Hutchinson and antisemitism ?? A possibility?

[Rubyretro]

[

BTW, I think your explanation of the details of GH's "suspect"-rich jew/Astrakhan man is brilliant. I always wondered how he came up with all the details of his dress and appearance(Horse shoe pin!?! )your idea explains it.

Keep digging on the GH/groom/rich horse owner angle-I think you may be onto something there.

Some words of caution here Abby -I am in no way a 'Ripperologist', and these are just my theories -so please don't go away with the idea that I 'know something' that someone else doesn't : there are plenty of people that will disagree with me, and if they have a good argument against, then I respect them; It was pointed out on these forums in the last few days that one of the enduring 'hooks' about the JTR Mystery is that, whatever your theory, you can find facts to support it.

Nonetheless, no one has yet shown me the total error of my thinking : I still believe that Hutch was JtR because here we have the suspect on the scene of the crime without doubt, at the right time, with a '**** and bull' story of
his reasons for being there, and fitting both the geographical location and the
profile (in my opinion) of the killer. What's more, as soon as Hutch became known to the police and public, the killings ceased. I think that in a contemporary crime, it would be fair to say that Hutch would be a main 'suspect'.

Of course, it must be true that the childhood and youth of any serial killer has an influence on his personality -I just defy anyone to say the contrary.
So, anyone that believes that Hutch is the killer must agree that it is important to look at his earlier life.

Well, we know incredibly little about Hutch. One thing that we do know is that he was described as being an unemployed 'groom' as well as a labourer..

Garry Wroe has pointed out to me that there is no clear proof that Hutch ever was a groom, other than the fact that it was reported as such in all the papers at the time. He told me that, either a journalist could have made it up and the other papers have repeated that 'mistake' or Hutch was lying as he was hardly a reliable witness;

I have already said that my experience of gifted liars leads me to believe firmly that they weave fact and fiction together in order to be convincing and so that they don't contradict themselves. Therefore, I don't believe that Hutch would lie about anything that was unimportant (seemingly) and could be verified -particularly as he was staking his life on it. I would go as far as to say that he is the witness in which I have the most faith (except for the existence of A Man that night, and for his
innocence of the crime); When Richard mistakenly quoted Hutch as having known Mary 5 years (impossible) and not 3, I had to try and invent a scenario of the police putting the words in his mouth -I just could not imagine that Hutch would lie about
something like that.

I don't think that we can 'cherry pick' reported facts in the case either, because we like them or not; There is no hint of evidence to suggest that Hutch was not a groom; It's just possible that he wasn't (it's possible that Catherine E. never went hop picking either), but it's most probable that he was.

If Hutch was a groom it is fair to say that he worked with animals. It is fair to say that he would know how to cut up a dead animal, or 'despatch' an animal by cutting it's throat. It is fair to say that grooms habitually carry knives. It is fair to say that
grooms were literate (although Garry has also pointed out that schooling was obligatory by this period).

It is fair to say that A Man's description resembles that of a horse owner (go look at the photos of them all in 1888, in their astrakhan coats, and their grooms with their billycock hats). Indeed the infamous Karen quotes the Lausanne Gazette as saying "black leggings and button up boots" as part of Hutch's description (I should like to see this description in the original french, as I'm bilingual). There are not many men in leggings -alot of horse owners though..

Whilst Bob has convinced me that Hutch most probably went to Essex for a labouring job, it is nonetheless true that
Toppy's father & sister were born in Essex, Toppy's sister had her first job there and died there. IF Toppy is Hutch there IS still a link...

None of this proves anything of course -but it certainly does leave an interesting area to explore..more interesting than pouring over the infamous forgery of Maybrick's supposed diaries at any rate !!!!!!

[Abby Normal]

I think that I would go along with Marc : needed a moral justification for himself (to excuse his fascination with mutilation ) for killing these prostitutes, so gave himself a 'reason ' to kill prostitutes that slept with Jews whom he felt were 'filthiest' (one's that he didn't sleep with himself). It also handily threw suspicion off himself and stirred up trouble for the jewish community.

MJK might have been a bit different though -in that he may have known her, and he may have wanted to use her room -both for the comfort and the privacy.

Got it-thanks!

But why did he not explicitely blame jews in a letter, grafitti, etc until night of the double event? Why not do that after the first couple of murders?

I postulate because the night of the double event is the first time that he feels he was seen well (Schwartz) and by a jew, he knew he was seen by a jew, so now he does the GSG to blame a jew and throw suspician off himself. he then blames a jew even more directly after MK murder to the police. The direct jew blaming by the murderer is what I believe ties together the threads and comes back to GH.

