|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through January 14, 2000
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
Primary sources:
Archive through January 14, 2000
Author: Christopher-Michael
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 12:21 pm |        | Dear Kemp -
The Bobs and Caz appear to be engaging you quite well in conversation. However, you've made two points (among your many) that I particularly would like to clarify:
1. In your post of January 8, you note that the inquest on Mary Jane Kelly was curtailed far too quickly. On the contrary, if you would spend any time perusing the newspapers of the time, you would see that 1-2 days was common for a coroner's inquests and that Wynne Baxter was the anomaly with his multi-day sessions. I could refer you to a number of cases, but as we are dealing with Jack the Ripper, I give you two pertaining to the issue:
- Inquest on Martha Tabram held under Mr George Collier, August 9 and 23.
- Inquest on Catherine Eddowes under Mr Samuel Langham, October 4 and 11.
Roderick MacDonald's inquest on Kelly may have been held with somewhat exaggerated brevity, but it was certainly not the one-off you seem to believe it.
2. Sir Charles Warren and the "cover up." This is a particularly irksome bugaboo of mine, so I hope you will forgive my writing. Upon what, exactly, do you base the cover-up?
- The writing was erased? Warren was the head of the Metropolitan Police. His duty was to preserve public order. The "double event" produced astonishment and anger such as would not be seen again until the Kelly murder. Were it known to the public at large that a building tenanted by Jews was besmirched with anti-Semitic graffiti that seemed to refer to the murders, a riot might well have developed. Remove the writing and allow it to be reported in the papers; to remove the immediate provocation lessens the chance of violence.
- That the word "Juwes" was written? Let us assume for the nonce that "Juwes" was a secret high-level Masonic code word. Why erase it? Those who were not Masons would assume the word meant "Jews," and those who were lower-ranking Masons would also assume the word meant "Jews." In any event, Warren's actions at Goulston Street were hardly those of a panic-stricken conspirator; after arriving at the site, he spent almost 30 minutes discussing what ought to be done. After determining the writing should be sponged away, Warren asked several policemen around him to COPY THE WORDS! He also enclosed a copy of the writing in his report to the Home Office (file HO 144/221/A49301C) as well as leaked it to the press by consulting with Chief Rabbi Dr Hermann Adler to assure the public that "Juwes" did not mean "Jews" in Yiddish.
Therefore, after erasing the Goulston Street writing, Warren then went on to ensure that all of England learned what was said there. These are rather strange actions for a man desperate to hide the truth to take.
- That the Commissioner of the Met should trouble to come to a crime scene personally? No mystery there. Warren had no need to visit the areas of Nichols, Chapman or Stride's deaths, as he had full confidence in his subordinate officers. He did not need to go to Mitre Square, as it was not within his jurisdiction. Goulston Street, however, was within his jurisdiction, and it appeared that a clue had been left behind by the Ripper. Inspector Thomas Arnold, briefing Warren on the Goulston Street writing, stated that he had an officer ready to erase it; Warren quite rightly realised that such a decision could not - must not - be left to another, and so he went to the site. Perfectly logical. He would not visit the Kelly murder scene, as he had resigned by that point.
Your enthusiasm for the case is admirable, but you really seem to be taking Stephen Knight at his word, and this is not a course you should pursue. You appear either not to be understanding what you read, or not taking the time to pursue closer investigation of the matters at hand. I believe you said you've ordered Begg and Sugden's books - you might do well to read and digest them (as well as primary source material) before posting again so quickly.
Regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: kemp
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 04:37 pm | | Dear Christopher-Michael and Jon,
Thanks for the replies.Chris, I think you have missed the point and contradicted yourself in your defense of Warren.If Warren was so scared of an anti-Jewish riot and also ""ensured that all of England" then knew the contents of Goulston St; I fail to see how this would reduce the initial provocation. If he was so worried why not keep the contents a secret for a suitable amount of time.Under your hypothesis you are essentially implying that he was so scared of the effects of the writing that he made sure everybody knew about it;also you are implying he "ensured" that all of England understood that it was so provocative and anti-Jewish that he had to wipe it out. I suggest this is not the best way to lessen the "chances of violence"!!!! :-)
Also if he had simply erased the word "juwes" it would not have become immediately obvious that a building had been "besmirched" by anti Jewish slogans.
As regards your remarks about inquiries: vital evidence was missed because of too much haste in closing and by a refusal to reopen.
Jon,
I think your further quoting of Mac.. does not add validity to your case. His ending does seem rather leading.He wanted the inquiry over quickly. Are you saying local papers were not surprised at the brevity of the inquiry? Also given the cross examination of earlier jurors I am not surprised the jury were reluctant to take Mac.. on again.I suspect they wanted rid of Mac.. as much as he wanted the inquiry closed!
Chris,
I am not simply arguing the "Sickert" theory. Let me explain:in Historiography there are no such things as "facts" without the Historian.Such "facts" are only meaningless events.It is the interpretation of events of the past by the Historian that produces a historical fact.Thus History is the interpretation of the past by the Historian. To this effect any objective interpretation of the past is valid. I am not claiming infallibility. I am suggesting that my interpretation of the events of JTR points us towards a conclusion that there were an awful lot of iregularities at this time.Since History involves the basic premise of cause and effect it is perfectly valid to ask the question WHY.I believe that the stated coincidences or irregularities were either an official cover up a la Sickert or an attempt by certain individuals to cover up what they perceived to be a "maverick" Mason involvement.I may be 100% incorrect but as a person interested in History and a recent convert to "Ripperology" I am intrigued by such a litany of errors and mistakes.
Many thanks for the replies.I shall take your advice and add further to my now expanding collection of books. ;-)
Regards,
kemp |
Author: kemp
Monday, 10 January 2000 - 04:48 pm | | Dear Caz,
Thanks for the reply . You are correct as regards the name of Kosco.I also agree with your views on Bentley and Evans. The debacle of the recent miscarriages of justice only go to show that if "irregularities" can happen now, then why not 100 years ago.
Regards,
Kemp. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 04:29 am | | Dear Kemp,
I fear you are missing the point all over again. First off the name was Kisco, Stefan Kisco (or similar) NOT Kosco.
Secondly you are back on the track of making wild assertions without anything to back it up. The ins and outs of a Coroners Inquest have been fully explained to you (by Jon I believe) he has submitted written evidence(Primary Source evidence since you seem so keen on it and yet so reluctant to use it) that there was nothing unusually hurried about the inquest and indeed Macdonald did give the jurors the opportunity to extend the inquest if they so wished.
In spite of all this you blithly assert that there was a conspiracy because you believe that the 'jurors were reluctant to take Mac on again' once again providing nothing in the way of evidence or indication to back up your theories.
If you cannot understand why inflammitory words spoken or written at the time of an atrocity carry far more weight than the same words being reported at a later date, then I would suggest that your path through the Ripper maze is going to be a long and torturous one.
To further state that 'your interpretation of the events of JTR points us towards a conclusion that there were an awful lot of irregularities at this time' is pointless and valuless. That is like saying that my interpretation of the Kennedy assassination points us inevitably to the fact that it was carried out by little green men from Mars, because that's the way I reckon it happened.
You state for instance that 'vital evidence was missed because of too much haste in closing and a refusal to reopen (the inquest)
Two questions.
1. What vital evidence? That is evidence that was vital in reaching the conclusions neccessary for an inquest.
and
2. Who refused to re-open the inquest? An inquest can be reopened under certain circumstances, so can you please tell us who requested it be re-opened, what new evidence did they possess which would make re-opening a viable proposition, and who refused this request.
