|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1272
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 1:37 pm: | 
|
I don't beleive I have seen this referenced before, but as ever I might be wrong.
Some interesting data amongst the head banging on the wailing wall:
Here is another instance: Mr. J. Hall Richardson reports it on pp. 216-217 of his book, From the City to Fleet Street (S. Paul & Co., 1927). He is writing of the murders of Jack the Ripper, and he says:
"It would scarcely be believed that the Metropolitan Police held the clue to the identification of the murderer in their own hands and deliberately threw it away under the personal direction of the then Commissioner of Police, Sir Chas. Warren, who acted in the belief that an anti-Semitic riot might take place if a certain damning piece of writing were permitted to remain on the walls."
Writing of the murderer: "Some freak of fancy had led him to write upon the wall this sentence: 'The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing.'
"I have never learned that any photographic record was made of this inscription, and when the City Police came to hear of it, they were horrified that their colleagues in the Metropolitan Force had wiped away what might have been an important piece of circumstantial evidence as to the class to which the murderer belonged."
That the Jack the Ripper murders were ritual I do not allege; but that they were Jewish seems to be established by the above-quoted paragraphs. Yet the clue was passed over and the murderer remained at large. In what other cause would such an important piece of evidence be ignored, and the whole community's interests sacrificed for the sake of a Jew? It is significant, that Sir Chas. Warren was not only District Grand Master in Masonry, 1891-5, but was actually the founder of the first research Lodge--Quatuor Coronati.
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 68
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 1:51 pm: |
|
I don't think the Graffiti says anything about the murders specifically - the ' Jewes ' ( or Juwes ) makes me ask - what Jews ? specifically male Jews as well ? What have they done ?
Now if the Graffiti read ' I am a Jew ' with the apron next to it , that would be another matter...
Mr Hall Richardson knows the real meaning of the graffiti , hence his reference to Warren's masonic credentials at the end of the exert. |
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 850
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 2:51 pm: |
|
Hi, Simon and AP:
Simon, you wrote: "Mr Hall Richardson knows the real meaning of the graffiti , hence his reference to Warren's masonic credentials at the end of the excerpt."
I assume this remark was meant tongue in cheek, was it, or maybe you have misread AP's post, for isn't the last paragraph AP's own words, not Richardson's? The ending quote comes at the end of the second paragraph which would seem to end all Richardson had to say on the subject.
Certainly Richardson is saying at the beginning of the excerpt that the police, and Warren, held a clue to the murderer being Jewish and then at the end he says clearly, "Sir Chas. Warren. . . acted in the belief that an anti-Semitic riot might take place if a certain damning piece of writing were permitted to remain on the walls." This is exactly what Warren said at the time, and there is no implication of Freemason involvement in what Richardson says.
Certainly the involvement of the Jews was much discussed in the press of the day, as a glance at any of the issues of the Jewish Chronicle will show, as well as the mainstream press. The Jewish issue has also been used or rather misused closer to our time in a Nazi pamphlet, Der Teufel von Whitechapel by von Soltikow which alleged that the murders were the result of a Jewish conspiracy to force gentile girls into the flesh factories of New Jersey. There is of course no more evidence that this was so that that Warren ordered removal of the graffito because he was a Freemason.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by chrisg on August 18, 2004)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Christopher T George
Chief Inspector
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Hi, AP and Simon--
What I mean is that in the Richardson quote, the ending quote mark comes at the end of the paragraph worded, ". . . an important piece of circumstantial evidence as to the class to which the murderer belonged." -- which would seem to end all Richardson had to say on the subject.
AP, please tell us if those are your words at the end of your post: "That the Jack the Ripper murders were ritual I do not allege; but that they were Jewish seems to be established by the above-quoted paragraphs. Yet the clue was passed over and the murderer remained at large. In what other cause would such an important piece of evidence be ignored, and the whole community's interests sacrificed for the sake of a Jew? It is significant, that Sir Chas. Warren was not only District Grand Master in Masonry, 1891-5, but was actually the founder of the first research Lodge--Quatuor Coronati."
Thanks.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 70
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:28 pm: |
|
Ah yes , I may have misunderstood the post ! Which words belong to Mr Hall Richardson A.P. ??? |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1273
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Sorry chaps, for the confusion.
The only part of the post belonging to me is the very first introductory paragraph.
Then follows quotes from Richardson and finally views of the reviewer, who is clearly biased.
I would have posted more but would have exceeded fair useage and might have got a bottle of brandy thrown at me.
