Decision to erase

[perrymason]

Excepting cover-ups, I can't think of any other instance where evidence was willfully destroyed.

Thats a good line Stan,... nice to see you too.

Cheers

[caz]

The message could have been preserved long enough for a photo....they did have some 3-4 hours until daylight would even become an issue....

Hi Perry,

Not quite sure what you mean by daylight being an 'issue'. They had 3-4 hours to wait until daylight would have enabled a photographer to get a decent shot of the message. So it was evidently judged unwise to preserve it for that long (even in the pre-dawn darkness or covered up and guarded by a policeman), presumably because of all the anticipated comings and goings associated with the 'Jews Market' and its Sunday dawn chorus.

Love,

Caz
X

[Celesta]

I can't vote because my choice is both. Unfortunately, I'm making a judgment from too great a temporal distance, but Warren should have waited until the photographer got there. Surely, he could have found some way to keep the writing hidden for a little while. On the other hand, the threat of civil unrest was a real one and for that reason, I can't judge the man for ordering it removed.

[mikey559]

no way

It should not have beeen erased. It doesn't matter wether it actually had anything to do with the case or not. We will forever have questions regarding the negative / double negative versions. It should have been perserved in a photograph.

Mikey

[Sox]

The man responsible for Bloody Sunday, worried about unrest? I think not somehow.

He was wrong to have that writing erased, without question he was destroying evidence relating to a murder.

[Monty]

Sox,

I think it was because of Bloody Sunday and its fall out that may have been a factor in Warrens thought process.

He was destroying evidence that was possibly related to a murder. There is nothing in it to say that it was.

Other than handwriting comparison, there is little need for an actual photo of the writing.

Monty

[caz]

I can't vote because my choice is both. Unfortunately, I'm making a judgment from too great a temporal distance, but Warren should have waited until the photographer got there. Surely, he could have found some way to keep the writing hidden for a little while. On the other hand, the threat of civil unrest was a real one and for that reason, I can't judge the man for ordering it removed.

Hi Celesta,

While I agree that Warren should have been able to work out a way of preserving the message without the whole of the East End erupting, it was not just for ‘a little while’ until the photographer could get there, as I was trying to say in my post. My understanding is that it was a matter of hours before the light would be sufficient to allow for any photos to be taken; hours that would see increasing numbers of Sunday morning market traders etc passing by, perhaps having heard about the two murders during the night, and potentially getting thoroughly worked up about a chalked message at the entrance of a predominantly Jewish dwelling house, which appears to mis-spell Jews and mentions blame.

Love,

Caz
X

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta,

While I agree that Warren should have been able to work out a way of preserving the message without the whole of the East End erupting, it was not just for ‘a little while’ until the photographer could get there, as I was trying to say in my post. My understanding is that it was a matter of hours before the light would be sufficient to allow for any photos to be taken; hours that would see increasing numbers of Sunday morning market traders etc passing by, perhaps having heard about the two murders during the night, and potentially getting thoroughly worked up about a chalked message at the entrance of a predominantly Jewish dwelling house, which appears to mis-spell Jews and mentions blame.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I see. I guess I just misinterpreted what you were saying about the light. It started me thinking about the fact that it would soon be bright enough for people to clearly see what was written, and I went off in that direction, instead of thinking about light for the camera. Sorry, I didn't intentionally ignore your post.

Blessings,

Celesta

[Dan Norder]

The man responsible for Bloody Sunday, worried about unrest? I think not somehow.

It was Warren's desire to avoid unrest that caused Bloody Sunday in the first place... in his mind he was putting the protesters in their places to put an end to an escalating problem. As far as public demonstrations went, it did a pretty good job of it too. Considering that his predecessor was specifically fired for inability to stop riots (including massive looting of businesses) leading to Warren getting his job in the first place, it shouldn't be surprising that Warren placed great importance on avoiding unrest.

[sdreid]

Protecting a serial killer to avoid some fanciful riot? Come on! And, it could have easily been covered anyway.

[perrymason]

I cant recall exactly how long it took, but I believe there were photographers in Millers Court before noon. I also believe that in the case of the grafitto, they had summoned photographers...which were then cancelled I would guess.

My point being Caz that for them to have men onsite, lit the area with lanterns, and taken some shots, all they would need to do is block off the entrance and the access to the Model Dwellings for an hour or so. Then by all means, wash it off if it seems like it might stir the masses.

Its just that I dont see why the automatic asumption is that the message blames Jews at all. The words "will not be blamed" suggest either deserved guilt that is avoided, or that guilt will not fall upon the Jews,.. due to their innocence....as for example... "when it all comes out, the Jews wont be the ones that are found guilty of these murders".

I think that although Warren wasnt the only man who wanted it wiped off, he was the one that should have ensured it was captured as evidence in case of future prosecutions. And I think it was he who best understood how many local jews would love to get a piece of him for anything seemingly legit.

And there are a few different versions written by the men there....this was a poorly handled investigation from the standpoint of that alley and those potential clues. I think they did a great job in Mitre Square though.

Best regards.

[Christine]

I'm inclined to think that the threat of riot was real, but it's not like it was a huge secret anyhow. People saw it, people talked about it eventually. The real question is "How much more likely would a riot have been had it been preserved for a few hours and shown to a few more people?" I have this image of angry Jews milling around demanding to know what's behind that card that the police officer is holding up. Or would it be angry anti-Semites? It's not even obvious which.

[Dan Norder]

Protecting a serial killer to avoid some fanciful riot?

First off, if you think expecting a riot in those conditions was "fanciful" you need to go back and take a closer look at the events in the East End in 1888. Near-riots were happening on a regular regular basis. All Warren had to have was a reasonable suspicion that the discovery of the apron and a message mentioning Jews would cause trouble and he'd remove it for the public good. That's what he was hired to do, and precisely what his predecessor was fired for not doing.

Second off, describing the removal of some graffiti that they'd already taken notes about as "protecting a serial killer" is just ridiculous.

[Monty]

There is no evidence that a serial killer wrote it.

Warrens priority was to the public and its saftey. Keeping the writing on the wall for a few extra hours would not have caught Eddowes killer yet may have caused a riot.

And there is the balance that Warren had to weigh up.

Monty

[sdreid]

Hi Dan,

It's a beautiful day here.