The Halse version

[Rob Clack]

As you could from me Robert.....if you didnt have me on ignore.

Monty

I would but I'm not childish enough to put someone on ignore.

Rob

[Monty]

I would but I'm not childish enough to put someone on ignore.

Rob

Now now Mr C, each to his own.

Besides, you know as well as I do the ignore facility doesn't necersarily mean words aren't read.

Monty

[Hunter]

My wife tries to put me on ignore until she finds my dirty laundry in the floor.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Stephen, Ken, Jon. Although logically there is no difference, yet the Halse version seems to connote, "If you blame us, then we'll give you a reason to do so."

I agree with this. Only a remark that seemed supportive of Jews combined with an apron from victim placed directly beneath it, could cause enough of an outrage that it would have to be expunged. It doesn't mean that this was the intent of the message. It means it was the feared interpretation of it.

Mike

[lynn cates]

OK

Hello Michael. Thanks. I see what you mean.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil.
Swanson, to the best of my memory, never appeared at Goulston St., so his opinion of the condition of the writing must have been taken from police reports handed to him. Our problem is not knowing which Met. PC present at the scene gave that opinion, the Inspector, or PC 190?, or someone else.

On the other hand, Halse was present, yet, how we interpret "recent" will depend on whether we believe the killer wrote it.
Recent, could mean anything from minutes to days. So long as no-one brushed against the wall, chalk writing will not look 'worn', 'blurred' or 'dated'.
You should know yourself just how long chalk writing can remain legible so long as it remains untouched.

Regards, Jon S.

Hello Jon,

I have thought about this posting again..and would like to throw this hat into the ring..

15th September 1888

Sir Charles Warren writes to the acting Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce, who had been dealing, in his absence, with the paperwork side of Dr Anderson's work.

Quote:
... I feel therefore the utmost importance to be attached to putting the whole Central Office work in this case in the hands of one man who will have nothing else to concern himself with.Neither you or I or Mr Williamson can do this. I therefore put it in the hands of Chief Inspr. Swanson who must be acquainted with every detail. I look upon him for the time being as the eyes and ears of the Commr. in this particular case.
He must have a room to himself, & every paper, every document, every report every telegram must pass through his hands. He must be consulted on every subject. I would not send any directions anywhere on the subject of the murder without consulting him. I give him the whole responsibility. ...
Warren also said that all paperwork and plans relative to the case be kept in Swanson's office.
(my emphasis)

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson takes over all paperwork on 15th September, and keeps all papers with him.
That means this..Nothing, absolutely nothing, goes by this man.

Every suspect that gets stopped and talked to, interviewed, questioned, followed up, investigated, followed (physically), and any action against any person, involving any person, involving any policeman, at any time, ever, relating to the Whitechapel murders, is presented to Swanson. EVERY piece of paperwork.
If any action was taken by any policeman concerning any of these "clues", then Swanson was au fait with it and being so privy would have based his writings on that very thing..

As regards Halse, who stated that he stopped two people when on his way to Goulston Street. That report would have been in Swanson's posession. The only two people stopped anywhere near the murder site... and it isnt mentioned by Swanson in his report to the Home Office. Yet he refers to blurred writing that isnt mentioned anywhere, as far as we know.


In conjunction with the writing on the wall, in Met Police territory, I suggest he must have had a very good reason for writing "blurred". The problem is we don't know what that reason was.

best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Warrens letter regarding Swanson was written on 15th September, 15 days prior to the City Forces involvement in the case.

Warren had no juresdiction over the City Force, therefore his instructions did not apply to them, only the Met.

I do wish people would do a little research before posting misleading statements.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

This business of jurisdiction makes you wonder why the Vigilance Committee took the "From Hell" letter and accompanying body part to the Metropolitan Police at Leman Street when they were allegedly clues in a City Police murder investigation.

Why not take them to Old Jewry?

Regards,

Simon

[DVV]

Hi Phil

In conjunction with the writing on the wall, in Met Police territory, I suggest he must have had a very good reason for writing "blurred".

Certainly he had a reason. An obvious one. Good or not, that, I wouldn't know. Depends how excusable you consider that obvious attempt to minimize the consequences of the erasure.

At the inquest, a constable asserted the writing looked recent. Another could not tell.
Guess whose one was from Met, Phil. I'm sure you can.

The problem is we don't know what that reason was.

We very well know.

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

Well the kidney piece (which was treated as an outright hoax by Lusk) was never established to be Eddowes, and the From Hell letter didn't explain to which murder it refers to.

However, I think the answer lies in the fact that the VC liaised closely with the Met force and had been since its formation. Its only natural they passed it on to the Met at Leman St.

Eventually it did make its way to the City.

Monty

[caz]

Hi Phil, All,

Halse was there, he saw and read the message. We didn't. He didn't need to analyse the chalk itself in order to form a personal opinion as to how long the writing could have been there before it was discovered by Long. His opinion may well have been coloured by how feasible he thought it was that anyone passing by - himself included - would have missed it had it been there at 2.20, or ignored it had it been there during the previous day or even longer.

