Decision to erase

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I agree photographing the graffiti would have been a costly and unusual thing to do. [...]
The policemen where no photography experts of course and even if they wanted a picture it may not have been possible to get one.

That's nonsens. Although plate cameras were used at the time, there would be no difficulty in finding a photographer and quite easily snap a shot of the writing - in Miller's Court they quickly sent after a photopgrapher, for example. Photographs had been used since the 1840s, and as sam says, cabinet photos were very cheap and were accessible to practically everyone. It was certainly not 'costly'.
And it wouldn't have been a problem anyway, considering what an important high profile case the Ripper case was. I honestly don't think they would have abondoned the idea of taking the photo on grounds of financial or technical issues when the techinque was easily available.

Besides, that is not what the reason was anyway. Warren made it quite clear in his letter to his superiors that the reason for erasing and not photographing the writing was for security reasons, not anything else.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Incidentaly do we believe the use of the double nrgative and the wording is a clever mind setting police a riddle or a less educated mind unable to clearly gat a point across?

The present thread is about the "Decision to erase" the message, not its possible meaning. Please note that there's an entire thread (and an extensive one) to discuss the meaning of the graffiti, here:

The GSG. What does it Mean?

[brummie]

Two opposing thoughts occur yto me about the grafiti: the only gain from photographing it would be to compare handwriting and since the police seem to have disregarded all the communications as hoaxs once the actual wording has been recorded it is merely a matter of interpreting the meaning, on the other hand once the news of the grafiti has been made public at the inquest and in newspaper reports surely ant anti jewish feeling would be fuelled anyway. Especially if the reports included the location and proximity of the piece of apron.So it would seem to make no difference whetherthe writng was erased quickly or not. Incidentaly do we believe the use of the double nrgative and the wording is a clever mind setting police a riddle or a less educated mind unable to clearly gat a point across?

[Sam Flynn]

This means that they were probably still using plate cameras which makes the process expensive

Actually, Paula, it might not have been all that expensive - Annie Chapman and her husband might not have been exactly "destitute" when they had photographs taken of each other and their children in the 1870s, but they were certainly only of the upper working class.

Personal portrait photography became increasingly popular with a broad customer base in the Late Victorian Period, and a private citizen could have a splendid "cabinet" portrait photograph taken for only one or two shillings. Doubtless the police could get them done for less.

You may find this site interesting.

[String]

I agree photographing the graffiti would have been a costly and unusual thing to do. My suggestion of photographing a lot of graffiti was just an example of a ruse they could have pulled in order to get the evidence without public order problems. They could have tried other things.

At least they considered photographing the graffiti:

From Warrens report to the Home Secretary 6 Nov 1888,

"A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed;"

The policemen where no photography experts of course and even if they wanted a picture it may not have been possible to get one. It's one of those strange mysteries that this case throws up all the time.

Now where did I put that Olympus and time machine?

[Paula Thomas]

I think if the police had have used a bit of sense this could have been avoided.

As stated above there was graffiti all over the place, the police could have got the photographer to take pictures of a lot of the graffiti thereby playing down the importance of the one they where particularly interested in. Got some people to pose etc. This would have played the situation down and they would have the evidence.

I am a little puzzled as to the evidential basis for 'there was graffiti all over the place' but that isn't my main point.

Photographic film had only been invented in 1885 and if the Police were anything like they are they would not have used it on a case until they had thoroughly tested it, they wouldn't want a defence lawyer trying to blow a hole in their case by challenging 'untested technology' in court. This means that they were probably still using plate cameras which makes the process expensive and cumbersome and the Police would have been as aware of budgetary constraints then as they are today. If someone has any definitive knowledge of the cameras used perhaps they could be so kind as to correct me if I am wrong on this.

I agree that it is a pity that no photograph exists but I can understand the concerns of the Police at the time.

As has been stated unless anyone tells the crowd about the apron how would the crowd know what they where doing?

For me it's academic anyway I think the graffiti was coincidental and a photograph although nice to have would have been of little use. Handwriting on a wall and a page would never be comparable.

I agree that both the graffiti and apron may have been incidental but this is one of the (many) points on which we will never know....

Paula

[String]

Yes I was surprised when I heard that the graffiti was so prolific I would have thought that people where too busy trying to scratch a living to bother with that.
On reflection though I suppose it would be found given the tensions in the area. Graffiti is often one of the first signs of discontent.

I think if it was the killer who wrote it he would be in a pretty agitated state and any writing on the wall would reflect that. He would also be in a hurry and possibly running or at least walking fast. Looking over ones shoulder waiting to be apprehended with the bloody piece of apron in him or at least nearby would result in more of a scrawl.

For me the neat and legible description of the writing would tend to rule out a killer on the run.

Maybe this is why the police at the time practically dismissed it as evidence.

[caz]

Thanks Monty and String.

Please don't think I was suggesting there was anything unusual about graffiti in general at the time. I just thought 'all over the place' sounded a wee bit too presumptuous.

I still think neat, legible (and clean, ie no strong language) examples, where the meaning was not immediately obvious, would have made up a small proportion of the examples that were removed as soon as they were noticed for fear of trouble. Today we see examples that can hang around for days and weeks, if not months.

I agree with you, String, that it was most likely meant to be a provocative little dig at the residents and/or passers-by, who would have been predominantly Jewish and in a position to see it. It almost doesn't matter how many could have read or understood the English if 'Juwes' would have jumped out at most. Whoever wrote it would have been aware of the power of that word alone to rattle the nerves. If he wasn't the same man who later dumped the apron there, I wonder what his reaction was when he learned that he had pre-empted the killer's calling card with his own.

Love,

Caz
X

[String]

Hi Caz,

Detective Halse:

At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said '...the writing had the appearance of being recently written...', then in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, in response to a question of "why did you say it seemed to have been recently written?" Halse responded, "it looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing..." Graffiti of all kinds was not unusual, in fact it had proliferated since the murder of Annie Chapman, so there is no reason to think of this as anything special.

I think most graffiti would have consisted of so and so is a whatever, usually aimed at the establishment and this statement really is not much different:
'The Juews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing'
It's having a go at Jews for whatever reason.
It's a racist remark that you still see scrawled over walls today, although with stronger language.
Just a simple hate message.

[Monty]

Caz,

Sorry, String, but who made this statement 'above' and what evidence is there for it?

It was probably me.

There are news reports of graffiti in the area, Hanbury street report springs to mind.

There is also photographic evidence of graffiti in the area, though this is not contemporary. Photos of Berner Street in 1909 and Dorset Street in 1920s show wall writing.

I see no reason why Whitechapel in 1880s should escape such scrawls.

Monty

[caz]

As stated above there was graffiti all over the place...

Sorry, String, but who made this statement 'above' and what evidence is there for it?

Obviously the police knew this specific example was found close to a bloody piece of cloth, even though subsequent passers-by would not have been aware of that fact.

But even if graffiti was all over the place, how many examples would have been written in this manner: a perfectly neat and legible complete sentence but ambiguous as all hell at the same time?

Contrary to what Sam, among others, have suggested elsewhere, I don't think 'Jacob's Crackers' (or 'Percy's Nuts', or even 'Everyone's a Cadbury's Fruit n Nutcase' ) found chalked above the apron would be puzzled over at all today, or suspected at the time to have come from anyone with serious mischief in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bailey]

As stated above there was graffiti all over the place, the police could have got the photographer to take pictures of a lot of the graffiti thereby playing down the importance of the one they where particularly interested in. Got some people to pose etc. This would have played the situation down and they would have the evidence.

Hey String

Nice thought, and certainly a more realistic solution today, but photography in 1888 was in its infancy (or at least its youth), and therefore randomly snapping away at assorted bits of wall and passers-by would have been both impractical and probably quite expensive.

Even today, with a reasonably high-tech camera, low light presents some pretty serious challenges to a photographer, although quite less so in the case of something as immobile as grafitti on a wall.

Obviously we'd all love to see a snap of the GSG, but outside of being dreadfully interesting and of course correcting some of the conflicts of syntax and spelling, my feeling is that it would be worth very little as evidence at this stage. Still, it was probably not the smartest call to erase it...

