location..."Above on the wall", just that phrasing...and Halse says regarding its condition..."[Coroner]: Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done? - [Halse]:Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia."
He also said this in reply to a question by Crawford,..."Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - [Halse]: It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing"

There has been much discussion in the past about how fresh the writing on the wall was. Surely it would have looked no different had it been written within the hour or ten hours earlier.

It was in Halse's interest, in view of his argument and the importance he attached to the writing, to say that it looked fresh. But that really means very little as it is a subjective assessment. Indeed Swanson, contrary to Halse, refers to the writing as being blurred, indicating that a shoulder or two may have rubbed against it -



But all that said, obviously the right thing to have done should have been the preservation of the writing and a photograph at the earliest opportunity. All argument as to its freshness must be speculative and based on opinion.

[Wickerman]

Unfortunately, he didn't leave that nugget of info for posterity, Jon - at least, not precisely enough.

What I'm thinking Gareth is that what was said at the time was enough. It only doesn't seem to be enough for modern theorists who are imagining all kinds of hypotheses.
For all we know the apron piece may have been tossed well inside the archway. An early rising tennent may have only kicked it out into the opening against the wall just to clear out garbage "from our tennement".
Quite innocently creating an association that was never there to begin with.

I don't believe there is a connection between the GSG and the piece of apron. The GSG is merely a chastisment against Jews in general. "They take responsibility for nothing!", thats all its saying.

There's any amount of possibilities the killer could have wrote for the authorities to make a definite connection with the apron, why something so vague and debatable? It certainly does not seem to be crime related graffiti.
Neither does it compare with the tone of any of the letters mailed to the authorities. There's nothing threatening nor confrontational about the GSG, it comes across as nothing more than a complaint against Jews.

Regards, Jon

[Sam Flynn]

Only PC Long 'knows' the true location of the apron and its relationship, if any, to the graffiti.

Unfortunately, he didn't leave that nugget of info for posterity, Jon - at least, not precisely enough.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman, Sam, all.....
The problem with using Long as the de facto source on the writings location is that he didnt even notice it until looking for some blood near to the apron section, and that he said quite plainly the apron section was not there around 2:20am.
That contrasts with other opinions that state the writing was left prominently, and easily seen by those who might walk by,....

One solution to your dilemma may be that those other opinions were given concerning the GSG being noticed in daylight. PC Long described his discovery in darkness, the writing was not removed until after 5:00 am, it would certainly be noticable if they left it any longer.

.....and of course, ...why would the apron section suddenly appear between his 2:20 pass and his 2:40 one. Where was it then immediately after Kates murder.. for some 35 to 55 minutes?..

Of course, this apparent fact only add's to the mystery. We cannot ignore it though just because it requires some explaining. This detail doesn't sit comfortable with most theorists - tough! :-)

If you want to rely on Long, you have to accept his assertion the cloth was not there before 2:20am, and that the writing only drew his attention when looking more closely at the immediate area, meaning it was not obvious to anyone walking past....

In the dark, yes!

He then searches 6 or 7 staircases before taking it to the station.....causing Im sure some additional communication delay of this find to City Police ears.
Best regards.

PC Long was under the impression a crime had been perpetrated within the tenements, he had no idea this cloth was evidence of another murder. Perhaps not until he sought out a nearby beat constable to stand guard. This constable may have been his source another murder had occured nearby.
But still, there was no obvious connection for Long to concern himself with.

I'm comfortable with PC Long as principle witness in this GSG affair.

Regards, Jon.S.

Hi Wickerman, Sam, all.....

The problem with using Long as the de facto source on the writings location is that he didnt even notice it until looking for some blood near to the apron section, and that he said quite plainly the apron section was not there around 2:20am.

That contrasts with other opinions that state the writing was left prominently, and easily seen by those who might walk by, and of course, ...why would the apron section suddenly appear between his 2:20 pass and his 2:40 one. Where was it then immediately after Kates murder.. for some 35 to 55 minutes?

If you want to rely on Long, you have to accept his assertion the cloth was not there before 2:20am, and that the writing only drew his attention when looking more closely at the immediate area, meaning it was not obvious to anyone walking past. He then searches 6 or 7 staircases before taking it to the station.....causing Im sure some additional communication delay of this find to City Police ears.

Best regards.

[Wickerman]

True, Jon - but what he said was eminently refutable, and he was on oath. It would have been enough for him to have said "I didn't notice it" - he didn't have to volunteer the additional info that the apron was "in the building" at that point.

