|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 717
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 12:54 pm: | 
|
Chris,
You should note that I did not claim that Anderson's alleged witness was Schwartz, and that's irrelevant to the argument. Police knew about the anti-Jewish slur, treated the witness statement very seriously, and still entertained the thought that the killer was a Jew. That's a fact. I personally find it highly unlikely that Anderson's witness was Schwartz, for a variety of reasons largely unrelated to this discussion, but Anderson's opinions either way do not negate the fact that other police took the Lipski incident as a genuine sighting of the killer.
I'm not trying to find "logical loopholes" here, as the holes in your argument are quite a bit larger than that. The only way your conclusion works is if you assume one meaning and one meaning only for the graffiti, ignore the Lipski incident, AND assume that no serial killer would write something to try to lead police astray. Any one of those three on its own is enough to make coming to the conclusion that the police didn't take the Graffiti to be genuine as unsupported speculation. The fact that there are three counter arguments (and for all I know, more out there I didn't think up) means the point is still up for debate.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 135
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 1:14 pm: |
|
Chris,
This is where semantics enter the question.
"What I said was "I haven't yet seen a suggestion of what the killer may have meant by the writing, that seems natural to me"
[emphasis added, as you evidently missed the phrase when you read it, and quoted it back to me, previously]"
No, I did not miss anything there. But maybe I should rephrase myself.
Just because you cannot see any meaning into the grafitto that seems natural to you, does not imply that you can dismiss that such a meaning might exist. Surely if other people can see it, you must be logically aware that such interpretations are possible.
You do not need to agree (and point taken, you do not!)
But does your opinion not come back and bite you? Why on earth should someone write a graffito that "no one" can understand in the first place? Even if it was totally disconnected?
Why I have to come up with caveats concerning why the killer wrote so and so is simply because we cannot know! We simply do not know. All we know is that SOMEONE wrote that graffito. If it does not make sense, it certainly makes no more sense if disconnected.
Are you so deeply entrenched in your opinion that you close your eyes for any other opinions?
I don't see why you keep rehashing this, to be honest. I have accepted that you don't see any meaning in the graffito. That is hardly evidence for anything. And cannot be used as such, however many times you repeat it.
I acknowledge that you do not believe there is any connection. That is fine with me. But your personal opinion constitutes no proof of anything.
I have mentioned what I consider are indications of a connection. You seem to say that the only answer is a personal opinion based on that you do not understand the meaning of the graffito.
I have mentioned several possibilities that may explain why the message sounds as it does.
The basic premise for disconnection is still, as I understand it, that it existed there before the apron was dropped, and was connected by random events.
Could be, but that is pure speculation, and as such cannot be said to be all that convincing.
Instead of discussing who said what and what they meant, are there any other real INDICATIONS on why there should be no connection?
I'd like to hear them.
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1051
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Helge
I don't really think there's much point continuing this at the moment. Maybe it's a language problem, but I just don't seem to be getting through.
Fo the sake of clarity I will just try again to get two things across, though:
(1) I do see a natural meaning in the graffiti, but not one connected with the murders.
(2) I don't have an "entrenched" opinion. I've said several times that there's no firm evidence either way on this. I've said, however, that I'm sceptical about a connection, and I've said why.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 136
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Chris,
OK mate, we'll leave it at that.
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Dan
Hang on a minute.
You referred specifically to Anderson when you said "they thought the killer shouted out the "Lipski!" slur".
That's why I assumed you meant Anderson was included in the "they".
And of course, that's why I raised the question of Anderson's witness, whom he described as "the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer". Schwartz had a good view of the "Lipski" man. If Anderson believed the "Lipski" man was the murderer, it's difficult to see how his witness could be anyone but Schwartz.
Anyway, according to Sugden, Anderson believed the graffito was written by the murderer. If so, the argument about what he thought about the "Lipski" man becomes academic, in this context.
I'm not trying to find "logical loopholes" here, as the holes in your argument are quite a bit larger than that. ... Any one of those three on its own is enough to make coming to the conclusion that the police didn't take the Graffiti to be genuine as unsupported speculation.