BTW, I think your explanation of the details of GH's "suspect"-rich jew/Astrakhan man is brilliant. I always wondered how he came up with all the details of his dress and appearance(Horse shoe pin!?! )your idea explains it.

Keep digging on the GH/groom/rich horse owner angle-I think you may be onto something there.

[Rubyretro]

I think that I would go along with Marc : needed a moral justification for himself (to excuse his fascination with mutilation ) for killing these prostitutes, so gave himself a 'reason ' to kill prostitutes that slept with Jews whom he felt were 'filthiest' (one's that he didn't sleep with himself). It also handily threw suspicion off himself and stirred up trouble for the jewish community.

MJK might have been a bit different though -in that he may have known her, and he may have wanted to use her room -both for the comfort and the privacy.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Abby -I've just gone back and read your post...

I just totally agree that the murderer was not someone who killed in a 'random frenzy' (he'd have been caught if he had), but was rather very intelligent and cool headed. Even the dates suggest that he waited for specific times rather than just let rip ( so to speak) when he had the urge.

I also totally agree that if he was someone who functioned normally the rest of the time, then it is probable that he needed to give himself a moral justification -as you said- for killing those particular women; there were alot of prostitutes in London out every night.

Personally, I think that his MO went back before Berner Street. I said at the
beginning of my thread that there were jewish sites near the place of every murder :
(Buck's Row - opposite Brady Street Ashkenazi Cemetery.
Hanbury Street - Glory of Israel and Sons of Klatsk Synagogue situated
at no. 50a. Synagogues at 19 Princelet St. and 17 Wilkes St.
Berner Street - St. George's Settlement Synagogue.
Mitre Square - beside the Great Synagogue.
Miller's Court - beside Spitalfields Great Synagogue, Church St. ( Fournier St.)

That Jack was an anti-semite would make him similar to alot of men of his time. By choosing to leave the apron piece under the Goulston Street Graffiti (whether he wrote it, wrote it earlier or chose the spot for existing graffiti) he makes it clear that there is a jewish link. His action was inflamatory, as Sir Charles warren recognised. That Hutch was anti -semite -if you believe that he made up Astrakhan Man- is clear by his choice of 'villain'.

After that -I don't really take much notice of the witness accounts at Berner Street or Mitre Square : try coming home from an evening out and describing someone accurately that you passed for a minute !
two examples : 1) my step daughters were caught up in Poland in a murder enquiry and had to give a description to police for a 'robot portrait' of some guys that they had spent the evening with -they had a terribly hard job and even left the mostache off one guy !!
2) I once accused a guy in the street of being a shoplifter in my shop; I am a
very mild and shy person, and I did it because I was certain -having talked to the guy in broad daylight. but I was wrong (as it turned out).
If you add in that there are lots of witness statements and some plainly are of different people, in the dark, for a few minutes -then I don't think that they're worth anything..

I don't think that any of them worried Jack either -until the MJK murder.
I think that it is different both because it may have been alot more personal, and also I think that Sarah Lewis really DID get a good look. If you imagine that Hutch knew very well who SHE was, and was afraid of being recognised in the street after the inquest, then you have a reason for him coming forward as 'damage limitation'.

Hi Ruby
Thanks for the reply.
Im curious-do you think JtR's main motivation for the killings were just because he was anti-semitic and wanted to get Jews in trouble? Or that he did not like prostitutes having sex with Jews so he killed them? or some combination of the two?


In my opinion, I beleive JtR killed women because he liked to/had an "urge" to and prostitutes were the easiest targets. Later he blamed Jews to throw suspician off himself.

I am just wondering what your thinking is on what was the main motivation/s of JtR to kill women/prostitutes.?

[Rubyretro]

Sorry Abby -I've just gone back and read your post...

I just totally agree that the murderer was not someone who killed in a 'random frenzy' (he'd have been caught if he had), but was rather very intelligent and cool headed. Even the dates suggest that he waited for specific times rather than just let rip ( so to speak) when he had the urge.

I also totally agree that if he was someone who functioned normally the rest of the time, then it is probable that he needed to give himself a moral justification -as you said- for killing those particular women; there were alot of prostitutes in London out every night.

