GSG j or d

[moonbegger]

Highly unlikely, I would suggest. In the modern era pocket books are routinely destroyed after about six years. I doubt if it was significantly different in the LVP. I used to get through 10-15 per annum which was probably pretty typical. Multiply that by the number of officers and you have a significant long-term storage problem.

Even with such a contentious piece of evidence ?, I would have thought if Kate's shawl , and the dear boss letter made it to the Scotland yard Museum , other equally significant artifacts, such as the specific relevant pages would have been plucked out and kept as a keep sake ..

moonbegger

[Phil H]

if Kate's shawl , and the dear boss letter made it to the Scotland yard Museum , other equally significant artifacts, such as the specific relevant pages would have been plucked out and kept as a keep sake ..

But there is a difference between the two classes of object isn't there?

the shawl, albeit indirectly, might have been regarded as "evidence" rather like the Rumbelow knife. The letter was sent from outside and might well have been seen as noteworthy (no pun intended).

But the police notebooks were part of the functional apparatus of the police itself, no doubt with rules about their use and retention. It the rules said retain and destroy after a period of time - their contents might well have been forgotten, their facte in the hands of someone (such as a registry clerk) other than their user.

Phil

[Bridewell]

There can be no justification for hastily destroying what might be evidence simply because its short-term preservation might heighten racial tensions. Wrong priority.

I disagree, given the context of the times.

I am prepared to trust the judgement of men who were there - senior men of proven experience - over our wish for some spurious additional detail that would take us no further forward.

Given the nature of forensics in 1888, I doubt photographing the words would have been any use whatsoever.

Phil

I too am prepared to trust the judgement of men who were there, but for me the emphasis has to be on the man with proven and current investigative experience (Halse).

Preserving the GSG, whilst it might not have been of scientific value, would at least have prevented the embarrassing fiasco wherein different officers recorded the same words differently. You don't subject potential evidence to cursory evaluation and immediately destroy it. You preserve potential evidence for later evaluation. The erasure of the GSG, whatever its significance, was a basic failure of criminal investigation. The reason that we still debate its value (or lack of it) more than a century after the event is the fact that the GSG was not preserved.

[Bridewell]

Even with such a contentious piece of evidence ?, I would have thought if Kate's shawl , and the dear boss letter made it to the Scotland yard Museum , other equally significant artifacts, such as the specific relevant pages would have been plucked out and kept as a keep sake ..

moonbegger

Sadly the police are, for the most part, very poor custodians of their own history. Had it not been for the perception and acuity of Donald Rumbelow the MJK photographs would have been destroyed half a century ago. Pocket Note-Books are simply an aide-memoire and are, as Phil says, routinely surrendered and later destroyed. Frustrating but true.

[The Good Michael]

Seriously, it had to have been a 'J'. It would have been read by not two people who jotted it down, but by a whole bunch of police, and the conclusion was that it could have been read as a message that would incite the non-Jewish society to violence. I'd say 'D' is absolutely out of the equation.

Mike

[moonbegger]

Seriously, it had to have been a 'J'. It would have been read by not two people who jotted it down, but by a whole bunch of police, and the conclusion was that it could have been read as a message that would incite the non-Jewish society to violence. I'd say 'D' is absolutely out of the equation.

Mike

Not a capitol "D" Mike , a lower case "d", Albeit slightly deformed and very similar to the lower case "j" in Warrens letter to the HS describing the graffito, (juwes) . Comparing Warrens handwriting along side his five lined duplicate he submitted to the HS it is clear that he was not trying to duplicate the actual lettering or style of writing on the wall or indeed for that matter the layout of the wording, but I think he did pay attention to the capitol letters .. and as I mentioned earlier ..

If it looked close enough like a "j" ( especially in that dimly lit passage) to the first on the scene , others may have also arrived at the same conclusion, especially once it has been verbally described and firmly concluded ( in his own mind) as a specific word .. any one who got to view it after that would already have the expectation of the word ( and the potential danger of it ) and automatically assume the slightly discontinuous d is in fact a j . Maybe the assumption of the word as a whole , and all it pertained to within the graffito , along with its likely affiliation, trumped over all other reasonable conclusions .

I find it odd that the only word that is apparently misspelt is a word that would have stared the author in the face every single day of his life , be it in the newspapers , shops , almost anywhere in whitechapel , even other graffito .

cheers

moonbegger

[The Good Michael]

Not a capitol "D" Mike , a lower case "d", Albeit slightly deformed and very similar to the lower case "j" in Warrens letter to the HS describing the graffito, (juwes) .

I find it odd that the only word that is apparently misspelt is a word that would have stared the author in the face every single day of his life , be it in the newspapers , shops , almost anywhere in whitechapel , even other graffito .

Moonbeggar,

I understand your argument of course, but I see it as next to impossible. As for the misspelling, it was the only word that was a proper noun, a word which the author may never have written before.

Mike

[Phil H]

the emphasis has to be on the man with proven and current investigative experience (Halse).

Where you place your emphasis is, of course, a matter of your judgement.

But the decision was not simply procedural, it was sensitive and "political" (in the sense that any riot or an outbreak of anti-semitism would be likely to be raised in Parliament.

A beat cop would not be in a position to understand or appreciate the wider/larger issues, any instructions given to the Chief Commissioner by the Home Secretary. Indeed, supervising officers such as Abberline and Swanson might not have had that information.

Hence for Warren to make the decision was absolutely right. He had the advice of officers more directly connected to the case than he, and more versed in procedure and practice, but HE was the accountable official. The decision was not arbitrary, it was taken in the light of, but not agreeing with, professional advice.

