Decision to erase

[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

[plang]

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

[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'.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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,

How do we know he did?

Monty

[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?

[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.

[NOV9]

NO

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

-Dennis

Nov9 is also in agreement.

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[sdreid]

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