Decision to erase

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I agree with both Dan and Monty here. Good posts, both.

It is easy with hindsight to criticise Warren for his and Thomas Arnold's decision, but one must keep the very real threat of antisemitic riots, as well as Warren's bad relations to the radical press, in mind when evaluating the act of erasing the message. Warren may have handled incorrectly from a modern forensic point of view but as always when dealing with historical events, one must take the whole sociopolitocal context into equation.
Sometimes I have to admit I don't know what Stan Reid is all about.

All the best

[Celesta]

He may not have actually looking for graffiti but just happened to see it.

I don't think he wrote it after the murder. It was too dark. He might have written it earlier. But then, why did he write it?

Hi Rain,

We have no reports of anyone having seen this scrawl other than the police. If it had been there earlier in the evening, when it was still somewhat light, then someone might have seen it, especially someone in the building. Yet there's no evidence that anyone did. So does this mean that it was there and that no one noticed it? If no one noticed it, then how noticeable was it? Warren certainly got twitchy over it, and with good reason. Whenever it was written, how noticeable would it have been, in full darkness, to someone hurrying past or momentarily ducking into the passage, to get rid a highly incriminating piece of cloth? The writing must not have been very visible in the dark, as the PC had to shine his lantern on it, and he had not spotted it earlier, which may or may not mean much. It could have been coincidence that JTR dropped it there, or for some reason, he already knew it was there.

[rain]

Hi Rain,

We have no reports of anyone having seen this scrawl other than the police. If it had been there earlier in the evening, when it was still somewhat light, then someone might have seen it, especially someone in the building. Yet there's no evidence that anyone did. So does this mean that it was there and that no one noticed it? If no one noticed it, then how noticeable was it? Warren certainly got twitchy over it, and with good reason. Whenever it was written, how noticeable would it have been, in full darkness, to someone hurrying past or momentarily ducking into the passage, to get rid a highly incriminating piece of cloth? The writing must not have been very visible in the dark, as the PC had to shine his lantern on it, and he had not spotted it earlier, which may or may not mean much. It could have been coincidence that JTR dropped it there, or for some reason, he already knew it was there.

It was a coincidence that the piece of apron was dropped right next to it. It as if jtr knew exactly where it was.

It was the night of the double murder, right? Perhaps he killed his second victim to place the piece of cloth in that particular place.

I am just guessing, trying to understand what goes through a killer's mind.

Another scenario is that he had seen the person writing the message on the wall and thought that dropping the apron cloth there would implicate that person for the murder.

so a- he just happened to drop the cloth there b- he wrote it earlier and dropped it after the murder or c- he tried to implicate the actual writer.

[Celesta]

It was a coincidence that the piece of apron was dropped right next to it. It as if jtr knew exactly where it was.

It was the night of the double murder, right? Perhaps he killed his second victim to place the piece of cloth in that particular place.

I am just guessing, trying to understand what goes through a killer's mind.

Another scenario is that he had seen the person writing the message on the wall and thought that dropping the apron cloth there would implicate that person for the murder.

so a- he just happened to drop the cloth there b- he wrote it earlier and dropped it after the murder or c- he tried to implicate the actual writer.

Any or all! I agree! You must have been reading my mind, a little bit, Rain. I was thinking that it was possible that he had known the writing was there, and deliberately dropped the apron there, whether or not he wrote it. Your item # "c" above, is a new idea for me though. It would imply that he was in the vicinity when it was written.

[rain]

Any or all! I agree! You must have been reading my mind, a little bit, Rain. I was thinking that it was possible that he had known the writing was there, and deliberately dropped the apron there, whether or not he wrote it. Your item # "c" above, is a new idea for me though. It would imply that he was in the vicinity when it was written.

scenario c would go something like this- jtr saw someone writing something and being the curious sort, went to check it out when that person left. He either thought right then it would be the perfect place to leave a token of a murder. or thought of it after he killed his first victom of the night and then hurriedly killed another victim so as to put a token, ie the apron cloth near the chalk writing.

