The Goulston Street Apron

[caz]

But I always figure that if you ARE going to take the time to write out a message, go big or go home.

Hi Errata,

Are you suggesting the message didn't exist? Surely someone wrote it and designed it to be seen and read on that wall.

This was not big. And the double negative makes it's meaning murky at best. And why put it at a height so you are framing a 10 year old kid for the graffiti? I mean, if you are going to make it mysterious go all out. Draw a giant cartoon of a monster pointing at an upside down horse. Or a complex code that when deciphered by the finest minds in the land turns out to be a juvenile dirty joke. The GSG isn't specific enough to point to any reason for writing it, but isn't obscure enough to be the product of madness. It's like Oliver Twist hated Jews. Which is just bad theater.

Why is it so quickly forgotten that whoever had a reason for writing in white chalk on that wall was limited by the height and size of the black bricks?

Love,

Caz
X

[RivkahChaya]

I think one of the problems a lot of us have with the GSG is that despite appearances, it really isn't good theater. And there are many of us who believe that Jack would have been capable of very good theater had he been inclined. Like I can think of about 50 different ways to make it better theater that would cost no more time and energy, and in many ways would be easier.

I think you are right, but it's a problem only if you insist that JtR wrote the graffito, and used the apron to call attention to it; variations of this argument are pretty popular.

If you don't think JtR wrote the graffito, or left the apron in that particular spot by design, then there's no need for theatrics.

[Scott Nelson]

And why put it at a height so you are framing a 10 year old kid for the graffiti?

He was actually 15 years old.

[Chava]

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?

Love,

Caz
X

If it was inside the entrance I'm not sure it would have been very obvious unless you approached at just the right angle. I think it's a distraction whichever way you look at it. If he wrote it or if he didn't we can't look at it because it was rubbed out with no photographs taken. We're not even sure we've got the correct spelling. In my opinion it detracts from the importance of the apron which is the only piece of physical evidence in the entire case. It's the apron that counts, not the GSG.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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..

[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

[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

[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...

.

[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]

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?

.

[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 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.

.