GSG: City Police Vs. Metropolitan Police

[JTRSickert]

Hi everyone. I've always been a little confused about the relevance when it came to matters of jurisdiction over the whole GSG affair. The reason is because of this: the evidence at the scene (the graffito but especially the apron) related to the homicide that was committed in Mitre Square, which technically occured in the City of London. Now, that being said, the Eddowes homicide occured on the City of London police jurisdiction. So, wouldn't the GSG and apron have been a matter for them instead of the Met, even though the evidence was located outside the COL district? I just think that Arnold and Warren had no authority to order the writing be erased since the evidence didn't pertain to a homicide that occured on their territory. It should have been left solely on Major Smith's decision, at least until the writing could be photographed and then they could coordinate with each other afterwards.

Anyone agree or disagree?

[Monty]

Warren and Arnold had every ounce of authority when dealing with the writing and apron piece in Goulston Street.

Whilst there is a need to preserve evidence relating to a crime, their primary duty is to the people of the metropolis. They felt a riot could have ensued and sort to protect the citizens by removing the writing.

Their actions were correct given their fears and completely within procedure and authority.

Monty

[DVV]

Hi Monty,

but that there had been a writing in Goulston Street soon became public knowledge... The fact that it had been erased didn't "protect" the Jews.

Amitiés,
David

[Monty]

David

Warren is quite clear in his 6th November report as to why the writing was erased, and given the events after the last murder (Chapman) he had every right to be wary.

The fact that the writing was released eventually is irrelevant. At that precise moment in time a call was made. Time was bought and precautions could be made in that window.

122 year hindsight is so wonderful 122 years later.

Monty

[JTRSickert]

And Monty,

the point I am making is not whether the decision was right or wrong; (In fact, I do think it was the right decision)

However, how could Warren and Arnold have the authority to make such a decision since the evidence found pertained to a murder that had occured in a different jurisdiction? Smith and the City should have had some say in the matter. What I think should have been done is for the message to have been covered up until Warren and Smith went to their superior Henry Matthews (or some other individual) who could make the decision for both of them. That is just how I feel.

[Monty]

I see your point JTR but at the end of the day the writing was in Met area and the Met had the final say.

Deferring is all well and good but in an age of relatively poor communication (to today), it simply wouldnt have been feasible given what was percived as an extremely urgent matter.

Monty

[DVV]

David

Warren is quite clear in his 6th November report as to why the writing was erased, and given the events after the last murder (Chapman) he had every right to be wary.

The fact that the writing was released eventually is irrelevant. At that precise moment in time a call was made. Time was bought and precautions could be made in that window.

122 year hindsight is so wonderful 122 years later.

Monty

I'm not sure, Monty. In November, Hutch's Jewish suspect became public knowledge as well - and nothing happened.
I understand what Arnold and Warren felt and feared, but their reasons, though understandable, weren't good enough to have such a clue destroyed.
That said, the GSG wouldn't have helped them catch the Ripper, imo.

Amitiés,
David

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

The Mister Astrakhan problem was nipped in the bud. Overnight he made a miraculous transformation from "Jewish appearance" to "looked like a foreigner".

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi Simon,

that's true.
But it's like using "visually handicapped person" instead of "blind guy", imo.

Amitiés,
David

[Monty]

David,

If Mr A was dressed up in Marys blood soaked apron then Im pretty sure there would have been some trouble to gentlemen of foriegn appearence.

There lies the rub. The writing was associated by location with Eddowes apron and therefore her murder. This wasnt just your usual anti-semetic slur. We have something tangible in this particular case.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Their actions were correct given their fears and completely within procedure and authority.

I strongly disagree, and so did just about everyone else at the time, including Anderson, Henry Smith, and Home Office. Therefore, I also disagree with Monty's assertion that it's a matter of 'hindsight'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

I strongly disagree, and so did just about everyone else at the time, including Anderson, Henry Smith, and Home Office. Therefore, I also disagree with Monty's assertion that it's a matter of 'hindsight'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Anything else would concern me Tom.

As I state, Warren covers the reasons in his report. The fact remains that Anderson was out of the country the very moment Warren made the call. His opinion came after a briefing upon his return and therefore must hold a degree of hindsight.

Smiths concern was with a crime which occurred upon his patch, not the policing of Whitechapel and the Met area. That was Arnolds concern and, as Ive stated, the aftermath of unrest after the Chapman murder would seem to lay heavily upon his memory.

Im not stating it was the correct call with regards the investigation however I do understand the reasons behind the descision and, at that precise moment in time, the need to contain rather than investigate what is essentially a meaningless and unhelpful piece of evidence* was obviously what was deemed more important.

Monty


*The writing

[Tom_Wescott]

And the meaningless apron underneath it as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

Tom

If thats your opinion on the apron.


I certainly did not say it was meaningless. However the apron provides us with one one piece of certain evidence, his movements.

Other than that it gives us little else.

However the writing provides absolutely nothing to the investigation other than possibilities Eddowes killer wrote it. And if he did then what?

Without the man himself it was pretty unhelpful

Monty

[DVV]

However the writing provides absolutely nothing to the investigation other than possibilities Eddowes killer wrote it. And if he did then what?

Without the man himself it was pretty unhelpful

Monty

Agreed, Monty,

but the the GSG was Jack's.

Amitiés,
David