Decision to erase

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

i honestly dont believe this message would cause a riot though. not if the police presence and dead bodies hadnt already sparked it off. this still doesnt sound like its blaming a jew or is written against them. it seems to be in defence of them.

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

[joelhall]

it's only my personal view that they might have found its importance for the investigation MINOR IN COMPARISON TO THE RISK it created. It is certainly not an unreasonable thought.

im not dismissing this but ive never quite understood the logic.

there was, as recorded from the time, mounting disharmony for many reasons, including the need for social welfare reform, the integration problems with jews, and of course.... catching the whitechapel murderer.

surely solving this would be one less thing to worry about?

i honestly dont believe this message would cause a riot though. not if the police presence and dead bodies hadnt already sparked it off. this still doesnt sound like its blaming a jew or is written against them. it seems to be in defence of them.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Fair enough, although it should be obvious that that particular part of my post was and is a mere speculation on my part. It is certainly no 'claim'.
There can be no doubt that the City detectives and officials (McWilliams et al) were the ones who already at the site were the ones who argumented for the idea that the message should be saved and that it was a vital clue.
If The Met didn't come to the conclusion until later is of course a matter that can be debated and it's only my personal view that they might have found its importance for the investigation MINOR IN COMPARISON TO THE RISK it created. It is certainly not an unreasonable thought.

My remark about 'wise guy' actually concerned a different part, the one about your comment about Warren's official reasons for destroying it.
It should be noted that it was Thomas Arnold (the Met official who had the responsibility of the peace in the area) who first acknowledged the dangerous social impact of the message in a Jewish community - before Warren even came to the site - and that Warren mainly concurred with him and supported the idea to destroy it.
In short, there can be no doubt Arnold's main reason for destroying the message on the spot without waiting for a photographer was a concern for possible antisemitic riots and that Warren - after some consultation with Arnold - concurred with this view and, as the highest official, was the one who gave final order to wipe it out and who took the blame for it.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to state, that Warren to some degree may have been influenced - if Arnold may have hold the same opinion about the message's importance as an investigative clue worth recording on camera as McWilliam, Long and Halse, then it's quite possible that Warren may have taken different measures than the ones he ended up doing. But it was Arnold who aggressively argumented for its destruction, and listening to you, one gets the impression that it was all Warren's idea from start to finish, which of course is false.

All the best

[joelhall]

I won`t be a wise guy, Glenn, if you don`t make claims that the writing was wiped out because they thought the message was "rubbish". The authorities had not even contemplated it`s possible meaning or authorship when they decided to erase.

anonther good point...

how could it be decided so quickly, by persons who were not detectives, that it was not worth preserving this as evidence?

[Jon Guy]

I know perfectly well that Warren's decision was based on that, Jon.
Don't be a wise guy.
As I said, Warren feared that it would cause antisemitic rioting and he clearly expressed this view in his letter to his superiors.

But Warren's hasty decision could - in addition to the above - have been influenced by the fact the senior officers in his police force regarded the message as rubbish (which it most likely was). In such a context, Warren probably felt that it wasn't an important enough clue for the investigation in order for it to be worth the risk of new outrages.

Warren's big mistake was that the act of destroying it casued so much attention and bad publicity in itself.

All the best

I won`t be a wise guy, Glenn, if you don`t make claims that the writing was wiped out because they thought the message was "rubbish". The authorities had not even contemplated it`s possible meaning or authorship when they decided to erase.

[joelhall]

You are looking at this purely from an investigatory point of view. Try taking on board the policing side also.

Thats what Warren had to do, especially after the events in Trafalgar Square in 1887.

Monty

thats been precisely my point, but i dont adhere that the only hierachial decision he made was based on civil unrest. i think a large part was played by the relationship with col police, and tensions relating to sphere of influence in london districts.

it would be profoundly embarrassing both to warren and the met if a case they had put so much work into became a coup for col. and would probably amplify calls for warren and other officers resignation.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

No,Warren`s decision was based on the reasoning that :

"the writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews and which Mr Arnold with a view to prevent serious disorder proposed to obliterate"

I know perfectly well that Warren's decision was based on that, Jon.
Don't be a wise guy.
As I said, Warren feared that it would cause antisemitic rioting and he clearly expressed this view in his letter to his superiors.

But Warren's hasty decision could - in addition to the above - have been influenced by the fact the senior officers in his police force regarded the message as rubbish (which it most likely was). In such a context, Warren probably felt that it wasn't an important enough clue for the investigation in order for it to be worth the risk of new outrages.

Warren's big mistake was that the act of destroying it casued so much attention and bad publicity in itself.

All the best

[Monty]

Joel

You are looking at this purely from an investigatory point of view. Try taking on board the policing side also.

Thats what Warren had to do, especially after the events in Trafalgar Square in 1887.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

then why have the message removed yet not attempt to stop it as evidence

Perhaps because whilst the graffito remained on the wall it would have been the equivalent of a "Kick Me!" notice stuck to someone's back.

[joelhall]

then why have the message removed yet not attempt to stop it as evidence, which would appear in print to a much wider audience than a few by-standers?

this would surely have caused more trouble that he was trying to avoid. also why would it be removed against opinions of officers and detectives on the ground who had far more experience with evidence than warren?

these are 2 of the more telling points.

[Monty]

Joel,

His actions and reasons do not contradict.

Monty

[joelhall]

Joel,



What evidence?

Monty

er... everything i just said. his actions for one thing cast doubt on his assertions.

and no blair was not lied to. he simply didnt state his other reasons. but thats besides the point. you cannot lie if you dont say anything.

[Celesta]

[QUOTE=joelhall;26741]and tony blair reported to his 'authorities' that invading iraq was for wmds

Mr. Blair was lied to, just like the rest of us! Some things never change.

------------------
It was Supt. Arnold's idea, initially, to erase the writing, according to Sugden, and Warren concurred.

[Monty]

Joel,

..we shouldnt, of course, completely dismiss his reasons, but we can of course question them, as there is some evidence which suggests he was not saying the whole story.

What evidence?

Monty

[Jon Guy]

Warren's decision was probably also influenced by the fact that the Met in general (especially Thomas Arnold and later Donald Swanson) was of the opinion that the message was complete nonsense that had nothing to do with the murder (it was mainly the City police who wanted it photographed).

No,Warren`s decision was based on the reasoning that :

"the writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews and which Mr Arnold with a view to prevent serious disorder proposed to obliterate"