I must add that this is only a guess.

[perrymason]

Interesting notion Rain, but in terms of thread context, the mere fact that he would choose to associate his own artifact with a pre-existing chalk message makes the decision even more dramatically flawed.

If he may have gained inspiration from the message, you would think we would have one, maybe 2 versions of what was written there. But I believe there were three..or more, versions. "Juwes", "Juewes"..."are the men", "are not the men"...really bad evidence gathering. But the cop who found it pleaded to be able to have a photographer do a quick shot to record it. Ultimately, I think Warrens reputation locally dictated that he, personally, should act.

Not a popular man among the resident Jews I would think.

Is the U2 song Sunday Bloody Sunday about Trafalgar Square in 1887....just wondering, there are a few Bloody Sundays in history.

Cheers.

[Sam Flynn]

Is the U2 song Sunday Bloody Sunday about Trafalgar Square in 1887....just wondering, there are a few Bloody Sundays in history.

It's one of the others, Mike, when British troops opened fire on protestors engaged in a march in Londonderry (Northern Ireland) in the 1970s. Many civilians were shot dead.

[perrymason]

It's one of the others, Mike, when British troops opened fire on protestors engaged in a march in Londonderry (Northern Ireland) in the 1970s. Many civilians were shot dead.

Thanks for the info Sam, not that Im not a fan of theirs, I just didnt know the lyrics of that song.

Bloody Sundays seem to have Irish patrons.

My best Sam.

[joelhall]

wrong, regardless of whether it was evidence. its still changing a crime scene. one of several similar errors, though they werent to know what we do now.

i can obviously only state this with hindsight, but this information was written and published with no riots, so im guessing that might not have been the prime concern, else it would have probably been suppressed later too. i dont believe it was for social reasons. it is of course possible it was seen as having no bearing on the case, or that the met didnt want the col police showing them up.

whatever the reason it was a bad decision. if only because photographs of scenes would have helped detectives later after time had passed and it was no longer fresh, to see if theyd missed something... like figurines left by the killer

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

wrong, regardless of whether it was evidence. its still changing a crime scene. one of several similar errors, though they werent to know what we do now.

i can obviously only state this with hindsight, but this information was written and published with no riots, so im guessing that might not have been the prime concern, else it would have probably been suppressed later too. i dont believe it was for social reasons. it is of course possible it was seen as having no bearing on the case, or that the met didnt want the col police showing them up.

whatever the reason it was a bad decision. if only because photographs of scenes would have helped detectives later after time had passed and it was no longer fresh, to see if theyd missed something... like figurines left by the killer

Actually, Sir Charles Warren was rather clear on the matter in his letter to the authorities, where he thoroughly explained why he gave the order. So there is no need to fantasize or theorize about other conspiracy motives.
According to that account, it was the fear of anrisemitic riots and the message's sensitive location (smack bang in the middle of Jewish vender territory) that brought on his decision to quickly remove it.
Apparently Warren felt that covering it up while waiting for it to be light enough in order for it to be photographed was not a comfortable solution and he probably was of the opinion that that in itself would crate too much unnecessary and unwanted attention.

The antisemitic situation was already a pressure-cooker rady to explode and Warren probably felt he couldn't afford any more riots, since his career previously had been full of controversial issues along those lines. Papers like the Star just waited for him to make a mistake.

Of course, as has been said many times before, from a forensic point of view the decision was of course a disaster and certainly not acceptable - no question about it - but we have to look at the context here and try to see things from Warren's point of view. We are talking 1888 here, where the blood that marked the spot where Nichols was murdered was washed away into the gutter already the same morning and with no one actually caring much about it.

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).

And since the Met didn't consider it to be a vital clue, Warren probably felt that it wasn't worth the risk to let it stay on the wall.

With hindsight, we can debate til kindom come whether his decision was correct or not by our standards but we can't disregard the resons for why he did it.