Now since you have stated quite catergorically that vital evidence was missed and that permission to re-open was refused you no doubt have these answers BACKED by evidence at your fingertips. We await your answer with eager anticipation.
all the best
Bob Hinton
PS Please don't think I am getting at you personally, if I come over as that then I apologise. What I'm trying to do is to steer you down the right road. Interpret History as much as you like, but your findings wil carry far more weight if they are based on fact not fancy. Please feel free to email me personally and lets see if we can't shake out some of the knots! |
Author: Bob_C
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 06:23 am | | Hi Kemp,
Wow. you do insist! OK, let's take a look at facts and history. First, the disgraceful anti-jewish riots in Whitechapel that had occurred after Chapman's murder were a real factual indication to Warren of what could happen if such writings as that at Goulston Street were allowed to endure. The street at that time was already filling with Jewish traders marketing to Gentile buyers, and such a spark could have ignited a blood-bath. We are talking of facts, not interpretations by some historian.
We are also talking of East London 1888, not 1988. The poorness and ignorance of the general population in a background of high social tension and violence caused in part by enormous immigration of foreigners is a fact, not interpretation. The tenor of the writing, be it pro- or anti-jewish to the reader, was inflammatory then just as it would tend to inflame now, only then much more actual. That is also a fact.
Warren knew what he was doing. He had to weigh up the possibilities of having riots on his hands, or to do what he should otherwise not do, destroy possible evidence. To have to rub out the writing was bad enough, but what if he had not caused copies to be taken? Then you would have cause to say he wanted to cover up something. He caused copies to be taken because that was the only thing left for him to do.
The fact that this information was later leaked to the public was certainly not Warren's wish, but the immediate danger was over. Warren had no worry about some nation-wide riot against the Jews, the danger was in Whitechapel, at the scenes of the murders. There was where the riots had taken place before, and were in danger of happening again. Riots caused directly by the murders. That was and is also a fact, and no historian's interpretation.
You again refer to the large number of mistakes made by the police. Which large number? There were indeed some mistakes and irregularities. If there had been none, it would have been very fishy indeed. I see no endless list of such, or even any special points that show anything unusual.
I have the feeling that your claims of evidence of 'cover-up' are simply your interpretations of the facts as you see them to try to prove something. As I have written earlier, ask yourself what would you suspect if the facts as they were would have been different. As example, if Warren had not allowed copies of the graffiti to be made, or if he had not gone to Goulston Street, if the graffiti had been allowed to stand and a riot had then occurred etc. etc.
One of the problems with this type of discussion is, I'm afraid to say, that so many unserious persons have made claims about the whole JtR story, using the most incredible nonsense as 'evidence' or streching imagination way over breaking-point, it is no wonder when readers tend to refute other allegations. There are a very large number of very clever and expirienced people who have investigated dillegently at great length.
I do not say that their findings should be taken as bible, but to refute all that has been done just to follow some conjecture is not being very realistic. Of course you are welcome to try, but I must say that much of what you have written until now has not proven anything and has not given much basis for considering your theory. Too much 'it could have been' and not enough 'was' IMHO.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Tuesday, 11 January 2000 - 09:23 am | | Kemp -
Further to Coroner MacDonald and his desperate desire to get the MJK inquest over quickly, I quote to you from the "Daily Telegraph" of November 13:
"The Coroner (to the jury): The question is whether you will adjourn for further evidence. My own opinion is that it is very unnecessary for two courts to deal with these cases and go through the same evidence time after time, which only causes expense and trouble. If the coroner's jury can come to a decision as to the cause of death, then that is all that they have to do. They have nothing to do with prosecuting a man and saying what amount of penalty he is to get. It is quite sufficient if they find out what the cause of death was. It is for the police authorities to deal with the case and satisfy themselves as to any person who may be suspected later on. I DO NOT WANT TO TAKE IT OUT OF YOUR HANDS. It is for you to say whether at an adjournment you will hear minutiae of the evidence, or whether you will think it a matter to be dealt with in the police-courts later on, and that, this young woman having met her death by the carotid artery having been cut, you will be satisfied to return a verdict to that effect. From what I learn the police are content to take the future conduct of the case. IT IS FOR YOU TO SAY WHETHER YOU WILL CLOSE THE INQUIRY TO-DAY; IF NOT, WE SHALL ADJOURN FOR A WEEK OR FORTNIGHT, TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE YOU MAY DESIRE. [my emphasis]"
Now this is really straightforward. MacDonald is reminding the jury that they are an inquest jury, empowered only to give a verdict as to the cause of death. The investigation of the crime itself is beyond their bailiwick. Additionally, he made the relevant point that multi-day inquests go over the same ground again and again, as is readily apparent when you read through a Baxter inquest. MacDonald wanted to avoid that, and concentrate only on the available information. However, if the jury felt they wanted more information, he was prepared to adjourn the inquest and resume again.
