Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[John Wheat]

Indeed, which is one of the reasons why I personally don't think the graffito was written by the killer.

I agree Sam there were probably examples of this sort of graffiti on walls all over London.

Cheers

John

[Scott Nelson]

So it had to have been written in the daytime by a schoolboy in good, round hand. The chalk was "borrowed" from the school.

[Paddy]

From The Inquest Sam..... doesn't say anything about under 1 inch, maybe the paper got it wrong?

[Coroner] As to the writing on the wall, did you hear anybody suggest that the word "Jews" should be rubbed out and the other words left? - I did. The fear on the part of the Metropolitan police that the writing might cause riot was the sole reason why it was rubbed out. I took a copy of it, and what I wrote down was as follows: "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing."
[Coroner] Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done? - Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia.
The Foreman: Why was the writing really rubbed out? - Witness: The Metropolitan police said it might create a riot, and it was their ground.
Mr. Crawford: I am obliged to ask this question. Did you protest against the writing being rubbed out? - Witness: I did. I asked that it might, at all events, be allowed to remain until Major Smith had seen it. Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. 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. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.
If that was the capitals and the other letters were in proportion, they must have been about 1/2" I cant imagine writing letters 1/2" with a piece of chalk can you?

Pat..........................

[Sam Flynn]

From The Inquest Sam..... doesn't say anything about under 1 inch, maybe the paper got it wrong?

That's a pretty emphatic and unambiguous statement by Halse, Paddy, so I don't think the paper got it wrong. Besides, it's corroborated by the "3/4 inch" factoid recorded in the inquest papers.

They were tiny letters, I'm pretty sure

[Fisherman]

I can live with others not agreeing with me, it just means they're wrong

Cheers
DRoy

No, I´m not.

Fisherman

[Paddy]

1/2 inch writing

They were afraid it would be seen so rubbed it off. How could anyone see that from the road, its tiny? I still think it may have meant that the capitals were 3 to 4 inches What a shame they never wrote the words instead of the numerals in the inquest report.
I do think its questionable......

Pat..................

[Sam Flynn]

I still think it may have meant that the capitals were 3 to 4 inches

"The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion"... "The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in"

Two separate sources say the same thing, Pat. It's pretty unequivocal.

Don't forget that the graffito was written on the black painted bricks that ended half-way up the wall, the bricks above the writing being painted white. The "comfortable writing zone" would only have been a few bricks deep and a few bricks wide, so it's not as if the writer had a vast canvas on which to scrawl.

[Abby Normal]

Detective Halse's testimony settles the question definitively, Paddy: "The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion." (London Daily News, 12th Oct 1888)
Indeed, which is one of the reasons why I personally don't think the graffito was written by the killer.

But then why would anyone write graffiti so small? It defeats the purpose of writing graffiti at all.

In my mind, the most reasonable explanation would be that the killer didn't care what the size was because he knew it would be found because it was marked by a large visable clue-the apron.

Which is exactly what happened.

[Wickerman]

Its a shame the little urchin who scribbled that graffiti isn't alive today, he'd be laughing his socks off...

[GUT]

G'day Jon

So do I take t you think it was a child? Or have I misread you?

[Paddy]

Two Sources?

Sam sorry to be pedantic but you said two sources? The one you said stated that the writing was under an inch was a newspaper reporting the inquest.
The inquest said 3/4 in.
So I take this as only one source. The other was a newspapers interpretation of it.
I wonder if the sticks of chalk were like nowdays? It would be very difficult to write half inch letters without smudging.

I am afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this....I wish some others would give thier view?

Pat............................

[GUT]

G'day Paddy

At one time I did some casual lecturing and the Uni had chalkboards in the room I used, there was no way that I could write 3/4 of an inch, but then I probably have the worlds worst handwriting.

The bride had small neat handwriting and she is teacher and says that when she has worked with chalk she only wrote about 1/2 inch so I guess it's possible with modern chalk and I'm not sure chalk has changed that much except in its shape.

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

So do I take t you think it was a child? Or have I misread you?

Maybe not literally, but some youngster, teenager? It was estimated to have been lower than 4 feet from the ground.
Who is mostly responsible for graffiti?, typically the younger end are they not?

I believe the graffiti was already present, it had nothing to do with the crimes and reads & looks like something a young adult might throw together.
No different to today's graffiti artists.

[GUT]

Thanks Jon

Not sure I agree, but neither can I argue against you.

[Wickerman]

I am afraid we may have to agree to disagree on this....I wish some others would give thier view?

Pat............................

Pat.
I think we only have two sources, the Daily News, 12 Oct. & the Daily Telegraph, 12 Oct.
Incidentally, these details are not recorded in the original Inquest document so I hope some are not considering this to be another error by reporters of the press