The Goulston Street Apron

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Monty

The Ultimate Sourcebook, presumably quoting the Inquest testimony, states that "At about 20 minutes after 2 he passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building"

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Since it was the opinion of Warren that the writing posed a "riot threat" because he felt it it could be seen as people came and went if left unwashed...it seems clear that the location of both the writing and the apron were not back in some dark recess.

So when the PC states that "It was not there", referring to the apron section at 2:20 when he passed, I think that means he could see that specific place.

Best regards

[Monty]

No,

Halse states he wouldn't have seen it, he gave no reason and didn't declared because the apron was in the building.

The most likely one is he wasn't looking for it.

The dwellings actually had recesses at the front, with what could be described as a short footbridge leading to the stairwell.


Monty

[moonbegger]

Hello Wickerman ,

Seeing as there is no actual 'passage' involved, we must determine whether Long meant the archway as you enter, or the vestibule inside.

Why do we need to infer that Long and Halse meant anything other than what they actually said ? Does that not amount to rewriting history ?

??? Passage = (1) channel or opening providing a way through (2) hall or corridor . Sounds perfectly applicable to me .

P.C. Long said he found the piece of apron "lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House" and Detective Halse of the City Police also said the writing was inside the passage, explaining that if the apron had been there at 2.20 a.m. "he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building"

Are we to therefore assume that two of London's finest had no idea what the word passage meant or how to describe one ?

I'm suggesting we take all the accounts together and not single one out as sufficient to determine the location.

Totally agreed ! Lets do just that .

in a location that could be easily seen by anyone passing on the street.

Again these are Warrens words , in contrast with Detective Halse who said the writing was inside the passage, explaining that if the apron had been there at 2.20 a.m. "he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was IN the building" Not on the bricks leading into the building !

Also The only contemporary illustration is from 'The Illustrated Police News' which implies the writing was indeed inside the building on a large wall .

Who is in a better position to judge, them or us?

Once again , totally agree .

Do you think a consensus is necessary among a group who were not there at the time, when we have the definitive statements given by those who were actually present?

I think we need a consensus on the word definitive

Cheers

moonbegger.

[Wickerman]

Hello Dave.

With respect Jon, if you're going to rely solely on Warren's report to Matthews you're at odds with PC Long who found the apron piece "lying in the passage of the doorway"

Seeing as there is no actual 'passage' involved, we must determine whether Long meant the archway as you enter, or the vestibule inside.

...and Arnold who recorded the message as being "in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out".

Which is where anyone's shoulders might brush against the side of the archway as you pass in and out of the building.
I think that is consistent with Warren's words.
Also, the chalk was in a location that could be easily seen by anyone passing on the street. This is not the case if it was inside the vestibule.

I'm suggesting we take all the accounts together and not single one out as sufficient to determine the location.

.

[Cogidubnus]

With respect Jon, if you're going to rely solely on Warren's report to Matthews you're at odds with PC Long who found the apron piece "lying in the passage of the doorway" and Arnold who recorded the message as being "in such a position that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out".

Again Long, at the inquest: "lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. Above it on the wall was written in chalk..."

If anyone's rewriting history I'd suggest it was Warren, who after all, had to justify his decision.

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,



Is there really a general consensus amongst all in ripperolegy of the exact whereabouts of the writing ? To my mind , the various reports are all in conflict of each other ! So if anyone is attempting to rewrite history , I would be more inclined to start with the folk on the scene, at the time

cheers

moonbegger

Hi Moonbegger.

Do you think a consensus is necessary among a group who were not there at the time, when we have the definitive statements given by those who were actually present?

PC Long told us the graffiti was above the apron, and Warren located the graffiti quite clearly, on the jamb of the open arch.

Who is in a better position to judge, them or us?

.

[moonbegger]

Hello Wickerman,

If we had no statements to identify just where the apron was found we all might join in with various opinions. As it is though, we all know where the police placed the apron so suggesting it may have lay somewhere else is tantamount to rewriting history

Is there really a general consensus amongst all in ripperolegy of the exact whereabouts of the writing ? To my mind , the various reports are all in conflict of each other ! So if anyone is attempting to rewrite history , I would be more inclined to start with the folk on the scene, at the time

cheers

moonbegger

[Wickerman]

Thanks Chris

Not to mention a good reason for not noticing either the apron piece or the graffito first time round...They were off the pavement, well into the doorway, and laying deep in natural shadow...particularly bearing in mind the very obvious limitations of the PC's bullseye lamp!