Rest assured I would have caught it in me teeth.
I'll refind the site and flag it for your edification.
My sincere apologies for the confusion. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1274
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 2:01 pm: |
|
Here you go:
My Irrelevant Defence being
Meditations Inside Gaol and Out on
An account of the trial of Jews for ritual murder in Europe over the last 1000 years
by ARNOLD LEESE
Dedicated Without permission to
Mr. OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON, M.P.,
and Hon. Mr. JUSTICE GREAVES-LORD. 1938, LONDON:
The I.F.L. Printing & Publishing Co.,
30, Craven Street, W.C.2.
(not recommended unless you drink lots of brandy like me and can suffer fools).
That was my quote. |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 3:16 pm: |
|
If it is like this now, what must it have been like in 1888?
More of Jack and anti-semitism from:
Sibling incest, madness, and the "Jews"
Social Research, Summer, 1998 by Sander L. Gilman
Indeed, had Hacking read the Franco-Jewish psychologist Hippolyte Bernheim closely he would have found this discussion already in that work on hypnotism that so captured Sigmund Freud. Bernheim focuses on the nature of the psyche of the child in the traumatic setting of the trials concerning ritual murder in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Hacking dismisses Janet's virulently anti-Semitic views about Freud as part of a squabble about priorities, rather than acknowledging it as an inherent bias among the Paris psychologists (including the neurologist Jean-Martin Charcot) that shapes their basic attitude toward their science and their competition (whether in Vienna or Nancy). The assumption of the medical science of the day was the Jews harbored illnesses, including madness, because of the marriage practices (Braun, 1995, pp. 127-48). Even "child abuse"/ritual murder was seen as a reflex of the madness of the Jews. For child abuse cases in the late-nineteenth century usually have a female child victim (Christian) and a male child abuser (Jewish) who reenact the sexual fantasy of the Jewish rapist/murder and his victims that dominated the discussion of Jack the Ripper during this period. Child murder and sibling incest come to be linked in the forensic science of the period as twin signs of the madness of the Jews. The madness of the Jews is a sexual madness, whether it is focused on the body of the Christian and death or on the body of the Jew and immoral reproduction.
Anti-Semitism, in the late-nineteenth century, saw the Jews as an essentially "ill" people and labeled the origins of that illness as incest/inbreeding, labeled in the case of the Jews "consciousness of kind." The illness that dominated the discourse of the anti-Semitic science was madness and its origin was in the "dangerous" marriages of the Jews, that is, their refusal to marry beyond the inner group. These marriages were labeled as a criminal activity, even when such "inbreeding" was not consanguineous. In historical terms, writers such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain could comment on the origin of the Jews and its "refreshingly artless expression in the genealogies of the Bible, according to which some of these races owe their origin to incest, while others are descended from harlots" (Chamberlain, 1913, vol. 1, p. 366). Chamberlain's polemic also appears at the time under the guise of ethnological description. The Jews are described as not only permitting sibling incest (Geschwisterehe) historically, but actually practicing it even after they claimed to have forbidden it. The pathological result of such open and/or hidden practices is premature sexual maturity (Gunther, 1930, p. 134). The various links between deviant forms of sexuality such as incest (understood as sibling incest) and prostitution (the ultimate etiology of mental illness in an age of syphilophobia) placed the Jews and their marriage practices at the center of "biological" concern. And yet there was also a hidden economic rationale in this discussion. For in refusing to marry into the general society, the Jews seemed to be signaling that they were an economic entity--that lived off the general society, but did not contribute to it. "Inbreeding" was seen as the origin of the economic hegemony of the Jews and was as poisonous as their sexual activities.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1283
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 20, 2004 - 5:35 pm: |
|
This one is cooking at Colney Hatch:
C. F. Beadles, who has investigated the subject in the Colney Hatch Asylum in London, shows that there appears to be a great preponderance of general paralysis among Jewish males, over 21 per cent of all the male Jews admitted being subjects of that disease, while the proportion of cases of general paralysis among all the males admitted to the hospitals for the insane in England and Wales is only 13 per cent. "It is evident," says Mr. Beadles "that among the Jewish males, admissions for general paralysis are 60 per cent more frequent than among the non-Jewish English and Welsh." No such disparity has been observed in the case of Jewesses.
From:
INSANITY: (print this article)
By : Joseph Jacobs Maurice Fishberg Solomon Schechter Julius H. Greenstone
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1317
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2004 - 3:13 pm: |
|
The following case is well worth a read if one wishes to understand the core issues in policing during the LVP when it came to dealing with cases involving Jews.
It does have particular regard to the crimes of Jack the Ripper:
'History
Volume 88 Issue 290 Page 262 - April 2003
doi:10.1111/1468-229X.00262
The Trial of Oscar Slater (1909) and Anti-Jewish Prejudices in Edwardian Glasgow
Ben Braber
Abstract
This article examines the case of Oscar Slater within the context of Jewish history in the United Kingdom. It argues that Slater's conviction was the result of errors made by the police and judicial authorities and that these errors were made under public pressure. It is shown that the public, police and authorities were influenced by xenophobia and anti-Jewish feelings. The article illustrates that in Glasgow it was not the often assumed Jewish involvement in political violence, but the growing presence of Jewish immigrants and their alleged participation in crime, especially prostitution, which aroused already existing fears about the condition of society. It is also found that there was another side to public opinion, namely a preparedness to speak out against injustice no matter at whom the wrongdoing was directed. Finally, the article concludes that the case affected the local Jewish population and shaped their responses to local attitudes.'
|
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 87
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 12:25 pm: |
|
I think, rather than start a new strand, this seems to be a good place to put my enquiry.
It may have an easy answer, it may spark off a whole debate - you may have already dealt with it.
An aspect of the case has always sat very oddly with me and I have trouble conveying the relevance to my tour groups. Let me explain...
Half of Eddowes apron on the right hand side of the doorway of 108-119 Wentworth Model Dwellings, OK? Above the apron the graffito saying (probably) 'The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing' - an ANTI-Jewish slogan.
Warren comes along, sees the apron & graffito and orders the graffito removed. PROBABLE reason? It would have started anti-Jewish riots in the East End had it been leaked to the press.
All clear so far? Good.
Now - I believe Jack had nothing to do with the graffito in any way, shape or form. I truly think the apron was just dumped (I also believe it is POSSIBLE it blew into the doorway and wasn't actually dropped where it was found, due to the strong wind that night and my personal knowledge of how windy it can be in Goulston Street!) but that has nothing to do with my point.
My question is this : Why would anti-Semitic graffito below a Ripper victim's clothing spark an anti-Semitic riot if it were leaked to the press? Surely if the public heard that the Ripper was anti-Semitic, that would have the OPPOSITE effect? As posted at the top of this strand, if the graffito said something like 'The Juwes are the Chosen People' then you could understand people making a link, but it says quite the opposite.
This has bugged me for years!
Answers please!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 468
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Because, and I think Warren understood this, not everyone is as logical and analytical as you are. If I am poorly educated, tend to think with my feelings, and I am antisemitic, I won't bother to analyze the content of the graffito. The only thing that will matter is that it mentioned Jews and was found near an item of the victim's clothing. Such is mob psychology.
But you have raised another issue that I think is important. I'll go to another thread with it. |
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:08 pm: |
|
This is what I thought could be the only possible explanation, Di. It just seemed irrational, though. I mean - were people really that stupid?
I'll see what else folk have to say about it and if I get nowhere I'll give it its own thread.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 470
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Warren apparently thought so, and he had firsthand experience. |
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 196
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 5:06 pm: |
|
George....It may well have been more an action to not insult any of the Jews inside the Wentworth Bldg.
You know how long secrets last untold.
Had any vestige of the GSG remained,I think Warren realized it may have upset the residents by its message. By removing it,there was no chance of an anti-Jewish outburst for the graffiti.
They would have seen it had it been left. Of course they would have erased it. Warren may also not have wanted any concerned citizens as well as gossipy types making it another issue to deal with. Two murders were enough.
(Message edited by howard on January 13, 2005) |
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 97
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 5:29 pm: |
|
Right -
So this would mean the common theory of it being erased just to prevent anti-Jewish feeling may not be true then, if it could also be done to spare the residents feelings.
It's not teaching me anything new here, but it is confirming to me that the removal of it WAS less straightforward than authors usually make it!
Thanks for the ideas - this is going to help make it clearer to my tourists. I can now clearly say that people at that time would put 2 and 2 together and make 5. I said that anyway, but wasn't confident about it.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 197
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 8:29 pm: |
|
Dear Philip:
As an aside to this entire question,let me ask you this...
I know many folks don't believe in the "connection" between the graffiti and the apron and I know you are one of them...
Have you, since you are usually "walking" around on your tours in the great city of London, ever seen graffiti in a predominantly Pakistani area that said anything derogative about these people like, "Paki's suck !" ? In a West Indian neighborhood, a nasty reference about them? Any other ethnic enclaves? And especially inside or on a building with a predominantly non-English contingency?
I wait for your answer, my pedestrian pal !
How
P.S. You owe me a free "guided walk" with Caz Morris when I get to the Isles AND 3 free pints at the Ten Bells for my sterling help...agree?
(Message edited by howard on January 13, 2005) |
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 103
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Ah - I see what you're getting at.
I don't buy it though, Howard!
I don't think it was just a generic rascist rant - the graffito, bizarre though it was, had a MESSAGE rather than just bigotry. I think it was put there as some Gentile individual had felt slighted by a Jew in some way; probably in a business transaction. I don't think it was the modern-day 'catch-all' deeply considered (NOT) rascism you sometimes find.
If you weigh up the odds, the likelihood of it being put there by Jack is completely overwhelmed by his need to go to ground, why would he have chalk with him etc.
If this graffiti was, as I expect, put there by a Gentile I would also expect it was deliberately aimed at a resident in that part of the building. You DO, after all, get such attacks on people regardless of the source of its inhabitants.
I can indeed get the occasional person on my walks for free - though I work for a big company, so have to be sparing as it is half done on a coach and everyone has to be accounted for (it's a full evening). The worry is having Ripperologists who might despair of the fact I have to simplify some quite complex things for people who really just want to hear about the blood and guts and then forget all about it! And we don't go to The Ten Bells. Far too cheap a move - they hate groups going in there anyway! I stop outside it though. But not for long. It's importance (and let's face it, for tourists it is THE Ripper spot) is really over-hyped.
So - you at JTR Forums then (listed as your homepage - excuse my ignorance!)? Tyler came to my Conference in London last November, bless him. Nice guy! Does he never come onto this one?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3871
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 13, 2005 - 10:40 pm: |
|
Hi all
Maybe the top police officers had a kind of controlled panic attack here.
If we go back to the night of 29th-30th, as far as they were concerned the Ripper had murdered twice in one night - indeed, twice in an hour. I know we now hotly debate Stride's membership of the series, but on that night the police felt that, despite all their best efforts, the Ripper had murdered two women with apparent ease.
Therefore, perhaps the police feared this man and despaired of ever catching him. They didn't know when he would strike next, or even how often. But they were sure there was more to come.
If Jack was a Jew, it was very bad news for the police. If Jack was an anti-semite, it was very bad news for the police.
It wasn't in the nature of men like Warren to show emotion or fear. But I do wonder whether his heart was racing that night.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 26
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 7:14 am: |
|
Coming a little late to this, Philip, but I hope what I have to say may have relevance and be helpful.
Logic and anti-ethnic/racist behaviour do not necessarily go together.
During the First World War there was a great deal of anti-German feeling, not least in the east End and in other working class areas. Lord Louis of Battenburg had to resign as First Sea Lord because of his German ancestry (he was Earl Mountbatten's father); and the very English but Germanophile Lord haldan had also to resign from the Government because of press pressure.
More specifically, in 1915, (not least after the sinking of the Lusitania) anyone with a German-SOUNDING name was liable to assault or their homes/business premises attacked. Russians, Czechs, Poles Jews were indiscriminately attacked because their names sounded German to a largely illiterate public and a frenzied press. I suspect that there was also a good deal of hope of loot too!!
Later in the 30s Oswald Moseley and his fascist followers looked to be able to encourage ant-semitic unrest in the east End. The Cable Street riot ensued.
These were events (1915 and 30s) when people alive in 1888 might still have been living in the area.
Now in 1888, Warren already knew the possibility and nature of riots (Trafalgar Square/Bloody Sunday) had seen near riots in Hanbury St after the Chapman murder, and the Leather Apron (anti-Jewish scare was only just passed). The Lipski case was only a year old (and see how that name cropped up in relation to the "Double Event"!)
So all in all, I think Sir Charles had some reason for his concerns. I believe he made the right decision at the time.
Phil |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 2821
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 7:26 am: |
|
I completely concur with Phil Hill here.
I strongly believe Warren had reasons for being concerned and as stated, there had already been riots. From what we know so far from discussions on these Boards (among other things) the writing has been subject to different meanings and interpretations, and in an area brooding with anti-semitic emotions and the possibility of riots quite easily breaking out, one can understand the concerns.
However, I am NOT sure I agree that he made the right decision to wipe out the message (and definitely not from a police investigation point of view) -- regardless if it really was an important evidence or not.
I seriously wonder why it would have been so problematic to just cover it up until it could be photographed? What would the harm be in such a procedure? If it was covered up, no one could read it anyway and after the photo was taken it could easily have been washed out. I just don't get it.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
(Message edited by Glenna on January 14, 2005)
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 28
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 7:38 am: |
|
It was Warren's call, Glenn, and that was the way he saw it on the day.
Given the state of photography, would a picture in those ill-lit circumstances have come out? How long would it have taken to get a photographer and suitable camera there?
The City Police criticised Warren but they had ulterior motives, I think.
Warren had a weight of responsibility. Think how much MORE he would have been criticised if wide-spread rioting had broken out. The wording was recorded (albeit in different ways). They may not have thought that a photograph would have told them much more - don't forget that without hindsight, Warren (who KNEW how the message read) would not have known there would be later confusion. they may not have placed much weight on comparing handwriting in those days either.
I say again, he was there on the day, knowing exactly how daylight was coming on, seeing people of the streets, able to read the mood and opinion at the time as we cannot....
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3875
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
I find it puzzling that Warren says he took a copy. What happened to it? This should have been the definitive, indisputable version from the top man. It wasn't read out at the inquest, as far as I can recall.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 29
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 7:54 am: |
|
Without seeing the exact wording, it's difficult to comment, but Sir Charles MAY have meant that he had a copy taken (by someone else). |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3876
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
Phil, it's in Warren's report of 6th November 1888. "...I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate."
The Sourcebook says this was followed by the copy :
The Juwes are
The men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing
However, at the inquest there were only two versions on offer - Long's and Halse's, which disagreed. You may be right that the job of transcribing the graffito was delegated to Long, though I find it strange that with Warren on the spot, then Warren himself, or at least another senior officer, didn't do it.
Robert
|
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 105
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 8:36 am: |
|
Blimey! I've really struck up the band here, haven't I?!!!
I believe I have read that the whole reason it was not photographed at the time was because it was too dark. It was soon to be busy and not only would Goulston Street have been filled with Petticoat Lane overspill, but WMD residents needed to come and go. It was thought too risky to have a piece of writing covered up and a policeman standing guard - huge crowds and unable to control them. Had the covering been ripped off by someone - as it undoubtedly WOULD have been - the crowd would have thought it had even more significance by the very virtue the police had thought it worthy of hiding.
I'm not wrong, am I?
Thanks for all your postings - it seems to confirm what I had thought; that the reason for removing the writing to stop anti-Semetic riots is illogical but has to be borne against the lack of reason at the time. I guess people would just hear 'Ripper - apron - graffiti - Jew' and that would be enough, IGNORING the fact that the last part of that equation was actually a negative and not a positive.
I think I was right - it never did make sense, and the reason it doesn't is because people didn't think about what it actually SAID. The word 'Juwes' was enough.
By the way - I have no complaints about the way Warren acted. I think he did the right thing. Perhaps the only failing is an accurate taking down (graphologically as well) of the garaffito - even though I am convinced it has nothing to do with the murders.
Wow, this is quite liberating, isn't it?
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1501
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 11:30 am: |
|
Phil, Glenn,
I feel the strain Warren was under coupled with the fact that his background was mainly Millitary as opposed to Civillian based/linked led to erronous descisions on his part.
I do not blame him for his concern over the graffito. The pointers Phil Hill gives validates Warrens line of thinking but to remove all the graffito was wrong....even though my belief is that the apron is not linked with the writing.
However, this Guy was under huge pressure and took bad advice.
Monty
"I tell you I didnt do it cos I wasnt there, so dont blame me it just isnt fair....now pass the blame and dont blame me..."- John Pizer
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 199
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Glenn said..."I seriously wonder why it would have been so problematic to just cover it up until it could be photographed? What would the harm be in such a procedure? If it was covered up, no one could read it anyway and after the photo was taken it could easily have been washed out. I just don't get it."
Covering it up would have increased interest in the small patch of brickface,my friend, to any potential onlookers.
As Phil stated,daylight was right around the corner and just ONE nosey Parker [ or Rabinowitz..] would have been enough to get the Gossip Engine cranked up.
Robert: There are 3 more interpretations of the GSG besides the two you mentioned. "Juwes" "Jewes" "Juews" "Jews""Juews" have all been used [ or perhaps substituted for the word some of us ornery sumbitchs think it said..."Juives". I hadda get that in there.]PLUS,my good man,the 20th Century add-on.." The James"...Maybe one day someone will say it said, "The Jutes"....