This is not something he would have said had he been under "orders" to sweep the inquest under the rug. He was brisk in asserting his authority at the opening of the inquest, and no doubt could have been at the close. He was not, leaving it in the jury's hands.
Now, you are free to say that the jurymen would go along with MacDonald because they were afraid of crossing him again; that is your interpretation (just as the above is mine) and I can't deny you your own interpretation of words on paper. I do think, however, that you are reasoning from a false premise, and your resulting conclusions are false, even if statements are correct. Your premise (it appears to me) is that the MJK inquiry was part of a "cover-up." Thus, you state that the inquiry was very fast (true, but not overly so) and that MacDonald was anxious to end the inquest (possibly true, depending upon - oh, that ghastly word! - interpretation). So, you conclude he was in league with higher forces to end any further lay investigation into MJKs death, and ipso facto, this is proof of a conspiracy (or "irregularity," if you prefer). Your statements are mostly true, but your premise is flawed, and your conclusion will also be flawed.
The newspapers of the time accepted the close of the inquiry as routine, and did not state that they felt it over too quickly.
To second Bob Hinton, I will also emphasise that I am not trying to smack you down or be willfully argumentative. By your own admission, you come new to this subject. Many of us have years of experience in the field of Ripperography, and we know the fallacies and pitfalls that lurk in wait for newcomers. We are only trying to keep you from being sucked into a morass of fruitless speculation.
Best regards,
Christopher-Michael |
Author: kemp
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 06:43 am | | Dear All,
Thanks again for the interesting repies. I intend to answer them at length but first I am seeking clarification from Bob C and Chris-M.
Bob, you seem to be implying that Warren did not want the "juwes" writing leaked.
Chris, you are saying the opposite to Bob and stating he was not involved in a cover up because he made sure everybody knew about this writing.Is this a division in the Warren camp? I have no hesitation in saying that Warren could have simply wiped away one offending word and still preserved the integrity of the crime scene.You both seem to have forgotten to address this point in your rush to his defense.
I shall reply to your other respective argumens asap. Thanks again for taking the trouble to reply.
Slain .. Kemp. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 08:42 am | | Kemp -
Sir Charles specifically contacted Rabbi Adler in order for him to refute that "Juwes" meant "Jews" in Yiddish. On receiving such an assurance, Warren then released a statement averring such to the press. This was in response to newspaper speculation that "Juwes" meant "Jews" (whether it did or not is irrelevant; it is obvious that the writer and all readers of the Goulston graffiti believed it to mean "Jews"), as the writing had become public knowledge. See also paperback Sugden, p. 255.
I believe I may have been in error to specifically say Warren made the content of the message known himself; however, it appears that he knew it would become known, simply through the expedient of asking fellow officers to copy it and sending a copy to the Home Office, both actions without any orders to keep the matter silent. It appears Warren knew the writing would become public knowledge and it was only a question of time.
I believe Bob shares my opinion, but I will leave it to him to answer.
