|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| 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 officer, he still wouldn't have enough data to reason that the cloth was anything more then a smelly blood stained rag. The only person that could have made the connection was Detective Halse, and he didn't have that information when Long found the artifacts, and went off to make his report.
As far as people milling around is concerned, there is nothing in the historical record that indicates that Long questioned anyone in the area during his patrol. The only person who makes reference to people being questioned, is Detective Halse (See his inquest testimony). Moreover, there would be no reason for a crowd to gather at the Wentworth building. Long accounted for his movements at Eddowes' inquest. If you take into account the time it took for Long to copy the Graffito, search the six or seven entrances of the complex, and then walk to the stationhouse, it becomes evident that the news of his discovery could not have reached the public until 3:30 am at the earliest.
It is recorded that crowds of people gathered at Berner Street after Stride's body was discovered, however, no one other than policemen and doctors, were at Mitre Square until after Eddowes' body was taken to Golden Lane mortuary. And it is here, sometime after 2:20 am, that Halse first observed the condition of Eddowes' apron. Therefore, by the time he returned to Goulston Street, Long was either on his way to the Commercial Road stationhouse, or had already arrived and was reporting to the duty inspector. The only thing left at the scene was the graffito, and as I stated in my January 24, 8:04 pm post: "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".
At that point in time, there was nothing to connect the two artifacts; nothing whatsoever, and yet Sir Charles Warren felt the graffito, by itself, was powerful enough to cause a riot. Bolshoi. The connection was in his mind, and not in the graffito. How likely would it be for anyone to connect the writing on the wall with Eddowes' murder, without knowing about the blood stained cloth?
There is no justification for Warren to destroy an important piece of evidence before it could be photographed. I think that there is something more than just a poop smeared cloth that stinks about this situation.
More than likely, Long made a number of mistakes that night; his inquest testimony gives me the impression that he's trying to cover his ass. Perhaps he saw someone near that entrance way, who ran off when he hailed him. Then again, maybe he found more than just a rag and some graffito. And therein lies the rub.
Thank you for your time.
Mephisto
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1526
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:08 am: |
|
Don,
Just found this thread so I apologise if Im repeating...
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.
I think you have to bare in mind that this was Longs first night on the beat. Considering the duties he had to perform (and believe me, there were lots) tied in with the new people he had to get aquainted with and finally the fact that he was now thrust into the heart of Ripperland, a bout of nerves and jitters is understandable.
Also, I feel it should be remembered that Longs duty was patrol the Queens highway and not inside private dwellings. He would have no reason to enter the entrance of the dwellings unless he suspected a crime had or was about to take place. As he mentioned he had checked the stairwell (though he only states he passed that spot, not checked that spot at 2.20am) and found the apron I can only assume he did this because he felt a crime had, or was about to take place. In other words Long being told about a murder/s is a valid reason to enter such areas and that is why he searched the stairwell....that make sense ?
I also agree with Mephisto. I feel Long made some mistakes and he tried to cover them. Im not saying this was down to total incompitance but I do feel (after reading the inquest and reports) that the discrepencies in his story are born out of errors and not out of any sinister reason.
Just my take on things,
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 423
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:25 am: |
|
Monty,
I quite agree with most of what you said and I don't see anything sinister. Still, there remains the question of whether he had or had not heard of a murder(s) before he found the apron and graffito. He is contradictory on that point.
Also, you might be the man to know: was a 35-minute beat unusual?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, January 31, 2005 - 12:58 pm: |
|
Mephisto,
I think I get the implication of what you're saying, although I've been wrong before. Are you implying that Long is the PC meant by Mcnaghten in the memorandum? Mcnaghten wrote that Kosminski stongly resembled someone seen with respect to the Mitre Square crime by a PC. In other words, Long saw someone writing the graffitus, didn't tell the Coroner for fear of being thought incompetent for letting the graffitist get away, but then later did tell someone in the police department that he saw the graffitist, the matter was handled discretely by the police, but Mcnaghten eventually got wind of it and put it in the memorandum. Is this what you mean?
David
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1531
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 4:00 am: |
|
Don,
was a 35-minute beat unusual?
Not really. Judging by what Ive researched it wasnt a really common time but it wasnt unheard of either.
I would question why such a beat was given to a new PC to the area. As you may know beat times may not be an indicator of the beats length. It maybe that there were more jobs to be undertaken with regards to securing premises, checking Coalholes were fastened ect. Also he would have to acquaint himself with the regular people he would meet during his patrols. Lodging Keepers, Shop keepers, Pub landlords and Nightwatchmen to name a few. This act would help keep the Beat PC in the know and reassurance to these people. A sort of Neighbour Hood Watch scheme. Morris (NWM at Kearly and Tonges, Mitre sq) stated he regularly spoke to the Beat PCs. This isn’t a case of lax Policing but rather a take on todays Community work. As well as being informed, this ‘familiarisation’ created a friendly atmosphere and may, in turn, be of assistance to the PC when he requires it. Going back to Mitre Sq…who was the first person Watkins turned to for assistance? Morris of course. This is because he knew who would be able to help him and where they were.
A side issue, the men at the Slaughters in Winthrop st (Nichols murder) may have had the same relationship with their Beat PC. I see nothing sinister or lax in this.
However, all this takes time. We have all been there in a new job, tasks that should take 5 mins take a little longer until you have gained more experience.
