Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[PaulB]

But different people describe different locations as to where it was found, based on where the writing was. It is therefore unsafe to readily accept it was almost on the pavement and could not have been there at 2.20am otherwise he would have seen it. Other locations suggest that he could have missed it at 2.20am.

I am well aware that it isn't certain where the writing was located, but, as already explained, nobody disputed Sir Charles Warren's statement that the writing was plainly visible from the street and that any covering could have been removed by a passer by. He also said it was on the jamb, a word which means the supports of a lintle and clearly points to the entrance to the passageway. Given that the City Police would have srongly contested Sir Charles's statement had it been wrong, it's probably the very best evidence as to the location of the writing that we possess.

P.C. Long is obviously the only source we have that the apron was below the writing, but there seems no reason it suppose that he was lying. It served no purpose for him to claim it was below the writing if it was elsewhere. Also, as Harry argues, the interior f the passage may have been too dark for P.C. Long to see the apron had it been there. As there is no dispute that P.C. Long did find the apron, if he couldn't have seen it if it was inside the passage, it must have been somewhere where he could have seen it - namely at the entrance to the passage.Of course, if you want to change P.C. Long's story to fit some pre-conceived notion, you are at liberty to do so, but it isn't an acceptable way of treating historical source material.

The evidential value of both the apron piece and the graffiti are negligible. The apron piece does no more than link Eddowes in some way to Goulston Street and bearing in mind she lived a stones throw away, could give rise to other plausible explanations.

The graffiti has never been linked to the murder of Eddowes or any other murder, and there is no evidence that it was ever written by the killer

The plausibility of any alternative explanation for how the apron piece came to be there is open to very considerable doubt. Most people don't seem to find it plausible at all. As for the evidential value of the apron piece, that's irrelevant to any consideration of how the apron and writing got there. Also, that it has negligable evidential value is open to question too. The apron suggested that the murderer was heading back into the East End, not into the City, although, as I pointed out years ago, we have no idea what night noises could have dictated the direction the killer took, so the evidential value probably isn't too great. However, if the apron wasn't there at 2:20am then is raises the question of what the murderer was doing since leaving Mitre Square. The police at the time theorised and investigated whether or not the murderer would have aroused any particular notice if he'd entered a common lodging house in the vicinity and cleaned up. Apparently he could have done. It has also been reasonably suggested that the murderer had a bolt-hole in the area, and Middlesex Street has proved very attractive to geographic profilers, no matter what one may personally think of profiling.

The point remains that 'what if' theorising waste's everyone's time. The evidence is there to be looked at and questioned and put together to construct the very best picture of what actually happened. That's the way it works. People can and should look at the evidence in different ways, if they can, but they shouldn't indulge in 'what if' speculation (except to test, and then guardedly).

[Trevor Marriott]

P.C. Long is obviously the only source we have that the apron was below the writing, but there seems no reason it suppose that he was lying. It served no purpose for him to claim it was below the writing if it was elsewhere. Also, as Harry argues, the interior f the passage may have been too dark for P.C. Long to see the apron had it been there. As there is no dispute that P.C. Long did find the apron, if he couldn't have seen it if it was inside the passage, it must have been somewhere where he could have seen it - namely at the entrance to the passage.Of course, if you want to change P.C. Long's story to fit some pre-conceived notion, you are at liberty to do so, but it isn't an acceptable way of treating historical source material.

I am not trying to change his story merely trying to understand from what he says where it was actually found.He says lying in the passageway, not at the entrance to, had it been found where you and others suggest. By his account we dont know how far into the passage he is referring to. He says it was leading to 118-119 how many staircase were there for instance?, and where exactly was the graffiti. Again we have different accounts.

The point remains that 'what if' theorising waste's everyone's time. The evidence is there to be looked at and questioned and put together to construct the very best picture of what actually happened. That's the way it works. People can and should look at the evidence in different ways, if they can, but they shouldn't indulge in 'what if' speculation (except to test, and then guardedly).

Much of the mystery is now made up of what if`s and maybes and I actually agree with you on this point. The true facts have been distorted over the years by theorists.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Much of the mystery is now made up of what if`s and maybes and I actually agree with you on this point. The true facts have been distorted over the years by theorists.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which is why we should always go back the the original source material whenever there is such material at hand. And that material remains unchanged, regardless of all the volatile speculation it has been used to garnish in chosen bits an pieces over the years.
It´s either that, or we buy the suggestion that Nichols´ blood was contained in a wineglass...

