|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 64
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 9:46 pm: | 
|
Helge
"The writing cost Jack almost nothing in terms of extra danger. Maybe so, but unless Jack were a complete fool, he would have to realize that if he were caught, he would be hanged. Pure and simple.
c.d. |
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 65
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Howard,
You are the chalk man. While others simply talk the talk, you walked the walk with your chalk experiments. Can you quantify the results of your experiments for us? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being easy and 10 being extremely difficult, how hard was it for you to write a legible sentence on a brick wall? How hard did you have to concentrate on the task at hand? Can you try and factor in to the results the effect of poor lighting, looking over your shoulder and a surge of adrenaline. A difficult task to be sure but I would greatly appreciate it (and so would others) if you could give us a ball park number. Thanks.
c.d. |
Baron von Zipper
Inspector
Username: Baron
Post Number: 251
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Howard walks the walk because he is a Philly guy. Represent!
Some things:
1. the chalk looked fresh: That's tough to tell. Stuff written on a blackboard takes a long tim to fade. Since the chalk was protected from the rain, it could have been there for a day or two.
2. Jack's route through Goulston may have been planned not as an escape route, but as the place to throw a souvenir because it was a joke to him (the graffiti, that is), or because he wrote it that day, during the daylight hours I mean, and wanted it to be seen. Regardless if he wrote it or not, it seems that he intended the message to be read.
3. In my neck of the woods, when I was a lad (lo these many years ago), we would 'doctor' up graffiti to give it the message we wanted it to convey (usually something rude, or vulgar). When we were done, it was next to impossible to tell what the original message was, and indeed, that this was not the original message. Printing in block letters would be even easier to mess with. Territorialism might be a reason.
4. No one is positive what the message even said as the reports are conflicting. Some see it as anti-semitic (I don't see how), and others, like me, think it's a defense for the Jews. Regardless, we don't know the exact writing, and everything is speculation.
5. Does it really matter? No. If Jack wrote it he was either messing with the authorities, or presenting a real social comment. As we can't ask him, we'll never know and it's really half a dozen of one and six of the other.
6. He probably could not have done it after the murder. There is no good argument that can explain it happening that way. So either he did it before, or someone else did it, or it was earlier graffiti changed by a vandal, or by Jack. Regardless, it was done prior to the murder. Of that I have no doubt at this time. Produce a bullseye lantern that says "Property of Aaron K" and I'll start to think otherwise.
Fin
Mike
"La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta"
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2007
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 3:49 am: |
|
CD,
You are the chalk man. While others simply talk the talk, you walked the walk with your chalk experiments.
How long have you been on the boards?
I was scrawling in Goulston street way before Skinny Malinky was in short troos. And I know I wasnt the only one.
Away with your off handed comments !
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 473
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 3:54 am: |
|
Sweet Jane!
Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just speculating about a possible scenario that, in my opinion, explains most of the strange "coincidences" on the night of the double event!
I had mentioned the thing about Goulson street being undercover ages ago, so... OK, I'm actually happy that someone see it my way 
What I think is that Jack had only one simple plan. To kill. And this particular night, also to pin it on the Jews.
I don't think he reconnoitered the Yard. He was IMO too reckless for that. The murders on the street gave him little opportunity to plan in detail, so why should he this time?
Maybe his plan was to kill someone on the street outside the Club. But he went with the flow...
What I am proposing is that when things started to go wrong (Diemschutz), he fled through the stable because he allready KNEW about this place. In other words, he was intimately familiar with the premises.
If he was, chances are that he might have been connected to the place in some way. Maybe a member. Maybe the former caretaker. I don't know.
Unless he knew the place, it seems improbable that he would choose it in advance as a killing ground and if he did know it he had no need to reconnoitre it. It was not his usual way of doing things, I'm sure.
But if he chose the place for other reasons ("go blame it on the Jews"), it makes more sense. Especially if he was allready familiar with what was going on there and the layout of the place.
What if Jack knew Stride? Not necessarily well, just that she recognized him and felt safe enough to get into the yard with him. The cachous is no big deal. Maybe she was making herself ready for a little "work". Maybe she just fancied it after the street incident, now feeling safe with Jack. Only she never realized he was Jack, of course. At least not unil it was too late.
There is no evidence for this scenario. But it feels right with me.
No need to elaborate further. It contains the elements we know, it even explains the bolted loft door.
We know Stride was killed there. We can never be certain why that exact spot was chosen. We can never be sure why she had that cachous in her hand, etc. But we do know she did, we also do know the killer chose that spot. And if we don't like it, tough luck!
Stan,
Tosser is a word with many uses Just to be slightly pedantic. In 1888 it would have been used exactly as I did. A gentle throw.
Question is; was Jack a tosser?
c.d.,
Jack was no fool, but the risk of killing and mutilating women on the streets did not stop him from doing that, so why on earth should he sh*t his pants spending a few seconds writing a message?
