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

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. The rain had long stopped, hence dry clothes all around on victim, etc. And unless there was a moon eclipse, I have no reason to suppose it was absolutely black outside. In any event, that graffiti had not been seen by any living soul prior to its discovery, so to suggest it had been there all day is an insult not only to the numerous policemen who worked that beat all day, but also to everyone who entered, left, or walked by those buildings for hours and hours between sunlight and the discovery of the writing and apron.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

Phil's conclusions aren't unsound, but they're not entirely accurate. Jack had moonlight to work by and was using white chalk against black dado. The writing was certainly not done during the daylight, unless Phil is suggesting no one in the building saw it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

Being the cynic that I am, and being very forgetful too (age has it's curious additions) could you please tell me where in any testimony it was stated that it was a cloudless night, semi-cloudless night and the position of the moon in the night sky that night? Was it a full moon, half moon, or quarter moon? Where in the testimony or case evidence is this stated?

Please do forgive me, but I seem to recall that 2 hours before, an establishment closed in consequence of rain- which at that time would indicate clouds being around that night. Seems to this old cynic that there would be 'clouds across the moon' that night.

i look forward therefore to evidence of

a) the direction that the open entrance faced?
b) the position and height of the moon in the sky vis a vis the entrance?
c) the clear sky, without any passing clouds?
d) the position in the cycle of the moon on that date?
e) whom amongst the witnesses told us any of the above?
F) where you have this 'moonlight' answer from?

if you provide the above answers, and from which sources, I will willingly concede a possibility that the person who dumped the rag may have had the opportunity to write on the wall in MAX 3/4" high lettering (that was just the capital letters, the othess being "in proportion") which normally means half of that size 3/8" high...working bathed in moonlight.

Otherwise- it looks a teeny weeny bit doubtful that the above happened at the time of the dumping in moonlight.
But hey- Im a cynic- what do I know?

Best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Why? No doubt because they were waiting for an American with his superior intellect and deducing powers to come along and solve the case for them. When you get to Heaven, tell them I said I'm sorry I was so late!

Just kidding. The answer is simple. They were focused on the first word, which was not a word, and not entirely clear, therefore they all saw something different. And because of this, they didn't pay much attention to the construct of the entire sentence, just the gist of it. My theory actually explains everything and makes absolutely perfect sense in conjunction with Stride, the apron, and why the graffiti was necessary in the first place. It's the only theory that does so and yet does not require Halse to have been committing LAPD style crimes on the streets of Whitechape! (wink)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi Tom,

"Literally no two people saw the same thing."

Why would all these policemen not have agreed amongst themselves upon the position, wording, grammar and lineage of the GSG, surely a clue as big as the Ritz?

BTW, although I don't believe it for a second I love your IWMES construct.

Regards,

Simon

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. I don't know what you mean. But imagine you were standing in the entry of Goulston Street and an earthquake started happening, you would stand in the entrance way, which was like a doorway but with no door. On what you might call a door jamb, at approximately shoulder height to an average man, was the writing. White chalk on black dado.

Hi Simon,

Believe me, I've put a lot of thought into that myself and have my ideas. Literally no two people saw the same thing. DC Halse spent the most time in the presence of the graffiti, and much of that time alone, so I tend to favor his version, although I think "Juwes' might actually have been 'IWMES', which appears virtually the same in cursif. And since everyone was expecting it to be a word and not an anagram, their minds told them it was some mutated form of 'Jews'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Biggest blunder?

The combined intellect of the Metropolitan and City police forces, from lowly PC to Commissioner, could not agree upon the position, wording, grammar or lineage of the GSG.

Discuss.

Regards,

Simon

[PhiltheBear]

Hi Phil. By 'doorway' he simply meant the entranceway. Of course there was no door there. It was written on the door jamb, not the wall.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Define 'jamb'. I know that the graffito was described as being written on black - which doesn't jell with the idea that the words were less than a brick high - indicating that they were written on brick.

Moonlight giving enough light? Just checked an astronomy programme - no Moon that night - but I will recheck.

