Wall or Enterance ?

[moonbegger]

Hello all ,

Sorry ! [Wall or Entrance ]

I still dont quite understand how the general consensus on these boards lean towards the GSG being mid way up on the door frame/Entrance leading into to Wentworth buildings . And i think that as soon as we can nail down exactly where the writing actually was ,then we would have a better chance of understanding how and why it was put there in the the first place ( unfortunately, we will still be a long way from Who ! ) Was it inside , on the Wall , or was it on the entrance leading into the dwellings ? That is the question

Warren himself makes the claim ..

The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.

But everyone else who actually saw the GSG , refers to it as being clearly on the WALL .. For me , born a raised in London , there is a huge difference between a Wall and an Entrance ( let alone an Archway )

So who has it right ? And did Warren deliberately lie to the Home secretary in order to Justify his removal of it ?

moonbegger

[Stephen Thomas]

Jamb yesterday and jamb tomorrow but no jamb today.

[Bridewell]

Couldn't a brick-built archway legitimately be referred to as a wall? I don't really see any conflict between the two terms.

Regards, Bridewell.

[moonbegger]

Hi Bridewell ,

I personally believe the Difference between a Wall , a doorway/entrance , and an Arch is quite significant .. in fact i don't know of anyone who would refer to an entrance as a wall ! A wall is a partition , a solid boundary , Just because an entrance is is formed by the same material [Bricks] it does not make it a Wall. If for example a message was scrawled in the passage way leading to millers court .. it would be on the passage wall , not just the wall leading to millers court . It seems odd to me that Warren does not even mention a wall at all . It sounds like he is describing the GSG as being somewhere completely different to Halse , Long , Why ?

Halse;
After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall.

Not edge of the wall, or entrance wall, or even passage wall ! The WALL .

Long;
The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk,

This last statement by Halse , for me is testimony that the GSG was on the inside wall ..

I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground,

The streets were wet with rain and so too the entrance to the building, he would have made the point the floor was wet and any chalk residue would have been long soaked up .. But instead he did not notice , which tells me , it was probable , he just did not notice ! Below the Graffito it was dry .

So again , why is Warrens description to the Home secretary of Archways and door jamb's at complete odds to everyone else's ?

cheers

moonbegger .

[moonbegger]

Is it also possible that the piece of Eddows apron that was said to be wet was lying nearer the entrance in the rain , whereas the dry part was lying beneath the wall in front of the stairwell .. Beneath the writing ?

P.C. Long reported ' ....about 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk

moonbegger.

[Hunter]

Probably not since, to the best of our knowledge, the rain had stopped by the time Kate Eddowes was killed.

[Edward]

Wall/Archway/Entrance

Hello All -
I think that we're fretting over semantics. It is far easier to indicate "wall" than it is to indicate "archway" or "entrance". (see photo)



The GSG was written on the black brick, so I suppose that it was highly visible from the street, bring written on the entryway to the dwellings. My question is this: From which direction was the policeman walking on his beat when he discovered the piece of apron? If travelling from right to left (in the photo), it may be difficult to notice the GSG and the piece of apron. If travelling from left to right (in the photo), the GSG and apron piece would be more easily detected.

Just a random thought.
Best Regards,
Edward

[moonbegger]

Hello Edward ,

I think that we're fretting over semantics. It is far easier to indicate "wall" than it is to indicate "archway" or "entrance".

Are we to assume that two of London's finest would not know the difference between graffito on brickwork in an entrance to a building and graffito on a Wall inside ? or even too lazy to document it . I don't buy it . It is only warren that claims the GSG was on the jamb of the open Archway ? or door , not even mentioning a wall .

Detective Halse said at the inquest ' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall'

Facing of the WALL !

It was not even a deep set Entrance, in fact just a few inches from entrance to wall . I'm sure the tiny letters that formed the GSG would have been visible from the street in the morning ( if a little hard to make out ) .

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

Semantics

So again , why is Warrens description to the Home secretary of Archways and door jamb's at complete odds to everyone else's ?

It isn't.

Warren:

The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway

Halse:

on the black facia of the wall.

Long:

Above on the wall was written in chalk,

The black-faced bricks at the entrance formed part of the outer wall of the building. No-one is dissembling. Different witnesses use different words to describe the same location. Let's not create a mystery where there is none.

Regards, Bridewell

[Edward]

Semantics

'nuff said ...

[moonbegger]

Hi Bridewell , Edward

Let's not create a mystery where there is none.

