If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Thanks, Monty. You thought about doing a new article for all the new ideas and info that's been collected since your last Mitre Square series? Many of us miss a lot of the talk on here, that's often posted to threads under unrelated titles, or it's just a timing thing, but we read the journals.
Thanks for clearing that up Neil. I thought that they were the originals. Brick making technology hasn't changed much in centuries with the exception of the advent of gas fired kilns in the 19th century.
We still use engineering bricks for commercial applications here, they are slightly larger than the standard 4x8x2 inch.
The black, engineering bricks were ideal for chalk writing.
It seems the glazed bricks were introduced sometime around the 1920s/30s refits.
I believe the black engineering bricks came to 4 1/2 off the ground. There is a doorway some yards south which seems to have retained its original brickwork.
Your thoughts are understood and greatly appreciated. One aspect of the bricks and the rainy night... The lower part of the fascia and wall consisted of hard fired glazed bricks... a kind of water table brick that repelled water. Depending on the wind the fascia would have been protected to some degree by the archway itself.
Hi Hunter,
Perhaps that is why the policeman wondered why the graffiti had not been rubbed off by people's shoulders if it had been written prior to the time of the murder - I can remember that it is very easy to rub chalk off of glazed bricks whereas on ordinary, untreated bricks the opposite is the case. In fact, it is not at all easy to write 'nicely' on a glazed surface with chalk so perhaps the graffiti was written higher up the wall where there was just ordinary brick. Which would make the writer rather tall!
Love
Carol
The inquest was performed by the City Coroner and it was up to him to solicit witnesses.
Agreed, and no-one was beyond his reach. Met Police were called to the City Inquest, so if the wording was of any significance Langham could have made the request. Likewise, if it existed, he should have been aware of it.
Warren did provide 'his' copy to the Home Office in his Nov. 9 report.
Five weeks later...
The question arises, when, in those five weeks, did he write 'his' copy?
The inquest was performed by the City Coroner and it was up to him to solicit witnesses. Warren did provide 'his' copy to the Home Office in his Nov. 9 report.
We can wonder the 'why' of all of this 'till the cows come home. This was a sensitive issue between the City and Met authorities.
I agree, Tom, but this wasn't a normal circumstance. It wouldn't have been normal for him to be at the scene. This was his call and he understood the implications of what his decision would entail. In this instance, I could see him writing it down himself so he could show that this evidence was preserved in some respect.
Then why all the fuss over the exact wording at the Inquest?
Nobody knew Warren had made his own copy at the scene before he washed it away?, surely somebody must have seen him, he was Charles Warren for goodness sakes. And, wouldn't the correct proceedure have been to enter it into evidence?
Foster didn't appear in Mitre Square till mid morning on the Sunday and then, I believe, took a cab to Goulston Street.
It seems he drew the Goulston Street map before viewing the street (I suspect from an old OS map) as he makes amendments on it. He adds the dwellings over his initial drawing.
Leave a comment: