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

[PhiltheBear]

Thank you for highlighting unable in bold for me Phil,

Made it so clearer.

I aim to please (did you mean so much clearer? - Trying to please again )

Nor did Byfield state she was incapable of speech, or any utterance for that matter.

His statement was "I discharged her after she gave her name and address which she was unable to do when she was brought in". The only other testimony to anything she is supposed to have said was 'nothing' by Robinson. Both claim she was too drunk to stand. It's 100% logical that she didn't reply on being asked her name because she was too drunk - it's illogical, not to mention downright bad English, to state that 'When asked her name she made the reply "Nothing"'.

It's right up there with any idea that JtR wrote the graffito - simply not believable.

[mariab]

Or Toulouse-Lautrec. Who threw the apron into the air, but it was still too low.

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree, Chris. The chances are that the entrances would have been kept reasonably clean and clear by the proud residents of these shiny new dwellings. A filthy, blood-stained and foul-smelling piece of a woman's apron was not going to be missed, or stepped over and ignored for long, by the people coming and going.

Someone chose that particular location for leaving that particular message, and as Hunter said (and was totally ignored) his only option when using white chalk would have been to write on the black part of the wall, regardless of his age or height and how low down it would make the writing. All this talk of a child or even a midget doing it gives me real fits. What's wrong with him having to stoop to make the white legible on the black, whether this was the same man who dropped the apron or not?

Love,

Caz
X

Why would you stoop down when easier to stand upright unless Quasimodo wrote it

[caz]

If the Ripper had wanted to dispose of the piece of apron, he could have done it in a number of ways. Taken it home to burn it, bury it, or whatever. He could have thrown it down one of the recesses or down a sewer. Instead of those things, he did something else entirely: he left it on a public pathway, i.e., an entrance into a building, where it was bound to be found before long. That's worth considering.

I agree, Chris. The chances are that the entrances would have been kept reasonably clean and clear by the proud residents of these shiny new dwellings. A filthy, blood-stained and foul-smelling piece of a woman's apron was not going to be missed, or stepped over and ignored for long, by the people coming and going.

Someone chose that particular location for leaving that particular message, and as Hunter said (and was totally ignored) his only option when using white chalk would have been to write on the black part of the wall, regardless of his age or height and how low down it would make the writing. All this talk of a child or even a midget doing it gives me real fits. What's wrong with him having to stoop to make the white legible on the black, whether this was the same man who dropped the apron or not?

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

Thank you for highlighting unable in bold for me Phil,

Made it so clearer.

Nor did Byfield state she was incapable of speech, or any utterance for that matter.

Monty

[PhiltheBear]

Firstly, just because she was incapable to stand does not mean she was incapable of speech.

Secondly, she may not have been able to give an address because she didnt have one or could not recall her last lodgings, not because she physically could not talk.

That or she was just being cagey.

Monty

Monty, the sergeant said she was unable to give her name - not that she was able and didn't. She was too drunk to do so.

I take your point but I'm not sure it's that simple:

Robinson: "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply, 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells".

Byfield: "She was taken back to the cell and detained there..."

Perhaps, a few minutes apart, two different occasions on the same evening?

The Byfield statement doesn't infer she'd been in the cell. It infers the cell was at the back of the station - which it was.

What she was unable to do when brought in was to stand unsupported and to give her name and address. This does not necessarily mean that she was completely incapable of speech. Furthermore, while Robinson could have chosen to make the ambiguous statement, "she said nothing", he didn't. He preferred the clumsier, but unambiguous, phrase, "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

It's quite possible, and in my experience likely, that both Robinson and Byfield tried to get the information out of her over the course of a few minutes. There was nothing, in a pre PACE era, to stop the arresting officer from placing a prisoner directly in a cell without troubling the sergeant. The sergeant, once informed, would probably have had her brought out, in an attempt to elicit the name & address himself before, after failing in the attempt, having her taken back to the cell. I think that's what happened.

Robinson says that, when asked her name, she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ". Byfield says that she was unable to give her name and address when brought in. I don't see that the statements contradict each other. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. I concede the point that the more likely event is that a prisoner would "say nothing" in the sense of making no reply, but I think the evidence, as presented by all the sources, suggests that the less likely event, that she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ", is what actually took place..

We'll agree to disagree.

