|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 676
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 5:51 pm: | 
|
Hi How,
No, I just meant that he took the second word to be Jews, regardless of how it was spelled. (I avoid the subject of spelling as much as possible, as it's swampy territory, if you ask me).
My point was that Long, who was a stranger to the neighbourhood and probably didn't know the Model Dwellings were primarily inhabited by Jews, independently seems to have read the word as Jews, whatever the spelling. Or, in other words, that the fact that it was a Jewish building or locality didn't sway him to think the word must have been/meant Jews.
All the best,
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)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 677
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:01 pm: |
|
Hi Iñaki,
“Take into account that those shoulders would also have included the children's shoulders and very short people's shoulders, too. Bear in mind that that's one of the reason for which a child's hand has been suggested.”
I’ve always believed the schoolboy hand and perhaps the indication that the message was written at shoulder height were responsible for that suggestion.
As there’s no reference to children in Arnold’s report, apart from the mention of a good schoolboy hand, there’s nothing in the surviving info to suggest he might also have meant children’s shoulders. Therefore, I think he meant adult person’s shoulders only rather than both the shoulders of adults and children.
“Paul Begg is quite clear about this: "The writing was not at man's height -whoever wrote it was not standing up- but on the black facia of the bricks, which were only painted black to a height of about for feet. The writing was low down and the writer was probably on his haunches when he wrote it." --Ripperologist, January 2005, p.10”
Although I respect Mr Begg’s work, there’s nothing convincing in this particular quote, so I prefer to base my views on contemporary evidence, if available.
“No, not at all. The answer is simplier than that. Long states over and over again that the message was above the apron.”
I’m not saying that it wasn’t above the apron, I dispute that it was directly (or close) above the apron.
“Long just cast the light of his torch on the piece of apron, which contributed to cover all the surronding area in shadows, and started searching around for a blood trail (not a message).”
I would have expected that, if the message was as low down on the wall as you seem to suggest, he would have noticed it when he cast the light of his lamp on the apron, regardless of whether he was looking for messages or not. I would think the lamp would shed at least some light on the direct surroundings of the apron.
Here are some quotes I’ve based my view on.
Daily Telegraph:
[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
[Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
Daily News:
Which did you see first, the piece of apron or the words on the wall? - The apron.
What called your attention to the writing on the wall? - From searching to see of there were any marks of blood.
London Times:
By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood. His light was on at the time. His attention was attracted to the writing on the wall while he was searching.
These 3 quotes obviously corroborate each other and quite clearly tell us that PC Long didn’t immediately see the writing. It probably didn’t take him long before he noticed the graffito, but he didn’t see it when he saw the apron, which implies that it at least wasn’t directly above the apron.
All the best,
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)
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 650
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Dear Frank:
I agree with you about avoiding the exact spelling-arguments...The way the police handled that word in the 5 or 6 ways they did [ forgetting RDS and Foster ] is just [ with my head shaking over here side to side...] lousy.
Dear Inaki...
One caveat about the "getting on haunches" reference that I made,not Mr. Begg's remarks, is that the people that I employed or used had to crouch [ in three cases, me being one of them ] and with the three others I asked to help,they had to at least bend down to make the message legible. I'm certain that people would not have to get down on their haunches or bend significantly to just write any message,where legibility was not an issue,as it was in the case of the GSG.
HowBrown
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 111
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 8:29 am: |
|
Hi all!
Frank,
Yes, I also prefer to base my views on contemporary evidence, if available. But if I can't, then I’ll resort to reliable researchers. Mr Begg is just one of them. But, I take your point about choosing contemporary evidence, if possible.
Man, the fact is that all about the GSG is very controversial...
No one can say for sure what the wording, spelling, etc. was, and no one can say for sure where the apron was found. As you know Warren and the other constables statements contradict each other about this point.
