Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the writing was actually on the jamb and the apron was below it as suggested then why would Halse also have said:

“At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.”

If the writing was on the jamb and the apron was below it then the apron would have been in the doorway. How could he “not necessarily have seen it if that was the car? He wouldn’t have been able to have missed it.

Then we have Long, also in The Telegraph (if you prefer that to The Times)

“[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.”

So here we have Long being asked specifically how he came to see the writing (because he’d seen the apron first) He then explains that he saw it whilst looking for marks of blood. Why would he have said that if the writing was on the jamb directly in front of his face and above the apron.? According Long, the writing wasn’t immediately obvious. So according to the man that found the writing it was inside the doorway and not on the jamb.

Halse missed the apron at about 2.20 because it was not in the doorway, but further back from the street.

That is why he said that he would not necessarily have seen it.

I agree that a reading of Long's testimony could lead to the conclusion that the writing was beyond the arch, but as I argued before, Halse's testimony and Warren's report make it clear that the writing was on the arch itself and Long's copy of it, consisting of five lines, is consistent with that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Halse missed the apron at about 2.20 because it was not in the doorway, but further back from the street.

That is why he said that he would not necessarily have seen it.

I agree that a reading of Long's testimony could lead to the conclusion that the writing was beyond the arch, but as I argued before, Halse's testimony and Warren's report make it clear that the writing was on the arch itself and Long's copy of it, consisting of five lines, is consistent with that.

If the apron was further back inside why did Long see it before he saw the writing? How could he have missed the apparently ‘right in front of him’ writing to spot the apron inside.

I realise that we have Warren but I’d say that if we didn’t have Warren’s use of the word ‘jamb’ then we would have no doubt but that the writing was on the wall inside the passageway,

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If the apron was further back inside why did Long see it before he saw the writing? How could he have missed the apparently ‘right in front of him’ writing to spot the apron inside.

I realise that we have Warren but I’d say that if we didn’t have Warren’s use of the word ‘jamb’ then we would have no doubt but that the writing was on the wall inside the passageway,

I actually used to think that the writing was inside the passage and took a photograph of the wall - which was not easy to do at the time as the entrance was boarded up.

I was surprised then when I read Warren's report.

Maybe the writing was on the side of the jamb not facing the street.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I actually used to think that the writing was inside the passage and took a photograph of the wall - which was not easy to do at the time as the entrance was boarded up.

I was surprised then when I read Warren's report.

Maybe the writing was on the side of the jamb not facing the street.

I considered that possibility a while ago and it might be the case but it does contradict what Warren said, in that it was:

“…..visible to anybody in the street.”

It’s another mystery and, as you said about Long, some witnesses don’t always have good or accurate descriptive powers. I don’t think that this is conclusively ‘solvable.’ It’s a pity that we don’t have a photograph of the doorway taken in 1888 (even without the writing) to see where the black and white areas where.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I considered that possibility a while ago and it might be the case but it does contradict what Warren said, in that it was:

“…..visible to anybody in the street.”

It’s another mystery and, as you said about Long, some witnesses don’t always have good or accurate descriptive powers. I don’t think that this is conclusively ‘solvable.’ It’s a pity that we don’t have a photograph of the doorway taken in 1888 (even without the writing) to see where the black and white areas where.

I quote from The Goulston Street Graffito Debate
by Howard Brown and Neil Bell

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...e%20many%20con tentious,Catherine%20Eddowes%2C%20was%20found%20se veral

Brown and Bell disagree about whether the graffito was written by the murderer.


PART I: ETCHED IN BRICK
A Defense of the Goulston Street Graffiti as Evidence

Howard Brown



Let’s look at the photo opposite and allow me to explain the likely positioning of the message. It was probably placed to the right of the central column, on the black façade. My reasoning is that, had anyone come up upon the writer while he was writing it, he could have scurried up the stairwell unseen.


This idea came to me about two minutes before I read it!


