#pc long

Goulston Street Grafitti

After the murders of Elizabeth Stride (Dutfield's Yard, Berner Street, Whitechapel) and Catherine Eddowes (Mitre Square, City of London) in the early morning hours of 30 September 1888, police searched the area near the crime scenes in an effort to locate a suspect, witnesses or evidence. 

Catherine Eddowes' murder

Catherine Eddowes was last seen alive at 1.35 a.m. by three witnesses, Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy and Harry Harris, who had just left a club on Duke Street. She was standing talking with a man at the entrance to Church Passage, which led south-west from Duke Street to Mitre Square along the south wall of the Great Synagogue of London. Only Lawende could furnish a description of the man, whom he described as a fair-moustached man wearing a navy jacket, peaked cloth cap, and red scarf. Chief Inspector Donald Swanson intimated in his report that Lawende’s identification of the woman as Eddowes was doubtful. He wrote that Lawende had said that some clothing of the deceased’s that he was shown resembled that of the woman he saw—“which was black … that was the extent of his identity [sic]”. A patrolling policeman, PC James Harvey, walked down Church Passage from Duke Street very shortly afterwards but his beat took him back down Church Passage to Duke Street, without entering the square. Eddowes, then an unidentified victim, was found by policeman PC Edward Watkins, who said that he entered the square at 1:44 a.m, having previously been there at 1:30 a.m.

Even while Metropolitan police investigated the crime scene on Berner street, constables from the City Police were called to the horrifying display in Mitre Square. City Detective Constable Daniel Halse was over by St Botolph's Church when he learnt of the murder at just before 2am. Hurrying to Mitre Square, he gave instructions to the constables present to head off and search the neighbourhood. He and Detective Constable Edward Marriott led canvassing of the area for clues and suspects. DC Halse then set off to make his own search, heading first for Middlesex Street, from which he turned into Wentworth Street, where he stopped to question two men he encountered, both of whom gave him a satisfactory account of their movements, and so he allowed them to continue on their way.

He then passed through Goulston Street at around 2.20am where, having found nothing out of the ordinary, he doubled back and returned to Mitre Square. On arrival, he discovered that the body had been taken to the mortuary in Golden Lane, so he made his way there and, on arrival, he was informed that a fragment of the woman's apron had, apparently, been taken away by her killer.

Discovery

At about 2:55~3 a.m. of September 30th, 1888, Constable Alfred Long of the Metropolitan Police Force found a blood-stained fragment of Catherine’s apron lying in the passage of the doorway leading to Flats 108 and 119, Model Dwellings, Goulston Street, Whitechapel. Above it on the wall was a graffito in white chalk. He copied the words from the wall into his pocket book. After calling a constable (PC 190H) from the adjoining beat, Long made a search of the staircases but found no trace of blood or persons. 

He proceeded to Commercial Street Police Station and reported the discovery of the apron and writing to the Inspector on duty who accompanied him back to Goulston Street. After inspecting the scene, they went to Leman Street Police Station where the Inspector handed over the portion of Eddowes' apron to Dr. George Bagster Phillips. PC Long had, in fact, walked past the same doorway at 2.20am, at more or less the same time that Daniel Halse had also passed through Goulston Street, and, like Halse, he had seen nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, he was emphatic that he would, most certainly, have noticed had the piece of apron been there then and he was, therefore, sure that it hadn't been. Long was unable to say whether the graffito had been there at that time. Neither could he form any opinion as to whether the writing was recent. 

The exact position of the writing is still uncertain. It is not clear as to whether it was on the left or right hand side of the doorway, or where it was positioned exactly in relation to the discarded piece of apron, save that it was 'above it'. According to DC Halse of the city of London Police the writing was on 'the black facia of the wall' and appeared to have been written recently. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren stated that "the writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street..." Chief Inspector Swanson described the writing as being "upon the wall of a common stairs", also claiming that it was blurred. Police Superintendent Thomas Arnold's report suggests that the writing was at shoulder height.

[Copy of graffito in Goulston Street, attached to Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Charles Warren's report to the Home Office on the Whitechapel murders. Wikipedia.]

Versions

There are at least 5 different versions of what was written in the graffito:

PC Long told at an inquest that it read ”The Juwes are the men that Will not be Blamed for nothing“. A copy according with Long’s version of the message was attached to a report from Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office (pictured above).