Anyway,this inconspicuous piece of graffiti has certainly been kept alive,hasn't it?
Phil...Yessir,thats me over there at the Forums. What a fine day that would be to take a trip over to the Wentworth on the Phil Hutchinson Tour and have Monty cover my prodigious food bill at that fish and chips joint !
Personally,of any of the interpretations,I would buy Halse's 46 letter [ not 45 like I mentioned somewhere else around here erroneously...]explanation,based on the fact he appears to have measured them,if not mechanically,then by an estimate and recorded this fact. His version,of course, placates the word "not" as the 4th and not the 8th word in the famous line. |
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 33
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 2:45 pm: |
|
Good post Howard.
Personally, I think you might be on to something - you know how those Angles, Saxons and Jutes just loved to rape, pillage and plunder...
Maybe a group of them on a post C21st time-travel jaunt...
or maybe not...
But then could it be a reference to sacking - perhaps Jack was an out-of -work sack-maker with an obsession about jute....
Phil
|
George Hutchinson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Philip
Post Number: 123
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Has anyone looked into the possibility it was written by a fan of the protagonists of appaling 1970s sitcoms? A Terry Scott fan maybe? Then it might have said "The Junes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" - but then it would have had to say WOmen.
This is getting quite deep and convoluted and a bit beyond me!
Howard - I've NEVER seen the chip chop open at night when I do my tours. Here's me being very disappointed at said assertion (in spite of being vegetarian)...
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 200
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 14, 2005 - 5:32 pm: |
|
Don't sweat it Phil. There's probably a few more late nite jernts open at that time...I'd have to deal with it.
Thanks Phil Hill ! They may even come out with the "Jukes" [ which is an American "roadhouse" that specialized in blues music in the U.S.South... ]...who knows?
The "James" is downright funny. Not to break anyones stones,but this latter interpretation is like trying to put 10 pounds of er..mud, into a 5 pound bag. The guy who narrated that documentary had to have a big tongue in his cheek to even utter the phrase......
Later gents.... |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 24, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Hello Everyone,
Mr. Hutchinson, your perceptive question, "Why would anti-Semitic graffito below a Ripper victim's clothing spark an anti-Semitic riot if it were leaked to the press?" has stimulated a number of thought provoking answers, e.g., Diana replied with: "The only thing that will matter is that it mentioned Jews and was found near an item of the victim's clothing. Such is mob psychology". Mr. Brown commented: "Had any vestige of the GSG remained,I think Warren realized it may have upset the residents by its message. By removing it,there was no chance of an anti-Jewish outburst for the graffiti".
Mr. Hill's argument continues this train of thought: "Now in 1888, Warren already knew the possibility and nature of riots (Trafalgar Square/Bloody Sunday) had seen near riots in Hanbury St after the Chapman murder, and the Leather Apron (anti-Jewish scare was only just passed). The Lipski case was only a year old (and see how that name cropped up in relation to the "Double Event"!)".
"So all in all, I think Sir Charles had some reason for his concerns. I believe he made the right decision at the time". Mr. Anderson agrees with his assessment stating: "I strongly believe Warren had reasons for being concerned and as stated, there had already been riots".
Evidently, all of you feel there is a correlation between the graffito, and the danger it posed to the Jewish community. But there's one question, which is germane to this issue, and affects the nature of the discussion, and that is...What is it about the graffito that makes it so dangerous?
In and of itself, the message is rather innocuous. It doesn't spell out what the Jews are being accused of, or why the accusation is appropriate. There is nothing ominous about the graffito, which could possibly arouse public sentiment against the Jews, unless it can be connected to the Whitechapel Murders and the only thing that can do that, is the blood smeared cloth found nearby. However, there is something about the way that that connection was made that just doesn't add up.
Patrol Constable Alfred Long discovered the graffito and a blood smeared cloth at 2:55 am, 30 September. At Eddowes inquest, PC Long testified: "I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty" (Catherine Eddowes inquest: http:// casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_Eddowes.html). Long also stated that he recorded the graffito in his pocket notebook, so he must have showed that to the inspector as well. What I find troubling about this scenario, is that there was no compelling reason for PC Long to have attached any significance to either item, or for that matter, to connect the one with the other.