With his back to the street, he would have placed himself in a risky position from three directions: not only visible by someone coming south from Wentworth or anyone coming north from the direction of Whitechapel High Street, but also from New Goulston Street behind him. A bit risky, even for a risk-taking killer. Not to forget that it had rained previously that night and the front of the buildings all along Goulston Street was probably too wet or wet enough to discourage wall-writing.




Like many Ripperologists, I believe that the intentional deposit of the apron was an act of ‘connectivity’, similar to the removal of a piece of the shirt of a victim, a cab driver, by the American Zodiac Killer of the 1960s-1970s. In that case, the killer sent the piece of shirt to the press to verify that he had killed the unfortunate cab driver.


The above argument is very similar to the argument I have been making consistently - that the purpose of cutting the apron in two, and taking it all that way and holding onto it for so long, was to authenticate the writing as having come from the killer.



Location: Selected primarily because of rain on surrounding buildings in Mitre Square which prevented an easier association of intended message and disposal of apron; or of distance: if the rain wasn’t the reason, then distance from the murder in Mitre Square to a site that was dry was; or of lighting: lights on Goulston Street and the corner of New Goulston Street that did supply illumination for the 108-119 address and, possibly, ambient moonlight.


Halse was a witness to the GSG. To me, he is the best witness that was there due to one important factor. Of all the people who had the opportunity to assess the GSG, he and he alone mentions its ‘freshness’ and, not to forget, its size. Halse is, to my mind, the most observant of the witnesses known to have seen the GSG and, to me, the only ‘expert’ on the GSG, if that title can be given to any of the police present that night.


The very point that I have made - that the message was fresh and therefore could not have just happened to be there already.


No one would tolerate a message that appeared to denigrate the inhabitants, regardless of ethnicity, of a dwelling and allow it to remain for long. And since it was considered ‘fresh’, this flies back into the faces of those who feel it was there before that night.


The very same points I have been making!



Like many Ripperologists, I believe that the intentional deposit of the apron was an act of ‘connectivity’, similar to the removal of a piece of the shirt of a victim, a cab driver, by the American Zodiac Killer of the 1960s-1970s. In that case, the killer sent the piece of shirt to the press to verify that he had killed the unfortunate cab driver.


A similar point to the one I have made - that the apron served as the murderer's signature.



PART II: POSITIONING
Just some reasons why the Goulston Street Writing should not be used as evidence

Neil Bell


The Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street were largely inhabited by Jews. Since they were in a Jewish neighbourhood, next to a Jewish market, this is hardly surprising.


Exactly what I wrote a couple of days ago in response to a member who asked how I could possibly know that the murderer knew the building to be largely inhabited by Jews!



Basically, the Jews are the men that will be blamed for something. Now that something may verge from employment issues to social issues to an indirect blame for the demise of these women. To be honest, though, I see either an anti-Semitic agitator or a defiant statement. The former is understandable when you put it into context with the immigration issues of that period. There had been rumours circulating throughout Whitechapel, and fuelled by the press, that the killer was of foreign appearance, a euphemism for a Jewish-looking person. Racial tensions were high ...


Exactly what I have been saying all along.
I have said repeatedly that the message was anti-Jewish and obviously related to public and published accusations that the murderer was Jewish.



After some investigating, the police, or rather Abberline, in his report of 1 November 1888, concluded that ‘Lipski’ was a derogatory word aimed at Jews and in this case possibly aimed at the witness himself, who was of strong Jewish appearance. It would seem that Judæophobia was rife.


Exactly what I have been saying again and again.
'Lipski!' was an anti-Jewish insult and it was directed at Schwartz because of his Jewish appearance.
Strangely, I have been ridiculed for suggesting that Jews and gentiles commonly looked different!
I have said that Judaeophobia was rife during the period in which the murders took place.


Now would a piece of anti-Semitic writing last long on a building occupied mostly by Jews? First you have to ask if it could be seen and, if so, could it be understood? My own honest opinion is that it wouldn’t have lasted long...


Exactly what I have been saying!



