Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

What we don't know is if the black bricks below the dado line were glazed rather than painted.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Cool....how rough or smooth would you say they were?

Engineering bricks are dense heavy bricks normally used for damp courses Joshua. In the case of Goulston Street they look as if they were used to support the heavy Moorish style facades immediately above the dorrways. I'd say they were originally smooth, although weathering has pitted them. I did take photographs, I'll see if I can dig them out.

[Observer]

Hi All,

What we don't know is if the black bricks below the dado line were glazed rather than painted.

Regards,

Simon

I'd say they were glazed Simon.

[Phil Carter]

I'm afraid I ceased to understand your arguments some time back. My fault, I expect, but in fairness to David I feel that I should say that his theory isn't in the least bit worthless. We are presented with two witnesses, neither apparently lying, but nevertheless giving diametrically opposed conclusions. Swanson said the writing was blurred, but as he never saw the writing this information was received from someone else. Detective Halse observed no blurring and concluded therefrom that the writing was new. Is there any sensible way of resolving these opposite opinions? There aren't two many options available, but David's, that the writing looked blurred because it was written on the rough surface of a brick, is not improbable, and far from being worthless, is a valuable and reasonably likely explanation. If you would like to venture an alternative or two, I'm sure everyone would like to hear them.

Hello Paul,

Thank you for your reply. I trust you and your family are well.

You do not have to be afraid of not "understanding my argument." There are some arguments of yours. .and others, that I find baffling. ☺

I am trying, perhaps poorly, to put the following points forward.

You said that Warren's comments re the clarity of the message from the street has not been questioned.
I question it on the basis of the many examples of WHERE it was.. (that affects the line of vision from the street)
Also in what condition the writing was (clean, blurred etc)
Also size of letters from such a distance from the street would also affect the clarity of vision from that spot.
Also whether Warren referred to the "clarity" when standing still or when moving. Depending on the position of the writing..these factors need to be considered..especially given the size of the writing itself.Angles and height too.

This brings in more problems. Because if in view of the light available when Warren saw it it was "clear" then if..at that distance (from the street) it was so clear then there is nothing stopping any policeman seeing the writing close up and all getting a uniform answer as to where it was and the exact wording in said light. Yet this did not happen.

So therefore..it shows that a totally logical reason for a greater uniformity of answer to be missing. That in turn refocuses attention onto the veracity of Warrens words.

If Warren was..infact..making up the reason..or the comment. . For whatever reason (I don't know)..then the focus goes back onto his comments..and their veracity.
If not..then focus must be applied to the statement of the policemen.

Swanson said it was blurred. No other policeman stated this yet..say it he did.he didnt see it..but said it. He picked it up from someone..but that cannot be true..Because no policeman there that commented upon it said it was blurred
This puts the veracity of Swansons comment in doubt.. if he was writing from memory...that is possible..then more doubt occurs.

Totally logically..it contrasts the Warren words of clarity.
It contrasts Longs testimony WITH a lamp. .who saw no blurring. It contrasts Halses version which was so clear it was "recent" without a lamp.
If Halse was looking at blurred writing..he cannot assume its age. For it is not possible to say when chalk writing has been brushed against. That is sheer guesswork.

But if Halse is correct. Swanson isnt. As Swanson gives no reference to his claim, do we accept it to be true? If we do..then again the clarity of 3/4" wording perhaps at a right angle to the street leaves Warrens comments in doubt.

They all cannot be correct. Especially given that all known comments show a variety of wording and a variety of position.

That is my point. There is no more reason to believe Halse over Long. Warren over Long. Etc etc.


Phil

[Observer]

Hi All,

What we don't know is if the black bricks below the dado line were glazed rather than painted.

Regards,

Simon

The black bricks extended the full height of the doorway. See post 801 this thread.

[Phil Carter]

I think you'll find you won't get clear, sharp, chalk characters on painted brick.

Have you ever tried writing with chalk on a glazed surface?

It "slides" .and does not grip.



Phil

[Observer]

Not if you lick the end Phil. Pity they didn't have DNA profiling in those days

[Phil Carter]

Not if you lick the end Phil. Pity they didn't have DNA profiling in those days

Fair comment. Haha! But there is no evidence of it.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Observer,

Just a question. If the bricks were matt or shiny.

Glazed bricks are far more expensive than matt painted bricks.

Think. Location. Would owners instruct builders to use a more expensive alternative when erecting said buildings? (There were many of the same like in the street )

Just wondering.


Phil

[Observer]

Indeed not

[Observer]

Hello Observer,

Just a question. If the bricks were matt or shiny.

Glazed bricks are far more expensive than matt painted bricks.

Think. Location. Would owners instruct builders to use a more expensive alternative when erecting said buildings? (There were many of the same like in the street )

Just wondering.


Phil

The black bricks were few Phil. As I said they looked to me to be heavy dense engineering bricks. They are more expensive but were necessary, and as said relatively few.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

I fear that the dado, dildo or dodo is extinct.

The GSG was wherever we want it to be, written upon whatever surface fits our theory, on as many lines as we think will fit on a jamb, on a dado which reached the ceiling, in a good schoolboy's hand, perhaps spelt Juwes, Jews, Jeuws or Jeuwes, but in sufficiently esoteric ways with double negatives to tax the brains of a huddle of cops who had not the collective wit to agree upon, let alone copy down accurately, what they were witnessing.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

It's amazing how you don't understand how an inquest works. As a witness, Long would have done no more than answer questions put to him.

Yes. Amazing.
The officially taken down.. written..and signed inquest testimony. See page 238, The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook. It is not until AFTER his opening testimony, which included mentioning taking the piece of apron to Commercial Road (sic) Police station, that Mr. Crawford intervenes with questions. He had ample opportunity to talk freewillingly, of the additional sojourn to Leman Street. It is left out.

The Times of Friday 12th October, page 4 reports further on the inquest of the previous day (11th October).

Long makes no mention of Leman St. ( see the same book, above, page 260.) Neither does he mention Leman St upon being recalled..see pages 262-264.

This is from the paperback edition of 2001. Copyright Stewart P. Evans and Keith Skinner. Robinson publishers.



Phil

[harry]

David Orsam,
You got it wrong again.When I made the remark about the lantern being on or off,I was referring to the 2.20 Passing.I'm sure he would have had to have had the lantern on inside the passage to see the writing,it was that dark.Really reinforces my opinion that from outside,a black cloth would have been hard to observe.Thank you.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Your post 957.
What we have however,and you missed that (I did?),is evidence that the rag was absent from Goulston Street at 2.20.

How come?

Mitre Square was about 10 minutes distance at the most.The Ripper could have made it easily.He could have been anywhere in that street,unobserved,even in the dwelling itself,still in possession of the apron piece when Long passed.So where is the evidence that it was absent at 2.20.
What did I miss?

PaulB,
You wrote,unless I know to the countrary,long could have been doing anything.
Exactly,and that anything could be what I suggested.He could have been eating a bacon sandwitch,but w here could he have fried the bacon? I can be frivolous too.