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

[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

[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 ?

[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.

[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

[Bridewell]

[QUOTE=PhiltheBear;221446]

There's no evidence either way is there? (Bridewell)

No. But the onus is on providing proof that there IS a Ripper link rather than proving there isn't.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the contrary opinion can be stated as fact:

There's no link between the graffito and the murders. There's simply a coincidence that the piece of apron was found where some graffiti was.

It may be a coincidence. It may not. The burden of proof is, as you say, on those who claim the GSG to have been written by the murderer, but the fact remains that there is no evidence either way, so the matter remains an unknown. The lack of proof that the GSG is relevant does not equate to proof that it isn't.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

To leave under the graffiti. That's not a hard one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom, we often don't seem to see eye to eye, but that's had me laughing out loud...and it's been that sort of week so I needed it...thanks mate!

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

According to the A-Z (which I'd forgotten to look at) the dado was 4 ft high.

You're quite right I've checked and I misremembered (and why I called it the ABC I don't know - probably the Poirot video I watched the other day!)

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

To leave under the graffiti. That's not a hard one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

As I said, Tom, association by proximity isn't enough for me.

If you're going to argue that the author must have been Jack due to the apron, then does this mean you're going to argue that Jack must have lived in the dwellings where the apron was located?

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm a little bit confused as to why exactly he takes the apron.

To leave under the graffiti. That's not a hard one.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

Suppose he was disturbed - had cut the apron to wrap a 'collection' in but had only removed the kidney. He picks it all up and leaves. He dries the kidney and puts it in his pocket (don't know why - perhaps he's a trophy hunter). He's now got a bloody piece of cloth to dispose of. He scrunches it up in his hand - it's bloody which makes it fairly easy to compress - and waits for the first available opportunity to dispose of it.

So, he's disturbed. His life is at risk, and so he wastes precious seconds by picking up the cloth and the kidney; which, as he's working in the dark, he has to fumble around in the dark to locate said objects.

Which raises an interesting point: the kidney must have been his last act, because if he had put it down somewhere there's a decent chance he wouldn't have found it again. And, if he had time to commit this last act, then he probably wasn't disturbed.

What I could go with, is that he learned from experience, i.e. he learned that a cloth was useful to keep blood contact to a minimum. What I certainly can't go with is that he took the apron to wipe his hands and/or knife.

The problem with the apron as organ carrier, is that the corner of the apron was soaked, not the middle. This suggests he has had time to carefully wrap the organ like fish and chips - starting at the corner and rolling it up. But, would the blood have not seeped into the middle?

I'm a little bit confused as to why exactly he takes the apron. And, I'll discount to support the writing on the grounds that association by proximity isn't enough for me. But, perhaps Monty's photo is going to tell us otherwise.

[Tom_Wescott]

Phil the Bear,

LOL. You're good peeps.

Hi Moon,

The big confusion amongst witnesses had mainly to do with the second word (i.e. Juwes). For the most part, they all agreed on the rest of the sentence, except for minor things, like the placement of the word 'not', which wouldn't change the meaning. I say that pesky second word was not a variation of Jews but was the anagram IWMES which looks damn like 'Juwes' when you write it down. It stands for International Working Men's Educational Society, which is precisely how the name of the Berner Street club name appeared on its store front signage.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[moonbegger]

Evening all

[ Jah Bu Lon , mettle within Freemason gent , that bled Whore ]

So can any one prove that this is'nt what the message read , before it was scrambled up ? just for jolly

moonbegger

[The Good Michael]

The more one looks at it the more preposterous the idea becomes that this was connected with JtR.

Why Phil? What if he didn't write it? Could he still be connected to it?

Mike

[PhiltheBear]

Bearing in mind the small letters (only a brick size in height - also mentioned as being capitals of 3/4 of an inch high with other letters proportionate) and good round schoolboy hand, I'm inclined to agree with this also...not something written in haste in the dark - And as the black painted dado was (according to the ABC anyway) only 4' 6" in height, the observation about the likely height of the writer also seems relevant...not something I'd thought of before, so thanks!

According to the A-Z (which I'd forgotten to look at) the dado was 4 ft high. The door jamb was a 'brick and a half' wide. And, there's a photograph of the doorway which helps. Inside the doorway was a hallway approx 5 ft deep leading to stairs to the upper floors and a door to the basement. I'd missed that Swanson claimed that the apron was found "in the bottom of a common stairs" which would have been at the back of the recess. The writing was reported as not being more than 'a brick size in height'.

The more one looks at it the more preposterous the idea becomes that this was connected with JtR.

[PhiltheBear]

Now that is a weaker argument.

If the apron was used to wipe hands or knife, then it must be deduced that it would have been more prudent to have done so in Mitre Square (before putting said knife away and waltzing off down the street bidding night walkers a good night). Unless you're prepared to argue that he was disturbed. But, then you'll have to argue that he must have cut the apron much earlier and quickly picked it up before heading off.

In terms of the organ, in the event the kidney was wrapped in the cloth, then surely the only reason for dropping the cloth at that particular location, was that he was about to enter the premises where he lived/lodged within a street or two.

I don't see him walking down the street carrying the cloth in open view.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but if there is one cover up in this whole affair I'd go for it being the apron - placed there by the police in order to suggest the Ripper was the Met's problem, thereby avoiding recriminations such as resignations and the like.

Suppose he was disturbed - had cut the apron to wrap a 'collection' in but had only removed the kidney. He picks it all up and leaves. He dries the kidney and puts it in his pocket (don't know why - perhaps he's a trophy hunter). He's now got a bloody piece of cloth to dispose of. He scrunches it up in his hand - it's bloody which makes it fairly easy to compress - and waits for the first available opportunity to dispose of it.

There's no evidence either way, is there?

No. But the onus is on providing proof that there IS a Ripper link rather than proving there isn't. There are myriad reasons why the graffito is totally unconnected. The only one reason that it's connected is that the piece of apron was nearby. That, to me, is so weak as to be worthless. The only reason it was thought relevant at the time was not that it was linked with the Ripper but that it was likely to be thought so by people who would ignorantly put 2 and 2 together and make 5. There isn't one shred of evidence advanced by the police at the time that it was relevant to their enquiries.