Now let’s move on to the stairwell itself and try to find the exact positioning of the writing. The Dwellings are located at the northern end of Goulston Street, on the eastern side, at the junction of Wentworth Street. The doorway itself was the second entrance from Wentworth Street junction. As you walk in, stairs leading upwards were situated on the right hand wall (southern), just a few paces inside. This wall had a dado which was painted black from the floor to four feet above the floor. Above this black dado the wall was painted white. It would seem from inquest testimony and official reports that the apron was found on the floor somewhere between the entrance and the beginning of the stairs. As mentioned, the stairs were situated on the right hand (southern) side, and it would seem logical to suppose that the apron was found on this side (right/southern) of the stairwell. Above the apron was the message. So again, just to clarify, it would seem logical to suppose that the writing would have sat on the same side. The exact location is debatable.

In a report to the Home Secretary, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren stated that the writing was on the doorjamb and could have been seen by the passing public. This is the only clarified placement for the writing we have on official documents. However, Halse stated that in his earlier passing at 2.20am he didn’t see the apron or writing. He said at the inquest that ‘At twenty minutes past two o’clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron’. This would indicate that the apron, and therefore the writing, could not have been seen by the public.

Halse’s last line, ‘I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron’ most likely means that he walked by the entrance and did not see the apron because it was inside the stairwell (please remember that at 2.20am Halse would not have been specifically looking for an apron piece or any messages). This is a contradiction of Warren’s view, who stated that ‘The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street’.

My personal view was that the location could still be the jamb, except facing inwards, towards the stairs.


Exactly what I suggested in my last comment posted on this thread!



An ideal place to catch the attention of anyone leaving the dwellings. I pushed this idea to Stewart Evans, who was quite clear and correct in his view that Warren ‘was not stupid and was covering a specific point. It is this statement that most clearly positions the writing and is unequivocal’. Stewart also pointed out to me that Superintendent Arnold (who was at the scene and had ordered for a bucket and sponge to be ready for the removal of the message) reported that ‘...it (the writing) was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in and out of the Building’. ‘This’, Stewart mentions, ‘clearly sets the writing at shoulder height and for the writing to actually be rubbed by someone entering or leaving. It was far more likely to be on the “jamb” as described by Warren rather than the recessed inner wall where their shoulders would not rub’. It seems that Arnold’s statement supports Warren’s view on the positioning of the writing and, since no other official report mentions the position of the message in relation to the building, this must be the accepted as the position of the chalked message.


The positioning I suggested is consistent with Arnold's statement.

It is also consistent with the earlier observations that the front of the jamb may have been wet and that it would have been risky for the writer to write with his back to the street.


Remember PC Long? He stated that during the 2.55am search he had his lamp on, but ‘had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood. His light was on at the time’. This also backs up the idea that the stairwell was a very dark spot. The question to be asked now is, could Catherine Eddowes’s killer crouch in a dark stairwell (dark enough for PC Long to have his lamp on) and write in ‘good round schoolboy hand’, in letters 3/4 inch high and on individual brick, these infamous words?

anti–Semitic feelings were high and the misplaced idea that the murderer was Jewish was common. A blame culture had evolved and the idea that some people wanted to ‘voice’ their anger is not an improbable one.


Exactly what I have been saying all along - that the idea that the murderer was Jewish is mistaken and derived ultimately from prejudice.


it must be pointed out that the only location given for the writing in an official document (Warren’s report to Henry Matthews, Home Secretary) is on the doorjamb. Therefore, this position must be the supposed position of the writing.



The above article agrees with my opinion that the writing was written on the jamb and my suggestion that it was on the inside of the jamb.

It also expresses many of the same views that I have expressing consistently and repeatedly on this forum.

I wonder whether its authors could expect such an unsympathetic and even hostile reception to the one I have often received here.

[Fiver]

He left it, covered with faeces and bloodstained, at the foot of a stairway which the residents used to go in and out of the building.

He knew it would be noticed and reported to the police because a murder had just been committed.

That's an inaccurate description of the apron piece.

