Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

What you postulate is a careless killer.

I do no such thing. I postulate someone who understands that he cannot write words in chalk on an outdoor surface with the clarity that is possible on a blackboard.

[David Orsam]

"All" walls, for which you have no data. And note that I am talking about surfaces. The Artisan dwellings writing was not blurred at all.

But look at the words "going" and "on the", for example, in the Artizan dwellings writing. There is some blurring there.

[David Orsam]

It can´t be just an opinion. I wish it was.

That's odd because you admitted to me a long time ago that when you said "I think I have found him" that also meant that you may not have found him - and you've admitted to not having located that missing piece of evidence which would confirm that you've found him - so that must mean that everything you tell us nothing more than your own personal opinion mustn't it?

[David Orsam]

How is Juwes/Juews/Jews "clearly read"?

And that is the only key word.

You previously accepted my definition of "blurring" but now you are confusing blurring with legibility of the handwriting and throwing in issues of transcription to boot.

[Wickerman]

[B]So the apron piece has now evolved from a portion/piece to half an apron ...

It was never anything else, it was always "about half", the fact that some have believed otherwise is to their detriment.
I wrote about this back in 1998, and used that same quote - everyone who read my dissertation learned the size of the piece of apron about 18 years ago.
If you have believed otherwise, then I guess you can say you've finally learned something.

The reference, by the way was, - Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126.

Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:

'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.

- (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

[Trevor Marriott]

To which I reply, so what? If he had to physically go inside to see the apron then we know he physically went inside at 2.55am. If he physically went inside at 2.55am why could he also not physically have gone inside at 2.20am?

Because at 2.20am he was not aware of any murder having been commited

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If the graffiti was "at the entrance", as you say, then might I suggest that the supposed "ambiguity" is easily resolved if the piece of white material was found at the start of the passage leading to the staircases, i.e. at the entrance?

Does that not mean all the evidence is consistent?

But we dont know exactly where it was found several different descriptions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure if we can take Jones & Lloyd's book as gospel.

I cannot find a primary source for the statement attributed to DC Halse on page 126; nor the newspaper article attributed to the Daily Telegraph, 2nd October 1888, but I am happy to be corrected.

Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser, 3rd October 1888—

“I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer."

The bib is the part above the waist of the front of an apron. A corner of it had been cut away.

As to the chalked message—

"The writing was in a good round hand, upon the black dado of the passage wall." DC Halse, Morning Post 12th October.

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street." Sir Charles Warren, 6th November report.

Two very different places.

Regards,

Simon

[harry]

So now we are expected to ignore Walter Dew.Strange.That it was a white apron at one time is not contested,but white at the time it was found in Goulston St?It w as stained,it was discoloured,it had the appearance of blackness.That much is stated.Not by me,but sources from that time.So w ho is falslyfying accounts?Not me.

Easily seen? Well it might have been in daylight,or by the light of several policemen's lanterns,but did W arren and associates view the scene in the same conditions as Long? It is down to Long and no one else.Except Halse,who is not confident the apron could be seen,wherever it lay.Both passed by at about 2.20.That is their evidence.They passed by.No evidence they did anything else.

What is the significance of the apron.None. The writing ,in my opinion,is more important.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Harry,

The apron piece and the chalked message are the two non-clues of all time.

All that kerfuffle simply to establish that the murderer made his way back into Whitechapel.

Regards,

Simon

[Elamarna]

Hi

Just been catching up on the additions to the thread today by our very own historian.

Once again we have claims which are said not to be personal opinion but backed by data sources. And yet again we are told we may not know the sources yet.

I repeat for the untold time.

IF A DATA SOURCE CANNOT BE REVEALED IT MUST BE DEEMED NOT TO EXIST UNTIL SUCH TIME IT IS REVEALED.

steve

[Wickerman]

Hey Simon.

Hi Jon,

I'm not sure if we can take Jones & Lloyd's book as gospel.

I cannot find a primary source for the statement attributed to DC Halse on page 126; nor the newspaper article attributed to the Daily Telegraph, 2nd October 1888, but I am happy to be corrected.

There are a few press quotes in that book which are not referenced. Paul Bonner's research for that TV series has generally been complimented, at least I'm not aware of anyone who has criticized his work. It is also acknowledged that there were more archived files when Bonner conducted his research, files that have since gone missing.

We do have some portions from the Telegraph of Oct. 2nd here on Casebook but we maybe shouldn't assume what we have to be complete.
The caveat I have tried to keep in mind is that papers from this period were published in several editions, in some cases only a few hours apart.
That quote said to be from Oct. 2nd does not say which edition.
The online B.N.A. does not yet carry the Daily Telegraph so this makes it difficult to criticize the account with any certainty.

Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser, 3rd October 1888—

“I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer."

The bib is the part above the waist of the front of an apron. A corner of it had been cut away.

Yes, that is an anomalous description (bib?) of the GS piece, if ever there was one.

As to the chalked message—

"The writing was in a good round hand, upon the black dado of the passage wall." DC Halse, Morning Post 12th October.

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street." Sir Charles Warren, 6th November report.

Two very different places.

Regards,

Simon

But, "black dado" refers to the paint, which could easily have extended around the jamb as well as being on the inside of the passage. It's hardly definitive.
If you look at this more recent picture, the "black dado" runs all the way up the left & right door jambs. In 1888 it may have only been black up to about 4 feet, inside as well as on the jamb?



So, we can't argue definitively that those two statements are in conflict.

[GUT]

Hi

Just been catching up on the additions to the thread today by our very own historian.

Once again we have claims which are said not to be personal opinion but backed by data sources. And yet again we are told we may not know the sources yet.

I repeat for the untold time.

IF A DATA SOURCE CANNOT BE REVEALED IT MUST BE DEEMED NOT TO EXIST UNTIL SUCH TIME IT IS REVEALED.

steve

And when he does reveal a source it's something like gogannmagog or 29th inst , with an interpretation put on it that just doesn't stand up, but then I guess we can't all be great Historians, then again, nor can he obviously.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;394866]

How is Juwes/Juews/Jews "clearly read"?

And that is the only key word.

The obvious explanation is the writer was semi-literate: and why reject the obvious in favour, of say, a more complex and convoluted explanation? And how do you know that is the only key word. You've supplied no evidence to support this hypothesis.

[DJA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgraphia