The Goulston Street Apron

[Wickerman]

Not a small spelling correction is it? But that aside, as a reason to distrust Halse's testimony regarding where the GSG (and hence the apron piece) was, it'd pretty pathetic...all sources except Warren seem to suggest the GSG was inside the lobby to the building...simple logistics would seem to suggest the same...even Warren's own version of the wording/layout seems (with hindsight) to suggest the same...It's only Warren's own self interest that tells a different tale.

All the best

Dave

Logistically, writing inside the vestibule at 2 o'clock in total darkness is unlikely, at least on the doorjamb there will have been a modicum of light, there was a streetlamp outside.
I don't favor the graffiti being connected with the crime, but some do.

What it really boils down to is, if you set aside the words of PC Long, two men (Halse & Warren) who both comment on the location of the apron when neither of them were present when it was found.
Which one had the true location?

I don't see self interest coming into it, if the concern was the writing being seen then it matters not whether it was inside the vestibule or on the archway entrance, it had to go, the markets were being set up.

.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Warren was by this time defending his whole livelihood...He and Matthews didn't get on and he was fighting to preserve his job - he simply had to justify the reason he'd had a vital piece of evidence washed away...on that basis alone his evidence just has to be treated with some reserve. Warren had a huge personal interest in presenting the GSG as being as "upfront", "in your face" and prominent as possible - hence his assertion it was on the doorjamb - highly visible from the street...but all the other evidence we have suggests it wasn't...go figure...

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Just to make in more confusing, There were three doorways and three jambs in one building entrance.

[Chava]

But the door jamb--as far as I have always known it--is the part of the frame that holds the door in place. There is no room at all to write something on that. So I assume they are talking about the wall of the vestibule beside the jamb. And I don't believe that would have been particularly visible unless you come at it at the correct angle. It's recessed from the street.

To me, the question is how many other examples of graffiti are found in that area at that time? If some prostitute was stabbed in a Jewishly-populated suburban environment where there is no street art of graffiti, and then the knife is found beneath an inscription that states ''The Juwes Are The Men Who Won't Be Blamed For Nothing', then I think you could associate the graffito with the knife because it's the only one around the area. But if that knife is found in a downtown area populated by Jews, say the Lower East Side, where there is a ton of graffiti and street-art, then I don't think you can have the same sureness as to the provenance of the graffito. It could have been written by the killer or it could be just one of a lot of similar sentiments written by all sorts of people. The knife may or may not have landed underneath by chance.

[moonbegger]

Hello Monty ,

No !

I see that Dave already cleared that one up .

Wickerman ,

Logistically, writing inside the vestibule at 2 o'clock in total darkness is unlikely, at least on the doorjamb there will have been a modicum of light,

Yes, very unlikely . Unless of course, you absolutely needed to hidden away, out of the public eye, and was in possession of a Bulls eye lamp, and just happened to have handy a stick of police chalk ! And furthermore was it not Arnold ( head of H Division ) that firstly suggested to Warren that he should have it removed ( maybe suspecting a little in house horseplay going on between the two forces)

What it really boils down to is, if you set aside the words of PC Long, two men (Halse & Warren) who both comment on the location of the apron when neither of them were present when it was found.
Which one had the true location?

And if you don't set aside the words of PC Long , We have three statements, two of which (Long/Halse) place the graffito in one location , and a third (warren) who places it in another . I think the question is "Who needed to justify getting rid of (possible) evidence ?

Do you think a consensus is necessary among a group who were not there at the time, when we have the definitive statements given by those who were actually present?

If it was only that easy ..

Cheers

moonbegger

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Hi Jon

Warren was by this time defending his whole livelihood...He and Matthews didn't get on and he was fighting to preserve his job -

He wrote the letter two days before he handed in his resignation, which had nothing to do with his inability to do his job. He wasn't trying to preserve his job at all, nobody was taking it away from him.

Besides Dave, given the number of police witnesses, plus Arnold & the Inspector from Comm. St. don't you think he would do himself an injustice by claiming the writing was in a different location than where every other police official saw it?

...he simply had to justify the reason he'd had a vital piece of evidence washed away...

I don't think so Dave, it had been Arnold's decision to have it removed and the Inspector had come prepared, so it was going to happen anyway. Once Warren arrived on the scene he naturally takes command.

Swanson wrote a piece, I think on 6 Nov., where he laid out three justifiable reason's why the graffiti was removed. His words make no judgement that it should never have occurred. In fact he suggests it likely had no value (he was referring to suggestions that the handwriting might be similar to the 'Letters' they received).

I'm seeing a lot of ulterior motives being thrown about seemingly in an attempt to justify a theory. I don't buy this reasoning either Dave, sorry.
Given the number of police who could have exposed his 'suggested' incorrect placement of the graffiti, he would have been foolish in the extreme to try such a stunt.