[Fisherman]

I am well aware that it isn't certain where the writing was located, but, as already explained, nobody disputed Sir Charles Warren's statement that the writing was plainly visible from the street and that any covering could have been removed by a passer by. He also said it was on the jamb, a word which means the supports of a lintle and clearly points to the entrance to the passageway. Given that the City Police would have srongly contested Sir Charles's statement had it been wrong, it's probably the very best evidence as to the location of the writing that we possess.

Warren, suggested, I believe, that the graffito was written in five short lines:
"The Jews are
the men that
will not
be blamed
for nothing"

Why would anybody write the message in five lines, unless the space used for the lines was so smallish that the message had to be divided up like that?

Like for example on the jamb of the Wentworth buildings.

The jamb would, as I pointed out earlier, offer a width of writing that makes perfect sense in this context.

Of course, there are differing minds on this issue too, like how Halse speaks of three lines. But three lines would be hard to cram in on the jamb, so I´m with the Warren commission on this...

[PaulB]

[B]I am not trying to change his story merely trying to understand from what he says where it was actually found.He says lying in the passageway, not at the entrance to, had it been found where you and others suggest. By his account we dont know how far into the passage he is referring to. He says it was leading to 118-119 how many staircase were there for instance?, and where exactly was the graffiti. Again we have different accounts.

You are not trying to understand where the apron was found from what P.C. Long says when you argue on no evidence at all that he was doing something he never said he was doing. When you do something like that you are inventing a scenario for him, generally so that it supports some pre-conceived notion of your own. I am referring to Harry's speculation that P.C. Long was sitting on the stairs inside the passageway, was elsewhere on the street, in some nook drinking a cup of tea, or whatever. If there is evidence that he was doing any of those things then fine, otherwise you are trying to change his story or invest his story with things we don't know he did.

If you want to know where the apron was, you can work it out from the statements we have. P.C. Long states that he saw the apron piece and that above it was the writing. Sir Charles Warren located the writing at the passage opening. Plenty of people saw the writing, quite a few had grounds for criticising Warren, nobody did. So, whilst P.C. Long didn't specify the location of the apron, by implication it was in the same place as the writing, namely at the entrance to the passageway.

The information is all there. One just has to understand it.

P.C. Long stated in his inquest testimony the number of staircases and landings there were and which he searched.

[PaulB]

Warren, suggested, I believe, that the graffito was written in five short lines:
"The Jews are
the men that
will not
be blamed
for nothing"

Why would anybody write the message in five lines, unless the space used for the lines was so smallish that the message had to be divided up like that?

Like for example on the jamb of the Wentworth buildings.

The jamb would, as I pointed out earlier, offer a width of writing that makes perfect sense in this context.

Of course, there are differing minds on this issue too, like how Halse speaks of three lines. But three lines would be hard to cram in on the jamb, so I´m with the Warren commission on this...

I think it's very difficult to accept that the writing was on the jamb. I know I did. Howard Brown did some interesting experimentation back in 2005, and I seem to recall that he suggested that today we are so attuned to modern graffiti that nobody really read and digested what the sources said. But knowing that the writing was small, neat, done openly and visibly by someone on their haunches, raises some interesting questions!

[Fisherman]

I think it's very difficult to accept that the writing was on the jamb. I know I did. Howard Brown did some interesting experimentation back in 2005, and I seem to recall that he suggested that today we are so attuned to modern graffiti that nobody really read and digested what the sources said. But knowing that the writing was small, neat, done openly and visibly by someone on their haunches, raises some interesting questions!

Not sure that I am following you here, Paul - who is having difficulties accepting that the writing was on the jamb...? I think it is perfectly obvious that it was. The pic Jon posted is spot on, as far as I can tell.

I agree that the position heightwise does raise a number of interesting questions.

[PaulB]

Not sure that I am following you here, Paul - who is having difficulties accepting that the writing was on the jamb...? I think it is perfectly obvious that it was. The pic Jon posted is spot on, as far as I can tell.

I agree that the position heightwise does raise a number of interesting questions.

