'the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

[tnb]

'The chalk message was completely obliterated before the City Police could photograph it. Many people regard that incident as the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

This is from John E. Keefe's Carroty Nell: the Last Victim of Jack the Ripper' (2010) and it got me thinking. Warren's decision to have the graffiti washed away was obviously regrettable, and I think most people would agree it was probably the wrong decision (concerns about racial tensions notwithstanding), but the worst 'blunder' in the whole case?

Had the GSG remained in situ long enough to be properly recorded, it would obviously have cleared up a lot of the debates today about its exact position, size, position in relation to the apron, wording etc etc, but how exactly could it be expected to have advanced the investigation? Would the police have been expected to stop people in the streets of Whitechapel and make them write out the message to compare the handwriting? And, of course, we don't even know whether it was written by the killer anyway! I could be wrong, but I don't really see how a photograph would have helped clear up that particular issue. I suppose it could have been compared with the various letters, but again they are all of dubious origin.

The competence of the contemporary police is a contentious issue among many on here, but whether you believe they were hopelessly lax or merely unfortunate in difficult circumstances (or like most people, you believe the answer lies somewhere between those two points) I think we can all think of a few things that we wish the police had done differently. Vis:

We have a very small house-to-house search area. We have (apparently) a witness refusing to testify because of his religion (although what the police could have done about that particular situation, I am not sure). We have details given to and kept from the press, and perhaps from other police divisions; if we want to get into photographs that were never taken then we have no record of the bodies of Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Stride where they were found. If you are one of those who believes some of the later murders or attacks (ie Mylett, Farmer, McKenzie, Coles) were the work of the same man, then presumably you would count the scaling down of patrols shortly after Kelly's murder as a pretty big blunder? Keefe's assertion seems all the odder as he does himself seem to fall into that latter camp (as the title of his book makes clear). I hate to even bring the man's name up, but we have the fact that days seem to have been wasted taking George Hutchison's story seriously only to discard it soon after. We have the whole farce outside Room 13, Miller's Court with regard to the bloodhounds that never turned up...you get the idea. Like I say, I am not saying the police were terrible, or conversely that they were faultless, I am just saying that there seems some pretty stiff competition for the biggest 'blunder' to justify such a big statement as above.

What do we think - is Keefe overestimating the importance of the GSG and/or the perception of the same? Or am I perhaps guilty of underplaying it?

[Phil Carter]

Baffling set of circumstances indeed

'The chalk message was completely obliterated before the City Police could photograph it. Many people regard that incident as the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

....The competence of the contemporary police is a contentious issue among many on here, but whether you believe they were hopelessly lax or merely unfortunate in difficult circumstances (or like most people, you believe the answer lies somewhere between those two points) I think we can all think of a few things that we wish the police had done differently. Vis:

Hello Trevor,

The whole writing on the wall thing is a riddle within a maze within a batch of incompetance within a riddle... around and around it goes..where it stops, nobody knows..

There are so many things to look at with this, so many possibilities of who, where, why, when and what for, before we come to the actual erasing of the chalk writing.

Personally, I keep thinking of the word "Nothing", as in the the name Eddowes gave at the police station. To me, and this is purely a personal point of view, if that "Nothing" on the wall was a reference to Eddowes, then it would answer very many questions, possibly including the decision to erase the writing.

It is all speculation of course, but again personally, I think that there may be something in that particular theory. I am by far not the first to notice it, but I do feel tentatively inclined towards it at the moment.

Great stuff Trevor, thank you for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

I see your point, but how in the early morning of 30th September could the author of the GSG have known that Eddowes said "nothing" when asked her name at Bishopsgate police station on the evening of 29th September? This piece of information wasn't public knowledge until Eddowes' inquest.

City Constable 931, Lewis Robinson, 11th October 1888—

"With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied 'Nothing'. She was then put into a cell."

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

The whole writing on the wall thing is a riddle within a maze within a batch of incompetance within a riddle... around and around it goes..where it stops, nobody knows..

There are so many things to look at with this, so many possibilities of who, where, why, when and what for, before we come to the actual erasing of the chalk writing.

Personally, I keep thinking of the word "Nothing", as in the the name Eddowes gave at the police station. To me, and this is purely a personal point of view, if that "Nothing" on the wall was a reference to Eddowes, then it would answer very many questions, possibly including the decision to erase the writing.

It is all speculation of course, but again personally, I think that there may be something in that particular theory. I am by far not the first to notice it, but I do feel tentatively inclined towards it at the moment.

Great stuff Trevor, thank you for posting this.

best wishes

Phil

Not my post Phil so i cant take the accolade

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Yes sir, indeed..it wasn't public knowledge. That is what intruiges me.
If the "Nothing" referred to was Eddowes....then a policeman is involved.

Its is only speculative and tentative, but it makes me wonder.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor M, as opposed to Trevor B,

hahahhaha..this could get fun!

best wishes

Phil

[tnb]

Hello Trevor M, as opposed to Trevor B,

hahahhaha..this could get fun!

best wishes

Phil

Fascinating thoughts about the wording, Phil - but my point remains would a photograph really have helped resolve any of these issues any better than the transcriptions we have?

Thank God for Long and Halse is all I can say, even if they couldn't get their capitals straight!