"about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it." - PC Long

There was no guarantee that the apron piece would be noticed instead of just trampled underfoot by residents exiting the building hours later. If it was found, there was no guarantee the finder would realize that it had anything to do with the murder. Even if they did, there is no guarantee that they wouldn't just throw the apron piece away - testifying at an inquest required missing work and even a single day without pay would be a significant loss of income for most people.

The only way the person who dropped the apron piece could have been certain it would be found was if they brought it to the attention of the police.

He knew the graffito would be noticed.

He wrote it on the jamb of the entrance arch in order to make sure it would be noticed.

It wasn't that obvious. PC Long only noticed the graffito because he was looking for bloodstains after finding the apron piece. If the apron piece hadn't been spotted, odds are good no one else would have noticed the graffito, other than perhaps to rub it off.

The only way the writer of the graffito could could have been certain it would be found was if they brought it to the attention of the police.

They are all reasonable deductions from the evidence and all make perfect sense.

You haven't been stating these as deductions - you've been presenting them as certainties without providing any reasoning or evidence to show why you came to your conclusions.

Instead of deductions, you pile assumption on assumption. You assume the apron piece was dropped deliberately instead of accidentally. You assume it was dropped to implicate people instead just discarded after he didn't need it any more. You assume that the killer wanted the apron piece to be found. You assume that the graffito was written by the killer. You assume that the graffito blames the Jews for the killing. You assume that the writer of the graffito was not Jewish.

The vast majority of serial killers know what they are doing and act purposefully.

This is true but irrelevant. You have assumed that you know what the killers purpose was while ignoring all other possible explanations for their actions.

The alternative to my explanation is to argue that the events of that night are haphazard.

If you truly believe that then you have completely failed to understand what anybody else on the thread is saying.

There was no need for the murderer to cut the apron in two.

He could more easily have taken the whole apron.

Clearly there was a need for the murder to cut the apron in two, since they actually did it. The question is why they did it, and there are multiple possible reasons for that.

There was no need for him to carry the apron such a great distance.

He could have discarded it much earlier.

There was no need for him to hold onto it for such a long time.

The killer carried trophy organs farther than he carried the apron piece.

The point of cutting the apron in two was to identify the author of the graffiti as the murderer.

That explanation makes sense.

That is a possible explanation. It is not the only possible explanation.

I would like to see you, or any other critic of mine, suggest a better explanation instead of trotting out the familiar mantra that my explanations are not facts!

You are the one trying to convince people that your theory is correct - the burden of proof is on you.

And several flaws in your theory have been pointed out.

It is a reasonable deduction from the evidence that the writing accused the Jews and was written by a gentile.

That was the prevailing view at Scotland Yard.

I don't recall seeing Scotland Yard's deduction being called an assumption in any article or book I have written, nor an objection to it on the supposed ground that it is not a fact!

Feel free to provide any evidence that:
* There was a prevailing view about the graffito at Scotland Yard.
* That the prevailing view was that the graffito was written by the Ripper.

In his 6 November, 1888 report, Warren clearly believed the graffito was written to attack the Jews, but expressed no opinion about whther or not it was written by the killer.

In his memoirs, Dew mad it clear that he did not think the graffito was written by the murderer. "There was no reason, so far as I can see, why this particular message should have proved more useful than many others which Jack the Ripper was supposed to have written. As I have said before, it is questionable whether these messages were the work of the murderer at all. Why should he fool around chalking things on walls when his life was imperilled by every minute he loitered? Murderers do foolish things, I know, but such an action does not fit into the mental picture I have formed of the character of Jack the Ripper."

There weren't Jewish sailors, just as none of the policemen in the case was Jewish.

Feel free to provide evidence to back your claim that there were no Jewish sailors.

It was well-known that the building was inhabited by Jews.

This fact was clear from statements made by the police at the time.

You have provided no evidence to back these claims.

It was not a question of handwriting.

There is a handwritten copy on file and the spelling is clear.