I guess Im digressing a little here, sorry. What I do find strange is that a new PC from Whitehall is given the task of completing a 35 min beat in the heart of Ripperland. Either his Bosses had every confidence in him or poor old Alfred was fobbed off with one of the worst beats going.
Hope that helps and sorry for going on and on off topic.
Cheers
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Hello everyone,
Some contemporary photos I've found at this website (See General Discussion-Whitechapel-Pictures of East End-Archive 1 ../4920/6941.html"http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/PeopleOfTheAbyss/" target=_top>http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/PeopleOfTheAbyss/). In chapter 1, The Descent, London mentions: "At a market, tottery old men and women were searching in the garbage thrown in the mud for rotten potatoes, beans, and vegetables, while little children clustered like flies around a festering mass of fruit, thrusting their arms to the shoulders into the liquid corruption, and drawing forth morsels, but partially decayed, which they devoured on the spot". Now, at least, I had a starting point; I can know, with some degree of certainty, what conditions might have contributed to Charles Boost's notion that Petticoat Lane was dirty. But, London's description gave me the impression that he was making broad generalizations, i.e., he doesn't say where he witnessed these events and conditions; it might have been Petticoat Lane, it also could have been someplace else.
In chapter 6, he makes an observation that provides us with an alternative to Mr. Ryder's view of the cleanliness, and the redeemable worth of the trash in the East End: "In the black and narrow hall behind her we waded through a mess of young life, and essayed an even narrower and fouler stairway. Up we went, three flights, each landing two feet by three in area, and heaped with filth and refuse" […] "I looked out of the window, which should have commanded the back yards of the neighboring buildings. But there were no back yards, or, rather, they were covered with one-story hovels, cowsheds, in which people lived. The roofs of these hovels were covered with deposits of filth, in some places a couple of feet deep--the contributions from the back windows of the second and third stories. I could make out fish and meat bones, garbage, pestilential rags, old boots, broken earthenware, and all the general refuse of a human sty" (Emphasis added). Of course, these conditions may not be a description of Goulston Street itself, but they do give one an idea of how trash and rubbish were generally discarded without the slightest concern for cash value.
Mr. Ryder wrote: "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". I agree that a tarpaulin might have attracted Mr. Cross's attention. On the other hand, I think Cross would have been hard pressed to come up with a practical use for a feculent, blood stained rag.
Andrew Mearns' 1883 book, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Inquiry into the Condition of the Abject Poor, tends to support Jack London's dramatic vision of Whitechapel as an area dominated by "slimy pavements, and screaming streets". Mearns describes the streets as "accumulations of sewage and refuse scattered in all directions and often flowing beneath your feet" (Mearns: http://www.portcities. org.uk/london/server/show/ConNarrative.78/chaptered /1876/Social-conditions-in-the-19thcentury-port.html).
All in all, I found nothing that dispels Derek Osborne's claim that a discarded rag, or other rubbish, would have been out of the ordinary in an outdoor market street environment. In fact, I found convincing evidence, which indicated that to some extent, trash lying about the gutters of Whitechapel was unavoidable and commonplace.
The historical record indicates that at 2:55 am, on September 30th, 1888, a rag lying in the corner of a poorly lit entranceway caught PC Long's eye, and he stopped to investigate. There is nothing in Long's inquest testimony that can tell us with certainty that he spoke with a citizen or with constable 190 H, and learned from either source about Eddowes murder before he left for the Commercial Road stationhouse. Therefore, he has no idea that some tiny graffito and a stanky rag are connected with the murder of a woman a quarter of a mile from his beat. Considering the content of the rag, Long could have just as easily interpreted the graffito to mean that the Jews were to blame for a shortage of toilet paper, or sanitary napkins, or medical bandages, etc. Now ask yourself, what compels this man to copy down the graffito; put the rag in his pocket (Yuk); tell a fellow constable to eyeball the Wentworth building, and then hoof it over to the police station. There is something very wrong with this picture.
Thank you for your time.
Mephisto
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 427
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
Monty,
No problem with going on or off topic. Your thoughts on police routine are always interesting and instructive.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1532
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 02, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Mephisto
There is nothing in Long's inquest testimony that can tell us with certainty that he spoke with a citizen or with constable 190 H, and learned from either source about Eddowes murder before he left for the Commercial Road stationhouse.
This is true but he states that did know about the two murders (though granted, later at the inquest he said he had only heard rumours of the second murder, Stride) prior to leaving the dwellings for the Station and not who he gleamed the info from.
[Coroner] Having examined the staircases, what did you next do? - I proceeded to the station.
[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.
The fact remains that he knew of at least one murder before leaving the dwellings. Unless you are saying Long lied. Are you?
Therefore, he has no idea that some tiny graffito and a stanky rag are connected with the murder of a woman a quarter of a mile from his beat. Considering the content of the rag, Long could have just as easily interpreted the graffito to mean that the Jews were to blame for a shortage of toilet paper, or sanitary napkins, or medical bandages, etc.
Totally agree.
Now ask yourself, what compels this man to copy down the graffito; put the rag in his pocket (Yuk); tell a fellow constable to eyeball the Wentworth building, and then hoof it over to the police station. There is something very wrong with this picture.
Not when you consider that Long was fearful that another third murder had been committed.
A Juror: Having examined the apron and the writing, did it not occur to you that it would be wise to search the dwelling? - I did what I thought was right under the circumstances.
The Juror: I do not wish to say anything to reflect upon you, because I consider that altogether the evidence of the police redounds to their credit; but it does seem strange that this clue was not followed up.
Witness: I thought the best thing to do was to proceed to the station and report to the inspector on duty.
The Juror: I am sure you did what you deemed best.
Mr. Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer? - Witness: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.
Cheers,
Monty
"I thought we'd agreed, I thought we'd talked it out, Now when I try to speak, She says that I don't care, She says I'm unaware, And now she says I'm weak ."- Joe Barnett
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 527
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 4:28 pm: |
|
Mephisto. Thanks. Let’s be careful. You write: "Andrew Mearns' 1883 book, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London: An Inquiry into the Condition of the Abject Poor, tends to support Jack London's dramatic vision of Whitechapel as an area dominated by "slimy pavements, and screaming streets" Actually, if I recall, nowhere does Mearns even describeWhitechapel; he's discussing London poverty in general: Euston Road, Bermondsey, Collier's Rents, etc. The closest he comes is a brief reference to St. George in the East. Ergo, these literary examples mean little to me. There’s a broader issure here, anyway; Mearns and Booth and Jack London had something in common.. they were social commentators. Describing filth and dirt was their schtick. The trouble with getting information from these sources is that they had an agenda. Their works might best be seen as part of a genre--the social expose. Ever since Emile Zola, it was felt necessary to equate poverty with the lurid and the criminal and the filthy. The surest way to shock the middle-class was to shock their nostrils or their sense of decency. (Mearns talks about poor families sleeping in the same room, and hints at incest. Like Octavia Hill, etc., he equates being poor with being dirty). Even my old school-boy hero, George Orwell, did this sort of thing in his books Down and Out in Paris and London and The Road to Wigan Pier.
This is why statements like the one by Charles Boost of Chicago, formerly of Whitechapel are important....the unvarnished statements of a non-writer, non social reformer...just a bloke who lived in the area and knew it. I wonder. When you looked up the letter by Mr. Boost, did you perhaps scroll up one posting? If you did, you would have found the following observation by Brenda Love (Friday, September 05, 2003 - 12:13 pm):
“I know this is a dumb question/observation, but I am interested to hear what others may say.
We've all heard the stories about how terrible the conditions in Whitechapel were, how poor the people were, only the lowest of the low lived there, etc.
Whenever I see pictures of everyday life around Whitechapel, especially the market photos, everything seems...fairly decent, I guess. You see a lot of people in the photos, everyone looks pretty decent. I've seen pictures of women and children gathered in front of the doss houses, sitting on the sidewalks, but they all seem okay, their aprons are white, etc. They may not have had the best care, but I've seen worse here in the US. There doesn't seem to be trash in the streets in these photos. Berner Street looks clean.
*** Maybe slums just weren't as slummy as they are today? Or maybe all the slumminess is hidden inside those buildings?’...
Ah, the eyes of the innocent. How often they see things differently, eh? Ms. Love mentions the photographs from People of the Abyss..and yet she’s flabbergasted when she sees Whitechapel with her own eyes and doesn’t see the ‘filth’ that everyone is telling her that she is supposed to be seeing.
Without belaboring the point, a couple of quick comments. Note that the descriptions you post are largely descriptions of vegetable matter and manure. They also seem to be mainly descriptions of out of the way courts or the backyards of tenements. These can’t be construed to give us any feel for Goulston Street. Even if the streets got a bit dirty at market time, Whitechapel had infrastructure. There were dust men with dustcarts. (You can find references to them in contemporary news reports). I believe it was even a dustman who saw a man with blood-stains on the morning of the Chapman murder. (Met files)
But more to the point. You describe Eddowes’ apron as a ‘rag.’ Look at contemporary photographs. These aprons were large affairs, stretching from the neck to nearly the ankle. Half of one of these was a large object. And I still hold that Stephen Ryder is correct; poverty tends towards recycling and salvaging. Even rags spawned the trade of ‘rag picker’--- they were a commodity that was pounded into pulp and made into paper. Recall, too, that PC Long was drafted into the East End specifically because of the murders. (See Sugden, etc.) This, it seems to me, would have put him in a certain frame of mind, no? So what do we have? A large piece of apron, doused with blood. It was found in doorway by a man specifically drafted to the area because a maniac was on the loose. By all means think for yourself and ignore me; there's too many nay-sayers about as it is. I’m just afraid I can’t go with you on this. The commonsense answer is Long noticed it, ergo it was noticeable. RP |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 04, 2005 - 3:13 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Radka,
You wrote: "Are you implying that Long is the PC meant by Mcnaghten in the memorandum" The short answer to your question, is no that is not my intent. My interest is drawn to a different area of the Catherine Eddowes-Goulston Street episode.
I'm analyzing a specific chronology of actions and events, which begin at 2 pm on Saturday, 29 September, the day before Eddowes' murder, and end at 5:30 am on Sunday, 30 September, with the destruction of the graffito. My goal is to formulate a tentative set of hypothetical causes, which could account for the unexplained phenomena within the synchronic timeframe. This design requires that I identify what I can know with certainty about the Eddowes-Goulston Street episode, and use those factors to reason with the ensuing uncertain actions and events they engendered. Ultimately, I'd like to construct a number of inductive models to test each hypothesis. Sound familiar?
After a close reading of the historical record concerned with my research, I've determined that a number of fundamental actions and events that can be known with certainty. The following is a sample of my findings:
1. Catherine Eddowes was murdered on the morning of 30 September, 1888.
2. At the mortuary, it is discovered that part of Eddowes' apron was missing.
3. There are two independent police agencies operating in London.
4. Policemen were brought in from other precincts to increase the number of patrols.
5. A policeman claims he found some graffito and a rag at a specific address.
6. The policeman copies down the graffito and takes it and the rag to police headquarters.
7. The commissioner of one police agency fears that the graffito alone can cause a riot.
8. The graffito is rubbed out.
Now, I have to establish what unexplained actions and events these factors generated, and then try to use what I do know to resolve what I don't know. As I'm sure you've already noticed, none of the above items disclose any information about 29 September, the day before Eddowes' murder, so I'll go forward with what I have, and perhaps my analysis will uncover some information about that timeframe.
At this point, I ask what, how, and why questions about each element. For example:
1. Why was part of Ms. Eddowes' apron removed from the murder scene?
2. What was the exact wording of the graffito?
3. Why did PC Long copy down the graffito, and take the rag to police headquarters?
4. What was it about the graffito that caused the commissioner to believe that it alone could start a riot?
Someone once commented that nothing about the Whitechapel Murders is certain. I think that my arguments here, and on another thread, provide ample evidence that there are in fact a number of things we can know with certainty about this case. (See Mephisto, January 17, 2005, 10:37 am: General Discussion-Alternative Ripperology: Questioning the Whitechapel Murders (By David Radka) ../4920/10755.html"ff0000">Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 5:45 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Burns,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
You wrote: '[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated'.
"The fact remains that he knew of at least one murder before leaving the dwellings. Unless you are saying Long lied. Are you?"
To begin with, I'd like to clarify an important point; Long's awareness that a murder had taken place that morning is the matter I'm disputing, therefore, from my perspective, it is not a fact, it's only a possibility.
There are four possible explanations for PC Long's testimony that I can think of off the top of my head:
1. When he found the rag, he felt that it might be related to a crime. He then noticed the graffito, but was unsure of its meaning, so he copied it down in his notebook, and took it and the rag to headquarters as two separate items. Long might have heard that a woman was murdered in Mitre Square, and possibly a second woman elsewhere, while he was at the Commercial Road stationhouse. At the inquest, Long inadvertently confused the sequence.
2. While walking his beat, a citizen, or another policeman filled him in, and his testimony is accurate.
3. He messed up, and lied to cover his ass.
4. None of the above.
There's also another anomaly you might wish to consider. Halse's inquest testimony states that after leaving the mortuary, he returned to Mitre Square, where he learned "that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street". In my opinion, this is very unlikely.
In my Saturday, January 29, 2005 - 6:23 pm post I wrote: "Long accounted for his movements at Eddowes' inquest. If you take into account the time it took for Long to copy the Graffito, search the six or seven entrances of the complex, and then walk to the stationhouse, it becomes evident that the news of his discovery could not have reached the public until 3:30 am at the earliest".
At the inquest, Halse also gave this account of his movements that morning: "At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, […] I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square. We ran to the spot, and I at once gave instructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man stopped and examined. I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street […]. I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary" (http://casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_eddowes.html).
Aldgate Church is located at the corner of Aldgate-High Street and Houndsditch; a quick run over to Mitre Square, 1 minute. It is now 1:59 am. From Mitre Square to Wentworth Street, via Middlesex: Mitre Passage to St. James Square, then west on Little Duke St. into Houndsditch, then left and a quick right, heading west into Stoney Lane. At Middlesex, left for 1 block, then a right onto Wentworth, then 1 block to the intersection of Wentworth and Goulston; roughly 10 minutes. The alternative route, Mitre St. to Aldgate-High Street, to Middlesex, Wentworth and Goulston, same thing, roughly 10 minutes. It is now 2:09 am. He searches the area for 11 minutes, and then heads back to Mitre Square. It is now 2:20 am. According to the Casebook Timeline for the Eddowes caper (http://casebook.org/timeline.eddowes.html), Halse returned to Mitre Square at 2:35 am. Next, he heads over to Golden Lane Mortuary. If he walked there, 25-30 minutes. If he road there with the hearse, 15-20 minutes. It is now 3 am. To bring the body into the autopsy room and strip it, 10-15 minutes. It is now 3:15 am. From here, Halse states that he returned to Mitre Square. If he walked there, 25-30 minutes. If he got a ride, 15-20 minutes. It is now 3:30 am at the earliest.
The Timeline reports: "SUN, SEP 30, 1888 (3:05am) PC Long saw and called over Police Constable 190H, leaving him in charge of the beat. PC Long then took the apron piece to the Commercial St Police Station108". From Goulston Street to the stationhouse, roughly 10 minutes. It is now 3:15 am. Let's say it takes 15 minutes to process the graffito and the rag, it is now 3:30 am. Keep in mind that it might have taken a lot longer. According to the Timeline: "SUN, SEP 30, 1888. 5:00am, PC Long returned to Goulston St.113". I think we can safely assume that a good part of PC Long's time at the stationhouse, was spent giving his report to the duty inspector.