Personally, I think that his MO went back before Berner Street. I said at the
beginning of my thread that there were jewish sites near the place of every murder :
(Buck's Row - opposite Brady Street Ashkenazi Cemetery.
Hanbury Street - Glory of Israel and Sons of Klatsk Synagogue situated
at no. 50a. Synagogues at 19 Princelet St. and 17 Wilkes St.
Berner Street - St. George's Settlement Synagogue.
Mitre Square - beside the Great Synagogue.
Miller's Court - beside Spitalfields Great Synagogue, Church St. ( Fournier St.)

That Jack was an anti-semite would make him similar to alot of men of his time. By choosing to leave the apron piece under the Goulston Street Graffiti (whether he wrote it, wrote it earlier or chose the spot for existing graffiti) he makes it clear that there is a jewish link. His action was inflamatory, as Sir Charles warren recognised. That Hutch was anti -semite -if you believe that he made up Astrakhan Man- is clear by his choice of 'villain'.

After that -I don't really take much notice of the witness accounts at Berner Street or Mitre Square : try coming home from an evening out and describing someone accurately that you passed for a minute !
two examples : 1) my step daughters were caught up in Poland in a murder enquiry and had to give a description to police for a 'robot portrait' of some guys that they had spent the evening with -they had a terribly hard job and even left the mostache off one guy !!
2) I once accused a guy in the street of being a shoplifter in my shop; I am a
very mild and shy person, and I did it because I was certain -having talked to the guy in broad daylight. but I was wrong (as it turned out).
If you add in that there are lots of witness statements and some plainly are of different people, in the dark, for a few minutes -then I don't think that they're worth anything..

I don't think that any of them worried Jack either -until the MJK murder.
I think that it is different both because it may have been alot more personal, and also I think that Sarah Lewis really DID get a good look. If you imagine that Hutch knew very well who SHE was, and was afraid of being recognised in the street after the inquest, then you have a reason for him coming forward as 'damage limitation'.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ruby
Posted below yesterday, but not sure if you saw it-what do you think? IMHO I think GH is a top candidate for JtR.


I have a little theory about George Hutchinson and JtR. it goes sometning like this:

The first time someone gets a good look at JtR is Israel Scwartz, causing JtR to shout out "Lipski!" perhaps to scare him away, which he did. JtR now knows he has been seen by a Jew. Later, he is seen by another person(3 really) right before he murders Eddowes. Since he beleives he has been seen now twice JtR wants to throw suspician on his witness-hence the bloody apron and GSG implicating jews.

On the night of Mary Kelly's murder, JtR knows agian he has been spotted (by E. Long) as he is waiting outside her room, perhaps for her previous client to leave. Later he expands on the jew blaming by going to the police and saying himself is a possible witness and the suspect looks like a Jew.

Correction:

not E. Long but S. Lewis

[Abby Normal]

Yes, Marc, that's what I basically think now...

I still think that there is just too much coincidence in the 'Jewish' club sites, the graffiti and Hutch's description for there not to be a link..especially given the 'tinderbox' background situation viz a viz jewish/socialist immigrants.

Yet we've still got the fact that nobody but a sexually motivated killer, getting off on mutilation,could possibly have done these killings.

One doesn't exclude the other however: If we're dealing with a person who is not a schizophenric and not a 'random' psycho killer, but has a personality disorder (and after reading Corey's post on Casebook, I am convinced by his diagnostic of 'Narcisissum'), then that person could very well function enough not to arouse suspicion, be sane enough to plan the murders for (for him) a logical reason (anti-semitism), and indulge his urges (the true but subconcious reason for the crimes).

I am still convinced that it was Hutchinson who was 'Jack'.

Hi Ruby
Posted below yesterday, but not sure if you saw it-what do you think? IMHO I think GH is a top candidate for JtR.


I have a little theory about George Hutchinson and JtR. it goes sometning like this:

The first time someone gets a good look at JtR is Israel Scwartz, causing JtR to shout out "Lipski!" perhaps to scare him away, which he did. JtR now knows he has been seen by a Jew. Later, he is seen by another person(3 really) right before he murders Eddowes. Since he beleives he has been seen now twice JtR wants to throw suspician on his witness-hence the bloody apron and GSG implicating jews.

On the night of Mary Kelly's murder, JtR knows agian he has been spotted (by E. Long) as he is waiting outside her room, perhaps for her previous client to leave. Later he expands on the jew blaming by going to the police and saying himself is a possible witness and the suspect looks like a Jew.

[Rubyretro]

Yes, Marc, that's what I basically think now...

I still think that there is just too much coincidence in the 'Jewish' club sites, the graffiti and Hutch's description for there not to be a link..especially given the 'tinderbox' background situation viz a viz jewish/socialist immigrants.