Besides, only a random search would have been dangerous to him then. Eddowes was still not found. No police whistles had yet sounded. He was probably aware of the fact that he blended completely into his environs. Even if spotted, the risk would have been negligible compared to his other deeds that night. Besides, his adrenalin levels would almost certainly still have been sky high, and he probably felt invincible anyway.
Besides, I also have done chalk experiments. It takes me less than thirty seconds even in bad light conditions to write that sentence. On tiles.
We cannot assume it was near impossible to write on that wall. Why on earth would anyone write anything at all there? Why would some kid, disgruntled Jew or whatever write it there if we suppose Jack did not write it.
We KNOW it was possible to write there. And unless the writer was a total clutz I see no reason why he should spend more than half a minute. Even twenty seconds is possible.
Besides, that entrance was not as dark as everyone seem to think. I calculated the available light to be WELL above the threshold of human eye sensitivity, in other words, anyone with a good night vision (like anyone having been out in the streets for at least half an hour or so) could have written that thing.
Mike,
Good points. But you miss my point. The chalk looked fresh, but I never said that is evidence it was written by Jack. The point is that MOST of the graffiti on that street (if there was any other at all) would have been looking less than fresh due to the rain. Yet the apron ended up beneath one that at least looked like it could have been recent. This further reduces the statistical probability for a coincidental "match".
Your point number two supports the theory that the message meant something to Jack. But why make things more complicated than they have to be? It really does not matter if Jack wrote it then or before or even doctored an existing graffiti. He still wanted it to be connected to his crimes.
It matters a lot. Because if it meant something to Jack (even if he did NOT write it), then it is clearly a social/racial statement from him.
And I actually thought I came up with lots of good reasons why Jack might have done the writing after the kill!
I see the point about the light. But, I'm pressed for time for an appointment, and I'll get back to that later.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
c.d.
Detective Sergeant
Username: Cd
Post Number: 67
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 8:35 am: |
|
Monty,
My apologies, Sir. You are right, I have only been on the boards a short time, so I have to plead ignorance. It seems like not only can you talk the talk but you can chalk the chalk.
c.d. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2009
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 10:47 am: |
|
cd,
Damn right apologies....
grumble grumble....
Monty exits stage right.
Not that it has any relevance....
......../4921/8431.html"#C6C6B5"> |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1133
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
Baron Mike:
"1. the chalk looked fresh: That's tough to tell. Stuff written on a blackboard takes a long time to fade. Since the chalk was protected from the rain, it could have been there for a day or two."
Big guy, thats true. Part of my argument for the message being connected in opposition to Doubting Monty's and Janie's is that it was near the stairs and stayed undisturbed,despite a lot of Jewish people living in that building who would have had to see it before that night.
A door jamb appears at the center of the famous W-E photo. To the right,the stairs...the left,the cellar. The door jamb is in the center of the photo. Some believe that the archway is the location of the message. Had it been written previously on this archway,it would not have been considered fresh with the substantial rain that fell that night. In fact it would have been probably obliterated quickly.
And as you have noted,it was inside [ the door jamb ]. It was protected from the deluge.. It may have been the only dadgum graffiti around and written by someone else that day. How it survived a quick erasure before that night is an important question,old bean.
You brought up some good points ...
Dear C.D.
My friend, the mechanics of the graffiti aren't that hard to perform. The time involved would be a major factor,as the possibility of someone creepin' up on JTR can't be factored in,as all I could do was test the mechanics of time,space,and different writing styles.
He had time to put up a brief 30 second message. This time spent [ try it yourself ] is another factor that makes me think the message was not some casual one-off "Screw The Jews" message but something along a different order.
30 seconds outside during the day is a stretch....30 seconds at night [ with available stairs to duck into if need be ] is not as much of a stretch. Completely possible.
I think that from the photos and facts that Bob Clack kindly put up on the Wentworth lighting thread...that the light behind him may have done the trick [ on New Goulston Street]. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 217
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
hI All
I have a simple question, How does one determine whether or not a chalked message is fresh?
Would it not depend on the elements? A fresh message can be made look like an old message in chalk if:
1 The wind breezes up that would blow away the fresh texture causing excess chalk to crumble.
2 The rain if blowing in the direction of the chalked message would no doubt cause the chalk to become heavy and or washed away entirely, or
3 A fog which also carries a great deal of moisture could also give the chalked message an entirely different texture.
Maybe I'm all wet, however, with the right conditions, and no one tampering with the message and of course weather permitting, the message would seem fresh for quite some time.
I would really like to hear your comments on same.
regards
Julie
|
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 580
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 7:20 pm: |
|
Maybe I'm not remembering correctly but didn't witnesses swear that the message was not there on September 29?
Stan |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1135
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 8:33 pm: |
|
Stan:
When you say "witnesses", you mean inhabitants of the building,don't you ?
Julie:
Something about the message made Halse say it was fresh... the texture, perhaps.
In addition to all the confusion,in the Ultimate,it is stated by Chas. Warren...
"the writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street.."----page 205.