All the best

[joelhall]

Actually, Sir Charles Warren was rather clear on the matter in his letter to the authorities, where he thoroughly explained why he gave the order. So there is no need to fantasize or theorize about other conspiracy motives.
According to that account, it was the fear of anrisemitic riots and the message's sensitive location (smack bang in the middle of Jewish vender territory) that brought on his decision to quickly remove it.
Apparently Warren felt that covering it up while waiting for it to be light enough in order for it to be photographed was not a comfortable solution and he probably was of the opinion that that in itself would crate too much unnecessary and unwanted attention.

The antisemitic situation was already a pressure-cooker rady to explode and Warren probably felt he couldn't afford any more riots, since his career previously had been full of controversial issues along those lines. Papers like the Star just waited for him to make a mistake.

Of course, as has been said many times before, from a forensic point of view the decision was of course a disaster and certainly not acceptable - no question about it - but we have to look at the context here and try to see things from Warren's point of view. We are talking 1888 here, where the blood that marked the spot where Nichols was murdered was washed away into the gutter already the same morning and with no one actually caring much about it.

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).

And since the Met didn't consider it to be a vital clue, Warren probably felt that it wasn't worth the risk to let it stay on the wall.

With hindsight, we can debate til kindom come whether his decision was correct or not by our standards but we can't disregard the resons for why he did it.

All the best

and tony blair reported to his 'authorities' that invading iraq was for wmds

to say 'fantasize ... about other conspiracy motives' youre over-dramatising my point. im not inferring that the reason was to hide anything, such as the suspects identity or that he was privy to other information, nor that he was trying to sabotage the investigation... thats a no-brainer as if true there would have been a silencing procedure on witnesses, and a quick official denial. indeed we probably would never have known about it in the first place.

merely i question what actually made up his mind. this was an-ex military man of the victorian era, not a detective. to say he was an expert on police investigation techniques would be an over-statement. at that time this is not what comissioners were chosen for (and they didnt do 2 years probation on the beat to learn then either). whether he would protect evidence or a crime scene against other factors, political or personal, is doubtful.

warren must have known by the reports that the writing had been copied, this would almost certainly have been the case despite the lack of surviving records due to standard police practice and the collection of evidence. the fact is whilst the writing was in an area surrounded by jews, the evidence given later was heard by english witnesses. this wasnt suppressed, which if there was a danger of rioting and meant nothing to the case, it would have, the same as for any conpiracy theory. after the evidence was heard he made no official protest. neither did he about the fact it was now known hes ordered it to be removed. there was no riot over this.

this would also have been stopped to prevent warren looking foolish or guilty. it was not suppressed.

this also bring us to the point that the writing was recorded. obviously not everyone was convinced it had nothing to do with the case.

if the pressure cooker was that bad, would there not have been enough problems with the reaction to seeing a large police presence in the area? temperatures were surely high enough already? i wasnt alive then but im sure, as today, dead bodies and groups of policemen get enough tempers going.

to quote:

Apparently Warren felt that covering it up while waiting for it to be light enough in order for it to be photographed was not a comfortable solution and he probably was of the opinion that that in itself would crate too much unnecessary and unwanted attention.

... apparently. the number of police and the attendance of the commisioner would surely have been enough on the morning after the ripper struck? this would have been a good solution, but was not carried out.

i believe, despite what his pride would have him later admit, that the rivalry with the col had more to do with his decision. their decision to photograph was most likely the catalyst. otherwise it would surely have been removed sooner? it was noted first of course. the decision made to remove the writing was to prevent the col getting their photographic evidence. else why not shut off the area while collecting evidence?

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. there is evidence from the day and his subsequent actions that says otherwise. in truth someone can state whatever they like, but actions often speak louder than words. it was certainly important enough that he explained his actions to a higher authority!

a true investigator doesnt take evidence or statements at face value, he examines them. we should do the same.

[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"

[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

[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.

[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.