"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing"

[Pontius2000]

After becoming more informed about that area and the year (s) that preceded the Ripper killings and the erasure of the grafitto, Ive come to realize that in the larger scheme of things, a possible clue for a few Ripper slayings of the homeless had to be weighed against their ability to suppress a gentile riot directed towards Jews if the message was seen and interpreted as antisemitism.

The great unwashed group of vagrants in The East were not all Jewish, and the years of influx of immigrant Jews to that specific area created some real tension that the poor might revolt against the immigrants and the government itself. There are stories within these cases of men being chased by a mob that suspected they were Leather Apron or the Ripper himself, demonstrating clearly that the residents were not about to leave their own safety in the hands of the men that clubbed many of them the year before on Bloody Sunday. The Police were just as wary of them.

The erasure has to be viewed in the larger picture of the times to be understood...and in that context, it can be. Nothing that occurs in that area in that time can be seen clearly in isolation....including the killings themselves.

Best regards all.

Irish, Americans, doctors, butchers, and medical students were also blamed. was there any threat against them by the angry mobs? Warren's action was an over-reaction plain and simple.

[Monty]

Really? Hmmm..

Then there would be direct evidence that the grafitti, more than likely, connected with the ripper case rather then just random graffiti. It would also show the person that wrote ripper letter X was also in proximity to evidence from a ripper crime so, they would be, more than likely, the ripper himself or someone who knew the ripper. Now you can start comparing handwriting with some of the suspects, if available, and if a match is found then that is your most likely suspect. So really, just taking 1 picture could have come a long ways in solving the ripper case. At the very least we would have a pic of graffiti from 1888 and can see how far the hoodlums have come with that art form since then

Thats all very good, and would bode well in a Holmesian story, however in the reality of 1888 it wouldnt convict a man of being Jack the Ripper. It may lead to a suspect perhaps.

It would also lead to some poor constables going through thousands of letters.

I see the need to preserve the writing, and agree it was worthy to preserve, however I think the slating of Warren is unjustified.

Monty

[John Bennett]

I understand why they erased it but I do not understand why a simple pic or 2 was not snapped before.

Not enough light, I presume, and the arrival of cumbersome camera equipment and flash etc. perhaps would have excited more unwanted curiosity than was desirable.

Just a thought.

[pr1mate]

Thats all very good, and would bode well in a Holmesian story, however in the reality of 1888 it wouldnt convict a man of being Jack the Ripper. It may lead to a suspect perhaps.

It would also lead to some poor constables going through thousands of letters.

I see the need to preserve the writing, and agree it was worthy to preserve, however I think the slating of Warren is unjustified.

Monty

Understood. I am speaking more for our use today. At the time I have no idea what they could or could not use as evidence. To play devils advocate a little here, it does not seem they took any crime scene photos other than at Mary's. Perhaps photography was not an investigation tool at the time?

As far as bashing Warren, I do not know anything of the man so I can not comment one way or the other on that.

[Monty]

Again, to clarify.

Warrens duty was to manage the police, not to investigate. He took advice from Arnold who, as head of H division, had duty to investigate crimes in the area as well as police the vicinity.

Warrens background was military and was bought in to provide order within the police organisation.

As with any heads of organisation, advise from those who were involved in the investigaton, such as Arnold, would have been Warrens only course due to the fact he was not involved daily.

Warrens view would have been the overall view, not just the crimes.

Monty

[perrymason]

Since there was never any real discussion about taking a photograph before it was erased, we can only speculate what environmental issues like light they would have had to overcome. Its not like a photographer was onsite and determined the light was too poor to take the shot.

I agree with the notion it was likely evidence and should have been preserved at least by proxy with a photo, but I do see the "mob fears" playing a larger role here.

Solving Unfortunate murders wasnt the same kind of "driver" as preserving and maintaining order and peace in the district was. Whitechapel was a powder keg for more powerful reasons than a mere Rippers spree among the disenfranchised.

Best regards

[Monty]

Not enough light, I presume, and the arrival of cumbersome camera equipment and flash etc. perhaps would have excited more unwanted curiosity than was desirable.

Just a thought.

John,

Ive only just got Rob McLaughlins book (cheers Rob) and only flicked through it but wasnt the Mets photographer Joseph Martin? Maybe his availabilty was in question?

Monty

[John Bennett]

John,

Ive only just got Rob McLaughlins book (cheers Rob) and only flicked through it but wasnt the Mets photographer Joseph Martin? Maybe his availabilty was in question?

Monty

Yes. The availability of a photographer at that hour may well have been an issue. Lumme, as with most things in Ripperland, there are so many possibilities.

[Supe]

Pontius,

Do yourself a favor and learn more about the crimes, the times and the people involved before you presume to lecture the rest of us. As it is, the only who looks like a fool is you. Should you wish to know more about Warren you might start with the opening chapter of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow. But then why let a little knowledge get in the way of ignorant invective, eh?

John,

You are quite right about the difficulties involved in taking a picture. Moreover, chalk writing on bricks, especially if, as may have been the case, those bricks were glazed would have been nigh unto impossible using the primitive flash powder available. No doubt they would have had to wait until it was quite bright out--and the cat well among the pigeons by then as well.

Don.

[The Grave Maurice]

I've recently come to the conclusion that the graffito was written by a young P.G. Wodehouse (b. 1881) and reads: "The Jeeves are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

[pr1mate]

I've recently come to the conclusion that the graffito was written by a young P.G. Wodehouse (b. 1881) and reads: "The Jeeves are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

He would have been almost 7 at that time. I doubt that he would have written this. You could always goto ask.com and see what jeeves says in person

[Sam Flynn]

Should you wish to know more about Warren you might start with the opening chapter of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow.