[Tom_Wescott]

Phil's conclusions aren't unsound, but they're not entirely accurate. Jack had moonlight to work by and was using white chalk against black dado. The writing was certainly not done during the daylight, unless Phil is suggesting no one in the building saw it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

Hi Phil. By 'doorway' he simply meant the entranceway. Of course there was no door there. It was written on the door jamb, not the wall.

Jamb, jelly, you gotta admit Phil's conclusions are sound.

Mike

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil. By 'doorway' he simply meant the entranceway. Of course there was no door there. It was written on the door jamb, not the wall.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PhiltheBear]

In my usual manner I'm probably being a bit thick here but...

PC Long's written report testified to the effect that the piece of apron had appeared between 2.20 a.m. and 2.55 a.m. and it was "lying in the passage of the door-way leading to 109-118... Above it on the wall was written...."

There's an obvious problem - if it's in the door-way the only thing above it is the top of the door.

Supt Arnold's report testified that "my attention was called to some writing on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings..." and "it was in such a position that it would be rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in and out of the building"

Therefore, it's fairly obvious that the writing was on a wall inside the doorway - although Warren claimed it was visible to the street - but not until 5 a.m.

The problem that now occurs is that between 2.20 and 2.55 it would have been dark - too dark to have written without a light in a passageway and it is therefore extremely unlikely that Jack could have written it. Why would he light a lamp or candle which would illuminate himself as much as the wall? Much more plausible is the case that the writing was already there (and because it was in the passageway, in the dark, not noticeable by PC Long on his usual patrol) and that Jack simply dropped/threw the piece of apron into the passageway to dispose of/hide it. Long's light would be directed down, rather than up, so that he could see where he was going, which is why he spotted the piece of apron when he did.

[Hunter]

"When Hunt returned an enquiry was made at every tenement of the building but we could gain no witness of any one going in likely to be the murderer."

- From written statement of DC Daniel Halse, Eddowes inquest; No.135, Corporation of London Records Office.

[Beowulf]

I don't have a reference at my fingertips but I think it was the City police who searched this Goulston St. address.

Regards, Jon S.

Well, that kind of soothes my mind. Thanks. I didn't genuinely think it had been done, have not run across it but I'm sure you know what you are speaking of.

[Wickerman]

I have not read anywhere that the police searched this 'dwelling-house'?

I don't have a reference at my fingertips but I think it was the City police who searched this Goulston St. address.

Regards, Jon S.

[Bridewell]

I don't think that it was the biggest blunder at all.

I don't actually think the police blundered a great deal. This type of murder was unprecedented in their experience and they were simply not equipped to deal with it. To argue that they were, by the standards of the day, incompetent, it would be necessary to show that, had the murders been committed elsewhere, another police force would have performed more effectively. For me this was the biggest of the few blunders made, because the argument for erasure doesn't stand up. We know (from Dew) that anti-semitic graffiti (and views) were widespread, so why the need to immediately erase this example? Warren could have used as many officers as necessary to screen the area for the hour or so it would have taken to photograph it. "The cover would have been torn down" is nonsense.
The killer may well not have written the graffito, but there was no way that Warren could have known as much.


It is perfectly understandable given the inflamatory nature of the graffiti and the potentially extremely explosive situation regarding racial hatred/suspicion of the Jewish community at that time.

Did the police go round carrying buckets erasing all such graffiti? I suspect not. The graffito became public knowledge and no disorder resulted when that occurred.

The detail of the word 'nobody' and Eddowes comes down to whether you think that is just a coincidence or not -and I do personally.

I confess to not having previously made this connection (if, indeed, there is one). No need for police involvement though. The officer who arrested her probably asked her name at that time and got the same response - which could have been overheard by any member of the small crowd of onlookers. Like you, though, I think it's probably just coincidence.

As to Jack being potentially caught near the graffiti and his risk of being a suspect -I think that a) he was someone who appeared perfectly anodyne and looked totally different from the suspect descriptions being circulated so he felt 'safe' and b) he was a 'narcissist' who thought he was much smarter than the police and would easily be able to convince them that he was innocent.

Completely agree.

Regards, Bridewell.