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

[Beowulf]

Hi Barbara

To be honest I don't suppose a sample of chalk graffiti written on a vertical brick surface (in the dark or nay) would actually form any valid basis for comparison for a penned message in ink, written flat on a piece of paper...

I suspect that all but the most major characteristics would appear differently...I recall right down the years that my teachers writing on blackboards looked very different from their comments in my exercise books...and that wasn't just the red ink!

All the best

Dave

Well, there blows another theory of mine, lol.

[Cogidubnus]

Well, at least they could've compared it to the handwritings of all the suspects they had, and also we could compare it to the handwritings of all the suspects we've had down the years, Prince Edward, Kosminski, Chapman, Cutbush, you know everyone. Heck, Van Gogh, Lautrec, Sickert. Could rule out quite a few if we had that writing to compare it to, maybe.

Hi Barbara

To be honest I don't suppose a sample of chalk graffiti written on a vertical brick surface (in the dark or nay) would actually form any valid basis for comparison for a penned message in ink, written flat on a piece of paper...

I suspect that all but the most major characteristics would appear differently...I recall right down the years that my teachers writing on blackboards looked very different from their comments in my exercise books...and that wasn't just the red ink!

All the best

Dave

[Beowulf]

Hi Bridewell

I agree that if the graffito had been photographed it would not have made a difference. We would still be left with the same enigmatic piece of writing, not knowing if it was left by the killer, although admittedly the police at the time seemed to think it was written by him. The thought of trying to match the handwriting on the wall to the "Jack the Ripper" letters though is absurd, even if there are those who think such strategy could have been fruitful. I concur that the failure to photograph the inscription or even to ensure that the words were transcribed properly was sloppy work on the part of the police.

Best regards

Chris

Well, at least they could've compared it to the handwritings of all the suspects they had, and also we could compare it to the handwritings of all the suspects we've had down the years, Prince Edward, Kosminski, Chapman, Cutbush, you know everyone. Heck, Van Gogh, Lautrec, Sickert. Could rule out quite a few if we had that writing to compare it to, maybe.

[ChrisGeorge]

All these say the same thing - but they all say it differently.

The inquest record quite clearly says "I got assistance". Doesn't say what assistance. So, do I trust the reporting? - not a bit.

Again, that's up to you, Phil. But Dave Yost, Alex Chisholm, and Christopher-Michael DiGrazia published their excellent book News from Whitechapel some years ago and they used the articles from the Daily Telegraph as the basis of their book because of its acknowledged reliability.

The Telegraph is just one of a number of newspapers that reports that Eddowes replied "Nothing" to Robinson's question, and it appears that you yourself are now acknowledging that the police constable both wrote that she replied "Nothing" to him and that he said the same thing in court, as reported by those newspapers. Yes the wording of the events as described by the several newspapers is a bit different but that reply is reported the same way. I'll also acknowledge that The Times did not report that reply by Eddowes but that does not mean she didn't say it.

Best regards

Chris

[PhiltheBear]

You say you don't know where the press got their information. But if you read the press reports of the inquest that I posted, Robinson was questioned by the coroner and the press wrote down what he said. They didn't transcribe from his written statement.

With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station.

I did not do any more until I got assistance. Another policeman came. . .

...until I got the assistance of another police constable. . .

... without the assistance of another policeman, which he obtained

All these say the same thing - but they all say it differently.

The inquest record quite clearly says "I got assistance". Doesn't say what assistance. So, do I trust the reporting? - not a bit.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hello Phil

You say you don't know where the press got their information. But if you read the press reports of the inquest that I posted, Robinson was questioned by the coroner and the press wrote down what he said. They didn't transcribe from his written statement. I agree that it doesn't make much sense that she would reply "Nothing" when asked her name. It's not logical. But then there are a lot of things in life that are not logical, and a lot of things about this case that don't quite make sense either.

Best regards

Chris

[PhiltheBear]

Hello Phil

You don't have to mention that the press "contained a great deal of total invention - just to sell papers". Of course, we all know that's true. But here we are talking about inquest testimony, not the possible press invention, say, of a phantom menace called "Leather Apron" or anything like that.

What credible motive could there be for the press to hype up what occurred in the police station? Additionally, one of the most reliable newspapers, the Daily Telegraph, reported that P.C. Robinson's testimony was that when asked her name she replied "Nothing."

Don't confuse her being unable to give her name when first arrested in Aldgate High Street with what she is reported to have said in the police station.

Best regards

Chris

Chris,

I don't think the press hyped it - I just think they got it wrong. The only piece of evidence that she said her name was "Nothing" is in Robinson's written statement. He didn't repeat that verbally at the inquest (according to the Times report). It's quite likely that the written statement was taken down from dictation and that the scribe inserted the inverted commas. It's also quite likely that all the police involved were trying to make an impression - this was, after all, the case on everyone's mind at the time. I think it's much more likely that what he dictated was "I asked her name and she said nothing". (Which fits with her being so drunk that 2 people were needed to get her from Aldgate High St. to Bishopsgate and with Byfield's evidence that she was unable to give her name and address when brought in).

It's quite common for people trying to be 'professional' or 'authoritative' to embroider what they write and use words that aren't quite correct. Or to follow some standard procedure e.g. 'I was proceeding in a Westerly direction along the High Street' rather than 'I was walking along the High Street'. Thus the scribe used 'replied' instead of 'said'. I doubt that Robinson read it thoroughly - given that PC's were recruited more for brawn than brain at the time - and just signed it.

