'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[The Good Michael]

And THAT after exiting St. James passage and then doubling back.

Thanks Lynn. I understand that to be a volunteering of your committed self to give it a go?

Mike

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell and all,

The fact is there ARE Ripper links (hello, apron!), but then the non-graffiti crowd say that none of that evidence counts, and yet demands the other side produce evidence. It doesn't work that way. They can't call the apron a coincidence, state that the PC was lying about the graffiti/apron not being there previously, tell us the street was lined with graffiti when it wasn't, and then dismiss the fact that not one human being saw that graffiti there earlier, just so they can claim the pro-graffiti side hasn't met its 'onus'.

Bottom line is the evidence has ALWAYS been in favor of the Ripper having left the graffiti and it remains so. Therefore, the onus must be on the other side. You can't dismiss our evidence, you must come up with your own that is stronger than our evidence. Put up or shut up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

Why am I suddenly bracketed with the so-called "non-graffiti crowd"? All I did was point out (to someone else) that a lack of evidence for the positive does not equate to proof of the negative. I am actually completely undecided on the issue. I really don't think that my claim that the presence of the graffito where the piece of apron was found may, or may not, be coincidence, justified such a hostile post. It may, or may not, be coincidence.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Cui Bono?

Doesn't Warren's report make the location of the writing clear: on the jamb of the open archway.

Yes, but per the A-Z:-

Arnold says the writing was so placed that "it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in and out of the building"

Long says the apron was "in the passage of the doorway" with the graffito "above it on the wall"...at the inquest he adds the apron was "lying in a passage leading to the staircases"

Halse says "The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall"

Warren had every motive to talk up the visibility of the graffito to justify his decision to have it erased....the other witnesses perhaps lack any motive for deception in this manner...

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Absolute

Hi Trevor. No, a piece of evidence that proves or disproves something would be called proof. That's why we have 'circumstantial evidence' but not 'circumstantial proof', because proof is an absolute.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

While there is a concept of "absolute proof", there also exist "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and "proof on the balance of probabilities" which are, respectively, the burdens placed upon the prosecutor / plaintiff in the English criminal and civil courts. There are degrees of proof.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yes, but per the A-Z:-

Arnold says the writing was so placed that "it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in and out of the building"

Long says the apron was "in the passage of the doorway" with the graffito "above it on the wall"...at the inquest he adds the apron was "lying in a passage leading to the staircases"

Halse says "The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall"

Warren had every motive to talk up the visibility of the graffito to justify his decision to have it erased....the other witnesses perhaps lack any motive for deception in this manner...

All the best

Dave

The problem with Long's testamony at the inquest is that it seems that that which we know was recorded by one of the newspapers, which lends weight to the prospect of human error when transcribing. Also, there is the possibility that "undernearth the writing", does not mean directly/immediately underneath the writing.

Where does Halse say: "the writing was in the passage itself"? He stated it was on the wall, which is a catch all term; while the jamb of a door is not strictly speakling a wall, nor is any part of that passageway. In the context of its usage, I feel wall could equally apply to the jamb or farther within the passageway.

Warren's report is from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

As ever there are inconsistencies.

So, it follows thus it boils down to individual interpretation.

I personally will go with Warren's statement because: a) it is a primary source and b) it is unambiguous, unlike Halse/Long which requires assumption prior to conclusion.

[Cogidubnus]

Consider the scene just outside Mitre Square at about 1.30 am:

Jack, feigning congeniality: “And what’s your name then, missus?”

Kate, with her hand on Jack’s chest: “Nuffing - like I told ’em at the cop shop earlier.”

Jack: "Right then, here goes Nothing. Whack."

I hadn't spotted this before...love the dialogue Caz!

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

The graffito - as delineated in Warren's report - was 5 lines deep. Therefore, it could have been on the jamb, although it's almost certainly not the case. However, your conclusions are perfectly sound.

Per Halse's inquest evidence (which I'd personally trust more than Warren's weasel word on this particular issue) :

"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white."

Where does Halse say: "the writing was in the passage itself"? He stated it was on the wall, which is a catch all term; while the jamb of a door is not strictly speakling a wall, nor is any part of that passageway. In the context of its usage, I feel wall could equally apply to the jamb or farther within the passageway.

Well according to JtR Scotland Yard Investigates, at the Eddowes inquest Halse says:

"The writing was in the passage of the building itself and was on the black dado of the wall".

This is repeated in the A-Z...so Messrs Evans, Rumbelow, Begg, Fido and Skinner all say so...

Interesting though that the Daily Telegraph-reported version of the inquest evidence (which appears on Casebook) doesn't actually seem to contain this phrase...Does the original Inquest transcript survive somewhere please - and if not where did the historians find this?

Swanson wrote in a report dated 6 November that Long "found in the bottom of a common stairs leading to No. 108 to 119 Goldston Street Buildings a piece of bloodstained apron." Though this may or may not be conclusive, because it is possible Swanson didn't actually visit Goulston Street at the time.