PC Edward Watkins, of the City of London Police, found Catherine Eddowes' body in Mitre Square at approximately 1:45 am. Yet, between that time, and the time the graffito and the cloth were discovered an hour later, PC Long claims to have learned of Eddowes' murder: "[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? – [Long] Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. [Coroner] Which did you hear of? - [Long] I heard of the murder in the City [Stride?]. There were rumours of another, but not certain" (Casebook Archive). If this is true, then the question now becomes: How did PC Long, of the Metropolitan Police, hear of this information while patrolling his beat?
The only person who had any relevant knowledge of Eddowes' apron, and could have been in Goulston Street to inform PC Long, was City of London detective, Daniel Halse. Detective Halse had arrived there at approximately 2:20 am, and had actually passed the entrance to the Wentworth Model Dwellings where Long later found the blood stained cloth. What is significant here is that Halse didn't learn of the condition of Eddowes' apron, until after he left Goulston Street and went to the mortuary. Therefore, even if he had bumped into Long, he couldn't have told him, or anyone else, anything about the apron. At this point, the window of opportunity for Long to hear that a piece of cloth was missing from Eddowes' apron, is narrowed to 30 minutes, and the number of people in Goulston Street who could possibly give him that information within that timeframe, is zero. It follows that at the time he discovered the graffito and the cloth, PC Long did not have any information that could have lead him to believe that the graffito was related to the cloth, or that the graffito and the cloth were related to the murder of Catherine Eddowes. Moreover, he has no compelling reason to assume that either item was something out of the ordinary.
In his Casebook dissertation, A Curious Find in Goulston Street, Derek Osborne offers us some insight into the conditions of the area around the Wentworth building: "tossed rubbish on his [PC Long's] beat would surely have been a common sight, especially with a street market nearby" (Casebook Archive, Osborne: http://casebook.org/dissertations/rn-curious.html). Jon Smyth mentions that "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" (Casebook Archive, Smyth: http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html). Why then does PC Alfred Long copy the graffito in his notebook, and take a blood smeared cloth to the Commercial road stationhouse? Why indeed.
Thank you for your time.
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:28 pm: |
|
Mephisto wrote:
"Why then does PC Alfred Long copy the graffito in his notebook, and take a blood smeared cloth to the Commercial road stationhouse?"
>>Probably for no singular reason. General impressions were more likely in effect. Long knew big things were afoot that night, one and likely two murders, plenty of activity, people would increasingly be milling around the area and be in an elevated frame of mind, some frightened, others perhaps righteously indignant. The presence of the graffitus on the Wentworth building so close in time and place to the opening of the Jewish street market would likely key off the possibility of a riot in his mind, so he'd possibly feel responsible to get a decision on whether to erase it quickly, all things considered. He wouldn't need to associate the graffitus with the murders to consider it worthy of his immediate attention. The strangeness of the spelling and wording would prompt him to write it down, to be sure to relay correct information to his superiors. Focusing on the graffitus this way, he'd notice the half apron perhaps differently from how he might notice it otherwise. It was lying right underneath the graffitus, the graffitus was written low on the building near the ground, the half apron had blood and fecal material on it, JtR was known to be a mutilator, and murders were reported that night. Plus it was half an apron, identifiable by its construction, and most women of the time wore aprons in the streets. Under these circumstances, it would be rather unusual for him not to take action concerning these items, I suspect. I wouldn't think he'd necessarily associate the half apron with the graffitus in order to bring it and the text of the graffitus to the station house together. He would associate the half apron potentially with the murders.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 420
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Everyone,
Police Constable Long's testimony is a bit confusing or perhaps a better word is vague. In any case, just when and how he heard there was one murder (the City murder would have been Eddowes) and maybe another is never made clear. I think David is right, though, that Long heard some sort of report on the streets of at least one murder and that fact would make him more observant and more likely to make a connection between a bloody piece of apron and the grafitto. Especially if he had an ounce of ambition.
It is interesting that neither Long nor City DC Halse reported meeting or passing each other, though both testified to passing the spot where the graffito and apron part were found at almost the same time (2:20 a.m.). Nor does Halse ever make clear why after seeing Eddowe's body he almost immediately headed to Goulston Street (in Met territory) and then almost as quickly returned to Mitre Square.