My comment about where the GSG was written was partly based in Paul Begg’s remark already mentioned and in other remark, in which he says that the GSG had been chalked ‘less than four feet from the ground’ (aprox. one metre from the ground) Ripperologist, January 2005, p.10.
As for Arnold’s remark I don’t know if it rules out my initial impression that the GSG hadn’t been chalked at that height. It’s true that he says that it would have been rubbed by the shoulders of persons passing in & out of the Building, but I feel that he just meant it would have been rubbed by the area that goes from people’s elbows upwards.
You say that there’s no reference to children in Arnold’s report. It’s true, but 'persons' is a general term that describes all groups and sizes of people: men, women, old people, kids, tall people, short people, etc. I guess that Arnold simply meant that the continuous passing by of people (all types and sizes included) had rubbed it out. If the GSG was chalked at aprox. one metre from the ground then I wouldn’t call it ‘shoulders height’. Maybe I’m wrong, but that expression conveys to me more than one metre height.
Perhaps, Arnold’s remark was inspired in the fact that the apron was found in a passage leading to some narrow staircases. The people who’d go up and down would do it in an upwards and downwards motion (the typical way the body moves when climbing up or down the stairs. Some people even lean forward when going up the stairs). If the GSG was close to one of the steps (as it possibly was), it could have lead Arnold to say it had been rubbed out by people’s shoulders. Just a personal thought.
Anyway, I think Arnold’s report is the only one which makes reference to people’s shoulders. The rest of reports only speak about how the GSG could have been rubbed by people entering and leaving the place.
All this reminds me of the report the Star published the day after the Stride’s murder: “From two different sources we have the story that a man, when passing through Church Lane at about half past one, saw a man sitting on a doorstep and wiping his hands. As everyone is on the look-out for the murderer the man looked at the stranger with a certain amount of suspicion, whereupon he tried to conceal his face. He is described as a man who wore a short jacket and a sailor’s hat.” –Star 1 October, 1888.
If Eddowes’s killer did the same, i.e. sitting on one of the steps of the staircase to pause for a moment, wipe his hands, etc., then when he saw the black bricks that formed a kind of dado, he might have thought that it was a good place to chalk something if that was his intention. Maybe he did it while he was still sitting on one of the steps of the staircase. Another personal thought.
As for whether the apron was inmediately below the GSG and Long not seeing it inmediately after discovering the apron…
As far as I know, all researchers coincide in that point. The reports don’t contradict that assertion. I don’t find it strange that Long didn’t see the GSG inmediately after discovering the apron. When you focus your eyes on some area, all big sized things engulf the smaller ones. If you are not thinking about any message but you are only concentrating on blood trails, then it’s quite probable that the GSG could have been initially gone unnoticed. If we add that most probably, when he saw the apron he just picked it up from the floor, checked it and flashed its torch about to see if there were more blood stains around, then it’s quite easy that he could have missed the GSG if this was aprox. one metre from the floor and no light was flashing in the wall.
Maybe I didn’t express myself well (sorry if I have been misunderstood). I didn’t mean that the GSG was at ground level. I just meant that most probably those constables had to stay on their hunches when they read the message.
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 112
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:36 am: |
|
Hi Howard!
Thanks for the clarification.
As for the 'haunches reference' I think you both use it. In an article written by Paul Begg he uses the same term (although I cannot say if it was you who gave him the idea).
PS- Howard, you are the living image of a friend of mine. When I saw you in Ripperologist I had to look twice to make myself sure I wasn't him under another name. 
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 678
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Hi Iñaki,
"Maybe I didn’t express myself well (sorry if I have been misunderstood). I didn’t mean that the GSG was at ground level."
Maybe I should have read some of your first posts on this thread more thoroughly. There you stated that the message was approximately between 90 and 120 cm above ground level, which almost corresponds with my idea of 100 to 120 cm (or 130 if the dado was higher, which is suggested by John Ruffels and Chris Philips on the thread 'Blamed for Nothing', who recently investigated the buildings in Goulston Street - interesting stuff).