Another possible explanation for the actions and concern of the police is that in light of the rain that had fallen,this message...IF it was on the arch and NOT near the stairwell..had to be recent as the rest of the area on the open archway was wet,but yet here is this message.... That would have made the police consider it fresh,if we look at it like that. |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 582
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 16, 2005 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Hi How,
That could be it. Like I said, I don't remember where I heard it or saw it.
Stan |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 474
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 3:14 am: |
|
The minimum amount of light available at the door jamb according to my previous calculations would be 0.07 lux. (A simple inverse square law calculation) This is just an indication so far, as one of the lamps in the vicinity have not been pin-pointed exactly (at least not by me) But the estimate should not be far off, and most likely there would be more, not less light, available. I talked to some wonderful "lamp-Freaks" in the states about this (they know all the details of literally thousands of lamps...what a hobby!) and I was told the lamps in general use in that area had an output of 15 lumens per flame. I used 14 in my calculations just to be on the safe side. The actual light output would vary a bit, although, since these lamps were fishtails (and pretty basic), probably not too much.
I did write in this kind of light, even though at first it seemed far too dark. Proper night vision (at least half an hour in semi-darkness) solved that easily.
The interesting thing is that modern (bright) streetlamps destroys night vision, but the dim lit streets of Jack's London would actually enhance it. At least theoretically, I have no direct experience, obviously.
Can we infer something from what is NOT said by our sources here? The situation was NOT read as "...it was too dark for the killer to have written this..." On the contrary, it seemed to be generally accepted that it COULD (as opposed to have been proven) been written by the killer.
If the spot was pitch dark, then this should have made people (read the police) think otherwise, or instantly made them think Jack could only have written it if he had a lamp. Well, assuming they did give it any though...
Monty, your experiment is King, and proves what I only assumed, that the graffito was very easy to eradicate.
Julie and Stan,
Good points. What is essential is that it WAS considered fresh. This was probably based on several factors, not least of which was the experience of people walking those streets. We must assume they had seen quite a bit of graffiti, chalk style, before.
"...it looked as if it had been recently written" WAS a point stressed by the Jury. So we can't assume it was just a casual remark in the case. On the contrary, it was part of the evidence submitted.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2013
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 7:11 am: |
|
Guys,
How,
I really don’t understand this assumption that locals would have removed the writing. Whilst I accept that if the writing was put there 24 hours or more previous the chances are high that it would have been erased, the possibility it was less that 24 hours (or even merely hours) old are just as probable though. Halse felt it was fresh only because the locals hadn’t removed it. Halse assumes the local inhabitants understood English (which they may have done) and that they understood the context (an issue that we are still debating) and would have erased it ….this after concluding it was anti-semetic. What I am questioning is
a) Would the locals have understood the written language?
b) Would the locals have understood the writings context? Or rather come to the conclusion it was anti-semetic?
c) Would they be arsed to wipe it off?
Is it highly unrealistic that it would have remained there for less than 12 hours say?
Juile,
The message was written under shelter. Unfortunately I do not know which direction wind travels down Goulston Street and if the rain would affect the North or South jamb side.
I suspect the elements would have done its damage over a longer period of time, days, rather than hours.
Stan,
I recollect the same. Still doesn’t exclude the possibility it was there, missed in the darkness. After all, Long only picked the writing up with the aid of his lantern whilst looking for blood splatters.
And Helge, lovely sweet Helge,
My experiment was on glazed brickwork. This is not mentioned in any report so I assume that I worked on a surface that was added after 1888. I think it would be incorrect to state with certainty that the conditions in 2003 were the same in 1888 and therefore the results are non conclusive, for obvious reasons.
As for the light, its not impossible to write with your eyes closed is it? To hit each brick separately though would have been a task. The simple fact is that whoever wrote it could see the mortar and avoided writing over the mortar.
All of the above really proves nothing for the idea that Eddowes killer wrote the writing…and Yes, I know, it doesn’t categorically lead us away from that idea either.
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 9:41 am: |
|
Hi Jane,
I have to ask: if racist or political graffiti was 'everywhere', and if the authorities erased it as soon as they saw it (never letting any one message stay around to get really old and 'stale'), this suggests a quick turnover, with new graffiti constantly replacing the erased stuff. Must have been as thankless a task as it is today.
In this case, I'm not sure how easy it would have been to tell 'fresh' from 'not-quite-as-fresh', but if they could make the distinction, 'fresh' would seem to imply 'very recent indeed', if your observations are spot on.
I'm not sure I buy Monty's explanation, that the 'Jewes' graffito was described as 'fresh' solely because it hadn't yet been removed. By that token, the graffiti that was 'everywhere' would always be 'fresh' for the same reason, and the freshness would go without saying.
The way the incident was reported suggests that the fear of a riot was so great that they could not risk leaving the message there a moment longer, despite its potential value as a murder clue. And yet Monty would have us believe that, on its own, ie minus the apron, it was on a par with other examples that the locals would either not understand, not be offended by, or not be arsed to wipe off themselves?
