The word JUWES

[RivkahChaya]

Hello All. Here is a link to some samples of graffiti at a casual ward, ca 1865.

I did not recognise the prevalence of East End graffiti until now.

So, the idea that the graffiti could have been there by coincidence looks better?

At the time it was found it could have been lantern lit and photographed before the sun rose, and before most of the early market folks might pass by it.

A lantern would be a poor source of light, and a photographer who had that suggested to them would probably laugh. Lantern light, even with a reflective shade to direct it, wasn't strong enough.

Pretty much, you needed sunlight. I'm not sure at what point electric light became powerful enough to photograph by, but it would have been reserved for photographer's studios. This was not a time when a photographer could bring long power cords and lamps to a location shooting. Flash photography was still a ways off, too, and at any rate, that just lit up a day time picture well enough that the subject did not have to hold perfectly still for an uncomfortable period of time.

Can anyone show me any victorian night photos? You'd be hard pressed to find any. Taking images in darkness was an extremely difficult process, even if lit by a lantern, which really would be of no benefit.

In a nutshell.

Hello Barbara. Only problem is that a Frenchman would not have made that mistake.

Would French as a second language do as well?

To bad, because a Frenchman thinking in his head "pas blâmés pour rien," and writing "not blamed for nothing," would explain the odd syntax. 'Course, it doesn't explain how it got to be "not be blamed for nothing."

[Phil Carter]

Hello All. Here is a link to some samples of graffiti at a casual ward, ca 1865.

I did not recognise the prevalence of East End graffiti until now.

Interesting.

Cheers.
LC

http://www.workhouses.org.uk/vagrants/graffiti.shtml

Hello Lynn,

Thank you for this.
Yes- I can indeed see what you mean about prevalance.
Thought provoking.

Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

graffiti

Hello All. Here is a link to some samples of graffiti at a casual ward, ca 1865.

I did not recognise the prevalence of East End graffiti until now.

Interesting.

Cheers.
LC

http://www.workhouses.org.uk/vagrants/graffiti.shtml

[Errata]

Disraeli had been dead for eight years (since 1881)!!

I really don't think we need to hypothesise about obscure (if valid, indeed)reasons why Warren made his decision.

The likely influences on him, police, political (by which I mean issues around the scope of his office), social, organisational etc have all been set out earlier.

Why revert to "conspiracy" theories - it's infantile?

Phil H

I don't think it's a conspiracy at all. It was Warren's job to mitigate any potential political disasters. He was not being paranoid, there were legitimate concerns. He made his decision. He did his job. The surrounding cops did their job in protesting that it was legitimate evidence. Everyone did their job correctly. It's not a conspiracy, it's not a plot, it just didn't result in an outcome WE would prefer. We want a photograph. We don't get one. Life works like that sometimes.

[Lechmere]

OK Don
In my opinion he panicked.
But I then went on to use the word ‘indicates’ which carries with it an admission of imprecision and doubt over what is about to be said.
People seldom admit to panicking. If every time someone accused someone else of panicking they had to preface it with ‘in my opinion he was panicking’, then English usage would become most cumbersome.

[Phil H]

Disraeli had been dead for eight years (since 1881)!!

I really don't think we need to hypothesise about obscure (if valid, indeed)reasons why Warren made his decision.

The likely influences on him, police, political (by which I mean issues around the scope of his office), social, organisational etc have all been set out earlier.

Why revert to "conspiracy" theories - it's infantile?

Phil H

[Errata]

The graffiti was probably the political equivalent of a modern cop walking into a hotel room where a hooker overdosed and seeing the President's brother sitting in the corner in his underwear.

Disraeli was a huge favorite of the queen, which had not been popular. And you never want to put Victoria in a position where she has to defend Disraeli and his people because she would. Then, the current Prime Minister was married to a Jew, who was hugely involved in charities and causes for the betterment of poor Jews in London. It would not at all be remarkable to find that any given Jew the police cared to look at benefited in some way or another from the Countess of Roseberry. It would easily be enough to topple a government.

Would a PC know what charities the PM's wife worked with? No. But Warren would.

And if a photo existed, someone would have gotten a hold of it. Journalistic ethics was kind of a new thing. And I don't mean that in some sarcastic way, it honestly was a new thing. A reporter now could never get away with lifting a crime scene photo and printing it, but back then they could have.

[Phil Carter]

If we accept the argument that photographing the GSG was difficult or impossible, the fact remains that there was consensus that the content should be recorded.

It should not have been difficult for the various officers present to document the exact wording of the graffito, and to compare notes to ensure total accuracy before the irrevocable act of erasure was undertaken. It shouldn't have been difficult - it was a basic, common-sense procedure - but it wasn't done.

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,


I basically agree with you here. But as some maintain that it WAS done, can I be cheeky enough to re-word your sentence slightly?

It wasn't done in agreement nor accuracy. In carrying out their duty, various policemen were NOT accurate in recording the wording, causing confusion. Notes compared afterwards by those involved obviously didnt happen, thus the complete lack of uniformity and uninamity.

It could be argued that this evidence should never have got to the inquest as evidence in the mess it did. Also that this disagreement between policemen and even between forces gave the newspapers amunition if they wanted it and the public trust in the veracity of those in charge of the case must have been weakened, especially as Warren himself was involved in the scenario.

The Jewes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing was not photographed. It has been shown in example that City Police photographed another example of graffito.

The argument that the need to get the GSG photographed being hěndered by circumstance, time, light, cumbersome materials needed is therefore weakened by the fact that it had been done on another occasion. We do not know the time of day when it was done. But it was done. And with the same cumbersome photographic equipment, presumeably in daylight, with policemen present, which would also attract attention,imho.

