PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Just to play this out a bit Trevor, the intention may have been to have PC Long be the one to find it because he had no direct link to the crime scene itself, while Halse obviously did. Perhaps less questionable provenance.

Since we know that the man who was in charge of these investigations on the ground at the time, Anderson, came to an opinion that an immigrant Jew was responsible for the murders, presumably based on the information gathered by the detectives knocking on doors while he was "resting" in Paris, not Switzerland possibly,...we might presume that such accusations came from street detectives and police that fought a bloody battle with these sorts of folks the previous year in Trafalgar Square. The same factions, albeit the fringe elements, planned to blow up the Queen the year before as well. 90 pounds of dynamite were shipped to London for that reason.

In the same way that police today might encounter an opportunity to "plant" evidence so that they could arrest people they know are guilty of crimes but lacked the evidence to prove it in court, I could see someone planting something that directly links a crime with those kinds of groups.

Remember who these senior policemen were too....men who in the course of their duties supplied spies with money and the freedom to carry out plans such as the Jubille Plot.

Cheers

Michael
I dont disagree with you with regards to this scenario with regards to the actions of Halse. His movements after he left Mirtre Sq are questionable. And I wonder how two policemen in the same street at 2am ish when there was hardly a soul about failed to see or hear each other.

Out of all the other jewish buildings etc en route from Mitre Square why pick that particular one to deposit the piece?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor, Michael, all,

Having read the replies so far..the questions I asked still remain...and I can see, from no quarter, answers to my questions apart from the one fron Hunter saying that Halse had other things to do that night. Really? What? Exactlt WHAT did he do in the time between 2.20am and his return to Mitre Square?Exactly what did he do in the 20 mins from Mitre Square to Goulston St at 2.20am...apart from stop 2 people of no consequence at all?

Questions herewith again.

a) If Halse gave orders to others and he himself travelled from Mitre Square soon after arrival at 1.55 (1.58)am in the direction of Middlesex Street, into Wentworth Street (where he stopped two innocent passers by--either individually or together, we do not know.. and didnt take their names even, so innocent did he consider them...) then turned almost straight away into Goulston Street.. where he said he was at approx 2.20am.. how come it took him roughly 20 mins to complete a walk that in normal pace would take, well, 6 mins? (and he must have walked faster... he was looking for a killer...adrenelin flows quicker etc)..you see the stopping of the two men, if as innocent as they where, would not take anything more than 5 mins combined....maximum.. Ask a few questions... on your way lads... two and a half mins each... 5 mins total. (anything more than that he would have been taking their particulars and writing them down..which he obviously didnt do).

b) How come it took Halse approx (and at least) a full 30 mins to get back to Mitre Square from being in Goulston Street when the route he took, if I am not very mistaken (forgive me oh practised beat walkers alike) would not have taken him more then 8 mins?

c) IF Long, who found the apron piece carried it off to the nearest police station, and the PC who was with him (either called for or?...) had to stand guard at the site of the dropped apron piece and not move.... (and we have no knowledge of any other person going to the guarding pc in Goulston Street between 2.50am and when the next batch of officers appear).... how did the policemen in Mitre Square get to know that an apron piece had been found at 2.50am by the time Halse came back in order to inform Halse that said apron piece had been found?

I can understand that police officers wired each other from station to station, but I am not aware of any police officer having travelled from any station to Mitre Square to relay any specific news of the apron piece found in Goulston Street. Perhaps I am mistaken?

d) Exactly what time did Halse report that he arrived back at Mitre Square after his report of the 2.20am (approx) appearance in Goulston Street?

(You see, I am a little concerned... but if PC Long didnt find the apron piece in Goulston Street until 2.50am.. and went with said piece to (?Leman St?) the police station... Halse could not have known if he arrived back at Mitre Square at 2.50am. because that is when Long found the apron piece... which brings me back to the original question... how come it took so long for Halse to get back to Mitre Square from Goulston Street?

e) DS Outram was a Detective Sergeant (described as such Oct 3rd when escorting 6 poeple to Golden Lane mortuary). I would have thought that a DS took his instructions from a superior officer, not a DC (Halse).. when being told (according to Halse who "instructed" men) to scatter to different parts. Perhaps I am mistaken.


Then again... perhaps I am being so anti-police that asking questions like this will be seen as if I have some sort of grudge.. which I haven't. I just believe that the actions of ANY officer of the law can be looked into with the same sceptical scrutiny as any individual that night.

Halse may well have been a trustworthy law abiding man with a sheet as clean as a whistle as a police officer. In that case, so has Druitt. So has Kosminski. So has William Gull, so has Sickert... so has most people accused of these crimes over the years.

It is therefore only fair and correct that the actions of EVERYONE that night are examined, WITHOUT FEAR NOR FAVOUR. I don't favour any particular individual to have been the killer of Catherine Eddowes, and I do not fear the possibility of police involvement in the case either.

A little sub question if I may...

If Eddowes is released at 1.00am, and is found murdered at 1.44am... it actually doesn't matter which way she went.... because, ladies and gentlemen, unless I am totally mistaken...NOT ONE policeman is stated to have seen her in that time...anywhere... which, when you think about it, is very unusual... because... whichever way she went, she crossed the regular beats of various policemen. Yet nobody saw her. EXAMPLE... some say she may have gone directly to Mitre Square, or been led, or accompanied there... but tut tut... Watkins would have been there at 1.15am and 1.30am... and he saw no-one. If she had been travelling towards the top of Church Passage, from the police station, she would have been seen too, plus the policeman that was there 15mins earlier than he stated, (1.38am)..i.e.1.23am, would have seen her. It doesn't matter where she walked... she would have been seen by somebody at some stage on route.

UNLESS.... the person she was walking with... knew the beats and that they had been reversed..... because sure as eggs are eggs... Eddowes didn't, and could not possibly have remembered them in the state she was in anyway.

Everybody keeps saying that these women led the man to the destination. I say no. I say the man led the woman. Because if the killer knew the area well enough to make his escape without being spotted, he knew the area well enough to lead said women to a quiet spot not to be spotted too.


Phil

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks, Trevor, you replied -

Well it does as far as the old accepted theory that some seek to rely on that is the killer cut or tore a piece from the apron she was wearing to take away the organs in or for wiping his knife or blood stained hands on.

Wiping the knife or hands on the apron has no bearing here. Your theory is specifically using the apron to carry organs. You say it wasn't because the killer didn't remove the organs. Someone else did.

This fellow toting organs in an apron would be a man with no pockets. He had no other way to carry the organs except in the apron. As far as Goulston Street. Who thinks that? That's what you're arguing against, a man with no pockets.

Disprove the wearing of the apron and it dispells that theory does it not

No, disprove the theory he used the apron to carry the organs. But again, who holds that theory? Who are you arguing against? I don't know.

Roy

[Phil Carter]

Since we know that the man who was in charge of these investigations on the ground at the time, Anderson, came to an opinion that an immigrant Jew was responsible for the murders, presumably based on the information gathered by the detectives knocking on doors while he was "resting" in Paris, not Switzerland possibly,...we might presume that such accusations came from street detectives and police that fought a bloody battle with these sorts of folks the previous year in Trafalgar Square. The same factions, albeit the fringe elements, planned to blow up the Queen the year before as well. 90 pounds of dynamite were shipped to London for that reason.

In the same way that police today might encounter an opportunity to "plant" evidence so that they could arrest people they know are guilty of crimes but lacked the evidence to prove it in court, I could see someone planting something that directly links a crime with those kinds of groups.

Remember who these senior policemen were too....men who in the course of their duties supplied spies with money and the freedom to carry out plans such as the Jubille Plot.

Cheers

Hello Michael,

Yes, possible.

But you won't find many here that are opened minded enough to agree and say that... because you have to remember... the police of 1888 were not bent in any way shape or form... they were whiter than white. CID especially.... unless you move forward to the Birmingham Bomb plot of 1897, where the SB DID try and set others up....

But sssshhhhh.... whiter than white mate... lol



Phil

[Monty]

We have already at length discussed the credibility of the officers testimony and highlighted the issues with it.