But it was the remark you made last Tuesday that made me react: "Apart from still being dark, the words were very close to the ground..."
Nice to see that we're in closer agreement than I thought. That is, regarding the height of the message... 
Thanks for chatting,
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)
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 653
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Dear Inaki...
Mr.Begg came up with his haunches before I used that term,my man.... I had a "haunch" that I'd have to make that clear.
HowBrown
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1906
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Hi Kane,
You are quite convinced then,that Jack did indeed chalk the message and worded it in such a way as to give the impression that a Jew was responsible for the killings.
Not convinced, no; I just think it’s much the most likely scenario, taking all the circumstances into consideration.
Unfortunately,like so many commentators on this subject,you haven't given your own interpretation of the exact meaning of the message and how it relates to the murder(s),or more specifically in your case,exactly how it implicates the Jews.
Well I have given a few possible interpretations, but maybe on other threads which you missed. The main thing is that the message mentioned Jews (IMHO) and blame. Serial killers are renowned for their attempts - mostly irrational - to blame their own shortcomings on someone or something else, and a serial killer was there dropping evidence of his latest crime beneath a transparent attempt to associate Jews with blame. It just makes sense to me, although I realise others just don’t see it.
The actual message simply tells us that the Jews will not take the blame for anything,so how can that possibly have been written by somebody trying to give the impression that HE was both the murderer and a Jew?It just doesn't ring true.
But who is saying the writer meant to give any such impression? The killer didn’t have to announce his presence there with a written message; the apron piece did that for him well enough. The message could have been simply to put Jews and blame in the finder’s head; to concentrate the mind on the fact that the apron piece was discarded by the entrance to Jewish dwellings, suggesting that the killer may have gone inside.
The person responsible for the graffito was not the killer but just one of the many local people who wanted to see a Jew hanged for the murders. They were fed up with the continued failure of the police and the judicial system to do just that and it was this that promted an anti-semite to write the message.Clearly a message written buy a Jew hater,not somebody trying to fit "THE JUWES"up.
But it was three weeks since the previous murder, and for all the public knew, it could have been the last. Jack knew that wasn’t the case. So how about this:
A non-Jewish Jack would be hoping to see another Jew suspected of the murders, fed up that Leather Apron had recently been cleared of blame. This could have prompted him to write the message on the wall of the Jewish dwellings (in an attempt to reflect public disgust that the Jews were avoiding the blame for the recent atrocities) and to leave a physical clue that implied that the killer could actually live there.
In other words, Jack could have been posing as your local anti-Semitic graffiti artist, moaning about the Jews not taking the blame for anything, and then the apron piece would serve to underline and support this anonymous person’s concerns.
Love,
Caz
X |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2722
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 6:17 pm: |
|
Right heres a picture........Chalk??? unlikely....paint???.... a possibility..
Dont know but just looking at this pic of mine again made me think a lot about this whole thing
Suzix |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1123
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 02, 2005 - 6:53 pm: |
|
Suzi
That's a very interesting photo.
The "door jamb" and part of the front-facing wall seem to have been painted black from top to bottom, as also in the second photo down on this page:
http://casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-goul.html
On the rest of the front-facing wall the lower courses of black bricks are visible. These are still there, and definitely cover more than four feet about the ground.
Surely these black bricks are what Halse refers to in his testimony - "the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white". (Black bricks, not "bricks painted black" as quoted above.)
But I can't see any sign of this black "dado" inside the doorway. Is it because the bricks have been painted a uniform colour from top to bottom, just as the "door jamb" has been painted black from top to bottom? Or did the black bricks not extend beyond the "door jamb"?
At any rate, it seems the "door jamb" and/or the interior wall must have been painted between 1888 and the taking of the photo above, because in the photo neither fits the contemporary description of black bricks at the bottom with white bricks above.
Chris Phillips
|
Kane Friday
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 01, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
Hello.