I'm sure half the reason these debates go round in circles for so long is that most people don't even bother to read the posts properly.
I didn't conclude "that the police didn't take the Graffiti to be genuine".
I said "the police obviously took the possibility of a connection seriously". I then concluded on the basis of the argument you dislike, that "we have to assume, on this basis, that Anderson discounted the graffito, and that Swanson and Macnaghten were at least doubtful about it".
Apparently I was indeed wrong about Anderson. (But I doubt it had anything to do with his thinking the "Lipski" man was the killer - I doubt he did think that.)
And he quotes others, including Swanson, as asserting that the writing was done by a Gentile to throw the blame on the Jews. How that squares with the Swanson Marginalia isn't entirely clear to me.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 137
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Update on available light
For those of you that remember that I played with some numbers a while ago to try to ascertain in a more scientific way what kind of light conditions was available to write the graffito, here is some (perhaps) interesting news.
The 0.07 lux that I arrived at is only an approximation, because I still do not know exactly the actual output of the lamp in question, but it is within the range that might be expected from contemporary gas-lights according to the tables I got. (caveat, take this as indication only in other words)
Anyway. 0.07 lux does not really tell us much, except that it should theoretically lie well within the sensitivity of the human eye, as I also showed. I just discovered that it basically corresponds to about 2\3rds of the unobstructed light of a full moon (reflected).
To not make it too complicated, this means that if you had a 2\3rds full moon behind you in the sky and looked at a wall in front of you, this is the amount of light available. It does NOT mean that the lamp shone as bright as a 2\3rds full moon!
However, point is, there should be more than enough light to write a chalked graffito even on a dark surface under those conditions.
Other ambient light (i.e. starlight, moonlight, light from other lamps, etc), would also contribute slightly.
The light would not have hit the wall at a right angle, I'm aware of that. But the question is rather if there was any obstructions?
I have looked at the Lighting and Street Illumination thread, and there are obviously people far more knowledgeable than me on this subject. Not to mention that I have never actually been to this part of London.
Do we have an updated (as per what we currently know) map of lights and distances involved?
And what are your views on obstructions? How far into the archway was the graffito?
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2532
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Hi Helge,
my understanding is, that the light would be blocked by the archway if the graffiti was too far inside the door.
However, i do not know if i am remembering that correctly -i'm sure someone does so I'll stop right here
Jenni |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 138
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Jenni,
My thoughts exactly. Wished I knew for sure..
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2534
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 4:47 pm: |
|
Helge,
I'm pretty sure its possible to find out.
Jenni |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 650
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:10 pm: |
|
When people start to calculate the amount of light mathematically, I KNOW for sure we have reached the point of idiocy.
Quite apart from the fact that the imponderables - cloud cover, extent of moonlight, nearest street gas-lamp etc are unknown or unknowable with any degree of accuracy, and inferences based on the calculations would be deeply flawed.
At least I, for one, would never accept them.
Daft, in the extreme (IMHO).
Sorry to be so blunt, Helge, Jenni and others, but it had to be said. waste of time - but it's your time, of course.
Phil |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 608
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Phil,
Why daft? Cloud-cover at a given moment is probably unknowable, but the phase of the moon and approximations of the light available from a gas-lamp are doable. At the least, we might arrive at an optimum level of light and while it might prove nothing, it could be interesting. I certainly endorse such an exercise as more worthwhile than some of the armchair theorizing we get on the boards.
Moreover, "point of idiocy" is rather harsh for someone trying to bring a little science to the subject.
But Helge, surely you are not serious about ambient starlight entering the equation.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 140
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:06 pm: |
|
Don,
Ambient starlight would actually be impossible to calculate, unless we knew the cloud cover, I included that only because it actually IS a factor. However, in dim lit 1888 streets, believe me or not, under optimum conditions even starlight would be noticeable. I have great experience from outdoors life (hiking and stuff) and the night is usually never as dark as we imagine from the comfort of our modern, electrically lighted abodes.
Again, we modern people seldom realizes this, as it takes up to two hours to achieve maximum night vision.
But, no, I had not even contemplated actually trying to include starlight. Even to include moonlight would be difficult, if not only as a pointer.