DC Halse arrived short time later, and took down a different version: “The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing”.

City Surveyor Frederick William Foster recorded a third version: “The Juws are not the men To be blamed for nothing”.

Superintendent Thomas Arnold, who visited the scene and saw the writing, wrote it in his report of 6 November (posted also below) as "The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".

A summary report on the writing by Chief Inspector Swanson rendered it as “The Jewes are not the men to be blamed for nothing”. However, it is uncertain if Swanson ever saw the writing.

[Sir Charles Warren looking at the graffiti in a contemporary press newspaper. From Jack the ripper.org]

Removal

Soon, officers of the Metropolitan Police were gathering around the doorway and were gazing at the graffito with feelings of great trepidation.

At the time, Whitechapel was home to a growing number of Jewish immigrants from all over Europe. They were viewed with suspicion because of their often socialist political views, as well as from plain old racial prejudice. A notorious murder case had recently taken place in the neighborhood perpetrated by a Jewish man named Israel Lipski, and his name had turned into a slur against Jewish people. Religious tensions were already high, and there had already been many near-riots. Mindful of the strong feelings of anti-Semitism that had surfaced in the area, and realizing that Wentworth Model Dwellings not only stood in a largely Jewish locality, but was also inhabited almost exclusively by Jews, the Metropolitan Police began to fear that if the message was left, it could lead to a resurgence of racial unrest in the district and the consequences could be dire.

While the Goulston Street graffito was found in Metropolitan Police territory, the apron piece was from a victim killed in the City of London, which has a separate police force. Arnold ordered a man to be standing by with a sponge to erase the writing, while he consulted Commissioner Warren. Covering it in order to allow time for a photographer to arrive or removing a portion of it were considered, but Arnold and Warren (who personally attended the scene) considered this to be too dangerous.

The removal of the writing was a contoversial action, in spite of the fact that Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Police Detective Department, had given an immediate order for it to be photographed. The Metropolitan Police pointed out that that would mean waiting until it was light, by which time gentile purchasers would be arriving in their thousands to purchase from the Jewish stallholders at the Petticoat Lane and Goulston Street Sunday markets. Since there was no way of keeping it hidden from these crowds, the Metropolitan Police were convinced the result might be a full scale riot against the Jews.

Some officers disagreed with Arnold and Warren's decision, especially those representing the City of London Police, like DC Halse, who thought the writing constituted part of a crime scene, but it was wiped from the wall at 5:30 a.m. Even Sir Robert Anderson said that the removal of such an important potential clue was an act of crass stupidity.

Superintendent Arnold, in his report of 6 November 1888 to the Home Office, he claimed, that with the strong feeling against the Jews that already existed, the message might have become the means of causing a riot:

"I beg to report that on the morning of the 30th Sept. last, my attention was called to some writing on the wall of the entrance to some dwellings at No. 108 Goulston Street, Whitechapel which consisted of the following words: "The Juews are not [the word 'not' being deleted] the men that will not be blamed for nothing", and knowing in consequence of suspicion having fallen upon a Jew named 'John Pizer' alias 'Leather Apron' having committed a murder in Hanbury Street a short time previously [Annie Chapman], a strong feeling existed against the Jews generally, and as the Building upon which the writing was found was situated in the midst of a locality inhabited principally by that Sect, I was apprehensive that if the writing were left it would be the means of causing a riot and therefore considered it desirable that it should be removed having in view the fact that it was in such a position that it would have been rubbed by persons passing in & out of the Building. Had only a portion of the writing been removed the context would have remained. An Inspector was present by my directions with a sponge for the purpose of removing the writing when the Commissioner arrived on the scene".

Sir Charles Warren's report of the same day is on similar lines:

" ...it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded by Jewish vendors and Christian Purchasers from all parts of London...The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering been torn off at once. A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed; but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time, the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets, and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.

After having been to the scene of the murder, I went on to the City Police Office and informed the Chief Superintendant of the reason why the writing had been obliterated.

I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word "Jewes" on account of a newspaper asserting that this was Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added "in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East [End] to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your humane and vigilant action during this critical time.

It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised 13 days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact.

I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost; and I was much gratified with the prompitude with which Superintendent Arnold was prepared to act in the matter if I had not been there."

Investigation

The police interviewed all the residents of 108–119 Goulston Street, but were unable to trace either the writer of the graffito or the murderer.