All the best

Dave

[Wyatt Earp]

I am a newcomer to Ripperology and not at all well-versed in the ancient feud surrounding the GSG, so I ask for your indulgence here. I have been trying to think through the lighting objection to the GSG and have a few questions.

1. There has been mention of the moonless night. To supplement that, do we have testimony from anyone who was actually on the ground and in a position to conduct an eyeball test of the lighting conditions near the GSG that night that suggests that the Ripper could not possibly have written it due to the utter darkness there?

2. Is it possible that the Ripper could have opened the door to the building and obtained additional ambient light from that? Such a behavior would also have served as a safety precaution as the Ripper would have heard someone coming if a person was heading out of the building.

3. I recently watched Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist movie. I noticed that the red-headed crook carries a lamp inside his overcoat. If the suspect I have been thinking about, William Bury, was the Ripper, he had his horse and cart stabled in the area and could conceivably have fetched a lamp and kept it hid away in just such a fashion as he brought it to the site of the GSG. He would only have needed to have the lamp out for a matter of seconds in order to chalk the message. Is it "crazy talk" on my part or is it reasonable for me to suggest that the Ripper could have gone and got a lamp and done exactly that?

[Cogidubnus]

In the meantime

St James Gazette 12th October 1888:-

Detective Halse, of the City police, deposed to being sent to Gouldston street to make inquiries about the writing on the wall. Directions were given for photographing the writing, but before it could be done the Metropolitan Police, thinking, as it was Sunday morning, the words might cause a riot of seen by the Jews, or an outbreak against the Jews, had the writing washed out. Inquiries were made at every tenement in the house, but no information could be gathered as to anyone having arrived home late. The witness suggested that only the top line of the writing should be rubbed off. The witness protested about its being erased until Major Smith had seen it; but of course it was on metropolitan ground, and the Metropolitan Police suggested that likelihood of a riot. The writing was in a good round hand, upon the black dado of the passage wall, and appeared to have been recently written. The capital letters were about three quarters of an inch in height, the others being in proportion. He took the words down as: "The Juews (sic) are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

"The writing was in the passage of the building itself and was on the black dado of the wall".

Dave,

There is no contradiction here with Warren.

The passage to the building clearly begins as the archway is entered.

Halse appears to be making a distinction between the 'walls' outside the passage, i.e. the walls adjoining the street, and the 'walls' within the passage. The jamb of the door is a 'wall' within the passage.

My understanding is that by and large the inquest records haven't survived.

[PhiltheBear]

The recesses. Its not if the writing can or cannot be viewed from the street, its the fact that rather than toss is casually away into the recess (which the apron cannot be viewed from street level unless you peered over and down), the killer went out of his way to go across the recess and into the entrance.

He specifically went in there. The question is why the entrance and not the recess?

I'm confused. The recess is simply the passageway from the open door to the stairs. A distance of 5 feet. He didn't have to go in. Take a pocket handkerchief, make it wet, roll into a ball and throw. If you can't throw it more than 5 feet you aren't trying. He didn't go in - or need to go in. He just threw the piece of apron away into a darkened doorway. But he threw it casually, so as not to attract attention if there were any observers. It's likely that it came to rest a foot or two from the front edge of the doorway.

There is no connection between the writing, in itself, and either the apron, Eddowes, murder or any crime whatsoever.

That is certain.

Monty

Quite.

phil,

Gotta disagree with you. The evidence that there is more likely a connection between JTR and the graffiti than not, is the apron's placement in this exact spot out of hundreds of other possibilities. Now, if someone cares to get some fecal matter and blood on his hands and walk briskly from Mitre Square while wiping and the exact spot of the entryway is the place where the hands become clean, I'll agree with coincidence.

Mike

There is NOTHING to suggest an 'exact placement'. Not a thing. He could have held it in his hand and not thrown it simply because there were people about and waited until there weren't before throwing it.

Because of the graffiti is one answer...and it certainly wasn't to hide incriminating evidence because he would have buggered that one up pretty badly.

Except he threw it away at around 2.30 a.m. - in the dark. So it would be hidden while he went on his way. If it's found an hour or more later or even 5 minutes later after he's quit the vicinity it doesn't incriminate him.

Doesn't Warren's report make the location of the writing clear: on the jamb of the open archway.

And Warren's report isn't the same as any of the others. Warren, if my memory serves, didn't see the apron in situ.

If it were Jack who dropped the apron, then clearly he doesn't casually toss it anywhere. He took the apron for a purpose, and the entrance to the dwellings gave him time, space, privacy to undertake that purpose; whether you think that's to wipe hands/knife, unwrap organ or other.

Given that it's pretty much a certainty that is was JtR that dropped it there (an accomplice or third party being somewhat remote possibilities) it's also pretty much a certainty that he didn't 'place it'. He just dropped it somewhere he could hide it.

Why that entrance? I don't think it's enough to say that that entrance must be significant in some form without anything to support the assertion. Clearly, it had to be some entrance, somewhere.

