Decision to erase

[Monty]

Joel,

His actions and reasons do not contradict.

Monty

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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]

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]

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]

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 messge (note: not the message on its own!) would be explosive and make a negative impact.

touche. it can be taken both ways. which is my point. noone seems to have mentioned the way i read it. although it wasnt the mets conclusion, it was the senior officers. im pretty certain the constables and locals would have spotted its meaning straight away, which is why they hung around and made notes of it. to them it said something different to the officers of different social background.

one thing i do have going for me though with interpretations of phrases like 'wont be blamed for nothing' & 'oh murder' is my background. some of these phrases have been around for donkeys years to be honest, and when this type of language is your 'mother-tongue' so to speak, you dont need to try and decypher it. the meaning is usually obvious.

its not middle-class speak but a slang phrase, and it is of course perfectly possible a grumpy customer wrote it. its also conceivable to killer wrote it. its also possible neither did.

anyone getting a headache yet?

[caz]

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

Hi Glenn,

We’ve been through all this before, but the message still doesn’t seem to get through: if the message had to be combined with the apron in order to make it explosive, then it ceased to be explosive the moment the apron was picked up and whisked away. The cops hardly stood there with a megaphone announcing that a bloody rag thought to be associated with a violent crime had just been removed from the scene.

Having said that, I can certainly understand the decision to remove the message along with the apron. It was considered, all by itself, when the apron was safely out of the way, to be too potentially inflammatory to remain on the wall; end of story. Contrary to what Perry Mason imagines, a ‘quick shot’ of the message in lantern light was simply not an option, and hundreds of curious eyes would be passing by, in the wake of the two latest murders, long before sufficient daylight would allow a photographer to do his work.

To me, the simplest solution is that some git wrote those words guessing they would be considered inflammatory (which indeed they were), regardless of who was interpreting them and how. The unsatisfied customer hypothesis is all well and good, except that presumably his intention was to make the source of his dissatisfaction aware of it, or to warn others at the time - not leave it to chance that some cryptic crossword enthusiast a hundred years down the line might just guess that he wasn’t happy with his purchase. Why not write: “That Jew who sells kettles is a thieving swine cos my spout came off after one cuppa”?

If, on the other hand, the writer simply did it to help put Jew against Gentile, or Gentile against Jew (like a good little pot-stirring graffiti artist), the message came across loud and clear and its author was clearly someone not averse to causing chaos in the community. Now call me old-fashioned, but who do we know who fits that description, has no alibi and can even be placed right at the scene?

Any Coffee Time crossword addicts in the house?

Love,

Caz
X

[String]

I think if the police had have used a bit of sense this could have been avoided.

As stated above there was graffiti all over the place, the police could have got the photographer to take pictures of a lot of the graffiti thereby playing down the importance of the one they where particularly interested in. Got some people to pose etc. This would have played the situation down and they would have the evidence.

As has been stated unless anyone tells the crowd about the apron how would the crowd know what they where doing?

For me it's academic anyway I think the graffiti was coincidental and a photograph although nice to have would have been of little use. Handwriting on a wall and a page would never be comparable.

[Bailey]

As stated above there was graffiti all over the place, the police could have got the photographer to take pictures of a lot of the graffiti thereby playing down the importance of the one they where particularly interested in. Got some people to pose etc. This would have played the situation down and they would have the evidence.

Hey String

Nice thought, and certainly a more realistic solution today, but photography in 1888 was in its infancy (or at least its youth), and therefore randomly snapping away at assorted bits of wall and passers-by would have been both impractical and probably quite expensive.

Even today, with a reasonably high-tech camera, low light presents some pretty serious challenges to a photographer, although quite less so in the case of something as immobile as grafitti on a wall.

Obviously we'd all love to see a snap of the GSG, but outside of being dreadfully interesting and of course correcting some of the conflicts of syntax and spelling, my feeling is that it would be worth very little as evidence at this stage. Still, it was probably not the smartest call to erase it...

Cheers,
Bailey.