What's significant about this comparison of Halse and Long's movements, is that there is little time for PC Long's information, i.e., he found a blood stained rag, to travel from the Commercial Road Police Station, to DC Halse at Mitre Square. Even if the news was sent over the wire, Halse would have had to have a cellular telegraph key in his pocket, to have heard of it in Mitre Square, between 3:30 and 3:40 am.
What can this tell us about Halse's testimony:
1. The reported times are inaccurate.
2. His means of transportation to and from the various locations wasn't reported.
3. He messed up, and lied to cover his ass.
4. None of the above.
I don't know about you Mr. Burns, but to me, this whole episode is like a pile of dog schist, the more you poke it, the more it stinks.
Thank you for your time.
Mephisto
|
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 03, 2005 - 8:15 pm: |
|
"The commonsense answer is Long noticed it, ergo it was noticeable."
>>Boopdeeay, Mr. P.
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1549
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:16 am: |
|
Mephisto,
Firstly dont call me Mr anything. Only my Bank Manager calls me that and he is a Merchant. To you Im Monty.
Secondly, top post mate. Very very interesting.
Unfortunately I havent the time to look into with any depth so I aim to post on it later this week...if I may.
Thanks for posting it.
Monty
I'm funny how, I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you. I make you laugh? I'm here to f**kin' amuse you? Whattya you mean funny? Funny how? How am I funny?
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 4:04 am: |
|
Hello Monty,
Out of respect, I normally refer to the people I'm addressing as Mr. or Ms. unless they give me permission to address them by their first name.
Thank you for your kind comments about my post, I appreciate it very much, and I look forward to reading your response.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 3:45 am: |
|
Hello RJ,
You wrote: "There’s a broader issure here, anyway; Mearns and Booth and Jack London had something in common.. they were social commentators. Describing filth and dirt was their schtick. The trouble with getting information from these sources is that they had an agenda. Their works might best be seen as part of a genre--the social expose".
My apologies to you RJ, after rereading my Tuesday, February 01, 2005 - 12:29 pm post, I can see that I failed to fully explain the connection among Chris Scott's article, the Jack London quote, and the Andrew Mearns reference. I wrongly assumed that these relationships would become apparent by the substance of my argument. However, I remain confident that the above references support my arguments concerning Charles Boost's letter to the editor of the Detroit Evening News, and the issue of noticability.
In the first paragraph of the letter analysis, I argue that Boost's comments are unclear, and that his description of Petticoat Lane can be interpreted in two ways: "Does he mean that the Petticoat Lane market is always dirty, but the rest of London is clean because "the streets in London are swept daily", or does he mean that the Petticoat Lane market is only dirty during business hours, but is cleaned up when the rest of the streets in London are swept?". What I neglected to make obvious, is that I chose the first interpretation, based on the photographic evidence I cited in the opening paragraph of my post. At the close of my argument I failed to make it clear that the additional evidence I was looking for to support my choice of interpretation, would be literary, and it would show that as per Boost's description, London was generally clean, and outdoor markets were not.
You wrote that Andrew Mearns and Jack London were social commentators, and for that reason, their writing was biased. You imply that their observations are suspect, because some literary critics found it expedient to lump them together in a "genre", and that somehow this makes Charles Boost's ambiguity preferable to their clarity of thought. Since this isn't a literary review website, I'm not going to go into the details of why their distinctive styles and diverse backgrounds made their writing different, suffice it to say that I'm aware that London was a half-assed socialist in his early twenties, but he was more of a pragmatist, then he was social crusader. He didn't need to embellish the miserable conditions of the market streets in Whitechapel, or lecture on the abject poverty of the people in the community; his goal was simply to inform his readers, and let them draw their own conclusions. Andrew Mearns, on the other hand, was an advocate. He wanted to write about the hopelessness of the poor and down-trodden, so he could convince the government that the moral decadence of the working class was caused by poverty, and not vice versa (Oldstone-Moore: http://www.wlm.org.uk/ChristopherOldstoneMoore.html). Mearns, a Congregational minister, believed that the church's position was untenable, i.e., it could nourish the souls of the poor, but it couldn't save them from starvation and disease.
In 1883, Mearns pamphlet, The Bitter Cry of Outcast London was reviewed by W.T. Stead, The Great Educator and activist editor of The Pall Mall Gazette. They shared a common interest in helping the poor, but they viewed the problem from completely different levels. Mearns was focused on a single issue, i.e., he wanted to chastise the church and reveal the true cause of the socio-economic conditions of the poor, Stead, however, had a much broader vista. He wanted to destroy the existing class system and replace it with a radically different social order. Unfortunately, the conservative brush that painted Stead an extremist, also tinted Mearns.
Mr. Scott's article reflects the opinion of a contemporary of Charles Boost. This writer believed that some neighborhoods in London were much cleaner, than similar neighborhoods in New York City. He also shared your view of Jack London, i.e. "Jack London would be able to find a 'Hell's Kitchen' in Heaven, because he has a trained scent for that sort of thing"
(Scott:../4920/5881
.html). My aim here was to verify Boost's assertion that there is a difference in cleanliness between London in general, and Petticoat Lane in particular. I also pointed out that I wasn't satisfied with this writer's generalizations.
