Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

If he was made aware of it via a newspaper..he will...as with any information, want confirmation from an official.

And that is exactly what he did!

He asked Warren to investigate and Warren asked Fraser.

[David Orsam]

The Home Secretary has a supposed double murder in the Capital that the world and his wife is screaming about and you propose that he is reticent?

What does "reticent" mean? It's not his job to solve the murders.

Parliament wasn't sitting. He was out of London. He clearly spoke to the Commissioner on 3 October and received a briefing. As a result of that briefing he requested some further information. That's all that happened. He wasn't accusing any police officers of anything.

[David Orsam]

That was the response.

But it wasn't a response to the part of Simon's post that I quoted.

As to that, there is clearly only going to be deafening silence.

[Phil Carter]

Hi David,
Thanks. I am just kicking myself for not double checking what Warren actually wrote. I'm afraid that it is noticeable that Phil often misquotes what people say and gets hold of what seems to be the wrong end of the stick. I intend no criticism of him, but it serves to obfuscate and divert, which, despite appearances, hopefully isn't the intention.

Hello Paul,

Like you..I am not perfect.

However, the point stands. Matthews may have entertained the possibility..as you yourself agreed with.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

But it wasn't a response to the part of Simon's post that I quoted.

As to that, there is clearly only going to be deafening silence.

Have you finished now David?
Or is there yet more compulsion to again have a personally directed dig?

[Phil Carter]

And that is exactly what he did!

He asked Warren to investigate and Warren asked Fraser.

Prove that his information came from a newspaper.

[David Orsam]

from various news reports there seem to have been quite a few "lookers on" in Mitre Square, many of them newspaper reporters.

This is more for Phil Carter's benefit but newspaper reports suggested that members of the public were drawn to Mitre Square immediately upon hearing Watkins blow his whistle.

Thus:

"The sound of a policeman's whistle attracted attention to the square, and the first spectators who arrived were despatched for medical and other aid." (Lloyds Weekly News, 30 September 1888)

and

"He at once blew his whistle, and several persons being attracted to the spot, he despatched messengers for medical and police aid." (Morning Advertiser - and Daily News - 1 October 1888)

Simon might have some other examples in mind.

It doesn't matter whether these reports were true or not, only that they would have created (for the Home Secretary if he read those reports) the impression of people being in the square who could conceivably have picked up the apron from the crime scene and taken it to Goulston Street.

[David Orsam]

Prove that his information came from a newspaper.

I don't need to prove anything. He didn't even need to read any of the newspaper reports (although that's a bit unlikely don't you think?). So he didn't need to have any information.

He was simply asking Warren if any lookers on could have taken the apron.

If there were no lookers on in the square that morning then no doubt that would have been Fraser's response to Warren and that information would have been passed on to the Home Secretary and his question about whether the apron could have been removed from the square by a looker on and deposited in Goulston Street as a hoax would have been answered.

[Phil Carter]

David,
The point stands.

Matthews may have been entertaining the idea of police involvement. You don't know. I don't know.

The possibility remains.

As for the source of the information. Nobody knows from whom it came. You have no idea what newspaper, if any, he read.

[David Orsam]

As for the source of the information. Nobody knows from whom it came. You have no idea what newspaper, if any, he read.

It doesn't matter whether the Home Secretary read any newspapers or not Phil. He was asking for information not giving information.

So we don't need to worry about the "source" of any information.

[Phil Carter]

It doesn't matter whether the Home Secretary read any newspapers or not Phil. He was asking for information not giving information.

So we don't need to worry about the "source" of any information.

Whatever.

The point still stands

[David Orsam]

David,
The point stands.

Matthews may have been entertaining the idea of police involvement. You don't know. I don't know.

The possibility remains.

Phil, there is no conceivable possibility that one Chief Commissioner is using the term "lookers on" to another Chief Commissioner to mean one of the officers of his force who was on duty investigating that murder. There is equally no possibility that he was asking him if one of his officers illegally took an item from a murder scene to plant in another location.

Perhaps on another planet in another dimension but here in earth in the English language in the world in which we live, it is just is not possible. So I do know.

Perhaps you missed it but even Simon Wood cannot agree with what you are saying. He said:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene."

Do you ever propose to respond to what Simon said or will we just hear the deafening silence?

[Phil Carter]

Phil, there is no conceivable possibility that one Chief Commissioner is using the term "lookers on" to another Chief Commissioner to mean one of the officers of his force who was on duty investigating that murder. There is equally no possibility that he was asking him if one of his officers illegally took an item from a murder scene to plant in another location.

Perhaps on another planet in another dimension but here in earth in the English language in the world in which we live, it is just is not possible. So I do know.

Perhaps you missed it but even Simon Wood cannot agree with what you are saying. He said:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene."

Do you ever propose to respond to what Simon said or will we just hear the deafening silence?

Bordering on obsessive compulsion. 4 times now. Sad.

[David Orsam]

Bordering on obsessive compulsion.
Sad.

Rolling out the insults now are we Phil?

Well I suppose it serves to mask the deafening silence.

Tell me, is there a law against you disagreeing with Simon Wood?

[Phil Carter]

Rolling out the insults now are we Phil?

Well I suppose it serves to mask the deafening silence.

Tell me, is there a law against you disagreeing with Simon Wood?

Not an insult David. A sad realisation.
You simply cannot stop ramming a point home.
I find it sad.