Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Etenguy
    Originally posted by etenguy View Post

    Hi Wickerman

    I am not at all sure who wrote the GSG or what it means, but I am intrigued about what happened after its discovery. It may well have simply been an overreaction by Warren prompted by Arnold, but Warren was ex military and I struggle to believe he would have been shaken by the GSG.
    If you read through his report of Nov. 6th, he doesn't suggest being shaken by it. In fact, he makes no suggestion that there was even a connection between the graffiti and the murder. Neither does Arnold, both officers were concerned that people might see the complaint against Jews in the vicinity of an important piece of evidence.
    The fact you have two officers, both independently drawing the same conclusion, must surely suggest to you that we (today) do not have sufficient grasp of the animosity being expressed against Jews in this period. Swanson also wrote a report on this same date and shared the opinion that those officers who saw this graffiti, and the subsequent letters which arrived in the mail, the writing "bears no resemblance at all."


    Nevertheless, if it were only erasing the writing for the sake of an hour, a simple overreaction might be the most likely explanation.
    Because we have two officers who intended to deal with it the same way, then it is more likely for the same reason. That is, inflaming public sentiment against the Jewish people. Neither expressed any belief that it was written by the killer, and therefore should have been considered as evidence. Only later must this possibility begin to dawn on them, hence Warren's subsequent instruction to leave things alone in future, etc.


    2. The coincidence (or was it?) that the murders ceased immediately after his resignation. Does this suggest some connection to the murderer (not actually involved of course)? I think he was also the only senior police official who never voiced a pet prime suspect. Who knows, the facts are suggestive but no more than that.
    If you are using the "wiping off" as a potential argument to involve Warren, then you are obliged to argue Arnold was also involved, as the same arguement applies.



    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • It is interesting that the four Metropolitan Police reports —Warren, Arnold, Long and Swanson—relating to the 30th September discovery of the Goulston Street graffiti were all written on 6th November 1888, five weeks after the event.
      Last edited by Simon Wood; 08-20-2020, 12:47 AM.
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        Warren does not 'approve' evidence.

        All officials submit reports up their own chain of command, so nothing unusual about that.

        Every Met. officer, when including evidence as part of their report, is submitting the current information in possession of Scotland Yard.
        Warren is not concerned with evidence offered by a City detective at the inquest, the city police are pursuing their own investigation. The Eddowes inquest was part of the city investigation, not Scotland Yard.

        The graffiti version taken down by Halse belonged to the City Detective Dept., under McWilliam, not Scotland Yard under Warren.
        City police records were all destroyed in the blitz, otherwise we might have found Halse's version in McWilliams own report to the Home Office.
        I need to take back that last line (in bold)
        We do have McWilliam's report to the Home Office.

        When comparing the DC Halse version against the PC Long version, it is strange that the head of the Detective dept. at City Police, James McWilliam, in his own report to the Home Office (dated 27th Oct.) gives PC Long's version, not that of his own detective - Halse.

        "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
          It is interesting that the four Metropolitan Police reports —Warren, Arnold, Long and Swanson—relating to the 30th September discovery of the Goulston Street graffiti were all written on 6th November 1888, five weeks after the event.
          My point entirely. Nice and neat bow that report.
          "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
          - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Hi Etenguy


            If you read through his report of Nov. 6th, he doesn't suggest being shaken by it. In fact, he makes no suggestion that there was even a connection between the graffiti and the murder. Neither does Arnold, both officers were concerned that people might see the complaint against Jews in the vicinity of an important piece of evidence.
            The fact you have two officers, both independently drawing the same conclusion, must surely suggest to you that we (today) do not have sufficient grasp of the animosity being expressed against Jews in this period. Swanson also wrote a report on this same date and shared the opinion that those officers who saw this graffiti, and the subsequent letters which arrived in the mail, the writing "bears no resemblance at all."
            Hi Wickerman

            Of course, you are correct, understanding the strength of feeling being expressed against jews at that time is a leap of imagination at this point. Though contemporary issues, such as immigration in the UK do help us. But to suggest that they could not maintain security around the doorway for an hour until it could be photographed is disingenuous. I accept that Arnold and Warren's concern is entirely appropriate, it is the action they took to deal with it I question.

            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            Because we have two officers who intended to deal with it the same way, then it is more likely for the same reason. That is, inflaming public sentiment against the Jewish people. Neither expressed any belief that it was written by the killer, and therefore should have been considered as evidence. Only later must this possibility begin to dawn on them, hence Warren's subsequent instruction to leave things alone in future, etc.
            You make a good point, except they must have realised its potential significance since they went to the trouble of recording what it said. Also Arnold did not wipe the GSG without first checking with Warren, again suggesting he recognised the potential significance. Indeed a photographer had been called for, again suggesting they recognised its potential significance. However, it might in some part explain the reason for ensuring future crime scenes were secured, although why Warren wanted his officers to wait for his appearance still seems odd to me.

            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            If you are using the "wiping off" as a potential argument to involve Warren, then you are obliged to argue Arnold was also involved, as the same arguement applies.
            I don't think I would argue Warren was involved in the murders. Was he possibly involved in a cover up? Maybe.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

              'Objects scattered around her", not on her person Michael.
              My point Jon was if anything was scattered around the body that wasnt on that inventory of possessions obtained from her brief stay in the crowbar hotel, then she either picked up something or the killer left something.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                Hi Wickerman

                You make a good point, except they must have realised its potential significance since they went to the trouble of recording what it said.
                I think taking down a copy is the correct action to take regardless of whether he thinks the message has any connection to the murders. Warren was perhaps a little impulsive given he was an accomplished military man, which may help to explain his swift action at removing the graffiti.

                Also Arnold did not wipe the GSG without first checking with Warren, again suggesting he recognised the potential significance. Indeed a photographer had been called for, again suggesting they recognised its potential significance.
                But don't forget it was the City police who sent for the photographer, not Scotland Yard. It can only be argued the City may have assumed it was (or may have been?) connected.

                However, it might in some part explain the reason for ensuring future crime scenes were secured, although why Warren wanted his officers to wait for his appearance still seems odd to me.
                I don't think it's odd, he is advocating destroying something. The Home Office would expect him to have seen the graffiti first-hand before ordering it removed. A person in Warren's position is expected (sometimes unreasonably) to be responsible for everything that happens under his command.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                  Hi Etenguy

                  If you read through his report of Nov. 6th, he doesn't suggest being shaken by it. In fact, he makes no suggestion that there was even a connection between the graffiti and the murder. Neither does Arnold, both officers were concerned that people might see the complaint against Jews in the vicinity of an important piece of evidence.
                  The fact you have two officers, both independently drawing the same conclusion, must surely suggest to you that we (today) do not have sufficient grasp of the animosity being expressed against Jews in this period. Swanson also wrote a report on this same date and shared the opinion that those officers who saw this graffiti, and the subsequent letters which arrived in the mail, the writing "bears no resemblance at all."

                  Because we have two officers who intended to deal with it the same way, then it is more likely for the same reason. That is, inflaming public sentiment against the Jewish people. Neither expressed any belief that it was written by the killer, and therefore should have been considered as evidence. Only later must this possibility begin to dawn on them, hence Warren's subsequent instruction to leave things alone in future, etc.
                  Hi Jon, All,

                  I have never understood the argument that if the message had not been erased in such a timely fashion, people might have connected it with the 'important piece of evidence', which was the apron piece taken from Eddowes by her killer. How would anyone have connected the two at the time, when a riot was most feared, given that the apron piece had been removed from the scene before the message was erased? Even if a passer-by or two had inadvertently got a glimpse of the filthy rag before the police swung into action, they wouldn't automatically have connected it with the recent murders. It was only when the wording of the erased message reached the newspapers, along with the news of the apron piece matching the piece belonging to Eddowes, that it appeared like a double event to anyone who wanted to connect the message with the Mitre Square murder, and like an unfortunate coincidence to anyone who didn't. Personally I dislike the 'coincidence' argument unless it's made by those with no axe to grind either way. I look at the totality of the evidence that night, and the often bigoted mindset of the 20th century serial killer, who blames everyone else for the deeds he does - and for the deeds he is prevented from doing - and it seems more likely to me that we don't have a coincidence here at all. That incriminating, foul-smelling apron piece could have been discarded a lot sooner by the man who killed Eddowes and escaped in the nick of time. Instead he carried it back with him to the heart of his own hunting ground, which suggests a purpose other than to wipe his hands and dump it at the earliest opportunity.

                  Another observation - would it not have been quite difficult, for the officers who saw the writing on the wall that night, to remember it well enough to state that it bore 'no resemblance at all' to any of 'the subsequent letters which arrived in the mail'? How many written communications, claiming to be from the murderer, had been received by November 6th?

                  As for the subsequent instruction from Warren to leave things alone in future, that would depend on whether the murderer would strike again, or on whose patch next time.

                  Chatting to Keith Skinner about this thread in passing, he raised the question of whether Scotland Yard knew of the existence of the 'Dear Boss' letter when the writing on the wall was erased. It was received by Central News on September 25th, and forwarded to Williamson on Saturday September 29th, but when was the Yard first aware of it? Any thoughts?

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post
                    Chatting to Keith Skinner about this thread in passing, he raised the question of whether Scotland Yard knew of the existence of the 'Dear Boss' letter when the writing on the wall was erased. It was received by Central News on September 25th, and forwarded to Williamson on Saturday September 29th, but when was the Yard first aware of it? Any thoughts?

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    Is this correct, that the letter was in the hands of the City police *before* the murders of Stride and Eddowes?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                      Is this correct, that the letter was in the hands of the City police *before* the murders of Stride and Eddowes?
                      Hi Joshua

                      The timeline I have for the Dear Boss letter is:
                      a) dated 25 September
                      b) post marked and received by central news on 27 September
                      c) sent to Scotland Yard on 29 September

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by etenguy View Post

                        Hi Joshua

                        The timeline I have for the Dear Boss letter is:
                        a) dated 25 September
                        b) post marked and received by central news on 27 September
                        c) sent to Scotland Yard on 29 September
                        Thank you etenguy. Do you happen to have a source for that? It appears to be the same timeline as given in Tom Westcott's dissertation "Thomas Bulling and the Myth of the London Journalist" but unless I'm very confused this seems to have the date of the actual murders wrong.
                        ​​​​​

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by caz View Post

                          Hi Jon, All,

                          I have never understood the argument that if the message had not been erased in such a timely fashion, people might have connected it with the 'important piece of evidence', which was the apron piece taken from Eddowes by her killer. How would anyone have connected the two at the time, when a riot was most feared, given that the apron piece had been removed from the scene before the message was erased?
                          Hi Caz, hope you are well....

                          From reading their memo's, both Arnold & Warren, don't clearly associate the graffiti with the murders. It isn't so much our argument or anyone's argument, but a simple interpretation of their stated views. By their actions, or intentions, they seem to want to distance the hard evidence from the graffiti, with no attention being payed to the timing involved. Perhaps, finding fault with the timing is just being too clinical?, for what was afterall an attempt at being proactive.

                          Even if a passer-by or two had inadvertently got a glimpse of the filthy rag before the police swung into action, they wouldn't automatically have connected it with the recent murders.
                          I can't say for sure obviously but, perhaps a PC was to be stationed at that doorway for the rest of the day, after the apron was removed. Police do this, if you recall two officers at Millers Court long after the body had been removed. I know that Millers Court was a murder scene and not an evidence scene, but the police had never found evidence before.
                          If this was the expected procedure then anyone passing can ask the constable if this is where the apron was found, and will notice the graffiti close by. The association will be immediate all day Sunday, Market Day. The stalls are put up all along the street and the street crowded.
                          I honestly don't know, I can only offer suggestions.

                          I look at the totality of the evidence that night, and the often bigoted mindset of the 20th century serial killer, who blames everyone else for the deeds he does - and for the deeds he is prevented from doing - and it seems more likely to me that we don't have a coincidence here at all.
                          True, but you may also find that what we view as a "typical serial killer" did not exist in the late 19th century, it is a phenomena that has evolved as society has progressed. Comparing actions & intentions of the 19th century killer with those of today is a common mistake.


                          That incriminating, foul-smelling apron piece could have been discarded a lot sooner by the man who killed Eddowes and escaped in the nick of time. Instead he carried it back with him to the heart of his own hunting ground, which suggests a purpose other than to wipe his hands and dump it at the earliest opportunity.
                          Precisely, and it is that very fact which influenced me to suggest, all those years ago, that his reason might have been to carry away the organs in that cloth.

                          Another observation - would it not have been quite difficult, for the officers who saw the writing on the wall that night, to remember it well enough to state that it bore 'no resemblance at all' to any of 'the subsequent letters which arrived in the mail'? How many written communications, claiming to be from the murderer, had been received by November 6th?
                          I suspect Swanson's remark was only being applied to the 'Dear Boss' letter, but who knows.

                          As for the subsequent instruction from Warren to leave things alone in future, that would depend on whether the murderer would strike again, or on whose patch next time.
                          Future murders, or murderers, in general?

                          Chatting to Keith Skinner about this thread in passing, he raised the question of whether Scotland Yard knew of the existence of the 'Dear Boss' letter when the writing on the wall was erased. It was received by Central News on September 25th, and forwarded to Williamson on Saturday September 29th, but when was the Yard first aware of it? Any thoughts?
                          It seems we all have the same dates & paperwork Caz, we're just not in a position to determine. It's only a matter of hours, Warren might have known about Dear Boss before he went down, or he might have been given it when he got back, we don't know.

                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                            Thank you etenguy. Do you happen to have a source for that? It appears to be the same timeline as given in Tom Westcott's dissertation "Thomas Bulling and the Myth of the London Journalist" but unless I'm very confused this seems to have the date of the actual murders wrong.
                            ​​​​​
                            Etenguy's source is in the Ultimate, hardback page 191, or about 8 pages from the end of chapter 9.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Etenguy's source is in the Ultimate, hardback page 191, or about 8 pages from the end of chapter 9.
                              Thank you, Wickerman - I wouldn't have easily remembered where I originally obtained the timeline and was just about to check. Actually - Keith Skinner was one of the authors so a bit of a circular check.
                              Last edited by etenguy; 08-20-2020, 07:32 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Jon,

                                In the early hours of Sunday 30th September, Sir Charles Warren was roused from his bed at 44 St. George's Road, Pimlico, with news that two murders had taken place.

                                Impossible to say whether, at this moment, he knew of the Dear Boss letter.

                                As far as is known, Chief Inspector Swanson was not in Goulston Street on the morning in question, yet in his 6th November 1888 report he described the chalked message as “blurred."

                                Stay well,

                                Simon
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X