Mind boggling..and yet, a reason for it maybe?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Moving on a little...

PC Alfred Long 254A, drafted in from A Division, Westminster as part of the extra patrols during the Ripper scare, talking about this FIRST night on duty in the area, said at the inquest...

"I was on duty in Goulston Street Whitechapel, about 2.55 AM. on 30th September 1888, I found a portion of a woman's apron...lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. above it written in chalk was (the GS Graffito)...I at once searched the staircases and areas of the Building but found nothing else. I at once took the apron to Commercial Road Police Station and reported it to the Inspector on duty. I passed that spot where the apron was found at 2.20, the apron was not there when I passed then.....

and further

I copied the words from the wall into my report , I could not say whether they were recently written....

returning to his previous statement, he continues...

When I found the apron I at once searched the staircase leading to the Buildings. I did not make any enquiries at the tenements of the buildings.
There were 6 or 7 staircases. I searched every one.... Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square....
I next returned to the Building at 5 o'clock...when I returned the writing had not been rubbed out. It was rubbed out in my presence at half past 5 or theabouts. I did not hear anyone objecting to its being rubbed out.

Right...compare that with the following...

Daniel Halse, dectective officer of the City of London police said...

" ...at about 2 minutes to 2 I was at the corner of Houndsditch by Aldgate Church, in company od Detectives Outram and Marriott of the City Police. We all three went to Mitre Square. I had the light turned onto the body and saw it was murder. I gave intructions to have the neighbourhood searched and every man examined. I went by Middlesex Street in to Wentworth Street where I stopped two men who gave satisfactory account of themselves.
I came through Goulston St at 2.20 and then went back to Mitre Square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the Mortuary. I saw the deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing. I went back with Major Smith to Mitre Square when we went ('back to Goulstone' deleted) I then went with Detective Hunt to Leman Street Police Station. I and Detective Hunt then went on to Goulston Street and the spot was pointed out where the apron was found. I saw some chalk writing on the black facia of the wall. I remained there and sent with a view to having the writing photographed. Directions were given to having the writing photographed... .When Hunt returned, an enquiry was made at every tenement of the Building but we could gain no witness of any one going in likely to be the murderer.

and further...answering to Mr Crawford, Halse says..
"...At 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the apron was found. I did not notice anything. I suggested that the top line of the writing should be taken out of the writing on the wall. I took a note of the writing before it was rubbed out....The writing had the appearance of being recently written. I protested against the writing being rubbed out. I wished it to remain there until Major Smith had seen it."

Right... there are points here that need addressing... and the first of these is the apparent fact that BOTH policemen passed EXACTLY the same spot at EXACTLY he same time, neither saw each other, Long says he didnt see the apron, nor the writing, until 2.55. He also says that he heard no objection to the writing being removed. Halse actually passed OVER the spot where the apron was found, did NOT notice anything, and then suggested the top line of the writing removed....
Hang on a minute...thats wrong isn't it?
Eh?

Long had heard of a murder. The Mitre Square one. Strange that he hadn't heard of the Berner St murder that was done before it. He at once did two things, apparently, both search the stairways and go to Commercial St Police Station with the piece of apron.
Long copied the words into his report... what report I ask? The one he submitted 37 days later?
Long said he couldn't say the writing was old or new, Halse said he thought it new.
Long said he didnt hear of any objection to the writing being rubbed out. Halse says he did object.
Halse says enquiries were made at every tenement, but only those GOING IN seemed to be talked to as to whether or not they were the murderer. So they didn't bang on the doors of everyone living there, nor those GOING OUT.

Do you get the feeling that the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing? Or perhaps that the whole mess was being constructed?

Keep in mind that THREE reports were made on the same day, 6th November, 37 days later. Umm, to me that smells of something.

My thanks to Evans and Skinner, in quoting from the Sourcebook, pages 238, 239.

best wishes

Phil

[DirectorDave]

Hi cd,

Thanks for the welcome. I think it is pretty unlikely that if the identity of the ripper was known at lower levels of the police force.....but it is possible that if it was oinly known at the top level it could be kept quiet for a few years.


If that is is the case I'm pretty sure the name is "Out there" in letters or memoranda.

I'm just brainstorming btw!

But this is very interesting.

[DVV]

Hi all,

DirectorDave you're right, very interesting...

Phil is a dangerous (gentle)man.
He's exploring old avenues with new ideas, and is always open-minded.
What can we do, except thinking with him ?

