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

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Maria,

Yes, you're misrepresenting Monty again. He and I were debating this stuff back before I solved the ca....err....discovered Le G....starting researching suspects.

Hi Dave,

Yeah, that's it. I'm wanting him to send me obscenities. Quick bunch on here tonight. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

Maybe he'll send you a photo of a graffito containing obscenities, which might satisfy you doubly. Also known as the Double Event of 2012.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all.

Philthebear has made some points that warrant thought.
Having read all views I am of the opinion of the following:-

IF the person who placed the rag in GS KNEW of the writing being there previously, then they did leave it so with intent to draw any attention AWAY from themselves and blame the Jewish poplace. Note it was left in a known Jewish tenament housing entrance AND with writing attracting attention to the Jews. This also applies if the carrier of the rag is also the writer of the message on the jamb/wall/brickwork. Then this person could equally have written the message when dumping the rag.

However, we have no clear proof the dumper was the writer, the writer was the killer, nor the killer was the dumper. That creates various problems, and other factors are brought into play be2use of it. An accomplice is one. The possibility of Eddowes herself in her wanderings from Bishopgate Police Station stopping off there and using a PRE TORN piece of the apron for wiping herself is another. We do NOT know when that piece was torn off.

I make no assumption on either point except that something is alarmingly wrong with the entire evidence surrounding the Eddowes murder from background to after comment by very many.

The police for example...

1) Time problems with the events surrounding the Mitre Square murder
2) Conflicting evidence and comment by the police, especially Swanson in his report
3) Lack of any comment or detail in any report on the ONLY two people seen NEAR the murder sgte by Halse which MUST be regarded as a very important follow up opportunity missed. If Halse had taken their names and particulars, their antecedants SHOULD have been checked at least the next morning. We onlx have the undetailed evidence of Halse saying they were given the ok and he let them go. Look throughout the WM case and time aod again people are taken in to be checked out. Yes, some are let go, but NOT 20-25mins after a murder in the near vicinity of the crime! And yet the ONLY known people stopped whilst every policeman about went searching for someone- wander off into the night without a mention
3) the problem of Long and Halse testimony
4) the diffèring evidence as to the GS writing
5) the photographer was sent for/wasnt sent for
6) that Warren orders 'evidence' removed
7) that no policeman verified Kelly's clearly false statement AND the lodging house attendants statement that is VERY wrong.
8) that no policeman identified a person SAID to have seen Eddowes carted off drunk who then. We are told KNEW the drunk woman, KNEW she was Kelly's woman and KNEW WHERE Kelly was. This is amazingly poor policework) ESPECIALLY as even if the time statement given by the lodgohm house attendant is a whole HOUR out- it doesnt give this witness, an old lady, TIME to find and tell KELLY that his woman has been arrested. And how does this old dear know WHERE Eddowes is taken anyway? In all of that area,
on a busy for pubs weekend evening an old lady just happens to recognise Eddowes and just happens to know Kelly and where to find him- he must have been wej known in the area and so must Eddowes!
9) this star old lady with keen eyesight would have identified Eddowes as the person she saw drunk if taken to the mortuary AFTER Kelly identified her thereby confirming ID. Because the police didnt go looking for her(not hard- Kelly knew where she worked)
It didnt happen.
10) apparent conflict between the two forces (City and Met) didnt help either.

Then we have doctors time statements which primae facea do not tally with the police re time of death. Then we have witness statements which dont add up to close scrutiny (see above)

then the quite amazing comment in the official police report sent upwards that the chalk writing was blurred- which defies all logic as it is between 3/8"and 3/4" high and according to Warren and Co is readable by passers by even if a pc was standing in front of it in dawn light! And not to mention residents who might have seen it on their way out of the building even though there was a back exit that could have been directed to use!

biggest blunder? The whole damned case surrounding the demise of Kate Beddowes- or Eddowes if you prefer. They didnt even know her name.

time for bed said Zeberdee.

Best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Bottom line is the evidence has ALWAYS been in favor of the Ripper having left the graffiti and it remains so.

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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.