However, to base any theory on vague assumptions like "it would be too dark to write", with no basis of factual evidence is not only unscientific, but also of no value whatsoever. This is why I try to get some values to use at least as a reference point.
I also notice that people (heheh..you know who I mean) that, for personal reasons, argue AGAINST the graffito being written at night (I.e. by JtR), also does not wish to bring science into this. Is this so that personal opinions should rule supreme in this, creating an opinion based stalemate?
Actually math and science is elsewhere considered rather essential for precise desicionmaking. The days when engineers wondered "Hmmm, will that bridge hold..?" is luckily a bygone age!
When I started these calculations, my mind was open, and I half expected that they would show that no way could the graffito have been written without the aid of more light than would have been available. I was actually wrong.
I have proven that, under the right circumstances, the lamps could have given more than adequate light. This is in itself an achievement, and we need not argue that point anymore, IMO.
If someone should challenge my findings on technical\mathemathical grounds, though, I would listen. Personal opinions simply does not count (sorry Phil) I am aware that the output of the lamps could have been dimmer than my ballpark figure, and also that the calculation can be done more precise than what I have done sofar.
Let that be the starting point for discussing this, not personal opinions!
Thanks Don. I am aware that I'm sticking my neck out here. I'll be needing some friends 
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 6:37 pm: |
|
Helge
I also notice that people (heheh..you know who I mean) that, for personal reasons, argue AGAINST the graffito being written at night (I.e. by JtR), also does not wish to bring science into this. Is this so that personal opinions should rule supreme in this, creating an opinion based stalemate?
This really is starting to get a bit tedious.
Why on earth do you accuse those who are sceptical about the graffito of arguing "for personal reasons"? How are your arguments different?
Why are our opinions always "pure speculation", and yours not?
Why did you describe my position as "entrenched", when I've made it clear I consider there's no clear evidence either way on the question?
How are your opinions not "personal"? Are they somehow impersonal?
Please just try to show a little more balance, and a little more awareness of the other side of the argument.
Chris Phillips
|
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 609
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 12, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Hey guys, let's not get so personal here that we lose sight of the fact that there are many different ways to examine this problem. Some ways may be scientifically based and others informed speculation, but in the end I hope we all seek to shed some light (not really intended, but . . .) on this vexing puzzle. And I include myself among those who may have stepped over the line.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 653
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 1:32 am: |
|
I clearly stated that it is up to those who wish to calculate to do so - it's their time they are wasting.
I simply state my opinion that its a waste of time, and in my view nonsense.
Applying maths to today is one thing. To obtain meaningful date from 1888 given the unknowns is to include too many assumptions. You'll simply conclude what you wish.
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 4:06 am: |
|
Helge,
Just re read my last post to you (Friday gone).
It reads a tad aggressive.
Wasnt meant to be, I apologise.
Regards,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 141
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 5:59 am: |
|
Chris,
WHAT is going to be a bit tedious?
In my post where I referred to the calculated light surely I was not being agressive towards anyone, then I get more flak than a Lanc over Berlin WWII fashion..
And was not that attack based purely on personal opinions?
Ok, maybe I should have taken that flak and limped back in flames.
I thought we also had agreed to stop that previous discussion. I have lots more to say, but it is only based on your methods of discussion, so I'll let that be.
My speculations have always been called speculations. But I asked for indications. I got your opinion I don't know how many posts ago, and told you I was ready to leave it at that. Remember?
Monty,
Actually, I did not take your last post as all that agressive. I know I come off sounding agressive myself sometimes, sometimes not meaning to. No need to apologize, but thanks a lot, anyway!
Ok. I will leave this discussion here. My further plans is to build a scale model of the street sometime when my schedule allows, and measure angles, etc the best I can. If that is fruitful, I will let you guys know.
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1054
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 6:40 am: |
|
Helge
WHAT is going to be a bit tedious?
To be honest, I think half these problems are arising because of a language barrier.
Looking at your post again, I don't think you actually meant to accuse Phil of arguing against the killer's authorship "for personal reasons". I suppose you meant "on the basis of personal opinions". The trouble is that both of those are perfectly correct English - so it's difficult to spot that there's a problem there - but they mean quite different things.
