The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

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.

[Bridewell]

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.

[Elamarna]

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

[Wickerman]

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?

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Yet, there was no Met. Inspector as a witness at the Eddowes inquest. So where did the coroner get the inspectors own report from?
Did PC Long bring it with him?

Consistent with your suggestion is a question by the Coroner as given in the Daily Telegraph:
[Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"?
[Long] I cannot say.

Write it where? - presumably in this "Inspectors Report", but the inspector is said to have remarked that Jews was spelt J-u-w-e-s?

So the inspector saw PC Long write J-e-w-s, and corrected him to write J-u-w-e-s, then the inspector himself writes J-e-w-s in his own report?
This does not instill a whole lot of confidence.

How do you see it?

[Joshua Rogan]

Yet, there was no Met. Inspector as a witness at the Eddowes inquest. So where did the coroner get the inspectors own report from?
Did PC Long bring it with him?

Consistent with your suggestion is a question by the Coroner as given in the Daily Telegraph:
[Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"?
[Long] I cannot say.

Write it where? - presumably in this "Inspectors Report", but the inspector is said to have remarked that Jews was spelt J-u-w-e-s?

So the inspector saw PC Long write J-e-w-s, and corrected him to write J-u-w-e-s, then the inspector himself writes J-e-w-s in his own report?
This does not instill a whole lot of confidence.

How do you see it?

Yes, it all seems a bit of a muddle!
I would have said that Long was reading from notes of his notes, but the only way I can think that the coroner was aware of the 'inspectors report' is if that was what Long was reading from. Unless the coroner was privy to more evidence than was given in the court. Or he got the wrong impression somehow and Long's "I cannot say" is his way of not contradicting him?

[Sleuth1888]

The IWMES are the Men that Will not be Blamed for Nothing.

[Abby Normal]

The IWMES are the Men that Will not be Blamed for Nothing.

Brilliant!

[Sleuth1888]

Brilliant!

Hi Abby.

Thank Tom Wescott for that, he was the one who came up with that unique interpretation, I'm merely representing his opinion for him.

[etenguy]

Hi Abby.

Thank Tom Wescott for that, he was the one who came up with that unique interpretation, I'm merely representing his opinion for him.

If he is correct, it would certainly strongly point to the Ripper as the author of the GSG. It really is a shame no photo record of the graffito was made.

[Sam Flynn]

Re IWMES, who writes an acronym in lower case, cursive script?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The IWMES are the Men that Will not be Blamed for Nothing.

I can't believe that you are trying to blame The Isle of Wight Model Engineering Society for these crimes

[etenguy]

Re IWMES, who writes an acronym in lower case, cursive script?

I think you are probably right, but just to play devil's advocate, some acronyms become so well known they are written as words, eg Radar. Unlikely in this case, but just on the edge of possibility.

[Sam Flynn]

I think you are probably right, but just to play devil's advocate, some acronyms become so well known they are written as words, eg Radar. Unlikely in this case, but just on the edge of possibility.

Good point, but I honestly doubt whether "IWMES" was ever used to refer to the Berner Street club. "Eye Double-You Em Ee Ess" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue. "Hey, Hymie! Do you fancy comin' down the Eye Double-Yew Em Ee Ess tonight for a sing-song?"

It would never catch on.