Amitiés,
David

[Hunter]

Hello Phil,

I realize that the purpose of your post was to study the behavior of the police on that night, but there was something else in it that struck me, and that's after having read these testimonies countless times; but not in the sequence that you put it. From what the officers said, it appears that the apron and the graffito must have appeared at the same time, thus, giving possible creedence that the graffito and the apron were left by the same hand. I have never thought that the graffito was written by the killer before, but now, this may change my mind. I ask everyone to carefully read Phil's post and see what conclusion you derive from it.

I apologize, Phil, for straying this thread off topic and indeed, the writing could have been so small to have been initially missed without the apron, but the impression I now get, at least from Halse, is that if it had been there he would have seen it. He was purposely there on the heels of the killer looking for clues, so he would have had his "antennas" out so to speak. He sees nothing the first time around at 2:20 and then later, just before 3, it is there. I will read it again to make sure that what I think I read isn't conjecture on my part.

As to the conflicting reports of the officers about the erasing of the message and their not reporting to have seen each other, for now at least, I would chalk it up( no pun intended) to the confusion of the moment and 2 different departments overlapping each other with no mutual cohesion. The reason why I say this is look at the mess at the other murder site that night (Berner St.) and it was all under the Met's jurisdiction.

This is the relevant passage by Halse-
"...At 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the apron was found. I did not notice anything. I suggested that the top line of the writing should be taken out of the writing on the wall. I took a note of the writing before it was rubbed out....The writing had the appearance of being recently written. I protested against the writing being rubbed out. I wished it to remain there until Major Smith had seen it."

Obviously his suggestion was made after returning the second time.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

As you have seen, I am trying to pinpoint the "message" being left by those who were apparently in charge of the situation.

I know this sounds stupid, but what proof, for example, have we that the GS Graffito was written before or after the Eddowes murder, when the policemen who were there didn't even see each other at exactly the same time? And the testimony of one is basically wrong. (Halse actually passed OVER the spot where the apron was found, did NOT notice anything, and then suggested the top line of the writing removed....)
It is contradiction! And the lines I have written above are EXACTLY as he says without any break in his sworn statement at the inquest.
We simply cannot rely on this type of evidence at all. And it brings into question the behaviour of the police at this location.
Together with that, which I am yet to add, is the fact that this "evidence" is deemed so important that Comm.Warren is called upon in the middle of the night to come and see it.
Err... that is totally illogical, because any policeman with a grain of common sense would have it (or not) photographed. A decison would have been made there and then. The Jewish suggestion isnt enough to get the Chief Comm. out of bed! Why would anyone want Warren there...he's the Chief Commissioner for heaven's sake!
That means that NO policeman or dectective would take responsibility for the writing being dealt with...NO MATTER THEIR RANK????

And on that note.., where were the other officers of rank on the 30th September?
SuperIntendant Thomas Arnold? Absent on leave.
Ass Comm. Robert Anderson? On sick leave/holiday(?)
Chief Insp. Henry Moore? Supposedly in charge of the whole case!
Insp Abberline?
Insp Beck?
Inspector Chandler?
Sir Alexander Bruce? (he who filled in for Anderson whist the latter was absent from 7th September to early October)..he is recorded having attended Buck's Row and Hanbury St, but Mitre Square? Berner St? Goulston St?
Colonel Sir James Fraser? (Comm of the City of London Police Force)
Insp Helson?
Chief Insp Littlechild? (Head of the Special Branch at Scotland Yard)
Insp James McWilliam? (Head of City Police detective Dept)
James Monro? (kept on as Head of Detective Dept) after his resignation in August 1888 as Ass. Comm. Met Police)
(This man did NOT like Warren at all, because of the insistance of Warren being overlord of the CID)
Colonel Bolton James Alfred Monsell? Chief Constable of the Met Police.
Insp. Edmund Reid?
Superintendant John Shore (SI at Scotland Yard)
Chief Insp Donald Swanson (placed in charge of overall supervision of the Whitechapel murders BY Warren in September 1888)
Chief Constable Adolphus Frederick Williamson of the CID?

What I am tring to say is this...why did WARREN have to be summoned in the middle of the night when some of the above could have dealt with the situation/ made decisions needed? One can give reasons for SOME of the above...but not all of them.

Its a puzzling situation that requires a great deal of thought, because common sense went out of the window at the very start of the Whitechapel murders.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Hunter,
Thank you for your comments. Most appreciated.
No problem with the thread deviance..no prob at all. The piece was written for people to read it in that order.. trying to make sense of it.
It certainly has me thinking, and imho deserves to be looked at seriously.

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

[Hunter]

Hi Phil,

What I didn't realize before is that Halse went through Goulston St. before he went to Leman St. station and then, back to Goulston St. after Long's discovery. I had read the transcripts many times and had overlooked the fact that 2 policemen, one a detective looking for clues, had passed through the same area and saw nothing, then Long spots the apron at 2:55. It is still possible that both officers overlooked the grafitto by itself ( without the apron) but it also doubles the chance that they would have noticed it if it was there; at least to say once the apron was found " Oh, yea, I remember that being there before". But niether did and while Long may have not been as observant its hard to imagine a detective, looking for clues, would have not at least remembered it after returning to be shown the apron and the graffito; even if there were other writings in the area. But, maybe not. There had to be much confusion that night with everything that was going on.

I don't know about some of the others but I believe Arnold was at the Commercial St. Station and met Warren there.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

yes Supe?

best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

You wrote: "and further...answering to Mr Crawford, Halse says..
"...At 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the apron was found. I did not notice anything. I suggested that the top line of the writing should be taken out "

In fact, the relevant quotation in Evans & Skinner reads: About 20 past 2 . . . [emphasis added]. Tsk, tsk.

As it is, except for the first timing you mention, both Halse and Long said they passed along Goulston Street about 2:20. Given that any times are approximations with a plus/minus factor and that when Halse and Long passed through Goulston around 2:20am they had no reason to have any awarness of the potential importance of that location split-second acceptance of those times are a snare. Thus, for them to say they passed through "about" the same time need not at all suggest they ought to have encountered each other, or that either was lying.

Further, it was Long's first night on the beat and any times he may give must be considered suspect, even with the best of intentions. And such intentions may well be lacking. He was sacked a few months later for dunkeness and, since he was "drafted in" from A Division, that may not have been a surprise. Any military or paramilitary organization, with a chance to rid itself of slackers, morons and troublemakers will do so, and I doubt that A Division of the Met was any different. Thus, he may been a sorry excuse for a constable who, unfortunately for us, was where he was that night.

If he is to be believed, he almost assuredly heard of the Mitre Square murder from PC 190H since his first reaction at finding the apron half was to search for a body on the premises. It was only after 190 H showed up that he may have associated it with Mitre Square. Pity we didn't hear from 190H.

Also, Halse did not actually say the writing was "new" but "recent" and that only on the assumption that were it not someone in the building would have erased it. That is likely so, but isn't the same as saying the appearance was fresh.

Long said he didnt hear of any objection to the writing being rubbed out. Halse says he did object.

Halse was a constable in the presence of high brass from the City and Met forces. If he did dare say anything, I would think it was to whisper quietly in the ear of a friendly sergeant.

The so-called "fog of war" is what separates real battles from board games and I think the same applies to trying too closely to parse the words and actions of those involved in the Ripper murders.

Don.

[Hunter]

Phil,

You wrote: "and further...answering to Mr Crawford, Halse says..
"...At 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the apron was found. I did not notice anything. I suggested that the top line of the writing should be taken out "

In fact, the relevant quotation in Evans & Skinner reads: About 20 past 2 . . . [emphasis added]. Tsk, tsk.

The quotation from the inquiry on this site reads-
'At 20 past 2..."

Also, Halse did not actually say the writing was "new" but "recent" and that only on the assumption that were it not someone in the building would have erased it. That is likely so, but isn't the same as saying the appearance was fresh.

What would be your definition of recent?

[Phil Carter]

Phil,


In fact, the relevant quotation in Evans & Skinner reads: About 20 past 2 . . . [emphasis added]. Tsk, tsk.

As it is, except for the first timing you mention, both Halse and Long said they passed along Goulston Street about 2:20. Given that any times are approximations with a plus/minus factor and that when Halse and Long passed through Goulston around 2:20am they had no reason to have any awarness of the potential importance of that location split-second acceptance of those times are a snare. Thus, for them to say they passed through "about" the same time need not at all suggest they ought to have encountered each other, or that either was lying.

Further, it was Long's first night on the beat and any times he may give must be considered suspect, even with the best of intentions. And such intentions may well be lacking. He was sacked a few months later for dunkeness and, since he was "drafted in" from A Division, that may not have been a surprise. Any military or paramilitary organization, with a chance to rid itself of slackers, morons and troublemakers will do so, and I doubt that A Division of the Met was any different. Thus, he may been a sorry excuse for a constable who, unfortunately for us, was where he was that night.

If he is to be believed, he almost assuredly heard of the Mitre Square murder from PC 190H since his first reaction at finding the apron half was to search for a body on the premises. It was only after 190 H showed up that he may have associated it with Mitre Square. Pity we didn't hear from 190H.

