Decision to erase

[Sam Flynn]

I'd like to line up on the side of not plausable, and note that if there's enough light to remove a kidney, there's enough light to leave a message

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.

[paul emmett]

I'd like to line up on the side of not plausable, and note that if there's enough light to remove a kidney, there's enough light to leave a message. My concern is, why do Arnold and Warren care so much about it; why erase it if the caps are only 3/4" high?

[Monty]

Rain,

How do we know he did?

Monty

[rain]

Rain,




It doesnt sound plausible to me.

Firstly, I cant see why he would trawl the area searching for 'graffiti', specific 'graffiti' at that.

Secondly, if his intention was to divert attentions to someone else then it just simply didnt work.

Nah, too elaborate for me.

Monty

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?

[Monty]

Rain,

It is quite a lengthly message for a murderer to write while he is making his getaway and also it would take longer if he was writing in the dark of the night.

My guess is that he had seen it before and decided to drop a piece of the apron there in order to confuse everyone. It would have had to be written before nightfall, so maybe he had passed by there earlier in the evening and saw it.

Then after he commited the murder he purposely dropped it there.

Erasing the message was a decision the police did at the time to keep peace in the area... as far as I know that is the reason.

I do not believe jtr wrote it, but took advantage of it being there... either as a joke or simply to have suspicions diverted on someone else.

It doesnt sound plausible to me.

Firstly, I cant see why he would trawl the area searching for 'graffiti', specific 'graffiti' at that.

Secondly, if his intention was to divert attentions to someone else then it just simply didnt work.

Nah, too elaborate for me.

Monty

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

It is quite a lengthly message for a murderer to write while he is making his getaway and also it would take longer if he was writing in the dark of the night.

My guess is that he had seen it before and decided to drop a piece of the apron there in order to confuse everyone. It would have had to be written before nightfall, so maybe he had passed by there earlier in the evening and saw it.

Then after he commited the murder he purposely dropped it there.

Erasing the message was a decision the police did at the time to keep peace in the area... as far as I know that is the reason.

I do not believe jtr wrote it, but took advantage of it being there... either as a joke or simply to have suspicions diverted on someone else.

Sounds plausible to me.

All the best

[rain]

It is quite a lengthly message for a murderer to write while he is making his getaway and also it would take longer if he was writing in the dark of the night.

My guess is that he had seen it before and decided to drop a piece of the apron there in order to confuse everyone. It would have had to be written before nightfall, so maybe he had passed by there earlier in the evening and saw it.

Then after he commited the murder he purposely dropped it there.

Erasing the message was a decision the police did at the time to keep peace in the area... as far as I know that is the reason.

I do not believe jtr wrote it, but took advantage of it being there... either as a joke or simply to have suspicions diverted on someone else.

[bolo]

Tom,

I think it would have taken the police more than just a few minutes to take pictures. As far as I know, LVP police did not use photography at crime scenes on a regular basis, that's why they probably had no photographers on standby who could have been summoned in less than an hour or two.

There is a passage in Paul Begg's The Facts (2004 paperback, p. 291) in the chapter on Mary Kelly's murder which casts a light on this very problem:

"After considerable delay and difficulty a photographer was brought to the scene and photographs were taken of the interior and exterior of 13 Miller's Court. A slight drizzling rain was falling and it was so overcast that it was almost dark. In the conditions and with the equipment available, the photographer did a remarkable job."

This tells me that the use of photography as a means to preserve evidence involved a great deal of difficulties. I just mention this to give technical and organisational reasons for Warren's decision to rub out the graffito a little more weight.

[steje73]

I don't think it had anything to do with the murders, but if they did at the time then they should have kept it till they could get a photo.
So I voted 'wrong'.

[plang]

It was written by Jack, on his way home after killing Eddowes, and Stride.

[Tom_Wescott]

It was absolutely wrong to erase the graffiti. Yes, the police had a duty to the public to protect them against civil unrest. They also had a duty to the public to avenge the murder of these women and to capture the murderer in their midst. The murderer was bonafide, the riot they were trying to avoid only theoretical. Simple maneuvering of their men would have prevented any riot and would have allowed the few minutes at sun up it took to capture a photograph.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Michael,

Either Pro-Jew or Anti-semitic the outcome would be Anti-Jewish sentiment. That's what the erasure was for.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike, were talking about an immediate area where 90% of the residents were Jewish....whose going to get upset about a Pro Jew message in an almost exclusively Jewish neighborhood?

Cheers bud.

[The Good Michael]

Michael,

Either Pro-Jew or Anti-semitic the outcome would be Anti-Jewish sentiment. That's what the erasure was for.

Cheers,

Mike

I'm always puzzled by the support for having it erased, either after a photo or written representation has been taken. We still do not know today whether it was Pro-Jew or Anti-Jew.

The decision was based on the social climate, and their immediate surroundings, not on it potential value as a piece of evidence. Heck, there are even a few different versions taken down.

This was a move that shows the Police were to some degree in fear of the East End at this time. In no small part to Warren and Bloody Sunday I'd imagine. Who is it again that demands it be erased?

Best regards all.

[sdreid]

When did the public learn what the message said?