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, he was quite sure.

PC Long:
"He had previously passed the spot where he found the apron at 20 minutes after 2, but it was not there then."
Times.

PC Long:
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Daily Telegraph.

PC Long.
"Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - The apron was not there at the time."
Daily News.

When questioned by the Coroner, if PC Long was unsure about the answer he was not reluctant to admit when he was not sure.
E.g.
- I believe the words were as I have stated.
- It may have been.
- It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
- I could not form an opinion.

So when he states clearly that the apron was not there, then we have little reason to question his certainty, he is quite certain.

.

Quite so Jon, he either lied, or it wasnt there.

And I see no reason to surmise he lied. Because he felt he may have missed seeing it? "I couldnt be sure" seems to work for many people in these cases, but he didnt say that did he?

Cheers

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

He wrote the letter two days before he handed in his resignation, which had nothing to do with his inability to do his job. He wasn't trying to preserve his job at all, nobody was taking it away from him.

I’m sorry Jon, but you must be almost alone in not detecting the extreme bitterness between Matthews and Warren…it was public knowledge…for example Sugden quotes a Tory Journal “Moonshine” which on 13th October contained a cartoon captioned “A Question of Resignation”:

“In it Matthews and Warren are depicted glaring at each other, eyeball to eyeball, across a desk strewn with news reports and petitions relating to the murders. ‘Why don’t you resign?’ urges Matthews. ‘Why don’t you resign?’ growls Warren. In the background stands the long suffering figure of Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister. ‘Why don’t they both resign?’ he sighs in an aside”

The press, even the Tory press, didn’t just make this stuff up. Matthews wanted Warren out and Warren knew it…hell, if the press knew it, half the chattering classes of the day knew it…

Besides Dave, given the number of police witnesses, plus Arnold & the Inspector from Comm. St. don't you think he would do himself an injustice by claiming the writing was in a different location than where every other police official saw it?

But this is just what he did Jon…every report I quoted suggests the Apron was found in the passage of the building, and if the GSG was right over it, then so was the GSG.

Of those present it seems only Warren says the GSG was on the door jamb – and he was the one with the motive for saying so, (I’d say he banked on Matthews not concerning himself overmuch with the minutiae – and reading, for example, the Sourcebook, it’s clear he’s correct – almost everything Matthews read was second-hand from, or passed on by his secretariat...And don't forget neither Arnold nor Swanson had submitted their reports yet, so who is so far contradicting Sir Charles?).

To reinforce this, the only narrowish place in that lobby and doorway where there’s any chance of the GSG being “rubbed by the shoulders”, as Arnold puts it in his 6th November report, is within the passage, at the foot of the stairs.

I don't think so Dave, it had been Arnold's decision to have it removed and the Inspector had come prepared, so it was going to happen anyway. Once Warren arrived on the scene he naturally takes command.

It is quite clear that Arnold had sent an Inspector with a sponge to await further instructions as, according to both Warren and Arnold, that Inspector was still waiting when Warren arrived.

Arnold says “An Inspector was present by my directions with a sponge for the purpose of removing the writing when Commissioner arrived on the scene”. Warren confirms that he felt it was his duty to decide...

If the Inspector hadn’t been waiting for a decision, the GSG would’ve long been gone before Warren got there….so it was only going to happen when and if Warren made his mind up that it would…

I imagine Jon, that Warren would be somewhat less than delighted to discover that his subordinates were so indecisive, and would in turn, perhaps be open to making a somewhat hasty decision…but that much is, as I expect you'll remind me, pure surmise.

Swanson wrote a piece, I think on 6 Nov., where he laid out three justifiable reason's why the graffiti was removed. His words make no judgement that it should never have occurred. In fact he suggests it likely had no value (he was referring to suggestions that the handwriting might be similar to the 'Letters' they received).

Swanson isn’t writing from a position where he can/ought to assert an opinion on whether or not the erasure should have taken place. He is a loyal subordinate writing up an official report, simply recording the facts as they happened…not criticizing the actions of his superior…quoting him in this context is, therefore, meaningless – though he may be quite possibly right in suggesting the words are of no value.

I'm seeing a lot of ulterior motives being thrown about seemingly in an attempt to justify a theory. I don't buy this reasoning either Dave, sorry.

Sorry Jon but I wasn’t aware I’d proposed a theory – just quoted the evidence...and where I've surmised alone, I've said...so no theories I'm afraid.

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hello Dave.

I'm aware of the contention between Warren and Matthews, when I said that "no-one was taking his job away", I was alluding to the fact that he had already decided to hand in his resignation, it being only two days away.