The journey from Mitre Square, where Catherine was murdered, to Goulston Street, where her blood stained piece of apron was found, takes a little under ten minutes at a brisk pace. DC Halse had walked it in twenty or so minutes, and he was on the look out for suspicious looking characters, and had even stopped to question the two men he had encountered en route.

There are, admittedly, several possible routes that the murderer could have taken, but they can all be done at a rapid pace in around ten minutes or less.

If Long and Halse were correct in their assertion that the portion of apron hadn't been there at 2.20am, then the murderer had loitered in the area for anywhere between 35 minutes and an hour, during which time the police were fanning out into the area to search for him, and were stopping and questioning any man they met.

Walter Dew, a detective constable in Whitechapel, tended to think that the writing was irrelevant and unconnected to Catherine's murder, whereas Chief Inspector Henry Moore and Sir Robert Anderson, both from Scotland Yard, thought that the graffito was the work of the murderer. Contemporary police concluded that the text was a semi-literate attack on the area's Jewish population.

Mitre Square had three connecting streets: Church Passage to the north-east, Mitre Street to the south-west, and St James’s Place to the north-west. As in their beats PC Watkins saw no-one from Mitre Street, and PC Harvey saw no-one from Church Passage, the murderer must have left the square northwards through St James’s Place towards Goulston Street. Goulston Street was within a quarter of an hour’s walk from Mitre Square.

[Map showing the location of the graffito (red triangle) in relation to 6 of the murder sites (red circles). Bottom left: Mitre Square (where Catherine Eddowes was found); Bottom right: Berner Street(where Elizabeth Stride was found). Others (clockwise from top): Dorset Street (Mary Jane Kelly), Osborn Street (Emma Elizabeth Smith), George Yard (Martha Tabram), Castle Alley (Alice McKenzie). Wikipedia.]

Theories

To this day, there is no consensus on whether or not the graffito is relevant to the murders. Some modern researchers believe that the apron fragment’s proximity to the graffito was coincidental and it was randomly discarded rather than being placed near it. If, as some writers contend, the apron fragment was cut away by the murderer(s) to use to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it near the body immediately after it had served that purpose, or he could have wiped his hands on it without needing to remove it. 

According to historian Philip Sugden there are at least three permissible interpretations of the graffiti: "All three are feasible, not one capable of proof." The first is that the writing was not the work of the murderer at all: the apron piece was dropped near the writing either incidentally or by design. The second would be to "take the murderer at his word"—a Jew incriminating himself and his people. The third interpretation was, according to Sugden, the one most favoured at the Scotland Yard and by "Old Jewry": The chalk message was a deliberate subterfuge, designed to incriminate the Jews and throw the police off the track of the real murderer.

Author and former homicide detective Trevor Marriott has raised another possibility (2005): the piece of apron may not necessarily have been dropped by the murderer on his way back to the East End from Mitre Square. The victim herself might have used it as a sanitary towel, and dropped it on her way from the East End to Mitre Square. Although Caterine’s cause of death was Haemorrhage due to severance of the left common carotid artery, thus her heart wouldn’t have stopped beating by the time he cut her throat and so he wouldn’t have avoided the arterial spurt that would have resulted in him becoming heavily bloodstained when he cut the carotid artery.

***

TO KNOW MORE

Wikipedia

Casebook Wiki

Casebook dissertation 

Casebook dissertation 'A curious find' 

Casebook Forums

Project Gutenberg Self Publishing Press 

Jack The Ripper.org 

Jack the Ripper tour

Whitechapel Jack 

JTR Forums: Goulston Street

Jack Lo Squartatore (Italian blog)

Red Jack (Italian blog)

BEGG, Paul (2003): Jack the Ripper: The Definitive History.  

EVANS, Stewart P. & RUMBELOW, Donald (2006): Jack the Ripper: Scotland Yard Investigates. 

EVANS, Stewart P. & SKINNER, Keith (1997, 2001): Jack the Ripper: Letters from Hell.

EVANS, Stewart P. & SKINNER, Keith (2000): The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. 

FIDO, Martin (1987). The Crimes, Death and Detection of Jack the Ripper. 

MARRIOTT, Trevor (2005): Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation.

RUMBELOW, Donald (2004): The Complete Jack the Ripper: Fully Revised and Updated.