Warren - "Jewes"

Halse - "Juwes"

Long - "Juews"

Foster "Juws"

[Fiver]

I quote from The Goulston Street Graffito Debate
by Howard Brown and Neil Bell

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...e%20many%20con tentious,Catherine%20Eddowes%2C%20was%20found%20se veral


The above article agrees with my opinion that the writing was written on the jamb and my suggestion that it was on the inside of the jamb.

It also expresses many of the same views that I have expressing consistently and repeatedly on this forum.

I wonder whether its authors could expect such an unsympathetic and even hostile reception to the one I have often received here.

Half of the article completely disagrees with you.

Half of the article agrees with you on some points, but it provides reasoning for its conclusions instead of just stating them as facts like you do.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The first point I’ll make, after picking my jaw up off the floor, is - how can you yet again say talk about a ‘hostile reception?’ No one has been ‘unsympathetic’ or even approaching ‘hostile’. Not even remotely in the same ballpark as hostile. Time and time and time again you adopt this kind of approach, on thread after thread. As if you’re somehow being attacked from all sides. This is why debating/discussing anything with you is such a wearying process. Every single time that someone disagrees with your opinion you take it as an attack. People are allowed to have differing opinions. People are allowed to interpret things differently from you. It’s not an insult if someone tells you that they think that you’re wrong.

The opinions expressed above (from How and Neil) have been debated for years and throughout this thread I’ve pretty much taken a middle road but slightly favouring that the graffito was written by the killer. (as I pretty much have done for 30+ years) There are points in favour of both sides so this issue is far from settled and it never will be no matter what you say.

Lets recap. You’re position was:

“They might also like to explain why the message was written on the jamb of the entrance, where it was most easily visible to a passing policeman.”

This was your position until I pointed out to you that the testimony of Long and Halse didn’t support Warren’s suggestion that this was facing outward. Warren after all said: “The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street.” Something that you were initially resistant to. I then considered that it might have been on the inside of the jamb but, fair is fair, you posted that particular suggestion before I had chance to.

My initial suggestion then was that the location suggested by Warren didn’t accord with the position suggested by Long and Halse and if the writing was actually written on the inside of the jamb then I was correct to suggest that Warren was being less than truthful because from that position the writing clearly wouldn’t have been “…visible to anyone in the street.”

My suggestion also disagreed with your initial position which was:

“Consequently, it would be connected with the message, which was written where it was most likely to be noticed by passing policemen at a time.”

So you said that it was on the jamb visible from the street. I suggested that Halse and Long appear to say that it was on the wall inside. If it was actually on the inside of the jamb then I was correct in my initial suggestion that Warren was being untruthful.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Half of the article completely disagrees with you.

Half of the article agrees with you on some points, but it provides reasoning for its conclusions instead of just stating them as facts like you do.

I think you have greatly overstated the extent of disagreement between what is written in that article and what I have been writing.

I did mention the fact that the two authors of it disagreed about whether the graffito was written by the murderer, so no-one is going to be able to claim that the article agrees with everything he has written - and I did no such thing.

I have certainly provided reasoning for my conclusions.

I have not merely stated them as facts.

Until now, however, the chief complaint has been that I state things to be facts when I don't know them to be facts.

Here are 13 examples of statements of fact in the article from which I quoted:


The actions of Warren and the police were justified, because they saw things differently in 1888 concerning the GSG as a potential clue.

I would never have been allowed to state as a fact that an action was justified!

At the Wentworth Building, the Ripper’s neatly constructed message took 30 to 45 seconds to put together.

I would have been challenged to say how I could possibly know that!

If it was a fresh message and had been left on the outside of the Wentworth, it would have been duly noted if at all decipherable.

Again, I would have been asked how I could possibly know that.

A graffiti such as this, with its assumed ‘Jewish’ reference, didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being left undisturbed, if not completely eradicated by the Jewish inhabitants.

I would have been accused of making an assumption or supposition if I had used the words 'snowball's chance in hell'.

This murder is also linked with another murder committed only minutes before and less than a mile away in St George’s-in-the-East.