Yet we've still got the fact that nobody but a sexually motivated killer, getting off on mutilation,could possibly have done these killings.

One doesn't exclude the other however: If we're dealing with a person who is not a schizophenric and not a 'random' psycho killer, but has a personality disorder (and after reading Corey's post on Casebook, I am convinced by his diagnostic of 'Narcisissum'), then that person could very well function enough not to arouse suspicion, be sane enough to plan the murders for (for him) a logical reason (anti-semitism), and indulge his urges (the true but subconcious reason for the crimes).

I am still convinced that it was Hutchinson who was 'Jack'.

[Marc]

i beleive JtR killed because he liked it, and the murder sites were random. however, he may have been antisemitic

I agree, IMHO Whitechapel murders MO show more than 'simple' killing frenzy, which would satisfy itself, for instance, with repeated stabbing of
the victim, something that copes well with a profile of 'demented', outbursting violent individual.

This kind of MO, without torture before, or mutilation after, looks to
me like if the main issue is the end, taking a life, to 'empty' one's anger
and frustration.

In JtR case, or at least for murders generally attributed to him,
great effort is taken in mutilations, like if the killing in itself was only a foreplay, and the real 'show' the slicing, skinning, tentative beheading, etc...

This MO indicates IMHO that JtR goal wasn't only to kill someone 'easy' to prey on (like prostitutes are well known to be), but also to further 'punish' the victim, which COULD mean that he knew them, if not intimately, at
least closely enough to reproach them something more than simply being
'whores'.

If not demented in the most obvious way, you have to build a strong 'morally justifying' story around murders like those committed by JtR and
still be able to have a 'normal' social life.
This doesn't mean you don't derive pleasure from your deeds, rather
that you can have pleasure AND feel justified in the mean time.
Killing prostitutes who had regular jewish clients COULD be an IMHO
good 'morally justifying' story for someone who had, basically, issues
with almost every woman but choose to punish those who he could
consider as the filthiest.

[Abby Normal]

Hi, I'm a newbie -so forgive me if this territory has all been well covered before. I've been reading around the site the last few days and a few striking 'coincidences' leapt out at me :

Starting with the 'Double Event' - Liz Stride was soliciting outside the jewish socialist club in Berner Street when she was killed (would the man seen pulling her AWAY from the yard have been trying to discourage her from soliciting there for antisemite reasons ?). At the same time, a passing jewish man, Israel Schwartz, was insulted with the name of a jewish criminel and chased. The Berner street club was sited in the same road as St George's Settlement Synagogue.

A short while later three jewish men coming from a club near Mitre Square saw Catherine Eddowes soliciting and one of the men felt 'threatened' by Eddowes' customer,
although he doesn't specify why. I have not seen the name of the club used by Lawende, Levy and Harris, but the fact that the three witnesses were jewish and the club was in proximity to the Great Synagogue, suggests that this was another jewish club. The fact that Eddowes chose to go to this specific location (away from the lodging house and not outside a pub or around the church) might suggest that she was soliciting there for jewish men leaving this club. The fact that Levy was scared of this man strongly suggests to me that the man did not look jewish -and indeed either flashed a look of hatred at Levy or had a look of an antisemite (a sort of forerunner fascist thug ), and which made Levy scared to testify later, probably for fear of attracting violence to his family. Eddowes is found murdered 10 minutes afterwards.

Later that evening part of Eddowes' apron is found under an inflammatory graffiti accusing the jews of the crime by inference. If Jtl didn't write the graffiti either that night or at an earlier date, he knew it was there and left the apron there on purpose -although this was an act guaranteed to stir up racial hatred and cause trouble for jewish people (a fact recocognised by Sir Charles Warren).

On balance it does not look as if Jtl was jewish himself -it even looks as if he specifically targeted prostitutes soliciting for jewish customers near to jewish club meetings.

With this theory in mind, it is worth looking at the other canonical murders. Jim Leen has described the locations thus :-
Buck's Row - opposite Brady Street Ashkenazi Cemetery.
Hanbury Street - Glory of Israel and Sons of Klatsk Synagogue situated
at no. 50a. Synagogues at 19 Princelet St. and 17 Wilkes St.
Berner Street - St. George's Settlement Synagogue.
Mitre Square - beside the Great Synagogue.
Miller's Court - beside Spitalfields Great Synagogue, Church St. ( Fournier St.)
Leen seemed to think that the locations were chosen so that a jewish Jtl could find refuge in a synagogue, but given the time of day that seems very unlikely to me !