Well spotted

Oh, and if Jack was the author, it seems to be assumed that the apron was used to draw attention to the writing. Surely, it would have been the other way round, i.e the writing used to draw attention to the apron. The writing is clearly visible from the street, so presumably Jack expected the writing to be spotted first which would then draw attention to the apron. I think the apron is closer to the staircase rather than underneath the writing.

No. The apron was on the ground. The writing was around 4ft up and, most likely, some distance into the recess (as it had already been blurred by someone brushing past it). The PC's bulls eye lamp was inefficient and was probably aimed at the ground most of the time. He saw the apron first. Once he saw the apron his concern was that he was going to find a victim there (cf testimony at inquest) and he went on to search the stairways. His attention wasn't drawn to the graffito first.

Hi Tom,

While there is a concept of "absolute proof", there also exist "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and "proof on the balance of probabilities" which are, respectively, the burdens placed upon the prosecutor / plaintiff in the English criminal and civil courts. There are degrees of proof.

Regards, Bridewell.

Absolutely. The balance of probabilities is that the writing had nothing to do with JtR at all.

The problem with Long's testamony at the inquest is that it seems that that which we know was recorded by one of the newspapers, which lends weight to the prospect of human error when transcribing. Also, there is the possibility that "undernearth the writing", does not mean directly/immediately underneath the writing.

We have a written report by Long and the sworn statement to the inquest.

Where does Halse say: "the writing was in the passage itself"? He stated it was on the wall, which is a catch all term; while the jamb of a door is not strictly speakling a wall, nor is any part of that passageway. In the context of its usage, I feel wall could equally apply to the jamb or farther within the passageway.

It could - but the only person who saw the apron and writing together was Long.

Warren's report is from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

No, Warren didn't see the apron - it had been removed. Warren's report bears all the marks of trying to wriggle out of the trouble he was in for not photographing the graffito.

As ever there are inconsistencies.

So, it follows thus it boils down to individual interpretation.

I personally will go with Warren's statement because: a) it is a primary source and b) it is unambiguous, unlike Halse/Long which requires assumption prior to conclusion.

There are lots of primary sources that are more accurate than Warren's.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Wyatt,

Moon or no moon, you or I could scrawl on a wall in total darkness. Clearly, we are not totally blind in the dark once our eyes have adjusted to it. Try it.

[Fleetwood Mac]

No. The apron was on the ground. The writing was around 4ft up and, most likely, some distance into the recess (as it had already been blurred by someone brushing past it).

The consensus seems to be that in order to brush against the writing, the writing must have been farther on in the passage.

I don't understand this at all.

In order to brush against writing farther within the passage, someone would have had to have walked into the archway, turned right slightly, brushed against the wall, turned left slightly, and then walked into the building.

Surely it makes more sense that someone may have brushed against it as they walked through the archway, against the jamb, before following on in a straight line to the door of the building.

Why would someone entering the building have a done a bit of a zig zag before entering it?

[PhiltheBear]

1. There has been mention of the moonless night. To supplement that, do we have testimony from anyone who was actually on the ground and in a position to conduct an eyeball test of the lighting conditions near the GSG that night that suggests that the Ripper could not possibly have written it due to the utter darkness there?

If you can find a spot devoid of light, outside, on the night of a new moon, try it yourself. It's too dark.

2. Is it possible that the Ripper could have opened the door to the building and obtained additional ambient light from that? Such a behavior would also have served as a safety precaution as the Ripper would have heard someone coming if a person was heading out of the building.

There was an open doorway to the street. There was an open staircase up, 5ft from the doorway. Next to the stair was a door to the basement. There is no likelihood of communal lighting in any of these areas.

3. I recently watched Roman Polanski's Oliver Twist movie. I noticed that the red-headed crook carries a lamp inside his overcoat. If the suspect I have been thinking about, William Bury, was the Ripper, he had his horse and cart stabled in the area and could conceivably have fetched a lamp and kept it hid away in just such a fashion as he brought it to the site of the GSG. He would only have needed to have the lamp out for a matter of seconds in order to chalk the message. Is it "crazy talk" on my part or is it reasonable for me to suggest that the Ripper could have gone and got a lamp and done exactly that?

How long would it take you to write that message - in chalk - on a vertical wall? At least 30 seconds - probably longer. Imagine you are JtR. You've just discarded a hard piece of evidence on the floor. Now you are going to produce a lamp (and being oil you are going to light it) and then write a message? I don't think so. Any light seen from outside the passageway would draw attention.

[PhiltheBear]

Per Halse's inquest evidence (which I'd personally trust more than Warren's weasel word on this particular issue) :

"There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white."

Where did you get that?

Halse's sworn statement to the inquest merely says: ""I saw some chalk writing on the black facia of the wall". The Times report of his evidence says "He saw some chalk writing on the wall". Later questioning elicited: "It was done with white chalk on the black facia of the wall" and "There were about 3 lines of writing, which was in a good schoolboy hand".