I couldn't even get away with describing the murder of Kelly as the last in the series without being challenged for supposedly having made an assumption!

The Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street were largely inhabited by Jews.

When I wrote that, I was challenged: it was put to be that neither I nor the murderer could have known that to be a fact

The word ‘Juwes’ is a cockney phonetic spelling for Jews.

Is it?

If I had written that, I would have asked to produce evidence.

An ideal place to catch the attention of anyone leaving the dwellings.

I would have been asked how I know that a particular place would be ideal.

However, the stairwell where the graffito was found was very dark, far darker than Eddowes’s murder scene.

I would have been asked how I knew that to be a fact and told that I was making a supposition!

Anti–Semitic writing would not have been unusual in the Goulston Street area of Whitechapel.

I would have been asked how I knew Goulston Street was targeted!

Also, that anti–Semitic feelings were high and the misplaced idea that the murderer was Jewish was common.

I would have been challenged on the ground that I was making an assumption that the murderer was a gentile.

An ideal spot for someone to get a message across to the Jewish inhabitants of this tenement; an ideal spot for it to be seen.

I would have been asked how I could possibly know it was an ideal spot for either purpose.

Putting it simply, it’s the ideal spot for a killer to pause briefly.

Again, I would have been accused of having presented an assumption as a fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's an inaccurate description of the apron piece.


I described it accurately: covered with faeces and bloodstained


some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street

(Dr Frederick Gordon Brown)


I am bound to ask why you allege that I gave an inaccurate description.

The claims that I am wrong seem to be part of some kind of game.

It is unusual for a poster constantly to be challenged and I cannot think of any other member being treated like that here.

If you think I am wrong about that, then please do name one other.




There was no guarantee that the apron piece would be noticed instead of just trampled underfoot by residents exiting the building hours later. If it was found, there was no guarantee the finder would realize that it had anything to do with the murder. Even if they did, there is no guarantee that they wouldn't just throw the apron piece away - testifying at an inquest required missing work and even a single day without pay would be a significant loss of income for most people.

The only way the person who dropped the apron piece could have been certain it would be found was if they brought it to the attention of the police.


Your objections are fanciful.

The prevailing view at Scotland Yard was that the chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.

Scotland Yard did not raise the question of how the murderer could have known the apron wouldn't be trampled underfoot - presumably by a blind person or someone who didn't mind treading on blood and faeces.

I do believe you are being facetious.




It wasn't that obvious. PC Long only noticed the graffito because he was looking for bloodstains after finding the apron piece. If the apron piece hadn't been spotted, odds are good no one else would have noticed the graffito, other than perhaps to rub it off.

The only way the writer of the graffito could could have been certain it would be found was if they brought it to the attention of the police.


The apron piece was placed so that it would be spotted eventually and further inspection lead to discovery of the writing - or vice-versa.

Your last remark is tongue-in-cheek.



You haven't been stating these as deductions - you've been presenting them as certainties without providing any reasoning or evidence to show why you came to your conclusions.


Instead of deductions, you pile assumption on assumption. You assume the apron piece was dropped deliberately instead of accidentally. You assume it was dropped to implicate people instead just discarded after he didn't need it any more. You assume that the killer wanted the apron piece to be found. You assume that the graffito was written by the killer. You assume that the graffito blames the Jews for the killing. You assume that the writer of the graffito was not Jewish.


I don't believe you would write that to or about anyone else posting on this forum.


I have made logical and reasonable deductions from the evidence, which you falsely represent as mere assumptions.
That is a logical fallacy on your part.

I did NOT assume that the apron was not discarded after it was of no use; I argued that it would have been discarded much earlier and closer to the scene of the murder unless the murderer had some special purpose for it and that the cutting of the apron supplies the explanation.

I did NOT assume the killer wanted the apron to be found or that the graffito was written by the killer.

I made a deduction that the two were linked, as did Scotland Yard.



This is true but irrelevant. You have assumed that you know what the killers purpose was while ignoring all other possible explanations for their actions.