I realise it's hard to avoid misunderstandings when people with different native tongues try to communicate. But I think there has to be a bit of give and take on both sides.
I honestly think it would help if you didn't use terms like "speculation" and "entrenched" quite so freely, particularly when it's possible you may have missed, or misunderstood, part of the argument, as in this case.
Chris Phillips
|
Judas
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 10, 2005 - 10:56 pm: |
|
Hello all,
I believe that the wording -- The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing -- was quite simply the writer's attempt at sarcasm. Nothing more -- No-thing less.
Thank you. |
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 142
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 10:22 am: |
|
Chris,
Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt..
But actually I did mean "for personal reasons", and if it does mean the same as in norwegian the way I used it, it was perhaps not particularly nice of me to say..
But let this be. Ok?
Phil,
I don't think you realize that even an approximation might give a good indication concerning how much light was available.
There is a big difference between guessing and guestimating.
When I said "Personal opinions simply does not count (sorry Phil)", I meant that in math personal opinion does not matter.
Anyway, I'm not going to pursue this topic further on this thread. No hard feelings (do believe me!), it is simply that I have come to the conclusion that if we are going to argue even over a relatively easy calculation that at least give us a ballpark figure, then what's the point!
Chris, as I also said earlier, it might have been what I called semantics that was the problem in our discussion at times. Also, I am used to an entirely different way of argumentation. Sorry for that, but at least we had a good brawl
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Helge
Post Number: 143
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, June 13, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Just one final tip to those actually interested in these calculations. I am currently trying to obtain more accurate info from the London Museum, and if all goes well, will make the calculations available on a different thread (might take some time)
Sincerely Helge
The possibility of successfully navigating an astereoid field is approximately 3720 to 1! (C3PO)
Never tell me the odds. (Han Solo)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 7:44 am: |
|
Hi Chris P,
So really, what you're saying now is something like:
Jack was a serial killer. Serial killers are nasty people. Nasty people are quite likely to be anti-semitic.
A serial killer, by definition, is not a 'people' person. His violence is typically directed against innocent strangers, picked at random as opportunity knocks. But he would also kill his own grandmother if she posed a threat to him, and blame her for making him do it.
He may seem like a perfectly normal, reasonably tolerant chap - until he's crossed. He can keep up appearances and be a family man too. But I doubt there any purely unselfish feelings deep down. It's all an act to make himself acceptable to the people in his life who need to be kept sweet.
So why would a non-Jewish Jack stop at seizing any opportunity to focus the spotlight back on blaming the Jews for his own dirty work, after Leather Apron was cleared of blame?
He didn't have to be specifically anti-Semitic; he only had to be anti-people, anti-society and anti-taking the blame himself. And Jack was all of those.
Love,
Caz
X |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1063
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 8:32 am: |
|
Caroline Morris
He didn't have to be specifically anti-Semitic; he only had to be anti-people, anti-society and anti-taking the blame himself.
Ok. But the reason I questioned what evidence there was that the killer was anti-semitic in the first place, is that people were emphasising what a striking coincidence it was that an anti-semitic killer should leave the apron underneath an anti-semitic graffito.
I still don't find your thoughts entirely clear, but if the killer wasn't "specifically" anti-Semitic, only "not a people person", then the argument about the unlikelihood of coincidental anti-semitism goes out of the window.
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1701
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Guys,
Question.
It this statement anti-semetic?
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2562
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 9:22 am: |
|
depends what you think it means?
I don't really think it is necessarily, but i don't think i understand what it means, since i didn't write it!
Jenni
ps is this the thread where no one understands what i post in which case oh well
"be just and fear not"
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 651
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 5:43 pm: |
|
I see Question and a question. Where's the statement?
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
Clint Eastwood, 'The Rookie'
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1702
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 3:02 am: |
|
Frank?
Question?
Wheres the question mark?
Monty?
?
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1064
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - 4:31 pm: |
|
John Ruffels and I visited Goulston Street today, and I think we managed to clarify the business of the dado and the sepia-coloured glazed bricks to some extent.