I quoted from The People of the Abyss to demonstrate that in the midst of the general cleanliness of London, which was depicted in the photographs I cited, there existed an island of unimaginable filth, debris, and privation at an outdoor market, which may have been Petticoat Lane. I quoted Mearns to verify that Jack London's description of the East End's "slimy pavements, and screaming streets" was not a wild exaggeration, but an accurate observation of the squalor of the markets, and the hopeless poverty of the people in the community. The object of this exercise was not only to corroborate Charles Boost's statement, "as for Petticoat Lane, it is dirty where thousands of people buy and sell in the streets daily", with a contemporary observation, but also to justify my interpretation of the relevant passage in Boost's letter.
You wrote: "Note that the descriptions you post are largely descriptions of vegetable matter and manure. They also seem to be mainly descriptions of out of the way courts or the backyards of tenements. These can’t be construed to give us any feel for Goulston Street". I disagree with this assessment. I think my sources paint an accurate picture of the market street environment. In Chapter 1, The Descent, Jack London is discussing the features of an outdoor market somewhere in the East End, bear in mind that at this point in his journey; he is walking through Whitechapel and Petticoat Lane. What London is describing in this segment, are street market characteristics. I believe the following photo, originally posted by Chris Scott on Tuesday, January 18, 2005 - 4:46 pm- at .. /4920/5948.html, accurately portrays the conditions of the streets that Jack London explored in and around Petticoat Lane. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that in an area littered with assorted debris, a rag lying inside a poorly lit archway would escape PC Long's attention.
Bear in mind that I wasn't trying to write a book on this subject RJ, just an essay. As far as I know, and believe me, I looked, there isn't a hell of a lot of easily accessible primary source material, written specifically about the Goulston Street environment during 1888, nor is there an abundance of photos readily available. I wanted to provide you with enough parallel information to form a reasonable mental image of the actual condition of Goulston Street during this period, and I think that if you look at what I wrote, without the literary bias, you'll see that my arguments are within reason.
Now about that apron. You wrote: "You describe Eddowes’ apron as a ‘rag.’ Look at contemporary photographs. These aprons were large affairs, stretching from the neck to nearly the ankle. Half of one of these was a large object". I'm sure you'll agree that the size of the apron affects how we reason with the concept of noticability. You imply that the piece of cloth PC Long recovered, was obvious, i.e., it had to have been a rather large remnant, because it was half of a rather large apron. I think the artifact Long recovered was small, because the apron it came from was small.
Your concept of the apron's size is consistant with the dimentions Jon Smyth describes in his dissertation, A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour. Smyth wrote: "This type of apron was wrapped around the body, from the waist to the ankles, almost meeting at the back. Taking a measure from the waist down, we have 30-36 and to wrap around at the back at ankle level, would be something like 36" wide. This lower section (from the waist, down) of apron was in the order of 9 square feet of material, not including the bib portion" (Smyth: http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html).
One reason that I don't see Eddowes wearing the top sail Smyth describes is that it's way out of proportion. She was a small woman, approximately 5' tall, an apron of these dimensions, i.e., 9 square feet, would be enormous on her petite frame. I'm 6' 1"; 36" down from my waist puts the hem of the apron about seven inches above the floor. My girlfriend is 5' 6"; 36" down from her waist puts the hem about four inches above the floor. In proportion, at 5' even, a 36" hem would be dragging on the ground. An apron with a 30 inch hem on Eddowes, is just brushing the floor. On me, an apron with a 36 inch waist is a little over an inch too large, on my girlfriend, it's a little over a foot too large. I think it would be fair to say that Eddowes' waist was considerably smaller than 36 inches. So, from this perspective, it is reasonable to assume that the apron Eddowes owned, was not consistent with yours and Smyth's conceptualization.
I found a few contemporary photographs and etchings, which show women of the period wearing other styles. The half-apron was worn by nurses, housekeepers, waiters, et. al., during the Victorian Era. If we consider the possibility that Eddowes owned a "half apron", like one of the aprons shown below, then it is more likely that one of these aprons would render a much smaller remnant, closer in size to my interpretation, i.e., a rag. Therefore, it is much easier for smaller cloth, i.e., a rag, to blend with the rubbish that littered Goulston Street that morning.
I believe that Dr. Frederick Brown's inquest testimony also supports my hypothesis. He stated: "My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street" (Victims page: http://casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html). Note that Brown is describing something squarish, i.e., an apron with corners; the top of a half-apron has tie-back strings (See photos 1, 3, 4 above). If it was a bibbed apron or pinafore (See photo 2), he would have been more explicate about the location of the strings, relative to the definitive bib aspect of the apron, i.e., he would have said the part "of the apron with a string attached". If you recall, Mr. Crawford, the City of London solicitor, challenged Dr. Brown on an important detail of his testimony. As Brown was describing the disposition of Eddowes' intestines, he mentioned that, "a piece of the intestines, about two feet long, was detached and had been placed between the left arm and the body". Crawford interrupted him, and asked him if his use of the word placed meant to "signify a deliberate act". Dr. Brown confirmed that that was exactly what he meant (Tully 1997: 211). In my opinion, Dr. Brown was describing a half-apron, i.e., an apron without a bib.
On a related issue, at the Catherine Eddowes Victim page, there are two lists that describe her valuables. One list describes what she was wearing when she was murdered; the other, is a list of her possessions, i.e., the things she was not wearing. What I find unusual about these inventories, is that her apron is listed among her possessions, and not among the clothes she was wearing at the time of her death.