I guess the right thing to do is pull up every press report and statement attributed to Halse.
What I was looking at here was the report penciled by Insp. McWilliams, City Police. McWilliams tells us that D.C. Halse left Leman St. Police station to go to Goulston St....."where the spot at which the apron was found was pointed out to him".
By who? - Long was not present, he took the piece with him.
We can imagine a gaggle of officers assembled in Goulston st. all discussing the point at which they had been told where the apron was found. None of them knew, only Long saw it in situ and he took it with him.
Was it by the wall, against the jamb, by the corner, below the graffiti, under the graffiti. Who present would have considered the specific point was important?
Only PC Long 'knows' the true location of the apron and its relationship, if any, to the graffiti.
I'm just saying anyone else's opinion is heresay with respect to where the piece of apron was found - its secondary to anything stated by PC Long.

All the best, Jon

[Sam Flynn]

Question for you....since in your post we have a quote that indicates the writing could be seen by passer's by, and the cloth couldnt, then how is it the writing was missed first pass after Catherine's death by Long?

Because the writing was small, and Long himself only noticed it after he'd found the apron.

(I have a fuller answer than this, Mike, but it might require some diagrams. I'm not on my usual PC at the moment, and all my drawing software's on the other one. Catch you later.)

[Sam Flynn]

But just as a cautionary caveat, Halse is only offering an appologetic to explain why he never saw the apron in-situ.

True, Jon - but what he said was eminently refutable, and he was on oath. It would have been enough for him to have said "I didn't notice it" - he didn't have to volunteer the additional info that the apron was "in the building" at that point.

[FrankO]

It's important to recall that there's more than just Long's testimony to bear in mind. Firstly, there's Warren's statement that "the writing was on the jamb... visible to anybody in the street", and secondly Halse's "I would not necessarily have seen [the apron], for it was in the building".

Hi Gareth,

What one might also want to bear in mind is that, in contrast to Halse's and Long's, Warren's wasn't a public statement. It was part of a confidential report to the Home Office in which Warren explained his questioned decision to rub out the writing.

The only way these three witness accounts can be reconciled is if the writing were close to the very front of the entranceway, with the apron recessed a little way inside the passage.

I agree with you here, and with your general view that the piece of apron wasn't necessarily lying directly under the writing.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Sam,

I agree with you that the explanations of the locations you mentioned, the writing wasnt cited as being at the foot of the jamb, so it must have been slightly further into shadows of the entrance. In the inquest coverage under our Official Documents, on the 12th of October The Telegraph printed this version of Longs statement regarding the writings location..."Above on the wall", just that phrasing...and Halse says regarding its condition..."[Coroner]: Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done? - [Halse]:Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia."

He also said this in reply to a question by Crawford,..."Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - [Halse]: It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing"

So it sounds like the writing is really on the entranceway jamb, or dado, to which fascia would be attached, and the cloth slightly back from that into the entranceway more.

Question for you....since in your post we have a quote that indicates the writing could be seen by passer's by, and the cloth couldnt, then how is it the writing was missed first pass after Catherine's death by Long? Factoring in Halse's remarks. Yet Long claims to have seen the apron piece first, answering a question regarding that very matter, he said....."The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood." He says he only saw the writing when looking for more blood near the apron section. He was also sure that it had not been there when he passed earlier. When asked directly, he said "It was not".

This leaves some problems, and when you add that Long says when recalled to the stand that before he left to go to the station with the news of the apron, he knew of the city murder that night already...and only heard rumours about another,...you have some more.

Why would'nt Long see the writing first, as it was so visible as to be possibly brushed by people as they passed it?
Why is Long so sure that it wasnt there at approx 2:20, if its the least visible of the two items?
If Halse was correct and the was writing fresh and noticeable to passers by, how would Long not see that until looking for blood spots connected with the apron section?

I think in part what may have happened is that Long knew of the Mitre Square killing before 2:20am, but not of the apron piece specifically, he was just told of a murder in the city while he is performing his route duties before 2:20am, so he would probably be looking for blood spot clues, bloody footprints, splotches...or people skulking about. As he is doing when he says he found the writing.

I think he does find out about the apron piece before his pass around 10 to 3, and so he says the cloth was "not there" at 2:20am because he didnt want to appear inept not seeing it or the writing the first pass by,.... he knows if it was there and he didnt see it, he delayed the investigation of it by almost 1/2 hour.

I think Long and Harvey share that little experience that night...both should have seen something but didnt.

Still doesnt explain why the writing, cited as the most visible or prominent of the two items, didnt catch his eye first.

All the best Sam

[Wickerman]

..."
It's important to recall that there's more than just Long's testimony to bear in mind. Firstly, there's Warren's statement that "the writing was on the jamb... visible to anybody in the street", and secondly Halse's "I would not necessarily have seen [the apron], for it was in the building".

But just as a cautionary caveat, Halse is only offering an appologetic to explain why he never saw the apron in-situ. He is telling what he believes to be true. He can only tell what he didn't see, not what he saw.

regards, Jon.S.