CMD |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 08:56 am | | Hi Kemp,
Warren did not like any information he had being 'leaked', especially such that could, under circumstances, have caused the anti-Jewish feelings in the Whitechapel area to be inflamed. Your case for 'covers-up' seems to rest often on reluctance on the side of the police to make their knowledge public. This is common police practise even today, when the culprit has not been caught.
I do not differ to CM, however. Warren let the writing be erased to stop a possible local riot, did not like having anything 'leaked' at all and only as the immediate danger was past did he make inquiries as to the word 'Juwes', which he was bound to do as part of the investigation.
Dr. Adler, alarmed by the anti-Jewish tone prevailing, had appealed to the public himself and was therefore supported by Warren (thereby helping to calm the anti-semetic feelings somewhat). That this caused the content of the writing to be noised abroad was a matter that Warren could (had to) now accept, knowing as he did that the gist of the graffiti was already in the grapevine anyway.
CM simply made clear that Warren did not attempt to cover up or suppress the gist of the writing more that just to avoid the very real danger of a riot, not that Warren desperately wanted the graffiti blared all over London. He had enough worries elsewhere.
Your claim about the removal of just one offending word having sufficed is written with the retrospect of today. The graffiti was written on the wall of a house inhabited almost completely by Jews in 1888 at a time when radical racial violence (also anti-Jewish) slumbered just under the surface. If you mean the deletion of the word 'Juwes' would have sufficed, you are not thinking about Whitechapel 1888, but London 2000.
Indeed, the deletion of this word alone could have caused enormous damage. Onlookers would then ask themselves which word had been deleted... 'Jew'? 'Gentile'? 'Londoner'? The gist of the message would have remained. I also agree that not all the message may have needed to have been erased, but Warren was there at the time and knew his patch. I wasn't, and don't.
Remember that this wasn't the only graffiti in London, then. Anti/Pro-this or -that graffiti would have been all over the place, as today. I don't know if this sentence was common as graffiti then, it may have been. Warren wanted it to disappear, and I accept that he may well have known what he had to do, and why.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Bob Hinton
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 01:28 pm | | Dear All
Of course with all this talk of erasing writing we mustn't forget that it wasn't Warren who originally suggested the writing be erased, I believe it was Superintendant Arnold, Warren merely gave his consent.
Out of all the Police officers present I believe only one, Detective Halse demurred. And since he was from the City force and unlikely to carry the can if everything went pear shaped, I don't think his opinion should be given much weight as opposed to the other officers.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: kemp
Wednesday, 12 January 2000 - 06:34 pm | | Dear Bobs and Chris-M,
Thanks again for the replies. Before I answer the earlier points at length I just want to address a couple of your comments about my "clarification".
Bob H,
I'm glad you followed up my earlier reference to Supt. Arnold. You are correct in stating it was he who wanted to also erase the writing. Infact he had a man ready with a sponge. He also stated he was confident that the writing was not genuine in the sense it was not written by the murderer. I find this gift of clairvoyance something "Lees" would have been proud of. He obviously just knew that it was completely seperate to the blood stained clue underneath it.
You are correct that Halse demurred. Also later Smith and McWilliam were unhappy.(please see an earlier letter)
Bob C,
Please explain how the crowd would have known a word had been deleted if the writing was covered!Could they have seen into a dark alley? When it was light enough to see a photograph could have been taken.Why not erase most of the message but leave at least 3 words for further cross reference to a potential suspect.
I have to say(with the greatest of respect)that there is no really valid excuse for this iresponsible action by Warren.Actually,I think I am correct in stating that Warren spent a lot of time in his later yeats trying to explain away this "irregularity."