If her possessions, including the apron, were found in her pockets, this would dispel the notion that she owned a large pinafore type apron. It also raises the possibility that she might have carried her possessions in her apron. In this hypothesis, she puts everything in the apron, folds it into a sack, (Bottom up, and then folds it from left to right) ties the top of the sack with the long strings, and then knots the end of the strings into a loop; this enables her to carry it at her side like a shoulder bag. Alternatively, she may have wore the apron, placed the items in it, then folded it bottom up, and tucked it in at the waist, i.e., behind the top part of the apron that was held snug to her body by the apron strings, which were tied behind her back. She would have been unable to do this with a large apron, because normally, it didn't have strings. In her Friday, January 14, 2005, 12:06 pm post, Diana included a web address, which gives us some insight about how pinafores, or bib-aprons were secured to clothes: "Victorian styled aprons were also long enough to cover the dresses of the day and were generally pinned into place" (http://www.antiques.about.com/library/ weekly/aa112502.htm). I realize that this model doesn't preclude the lower half being pinned up, but I don't think that's likely, because it requires more pins, and it's a lot easier to just tuck it in, and then un-tuck one side for easy access.
Thank you for your time RJ.
Mephisto
|
R.J. Palmer
Chief Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 530
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 1:05 pm: |
|
My dear Mephisto--
I can only imagine that you and I have two very different ideas as to what constitutes “filth.” Perhaps a look at the beer bottles in my own kitchen would give you a clue to why this is. But even in the photograph of the backstreet of Spitalfields, which you are kind enough to post above, and which, I suspect, is not a random shot, but the worst you could find, do I see anything even approaching the filthiness that you are claiming; the streets ‘laden with litter’ to use Mr. Souden’s phrase, or the “islands of unimaginable filth” to use your own, so overcome with trash that a constable, specifically hired to peer into doorways, and check to see that doors, etc., are secure & in order, would not notice a bloody apron that was at the very least 2 and a half feet square. In looking at that photograph, do you notice that, though there are indeed many small bits of paper in the gutter, the sidewalks themselves and the doorways are clean? It seems to me that these bits were deliberately swept into the gutter, since the streets themselves, to use the testimony of Mr. Boost, “were swept daily”; a proceedure not unlike that of our contemporary cities, where leaves are raked into the streets by home-owners to await the street-sweepers who come each morning in the Autumn. PC Long was not, of course, poking around in the gutter.
It might be constructive to contrast your phrase ‘islands of unimaginable filth’ with the following photograph, showing the actual street in question, Goulston.
http://casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-goul.html
While I agree that contemporary photographs of the East End markets are difficult to come by, a few, showing what was meant by their filthiness can be seen in Chapter 19 'The Ghetto", in the on-line version of London’s “People of the Abyss.”
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/London/Writings/PeopleOfTheAbyss/chapter19.html
Please scroll half-way down that page and you’ll see two photographs under the title of “Ghetto Market, Whitechapel”, showing the extent of the litter in the area.
In the second photograph, compare, in your mind’s eye, what half of one of those women’s aprons would have been, in contrast to the small bits of litter on the streets.
If you’ll scroll down a bit further, you will also see a third photograph titled “View in Bethnal Green." It shows a woman who, I believe, is quite the twin of Kate Eddowes, and demonstrates how I invision her apron.
As for Mearns, Hill, etc., it is a complex issue which I (unfortunately) don’t have the time at the moment to discuss in the length it deserves; pehaps we can probe it at another time. I take a more cynical view than you do, I’m afraid; I hold that the primary concern of the Victorian religious reformers was not so much poverty, per se, but the perceived immorality of the ‘lower orders.’ It might be noted that Mearns very first comments in his famous essay were an attempt to point out how the poor of the East End were not attending church services. Compare to Mrs. Richardson’s remarks, the landlady of Hanbury Street fame, who gave prayer meeting in her own home, but rather than considering her fellow lodgers to be immoral stinkers, stated that they were so honest that she kept even her private rooms unlocked. (Daily Telegraph).
(Message edited by rjpalmer on February 08, 2005) |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 8:09 pm: |
|
Hello RJ,
You wrote: "But even in the photograph of the backstreet of Spitalfields, which you are kind enough to post above, and which, I suspect, is not a random shot, but the worst you could find, do I see anything even approaching the filthiness that you are claiming; the streets ‘laden with litter’ […] so overcome with trash that a constable, specifically hired to peer into doorways, and check to see that doors, etc., are secure & in order, would not notice a bloody apron that was at the very least 2 and a half feet square".
RJ, it wasn't the worst I could find, it was the only photo that showed the type of debris that I had in mind. A random photo might not show light colored paper, and the color of the trash is central to my model, because the rag PC Long found was also light colored.
Your statement: "In looking at that photograph, do you notice that, though there are indeed many small bits of paper in the gutter, the sidewalks themselves and the doorways are clean?" appears to acknowledge that light colored trash, like paper, was indeed part of Whitechapel's assortment of rubbish. Whether it was on the sidewalks or in the gutter is immaterial; the fact that light colored paper and other trash was evident in the streets is the point of my argument. However, it is not essential that every step one takes treads on paper and rags, it is only necessary that these items were present and visible in the area that PC Long patrolled. I think the idea "if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all" expresses exactly what I'm driving at, and explains why Halse and Long might not have noticed the rag at 2:20 am.