Howard,
I wonder how long the average piece of graffito survived in 1888.I understand that there was a lot of it and that a lot of it was anti-semitic.
Obviously unlike spray paint,chalk is easy to remove.However,I wonder whether people always bothered to remove it.I could certainly imagine people becoming "Immune" to it after a while and just not bothering to wipe it away.
As far as the height of the message is concerned,well,some have speculated that because of its location on the door jamb, the person writing it would have had to have been crouching.
Another possibility is that a person just sat in the doorway an chalked the message.This suggests that the graffitist was in no hurry and therefore wasn't the killer.
Caz,
Firstly,I am not convinced that the griffito refers to the murders at all.I merely put forward a proposal suggesting a possible scenario.The only scenario I could think of where the message might make reference to the killings and a scenario that DOESN'T feature the killer as its author.
I have attempted to present a scenario that actually makes direct sense in relation to the wording of the message-even with its double negative.
I am simply asking you to do the same.
Now forgive me Caz,but I can't quite understand your logic here.
You wrote:
"The main thing is that the message mentioned Jews (IMHO) and blame. Serial killers are renowned for their attempts - mostly irrational - to blame their own shortcomings on someone or something else, and a serial killer was there dropping evidence of his latest crime beneath a transparent attempt to associate Jews with blame".
The point is,the message wasn't actually blaming anybody for anything!
It was a simply COMPLAINT that the "JUWES" won't take the BLAME for anything.
Also,you suggested that the killer wrote the message in such a way as to "Put Jews and blame in the finder’s head"
What "THE JEWS" plural? So "THE JEWS" in general were responsible?
This is like writing:"CHRISTIANS FTANG FTANG BLAMED BUSTOP OLAY BISCUIT BARREL"
then expecting the reader to seriously believe a Christian was resposible!
It is easy to suggest that the killer was being purposely ambiguous because then you don't have to bother making proper sense of the message when putting forward a theory.The whole thing is so "Woolly" that any old theory with "JEWS" and "BLAMED" will work.
Kane
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 9:38 am: |
|
Hi Anaki
All the sources (that I have read) re the GSG, maintain that the graffiti was written (as Monty pointed out) on the doorjamb, to the entrance of the building.
I have inspected the doorjamb entrances (Wentworth Model Dwellings), and found that the brick surrounds to the entrances (West side of road), were of black glazed brick (not painted black) and extended from the pavement to the top of the entrance (7 feet?).
Monty pointed out in a previous post, that the door surround bricks on the East side of the road, were again glazed, but were Sepia in colour. Could this fading of colour be due to 100 plus years of sunlight? Although strictly speaking both sides of the road should recieve equal sunlight.
Unfortunately (Sods Law) the bricks to the doorway of the graffiti entrance are no longer with us, as the doorway has been turned into a counter, serving fast food
What I would like to ask (with the greatest of respect) is where Paul Begg is coming from when he says that the black bricks (graffiti entrance) only extended four feet up the entrance, and were painted black, (not black glaze) because anyone can go and look and see that this is not the case
Could Mr Begg have made this remark, before it was realised that Wentworth Model Dwellings still existed, Richard Wittington Egan having been the discoverer of this fact sometime in the mid 70’s.
Regards Cludy
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
Mr. Kamiruaga wrote:
"This is the first and the last time I answer posts that refer to my person in a derogatory way. One thing is to disagree and/or to point out a mistake and another thing is to “make ironic remarks” or make fun of somebody."
>>How perceptive. If only more of our posters were as discerning.
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, July 03, 2005 - 12:44 am: |
|
I've only read the first page of this thread and haven't paid attention to what the conversation has turned into now.
But in response to the sample of Inaki's "Iwes" on that page with an extra loop on the "w" to suggest a "u", couldn't it have been possible that in such dim light that Jack couldn't remember how many dips he'd attributed to the letter "w" when doing the final dip? It's happened to me before in a well lit room with both "w"'s and "m"'s. |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 670
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 05, 2005 - 5:41 am: |
|
Dear Kane:
Good point on whether people would have become immune to this sort of thing. Besides, its a very lame anti-Semitic message,it it is one at all,isn't it?
HowBrown
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1924
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 4:59 am: |
|
Hi Kane,
It was a simply COMPLAINT that the "JUWES" won't take the BLAME for anything.
Okay, so why couldn't the killer have chalked it, dropping the apron piece beneath it, to mean:
"The Jews won't take the blame for nothing. (Let's see them get out of this one!)"?
And I still think the most likely person on that particular night to be thinking about the Jew, Leather Apron, not taking the blame for anything, would have been the man with another murder on his mind after a three-week gap - and also the person who wrote those words.
Love,
Caz
X |
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 127
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, July 07, 2005 - 7:51 am: |
|
Hi all!
Cludgy,
As for where it was the GSG. We know that it was above the apron. And where was the apron?
According to PC Long statement, he found the apron 'lying in a passage leading to the staircase of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House'.
According to Halse 'the writing was on the black bricks, wich formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.' (The Daily News, 12/10).
But a door jamb is something different from what it was stated by those PCs. Sir Charles Warren's words 'the writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street...' would've indicated that the writing was at the entrance and the apron on the pavement.
This would be in conflict with PC Lamb who said the apron was 'lying in a passage leading to the staircases' and with Halse who said 'The writing was in the passage of the building itself...' (The Times, 12/10). There is also a report by Swanson which states that according to PC Long the apron 'was found in the bottom of a common stairs' (HO 144/221/A49301C, ff184-94, Swanson 6 November 1888).
More info on Ripperologist, January 2005.
So, as far as I can see, it's not absolute clear where the writing was.
ex PFC Wintergreen,
As for that sample of IWES, (or IWECS), your idea could be possible. I've seen that happen sometimes (not only to me) when someone is trying to write in dim light or in a hurry.
(Message edited by inaki on July 07, 2005)
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Cludgy
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi Inaki
Looking at he photos of 108 - 119, I'd say that the area between the street and the stairway, could hardly be described as a passage. Therefore, the apron could have been lying just inside the doorway, and still have been described(accurately)by Long as having been found inside "the passage".
What purpose would it serve, if the graffiti was written inside the "passage", out of the gaze of peoples eyes?
Surely the place to write the graffiti would be in a position in order that everyone would be able to see it.
I'd therefore go along with Warren, for him to have given orders for it's removal, would point to it being in a prominent position
Regards Cludgy |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 683
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:16 pm: |
|
Hi cludgy,
"What purpose would it serve, if the graffiti was written inside the "passage", out of the gaze of peoples eyes?"
As long as it wasn't close around the right hand side corner inside the entrance, the graffito would have been visible 'to anybody in the street'. But since it wasn't emblazoned across the wall and its meaning is still being debated today one might rightly wonder what purpose it was meant to serve altogether, if it was written by the Ripper.
If it wasn't, it may just have been meant for the primarily Jewish people living in the building, using that entrance.
All the best,
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)
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 684
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Small addition: the graffito would have been visible 'to anybody in the street' in daylight, which was coming soon.
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)
|
Inaki Kamiruaga
Detective Sergeant
Username: Inaki
Post Number: 129
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 20, 2005 - 3:30 am: |
|
Hi all!
I just wanted to let you know that I'll be away until September, so most probably I won't be able to contribute anything in the Casebook.
Have a nice summer and take care so that we meet here after it.
Best wishes,
"Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out" - Feynman
"You cannot rationally argue out what wasn't rationally argued in." - George Bernard Shaw
|
john wright
Police Constable
Username: Ohnjay
Post Number: 2
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 7:36 am: |
|
To all,
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, if it has I apologise.
Normally the surface of black bricks are smoother then red or yellow stocks, So the letters would appear more uniform and not disjointed as on rough brick. Perhaps that accounts for the height of the message.
John |
|
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