Whichever way we read this, or interpret it, it is believed by many that the police handled the whole situation poorly by many both at the time, and by many in the many years since.

Best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Lechmere,

Warren panicked. His presence in the East End that morning indicates that he had in fact become preoccupied and jumpy as a result of the police’s perceived failure to deal adequately with the Whitechapel murders.

How do you know that? If that is what you think, then say that, but you present your speculation as fact and that ain't right.

Don.

[Monty]

If we accept the argument that photographing the GSG was difficult or impossible, the fact remains that there was consensus that the content should be recorded.

It should not have been difficult for the various officers present to document the exact wording of the graffito, and to compare notes to ensure total accuracy before the irrevocable act of erasure was undertaken. It shouldn't have been difficult - it was a basic, common-sense procedure - but it wasn't done.

Regards, Bridewell.

Again, it was Colin.

Monty

[Monty]

Precisely by coming down to look at the graffiti, Warren was relegating himself to the role of infantryman.
It would be like a general going into the trenches to go over the top. Generals stayed behind the lines to maintain control and observe at distance. Warren panicked. His presence in the East End that morning indicates that he had in fact become preoccupied and jumpy as a result of the police’s perceived failure to deal adequately with the Whitechapel murders. He lost control by trying to be hands on. A common failing in chains of command
He was not a policeman as such – he was effectively an administrator and a political appointee.

Ah Monty I see, but when I said ‘record it’ I mean by means of a photograph which I had hoped would be apparent as I was discussing why the graffiti should have been photographed.

It wasn't apparent, obviously.

The analagy is in reference to perspective, which is clear in my post.

Monty

[Bridewell]

If we accept the argument that photographing the GSG was difficult or impossible, the fact remains that there was consensus that the content should be recorded.

It should not have been difficult for the various officers present to document the exact wording of the graffito, and to compare notes to ensure total accuracy before the irrevocable act of erasure was undertaken. It shouldn't have been difficult - it was a basic, common-sense procedure - but it wasn't done.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Lechmere]

Precisely by coming down to look at the graffiti, Warren was relegating himself to the role of infantryman.
It would be like a general going into the trenches to go over the top. Generals stayed behind the lines to maintain control and observe at distance. Warren panicked. His presence in the East End that morning indicates that he had in fact become preoccupied and jumpy as a result of the police’s perceived failure to deal adequately with the Whitechapel murders. He lost control by trying to be hands on. A common failing in chains of command
He was not a policeman as such – he was effectively an administrator and a political appointee.

Ah Monty I see, but when I said ‘record it’ I mean by means of a photograph which I had hoped would be apparent as I was discussing why the graffiti should have been photographed.

[Monty]

To compare Warren and his duty against Halse and his duty is akin to comparing an Infantryman to a General.

Warrens duty is to police the area under his domain, to ensure the public within that domain are safe and propert secure.

Halses duty is to investigate. Hence his suggestion to photograph it (also it was McWilliams instruction).

Their perspectives differed.

Warren was taking Arnolds lead who, as records show, had to deal with anti semetic attacks after the Chapman murder. Warren reasoning was sound, as no attacks took place. It gave him and H division time required to organise themselves. To state no rioting tool place after the publication is moot. The situation was under control by then.

Time was a crucial matter in Warrens decision and obviously he felt he had no time to waste in calling, waiting and setting up of photographer. The pros and cons were thought of, and this is noted on both sides at the inquest.

Its obvious that the Citys policy was to use photography, and we now have evidence that they did. However from a purely investigatory view, and prosecution point, I fail to see what advantage it has. And that's the angle I view it from.

And, point of fact, you actually stated that -

"It is faintly ludicrous to suggest that there was no real need to record it, if only to eliminate it as valid evidence relating to the case."

And its to that I was referring to.

Monty

[Phil H]

Warren had been a desk policeman for two years.
That gave him experience of what might happen on the streets of the East End?
Warren thought there might be riots. His actions made the issue more controversial and there were no riots. He clearly didn’t have a very good grasp of the realities on the ground. Not surprising given his lack of a police background.

Somewhat facile reasoning, I think.

Warren was Metropolitain Police Comissioner, authority, responsibility and accountability rested with him. Whether he knew much about the East End is beside the point. THAT is not what he was paid for.

Equally, his lack of police background, is not relevant. His realm was one of policy and strategy and the "political" oversight of the force. That, I have argued above, is what he was concerned with when he visited the GSG in person before making his decision.

So far as London was concerned, he was familiar with the riot in Trafalgar Square in 1887. Who knows what the home office - his presiding department of state - may have said to him regarding future disturbances. I suggest that his major preoccupation that night was the bigger picture - not the Ripper murders - but the wider question of law and order on the streets of the East End.

Don't forget also that Warren was to resign only a few weeks later, and that Munro was to do so after a fairly short incumbency. There was a bureaucratic battle being waged in Whitehall in regard to the powers andscope of the Commissioner, and Matthews was not an easy man to deal with. Thus, what was in Warren's mind that night may not have been pure or simple, and may not have reflected our modern or personal concerns with the Whitechapel murders. I propose that they may well have focused on the implications for political control of the met police if matters on the streets got out of hand.

Given forensics then, the evidential or practical use of a record of the GSG may not have been seen to be either very high or very relevant.

Interestingly, in regard to evidence and recording information, I'd say Warren had a VERY good track record. He was held in high regard for his previous archaeological investigations under the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and as i recall for his map-making skills in the same area.

Lechmere, you often make very good points and argue your case strongly, but in this instance, I think you are taking a too narrow and misdirected view.

Phil H