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

[moonbegger]

When asked her name she replied, "Nothing." if it was the case she said nothing , surely it would have been recorded like that .. it is not an easy mistake , or oversight to make .. its chalk and cheese .

moonbegger

[John Malcolm]

I just stumbled upon this thread...In all the hours, days and years of contemplating the GSG, I never made the connection between Eddowes' "Nothing" and the writing on the wall, but I have to admit that it puts a very interesting spin on the whole business. First thought is "no way!", but then again...

[ChrisGeorge]

Good - but....

Inquest testimony of James Byfield, Station Sergeant at Bishopsgate Police Station: ".... I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when brought in".

Therefore, I think there's a punctuation error in "she replied 'nothing'" and that it should have been recorded as "she replied nothing".

Hello PhiltheBear

You are entitled to your opinion but the same thing was reported in various newspapers.

In the report of the Inquest on Eddowes here on Casebook, from the Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888:

City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.

The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell. . .

Various other reports from the Press Reports Section at Casebook are as follows:

Morning Advertiser, October 12, 1888:

Constable Lewis Robinson - About half past eight on the evening of the 29th I was on duty in High street, Aldgate. I saw there the woman since recognised as the deceased. She was drunk, lying on the footway. I turned round to the crowd, and asked if there was anyone who knew the deceased, but I got no answer. I then picked her up, and carried her to the side by the shutters. I raised her up against the shutters, and she fell down again. I did not do any more until I got assistance. Another policeman came, and she was taken to the station. When asked for her name, she replied, "Nothing." She was then put into the cell. No one appeared to be in her company when she was first found. . .

Daily News, October 12, 1888:

Police Constable Lewis Robinson - About half past eight on the evening of the 29th I was on duty in High street, Aldgate. I saw a crowd of persons outside No 29. I saw there a woman, whom I have since recognised as the deceased.

In what state was she? - Drunk, sir.

Lying on the footway? - On the footway. I turned to the crowd and asked if there was any one there that knew her, or knew where she lived, and I got no answer. I then picked her up and carried her to the side by the shutter. I set her up, and leaned her against the shutter, but she fell sideways down again. I did not do any more until I got the assistance of another police constable, and we took her to the police station. When she got to the station we asked her her name, and she replied, "Nothing." We then took her and put her in the cell. . .

East London Advertiser, October 13, 1888:

City Police-constable Lewis Robinson deposed that on the Saturday night before the murder at about 8:30 he saw a crowd at Aldgate. He went up and saw a woman lying on the curb drunk. He had since identified her as the deceased. He could not do anything without the assistance of another policeman, which he obtained, and the woman was then conveyed to the station. When asked her name she replied, "Nothing." Last time he saw her was at 9 o'clock in the cell. . .

[PhiltheBear]

Hi Phil

But the point is that she did reply "Nothing" not that she said nothing.

As Simon posted, the inquest testimony reads as follows.

City Constable 931, Lewis Robinson, 11th October 1888—

"With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing'. She was then put into a cell."

Good - but....

Inquest testimony of James Byfield, Station Sergeant at Bishopsgate Police Station: ".... I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when brought in".

Therefore, I think there's a punctuation error in "she replied 'nothing'" and that it should have been recorded as "she replied nothing".

[Hunter]

Looks like much ado about nothing...

[Phil Carter]

Hi Simon

Well I don't know "nothing" but it does occur to me that she might have been having a private joke to herself that night in calling herself "nothing" but of course your scenario is plausible as well. Even so, as Phil Carter noted, there is an uncanny echo of her reply to City Police Constable Lewis Robinson in the wording of the graffito, and I am just addressing that aspect.

All the best

Chris

Hello Chris, Simon,

The major point I have with this is two fold, touched on by Simon previously. Its time.

The ONLY people who knew she called herself 'Nothing' were the station police. A pre requisite of the writer (note NOT necessarily the killer) would be knowledge of this. Thereby any further comment to the killer in the same manner would be an extra move in piecing this together.

In purely it's simplest form then, a couple of policemen only had that info. It is plainly silly to presume that one of them wrote the scrawl.