Isn't it more likely that, as in the case of Berner Street and Mitre Square, there were jewish clubs meeting in proximity to these sacred jewish sites ? Certainly Rumbelow mentions that the "Bolshevik delegation headquarters in 1907 was less than five minutes from Buck’s Row". what was this building used for in 1888 ?
Henry Mann ("Petticoat Lane Sunday Morning") talks about "Jew pubs" -were rooms in pubs near the murder sites used for jewish meetings ? and if so on what dates?
Club meetings around the weekend, once a month or near the beginning of the month sound pretty logical to me. Maybe there is still research to do on this through the jewish community?

I also think that if Jtl WAS targeting certain prostitutes seen with jewish customers, then this would explain why he sometimes took a long time to choose
a victim -not just "any old" prostitute would do. It would also explain why he did not appear to have sexual relations with the women he killed (he thought that they were dirty), although he may have used other prostitutes (and have been known amongst them as being harmless -a reason why the women weren't scared of him)..

All this inevitably leads us to Millers Court and George Hutchinson. He described in detail the supposed killer of Mary Jane Kelly as a caricature of a jew
-the sort of portrait that could have come from a racist newspaper cartoonist: the showy hat, the ostentatious watch, the twirly moustache, the astrakan, the "toff"
attitude. Hutchinson even describes his reaction to this caricature : he stopped to bend down to stare the man in the face, he eavesdropped, he followed him,
he loitered outside whilst the man was supposedly with a woman within. There is nothing benign about his description of his attitude towards this "jew".

In the end -in the absence of forensic proof - we either believe Hutchinson's statement or we don't; He lied or he didn't. If he lied, what reason could he have except that he was the murderer ? I don't accept that he would cover for someone else, because these are sexual crimes by one warped mind.

I won't list all the objections to Hutchinson's story -they've all been well documented on this site. I will just add that I think that there are bits of truth woven in -
liers do add in truth, to make their lies more believable. So I think that Hutchinson HAD seen Kelly with a jewish client at one point -he may even have warned her about it in the past (is that who she was scared of ?) I think that it was the reason that she was chosen to die. I think that Hutchinson accompanied her back to her room and it was he who stood chatting a few moments and showed her the red scarf (the one he had on when picking up Eddowes); I think that he waited a long time watching her room, to make sure that she'd really gone to bed and was asleep so that he could reach through the window and unlock the door as he'd just seen her do, because she'd already refused to let him come in with her (could it be that's what they chatted about ?) I think that he relocked the door the same way that he unlocked it.

All that is necessarily surmising about Hutchinson, but once we've decided that he WAS lying and WAS Jtl then there are obvious questions to which we need to
find logical answers -and they can only be supposition now.

Why would Hutchinson come forward after the inquest and draw attention to himself ? For the same reason that we see people giving tearful 'news conferences'
begging for help to find a killer -only for us to find that they did it themselves ? . Hutchinson would have followed the inquest, if he'd done it, and may have been horrified to see that witnesses had got a good look at him -so this could have been partly 'damage limitation'. Another part could have been a 'controlling'
(wouldn't Jtl have been 'controlling' ?) desire to get close to the enquiry, to keep an eye on what direction it was taking and try and influence it from the inside ?
Influence it by pointing to a jewish culprit (hatred of the jews being his own justification to himself for the crimes). Then again Hutchinson might also have liked
the 15 minutes fame concerning the press and public (Jtl was a little bit 'theatrical' in his displays of the murder victims, and his placing of the apron piece under the graffiti), not to mention getting paid by both the police and the press for his trouble (Jtl stole those brass rings, and always took back the money that he'd paid the prostitutes, even if he was in a hurry). I think that it figures.

The next question would be (and the main reason that people reject him as a candidate) why Abberline met him as a witness and believed him, and did not
retain him as a suspect. I believe that there are three good reasons:
a) Abberline saw the 'jewish' thread (which I've already discussed) and Hutchinson was proposing an archytypal jewish suspect.
b) Abberline had actually seen the bodies of Chapman, Eddowes, and especially Kelly and I think that it must have been quite traumatic for him -I had nightmares for days after just glimpsing those old photos of Kelly's remains -and Abberline saw & smelt the reality, in their grim surroundings. I'm sure that he must have looked at, & weighed up, the witness across the table from him (and without forensics or an arrest 'in flagrante', his intuition was all he had to go on), and he decided that
Hutchinson was too normal' to be Jtl. He also showed Hutchinson Kelly's body, I'm sure to see his reaction.