The graffito, and the absolute way it was written is a matter that might be of interest only to us today, although no one on here has ever managed to explain exactly how it would help.

Phil

[Albert]

The graffito, and the absolute way it was written is a matter that might be of interest only to us today, although no one on here has ever managed to explain exactly how it would help.

Phil[/QUOTE]

Hi Phil,
That's something I've never been able to work out - how does it help us if we can't prove it was written by the apron-dropper (I hesitate to say 'killer' or 'Jack' as this leads to a whole lot of other assumptions).
Cheers
Albert

[Phil H]

In 1888, unless the writer had been caught in the act and subsequently been proved to be JtR - I see no use for it whatsoever.

In all my years I have never seen a single convincing argument to link apron-piece and writing. I have yet to see an interpretation of the words that attracts widespread agreement or is even remotely impressive. [I think Stephen Knight came closest with the Masonic interpretation of "Juwes", but that and the whole conspiracy theory is now rightly blown away.]

Despite much (in my view) niaive wishful thinking that material and writing might be connected, they remain resolutely separate. The most reasonable interpretation is that the graffito was pre-existent and has no connection. Until or unless some definite link emerges, that should logically remain the default position.

So in 1888, what would the police have done with the writing - if photographed or even recorded "accurately"?

I doubt experts could have matched the writing (chalk on tile/brick), to a possible "Ripper-letter" (ink or pencil on paper). There were no other indications that the killer of Nichols or Chapman was a graffti-artist - so nothing similar to compare - even for linked "messages.

I doubt forensic/chemical tests in 1888 could have match a chalk mark to a particulr stick of chalk....

So the writing is irrelevant.

Just my logic and opinion, of course.

Phil

[moonbegger]

So in 1888, what would the police have done with the writing - if photographed or even recorded "accurately"?

Ok , let me have a crack at this ..

Maybe , just possibly, in the cold light of day , once the imminent danger of any rioting gangs had passed and the foggy pressure of immediacy had settled down ... Reflecting on the previous weeks graffito photo, One curious copper would pipe up and say ..
" Hey gov do ya think that J could infact be a d , Because I know a troublesome family with the name a duwe who live around the corner "

You just never know .

cheers

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Moonbeggar,

I understand your argument of course, but I see it as next to impossible. As for the misspelling, it was the only word that was a proper noun, a word which the author may never have written before.

Mike

Hello Mike ,

There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion.

I think this Halse quote suggests some education behind the author , especially in a neighborhood where the word Jew or Jews would have been common sight .

Also , baring in mind, the capitol letters were 3/4 inch and the other letters smaller , just below the half inch I would guess .. So , now try to write in a "good round hand" using chalk on brick in a hurry , with not too much light , and using the same proportions as Halse witnessed .

Not only , is it not too easy , but also reads as not too intelligible. And once again , reading it in the dark with the aid of a not too great bulls eye lamp .. The mind will automatically form and suggest the first word that makes sense .. And if that word just happens to be a word that is already running around the mind of the observer(s) .. then BINGO !

But I do agree with you Mike , in that , it is extremely unlikely , but it is still not quite beyond the realms of possibility ..

And just to add ... there was indeed at least two family's with the name "Duwe" living in the area at the time .

cheers

moonbegger

[Albert]

In 1888, unless the writer had been caught in the act and subsequently been proved to be JtR - I see no use for it whatsoever.

In all my years I have never seen a single convincing argument to link apron-piece and writing. I have yet to see an interpretation of the words that attracts widespread agreement or is even remotely impressive. [I think Stephen Knight came closest with the Masonic interpretation of "Juwes", but that and the whole conspiracy theory is now rightly blown away.]

Despite much (in my view) niaive wishful thinking that material and writing might be connected, they remain resolutely separate. The most reasonable interpretation is that the graffito was pre-existent and has no connection. Until or unless some definite link emerges, that should logically remain the default position.

So in 1888, what would the police have done with the writing - if photographed or even recorded "accurately"?

I doubt experts could have matched the writing (chalk on tile/brick), to a possible "Ripper-letter" (ink or pencil on paper). There were no other indications that the killer of Nichols or Chapman was a graffti-artist - so nothing similar to compare - even for linked "messages.

I doubt forensic/chemical tests in 1888 could have match a chalk mark to a particulr stick of chalk....

So the writing is irrelevant.

Just my logic and opinion, of course.

Phil

Phil,
For what it's worth, I totally agree.
Albert

[moonbegger]

So the writing is irrelevant.

Yes it may well have been Phil ... IF the men on the spot did their job properly and noted down exactly what was in front of them .. unfortunately this is not the case .. We have different spellings , different phrasing , different layout , and maybe even different letters and words !

As previously mentioned, and without wishing to over egg the pudding ,

reads as not too intelligible. And once again , reading it in the dark with the aid of a not too great bulls eye lamp .. The mind will automatically form and suggest the first word that makes sense .. And if that word just happens to be a word that is already running around the mind of the observer(s) .. then BINGO !

The very fact that there was no general consensus amongst those who jotted it down .. Lends weight to the possibility that they all may have misidentified a vital letter at the head of a word which may have introduced a possible Surname into the mix ..

just my Logic ..

cheers

moonbegger .

[Bridewell]

I find it odd that the only word that is apparently misspelt is a word that would have stared the author in the face every single day of his life , be it in the newspapers , shops , almost anywhere in whitechapel , even other graffito .

I find it odd too. The writer was able to spell "nothing" correctly but not the word "Jews". He spelled that Juwes, (or was it Jeuws or Jeuwes? - We don't know).