LOL, so it takes a sceptic to conclude that authors publish theories they believe in? I greatly look forward to The Truth About Goulston Street by Phil T. Bear, and will keep in mind that you mean not a word of what you've written.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

I'll put you down for a signed copy

But reread what I wrote - I said that people publish to push their ideas not that they just publish ideas they believe in. Other than those books which are pure 'evidence' such as The Ultimate JtR Source Book, The Complete JtR A-Z and JtR An Encyclopedia almost every book on JtR I've read (and that's a lot over 35 years) pushes a theory - most of which are totally bonkers.

[PhiltheBear]

Tom,

Look at Longs timings, and the time to cover Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

And then take in to account the recesses and Longs duty.

More valid reasons.

Monty

Or, simply, Long didn't see it on his first pass? Perhaps his attention was drawn to something or somebody on the other side of the street as he passed the passageway? Or he didn't look. Perhaps it was already there.

[Monty]

Tom,

Look at Longs timings, and the time to cover Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

And then take in to account the recesses and Longs duty.

More valid reasons.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty. And what reasons could be 'more valid'?

I believe the graffiti is legit Ripper evidence. I'm not so sure about the Lusk kidney, because unlike the apron piece, it could not be established beyond doubt as having come from Eddowes. However, there is an interesting similarity between the two, and that is that the apron and the kidney were both utilized as a 'signature' for their respective messages.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Monty, thanks for the excellent info on Goulston Street. The Goads map and photos were very helpful, though I remember you discussing the recesses years back. And you're correct, if the Ripper simply wanted to toss away his apron, throwing it into one of the many recesses would have been the likely occurrence. Yet another reason to suppose he wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No, Monty hasnt.

There are other, more valid reasons for leaving the apron piece there....dont get too excited.

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Monty, thanks for the excellent info on Goulston Street. The Goads map and photos were very helpful, though I remember you discussing the recesses years back. And you're correct, if the Ripper simply wanted to toss away his apron, throwing it into one of the many recesses would have been the likely occurrence. Yet another reason to suppose he wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

That's true, Tom. If the Ripper had wanted to dispose of the piece of apron, he could have done it in a number of ways. Taken it home to burn it, bury it, or whatever. He could have thrown it down one of the recesses or down a sewer. Instead of those things, he did something else entirely: he left it on a public pathway, i.e., an entrance into a building, where it was bound to be found before long. That's worth considering.

Best regards

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Has Monty turned pro-graffitist?

Monty, thanks for the excellent info on Goulston Street. The Goads map and photos were very helpful, though I remember you discussing the recesses years back. And you're correct, if the Ripper simply wanted to toss away his apron, throwing it into one of the many recesses would have been the likely occurrence. Yet another reason to suppose he wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm one of those sceptics that tends to think that people who write books on JtR do so to push a version of events that they believe in (My forthcoming monograph "The Truth about Goulston Street" being an exception, of course...

LOL, so it takes a sceptic to conclude that authors publish theories they believe in? I greatly look forward to The Truth About Goulston Street by Phil T. Bear, and will keep in mind that you mean not a word of what you've written.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Bridewell]

Two differing versions of the same event. Robinson v Byfield. I'll go with the experienced Sergeant.

I take your point but I'm not sure it's that simple:

Robinson: "We then took her to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. When asked her name she made the reply, 'Nothing'. We then put her in the cells".

Byfield: "She was taken back to the cell and detained there..."

Perhaps, a few minutes apart, two different occasions on the same evening?

What she was unable to do when brought in was to stand unsupported and to give her name and address. This does not necessarily mean that she was completely incapable of speech. Furthermore, while Robinson could have chosen to make the ambiguous statement, "she said nothing", he didn't. He preferred the clumsier, but unambiguous, phrase, "she made the reply, 'Nothing' ".

It's quite possible, and in my experience likely, that both Robinson and Byfield tried to get the information out of her over the course of a few minutes. There was nothing, in a pre PACE era, to stop the arresting officer from placing a prisoner directly in a cell without troubling the sergeant. The sergeant, once informed, would probably have had her brought out, in an attempt to elicit the name & address himself before, after failing in the attempt, having her taken back to the cell. I think that's what happened.

Robinson says that, when asked her name, she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ". Byfield says that she was unable to give her name and address when brought in. I don't see that the statements contradict each other. We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. I concede the point that the more likely event is that a prisoner would "say nothing" in the sense of making no reply, but I think the evidence, as presented by all the sources, suggests that the less likely event, that she "made the reply, 'Nothing' ", is what actually took place.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

It says she was unable to give her name and address. Not - she said 'Nothing'.

Firstly, just because she was incapable to stand does not mean she was incapable of speech.

Secondly, she may not have been able to give an address because she didnt have one or could not recall her last lodgings, not because she physically could not talk.

That or she was just being cagey.

Monty