Lets look at it another way if we accept that she was wearing an apron when she left the police station who is to say that at some point thereafter she removed it and for whatever reason cut it into several pieces. One of those pieces she could have deposited herself in GS and the other was still in her possession when she was murdered.

That scenario should keep you quiet now, but I doubt it

Headlines in the morning paper "Monty silenced at last, cabal in turmoil"

STOP PRESS: Another gross error by Marriott leads to yet another major embarrassment for the former Murder Squad Detective.

Former Murder Squad Detective Trevor Marriott made another gaff yesterday when it emerged that his bold statements were actually personal opinion, known better as guesswork. He had, originally and erroneously claimed that two policemen involved in the Eddowes case actually gave evidence almost TWO WEEKS after the murder and the opening of the subsequent inquest when, in reality, such an event would have been recorded as soon as possible, and passed on to the coroners office for their review PRIOR to the beginning of said inquest.

Marriott, whose previous works have drawn some damning accusations by respected researchers in the field, later claimed that the apron piece was cut by the victim herself to stem blood loss during her menstrual cycle, this despite the fact she already had 12 pieces of rag upon her persons, which was a common recourse for women during that period in history.

Clearly Mr Marriott is desperate for the evidence to fit his theory, however no matter how he dresses it up, it just clearly does not make sense.

We asked Mr Marriott for a quote, however he declined our request, stating he is waiting for his script writer, Mr Punch, to come up with something witty.

Monty

[Monty]

As for the Halse conspiracy theory,



Monty

[Hunter]

Hello Trevor, Michael, all,

Having read the replies so far..the questions I asked still remain...and I can see, from no quarter, answers to my questions apart from the one fron Hunter saying that Halse had other things to do that night.

Where did I say that?

[Scott Nelson]

Everybody keeps saying that these women led the man to the destination. I say no. I say the man led the woman. Because if the killer knew the area well enough to make his escape without being spotted, he knew the area well enough to lead said women to a quiet spot not to be spotted too.

Absolutely agree.

[Phil Carter]

Where did I say that?

Hello Hunter,

Posting 198?


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Absolutely agree.

Hello Scott,

Thanks.... but it doesn't go down very well... it spoils set theories we have been told for generatoions you see.,,,and that is a no no...


best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

As for the Halse conspiracy theory,



Monty

And the trouble is it isn't a conspiracy theory either.. IF you had bothered to read my post.. which of course is ignored... but, hey ho.. to each his own.

I don't care if Halse is or isn't involved Monty.. I don't give two hoots.... but I will REFUSE point blank to rule him out of anything just because he is a policeman. Without fear nor favour, the term is. I think you know it.


Phil

[Monty]

And the trouble is it isn't a conspiracy theory either.. IF you had bothered to read my post.. which of course is ignored... but, hey ho.. to each his own.

I don't care if Halse is or isn't involved Monty.. I don't give two hoots.... but I will REFUSE point blank to rule him out of anything just because he is a policeman. Without fear nor favour, the term is. I think you know it.


Phil

You seem to assume I am referring to you Phil.

I'm not.


Monty

[Phil Carter]

You seem to assume I am referring to you Phil.

I'm not.


Monty

Kerrrrrrrikey!... I have just fainted.... No..wait.. I'm still awake...!!!..I DID read that....good grief. Waiter!!!!...Cold towel please!

MY SINCEREST APOLOGIES MONTY!



Phil

[Mr Lucky]

"This is not the case at all, a public Inquest is exactly that, anyone can turn up and give evidence"

True, but a statement is still taken, and deliberated upon before the witness is called.

No, not necessarily, the coroner receives "information", this can be written or verbal. the technical meaning of information here is an equivalent to unsworn evidence, if coroner think the information is material the witness is called, sworn, then gives testimony.

The police may have to give the coroner written statements due to their own internal procedural requirements, but police procedure has no influence over the coroner and it doesn't prevent the coroner from receiving verbal information from other sources.

Mr Luckys big book of law and all things important in his world. It has pictures and everything, including lame wisecracks.

They're called the English law reports, and they're exactly the same sources the coroner and the city solicitor used.

[Hatchett]

Hi

Mr Lucky you are absolutely right. I tried to say that earlier, but it was ignored.


Best wishes.