Decision to erase

[Phil H]

It is interesting to me that the decision to erase the words was NOT taken lightly. It was referred to senior officials.

The seriousness of what they were doing was clear to them - so the dangers they sought to avoid must also have been significant.

While I recall from my early reading on the case (pre 1974ish) some mention of the graffito and its removal, I don't recall it being regarded as controversial until Knight alleged that Warren had it removed for reasons he concealed (masonic links) - but that red-herring has I think now been finally exploded.

Phil

[Heinrich]

Hello all! As a noob I can't vote in the poll yet, but I would vote that erasing the message was a good decision (though it's a pity a drawing wasn't made). There is no proof the message was written by JtR anyway, and if even one person had been killed or gravely injured because of the message, it certainly wouldn't be worth it.

I have long felt this way, but in the light of recent events it's all too apparent how quickly something can be set off.

You can post about the graffito here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5796&page=8

[BucksFizzMurder]

Hello all! As a noob I can't vote in the poll yet, but I would vote that erasing the message was a good decision (though it's a pity a drawing wasn't made). There is no proof the message was written by JtR anyway, and if even one person had been killed or gravely injured because of the message, it certainly wouldn't be worth it.

I have long felt this way, but in the light of recent events it's all too apparent how quickly something can be set off.

[YankeeSergeant]

bad move

I think from an evidentiary tack, washing away the graffiti was a bad move. While I believe it had nothing to do with the murders I believe that the "Artiste" might have seen something. As to Warren's motivation, I totally get it. After the Traflger Square riots he wanted a lid clamped tight on anything that might lead to unrest. Still, you have to wonder what would have happened if someone with a police rather than military background would have made the same call.

[DVV]

And secondly, if it were the Mason or a mason (anti-mason) who wrote it...

Hi Gman,

yes, could be a mason.
A mason's plasterer.
Whose mother's name could even be Mason...

Amitiés,
David

[protohistorian]

There are far worse scenarios than a riot. We do not fully comprehend the atmosphere and therefore cannot reasonably judge. Respectfully Dave

[Gman992]

I think Warren and the Home Office were responsible for one riot...they didn't want another one on their hands....


And secondly, if it were the Mason or a mason (anti-mason) who wrote it, no one in the area would even understand the conotation because the three murderers of the architect weren't even called by the "Juwes" for nearly 100 years.

[Ryan_Miller]

I don't believe the Ripper wrote the message on the walls either, but still feel it was/is important that they photograph or at least transcribe the Graffiti correctly.

What I've always had a hard time understanding is the 5 interpretations of the message. I know that the differences are subtle whether it be 3 or 5 lines and "Won't" or "will not" and so on and so forth, but how was there so much confusion. Was it that illegible?

Howard Brown has pointed out many times that the capital letters were 3/4 of an inch tall and that it was not near as dramatic in size as Hollywood portrays it. Still I don't understand, regardless of how large or small it may be written how someone cannot differentiate between 3 and 5 lines, etc. It just seems like slack police work to on someones part to not have done all that they could to preserve the writing someone, even if it was just on paper.

[Celesta]

Hi Suzi,

You have some good points and I tend to agree, at least on every other day! Pardon, my ignorance, but do we have any Jewish input on the wording of that chalked note? It seems that since the area had a heavy Jewish population, the odds for the writer actually being Jewish would be pretty good. Yes? No? Maybe?

Best,

Cel

[Suzi]

Hi Gareth

Have posted on Forums on Non Ripper Pics re your find here....as to the GSG- YES it would have been better if it had been photographed...for one thing..it would stop all the 'which word was it'- 'where was it'-and 'in what order/display', 'did he have chalk' 'was he a teacher'... arguments here wouldn't it...Her hummm

But to be honest and hold to my beliefs -There is NO way that our chappie scuttling along with his knife/knives -wiping off the blood and fm would have taken the time to take his handy piece of chalk out and scribble something on the wall above/under the dado,thinking 'Oh this is a dodgy Jewish area-this'll cause a kerfuffle!' - and then scuttle on his way into obscurity!!!!!

It was there all along- just a regular piece of anti semitic day to day Whitechapel scribbling I say
The fact that that
'THE APRON' was dropped there is pure 'happenstance'...IMHO

A quick pic(although OK not THAT quick at the time!) and a quick wipe off to keep Sir C quiet afterwards- with a convenient rag (!) -would have solved a lot of problems- and a lot of threads too

Suz xx

[Suzi]

Gareth-
Great link there-G ilbert S ullivan G otcha maybe tho as a by the by!
Suzi x

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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 )