The Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe Dr. Sequeira observed Dr. Brown's post-mortem along with Drs. William Sedgewick Saunders and Bagster Phillips.

Not mentioned in the inquest testimony but I stand to be corrected after all i am only human

But it does seem strange that Sequeria disagreed

[John Bennett]

Sequeira only attended the scene and no close examianation was carried out by any of the Doctors at that point of the body to see if any organs had been removed. Dr Brown later carried out the post mortem there is no evidence to suggest Dr Sequeria was present.

I believe Dr. Sequeira observed Dr. Brown's post-mortem along with Drs. William Sedgewick Saunders and Bagster Phillips.

[ChrisGeorge]

Alderley and Wilmslow Advertiser
Friday, 12 October, 1888

Detective-Inspector Halse, one of the city police, proved that when the writing on the wall was reported to him he sent off an officer to make arrangements for having it photographed. Definite directions to this effect were given, but before a photographer could arrive, the Metropolitan Police Authorities, fearing that the words might lead to an outbreak against the Jews, had rubbed them out. - Mr. Burrows: Did no one suggest that it would be possible to rub out the word "Jews" only? - Witness: I suggested that the top line alone need be rubbed out, and the rest photographed. The words seemed to have been recently written in white chalk on the bricks, and were:- "The Juees (sic) are not the men that would be blamed for nothing." - The Foreman: Why did you allow the metropolitan police to rub the writing off? - Mr. Crawford: Did you not protest against its being rubbed out? - Witness: I did. - By the jury: The writing was like a schoolboy’s writing. Good round hand. - A juror regarded it as singular that the police did not make further inquiries at the lodging-house in the passage of which the apron was found - Mr. Crawford replied that a most vigilant search was made as soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the city police, but that, unfortunately, the apron was found by a member of the metropolitan force, and that some delay occurred.

Monty

Thanks, Monty. Of course, as you will realise and others should too, "The writing was like a schoolboy’s writing. Good round hand" refers to the style or look of the writing not any idea that a schoolboy might have written it.

Chris

[Trevor Marriott]

I dont dismiss Tom, I question.

At the end of the day, testimony is testimony, and I will alway lay with that unless overwhelming evidence the other way is provided.

Monty

You are correct but testimony is there to be tested sadly in this particular murder much of it was never tested as to proving or disproving its accuarcy and expanding on some of the major issues.

A prime example is the documented disagreement between the Doctors and to that point I should mention Dr Sequeira whos testimony you seek to rely on and to that which conflicts with Dr Brown.

Now I wil play devils advocate

Sequeira only attended the scene and no close examianation was carried out by any of the Doctors at that point of the body to see if any organs had been removed. Dr Brown later carried out the post mortem there is no evidence to suggest Dr Sequeria was present. If that be the case he cannot give any evidence as to whether or not any anatomical knowledge was used to remove the organs nor can he say that the killer did not have any design on the organs

However now looking at it another way if Dr Sequeria looked at the abdominal wounds at the scene and from what he saw came to the later conclusion that what was later suggested by Brown could not have been correct then it might add weight to the theory that the organs were in fact removed at the mortuary

You only have to look at the statements tendered in the inquest and see the many questions which should have been asked of the witnesses which were not. So to keep inferring that what was said in testimony has to be regarded as unquestionable is being blinkered.

But of course if what was said and written was not questioned and is now use to prop up the theories of some then I can understand why the testimony card keeps getting played.

[Monty]

Alderley and Wilmslow Advertiser
Friday, 12 October, 1888

Detective-Inspector Halse, one of the city police, proved that when the writing on the wall was reported to him he sent off an officer to make arrangements for having it photographed. Definite directions to this effect were given, but before a photographer could arrive, the Metropolitan Police Authorities, fearing that the words might lead to an outbreak against the Jews, had rubbed them out. - Mr. Burrows: Did no one suggest that it would be possible to rub out the word "Jews" only? - Witness: I suggested that the top line alone need be rubbed out, and the rest photographed. The words seemed to have been recently written in white chalk on the bricks, and were:- "The Juees (sic) are not the men that would be blamed for nothing." - The Foreman: Why did you allow the metropolitan police to rub the writing off? - Mr. Crawford: Did you not protest against its being rubbed out? - Witness: I did. - By the jury: The writing was like a schoolboy’s writing. Good round hand. - A juror regarded it as singular that the police did not make further inquiries at the lodging-house in the passage of which the apron was found - Mr. Crawford replied that a most vigilant search was made as soon as the matter came to the knowledge of the city police, but that, unfortunately, the apron was found by a member of the metropolitan force, and that some delay occurred.

Monty

[Monty]

To be fair, I think you might be throwing stones at glass houses here. After all, you're among the throng who dismiss PC Long's sworn testimony regarding the missing 30 minutes between the Ripper fleeing Mitre Square and the apron and graffiti being discovered.

I dont dismiss Tom, I question.

At the end of the day, testimony is testimony, and I will alway lay with that unless overwhelming evidence the other way is provided.

Monty

[Stephen Thomas]

I believe it was Halse, who said he imagined that a child in the area might have a clue as to the graffiti. Based on his official evidence, I think this was actually a reporter putting words in his mouth. But the suggestion was made, nevertheless.

Most interesting, Tom. The actual quote?

[Tom_Wescott]

I believe it was Halse, who said he imagined that a child in the area might have a clue as to the graffiti. Based on his official evidence, I think this was actually a reporter putting words in his mouth. But the suggestion was made, nevertheless.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Steve and Chris,

The other suggestion at the time was that a neighborhood kid wrote the graffiti, yet why only ONE graffiti?

Hi Tom

I think the suggestion that a kid wrote it is a modern idea not one that was suggested at the time, unless you can produce some evidence that someone said so at the time. I am open to be corrected.

Thanks

Chris

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steve and Chris,

The other suggestion at the time was that a neighborhood kid wrote the graffiti, yet why only ONE graffiti? Why would a precocious kid (or adult) with a piece of chalk leave only this one graffiti behind? It's a minor point, but it adds up. If the graffiti were truly unrelated, there would be SOMETHING pointing to that. And yes, white chalk on black dado next to the entrance would be noticed by anyone entering.

Hi Lynn,

Frame? Not sure I understand.

Hi Scott,

Anything is possible, but literally every piece of evidence points to the graffiti having been written by the killer. And incidentally, I don't think it's coincidence that he waited until after the Nichols and Tabram inquests had ended before killing again, so yes, I believe he most certainly read the papers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Scott Nelson]

Hi Steve. I don't see any reason at all why the killer wouldn't expect the apron to be found. And he should naturally expect it to lead to the discovery of the graffiti.

You ascribe too many post-murder plots to the killer, Tom. He may have just killed out of rage and didn't gave a rat's ass about leaving behind any clues.

I would bet that he never read any newspaper stories, and was oblivious to anything other than occasional street talk about the crimes.

[lynn cates]

frame

Hello Tom.

"There's one over-riding practical purpose for the apron, and that was to qualify the graffiti."

You mean a frame? Can't disagree.

Cheers.
LC

[ChrisGeorge]

Consider that there was apparently not a single other piece of graffiti in the area in the same hand and that the people in the building could not say that the graffiti pre-existed the murders.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[My emphasis in the quote]

Hello, Tom.
I can't see how the hand is relevant since we do not know the killer's style. Where does this information come from by the way and are you saying that much graffiti existed in the area but in different hands?

I suppose if not a single person from the building remembered seeing the graffito before, this could be considered suggestive (is this the case?).
On the other hand, it was written quite small and if graffiti was commonplace, people might not have paid it any attention as they walked past.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Sorry, Tom, but as far as I know, there is no information on whether there was any graffiti in the area at the time the infamous inscription was found. So we don't know if there was a lot of graffiti in the area or no other graffiti, let alone if any might have been in the same hand.

Best regards

Chris

[Steven Russell]

Consider that there was apparently not a single other piece of graffiti in the area in the same hand and that the people in the building could not say that the graffiti pre-existed the murders.
Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[My emphasis in the quote]

Hello, Tom.
I can't see how the hand is relevant since we do not know the killer's style. Where does this information come from by the way and are you saying that much graffiti existed in the area but in different hands?

I suppose if not a single person from the building remembered seeing the graffito before, this could be considered suggestive (is this the case?).
On the other hand, it was written quite small and if graffiti was commonplace, people might not have paid it any attention as they walked past.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Steve. I don't see any reason at all why the killer wouldn't expect the apron to be found. And he should naturally expect it to lead to the discovery of the graffiti. As for the understanding of the graffiti, had it been photographed, I don't think it would have remained the mystery it has. The Green River Killer wrote a letter to the police that was dismissed as a hoax. But clearly he didn't think it would be, know what I mean?

Consider that there was apparently not a single other piece of graffiti in the area in the same hand and that the people in the building could not say that the graffiti pre-existed the murders. When coupled with the other case-related evidence that I mentioned, everything points to it having been written by the killer. The alternative is much, much harder to swallow, I would say.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott