Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

the Goulston St Graffiti

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Its a fine specimen MrB.

    Just by chance, do you know the date of that photo, perhaps the date on the newspaper can be read?

    Interesting that no contemporary source mention railings adjacent to the archway.

    It was after 1901 the lampost in the foreground has the date 1901 on it

    Comment


    • Hi Jon,

      It was captioned Wentworth Street, 1925. They got the street wrong , but judging by the clothes the date is not too far out.

      Can't read a date on the newspaper but the front page headline seems to be , 'The King At Unknown Warriors Tomb'. So post WW1 certainly.

      BTW, the image had already been posted on here , so no scoop after all .

      MrB
      Last edited by MrBarnett; 09-03-2014, 01:31 AM.

      Comment


      • Pintrest has the date as 1935.

        It looks like the end block of the dwellings, near to the baths.

        Monty
        Attached Files
        Last edited by Monty; 09-03-2014, 01:51 AM.
        Monty

        https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

        Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

        http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

        Comment


        • Monty,

          That was a typo on my part. Pinterest was where I sourced it.

          All looks rather neat and tidy don't you think?

          MrB

          Comment


          • It does.

            Seems to be taken from the northside corner of New Goulston Street.

            Monty
            Monty

            https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

            Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

            http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Monty View Post

              Seems to be taken from the northside corner of New Goulston Street.

              Monty
              Spot on, I would say.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                It was after 1901 the lampost in the foreground has the date 1901 on it
                Thats why I asked about the newspaper Trevor

                I know, you were only trying to help...
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Monty View Post

                  It looks like the end block of the dwellings, near to the baths.

                  Monty
                  That's what caught my eye too Neil.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Hi,

                    I meant cryptic in the sense that it allowed diference of opinion as to what it means, and a debate that lasts until today.

                    Best wishes.

                    Comment


                    • How far up from the ground was the graffiti written? Was the person kneeling when he wrote (or was it a kid) or was written in the middle or at chest level?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Gman992 View Post
                        How far up from the ground was the graffiti written? Was the person kneeling when he wrote (or was it a kid) or was written in the middle or at chest level?
                        G'day Gman 992

                        From memory it was said that it must have been fresh because otherwise shoulders would have brushed against it, or words to that effect.
                        G U T

                        There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                        Comment


                        • Det. Halse is reported to have said that the black section of wall which the graffiti was written on came up to about four feet off the ground.

                          "...The bricks are painted black up to about four feet high, like a dado, and above that are white."
                          Daily News, 12th Oct. 1888.

                          Roughly speaking then, it must have been lower than that.
                          So if people could have brushed against it, likely not with their shoulders, elbows maybe?
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Halse meant deliberately rubbed out, not brushed off.
                            Bona fide canonical and then some.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                              Halse meant deliberately rubbed out, not brushed off.
                              Did He?

                              "It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing."
                              Daily Telegraph.

                              "He assumed that the writing was recent, because from the number of persons living in the tenement he believed it would have been rubbed out had it been there for any time."
                              Times.

                              "Because it seemed fresh, and if it had been long written it would have been rubbed by people passing"
                              Daily News.

                              You may notice the original inquest record makes no mention of this.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Brushed off isn't rubbed off.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X