Cheers,
Bailey.

[String]

I think if the police had have used a bit of sense this could have been avoided.

As stated above there was graffiti all over the place, the police could have got the photographer to take pictures of a lot of the graffiti thereby playing down the importance of the one they where particularly interested in. Got some people to pose etc. This would have played the situation down and they would have the evidence.

As has been stated unless anyone tells the crowd about the apron how would the crowd know what they where doing?

For me it's academic anyway I think the graffiti was coincidental and a photograph although nice to have would have been of little use. Handwriting on a wall and a page would never be comparable.

[caz]

Well, Joel, that is YOUR interpretation (as far as I am concerned it can just as easily be interpreated as anti-Jewish), but obviously the Met DID come to the opposite conclusion - namely that it was directed against the Jews - and there can be little doubt that the apron combined with the message (note: not the message on its own!) would be explosive and make a negative impact.
As Monty correctly states, we must consider the sociopolitical context here, and the message and apron was found right in the middle of Jewish vendor territory around Wentworth Street.

Personally, I subscribe to the idea (put forward by Martin Fido, amonst others) that it was a graffitti written by an unsatisfied customer who had bought something in a Jewish stall that he found worthless and didn't meet his expectations.

But the point with your interpretation of the message (which contradicts those of some others and also the view of the Met police) is that it clearly illustrates how ambigious and unclear its meaning actually is, and therefore hardly credible as something penned by a murderer who 'wanted to make his mark'.

All the best

Hi Glenn,

We’ve been through all this before, but the message still doesn’t seem to get through: if the message had to be combined with the apron in order to make it explosive, then it ceased to be explosive the moment the apron was picked up and whisked away. The cops hardly stood there with a megaphone announcing that a bloody rag thought to be associated with a violent crime had just been removed from the scene.

Having said that, I can certainly understand the decision to remove the message along with the apron. It was considered, all by itself, when the apron was safely out of the way, to be too potentially inflammatory to remain on the wall; end of story. Contrary to what Perry Mason imagines, a ‘quick shot’ of the message in lantern light was simply not an option, and hundreds of curious eyes would be passing by, in the wake of the two latest murders, long before sufficient daylight would allow a photographer to do his work.

To me, the simplest solution is that some git wrote those words guessing they would be considered inflammatory (which indeed they were), regardless of who was interpreting them and how. The unsatisfied customer hypothesis is all well and good, except that presumably his intention was to make the source of his dissatisfaction aware of it, or to warn others at the time - not leave it to chance that some cryptic crossword enthusiast a hundred years down the line might just guess that he wasn’t happy with his purchase. Why not write: “That Jew who sells kettles is a thieving swine cos my spout came off after one cuppa”?

If, on the other hand, the writer simply did it to help put Jew against Gentile, or Gentile against Jew (like a good little pot-stirring graffiti artist), the message came across loud and clear and its author was clearly someone not averse to causing chaos in the community. Now call me old-fashioned, but who do we know who fits that description, has no alibi and can even be placed right at the scene?

Any Coffee Time crossword addicts in the house?

Love,

Caz
X

[joelhall]

Well, Joel, that is YOUR interpretation (as far as I am concerned it can just as easily be interpreated as anti-Jewish), but obviously the Met DID come to the opposite conclusion - namely that it was directed against the Jews - and there can be little doubt that the apron combined with the messge (note: not the message on its own!) would be explosive and make a negative impact.

touche. it can be taken both ways. which is my point. noone seems to have mentioned the way i read it. although it wasnt the mets conclusion, it was the senior officers. im pretty certain the constables and locals would have spotted its meaning straight away, which is why they hung around and made notes of it. to them it said something different to the officers of different social background.

one thing i do have going for me though with interpretations of phrases like 'wont be blamed for nothing' & 'oh murder' is my background. some of these phrases have been around for donkeys years to be honest, and when this type of language is your 'mother-tongue' so to speak, you dont need to try and decypher it. the meaning is usually obvious.

its not middle-class speak but a slang phrase, and it is of course perfectly possible a grumpy customer wrote it. its also conceivable to killer wrote it. its also possible neither did.

anyone getting a headache yet?