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

[Rob Clack]

I think your about three steps ahead of me Neil. I was thinking more along the lines of pointing the investigation towards a suspect and starting from there. And it's one small piece in the jigsaw.

Rob

[Monty]

Rob,

If the writing matched a suspects then yeah, it would be a lead.

Monty


PS Ive finished the you know what and will send it on to you when Ive scanned it for questions. Mail it you tomorrow evening?

[Rob Clack]

Yeah, tomorrows fine. Hopefully I'll have a few bits to add to it.

Rob

[Archaic]

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.

Well said, Hunter. I agree.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Hey, wasn't it ''Marie Had A Little Lamb?''

[Phil Carter]

Well said, Hunter. I agree.

Best regards,
Archaic

PS: Hey, wasn't it ''Marie Had A Little Lamb?''

Hello Hunter, Archaic,

Agreed. Was it P.C.Lamb I wonder?

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

That's pretty good Phil.
If Lamb had been there instead of Long - who knows. Long, being newly re-assigned to the area was unfamiliar with the neigborhood and that could have been a factor in the latent discovery of the apron. Of course we don't know how familiar with Goulston St. Lamb would have been but at least he had worked the East End. Fate delt PC Long a strange hand on his first night in that area.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I have to disagree the suggestion that the graffiti is evidence is without any foundation. This whole evidence suggestion is totally reliant on a police officer who cannot really be certain whether or not it was there earlier or not.

The content has no direct bearing on any of the murders. Signature killers do not leave clues or messages vast distance from the crime scenes, and besides any message left by the killer would be clear and consice to show the reader that the message related to the murder or murders. This clearly does not

Graffiti on walls was as common then as is it now

[tnb]

Fate delt PC Long a strange hand on his first night in that area.

Indeed it did, Cris - as it would PC Thomson in Feb 1891 on his very first solo beat in any area.

With all respect to yourself and also to Rob, I am afraid I still cannot see how a photograph of the graffiti could have served as useful evidence. It was evidence, you are quite correct, in the same way as anything potentially related to the case, and as such should have been properly recorded - that is why I called it a stupid, regrettable decision (or words to that effect) but to go that step further and call it a blunder I believe we have to believe there could have been potential value to its recording, in terms of advancing the investigation. And I am sorry but I can't see it. Perhaps my perception is biased by my opinion on whether the killer wrote it; I would hope not but maybe so.

Even if - massive if - the police happened to have a sample of a suspect's handwriting to compare I do not see how that would help, unless said suspect was stupid enough to deny being in the area altogether. Otherwise we are in Patricia Cornwell and the Letters territory, whereby a jury would be expected to believe 'suspect A wrote the graffiti, ergo suspect A must be the killer', and I don't believe even in 1888 they would have been so naive as to hang a man on such an argument. Potentially it may have helped point the police to that suspect, but it would have been of no use to convict them.

[Hunter]

From what I gather from handwriting experts, penmanship on a piece of paper and writing as if on a chalkboard would look somewhat different - even if it was the same individual- because of the more extensive use of the arm in 'chalkboard' writing.

However there was a connundrum here in the fact that the apron ( which no doubt was evidence) was connected to a murder in the City and detective Halse, representing them, believed that the graffito could be relevant. The Met officials- with all of this on their turf- made the ultimate decision as to what was to be done about it.

The writing was no taller than the width of a brick- rather small... not quite like other graffiti that is very large with the intention of attracting broad-scaled attention. We have formed our opinions with the benifit of hindsight, but at the time it was potential evidence and the ability to decipher its importance was eliminated when it was erased.

[tnb]

We have formed our opinions with the benifit of hindsight, but at the time it was potential evidence and the ability to decipher its importance was eliminated when it was erased.

Can't argue with that Cris. That's an interesting point about the Met strong-arming it over the City with regards to what was basically City evidence, albeit in Met territory. In grey areas like that it is often the man who shouts loudest who wins - and I would add that the most desperate man often shouts loudest; there can be little doubt Warren was getting pretty desperate by this point. Presumably the City got possesion of the apron piece?

[Hunter]

The apron piece was taken to the Leman St. Police station where it was examined by Dr. Phillips. He subsequently turned it over to Dr. Brown when he met him at the Golden Lane Mortuary to consult in the post mortem examination and the apron pieces were fit together at that time.

[tnb]

So the Met even got first bite of that particular cherry, too. Fascinating internal politics, and you have to wonder where the guidance was coming from.

[Trevor Marriott]

So the Met even got first bite of that particular cherry, too. Fascinating internal politics, and you have to wonder where the guidance was coming from.

The blind leading the blind !

[Monty]

The Divisional Surgeons across City and Met areas met up a few days prior to Kellys death to discuss procedures and affecting matters. This upon the directive of Warren.

It may have been a result of the Eddowes enquiry however the evidence was found on Met territory and is therefore their responsibility, meaning they had the concluding descision.

Though I think the two did co-operate and this tension has been exaggerated, though at senior level one gets the impression the two forces were wary of each other.

Monty

[caz]

Interesting thread. While I can't see that leaving the message long enough to be photographed would have made the slightest difference in the long run, that's with the benefit of hindsight. Had they been able to stick a photo of it under the nose of the right suspect, and put the right sort of pressure on him, they just might have got themselves a confession they could run with on the strength of it. Doubtful, yes, but they didn't know that at the time.

In any murder case today, with forensics as they are, it would no doubt be seen as an enormous blunder to destroy a potential clue of this nature, however slender it was thought to be, until the professionals had been all over the wall and the chalk with every new toy at their disposal.

Love,

Caz
X