So that is where point No.2 comes in. ONE person DID know Eddowes name, was near her when arrest occured and knew enough to know she'd been banged up- John Kelly's star witness- the old lady. Now the policemen arresting her asked around them if anyone knew who she was. Nobody replied in the affirmative- and off she is carted. BUT- the old lady MUST have known her name- cos she rushed off to inform Kelly at the lodging house.

This tells me that to my mind a likelier scenario was that Kelly's story is rubbish, the old lady didnt exist and that like all small time naughty East Enders arrested, the rule was the simple ' when nicked, you say nothing' - NOTHING.

So contrary to my previous thoughts- the 'nothing' on the wall referring to Eddowes is unlikely.

best wishes

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chris,

I get the feeling you're attempting to make some pieces fit.

Had I been Eddowes, desperate for fourpence and versed in the knowledge that punters eager to bang an old trout smelling of hops in a dark corner of the City were generally lost, lonely, desperate, sexually dysfunctional or otherwise deficient, on being asked my name I'd have whispered in his ear, "Anything you want it to be, Luv."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

Well I don't know "nothing" but it does occur to me that she might have been having a private joke to herself that night in calling herself "nothing" but of course your scenario is plausible as well. Even so, as Phil Carter noted, there is an uncanny echo of her reply to City Police Constable Lewis Robinson in the wording of the graffito, and I am just addressing that aspect.

All the best

Chris

[Simon Wood]

Hi Chris,

I get the feeling you're attempting to make some pieces fit.

Had I been Eddowes, desperate for fourpence and versed in the knowledge that punters eager to bang an old trout smelling of hops in a dark corner of the City were generally lost, lonely, desperate, sexually dysfunctional or otherwise deficient, on being asked my name I'd have whispered in his ear, "Anything you want it to be, Luv."

Regards,

Simon

[ChrisGeorge]

But only if she'd actually said "Nothing". Rephrase the evidence to read: "I asked her her name and she said nothing."

Hi Phil

But the point is that she did reply "Nothing" not that she said nothing.

As Simon posted, the inquest testimony reads as follows.

City Constable 931, Lewis Robinson, 11th October 1888—

"With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing'. She was then put into a cell."

I am suggesting that if she made the same reply to the killer, and the killer wrote the graffito, the wording of the graffito could reflect that.

All the best

Chris

[Wyatt Earp]

Firstly, there was no door. It was an open entrance. And he was risk averse - he disappeared after Eddowes. He wasn't seen (as far as we know) after any of the murders and if he was he didn't draw any suspicion on himself.

But the big question is - why write on a black wall that was only 4 ft high? The only way to do that is to crouch - unless you are a child. Especially a child who can't spell properly. Given that the official reproduction shows the message was written over 5 lines and from the size of the writing (as described in the press) it would have been written over the depth of 5 bricks. In my pre-Victorian house that's a depth of over a foot, so the bottom line is about 3ft from the ground. Why on earth would he write a message at that level? (The alternative is that it was written 2 lines high on each brick which would make it so small as to be pointless - certainly not a viable read from a few feet away).

Are we to assume that he'd picked out this particular doorway in advance? If so, why? Why not somewhere else?

We don't know when it was written. As it was described as 'blurred' it's highly likely that someone had rubbed against it but that wouldn't be very likely between 2.20 and 2.55 in the morning.

The only rational explanation is that the writing was done by a child sometime earlier and JtR threw the apron into the passageway to dispose of it. There isn't a single shred of evidence that links the writing with the Ripper and the circumstantial evidence is stacked against it.

Phil, thanks for the clarification regarding the absence of a door. Do you dispute fleetwood mac's claim that the Ripper's eyes would have adjusted to the darkness?

I think it's far-fetched to describe someone as "risk-averse" who not only killed but took the time to mutilate women in public places.

One explanation for the Ripper's choosing that particular building and dealing with the height of the black wall would be that he knew the building to be occupied by Jews. As I'm sure you're aware, one explanation of the GSG that has been advanced is that the Ripper blamed "the Jews" for interrupting his murder of Stride before he had been able to perform his mutilations on her. It was in his view "their fault" that he had to murder Eddowes so that he could perform some mutilations and have his fulfilling evening. While you might not find this to be a rational explanation, the fact that Stride was murdered outside a Jewish club and the fact that a shout of Lipski was among the witness accounts lead some of us (rationally, we hope) to disagree with you about that.

If you think it impossible for the Ripper to have chalked a message in a schoolboy hand, look into William Bury, who is a plausible candidate for that.

[PhiltheBear]

Hi Simon and Phil

Simon, you make an excellent point but Phil does as well. What if the killer had asked Eddowes her name and she gave the same answer?

"What's your name, dear?"

"Nothing."

Best regards

Chris

But only if she'd actually said "Nothing". Rephrase the evidence to read: "I asked her her name and she said nothing."

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Trevor,

The whole writing on the wall thing is a riddle within a maze within a batch of incompetance within a riddle... around and around it goes..where it stops, nobody knows..

There are so many things to look at with this, so many possibilities of who, where, why, when and what for, before we come to the actual erasing of the chalk writing.

Personally, I keep thinking of the word "Nothing", as in the the name Eddowes gave at the police station. To me, and this is purely a personal point of view, if that "Nothing" on the wall was a reference to Eddowes, then it would answer very many questions, possibly including the decision to erase the writing.

It is all speculation of course, but again personally, I think that there may be something in that particular theory. I am by far not the first to notice it, but I do feel tentatively inclined towards it at the moment.

Great stuff Trevor, thank you for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but how in the early morning of 30th September could the author of the GSG have known that Eddowes said "nothing" when asked her name at Bishopsgate police station on the evening of 29th September? This piece of information wasn't public knowledge until Eddowes' inquest.

City Constable 931, Lewis Robinson, 11th October 1888—

"With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing'. She was then put into a cell."

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon and Phil

Simon, you make an excellent point but Phil does as well. What if the killer had asked Eddowes her name and she gave the same answer?

"What's your name, dear?"

"Nothing."

Best regards

Chris

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

Is it not worth looking at the possibility , that maybe , just maybe the blurred writing could be accounted for by the Rain earlier that evening .. it was in a place where rain coming down at a slight angle would undoubtedly come into contact with some of the writing ( hence a slight blurring ) and therefore throwing more doubt onto the possibility of the killer doing it at the same time as dumping the apron .. due to the fact that it had stopped raining before Catherine was murdered ? it is still a possibility however , that the killer or accomplice wrote the message before the murders ( or murder ) including or excluding Stride .

cheers
moonbegger .

[PhiltheBear]

Firstly, there was no door. It was an open entrance. And he was risk averse - he disappeared after Eddowes. He wasn't seen (as far as we know) after any of the murders and if he was he didn't draw any suspicion on himself.

But the big question is - why write on a black wall that was only 4 ft high? The only way to do that is to crouch - unless you are a child. Especially a child who can't spell properly. Given that the official reproduction shows the message was written over 5 lines and from the size of the writing (as described in the press) it would have been written over the depth of 5 bricks. In my pre-Victorian house that's a depth of over a foot, so the bottom line is about 3ft from the ground. Why on earth would he write a message at that level? (The alternative is that it was written 2 lines high on each brick which would make it so small as to be pointless - certainly not a viable read from a few feet away).

Are we to assume that he'd picked out this particular doorway in advance? If so, why? Why not somewhere else?

We don't know when it was written. As it was described as 'blurred' it's highly likely that someone had rubbed against it but that wouldn't be very likely between 2.20 and 2.55 in the morning.

The only rational explanation is that the writing was done by a child sometime earlier and JtR threw the apron into the passageway to dispose of it. There isn't a single shred of evidence that links the writing with the Ripper and the circumstantial evidence is stacked against it.

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

Interesting. If the Ripper didn't need to fetch a lamp, then obviously something else he could have gone to fetch was the piece of chalk itself, and his having gone to fetch something would explain the doubling back. If PhiltheBear is correct and the Ripper's eyes would have been baffled by the darkness, then it seems like all the Ripper would have needed to do was stick the lamp inside the building door and have the door open a crack, allowing enough light for him to write his message while not allowing enough to attract attention in what was after all the middle of the night on what was possibly a deserted street. I'm not bothered by the risk-taking in this scenario --this was a guy who killed in the street and who would obviously take major risks.