Also, Halse did not actually say the writing was "new" but "recent" and that only on the assumption that were it not someone in the building would have erased it. That is likely so, but isn't the same as saying the appearance was fresh.

Long said he didnt hear of any objection to the writing being rubbed out. Halse says he did object.

Halse was a constable in the presence of high brass from the City and Met forces. If he did dare say anything, I would think it was to whisper quietly in the ear of a friendly sergeant.

The so-called "fog of war" is what separates real battles from board games and I think the same applies to trying too closely to parse the words and actions of those involved in the Ripper murders.

Don.

Hello Don,

Thank you for your reply.
Correct, it was ABOUT 2.20, I stand corrected. But I will say this. TIMING IS IMPORTANT and the same kind of situation happened in Bucks Row. There the excuse I have seen was that it was "too dark".....strange how policemen can't see other human beings isn't it?

That reason for the copper being on the beat in the area on his first night and later being thrown out for being drunk on duty is not fair... ON THAT DAY he was NOT drunk, and must be regarded as good as the next copper.
He may have been nervous, agreed, but if we are to examine each and every copper on duty during the Whitechapel murders, any amount of reasons can be given for any statement that is "wrong" or doesn't fit.
It still doesnt explain the 37 day break between the occurrance and the statement being written on 6th November, CO INCIDENTALLY the same day as two other police statements?

I disagree about "parsing the words and actions of those involved"... that is my entire point... this whole business is WRONG Don. Every time we examine things, they dont add up, and I have seen excuse after excuse drummed up for any mistake or something that doesn't quite fit. And I don't accept that in the long run. Not time after time.

try this for example...

Re. Eddowes apron..
Who sent for Dr Phillips? Why was he at Commercial Police Station?
What possible explanation for him even being there is there? How long did it take him to match the piece of apron with the rest at the mortuary?

I have the greatest regard for all, you very much included on the boards, but this case is a "wrong-un".. and sometimes we MUST look outside the normal, known things. And I will continue to do so until people realise that without doing so, this case is LOCKED tight.
If one wants answers, one must try to open the eyes a little wider, and not believe everything that has always been accepted as "The Reason"
That is what I am doing. Provoking possibilities to possibly tie up a loose end, cross a "t" and dot an "i".

with best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Hunter,

You will note Phil's subsequent post that, indeed, the second quote started with About.

As for recent/new I was just using Halse's actual word. The bigger point, however, was that he based his determination not on how it looked but that it was still there. He was probably right, but it is importasnt to know upon what he based his assertion.

Phil,

I'll get to your points but not tonight. I have work to do. Thanks.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

First of all..When referring to Phillips I meant Leman St, not Commercial St.. apologies all.


Now....remember Long's statement at the Eddowes Inquest?
PC Alfred Long 254A, drafted in from A Division, Westminster as part of the extra patrols during the Ripper scare, talking about this FIRST night on duty in the area, said at the inquest...

"I was on duty in Goulston Street Whitechapel, about 2.55 AM. on 30th September 1888, I found a portion of a woman's apron...lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. above it written in chalk was (the GS Graffito)...I at once searched the staircases and areas of the Building but found nothing else. I at once took the apron to Commercial Road Police Station and reported it to the Inspector on duty. I passed that spot where the apron was found at 2.20, the apron was not there when I passed then.....

and further

I copied the words from the wall into my report , I could not say whether they were recently written....

returning to his previous statement, he continues...

When I found the apron I at once searched the staircase leading to the Buildings. I did not make any enquiries at the tenements of the buildings.
There were 6 or 7 staircases. I searched every one.... Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square....
I next returned to the Building at 5 o'clock...when I returned the writing had not been rubbed out. It was rubbed out in my presence at half past 5 or theabouts. I did not hear anyone objecting to its being rubbed out.

Right...compare that with the following... (differences only) from
The 6th of November 1888.

"...I at once called the PC on the adjoining beat...."
"I arrived at the station about 5 or 10 mins past 3 and reported to the Inspector on duty finding the apron and the writing.The Inspector at once preceeded to Goulston St and inspected the writing.
From there WE proceeded to Leman St. and the apron was handed by the Inspector to a gentleman whom I have since learnt is Dr. Phillips . I then returned to back on duty in Goulston St about 5.

Those two statements are totally different. Loads of things from the first statement at the inquest omitted, and many other things added in the 6th of November statement.

best wishes

Phil

[Edward]

Conspiracy theory

Dealey Plaza

grassy knoll

single bullet theory ...