It has to be said here that we have so much more experience of killers and atrocities than Abberline : who can forget all those nazi concentration camp guards ?
(you can read the statement by the camp commandant of Auschwitz), perpetrators of horrendous deeds in Japan, Vietnam, Bosnia, Rwanda, Chile ?(sadly Icould go on for a very long time), capable of going home and being perfectly loving with their friends and families -even sentimental. Then there are those serial killers such as Denis Nielson -he was capable of holding down work in a job centre, and presumably discussing last night's telly around the coffee machine with his collegues,
whilst boiling up heads and flushing bits of his victims down the loo. There are also all those seemingly 'normal' family men who get caught living double lives or viewing the most revolting violence, porn & paedophilia on the net, as part of their secret fantasy life. In short people can compartmentalise. -and Hutchinson might not have needed to act when viewing Kelly's body, some days after the murder.

c) Abberline didn't think that a serial killer with escalating violence, could stop in his trajectory -but we know that serial killers CAN stop sometimes. The FBI
profile of the likely killer says that one reason for the Jtl stopping could have been the feeling that the police were closing in. Of course, if Hutchinson were Jtl, then the fact that he had been circulating around town with policeman, giving interviews to the press, and no doubt regaling an audience in the pubs thereabouts of every detail, would make it impossible for him to sneak around as Jtl.

I will just finish by saying that it would be very interesting to see if there are descendents of George Topping Hutchinson (I see that there was a son living in the '70s), and what information they would be able to give about him.

I am really new to all this, so I would welcome comments and any discussion on the topic...

Hi Ruby
Interesting theory, you bring up some good ideas but overall i beleive JtR killed because he liked it, and the murder sites were random. however, he may have been antisemitic and/or just blamed jews to throw off the police. i like your idea of hutchinson's description prefabricated from someone he knew.

I have a little theory about George Hutchinson and JtR. it goes sometning like this:

The first time someone gets a good look at JtR is Israel Scwartz, causing JtR to shout out "Lipski!" perhaps to scare him away, which he did. JtR now knows he has been seen by a Jew. Later, he is seen by another person(3 really) right before he murders Eddowes. Since he beleives he has been seen now twice JtR wants to throw suspician on his witness-hence the bloody apron and GSG implicating jews.

On the night of Mary Kelly's murder, JtR knows agian he has been spotted (by E. Long) as he is waiting outside her room, perhaps for her previous client to leave. Later he expands on the jew blaming by going to the police and saying himself is a possible witness and the suspect looks like a Jew.

[DVV]

I have to disagree, Obs.

You don't know how to quote silence and get infuriated.

Amitiés,
David

[Observer]

The silence speaks volumes

[Fleetwood Mac]

To my mind, it is sheer coincidence that the blood-stained piece of Eddowes' apron was found aside the graffiti.

Agreed Abberline.....I see it as you do.

[Abberline2]

I suppose I was arguing the nature of the grafitti. And I'd contend that the author was not concerned with a revolution - or a popular uprising. I'd imagine it was a threat to any local Jews i.e. a threat of violence.

I totally agree with you, Mac.

I just don't think that JtR wrote the graffiti, he was fleeing from a murder scene with constables in persuit. It was dark, the GSt doorway would not have been particularly well lit if at all, and I just can't see him stopping to write that on the wall. My post was really directed at why Warren ordered the graffitti to be erased. A lot of people hold that it was because the graffiti was written by JtR. To some extent it doesn't matter wrote wrote it. I think it was erased becuase Warren feared it could lead to anti-semitic riots whoever wrote it and just because he had it erased doesn't mean it was written by JtR.

As one recent commentator puts it:

"So long as the poor were confined to their dens in east London the immediate threat to the metropolitan elites was slight, but then in a series of riots in 1886/87 the unemployed poor broke out of Whitechapel, Spitalfields, Stepney and West Ham to rampage across the West End, smashing shops and houses en route. Most worrying was the belief that the hordes were led and inspired by agitators who had been schooled in the dangerous doctrines of socialism; the prospect of the London poor organised and galvinised into action by the Social Demoncratic Federation struck terror in the heart of respectable option."

I have little doubt that Warren ordered the graffiti to be erased because of this perception among members of the government. At this distance, we may have a tendency to wholly underestimate the sense of political anxiety that was current at that time among the governing elite. To my mind, it is sheer coincidence that the blood-stained piece of Eddowes' apron was found aside the graffiti.

[Observer]

You don't seem to have answered my question Macca see post 211.

Observer