The spat with Monro was what precipitated that response so Warren did not just decide on the 8th to throw in the towel, these decisions take days to weeks to contemplate.
I'm saying he had no reason to cover his actions when writing on the 6th, he had already decided to quite (on paper at least) by the 8th.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Warren himself publicly denied the Times account you're quoting...and nowhere does Matthews mention it...

Warren's letter of resignation directly quotes the May 27th 1879 Home Office Circular, and declares his reason for resignation as being a direct result of the application of that regulation.

This was drawn to his attention by the the sharp Home Office response to his article for the November 1888 issue of Murray's Magazine...he probably took extra exception to said response being from a mere clerk...he tendered his resignation on the 8th November, and it was formally accepted on the 10th...again quoting the May 27th 1879 circular as the casus belli.

I cannot, therefore, see any basis for your contention that Warren had already decided to resign by the time he submitted his 6th November report...if this was the case he'd surely have mentioned it in a report which was clearly "dragged" out of him over a month after the events described and well after the parallel City Police Report made by Inspector McWilliams...

Sorry mate, I can't agree with you...we'll have to agree to disagree...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Warren himself publicly denied the Times account you're quoting...and nowhere does Matthews mention it...

Hello Dave.
I can't find where I quoted an account in the Times, I did make reference to Warren's battle with Monro, it is common knowledge that the tug of war for control of the CID between the two was the cause of Warren considering resignation in the first place.

Meetings between Monro & Anderson "Every morning for the last few weeks" caused Warren concern:
"These facts will explain how, apart from any other consideration, it was impossible for Sir Charles Warren, holding the views he did in regard to the functions of the Commissioner, to continue in command".

What I think you may be referring to is Warren not admitting to being party to division within the ranks. You forget Warren was a career soldier, discipline, organization and solidarity are prime concerns to a man for which the military is in his blood.

Warren's letter of resignation directly quotes the May 27th 1879 Home Office Circular, and declares his reason for resignation as being a direct result of the application of that regulation.

Its what we call, 'the straw that broke the camels back'.
If you are aware how the Vincent Code came into being and subsequently how the position of Director was eliminated, but replaced by Assistant Commissioner (a position subservient to Warren), you might appreciate Warren's belief that the Code did not apply to him.
However, since Warren had to compete with Monro, who subsequently resigned, and then finding via Matthews that he was not free to speak his mind as Commissioner (The Murray's article is really interesting), then this was the end for him.

I cannot, therefore, see any basis for your contention that Warren had already decided to resign by the time he submitted his 6th November report...

That it was under his consideration, I hope you see what I mean.
The bottom line is, that on Nov. 6th Warren was not lying, or offering terminal inexactitudes in order to save his job.
Given that he was a Royal Engineer and a Chief Instructor in Military Engineering, Charles Warren is quite likely the one person who will state precisely where that graffiti was.
Public servants tend to be vague and evasive, a military engineer is trained to be accurate, say what you mean and mean what you say.

Sorry mate, I can't agree with you...we'll have to agree to disagree...

Quite amicably, I do agree with this
Suffice to say I hope you understand why I choose to accept the word of a man who had nothing to lose in saying what he did.

[caz]

I think it's a distraction whichever way you look at it.

Hi Chava,

But if the writer did it for that very purpose, to cause a distraction, he succeeded rather well, didn't he?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

In my opinion, the only possible importance of the graffito would be to track down the writer on the chance that he saw someone come down Goulston St., and drop a piece of fabric, while he was busy writing. If so, then it would be pretty likely he saw the Ripper. If the police had photographed the graffito, they might have been able to post it, and see if anyone recognized the writing, or ask for the writer to come forward, but they probably have to redact it, and somehow make it very clear they wanted the writer only as a potential witness, not to arrest him for vandalism, libel, or attempting to incite a riot.

Or for murder...

I doubt whoever wrote that message would have come forward - ever, under any circumstances - knowing what had been found beneath it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz.

Excuse me for being a but-in-ski, but as we've debated the same, can I ask you straight and to the point?

What would you call 'evidence' that would convince you the graffiti was there before that night?

Thanks..

Sorry Jon, I've only just returned to this thread and seen your question.

What evidence you got?

I will consider anything, but if it were that convincing and in the public domain, surely nobody would still be debating whether the message could have been left at the same time as the pinny.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Not to mention a good reason for not noticing either the apron piece or the graffito first time round...They were off the pavement, well into the doorway, and laying deep in natural shadow...particularly bearing in mind the very obvious limitations of the PC's bullseye lamp!

Cheers

Dave

Hi Dave,

But even if this were correct, how would it be evidence that either was there 'first time round'?

Could have been there, in theory, but equally need not have been in practice.

Love,

Caz
X