ERASURE: The Message on Goulston St.

[Howard Brown]

Thread for discussing the eradication of the GSG by Sir Charles Warren.

First of all....was it really eradicated because of a real threat to Jews in the vicinity and throughout London...or:

Was this a case of one-upsmanship perpetrated by Metropolitan Police officials to let the City Police know that "they were in charge" ?

Its no coincidence,I feel, that the City Police were very explicit in their condemnation of Met Police at the decision made. Halse testified at the Inquest that the writing was recent...while Met official Swanson later mentions it being "blurred". Halse,by the way,was a City detective ON THE SCENE...and did Swanson even see the message? YOU be the judge.

Lets remember that the Met Police were involved with the Bloody Sunday affair in '87....and had been taking all of the heat up until the Eddowes murder ( In fact, a Philadelphia newspaper had a startling story about how the City police ran their own investigation into the Double Event and concluded that two killers were at large...in case anyone didn't know this ) from London's press and citizenry.

So what was the real reason here?

Anyone?

[Big Jon]

Bump up

[admin tim]

Look at all what happened at the JonBenet Ramsey crime scene over 100 years later. Incredible imbecility!

This is probably more of a classic case of police bungling than anything else, compounded by the ongoing human error of Charles Warren. No wonder he resigned soon afterwards.

[Howard Brown]

When I began this thread I used some of my "gut feeling" that the purpose the message was eradicated was equally due to the both the threat perceived by Warren and Arnold to local Jews as well as because of an internecine rivalry between factions of the Police. Inspector McWilliams of the City had requested the GSG be photographed to no avail. His request obviously denied.

Personally,I am not so sure whether Warren's resignation had that much to do with the challenges presented by the WM.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Howard,

My thoughts on the GSG are for another thread.

What else would Warren's resignation have been due to, other than the complete cock-up he and the Metropolitan Police made of the Ripper investigation?

I doubt it was his article in Murray's Magazine.

Following publication, Henry Matthews went through a political two-step, reminding Warren of a Home Office circular dated May 27, 1879 stating that the Home Secretary must review and approve all written correspondence by the police to the press. Blah-de-blah-de-blah.

But Warren's article in the November issue of Murray's Magazine could hardly have taken the Whitehall mandarins by surprise, for on 19th October 1888 The Star gave them fair notice—

"The forthcoming number of Murray's Magazine will contain an article upon the police of the metropolis by Sir Charles Warren."

Warren was a good man in the wrong job. He still had many useful years of service ahead of him, and in April 1889 was given the rank of Major-General with command of troops in the Straits Settlements.

How much better and professionally advantageous, therefore, to be seen to resign as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police over a minor indiscretion rather than utter incompetence?

Regards,

Simon

[Chris G.]

Hello Simon

I think you take a narrow view of the situation. Sir Henry Matthews and Met Commissioner Sir Charles Warren had been at loggerheards for a considerable period, not only over the Whitechapel murders but over other matters as well. Possibly matters concerning the erasure of the graffito and other concerns in connection with the Whitechapel Murders did not help and may have been "the straw that broke the camel's back" as it were, but they were most certainly not the main reason for Warren's resignation.

Best regards

Chris

[Howard Brown]

Dear Simon:

Thanks for finishing the job I started by mentioning Murray's Magazine...I got sidetracked over here before editing the post.

I agree with Chris George's contention that the resignation was due primarily to all the issues between the two men...and perhaps other men as well...and the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the Murray Magazine article.

Not that his resignation could not have come to fruition for some other reason close to or sometime after the Murray article appeared.

Its also possible that the non-WM issues with Matthews were equal to the WM related issues and it just so happened that it took the Murray's incident to bring about his decision. For me, since its not possible to know Warren's precise thoughts at the time he turned in his resignation, I'd have to stick with the concept that it was the Murray's article.....

Please give us your opinions on the GSG on the thread you mentioned before Simon.

All the best to you, sor...

[Robert Linford]

Hi How

I don't see how the Met could have got one up by destroying what was potentially a very good clue in their own territory.

Now if Jack had written a message in Mitre Sq, and the Met had nipped over there and rubbed it out, then they'd have been one up.

[Howard Brown]

Bob:

Allow me to explain...