The second photo you cited (http://casebook.org/victorian_london/sitepics.w-goul.html) offers a viable condition, which might explain why PC Long didn't notice it at 2:20 am, i.e., the entire rag was not directly below the graffito.
The rag was found on the left side of the entrance. The first photograph doesn't show any street lamps nearby, so at that time of night, the vestibule of 108-119 Goulston must have been very dark.
The bulk of the apron remnant might have been lying behind the return wall of the vestibule, with only a small part lying below the inscription.
Halse could be forgiven for not noticing the cloth, because he was looking for suspicious people and not suspicious rags or graffito. Thus, it is not unreasonable to assume that he was looking at the vista before him, rather than on the ground. Keep in mind that at this point, he had not been to the mortuary, and had no idea that Eddowes was even wearing an apron. PC Long, on the other hand, has a different excuse.
Long's duty was to "patrol the King's Highway", granted this included checking to see if doors etc. were secure, but there were no doors at 108-119 Goulston Street, only an open vestibule. If he saw this at the beginning of his rounds, then he realized that he had no doors to test for security later on, he may have gone past each vestibule and simply flashed them with his lamp as he walked by. When he came to 108-119 at 2:20 am, if he noticed the part of the rag that was visible, he had no reason to suspect that it was connected to a crime; he had seen light colored paper and bits of cloth laying about the streets as he made his rounds, to him, this was just more debris; there were no doors to check, so like Halse, Long was looking for people, in this case, people standing inside the vestibule, there is no reason for him to recognize the small light colored object lying on the ground as part of an apron, if in fact he noticed it in the first place.
You also question why PC Long would "not notice a bloody apron that was at the very least 2 and a half feet square". I think the shortest answer can be expressed by rewording your circular axiom, i.e., Long didn't noticed it, ergo it was not noticeable.
Thank you for your time.
Mephisto
 |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:36 am: |
|
Mephisto,
Are you laying the foundation for saying that Long's noticing and bringing the half apron and the text of the graffitus to the police station was a part of the mythologizing of the murders? In other words, that Long was subconsciously looking to mythologize, perhaps to sell his myth to his superiors to advance himself, and he siezed upon these unrelated materials to do so? And that this is one of the ways mythologization enters the case? Are you following a deconstructionist strategy, as do many academicians such as Mr. Omlor nowadays?
David
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 6:33 pm: |
|
Hello Mr. Radka,
Thank you for your response.
You asked: "Are you laying the foundation for saying that Long's noticing and bringing the half apron and the text of the graffitus to the police station was a part of the mythologizing of the murders?"
My answer is no. What I'm trying to do, is identify the chain of necessary and sufficient conditions within a specific timeframe; i.e., Saturday, 2 pm, 29 September, 1888, and Sunday, 5:30 am, 30 September, 1888. My task is to identify what I can know with certainty about the historical record, or what you refer to as "the case evidence". To achieve this goal, I'm using inductive theory building methodology to analyze known events and establish reliable conclusions.
You also asked: "Are you following a deconstructionist strategy, as do many academicians such as Mr. Omlor nowadays?"
My research design focuses on the basic actions and reactions of individuals without initial consideration for such conditions as: time, timing, weather, distances, transportation, communication, physical and mental abilities, sensory perception, sensory perception impairments, etc, etc.
The basic actions of individuals are the core elements of what I can know with certainty; for example: Alfred Long is a policeman. His normal area of patrol is in Westminster. He was temporarily reassigned to Whitechapel. His temporary assignment was to patrol an area which include Goulston Street. In Goulston Street, he discovered a rag and some writing on the archway of the open vestibule of a building. He copied the writing in his notebook, and brought it and the rag to police headquarters. In this sequence of events, the actions of PC Long are certain. Conversely, the conditions I mentioned in the preceding paragraph are uncertain. At this stage, I add a related uncertain condition to an independent variable, and analyze the combined effect on the next event in the sequence.
The analytic process consists of asking what, how and why question, where appropriate, to explain obvious conditions; for example: PC Long was unfamiliar with the environment of his temporary patrol. How did time of day affect the timing of his rounds as he walked his beat? Did weather conditions affect the timing of his rounds? Could the time of day and weather conditions have affected PC Long's sensory perceptions? What were the environmental conditions of his patrol area? As you can image, there are a number of answers to each of these questions. To eliminate confusion, and maximize clarity, I created a database of obvious scenarios for each event, and a spread-sheet for the answers to each question/condition combination. I've also created a flow chart, which helps me to visualize PC Long's action/reaction sequence.
The analytic operator is, of course, my background and experience in engineering, anthropology and social psychology. However, since I'm not doing this for my own amusement, scientific convention obligates me to justify my conclusions; therefore, my research design includes researching the findings of similar studies, and consulting with other scientists.
Although my research doesn't include the mythological aspects of the case, your post does raise some very interesting questions; such as: What is mythology? How are mythologies created? What aspects of The Whitechapel Murders are mythologies, and how were they created?
In the quotation at the beginning of this post, you mention "the half apron". RJ Palmer and others have also referred to the piece of cloth Long found as a "half apron". In the course of my research, I also have found references to half aprons. I'd like to make semantic and syntactic comparisons among the different sources for this description. Could you tell me where you found the primary source material, which describes the cloth PC Long found as a "half apron"?
Thank you for your time Mr. Radka.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
