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

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[PhiltheBear]

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

Tom, don't get over excited. You need a lie down in a dark room.

Where does the PC say anything about graffiti not being there previously? He doesn't - because he had no cause to enter the passageway until he saw the apron laying in the entrance.

How do we know no-one saw the graffiti earlier? - No evidence of that. It was blurred - so it's almost certain someone rubbed against it. Therefore, someone either saw it or passed by it. (Or perhaps JtR wrote it and then tried to rub it out?)

All we know - the piece of apron was found in a passageway. There was graffiti in the same passage way. If the graffiti was linked with JtR then it's equally likely that every resident in that block either was, or was sheltering, JtR.

The police, at the time, saw no link between the two.

Now, give us one - just one - piece of evidence that definitively links a piece of apron found with some graffiti.

[Trevor Marriott]

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
I have to say that I havent come across anything what I would call evidence in support of the theory that the killer wrote the graffiti and I have been assessing and evaluating evidence for over 30 years. Have I missed something ?

[Monty]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Cogidubnus]

Trevor

I wholeheartedly agree with you (bugger me that hurt!)

All the very best

Dave

[Tom_Wescott]

Wow Tom,

Shot down by the new kids.

Trevor's a 'new kid'? 30 years investigating, a book, a documentary, dozens of live talks...geez, when does he get to graduate?

I just love your Cornwallian approach.

You mean 'Cornwellian', as in I'm going to sell a lot of books like Patricia Cornwell? Or are you suggesting that I am sneaking up from behind, i.e. through Cornwall?

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

Yes, but were any of those photos taken in Goulston Street on Sept 30/Oct 1, 1888? If not, what's your point?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

But is not evidence something which proves or disproves something ?

[Monty]

Of course Tom,

Graffiti didn't exist prior to and on that date.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[Tom_Wescott]

Of course Tom,

Graffiti didn't exist prior to and on that date.

Did I say that? Graffiti was everywhere, but there's no record of any in Goulston Street at that time. Incidentally, if you have a pic of the Pinchin Street torso graffiti, PM me and tell me about it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Isn't there Tom?

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

As a matter of fact, no there's not. There's not a pic of ANY graffiti in or near Goulston Street on the day of or after the murder. Such a pic does NOT exist. That's a cold hard fact, and anyone who thinks they can prove me wrong is welcome to e-mail their photographic proof to me at tomwescott73@gmail.com.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

You mean 'Cornwellian', as in I'm going to sell a lot of books like Patricia Cornwell?

Monty might be referring to what I warned you about the other day, pertaining to an "omnipresent" suspect à la Sickert. Though I'm sure you'll be careful to avoid this in your book.

To Monty: And here I go, possibly misrepresenting you again.

[Cogidubnus]

That's a cold hard fact, and anyone who thinks they can prove me wrong is welcome to e-mail their photographic proof to me at tomwescott73@gmail.com.

You're only hoping to get some obscenities in return!

Dave