Or, if you're really keen, this one by Colin Macdonald:

[Pontius2000]

Pontius,

Do yourself a favor and learn more about the crimes, the times and the people involved before you presume to lecture the rest of us. As it is, the only who looks like a fool is you. Should you wish to know more about Warren you might start with the opening chapter of Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates by Stewart P. Evans and Donald Rumbelow. But then why let a little knowledge get in the way of ignorant invective, eh?

actually, I know quite a bit about the crimes. I have read 6-7 books on the subject (including the one you named) and pretty much everything on this website over the years. and I also know a good bit about policing, as I've worked in law enforcement for close to 9 years. you don't destroy crime evidence. doesn't matter if the year is 2009 or 1888 or any other year in between.

I also don't need to read Warren's biographies about all his military campaigns that have absolutely nothing to do with police work. perhaps you should read the reports of George Sims in Evans' books "Letters From Hell" which were pretty spot on in every respect, including the bungling of the case. if his job was to manage the police and not solve crimes, then he had no business at Goulston St directing his man to destroy crime evidence. If you want me to read his biography, then YOU need to read all the press reports of his mismanagement of the case. or perhaps the quotes from the London City police regarding his destroying of evidence.

you don't like him being called "idiot". fine, then let's just say the Met and the case would've been much better off without him in it. if you disagree with that, fine too.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Pontius, welcome to Casebook.

I also know a good bit about policing, as I've worked in law enforcement for close to 9 years. you don't destroy crime evidence. doesn't matter if the year is 2009 or 1888 or any other year in between.

I respect your time in law enforcement, and I see your point. Warren had to answer for what he did, too. But police were up against some unique circumstances considering the crime spree engendered prejudice against the Jews. It would have been hard to get the photog there and get it done quickly, this wasn't like today. And another thing not like today was the population density. People were packed into this area in a way it may be hard for us to relate to in modern times. I think Warren saw this as a powder keg waiting to explode, and I think he made the right decision.

This is a map of the present day wards of Whitechapel and Spitalfields-Banglatown. In the 2000 census this area was home to 20,429 people. In 1888 the same approximate area contained 74,462 persons.



Roy

[Jonathan H]

Regarding the Graffiti, there is another angle that might be considered which sidesteps whether it was likely to have been written by 'Jack' [I think not] and also sidesteps whether Warren was acting responsibly in trying to protect a despised and vulnerable minority, or failing as a law enforcer responsible for hunting a vicious killer -- or both simltaneously.

It is that in Macnaghten's cagey memoirs, specifically the chapter 'Laying the Ghost of Jack the Ripper', he uncharacteristically and unequivocally claims the writing on the wall was by the Fiend.

That it was no less than the only clue ever left by 'Jack'.

I think the reason Macnaghten does this is because his memoir chapter on the Ripper was written to debunk and oppose Anderson's, published a few years previous [the mutual detestation was such that neither mentions the other in 'Days of My Years' and 'The Lighter Side of My Official Life'].

What is often thought to be Macnagten's hopeless, over-rated memory jumbling up the events of the night of the 'Double Event' is actually, I theorise, a crafty attempt to exonerate the Jewish community for having anything what-so-ever to do with the Whitechapel Horrors.

Consequently, in 'Laying the Ghost ...' [which is really the third version of his 1894 'Home Office Report'] Macnaghten drops any mention of the Polish Jew and Russian doctor suspects.

He also drops the claim, fictitious anyhow, that a police constable saw a man who strongly resembled [the un-named] Kosminski with Catherine Eddowes.

Yet he ups the ante on the graffiti. Why ..?

This is because Macnaghten reassembles the night of the Double Event to suit his anti-anti-Semitic and anti-Anderson agenda.

Liz Stride, a Gentile prostitute is about to be done in by the Fiend when she is nearly saved by three Jews. Actually it was one, and previously there had been street people, of the Hebrew faith, who could be perceived to have acted in a somewhat less than heroic and chivalrous manner -- towards a woman being bashed right in front of them.

Not anymore. Not in Macnaghten's rewrite.

Now three Jews nearly saved Liz -- so the killer had to go and find another victim.

This is why, Macnaghten is arguing, Jack wrote those angry words near the site of the second murder that night. He is blaming NOT ALL the Jews, but rather those specific three Jews, half an hour or so earlier, for forcing him to kill and eviscerate another Gentile prostitute.

I think Macnaghten consciously manipulated these bits and pieces to ram home that the killer was a Gentile [who must have carried chalk, like a school master?], a suspect about whom the police were in total ignorance.

Hence Macnaghten's need to, unfortunately, shaft his pal Sims, by writing that the chief suspect had never been 'detained' in an asylum, even though Sims had written just that about the 'Drowned Dcotor' Super-suspect, in the 1900's -- with presumably Macnaghten as his source.

Even though they are writing about different chief suspects [Druitt and Kosminski] Macnaghten's barb about not being an asylum veteran is still aimed, I think, at Anderson's Polish Jew suspect, who indeed was institutionalised.

Therefore, I don't think Macnaghten necessarily believed that the graffiti was by Montie Druitt. He just needed to make it so, for a parallel agenda: to reinforce to the British public that Anderson is full of bigoted humbug, that the Ripper was 'one of us' not some convenient foreigner-- like it or lump it.