How can you KNOW it is irrelevant?


If you truly believe that then you have completely failed to understand what anybody else on the thread is saying.


I wrote: The alternative to my explanation is to argue that the events of that night are haphazard.

You seem to be implying that no-one else agrees with me about the apron and graffiti.

What makes you so certain?



Clearly there was a need for the murder to cut the apron in two, since they actually did it. The question is why they did it, and there are multiple possible reasons for that.


I haven't heard of a more plausible explanation than the one I have given.

Have you a more plausible explanation?




That is a possible explanation. It is not the only possible explanation.


Then please provide one.



You are the one trying to convince people that your theory is correct - the burden of proof is on you.


There is no burden of proof on me.

I am setting out my views.

You don't have to accept them.

But then you don't need to misrepresent them as assumptions, either.



And several flaws in your theory have been pointed out.

I don't think so.



Feel free to provide any evidence that:
* There was a prevailing view about the graffito at Scotland Yard.
* That the prevailing view was that the graffito was written by the Ripper.

When I asked about something, Elamarna replied: Look it up.

I don't write such things to anyone here, but I do wonder why you challenge me when I assert something which, according to a well-regarded author, is a matter of official record.


The third interpretation was, according to Sugden, the one most favoured at the Scotland Yard: The chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.<sup>[14]

(Sugden, page 255)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulston_Street_graffito</sup>






Feel free to provide evidence to back your claim that there were no Jewish sailors.


I have no need to.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that there WERE any.




[/B]

You have provided no evidence to back these claims.


No-one who is familiar with the Whitechapel Murders should be making a statement such as yours.


I had written: It was well-known that the building was inhabited by Jews.

This fact was clear from statements made by the police at the time.


I quote from the article by Brown and Bell:

The Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street were largely inhabited by Jews.

A graffiti such as this, with its assumed ‘Jewish’ reference, didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of being left undisturbed, if not completely eradicated by the Jewish inhabitants.


Superintendent Arnold wrote in his report to the Home Office dated 6 November:

a strong feeling existed against the Jews generally, and as the Building upon which the writing was found was situated in the midst of a locality inhabited principally by that Sect, I was apprehensive that if the writing were left it would be the means of causing a riot and therefore considered it desirable that it should be removed




Warren - "Jewes"

Halse - "Juwes"

Long - "Juews"

Foster "Juws"



You listed the variant spellings in response to my statements:

It was not a question of handwriting.

There is a handwritten copy on file and the spelling is clear.

What I wrote is correct.

There is a copy of the writing and the spelling used is clear and there is nothing peculiar about the handwriting.


I believe that any reasonably-minded outsider reading this exchange would conclude that you wrote your comments as a tongue-in-cheek exercise as a way to try to rubbish my comments.

Please see my replies above.

[Varqm]

If by the opening you mean the area between the arch and the staircase, then that was not where the writing was situated.

It was on the archway and visible to anyone passing by, including Long and Halse at 2.20, IF it was there.

You're opinion does not matter,from the inquest Long implied he did not know if the graffito was there.Halse did not look,he was not on the beat, he was looking for people to stop and ask questions.
The location of the apron is not certain but my understanding is it was inside the archway,on the wall Archway can't be described as a wall.

[Varqm]

He said that the apron was not there at 2.20.

That implies that he checked inside the archway just as he did at 2.55.

Checked but not enough to know if the graffito was there.Its what they did ,not what you think they did .

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

[QUOTE=Varqm;n800854]

You're opinion does not matter/QUOTE]


Can't you behave with civility?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Its what they did ,not what you think they did .

What on earth is that supposed to mean?

[Varqm]

[QUOTE=PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1;n800892]

You're opinion does not matter/QUOTE]


Can't you behave with civility?

?? You got lost then you lash out.You implied or your opinion is Long checked at 2:20, the graffito was not there.But your opinion does not matter because..
he did not check enough to know if the graffito was there or not ,that's what he clearly "said" on his testimony.
Your are kinda immature in you're reaction .No time for this