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

[Monty]

Hi Phil,

The recesses were at the front, for the basement, and were surrounded by a fence.

If you look at the dwellings today, these have been filled in, with patterned tiles.

In 1888, and it seems up to early 1970s, you couldn't walk flush up against the dweliing frontage.

So, with a casual throw away in mind, why not dispose into the recess instead?

Monty

[PhiltheBear]

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?

When you enter the passage you are faced with either stairs or a door to the basement. The foot of the stair and the door form a straight line. To go to either you will walk towards either of the side walls of the entrance. The photo of the passage in the A-Z shows a vertical pole of some sort in the passage which you would have to walk round and I presume that, at that point, it would have been a bit of a squeeze between pole and wall.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There's always the possibility that Jack didn't even see the writing.

Perhaps he arrived at the passageway through the back entrance of the building.

It would provide a reason for dropping the apron there - he may have been squirreling around in the back alleys, comes through the back entrance, arrives at the front entrance, and discards the apron as he is now about to step foot onto open streets. And so passes the writing without even seeing it.

[PhiltheBear]

There's always the possibility that Jack didn't even see the writing.

Perhaps he arrived at the passageway through the back entrance of the building.

It would provide a reason for dropping the apron there - he may have been squirreling around in the back alleys, comes through the back entrance, arrives at the front entrance, and discards the apron as he is now about to step foot onto open streets. And so passes the writing without even seeing it.

Was there a back entrance? PC Long didn't think so as he was happy that once he'd searched the stairways nobody could get out of the entrance without being seen.

But I don't think Jack saw the writing - or if he did I don't think he cared it was there.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Was there a back entrance? PC Long didn't think so as he was happy that once he'd searched the stairways nobody could get out of the entrance without being seen.

PC Long didn't know of it according to the inquest transcription, and when pressed he declined to give a definitive statement on its existence.

The usual English style is to build a building with an entrance at the front and back.

[Bridewell]

Hi Phil,

The recesses were at the front, for the basement, and were surrounded by a fence.

If you look at the dwellings today, these have been filled in, with patterned tiles.

In 1888, and it seems up to early 1970s, you couldn't walk flush up against the dweliing frontage.

So, with a casual throw away in mind, why not dispose into the recess instead?

Monty

That's a good question, Monty. Was it rhetorical, or do you have an answer?

Regards, Colin.

[Bridewell]

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

Hypothetical answer: Possibly to get out of the way of someone else who was coming out?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Why not dispose of the apron into the basement recess instead?

Because that would have made it too difficult for PC Long to find.

Looking forward to your photos.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

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".

Hi Phil

The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888 - but accounts in all the papers seem to vary slightly!

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?

Hi Mac

There's a very good quality picture of the entrance on Page 132 of JtR Scotland Yard investigates...because the stairs are offset to one side anyone descending them could easily brush against the wall, especially if they were passing someone ascending.

There's always the possibility that Jack didn't even see the writing.

Absolutely!

Hypothetical answer: Possibly to get out of the way of someone else who was coming out?

Hi Colin

Just so

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Weasel

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.

In my view you hit the nail spot on the head there Phil.

Dave

[Bridewell]

In my view you hit the nail spot on the head there Phil.

Dave

Absolutely, Dave. I've never understood the argument for erasing the graffito with such indecent haste. It could have been screened off, then photographed, then erased. If the writing was at eye level it could have been effectively screened by a policeman standing in front of it.

Regards, Colin.

[lynn cates]

practise

Hello Michael. There's an idea.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

If the writing was at eye level it could have been effectively screened by a policeman standing in front of it.

Well if the dado of black brick is only 4' high, then unless it continues up the stairs, and the graffito is over the stairs, (dubious), then it is at a very much lower than average eye level...which taken with the mis-spelling just might indicate a child, as someone earlier in the thread observed...

Either way, as you suggest, stand a great fat copper in front of it and it's hidden.

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Michael. There's an idea.

Hi Lynn

Let me have your private address and I'll send you the faeces soonest!

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

No time Toulouse.

Hello Dave. Or someone very short. Ah ha! It's Lautrec after all!

Cheers.
LC