[Fleetwood Mac]

'The chalk message was completely obliterated before the City Police could photograph it. Many people regard that incident as the biggest blunder in the search for Jack the Ripper'

This is from John E. Keefe's Carroty Nell: the Last Victim of Jack the Ripper' (2010) and it got me thinking. Warren's decision to have the graffiti washed away was obviously regrettable, and I think most people would agree it was probably the wrong decision (concerns about racial tensions notwithstanding), but the worst 'blunder' in the whole case?

Had the GSG remained in situ long enough to be properly recorded, it would obviously have cleared up a lot of the debates today about its exact position, size, position in relation to the apron, wording etc etc, but how exactly could it be expected to have advanced the investigation? Would the police have been expected to stop people in the streets of Whitechapel and make them write out the message to compare the handwriting? And, of course, we don't even know whether it was written by the killer anyway! I could be wrong, but I don't really see how a photograph would have helped clear up that particular issue. I suppose it could have been compared with the various letters, but again they are all of dubious origin.

The competence of the contemporary police is a contentious issue among many on here, but whether you believe they were hopelessly lax or merely unfortunate in difficult circumstances (or like most people, you believe the answer lies somewhere between those two points) I think we can all think of a few things that we wish the police had done differently. Vis:

We have a very small house-to-house search area. We have (apparently) a witness refusing to testify because of his religion (although what the police could have done about that particular situation, I am not sure). We have details given to and kept from the press, and perhaps from other police divisions; if we want to get into photographs that were never taken then we have no record of the bodies of Nicholls, Chapman, Eddowes and Stride where they were found. If you are one of those who believes some of the later murders or attacks (ie Mylett, Farmer, McKenzie, Coles) were the work of the same man, then presumably you would count the scaling down of patrols shortly after Kelly's murder as a pretty big blunder? Keefe's assertion seems all the odder as he does himself seem to fall into that latter camp (as the title of his book makes clear). I hate to even bring the man's name up, but we have the fact that days seem to have been wasted taking George Hutchison's story seriously only to discard it soon after. We have the whole farce outside Room 13, Miller's Court with regard to the bloodhounds that never turned up...you get the idea. Like I say, I am not saying the police were terrible, or conversely that they were faultless, I am just saying that there seems some pretty stiff competition for the biggest 'blunder' to justify such a big statement as above.

What do we think - is Keefe overestimating the importance of the GSG and/or the perception of the same? Or am I perhaps guilty of underplaying it?

I think the polis erased it because they didn't think it of importance.

And I'd agree.

Logically.....you'd have to undergo a series bout of mental acrobatics to form the conclusion that JTR in his moment of lust....took it up himself to appeal to Jews or Jew haters. Doubtful. Unless of course you think the murders were politically motivated.

[Monty]

Trevor, anyone of you,

It what way would the wall writing aid and investigation?

It is not enough of it own to convict. Coupled with the apron piece it still remains a non entity as it mentions nothing, absolutely nothing, about the murders.

The clue really isnt beneficial at all.

Monty

[Steven Russell]

tnb,

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the erasure of the GSG was not necessarily a serious blunder.

Its meaning is ambiguous, the hanwriting would have not corresponded to any known paper samples, and there is no evidence that it was left by the killer. I have always been of the opinion that the proximity of this "clue" to the apron piece is mere coincidence. Of course, if a known suspect could have been coerced into writing "Jews" as "Juwes", that would be different. Where is Michael Caine when you need him?

Best wishes,

Steve.

[tnb]

Trevor, anyone of you,

It what way would the wall writing aid and investigation?

It is not enough of it own to convict. Coupled with the apron piece it still remains a non entity as it mentions nothing, absolutely nothing, about the murders.

The clue really isnt beneficial at all.

Monty

Exactly my point Neil. I was frankly staggered to hear it claimed that 'many' people consider it the 'biggest blunder' in the case, and wondered whether I was missing something! Because to me, like you, 'Ripper' or not (and I vote not) I do not see how it would have made a jot of difference to the investigation.

Silly decision? Perhaps. But a blunder? To me a blunder is an ommision,a missed opportunity - something from which, had things been done differently, would have been of some BENEFIT. That simply isn't the case here, apart from we may have been saved a lot of rubbish about it saying 'juves' or 'james'!

[Monty]

Absolutely Trevor,

Monty

[Rob Clack]

Personally speaking I think it was right to erase the message. I believe the mistake was not getting it photographed first. Whether Jack wrote it or not (I believe he did) nobody here is in a position to state categorically that he did or didn't. The fact that the police made a big deal out of it at the time suggests that it was at least in their minds, possible evidence, and so more care should have been made to record the message. Not just in what it said but where it was actually located as that is a debatable point as well. Whether or not the handwriting could have matched a suspect we will never know.

Rob

[Monty]

Rob,

Whilst I agree, in essence, that a correct and exact record of the writing should have been kept, preferably in photographic form, I do not this it could have been used as evidence,

Any suspect could state that "yes, I did write it. However I did it in the afternoon and prior to the murder and it mentions nothing of the crime."

The onus is on the Police/Prosecution to provide evidence daming the suspect and, though it looks suspicious, it is not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore is pretty useless.

Monty

[Hunter]

Whether we, today, agree or disagree as to the origin of the graffiti... it was evidence- pure and simple- in a case that had very little. The prudent thing to do would have been to at least have someone copy it correctly... and that didn't even happen.

Look at it this way, if you came across the apron, which no doubt was connected to the murder and there was 'Mary had a little lamb' written on the wall right above it, you would be remiss to not consider it in situ and act accordingly; letting the details as to its true relevance to be fleshed out later. After it was erased... there was nothing.