We looked not only at the old Model Dwellings on the east side of Goulston Street, and the matching building on the west side, but also the connected buildings both to the east and west in Wentworth Street, continuing round into Old Castle Street to the east. These are obviously part of the same development, though they don't have doorways like the ones in Goulston Street.
Actually, most of the relevant features are visible on the photos on this site:
http://casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-goul.html
(By the way, two different doorways are indicated as the doorway in these photos. I'm confused now about which it is.)
First, I think the sepia-coloured glazed bricks are a red herring. There are pilasters (I think that's the right word) with rounded corners made of these glazed bricks at various points. A pair of them flanks each of the doorways in Goulston Street, and there are more midway between the doorways. The best-preserved ones are actually either side of an archway on Wentworth Street to the west of Goulston Street. In the last but one photo on this site, you can see one of them painted blue to the left of the doorway, and one painted white to the right.
But between the doorway and the flanking pillars, there is brickwork. The bricks of the building are mostly yellow, with some bands of red brick, and a section of black bricks at the bottom. This section of black bricks is visible at various points on the outside, and I think it must have extended inside as well, and be identical with the "dado" on which the graffito was written.
Actually, the black bricks are clearly visible on the second (black and white) picture on this site. More clearly on the left hand side of the door, you can see 20 courses of black bricks. This is the same number we saw today in Goulston Street (towards the south end of the building there was about another half course, where the ground is presumably lower). In the last but one photo, the black bricks either side of the door are painted white. But in the last photo it's just about possible to see the surviving black bricks either side of the third door along (to the left of the yellow shop sign).
As John pointed out, not only the colour, but the texture of the bottom bricks is different. The black bricks present a smoother surface that would be much easier to write on in chalk.
The point I'm not quite clear on was what the crucial "door jamb" was like. None of these jambs was visible in its original state (though some of the doors were hidden by shutters). What puzzles me is that in the second photo, there appears to be a dark vertical region either side of the door. I did wonder whether the jamb could have been made from the glazed bricks after all. But I don't think that's the case. For one thing, on the last but one photo, the yellow and red bricks seem to extend into this region. For another,
in the black and white photo, on the right-hand jamb, the bricks above the level of the dado - but not the lower ones - are visible. So it seems to me that the jamb must have had the same arrangement, of black bricks below and yellow/red bricks above, that is visible on the outside of the building.
Still, it would be nice to know for sure. John suggested that there might be back entrances to staircases on the parts of the building in Wentworth Street. If so, they may be closer to their original state than the street entrances in Goulston Street. (Though being back entrances their design may be different anyway.)
Or it may be that there are some more "clones" of these buildings elsewhere in London, maybe in areas less prone to redevelopment. Does anyone know?
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:04 am: |
|
Chris (& John)
Great work lads.
The only building which I know was based on the design of the Wentworth Dwellings (pointed out to me by Mr Fido) are the buildings opposite. The ones you mention on the Western side of Goulston Street.
A question....again!
Did you manage to measure or estimate the width of the jamb?
Cheers,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1066
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:32 am: |
|
Monty
Unfortunately we couldn't see anything that looked like an intact door jamb. Some of the doors were blocked off by metal shutters, so maybe there's one hidden away. Or maybe some of the visible ones were in their original condition, but it didn't look like it to me.
I think you can get a rough idea of the door jamb's width from that black and white picture on this site. It's clearest at the bottom of the right-hand jamb. It doesn't very wide to me - not more than a couple of bricks.
(I'm inclined to think that in that picture, a strip of front-facing bricks on either side of the doorway has been painted black.)
One other thing is that I think the black bricks are more than 4 feet high, probably more than 5 feet, I think.
Chris Phillips
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1067
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 4:41 am: |
|
Oh, just one other point. I looked to me as though the front corners of the door jambs were rounded (assuming I was looking at the right thing). That would also tend to reduce the flat area available for writing, particularly if the back corners were rounded too.