I was looking back to when a close analysis of the sources pertaining to the writing on the wall was undertaken and remembering that it was very surprising to some that the writing was so small and was on the jamb. Like most people, it was mentally visualised as being scrawled in large letters at eye height inside the passageway. I suspect that some people today will find it just as difficult to accept that it was on the jamb. That's all I meant. Sorry to have been confusing.

[Joshua Rogan]

But knowing that the writing was small, neat, done openly and visibly by someone on their haunches, raises some interesting questions!

How do you know the writer was on their haunches? I thought the bricks were painted black up to about 4 feet, making the ideal surface for a white chalk message to be displayed on. So starting at the top of this would be about chest height, which seems a reasonable height for a standing person to write at, no?

[jerryd]

How do you know the writer was on their haunches? I thought the bricks were painted black up to about 4 feet, making the ideal surface for a white chalk message to be displayed on. So starting at the top of this would be about chest height, which seems a reasonable height for a standing person to write at, no?

Joshua,

I did this exercise a few years ago. I am 6 feet tall and 4 feet comes to my mid/upper abdomen. Measure 4 feet from the ground on yourself. It would be very awkward, if not impossible, for me to write all the lines of the GSG in a standing position. I would have to crouch to do it comfortably.

On the other hand, a remark was made that it could have been rubbed off by the shoulder of someone walking by.

[Phil Carter]

Just a thought that has probably occurred to others.
Warren stated that the writing was clearly visible from the street. Ok.

Unless I am mistaken. The tallest of the letters in the writing was 3/4" high. In chalk.
The exact height from the ground can, because of the exact positional location of the writing, also be questioned. Also, because of doubt over the exact position of the writing, it puts into question from which direction, when walking past, the writing would NOT be visible from the street.

Now. 3/4" high writing is small. The distance to each of the named possible positions of the writing from the street should be considered. And angles from each direction.

So in order to accept Warren's statement, all angles, positions of writing, distances from street and direction of movement walking past must be considered in addition to height of writing, position of writing and height of letters.

To accept Warren's statement needs careful thought on itself imho.


Phil

[Fisherman]

I was looking back to when a close analysis of the sources pertaining to the writing on the wall was undertaken and remembering that it was very surprising to some that the writing was so small and was on the jamb. Like most people, it was mentally visualised as being scrawled in large letters at eye height inside the passageway. I suspect that some people today will find it just as difficult to accept that it was on the jamb. That's all I meant. Sorry to have been confusing.

No probs, Paul - I think what you say makes a lot of sense!

[Fisherman]

How do you know the writer was on their haunches? I thought the bricks were painted black up to about 4 feet, making the ideal surface for a white chalk message to be displayed on. So starting at the top of this would be about chest height, which seems a reasonable height for a standing person to write at, no?

Not really, no - when people write on a wall, they tend to write above shoulder height. Writing in chest height is quite awkward. Have you tried it? Otherwise, give it a few minutes and see!

[Fisherman]

Joshua,

I did this exercise a few years ago. I am 6 feet tall and 4 feet comes to my mid/upper abdomen. Measure 4 feet from the ground on yourself. It would be very awkward, if not impossible, for me to write all the lines of the GSG in a standing position. I would have to crouch to do it comfortably.

On the other hand, a remark was made that it could have been rubbed off by the shoulder of someone walking by.

Okay. Beaten to it again... !

Thanks, Jerry! I agree very much.

[Fisherman]

Just a thought that has probably occurred to others.
Warren stated that the writing was clearly visible from the street. Ok.

Unless I am mistaken. The tallest of the letters in the writing was 3/4" high. In chalk.
The exact height from the ground can, because of the exact positional location of the writing, also be questioned. Also, because of doubt over the exact position of the writing, it puts into question from which direction, when walking past, the writing would NOT be visible from the street.

Now. 3/4" high writing is small. The distance to each of the named possible positions of the writing from the street should be considered. And angles from each direction.

So in order to accept Warren's statement, all angles, positions of writing, distances from street and direction of movement walking past must be considered in addition to height of writing, position of writing and height of letters.

To accept Warren's statement needs careful thought on itself imho.


Phil

You have a point, Phil. It would not havé been easily legible from some yards away. I think Warren´s fear was primarily that people would say "Hey, what´s that? What does it say?", and then they would walk up to it.