PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Hunter]

Hello Hunter,

Posting 198?

Hi Phil,

That was in response to your previous post just above it, which was about the murderer not Halse.

[Monty]

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.



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

Mr Lucky,

As the point in reference is to do with police testimony (Byfield, Hutt and Robinson), and as all police related incidents of note are noted down at the earliest convenience (either in a pocket book or upon a Special Report form) as per Police Code (and Police Orders), it is inconceivable that those mentioned laid out their testimony, for the first time, on the day of their inquest appearance. In fact, it would lead to disciplinary action.

Therefore, when it comes to said constables, the coroner would have access to their statements prior to the inquest commencing.

However, that said, I welcome your input. It has been beneficial.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Phil,

That was in response to your previous post just above it, which was about the murderer not Halse.

Its terrible when people can't be bothered to read posts, isn't it Hunter?

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

As for the Halse conspiracy theory,



Monty

Just sayin Monty.....I mean there is room for such speculation. Although I wouldn't see it as the Halse Conspiracy, I see it more like a possible reaction to events seemingly out of control to the average street copper.

The cloak and dagger stuff of the period reveals just how far some Investigators working for HMG might go to secure information that might lead to a sensational arrest.

When a suggestion appears to fit within all the known evidence and there is no evidence available to discount it entirely, its a possibility.

Cheers

[Monty]

Can you be speific on the 'Cloak and Dagger' stuff?

Halses actions, and timings, are indeed explainable, however this is old ground well worn. My inclination regarding such theories has wained.

Its tiresome.

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

Can you be speific on the 'Cloak and Dagger' stuff?

Halses actions, and timings, are indeed explainable, however this is old ground well worn. My inclination regarding such theories has wained.

Its tiresome.

Monty

That refers to the counter espionage and investigative techniques employed by the various individuals charged with monitoring and hopefully capturing immigrant revolutionaries,... from the Home Office, CID, or Special Branch. You know, those same guys who were assigned to the Ripper cases, those same guys who paid informants who as it so happens were also planning revolutionary acts against the government? The same guys who might use fake names and make written accusations against politicians of supporting anarchists and murderers?

The lull in the bombings before and including 1888 didn't mean that anarchists weren't still a very real potential threat in 1888, as we know things like the Jubille Plot of 87 and the plotting to kill Lord Balfour in 88 meant if anything they had started to thing big in terms of the propaganda campaigns of terror.

Could I see a reasonably law abiding police officer tempted to take a piece of crime scene evidence and plant it somewhere as to suggest guilt on persons or parties...perhaps if he felt that in some way he might be assisting in the national efforts to tame the radicals, or that the individuals seem to be escaping justice using the same system they sought to bring down? Is that possibly what the GSG refers to?

All I intended to point out Monty is that we know for a fact that secretive agencies during that same year, acting on behalf of HMG, used less than legal, and perhaps ethical or moral in some cases, judgements. Some of their actions directly imperilled Parliament and the throne in some cases.

The men that headed the Ripper cases either ran or were prominent figures within those same agencies and departments.

People that use dirty tricks, subterfuge and illusion as a part of their everyday existence might well pass on some of the same attributes to those street soldiers taking their orders.....just as Warren sought to stiffen the forces character using principles he learned in the military.

Cheers Monty

[Monty]

Which same guys?

Local CID would not be deeply involved in such acts, simply because they are indeed local and therefore known. They may conduct obs, and make enquiries, and use informants, however their roles would end there. Ends justify the mean Michael, and payments of informants was a legitimate act, promoted by Howard Vincent.

The act of trying to frame anarchists, if that is what you are suggestin, failed woefully then. Why?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks, Trevor, you replied -



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.



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

Arguing against all those who suggest the killer removed the organs and the killer cut the apron piece to take away the organs in it.

If the killer didnt remove the organs he would not have needed the apron piece nor would it have mattered if he didn't have pockets

[GUT]

G'day Trevor

If the killer didnt remove the organs he would not have needed the apron piece nor would it have mattered if he didn't have pockets

He still might have wanted it for a "clean up" or even to plant.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Mr Punch already did with the early edition !

[Trevor Marriott]

G'day Trevor




He still might have wanted it for a "clean up" or even to plant.

I think this has been discussed many times look at it sensibly if you were the killer at the crime scene and you had blood all over your hands and on the knife you held in your hand what would you do ?

Options
1. Wipe your hands or the knife on the clothes of the victim

2. If you did cut the apron piece for either or both of the above suggestions
and left the crime scene with the piece how long would it take you to
accomplish either or both tasks- less that a minute I would
suggest

3. Once you had accomplished either or both tasks what would you then do
with the apron piece- get rid as quick as possible as it would be
incriminating evidence

4. You would not want to carry it or the knife for that matter all the way to
GS before disposing of it

As to the plant suggestion not beyond the realms of possibility but again
but fraught with danger carrying it that distance.

You also have to look at how it was described when found it was screwed up and despite what has been said not clearly visible. That to me signifies it being disposed of as against being planted.

[GUT]

I think this has been discussed many times look at it sensibly if you were the killer at the crime scene and you had blood all over your hands and on the knife you held in your hand what would you do ?

Options
1. Wipe your hands or the knife on the clothes of the victim

Not if the apron had been cut during the attack and/or you wanted to get the hell out of there.

2. If you did cut the apron piece for either or both of the above suggestions and left the crime scene with the piece how long would it take you to accomplish either or both tasks- less that a minute I would suggest

Depending on who's around.

3. Once you had accomplished either or both tasks what would you then do with the apron piece- get rid as quick as possible as it would be
incriminating evidence

Again depends on who might see you.

4. You would not want to carry it or the knife for that matter all the way to GS before disposing of it

So what happened with the knives from the other attacks f he didn't dare carry them away?

As to the plant suggestion not beyond the realms of possibility but again but fraught with danger carrying it that distance.

And if our killer [for some reason we don't grasp] wanted to plant it just where he did?

You also have to look at how it was described when found it was screwed up and despite what has been said not clearly visible. That to me signifies it being disposed of as against being planted.

Personally I doubt it was a plant, but IF it was our killer may not have wanted it found too soon, to let him get well clear.

[Wickerman]

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report
“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street
Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

The press coverage is unreliable as I keep saying but somehow it isn't sinking in

Yes Trevor, but the context suggests he means he fitted the Goulstone 'piece' to that which "had been" attached to the body, not that he fitted it "while" it was attached.

[Scott Nelson]

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

A common phenomena in this place.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Trevor, but the context suggests he means he fitted the Goulstone 'piece' to that which "had been" attached to the body, not that he fitted it "while" it was attached.

To you maybe because you want it to be so. If he meant that why didn't see say that after all he was a well educated man was he not?

Well we know he couldn't have fitted the GS piece to the mortuary piece whilst the MP was still on the body because of the timings and you know you cant tie and apron around your body with only one string.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report

“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street

Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

This report is unsafe

Well we know he couldn't have fitted the GS piece to the mortuary piece whilst the MP was still on the body because of the timings and you know you cant tie and apron around your body with only one string.

Official report re mortuary piece

“My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached”

No mention of strings and no mention of attached to body.

I think the time as come for you and other naysayers to take a step back now and ask yourselves serious questions about the credibility of the old accepted theory surrounding the apron pieces,and the removal of the organs. You have been presented with enough facts to cast major doubts about the old theory.