I've just tried the experiment of describing, roughly, the scene of her being found drunk and incapable and then asking an experienced journalist friend to write down "I asked her name and she replied 'Nothing'". He immediately pounced on it and asked what exactly 'nothing' meant in context. Having explained it to him he agreed with me that the likelihood of someone being asked their name and saying 'Nothing' is much lower than someone being asked their name and saying nothing.

I don't know where the press got their source from. Did they copy from the statements? Or were they simply taking down what was said? It's almost certainly the former. The stuff about 'shutters' and 'assistance' appear in the sworn statement but not in The Times report of what was said at the inquest. And I would think that Times was pretty authoritative.

If the sentence "I asked her name and she replied nothing" is spoken what is there to suggest that 'nothing' is a quote? That would be - nothing

Phil

[Hunter]

When asked her name she made the reply 'Nothing'.

Official written testimony of PC Louis Robinson (and signed by him) at the Eddowes murder inquest; No. 135, Corporation of London Record Office.

[ChrisGeorge]

I would have to say that, if the decision to erase the GSG wasn't "the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper", the failure to ensure that its content was consistently and accurately recorded before doing so was sloppy in the extreme.
Would matters have turned out differently, had the GSG been photographed? I wouldn't have thought so, but the erasure before doing so sent out entirely the wrong message.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hi Bridewell

I agree that if the graffito had been photographed it would not have made a difference. We would still be left with the same enigmatic piece of writing, not knowing if it was left by the killer, although admittedly the police at the time seemed to think it was written by him. The thought of trying to match the handwriting on the wall to the "Jack the Ripper" letters though is absurd, even if there are those who think such strategy could have been fruitful. I concur that the failure to photograph the inscription or even to ensure that the words were transcribed properly was sloppy work on the part of the police.

Best regards

Chris

[Bridewell]

I would have to say that, if the decision to erase the GSG wasn't "the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper", the failure to ensure that its content was consistently and accurately recorded before doing so was sloppy in the extreme.
Would matters have turned out differently, had the GSG been photographed? I wouldn't have thought so, but the erasure before doing so sent out entirely the wrong message.

Regards, Bridewell.

[ChrisGeorge]

Chris,

The fact it was reported in the newspapers doesn't convince* (after all, we journalists never let the facts get in the way of a good story, do we?). All of those reports differ in wording. And none of them report the Sergeant's sworn statement that she was unable to answer. If she was unable to answer (being somewhat inebriated and unable to stand up when arrested) then it's much more likely that she said nothing - rather than replied "Nothing". When under the influence she may well have given a false name, told the police to stuff themselves or something similar, or even have said "I don't have a name". But it's incredibly unlikely she would have said the word "Nothing".

Phil

*Some of the reports in the press from the time, as you know, contained a great deal of total invention - just to sell papers.

Hello Phil

You don't have to mention that the press "contained a great deal of total invention - just to sell papers". Of course, we all know that's true. But here we are talking about inquest testimony, not the possible press invention, say, of a phantom menace called "Leather Apron" or anything like that.

What credible motive could there be for the press to hype up what occurred in the police station? Additionally, one of the most reliable newspapers, the Daily Telegraph, reported that P.C. Robinson's testimony was that when asked her name she replied "Nothing."

Don't confuse her being unable to give her name when first arrested in Aldgate High Street with what she is reported to have said in the police station.

Best regards

Chris

[Bridewell]

If she was unable to answer (being somewhat inebriated and unable to stand up when arrested) then it's much more likely that she said nothing - rather than replied "Nothing".

Yet such reports as do exist are consistent in saying, that when asked her name, she replied, "Nothing". Police officers tend to use the same form of words routinely in the same situation. In the modern era, had she said nothing, as opposed to uttering that word, I would expect to read, "She made no reply". It's usually put that way to remove the ambiguity. "She replied nothing" sounds like antiquated phraseology, even for the LVP. I guess either is possible, but, personally, I think her use of the word, "Nothing" is more likely.

Regards, Bridewell.

[harry]

The posibility is that Eddowes was slurring her speech,and that she said,'snuthing'.Shortened from 'I'ts nothing'.Not uncommon in my way of speaking in younger days,drink or no drink.

[PhiltheBear]

Hello PhiltheBear

You are entitled to your opinion but the same thing was reported in various newspapers.

<snip>

Chris,

The fact it was reported in the newspapers doesn't convince* (after all, we journalists never let the facts get in the way of a good story, do we?). All of those reports differ in wording. And none of them report the Sergeant's sworn statement that she was unable to answer. If she was unable to answer (being somewhat inebriated and unable to stand up when arrested) then it's much more likely that she said nothing - rather than replied "Nothing". When under the influence she may well have given a false name, told the police to stuff themselves or something similar, or even have said "I don't have a name". But it's incredibly unlikely she would have said the word "Nothing".

Phil

*Some of the reports in the press from the time, as you know, contained a great deal of total invention - just to sell papers.

[Beowulf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Wood

"Hi Phil,

I see your point, but how in the early morning of 30th September could the author of the GSG have known that Eddowes said "nothing" when asked her name at Bishopsgate police station on the evening of 29th September? This piece of information wasn't public knowledge until Eddowes' inquest.

City Constable 931, Lewis Robinson, 11th October 1888—

"With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing'. She was then put into a cell."

Regards,
Simon

Hi Simon and Phil

Simon, you make an excellent point but Phil does as well. What if the killer had asked Eddowes her name and she gave the same answer?

"What's your name, dear?"

"Nothing."

Best regards

Chris"

What if the killer were there when she gave the original answer? In other words, a cop. Or someone present when that conversation took place?

Not that I have any idea if the facts support this. Just musing.