Kate's Apron

[Greenway]

Right photo location, but the writing was on the jamb of the doorway and was erased before a photo could be taken.

As to the graffito, it was small, chalked in rounded letters similar to a schoolboy's hand, covering an area of two or three bricks only. And as such, its appearance was negligible.

Detective Halse said at the inquest ' I saw some chalk writing on the black facing of the wall' and as recorded in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, 'The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white'

In a confidential memorandum from Sir Charles Warren to Henry Mathews, we find specific mention of the location:

Subject: 'The writing on the wall'

'...I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder; it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London.

There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.....'

Cheers, George

The evidence seems contradictory to me - Warren suggests it's on the jamb, but Halse said it was on the black facing of the wall, with the bricks above being white. In the photo the jamb is all black, and the black below white wall is the inside wall. I would tend to go with Halse.

I think the writing is a little big in the picture but I think the location is pretty good - I remember a suggestion that the writing could be 'brushed by people's shoulders as they walked by' or similar.

All the best

[GBinOz]

I've just found another post that estimates the height of the graffiti at 3 to 4 feet, so Dave's photo and 'brushed by people's shoulders as they walked by' may be correct for height. However, Warren states it was on the jamb of the doorway rather than on the wall inside. It was supposedly three lines covering only 2 to 3 bricks, so that would fit in with it being the jamb. Were it on the wall one would think it would have been bigger, as photoshopped onto Dave's photo.

Cheers, George

[Harry D]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?

[c.d.]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?

And throw in a generous helping of adrenaline for good measure.

c.d.

[Greenway]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?

Was it cursive? - I got the impression it was printed lower case (schoolboy style), but I can't find a reference either way at the moment. The semi darkness could be solved with a match, but it's hard to know how much light there was at the particular spot - white on black from twelve inches is visible even in quite low light. I would imagine there would be more light on the jamb than the inner wall. And how difficult it was to write on the brick would depend on the roughness of the brick's surface. Any imperfections could certainly make legibility harder.

I would imagine that it's easier than removing a kidney in the dark though.

With reference to your earlier point, 'Jewes' was a common spelling used in the period, therefore it I think it probably was the written/intended word. But are they 'the men' or are they 'not the men'? and will they be blamed or not? And 'nothing' means 'anything' right?

All the best.

[Abby Normal]

Am I the only one who thinks it would be incredibly difficult to write legibly in chalk across two bricks, in semi-darkness (and cursive, no less)?

the dude was removing internal organs in the dark Harry

[Abby Normal]

Was it cursive? - I got the impression it was printed lower case (schoolboy style), but I can't find a reference either way at the moment. The semi darkness could be solved with a match, but it's hard to know how much light there was at the particular spot - white on black from twelve inches is visible even in quite low light. I would imagine there would be more light on the jamb than the inner wall. And how difficult it was to write on the brick would depend on the roughness of the brick's surface. Any imperfections could certainly make legibility harder.

I would imagine that it's easier than removing a kidney in the dark though.

With reference to your earlier point, 'Jewes' was a common spelling used in the period, therefore it I think it probably was the written/intended word. But are they 'the men' or are they 'not the men'? and will they be blamed or not? And 'nothing' means 'anything' right?

All the best.

hi Greenway

The juwes are the men that wont be blamed for nothing. Cockney for-they wont take the blame for anything

[Scott Nelson]

No - double negative, written out, not spoken -- means the Jews will be blamed for something.

[Ms Diddles]

No - double negative, written out, not spoken -- means the Jews will be blamed for something.

Personally, I'd always interpreted it the same way as Abby (ie the Jews won't take the blame for anything).

The double negative makes it sound like the writer was just writing as they spoke.

I'd almost have expected it to be something like "....wot won't be blamed for nuffink", however the writer evidently had enough knowledge of spelling and grammar to avoid that.

Your alternative interpretation works too though now I've wrapped my head around it.

Interesting!

[Abby Normal]

Personally, I'd always interpreted it the same way as Abby (ie the Jews won't take the blame for anything).

The double negative makes it sound like the writer was just writing as they spoke.

I'd almost have expected it to be something like "....wot won't be blamed for nuffink", however the writer evidently had enough knowledge of spelling and grammar to avoid that.

Your alternative interpretation works too though now I've wrapped my head around it.

Interesting!

I agree. and even if its as scott says it really dosnt change the meaning or intent-the jews should be blamed.

[DJA]

The IWMES will not be blamed for Nothing.

[Ms Diddles]

I agree. and even if its as scott says it really dosnt change the meaning or intent-the jews should be blamed.

Yeah, they won't be blamed for "nothing" ie they will be blamed for "something".

I just always hear it in my mind with a cockney accent!

[c.d.]

I have always thought that a quite reasonable interpretation could be "The Jews are tired of always being blamed for things we didn't do." Of course, this would indicate that it was written by a Jew. But if you have a neighborhood with anti-Jewish graffiti you can pretty much expect the other side to fire back. You see the same thing today.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Personally, I'd always interpreted it the same way as Abby (ie the Jews won't take the blame for anything).

The double negative makes it sound like the writer was just writing as they spoke.

I'd almost have expected it to be something like "....wot won't be blamed for nuffink", however the writer evidently had enough knowledge of spelling and grammar to avoid that.

Your alternative interpretation works too though now I've wrapped my head around it.

Interesting!

here in the states it goes like this:

cop: did you kill that woman?

criminal: i didnt do sh1t !

cop: so you admit it!

heehee

[Mark J D]

The IWMES will not be blamed for Nothing.

It seems almost impossible to me that this interpretation could be 'a coincidence'...

M.