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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

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.

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.

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.

[lynn cates]

doubling back

Hello Michael.

"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."

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

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

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

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.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

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

[Monty]

You are, by your own admittance Phil, recently active here.

That is what I'm refering to.

No, Cornwallian....Tom loves his pasties.

Yes,

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?

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

That is certain.

Monty


PS The black part of the entrance is actually due to black foundation bricks, which are more resistant to water.

These were, and still are used. If anyone wants to see how the brickwork of the dweliings entrance looked in 88, then view the entrance 2 door down from where the graffito was found. They are the original bricks.

[PhiltheBear]

Wow Tom,

Shot down by the new kids.

I just love your Cornwallian approach.

And I've photos of graffiti throughout the area, including two murder sites.

Monty

OK - I'll come clean. I've been researching JtR since about 1978 when I started work in an office next door to Bishopsgate Police station. I used to while away my lunch hours in the Bishopsgate Institute, which had (has?) a terrific collection of JtR literature plus maps and history of Whitechapel/Spitalfields.

I became a Registered Tourist Guide (Blue Badge Guide) in 1996 and have taken many JtR walking tours. It's only fairly recently, however, that I've been active on this forum although I have been relatively active on the 'other' forum. I've exchange messages with MariaB there (and Caz).

My current line of research is Geo Profiling and I tend to the theory that the Ripper was just a local lad. I'm currently working on a book with that as its main premise.

So, I hate to break it - but I'm not a 'new boy' either. I did like the 'Cornwallian appoach' - but I assume you meant 'Cornwellian'

Hi Phil and Trev,

Keep in mind that 'evidence' and 'proof' are not the same thing. There clearly is a bunch of evidence to suggest the Ripper wrote the graffiti, but there is no 'proof'. And yes, the majority of opinion at the time was that the Ripper wrote it. Warren lost his job over having erased it.

Where did you get that from? The opinion of the police (quite clearly expressed in the written notes) was that it was an inflammatory message which, if linked to JtR, could cause riots.

Absolutely untrue. The evidence is that the apron and the graffiti are connected, but not that the killer wrote the graffiti. The killer knew of the graffiti, yes. He may or may not have written it.

No evidence that he even knew of it.

Sorry to disappoint but there is no evidence that the apron piece and the graffiti are connected.

Absolutely. 100% correct.

Presumably because the door jamb is only a brick and a half deep and the graffito is on three lines, then it can't be on the jamb itself. To be rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in and out, it must be marked within the hallway itself. As there are indications that the entrance itself was at the time recessed it makes it doubly unlikely that the graffito was actually visible to the casual passer-by...sorry if that's not your drift Monty...please pardon an old man's musings!

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.

What had been missed is that 'dado' doesn't just have to apply to a door. It can also apply to a wall - in which case it means "the lower part of the wall of a room when decorated differently from the upper part". It was common Victorian practice, particularly in institutions, to paint walls in different colours with a dividing line about half way up. What this probably means is that the entrance hall interior was painted black up to about 4 ft and some other colour above. That the graffito was on the black part indicates either it was drawn by a midget or a child.

There is NO evidence that this had ANY connection with JtR - except that gawpers looking at the site where the apron piece was found would see it and it would be thought inflammatory. The modern day equivalent would be the furore stirred up by the Sun newspaper over paedophiles which led to the ignorant and stupid attacking a paediatrician. The police did not think the graffito had any link with JtR. It's abundantly clear from the reports.

[The Good Michael]

Presumably because the door jamb is only a brick and a half deep and the graffito is on three lines, then it can't be on the jamb itself. To be rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in and out, it must be marked within the hallway itself. As there are indications that the entrance itself was at the time recessed it makes it doubly unlikely that the graffito was actually visible to the casual passerby...sorry if that's not your drift Monty...please pardon an old man's musings!

Dave,

Monty might be talking about the entryway itself as a convenient place to toss in an apron, though I don't actually know what the lad's up to.

Mike

[Cogidubnus]

Presumably because the door jamb is only a brick and a half deep and the graffito is on three lines, then it can't be on the jamb itself. To be rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in and out, it must be marked within the hallway itself. As there are indications that the entrance itself was at the time recessed it makes it doubly unlikely that the graffito was actually visible to the casual passerby...sorry if that's not your drift Monty...please pardon an old man's musings!

Dave

[mariab]

You are missing the bleeding obvious regarding this matter. The 'supporting' evidence which you over look. Its simple.
Its the construction of the Wentworth dwellings itself

Could you please elaborate Monty?

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely untrue. The evidence is that the apron and the graffiti are connected, but not that the killer wrote the graffiti. The killer knew of the graffiti, yes. He may or may not have written it.

Mike

Sorry to dissapoint but there is no evidence that the apron piece and the graffiti are connected.

[Monty]

Ooooh, nice try Tom old boy.

Nah, your aguement is flawed as there are no reports stating the 'Graffito' was the only writing in the area or that they looked for other writing to confirm that.

So, going by your logic, until someone can prove otherwise....

You are missing the bleeding obvious regarding this matter. The 'supporting' evidence which you over look. Its simple.

Its the construction of the Wentworth dwellings itself, which it works against the 'oh he just threw it in there, nothing more' theory.

Monty