Cheers

Dave

Hello Dave.

If we had no statements to identify just where the apron was found we all might join in with various opinions. As it is though, we all know where the police placed the apron so suggesting it may have lay somewhere else is tantamount to rewriting history

Not that attempting to rewrite history is all that uncommon on Casebook...

.

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Chris

Not to mention a good reason for not noticing either the apron piece or the graffito first time round...They were off the pavement, well into the doorway, and laying deep in natural shadow...particularly bearing in mind the very obvious limitations of the PC's bullseye lamp!

Cheers

Dave

[moonbegger]

I'm not that convinced it was THAT visible from the street - sure Warren said it was on the door jamb and highly visible...but bear in mind this is in his (only partly convincing) justification to the Home Secretary for erasing it...so he would say that wouldn't he...

Even bearing in mind the relatively small size of the lettering as noted by the witnesses, you'd be hard pushed to physically fit it on the door jambs illustrated in the well-known photos of the doorway, (unless of course it were so tiny as to be invisible from the street anyway!).

So I reckon it was actually on the side wall within the porch/hallway itself (just above where the apron piece was alleged to have been discovered), where folk coming down the stairs might well have rubbed it with their shoulders en passant giving it a worn appearance...which according to most accounts, clearly hasn't happened, making it perhaps of recent origin...

Yet I somehow can't see Jack calmly stopping off to write a graffito...puzzling isn't it?

All the best

Dave

Well put Dave , The Inside Dado stair wall .

Perfect cover for a Policeman , his police chalk , his lantern , not to mention a piece of exhibit (A)

Cheers

moonbegger

[Wickerman]

Fine Chava, but that isn't evidence that it was there, which is my only point. However, didn't someone describe it as being visible from the street?

Hi Caz.

Excuse me for being a but-in-ski, but as we've debated the same, can I ask you straight and to the point?

What would you call 'evidence' that would convince you the graffiti was there before that night?

Thanks..

[Bridewell]

The police had to balance riot prevention against catching the killer of a few women. I wasn't there, so I have no right to question their decision. Besides, the evidentiary value of the graffito, or anything the writer might know was theoretical.

The stairwell should have been treated as a crime scene. The GSG could have been screened from public view by placing a police officer directly in front of it. You don't need to have been there to know that the correct decision was to preserve what was there by whatever means possible which, in this instance, meant a photograph. This is basic police procedure and no officer leaves training school without knowing it unless, like Warren, they join at management level. D.c. Halse was right; Sir Charles Warren was wrong.

[Cogidubnus]

I'm not that convinced it was THAT visible from the street - sure Warren said it was on the door jamb and highly visible...but bear in mind this is in his (only partly convincing) justification to the Home Secretary for erasing it...so he would say that wouldn't he...

Even bearing in mind the relatively small size of the lettering as noted by the witnesses, you'd be hard pushed to physically fit it on the door jambs illustrated in the well-known photos of the doorway, (unless of course it were so tiny as to be invisible from the street anyway!).

So I reckon it was actually on the side wall within the porch/hallway itself (just above where the apron piece was alleged to have been discovered), where folk coming down the stairs might well have rubbed it with their shoulders en passant giving it a worn appearance...which according to most accounts, clearly hasn't happened, making it perhaps of recent origin...

Yet I somehow can't see Jack calmly stopping off to write a graffito...puzzling isn't it?

All the best

Dave

[RivkahChaya]

In my opinion, the only possible importance of the graffito would be to track down the writer on the chance that he saw someone come down Goulston St., and drop a piece of fabric, while he was busy writing. If so, then it would be pretty likely he saw the Ripper. If the police had photographed the graffito, they might have been able to post it, and see if anyone recognized the writing, or ask for the writer to come forward, but they probably have to redact it, and somehow make it very clear they wanted the writer only as a potential witness, not to arrest him for vandalism, libel, or attempting to incite a riot.

The police had to balance riot prevention against catching the killer of a few women. I wasn't there, so I have no right to question their decision. Besides, the evidentiary value of the graffito, or anything the writer might know was theoretical.