Where is the fun in that

OK , Reluctantly accepted .. And in all fairness Warren does refer to the writing being on the wall in other parts of his letter to the HS .

moonbegger .

[Cogidubnus]

Where it was?

And yet, in his report dated 06.11.88 Chief Inspector Donald Swanson says:-

"He found in the bottom of a common stairs leading to 108 to 119 Goldston (sic) Street Buildings a piece of bloodstained apron, and above it written in chalk the words...."etc etc

Presumably he based this on the report dated 06.11.88 by PC254A Alfred Long which reads:

"I was on duty in Goulston Street on the morning of 30th Sept: at about 2,55 A.M. I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage of the door-way leading to Nos 108 to 119 Model Dwellings in Goulston Street"

In his inquest evidence PC Long elucidates:

"about 2.55 A.M. I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produce. There appeared bloodstains on it, one portion was wet, lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. Above it on the wall..." etc etc...

This is reported in the Times as

"It was lying in the passage leading to a staircase of 108 and 119, ordinary dwelling houses. Above it on the wall was written..." etc etc

Surely the PC who found the graffito and the Chief Inspector whose hands his report passed through en route to the official record ought to know where the graffito was?

Superintendent Arnold says the writing was "on the wall of the entrance at shoulder height and could have been rubbed by people passing in and out of the building"

On page 132 of "JtR Scptland Yard Investigates" there is a particularly clear photo of this entrance showing the layout of the entrance as it was in the 1970s...and this confirms that an interior part of the wall, between the steps and the doorway, is not thus precluded

It has to be said that the black area appears in this photo to be confined to a very narrow door jamb either side...but it does also appear as if the interior has been painted a lighter colour at some stage over the years...certainly faint scuffing towards the bottom of the walls suggest this might've been the case but who knows?

All the best

Dave

[Fleetwood Mac]

It isn't.

Warren:

Halse:

Long:

The black-faced bricks at the entrance formed part of the outer wall of the building. No-one is dissembling. Different witnesses use different words to describe the same location. Let's not create a mystery where there is none.

Regards, Bridewell

I would tend to agree that a 'wall' is a catch all term.

Where I come from, people are not so refined to make a distinction between a 'wall' and a brick archway.

But. in response to the Long quote: how far did he go into the entrance?

[Cogidubnus]

He evidently went into the passageway to discover the graffito, Mac, because he says so, (see post above)...

Following this discovery, per his inquest evidence, PC Long "at once searched the staircases and areas..." etc etc...

All the best

Dave

[moonbegger]

And yet, in his report dated 06.11.88 Chief Inspector Donald Swanson says:-

"He found in the bottom of a common stairs leading to 108 to 119 Goldston (sic) Street Buildings a piece of bloodstained apron, and above it written in chalk the words...."etc etc

Presumably he based this on the report dated 06.11.88 by PC254A Alfred Long which reads:

"I was on duty in Goulston Street on the morning of 30th Sept: at about 2,55 A.M. I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage of the door-way leading to Nos 108 to 119 Model Dwellings in Goulston Street"

In his inquest evidence PC Long elucidates:

"about 2.55 A.M. I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produce. There appeared bloodstains on it, one portion was wet, lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. Above it on the wall..." etc etc...

This is reported in the Times as

"It was lying in the passage leading to a staircase of 108 and 119, ordinary dwelling houses. Above it on the wall was written..." etc etc

Surely the PC who found the graffito and the Chief Inspector whose hands his report passed through en route to the official record ought to know where the graffito was?

Superintendent Arnold says the writing was "on the wall of the entrance at shoulder height and could have been rubbed by people passing in and out of the building"

On page 132 of "JtR Scptland Yard Investigates" there is a particularly clear photo of this entrance showing the layout of the entrance as it was in the 1970s...and this confirms that an interior part of the wall, between the steps and the doorway, is not thus precluded

It has to be said that the black area appears in this photo to be confined to a very narrow door jamb either side...but it does also appear as if the interior has been painted a lighter colour at some stage over the years...certainly faint scuffing towards the bottom of the walls suggest this might've been the case but who knows?

All the best

Dave

Hello Dave ,

Thanks for that wealth of information , very interesting .

Superintendent Arnold says the writing was "on the wall of the entrance at shoulder height and could have been rubbed by people passing in and out of the building"

Was Arnold there Dave, ( Johnny on the spot ) , or was he going off Warrens report ?

cheers

moonbegger