Decision to erase

[caz]

As stated above there was graffiti all over the place...

Sorry, String, but who made this statement 'above' and what evidence is there for it?

Obviously the police knew this specific example was found close to a bloody piece of cloth, even though subsequent passers-by would not have been aware of that fact.

But even if graffiti was all over the place, how many examples would have been written in this manner: a perfectly neat and legible complete sentence but ambiguous as all hell at the same time?

Contrary to what Sam, among others, have suggested elsewhere, I don't think 'Jacob's Crackers' (or 'Percy's Nuts', or even 'Everyone's a Cadbury's Fruit n Nutcase' ) found chalked above the apron would be puzzled over at all today, or suspected at the time to have come from anyone with serious mischief in mind.

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

Caz,

Sorry, String, but who made this statement 'above' and what evidence is there for it?

It was probably me.

There are news reports of graffiti in the area, Hanbury street report springs to mind.

There is also photographic evidence of graffiti in the area, though this is not contemporary. Photos of Berner Street in 1909 and Dorset Street in 1920s show wall writing.

I see no reason why Whitechapel in 1880s should escape such scrawls.

Monty

[String]

Hi Caz,

Detective Halse:

At the Eddowes Inquest, Detective Halse said '...the writing had the appearance of being recently written...', then in The Daily Telegraph, Oct 12, in response to a question of "why did you say it seemed to have been recently written?" Halse responded, "it looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing..." Graffiti of all kinds was not unusual, in fact it had proliferated since the murder of Annie Chapman, so there is no reason to think of this as anything special.

I think most graffiti would have consisted of so and so is a whatever, usually aimed at the establishment and this statement really is not much different:
'The Juews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing'
It's having a go at Jews for whatever reason.
It's a racist remark that you still see scrawled over walls today, although with stronger language.
Just a simple hate message.

[caz]

Thanks Monty and String.

Please don't think I was suggesting there was anything unusual about graffiti in general at the time. I just thought 'all over the place' sounded a wee bit too presumptuous.

I still think neat, legible (and clean, ie no strong language) examples, where the meaning was not immediately obvious, would have made up a small proportion of the examples that were removed as soon as they were noticed for fear of trouble. Today we see examples that can hang around for days and weeks, if not months.

I agree with you, String, that it was most likely meant to be a provocative little dig at the residents and/or passers-by, who would have been predominantly Jewish and in a position to see it. It almost doesn't matter how many could have read or understood the English if 'Juwes' would have jumped out at most. Whoever wrote it would have been aware of the power of that word alone to rattle the nerves. If he wasn't the same man who later dumped the apron there, I wonder what his reaction was when he learned that he had pre-empted the killer's calling card with his own.

Love,

Caz
X

[String]

Yes I was surprised when I heard that the graffiti was so prolific I would have thought that people where too busy trying to scratch a living to bother with that.
On reflection though I suppose it would be found given the tensions in the area. Graffiti is often one of the first signs of discontent.

I think if it was the killer who wrote it he would be in a pretty agitated state and any writing on the wall would reflect that. He would also be in a hurry and possibly running or at least walking fast. Looking over ones shoulder waiting to be apprehended with the bloody piece of apron in him or at least nearby would result in more of a scrawl.

For me the neat and legible description of the writing would tend to rule out a killer on the run.

Maybe this is why the police at the time practically dismissed it as evidence.

[Paula Thomas]

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.

I am a little puzzled as to the evidential basis for 'there was graffiti all over the place' but that isn't my main point.

Photographic film had only been invented in 1885 and if the Police were anything like they are they would not have used it on a case until they had thoroughly tested it, they wouldn't want a defence lawyer trying to blow a hole in their case by challenging 'untested technology' in court. This means that they were probably still using plate cameras which makes the process expensive and cumbersome and the Police would have been as aware of budgetary constraints then as they are today. If someone has any definitive knowledge of the cameras used perhaps they could be so kind as to correct me if I am wrong on this.

I agree that it is a pity that no photograph exists but I can understand the concerns of the Police at the time.

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.

I agree that both the graffiti and apron may have been incidental but this is one of the (many) points on which we will never know....

