Decision to erase

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.

[sdreid]

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

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

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

[sdreid]

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

I think the decision to erase the grafitto can be categorized as a mistake, but the fact that Senior Officers made that call quickly should tell s all that things in the East End were very volatile...and not just due to the killings.

Many Jews had met with "Warren-style" crowd control in the past....some 10,000 people rallied for Socialism on Bloody Sunday, and Warren himself knew only too well he and his officers were seen as local "jailors", not "protectors", by many of the poor and indigent in the area. They felt the police kept the poor in the East End, to protect the "decent" society... that lived in the opposite direction of Londons metropolis.

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....but I believe the reasoning is very revealing about the state of the area at that time. It was a tinderbox.

Funny that the Ripper... in some ways, reached into that pit of anger to unite people, by reminding them that the police were not going to save them from their strife and poverty...or from crazed killers.

If they feared reprisals from that message, I wonder if they thought Jews or Gentiles would be up in arms about it. The message is not clearly anti-semetic, nor clearly pro-Jew, so who was the group that they thought would react strongly? Socialist Jews is my guess.

The same group that were bloodied in Trafalgar Square by the police a year earlier. And the same group that held a meeting on Sept 30, and later discovered the first victim of the night on their property... dead.

Cheers all.

[paul emmett]

Possibly, Paul - except that (a) the lighting conditions were unlikely to have been the same in Goulston St and Mitre Square; and (b) it's arguably easier to grip a wobbly bit of "stuff" in semi-darkness than it is to write neatly on a vertical surface under most lighting conditions.

Hi, Sam. I'm betting that: (a) "the darkest corner of Mitre Square" was at least as dark as Goulston St. and (b) taking out a kidney demands more light than gripping wobbly stuff.

[NOV9]

NO

No matter what the outcome, evidence should never be destroyed.

-Dennis

Nov9 is also in agreement.