Chris Phillips
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 381
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 9:07 am: |
|
Hello Fellow Posters,
After a visit to Aldgate and Goulston Street as Chris Phillips has mentioned, we examined the surviving brickwork and remodelled entrance-ways to the 109-118 Goulston Street. We also examined the similarly constructed building opposite (similar doorways and brick colour-scheme).
Chris has encapsulated the conclusions we reached, successfully above.
I would only add that despite the courses of black bricks mentioned having a smooth surface,I would not say they were shiny or that they had a glossy coating.I agree their patina would present them as suitable for chalk writing.
On several entrances, at Goulston Street, a glazed chocolate brown tiled surface was present.
These were on the entrances at street entrances,
not inside darkened hall-ways where black brick surfaces evidenced themselves. That is,I believe the glazed tile surfaces were an elaborate dressing at the street entrances. They were accompanied by rounded brick corners upon which at a height of say, six feet, a decorative rounded corner became a squared off corner.These were visible at both a couple of the 109-118 Goulston Street building entrances and the building in Wentworth Street.
Both of those buildings had exactly the same coloured brick-work, and , at entrances, the chocolate glazed tile dresswork.
The black brick courses went from the ground up to a height of about five foot. And on one other location, due to lower footings, higher.
Bear in mind the average height of East End Dwellers at that time ( fairly truncated).
So, I do not think the chalked graffiti was written at the immediate entrance to the Goulston Street dwellings. Because of the glazed tiles. But rather more likely to have been just inside the alley-like hallway, where the unglazed black bricks started. This would mean the portion of discarded apron must also have been located just inside the entrance.
It should be emphasisied this conclusion arises from examining the original brick-work scheme at
the Wentworth Street SIDE entrance of the Goulston Street Building. Since all of the surviving doorways in the front of the Goulston Street Building have been "rennovated" to accommodate roller-shutter garage doors housing small shops.These have, in some cases, been "infilled"(to fill in the difference between the glazed-tiled width of the original doorways, to the width of the narrower roller-shutter doors).
Interestingly, just as we arrived in Goulston Street, "Russell" a tour-guide with "London Walks", was recounting the dramatic details of the graffitti to a group of teen-age school pupils.
Common wisdom is that the fish & chip shop now covers the graffiti site.
I am assuming the rennovations done to the building as shown in the photo after page 86 in
Peter Underwood's "JACK THE RIPPER: ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF MYSTERY"(Blandford Press:1987), were limited to removing all the original window and stair-well coverings. And inserting " better" ones.
The only final point I would observe is that given the neighbourhood where the Ripper murders happened , and the anti-Semitic riot which occurred just before the Mitre Square murder, I would find it very surprising not to find anti-Semitic utterances and graffiti. Lots of them.
With that in mind,I think the Ripper murders are a singular instance of a surprising lack of anti-Semitic opportunism, prejudice or suspicion.
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1079
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 18, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
John
Thanks for those additional thoughts.
I would only add that despite the courses of black bricks mentioned having a smooth surface,I would not say they were shiny or that they had a glossy coating.I agree their patina would present them as suitable for chalk writing.
Yes. My comments were really based on your observation, that the yellow and red courses were so rough that they would have made for uncomfortable writing with chalk. In contrast, the black courses were ideal - smooth but certainly not glazed.
So, I do not think the chalked graffiti was written at the immediate entrance to the Goulston Street dwellings. Because of the glazed tiles.
My feeling is that the glazing was on the front-facing parts, rather than on the door jambs. But because most of the doorways were closed off with shutters, it's a bit difficult to be sure. Having looked at the black and white photo again since our visit, I feel I'd now like to go back again to clarify some points. (And take a tape measure with me this time!)
Interestingly, just as we arrived in Goulston Street, "Russell" a tour-guide with "London Walks", was recounting the dramatic details of the graffitti to a group of teen-age school pupils.
John is being merciful to the tour guide, and discreetly suppressing the fact that he was filling them in on all the masonic associations of the word "Juwes"!
Chris Phillips
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 655
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Thanks Chris & John - very enlightening info, I read it with great interest!
Cheers,
Frank
"There's gotta be a lot of reasons why I shouldn't shoot you, but right now I can't think of one."
- Clint Eastwood, in 'The Rookie' (1990)
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page