It should also be borne in mind that Long had only been drafted into H Division from A Division that day and his patrol that evening was his first in the area. That datum might put into question his insistence that the apron part was not in Goulston Street at 2:20. It could have been that he was simply feeling his way for his first few rounds and it wasn't until he heard some news of a murder sensation that he become more assiduous by poking and peering into every doorway he passed. I also wonder about what was evidently a 35 minute beat (the apron spot at 2:20 and again at 2:55), which seems rather long. Perhaps as the new man on the block he was just slow or it could be, as I suggested, that subsequent to passing the spot at 2:20 he heard of the excitement and was then carefully checking everything on his beat.
It is perhaps unfortunate that PC Long was likely a less than exemplary officer, getting sacked for being drunk on duty in 1889.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 718
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 9:03 pm: |
|
Hi David Radka, Mephisto, and Don,
I believe it was Monty Burns who speculated that it might have been PC 190 H who told Long about the murder--this was the constable who remained with the graffiti while Long took the apron to the station. His post is in the archives somewhere.
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on January 29, 2005) |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 421
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 5:47 pm: |
|
David O'F.,
Yes, the suggestion that PC 190 was Long's source for news of a murder is a possibility and does accord with his inquest testimony in one instance, when he says he learned of a murder subsequent to discovering the apron part. But this then raises Mephisto's question about how, in an area reportedly laden with litter, he just happened to notice the apron part that would seem not have been in plain sight.
Then again, in response to a question from a jury member later in the inquest, Long seems to contradict himself by agreeing he heard of a murder prior to discovering the apron part. This would support David Radka's contention that Long must have heard the news of a murder a quarter-mile away somewhere on his beat in the intervening hour. To my mind, that does seem likely amid the excitement raised by the discovery of Eddowes.
Nonetheless, Long testified that when he found the blood-stained apron part he thought it indicated an attack in the Goulston Street buildings and did not connect it with an earlier murder of which he may (or may not) have already heard. Also, while the juxtaposition of apron and graffito probably would have caused him to link the two, his inquest testimony suggests he saw no unusual orthography in the graffito.
It is all very confusing and Long's testimony is not helpful. While it isn't fair to judge someone third-hand, I am left suspecting that PC Long was not the brightest lantern on the Met force by a longshot. Moreover, he had just been transferred to H Division because of the desire to beef up patrols and while I have no idea how things worked in the Met, in the military if you have a screw-up in your unit and another unit needs men you can be darn sure that your unit's screw-up will be among those transferred. And, as I mentioned, within a year Long was discharged for drunkeness.
Meanwhile, I am still puzzled by the City DC Halse. Soon after visiting Mitre Square he quckly headed eastward to Goulston Street and said he questioned two men en route. Presumably, he was hoping to find JtR and thus one would think he would be sure to speak to any policemen to ask if they'd seen anyone suspicious on their beat. He and Long testified they were at the same place at the same time, yet neither reports seeing the other, far less speaking. Of course, they could have been a bit off as far as the time, but it still seems it would take the timing of a French bedroom farce's exits and entrances for the pair to miss each other entirely -- if their testimony was accurate.
If nothing else, an event for interesting speculation.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 9:42 pm: |
|
I see no reason to believe the streets were filled with litter; this was an age before disposable packaging. Sometime ago, I posted an 1888 letter from a man who lived in Whitechapel for ten years, and he specifically stated the streets were swept daily. An examination of contemporary photographs show the streets and sidewalks were clean. |
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3212
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 10:03 pm: |
|
Hi R.J. -
I would agree about the relative cleanliness of the East End, at least when it came to litter. In places of abject poverty (even today) it is common to see relatively clean streets - only because the people are driven by hunger and need to find value in every unimaginable object. Scraps of dirty cloth, bits of coal, broken glass, discarded rubber, crumpled paper... all of these retained some measure of value for the poorest folk in Whitechapel. (Just take a look at the possessions found with some of the Ripper's victims - broken pieces of mirror, a "coarse piece of muslin", etc.)
Also remember Charles Cross's attention was drawn to the body of Polly Nichols initially because he thought it was a discarded tarpaulin which he intended to salvage for his own use.
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 6:23 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Radka,
Thank you for your response.
You wrote: "Long knew big things were afoot that night, one and likely two murders, plenty of activity, people would increasingly be milling around the area".
At Eddowes inquest, PC Long stated that before he left for the Commercial Road stationhouse with the cloth and the text of the graffito in his notebook, he heard that there were one, and possibly two murders committed earlier that morning. He doesn't state exactly when, i.e., at what time, or from whom he got this information. If he got the skinny from a citizen, then there is no way the citizen could have told him anything about the cloth that would have made it significant. Conversely, if he got the info from another police | | | |