And if, once the apron was whipped away, the message did reduce down to one of the many that were 'everywhere' despite the sterling efforts to keep the walls free of them, why all the fuss?
Or did the police fear such a riot every time they saw another example appearing where previous graffiti had been erased?
If so, why wasn't 'one sponge, damp, for the removal of riot-inciting material' standard issue for every beat copper?
I think the apron piece simply underlined this graffito as special; it was special with or without it.
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2014
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Caz,
I'm not sure I buy Monty's explanation, that the 'Jewes' graffito was described as 'fresh' solely because it hadn't yet been removed.
Not my reasoning. Im merely quoting Halses explanation for why he thought the writing was fresh. It’s the only explanation given for this view about how fresh the scrawl was.
See the inquest notes. You’re making my arguments for me.
The whole freshness thing hinges on Halse it seems, though Longs view that he couldn’t tell how fresh it was is often ignored….cant think why.
Warren clearly explains the sound reasons for the removal of the writing. Race and religious fervour already high, was increasing. A fear of rioting was a real concern. The apron off a woman who was murdered was not far from this writing. A connection will be made no matter how valid the writing is. It doesn’t matter if the two are certainly connected. Even rumour is enough to spark to the gunpowder keg. So caution dictates the removal ASAP. This is why this particular ‘riot inducing material’ was removed.
When Monty questions the local inhabitants of the dwellings, in as much the reasons for not removing the writing (contrary to Halses view), he is also questioning this fallacy that anti- semetic is removed extremely quickly. Also, Monty feels you are viewing the writing as anti semetic even though the context can be translated into other different explanations.
Monty would have you believe whatever you want to believe, but Monty will always want you to keep the facts on board.
As the evidence stands today, without the apron the graffito is nothing.
With the apron its still a none clue.
So Monty aint particularly bovvered !
Monty
PS Monty sends his love.
It begins.....
|
steve tavani
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Perhaps Jack wrote the message BEFORE he loitered in the IWEC area looking for prey- all the while intending to procure something from the victim to tie to the GSG. |
N. Beresford.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 - 1:18 pm: |
|
To Caz and Helge,
I wasn't going to post this waiting first to see what responses I got, but now I feel it's worth it:-
Helge,
I see what you're saying - through the use of the double negative we have everyone concentrating on what it means while the word 'Jews' slips into our sub-conscious and we start believing it was a Jew rightly or wrongly.
The word 'Jews' gets people thinking about a 'Jewish problem' and 'do we really want them here' which could set up an anti-semitic atmosphere which a Jew or a Gentile writer could want for whatever reason. That's as I see it.
So with the Jewish writer it's a challenge and with the Gentile writer it's an accusation.
Instead of writing 'The Jews did it' he could have written 'I am a Jew' which has the same effect of challenge or accusation but none of the confusion which leaves the message in our minds and it may have then been deemed a useless piece of 'evidence' leading nowhere and possibly over-looked with people attatching no importance to it.
Another reading I suppose is that the Jews are blame-worthy whether they did it or not - an anti-semitic message meaning that if you blame the Jews you won't be doing anything wrong whether they did it or not.
Regards, N. Beresford. |
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 221
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:36 pm: |
|
Hi Howie
Thanks for the response. You obviously have a better memory than me, since I did indeed read the Ultimate but can't remember reading that explanation. It must be old age playing havoc with my memory.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 222
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Monty, Helge
Thanks for the comments.
I still find that I am unconvinced that one can tell that a chalked message is fresh just by looking at it or touching it.
Again I stress the elements!! It is impossible for us to know How and where the wind blows through Goulston Street, however the conditions that night is the key. Even if it did rain and the message was not affected by this rain, it can mean that the writing was sheltered from the elements, rather than just having been written.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 223
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 5:00 pm: |
|
Hi Caz
You made really good points concerning the message.
I personally do not believe that the police under the circumstances had enought men to be constantly going around Whitechapel erasing messages.
I am not necessarily doubting that there was other graffeti by the Jews and Christians, but if there was that much I would have assumed that eventually these graffeti writings would go unnoticed.
This graffeti message was different though because it was on the night of the double event.
I am puzzled by the fact that if indeed this type of graffeti was common, why was it not considered as such and ignored, or for that matter why is there no mention in the many, many books on Jack the Ripper, referring to this type of anti-semetism writings.
regards
Julie
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 627
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
I hope you don't mind me coming in here, because a lot of the points you raise were ones I brought up anyway......and you have mentioned some very good points which are worth thinking about.
It is of course impossible in hindsight to know just how much graffiti there was in the area....at the end of the day it was just a gut feel on my part as I come from there, and my Nan was brought up there and also my greatgrandparents and they were Jews living in the area at the time, so I suppose I have feelings about it just from what Nan told me about her childhood etc.,
The first thing that might seem rather silly to mention is that whereas today the thought of carrying chalk around in your pocket is not a common occurrence even amongst school children. In those days, chalk was used for many more purposes....kids used it for street games like hop scotch, tradesmen used it to write on boards, it was used all over the place all the time for many everyday purposes in the absence of things like felt tip markers. Most tradesmen and market traders would have chalk in their pocket all the time, not to mention tailors and cobblers of which there were a very great number.