Similarly with the apron piece, Long was in the best position to know how likely it was that he - or anyone else - would not have seen this bloody bit of cloth had it been there by 2.20. The fact that he had no trouble seeing it at 2.55, but only then found the writing on the wall above, fits nicely with his testimony that he didn't believe the apron was there at 2.20 but couldn't be sure about the writing.

This all points in one direction for me - the apron was dropped and the message written between 2.20 and 2.55 and Long and Halse were merely stating it as they saw it. I don't see them both dishonestly trying to cover up sloppy work at 2.20, or Long suddenly pulling his socks up half an hour later.

As for the meaning of the message, it could be along the lines of: "We Jews refuse to be blamed for nothing (ie the small things) - so here's something BIG to blame us for."

Again, the problem I have is with a Jew spelling his own people 'Juwes' or implicating them by implicating himself. A Gentile, however, parodying Jews with the same message could make better sense:

"I am a Jew (yes seriously folks) and we Jews are buggered if we are going to take the blame for anything trivial."

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Hello Caroline,

Yes, re.Halse, feasable scenario. As I have consistently said, this can be interpreted in various ways- one of which was recently aired by the eminent Don Souden.
I respect these different angles, yet see, and take another which I happen to favour atm.

Kindly

Phil

[caz]

- would you rather trust the word of Halse who claims to know the difference between recent chalk writing and elder- by sight- which under the circs is impossibke without actually knowing-

Hi Phil,

I was mainly responding to observations like the one above, which I feel are misleading and unwarranted.

Halse didn't claim to 'know' the difference, physically, so your own claim that it is impossible is irrelevant and does the man an injustice. His instincts as a copper in that area and at that time merely led him to believe that chalk had been applied to wall recently, but we don't know all the factors behind this belief. The state of the chalk itself may have had little to do with it.

This is the danger of taking people's words too literally, or separating them from the context of their personal experiences, sights and sounds etc, or making assumptions about what they meant or how honest they were being.

Love,

Caz
X

[Bridewell]

Sir Charles' Direction

Hello Jon,

I have thought about this posting again..and would like to throw this hat into the ring..

15th September 1888

Sir Charles Warren writes to the acting Assistant Commissioner, Alexander Carmichael Bruce, who had been dealing, in his absence, with the paperwork side of Dr Anderson's work.

Quote:
... I feel therefore the utmost importance to be attached to putting the whole Central Office work in this case in the hands of one man who will have nothing else to concern himself with.Neither you or I or Mr Williamson can do this. I therefore put it in the hands of Chief Inspr. Swanson who must be acquainted with every detail. I look upon him for the time being as the eyes and ears of the Commr. in this particular case.
He must have a room to himself, & every paper, every document, every report every telegram must pass through his hands. He must be consulted on every subject. I would not send any directions anywhere on the subject of the murder without consulting him. I give him the whole responsibility. ...
Warren also said that all paperwork and plans relative to the case be kept in Swanson's office.
(my emphasis)

Phil

He must be consulted on every subject

How ironic. If Sir Charles Warren had obeyed his own sensible direction (& I'm pretty sure he didn't) the graffito would not have been erased without prior consultation with Swanson. We probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Best Wishes, Bridewell

[Bridewell]

But Do You Believe Long?

Hi Phil, All,

Halse was there, he saw and read the message. We didn't. He didn't need to analyse the chalk itself in order to form a personal opinion as to how long the writing could have been there before it was discovered by Long. His opinion may well have been coloured by how feasible he thought it was that anyone passing by - himself included - would have missed it had it been there at 2.20, or ignored it had it been there during the previous day or even longer.

Similarly with the apron piece, Long was in the best position to know how likely it was that he - or anyone else - would not have seen this bloody bit of cloth had it been there by 2.20. The fact that he had no trouble seeing it at 2.55, but only then found the writing on the wall above, fits nicely with his testimony that he didn't believe the apron was there at 2.20 but couldn't be sure about the writing.

This all points in one direction for me - the apron was dropped and the message written between 2.20 and 2.55 and Long and Halse were merely stating it as they saw it. I don't see them both dishonestly trying to cover up sloppy work at 2.20, or Long suddenly pulling his socks up half an hour later.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I rather disagree. Part of Long's duty would have been to examine all the stairwells etc as he passed. He said that he looked, but that it wasn't there on the earlier occasion. If, in fact, he had not looked on the earlier occasion (a sacking offence in the circumstances) how likely would he be to admit it? Much easier to say that he had looked when he hadn't, a claim which only the person who left it there could disprove. For my money Long "suddenly pulling his socks up half an hour later" is much more likely than a killer waiting around to dump the incriminating piece of apron, or going back out to get rid of it once the area was swarming with cops.