June 1996
One of the major contributing factors to the theories involving police corruption is the confusion around Warren's decision to personally erase the chalked message in Goulston street before police could photograph it. Briefly, it is believed to have read "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing," and was written directly above a scrap of linen later discovered to have been torn from the clothes of Catherine Eddowes. Corruption theorists claim it was to cover-up Masonic involvement, while "purists" contend it was a necessary move to avoid the eruption of Anti-Semitic violence. What do you think?
1.
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 1996 21:07:00 -0700
From: wolvie@sprynet.com
I agree with the "purists". Sir Charles was acting in good faith and only trying to prevent the situation from getting more out of hand than it already was. The climate at the time meant that any refrence to "Jews" would only further inflame public outcry against the local jewish population. In hindsight he could have had only the part of the graffiti that talks about "Juwes" rubbed out, preserving the rest of the message to be photographed and examined. In summing up, erasing the message was a sensable act on his part. It is only the recent conspiracy advocites that have accused Sir Charles of sinister motives.
2.
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 96 11:30:49 -0700
From: Kent Conwell
Of the two explanations for the erasing of the words, the anti-semitic is more logical than the masonic. The masonic theory simply stretches credibility too far.
3.
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 1996 15:03:03 -0400
From: Michael Rogers
Even though Warren was no doubt a real bozo, I think he made a good call on this one. I'd bet the message had nothing at all to do with the killing. Here's Jack up to his elbows in blood, and guts, and sh*t, etc. running for dear life with the cops just minutes behind him. Does it really seem likely that he's going to take the time to stop and scribble this little message on the wall? I can't see it. The guy was crazy but not that crazy. I suppose it's possible that he wrote it before meeting Eddowes if he indeed picked his killing spots and escape routes ahead of time. But that doesn?t sound too likely either, does it? Also if he did stop to write the message, wouldn't there have been some blood on the wall too? Does this spark any ideas in anyone???
4.
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 16:45:46 +-1000
From: Dennis Stocks
Not this again! I agree with Paul Begg... There is very little evidence that the writing had anything to do with the murders. The writing was only "attributed" to JTR simply on the basis of the proximity of the piece of apron. Chief Inspector Swanson stated that it appeared to him to have been there for some time (although Constable Halse said it looked fresh) I could also argue that any anti-Jewish slogan would have been removed quickly by the residents anyway.
As Dew said "Why should the murderer fool around chalking things on the walls when his life was imperiled by every minute he loitered?"
I don't wish to go into the Masonic connections again here, but there is little that can be made from that line of thought. Highly unlikely.
Hindsight is always 20/20. And it certainly is a pity that only the first words relating to the JUEWES were not destroyed, leaving the rest. But there really was a great fear of anti-Semitic riots in the mood of yet another killing.
5.
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 08:48:38 -0400
From: Edward B. Hanna
Warren, I believe, was acting out of a genuine concern that another anti-semitic pogrom would occur if the word got out that the Ripper might be of Jewish origin. Several attacks against Jews had already occurred in the East End because of unfounded rumors following the first few murders, and given the fear and volatile state of affairs in London at the time, especially in the slums and among the uneducated, Warren truly believed he was doing the right thing when he ordered the message erased. Of course it must be remembered that he was a soldier, not a trained police official (not that police officials were 'trained' in those days) and did not have the respect for evidence that a professional would have. Warren was of his class: a stupid man, stubborn and arrogant and opinionated. He was also highly eccentric. But I don't believe he was involved in a 'Masonic' conspiracy or anything of the sort (though later he may have been involved in an official conspiracy to coverup his department's ineffectiveness - but that's another story). His motive in ordering the erasure was a pure one, I believe, though decidedly wrong-headed.
Edward B. Hanna
Author, The Whitechapel Horrors
6.
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 1996 19:49:54 -0700
From: ibbcsdo@ix.netcom.com
I agree that this was just a "purist" act. It was also likely that the ripper
may have not written this particular graffiti, but may have been written by a
disgruntled customer or client that did not receive satisfactory service from a Jewish
business. Then, probably, the ripper may have thrown the bloody apron in the corridor,
without him knowing that there was that message written on the wall. But still you just
can't stop thinking that that was one hell of a coincidence!
Back to This Month's Topics for Debate
Back to the Conference Main Page