Now the point of that is that with that many people carrying that amount of chalk around in a volatile area like Whitechapel it would seem just common sense to suggest that there would be at least a fair amount of graffiti around in the regular course of events, human nature being what it is.
On your first point about the police not having time to erase it, it would literally be a few second job and a rag in his pocket.....not that much bother and I think it would just have been the case only if it was inflamatory or offensive...... a ' Harry was here.' would not really offend anyone......but I think that logic would dictate that if any graffito was found that was likely to start a riot that any policeman would want to see it removed to keep the peace. Not only that of course, but any resident seeing it would almost certainly erase it if they were passing simply because it offended them and erasing chalk is generally quite easy. I suspect that graffiti came and went very rapidly from day to day.
As to why they weren't mentioned.....I'm not actually sure why they should have mentioned other graffiti in the area.....I tried to mentally write a newspaper report that would naturally include the words.....'graffiti is common in the area, but the other graffiti had nothing to do with the case, I just thought I'd mention that in passing'. Why would they need to mention it?
I think really that the importance of the graffito was not only that it was found on the night of the double event, but that it was found with the apron and it's possible content. If it had said 'Harry was here.' it would never have even been noticed or considered as having anything to do with the case.
Halse recognised it as being fresh......I have to ask myself how did he get to be such an expert on how fresh chalk messages were?.......he must have had some exposure to graffiti in order to make a comment like that.
I know that it was considered a clue at the time.....and some time was spent on it at the inquest.....which if of course why I still take it very seriously as a researcher......but I am not so convinced of it that I would want to build around it to promote a suspect or theory.
Hugs
Jane
xxx |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1137
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 6:36 pm: |
|
Jane and Monty...
Its quite possible that Halse looked where Long didn't....at its surface. Long may have gone only so far,whereas Halse got a little closer to check its surface for its "powdery" character. In short,despite Monty's good argument about the more loosely compressed chalk emitting dust on the ground, it may have actually worked in the other direction and have given Halse reason to believe in its "fresh" or recent origin by the lumping of chalk particles which occurs on a newly written chalk message... Dust from less compressed chalk may have been there on the ground,but may not have been the criteria that Halse determined the "freshness" of the graffiti on at all. In fact,Halse may not have needed to look for freshly fallen chalkpowder,as the wall said it all.
As to an insensitive remark written about Jews,Eskimos,English,the Hunkys,you name it....writing a message on a public,state owned building or private business' facade is one thing....
...a graffiti on a building where people live is another. That,to me,would be too much and too close to home. |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2016
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 3:46 am: |
|
Guys,
For clarification, Inquest of Catherine Eddowes, Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888 as reported in The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3.
Mr. Crawford: Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written?
Witness (Halse): - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing. I did not notice whether there was any powdered chalk on the ground, though I did look about to see if a knife could be found. There were three lines of writing in a good schoolboy's round hand. The size of the capital letters would be about 3/4 in, and the other letters were in proportion. The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.
Halse did not notice any chalk dust.
Regards
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3199
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:31 am: |
|
Monty,
doesn't that means he didn't look?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2017
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:56 am: |
|
Jenn,
It means chalk dust wasnt glaringly obvious.
Seeing as he did look for a knife, one assumes that he looked on the ground (as he clearly states), and if chalk dust was there in abundance he would have noticed it.
However, Halse did not notice any powdered chalk.
In your view, does that aid the argument that the writing was fresh?
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3201
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:12 am: |
|
Hey Monty,
but how much chalk dust would have been enough to be spotted?
Clearly I'm not getting this!!!
Am I wrong in thinking there are two things about chalk dust, the possibility of it dusting when it was written and the possibility of it dusting when people brushed against it? Hence (yes hence!), if it was fresh there = s an argument for chalk does, whilst also the reverse is likewise true?
I told you i was confused!!
Halse thought the writing was fresh?? the police thought it was fresh that's why they removed it?? as what would be the point of removing writing that had been there weeks as it might start riots??
You think it must have been fresh? chalk dust =s people rubbing by it =s not fresh?
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3202
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:16 am: |
|
i have a question Noel! Lol.
Who lived in the dwellings i.e were they jewish?
Two questions!!
And would the people who passed by the chalk writing have necessarily noticed it without having the advantage of the apron?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2018
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
Jenn,
but how much chalk dust would have been enough to be spotted?
yes, a good question. The question of chalk dust, or rather lack of it, does not answer the freshness query with certainty. If it was very fresh however, I would expect dust to have been noted.
Am I wrong in thinking there are two things about chalk dust, the possibility of it dusting when it was written and the possibility of it dusting when people brushed against it?
Yes, cos people are always brushing against door jambs as they enter buildings arent they?
Cheers,
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3204
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Right,
so no dust equals not fresh. Good because i don't think it was fresh either! But its still possible that it was there. Halse said he didnt notice whether there was any, not that there wasn't. It doesn't mean he necessarily looked.
Don't get sarky with me!! You never know whats going on with door jambs!
Jenni
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2339
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:59 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
Many thanks for clarifying that it was Halse, not you, who thought it was fresh 'only' (your word) because: 'if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing' (Halse's words).
But he also says 'it looked fresh', which contradicts the original statement of yours which I questioned:
Halse felt it was fresh only because the locals hadn’t removed it.
Now the message was found at 2.55 am. It would have been dark for several hours by then. I suggest that Halse's 'long before' referred back to daylight hours when, out of the many people passing the spot and seeing the message, one would surely have rubbed it out, had it been there then.
Or he may have meant, as Jenni seems to be suggesting, that people brushing past the message to exit or enter the building would have rubbed it out - or made it much more blurry - by accident, if it had been put there earlier in the day when more people were about.
The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.
And that would neatly explain the size of the writing, I would guess. The writer may even have known about the black dado beforehand (especially if he lived nearby) and had this spot in mind for his message. He may even have practised doing it and timed himself - like you and How!
Hi How,
...a graffiti on a building where people live is another. That,to me,would be too much and too close to home.
I agree. I think it's fairly unlikely that a Jew would deface a building that houses his fellow Jews (yes Jenni, the inhabitants were Jewish) with an ambiguous message expressing his concerns as a victim. In the vast majority of cases, it would be a racist person choosing to daub his hate-filled thoughts on someone else's property, preferably that of the object of his hatred.
In the A-Z, it says that Superintendent Arnold concluded that the message had nothing to do with the murder. But he did fear that traders arriving at Petticoat Lane Market (also called The Jews' Market) would believe 'from its position' that it was a clue, and this would revive the anti-Semitism that the Leather Apron incident had provoked.
But of course those traders would know nothing about the apron piece once the police had picked it up, so the 'position' of the message, had it been allowed to remain after 5.30, would presumably have been viewed as a clue regardless, in Arnold's opinion, which is interesting.
And maybe this is exactly what the writer intended.
That doesn't make the writer Jack, but it's intriguing if a local graffiti artist wrote this to stir up more trouble, when Jacky was off to work again after a three-week jolly holiday.
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2019
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Caz,
I stand corrected. Halse stated it looked fresh and backed this view up by also stating his opinion that if any older would have been rubbed out by passing people.
Now the message was found at 2.55 am. It would have been dark for several hours by then. I suggest that Halse's 'long before' referred back to daylight hours when, out of the many people passing the spot and seeing the message, one would surely have rubbed it out, had it been there then.
Why? Why are you so sure one would have rubbed it out?
Regards
Monty
It begins.....
|
Jennifer Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 3207
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 7:37 am: |
|
They would have needed to be able to read and understand it to know there as anything wrong with it?
"You know I'm not gonna diss you on the Internet
Cause my mamma taught me better than that."
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2342
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 9:35 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
It's your turn now - I was simply attempting to interpret Halse's reasoning here. 
I should have written:
I suggest that Halse's 'long before' referred back to daylight hours when, out of the many people passing the spot and seeing the message, [Halse imagined that] one would surely have rubbed it out, had it been there then.
We don't know if Halse was right, but he was there and we were not, and he was presumably used to seeing chalked graffiti.
Love,
Caz
X |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 2020
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 10:27 am: |
|
Caz,
Mmmm, nicely side stepped.
Monty
It begins.....
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 475
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
N. Beredsford,
You got it exactly as I see it, although you explained that bit way better than I did!
Caz,
You know I agree with the things you say
Jenni,
Although certainly many could not read in that era, the people inhabiting those dwellings were more likely to be able to read than not. Class is everything.
Monty,
And I thought your experiment was done on almost the real thing... Darn...
But...such small writing would still be easy to clean away or at least smudge on most surfaces.
Jane,
Hate to disagree. But most people in that area carrying chalk would be Jewish shop-keepers, vendors, tinkers, tailors, soldiers, spies... Got a bit carried away there, but point is they would be Jewish. They probably wrote their graffiti, if they wrote any, far from home.
Anyway. I am not Jewish, and I don`t live in London 1888, but if someone wrote "The Norskis are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" on my building, I would certainly wipe it out and kill that son of a B**** if I caught him writing it.
Even if I did not quite get it.
Come to think of it, I would only wipe it out and skip the rest if he was bigger than me...
If he was bigger than me I would get my neighbour and THEN...
Seriously. This was, according to at least one statement, visible from the street. On the street there would have been dozens of Jewish merchants during daytime. After all, it was not only just any old street, it was also a Jewish marked.
Would they have minded anti-Semitic graffiti?
OF course they would! If nothing else they would have been thinking about their business. (And I`m NOT trying to make a Jewish related joke here. I`m serious. Wouldn`t we all?)