Chris-M,
Thanks for your recognition of your error as regards Warren leaking the writing etc,(Hey I've probably made 1 or 2 myself) :-)
*** I shall address your more substantive points shortly.Can I just take this opportunity to thank the Bobs, Chris, Jon, Caz and others for their very enjoyable interaction in these boards. I most certainly do not take offense to any of the questions or points put to me. On the contrary I have found them both informative and courteous at all times. This does not mean that I always agree with them of course!! ;-)
For my part I have become a most enthusiastic Ripperologist(albeit with "L" plates).I hope people will continue with their comments;comments that even if we can not come to a consensus on will play some valid part in the JTR debate.***
Sincerest regards,
Slain leat agus...
Kemp. |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 03:50 am | | Dear Kemp,
Actually I didn't follow up 'your'reference to Supt Arnold, I merely condensed it from information contained in my book on the subject.
You still make the mistake of jumping about making basic errors. In your posting above you refer to people seeing into a dark alley. What dark alley are you talking about?
You also refer to Warrens action as irresponsible, since he was willing to take the responsibility for this act solely upon himself and not leave it to a junior officer to put his head on the block, I can but applaud his action. With hindsight it might have been better to have waited to get it photographed, however we all have perfect hindsight.
I think you'll find as you learn more and more about the subject Warren was not the sort of person who felt the need to explain his actions at a later date.
May I suggest your best course of action would be to conduct a lot more research into the subject first, there must be at least twenty books you need to wade through first, this is of course if your other studies allow.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 06:30 am | | Hi Kemp,
In addition to Bob H's remarks above, I repeat that Warren was there at the time, was an extremely expirienced man and knew his patch. He knew why he accepted the proposal, as Bob H says, from Supt. Arnold.
There was no dark alley. The graffiti was written on the jamb of the entrance door, clearly to be seen from the street in daylight. It was getting light at that time and the street was slowly filling with the public. I agree with the point that it may, with the benefit of hindsight, have been possible to delete most of it, leaving just a part to photograph. This was not done, for reasons that are well documented in e.g. Phillip Sugden's or Paul Begg's excellent books. If you read the relevant parts, you will see what, why, and when. Even your bit about not covering the graffiti is discussed.
As Bob H remarks, you do tend to leap from one thing to another, without the real consequent following of any one point to the end. Please don't be offended by this remark, but I find myself having to jump all over the place to keep up with this, or that, supposed discrepancy or false point. Of course I am not trying to gag you, please bring all the points you have forward, but I also feel that much of what you write would be already clear to you when you have read e.g. the above books and other information.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Smiley
Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 01:12 pm | | | Two Bobs equal a Florin. |
Author: kemp
Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 05:18 pm | | Dear Smiley,
I like that one. No offense meant Bobs. :-)
Kemp |
Author: kemp
Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 05:22 pm | | Dear Bobs et al,
I shall soon be ready to respond to the above remarks about Warren and also to some of the other issues raised by various contributors.
Yours,
Kemp. |
Author: Steve
Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 07:13 pm | | | Seems a deep chat.Can anybody join in or do u have to be an expert? From Steve. |
Author: Christopher-Michael
Thursday, 13 January 2000 - 08:27 pm | | No, Steve, you needn't be an expert. All we ask is that you be conversant with the facts of the case, and open to an honest discussion.
If you've anything to say, please join us!
Christopher-Michael |
Author: Bob Hinton
Friday, 14 January 2000 - 03:45 am | | Dear Steve
Good grief man if this was open only to experts I'd have to find something else to do.
And by the way two Bob's do not equal a florin. Under EU regulation 128903/148/ski/ we now equal to ten new pence!! (getting a bit political there)
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob_C
Friday, 14 January 2000 - 06:15 am | | Hi all,
As part of that ten pence, I can say that it won't, I suppose, be all that long before even the UK has to set about with the silly Euro and cent, as we are starting to have to now here in Deutschland, Deutschland ohne alles.
Nothing against international cooperation (some of it can be VERY nice) but I have the feeling that this bannana republic currency is going in the direction that the German Mark did before the war.
Best regards
Bob |
|
|
|
|