When McWilliam requested that the message or graffiti be photographed, he obviously was in Met turf. Considering how it might/must have seemed to Met staff that everyone...from citizens to clergy to letter writers even before "Dear Boss" appeared....was trying to do their job for them, I just had this hunch ( based only on work experience where supervisors at the same work place can and do issue "orders' in conflict with others out of spite or personal views ) that to Warren it may have been a situation where he was going to put his foot down and eliminate the message partially based on the fact that it was in his turf and that if some City police objected, tough beans. "We're in charge" and we don't need any outsiders telling us what to do.

Thats obviously not provable, but just that hunch I had when I thought about the decision to remove the message along with the notion of riots.

[SPE]

I agree with Chris George's contention that the resignation was due primarily to all the issues between the two men...and perhaps other men as well...and the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was the Murray Magazine article.
Not that his resignation could not have come to fruition for some other reason close to or sometime after the Murray article appeared.
Its also possible that the non-WM issues with Matthews were equal to the WM related issues and it just so happened that it took the Murray's incident to bring about his decision. For me, since its not possible to know Warren's precise thoughts at the time he turned in his resignation, I'd have to stick with the concept that it was the Murray's article.....
Please give us your opinions on the GSG on the thread you mentioned before Simon.
All the best to you, sor...

Quite right How, indeed things were fraught at 4 Whitehall Place well before the Ripper murders. Attached is part of a letter from the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police to the Home Office regarding his increasing difficulty in working with Warren. This was in July 1888. Warren was irked that he did not have full control of his finances, which was the function of the receiver, and Warren wanted him to function merely as a sort of accountant. So things were on the slippery slope before the murders started.

[Howard Brown]

This was in July 1888. Warren was irked that he did not have full control of his finances, which was the function of the receiver, and Warren wanted him to function merely as a sort of accountant. So things were on the slippery slope before the murders started.---SPE

Thank you very much, SPE, for the scan of the memo. I had not seen or at least do not remember having seen that before in any book. I think its very important that this fact is known to one and all that Warren & Matthews had been at loggerheads over issues during the month before the WM.

For many people, the primary reason Sir Charles Warren resigned came about as a result of the belief in the "inefficency" of the Met Police force and criticism leveled at SCW, an opinion I do not share. True, the police could have done several things differently.. even one specifically illegal sanction suggested to Warren, which, of course, he refused. By and large, this percieved inability on the part of either Police force is vastly overestimated ( to me ).

That he resigned just prior to the November Ninth Massacre has distorted the facts on the matter of his resignation, so much so that in some cases people, civilian and veteran Ripperologist alike, feel that the murder of Kelly coincided "too neatly" to be seen for the real reason that his resignation came about..

It is almost fortuitous, in my view, that he did resign prior to the Kelly murder,since in light of the constant barrage by the Press ( Stead being one of the more prominent snipers ), had he resigned on the day of or on any day subsequent to Kelly's annihilation, it would have cast an even larger shadow over his career...as if he called it quits at the worst possible time. IMHO.

Thanks again,SPE. The scan is much appreciated.

[dougie]

How much of a clue (if authentic) would it have been anyway?What could have been proved? Could a match have been made ,comparing a chalk message on a damp brick base with a sample of the miscreants handwriting?
I guess we should be grateful some berk didnt scrawl "Jack wos ere" in some dark corner of Mitre Square some time in 1888 .I doubt whether the so called "goulston street graffito" has any relevance whatso-ever,and im surprised so much fuss is made about it today.....And shouldnt it be "goulston street graffiti"?

[Chris G.]

Hi SPE, Howie, Dougie et al

SPE, I also thank you for that valuable scan which admirably demonstrates the uneasy relationship between Sir Charles Warren and the bureaucrats in Whitehall.

Dougie, you are right that preserving the graffito or photographing it, more exactly, would not have told us much. It would have confirmed the exact wording and conceivably enabled a handwriting match. Or else the chalk could have been matched with the chalk in the murderer's pocket.

I take it that Warren's explanation that the graffito was erased because of fear of an anti-semitic riot was the main reason for the erasure. No "Juwes", no masonic connection.

I do think that, as has often been discussed, the murderer exploited the boundary between the City Police and the Met in Aldgate and used it to his advantage on that night.

All the best

Chris

[Howard Brown]

Thanks to the thread idea, C.G.

I'll set it up right away....

[admin tim]

http://solargeneral.com/jeffs-archiv...hapters-11-20/

Interesting commentary on the GSG.