I see no way to prove this either way. Even if there had been chalk dust, we cannot prove that some drunk did not write the thing that very same night.
There really are no other connection than the apron. And whatever anyone say it is still a heck of a coincidence that it ended up below such a message.
And that is enough for me.
Add the Jewish element, and we can at least say that the probability is against coincidence.
Helge
(Message edited by helge on November 18, 2005)
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 2347
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Not side stepped at all, mate. I just thought Halse's opinion might make a bit more sense if, by 'long before', he was thinking of several hours ago in the daylight, when it was more likely that it would be spotted by people passing - if it had been there.
How do you interpret Halse's 'it would have been rubbed out' had it been done 'long before'?
Love,
Caz
X |
Sir Robert Anderson
Chief Inspector
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 638
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
"There really are no other connection than the apron. And whatever anyone say it is still a heck of a coincidence that it ended up below such a message.
And that is enough for me. "
As it should be, Helge. I've yet to see any reasonable alternative explanation for the presence of the apron.
Here's a question: IF we are to believe graffiti was commonplace, why was Detective Hale's suggestion of 'merely' erasing the first line of the graffiti rejected by both Arnold and Warren ?
If the neighborhood was riddled with graffiti, would this bowdlerized GSG have been so difficult to preserve for a few hours ?
Sir Robert
'Tempus Omnia Revelat'
SirRobertAnderson@gmail.com
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 476
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Argh....
I made one little mistake. One tiny winy itsy bitsy mistake,
When I talked about the light from the street-lamps I said they gave 15 LUMENS per fishtail. Well, actually I'm metrical, and I got the data from some very unmetrical americans (nice chaps btw) I should have said Candela, because that is what I use when calculating these things metrically.
People might think one lumen is the same as one candela, but it is actually the metric equivalent of a footcandle..which in turn should be the same as a candela, because it has to do with candles... Right? Wrong. It is not at all the same as a candela.
Confused?
Dont' blame me. I did not make the rules. People used to be quite mad, you know. Germany defined it's own candle-light as about 9/10th of the rest of the world for as long as they could get away with it. A german candle was not a universal candle, in other words.
Actually, the difference between Candela and Lumens is all in radiance versus illuminance.
Well anyway, the output of the lamps is (or rather was) 15 CANDELA (I got the number right!)
Just for the heck of it; in order to produce one candela a lamp has to radiate 1/(683V(l)) watts per steradian, where V(l) is the relative sensitivity of the eye at wavelength l.
Still confused?
Actually it's not that hard. But hard enough for me to keep track of it would seem.
But it does not matter. It was pretty dark... But you could still see where you were going or what you were writing. At least in white chalk.
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 477
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
And just one more thing. I think better when tipsy, you know...
The actual light intensity at the doorway would also be dependent on the beam focus, but I don't think these lamps had any reflector/lens assembly. I'll have to check it up, though.
(as if anyone cares)
Helge
"If Spock were here, he'd say that I was an irrational, illlogical human being for going on a mission like this... Sounds like fun!" -- (Kirk - Generations)
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 224
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Jane
Appreciate your comments, your points are of course,not without merit and consideration.
The point I tried to make re graffeti is very simple. I am supposing that graffeti was common, and often would be anti-semetic in nature, I would ASSUME that if a writer , newspaper or otherwise, wanted to make a point of this
anti-semetic clue, a comparison would naturally be made.
eg: Newspaper
Two horrible murders in Whitechapel in one night. Jack the Ripper is at it again. Unlike the other murders, he left clues!! One being graffeti found on a Goulston Street dwelling. Unlike the many graffeti messages written to add to the already anti-semetic troubles in Whitchapel, this one was written on a door where a portion of a bloody apron was found.
Just an example of what I was trying to point out.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Monty
I don't want to sound argumentative, however if the air had been moist due to fog or light drizzle, there wouldn't be chalk powder, if there wasn't a wind to accompany same.
regards
Julie
|
Julie
Inspector
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 227
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Monty
One small point about chalk dust. If there was chalk dust for example it could have belonged to another graffeti message written on that same door, having no bearing whatsoever to our message by (Jack?)
also
Maybe the chalk itself was wet. Wet chalk seldom leaves chalk dust. I've tried that out myself.
It is also possible that the door jamb itself could have been wet absorbing the dry chalk.
My brain is working overtime these days.
Just a few observations on my part.
regards
Julie
|
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 628
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:08 pm: |
|
HI Julie,
I may well be wrong about this, because I am working from memory and may be misremembering, but I think I am right in saying that no British newspapers mentioned the graffito at all until the inquest had opened and things had settled down to some extent.
As far as I recall the newspapers on the 1st October invariably showed the Jews in at least a neutral, if not rather favourable light. I will see if I have time to go through and dig out some of the quotes and post them up. I certainly think the newspapers were attempting to keep a lid on things and not inflame the situation.