Paula

[String]

I agree photographing the graffiti would have been a costly and unusual thing to do. My suggestion of photographing a lot of graffiti was just an example of a ruse they could have pulled in order to get the evidence without public order problems. They could have tried other things.

At least they considered photographing the graffiti:

From Warrens report to the Home Secretary 6 Nov 1888,

"A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed;"

The policemen where no photography experts of course and even if they wanted a picture it may not have been possible to get one. It's one of those strange mysteries that this case throws up all the time.

Now where did I put that Olympus and time machine?

[Sam Flynn]

This means that they were probably still using plate cameras which makes the process expensive

Actually, Paula, it might not have been all that expensive - Annie Chapman and her husband might not have been exactly "destitute" when they had photographs taken of each other and their children in the 1870s, but they were certainly only of the upper working class.

Personal portrait photography became increasingly popular with a broad customer base in the Late Victorian Period, and a private citizen could have a splendid "cabinet" portrait photograph taken for only one or two shillings. Doubtless the police could get them done for less.

You may find this site interesting.

[brummie]

Two opposing thoughts occur yto me about the grafiti: the only gain from photographing it would be to compare handwriting and since the police seem to have disregarded all the communications as hoaxs once the actual wording has been recorded it is merely a matter of interpreting the meaning, on the other hand once the news of the grafiti has been made public at the inquest and in newspaper reports surely ant anti jewish feeling would be fuelled anyway. Especially if the reports included the location and proximity of the piece of apron.So it would seem to make no difference whetherthe writng was erased quickly or not. Incidentaly do we believe the use of the double nrgative and the wording is a clever mind setting police a riddle or a less educated mind unable to clearly gat a point across?

[Sam Flynn]

Incidentaly do we believe the use of the double nrgative and the wording is a clever mind setting police a riddle or a less educated mind unable to clearly gat a point across?

The present thread is about the "Decision to erase" the message, not its possible meaning. Please note that there's an entire thread (and an extensive one) to discuss the meaning of the graffiti, here:

The GSG. What does it Mean?

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

I agree photographing the graffiti would have been a costly and unusual thing to do. [...]
The policemen where no photography experts of course and even if they wanted a picture it may not have been possible to get one.

That's nonsens. Although plate cameras were used at the time, there would be no difficulty in finding a photographer and quite easily snap a shot of the writing - in Miller's Court they quickly sent after a photopgrapher, for example. Photographs had been used since the 1840s, and as sam says, cabinet photos were very cheap and were accessible to practically everyone. It was certainly not 'costly'.
And it wouldn't have been a problem anyway, considering what an important high profile case the Ripper case was. I honestly don't think they would have abondoned the idea of taking the photo on grounds of financial or technical issues when the techinque was easily available.

Besides, that is not what the reason was anyway. Warren made it quite clear in his letter to his superiors that the reason for erasing and not photographing the writing was for security reasons, not anything else.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Annie Chapman and her husband might not have been exactly "destitute" when they had photographs taken of each other and their children in the 1870s, but they were certainly only of the upper working class.

On reflection... why did I say that they were "certainly" of the "upper" working class? I should just have said "working class" and left it there! (He said, arguing with himself )

[Tani]

I haven't been through all 9 pages but I read (correct me if I'm wrong) that graffiti(like that) wasn't that uncommon in that area, and if they washed it off then it really didn't matter, cause there was plenty of it. (So I voted right)
And I really don't think it had anything to do with the Ripper anyway, the peice of apron just happened to be there, he maybe just dropped it there and that was that?
Because he was probably just as used to seeing it (graffiti) there as anybody else was...

[Supe]

There may have been one technical difficulty associated with taking a quick photograph of the graffito if, indeed, it had been written on the glazed brick. That reflective surface, like that of a mirror, would have rendered using flash powder quite ineffective. This may have been why they kept dithering about not waiting for daylight when people would be thronging the streets.
Don.

[Mort Belfry]

What more could we have learnt from it if we had a photo of it now? The correct wording of the phrase isn't going to lead us toward the Ripper, and even if modern day handwriting analysis did link it to the Lusk Letter, what could we do with that information?

I don't think it would be worth the potential lives and liberties lost to have a photo of it now.