The overall impression I have got reading through them in the past is that they were trying to maintain an equalibrium between Jews and Gentiles and not to inflame the situation. Even the Star which was not the most balanced of newspapers seemed to try and put the Jews in a reasonable light.
So, if memory serves me,the reason that no other graffiti was mentioned in the press, is because the GSG itself wasn't mentioned.
I wonder if the GSG itself was perhaps purposely kept from the public to avoid any further racial tension, although I am not sure if the police kept the information from them or if they witheld the information of their own volition. I may be mistaken on this as it has been some time since I have read the reports.
Of course after it was revealed at the inquest, the situation had been clarified enough to avoid conflict between Jews and Gentiles.
I'll see if I can find those quotes to show my reasoning on this.
I liked the hyperthetical news report though....you should have been a journalist!
Love Jane
xxxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 629
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:13 pm: |
|
HI Helge,
I found something today which did make me wonder a little bit about a Jewish connection.
The Duke Street Market off of Mitre Square was known as 'The Jew's fruit market.'
Just a bit of nonesense, but it is another Jewish connection to the crimes.
Love Jane
xxxxx |
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1142
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
I should have said this above.......
"..seeing a message on a public,state owned building or private business' facade is one thing and...
... tolerating a graffiti on a building where these offended party or people live, and the inhabitants not attempting to remove it is another. That,to me,would be too much and too close to home. |
Donald Souden
Chief Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 844
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Jane,
I think you are right about a voluntary effort by the press to defuse any further anti-semitism after the "Leather Apron" hysteria. This was quite apparent in the way it handled George Hutchinson. That dubious but well-publicized witness told the police (and presuambly the press) that the man he saw with Kelly had a "Jewish appearance," but the British press turned this into "foreign looking." Interestingly enough, American newspapers went with "Jewish."
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Howard Brown
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Howard
Post Number: 1143
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
I think that the last part of Supe's post is a real indicator of a conscious attempt and co-ordinated effort by both police and press to keep a lid on potential riots..American press had no cause to suppress the mention of a Jewish Connection.
This begs the question [ I should know this,but don't...] :
When was the first mention of the GSG and its wording mentioned and by what newspaper ? Too lazy to look right now...
Thanks |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 630
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Hi Julie,
I have trawled through the press reports and found a few snippets that sort of highlight what I am trying to get at..which would seem to suggest to me at least that the police intention to keep a lid on the situation by rubbing out the GSG does at least have some backing.
The newspapers on the following day certainly did not seem to be trying to inflame the situation......in fact they seemed for the most part to be quite generous in their reports of the Jewish connection to the case.
The Daily News made this comment about the IWEC and the Times wrote in a very similar vein, both stressing that the debates at the club were 'friendly'
'At the club referred to above-the International Workmen's Educational Club-which is an off-shoot of the Socialist League and a rendezvous of a number of foreign residents, chiefly Russians, Poles, and Continental Jews of various nationalities, it is customary on Saturday nights to have friendly discussions on topics of mutual interest, and to wind up the evening's entertainment with songs, &c.'
That does sound to me as if they were not antisemitic in their reporting.
The Evening News seemed to stress that the Jews were very cooperative in aiding the police.......
'The concert going on in the club was immediately stopped, and the members flocked out to see whether another "Whitechapel horror" had been committed. Their investigation too plainly discovered the fact, and several members started off to communicate with the police.'
And the only mention I can find on the GSG doorway are these, which make no mention of the graffito at all.
The first is from the Evening News:
'POSSIBLE CLUES.
A FRAGMENT OF APRON.
The police have made an important discovery, which they are of opinion affords a clue to the direction in which the murderer made his escape. Yesterday afternoon a portion of an apron was found in Goldstein-street, and when the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was searched, it was discovered that she was wearing the upper portion of the apron to which the piece found belonged. It is therefore concluded that the murderer made his way into Whitechapel.'
The second from The Star
'A Bloody Apron Found.
After committing the second murder, the man seems to have gone back towards the scene of the former. An apron, which is thought by the police to belong to the woman found in Mitre-square, as it was the same material as part of her dress was found in Goldstar-street. It was smeared with blood, and had been evidently carried away by the murderer to wipe his hands with.'
Those were the only references I could find to the Goulston Street doorway, although of course I may have missed some.
I have to say that does seem to me to at least tie in with the fact that the police wanted to keep the whole subject of the GSG out of the public eye which is why they rubbed out the writing.
That doesn't mean of course that Jack didn't write it, but it does give the possibility that it was genuinely to stop trouble that they took the action they did and explains why no mention is made of other graffiti in the area.
Hugs
Jane
xxx |
Jane Coram
Chief Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 631
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 18, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Hi Howie, light of my life,
I seem to think, again from memory, that many of the newspapers of October 2nd and 3rd were still only mentioning the apron. It was only when they reported the inquest that it came to light.
I actually can't remember any British newspaper making a report independently of this, but I will go through and check.
Just off the top of my head though, the first mention of it was in the inquest reports.
Love Jane
xxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on November 18, 2005) |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
