Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Halse version

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I'm always delighted to read the Eddowes inquest, and Long is my fav witness. How stubborn. How uncomfortable. I almost can see him sweating.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by caz View Post

      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.
      Hello Caz,

      Well, the simple answer to that is that I cannot understand that some think Halse is infallible. Nobody is. Especially in the WM scenario.

      What he "claims", what he "says" , and what he "means" are three differing things. Don Souden in his excellent article suggested that both Long and/or Halse were being conservative with the truth for personal reasons. Yes, feasable. I don't entirely agree with it but it is quite feasable. I applaud this type of investigative writing.

      Therefore, if a policeman offers the opinion that the writing on the wall is recent, whatever his background for the opinion, it must be based upon something. What that something is, is open to question. No, he didn't say he KNEW it was recent, but he gave the opinion that it was. What it is based upon depends on how one sees the varying possibilities. Therefore we expand opinion upon his opinion. That isn't doing a person injustice. It is opening up possibilities without presuming that the man is whiter than white under all circumstances whatsoever. Which is EXACTLY what Don Souden has done.

      Whether the man is a long serving policeman with a decent reputation is neither here nor there. There are PLENTY of those who recently have been tipping off newspapers about certain cases and trials, alledgedly taking back handers through telephone tapping, andf one imparticular that has hit the headlines only yesterday. Upon that policemans name being linked to anything untoward, the man retires on grounds of ill health, moves abroad and runs a bar somewhere. Without anything being proven or disproven.

      So in Halse's case, the boot can be put on the other foot as well.. one doesn't need to make the assumption that a policeman when making statements about the age/appearance/non appearance of that writing on the wall is as you say..or. is actually speaking from the angle you propose. His observation can therefore be interpreted in any way that gives rise to open possibility. And the various alternatives I proposed link feasability and non-feasability into the equasion.

      I have no idea whether any are correct... just as you do not. We must never assume that one answer is always the most logical and correct because it is easiest to explain something. That means "Occam's Razor" would be 100% correct all of the time- which it most certainly is not.

      best wishes

      Phil
      Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


      Justice for the 96 = achieved
      Accountability? ....

      Comment


      • good lungs

        Hello David. Long? If you accept her testimony, perhaps you have a reason why Annie's lad is talking so loudly?

        Cheers.
        LC

        Comment


        • There you go Caz.....its simple.

          Monty
          Monty

          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

          Comment


          • oopsie!

            Hello David. Oops! Wrong Long. I was thinking of the witness. So sorry.

            Cheers.
            LC

            Comment


            • Mnm aydllm, Lynn.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                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.
                Hi Bridewell,

                Is there a really, really sound reason not to believe Long, when he said this blooded piece of cloth was not there when he looked earlier? If it was the tiny scrap some would have us believe, and the entrance the rubbish dump others would have us believe, there would have been little shame in saying he could have missed it first time round, or even that he had seen it among the rest of the garbage and paid it no special attention. After all, he had no trouble admitting that he may have missed the writing first time round.

                Conversely, if, as I believe, half of Eddowes's pinny would have been a substantial bit of kit, and the entrance kept reasonably tidy by the new building's proud occupants, I can certainly understand how Long could state quite plainly that it wasn't there at 2.20.

                What could have happened between 2.20 and 2.55 to make Long pull his socks up and look where he hadn't looked before? When he found the apron he was unaware that a murder had taken place in Mitre Square, but the blood on it led him to suspect a violent crime may have taken place in or near the dwellings.

                Yes, you'd think the killer would have dumped the wholly incriminating apron as soon as possible after leaving Mitre Square, but we know he didn't because he had it on his person all the way to Goulston. After that, all bets are off concerning how long it stayed with him, and whether he went directly to Goulston or back to a place of safety first. It might actually make more sense if he dashed straight home to deposit his knife and body parts and clean up. Appreciating that the apron was just too dangerous to keep (and would have made a lousy souvenir), he could have killed two birds with one stone by popping out again to dump the apron in that particular entrance (whether or not he wrote the message) to get the coppers buzzing round there and away from where he would be spending the rest of the night. He might well have imagined a thorough search of those dwellings and questioning all the residents would keep the police occupied for a nice long time.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • "Conversely, if, as I believe, half of Eddowes's pinny would have been a substantial bit of kit, and the entrance kept reasonably tidy by the new building's proud occupants, I can certainly understand how Long could state quite plainly that it wasn't there at 2.20."

                  Jerry Lee Lewis, whole lot of assumin going on.

                  All the way to Goulston Street Caz, you make it sound like it was a hike. Come now, we've walked together, timed it together infact, it took a few minutes which, seeing as its logical to think he wanted to get away from the SOC ASAP, makes pretty good CS with ATC.

                  Long states he was informed of a murder whilst at Goulston Street at 2.55am. For info.

                  Longs testimony has to be taken into account.

                  Monty
                  Last edited by Monty; 03-09-2012, 05:08 PM.
                  Monty

                  https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                  Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                  http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                  Comment


                  • killer

                    Hello Caroline.

                    "Yes, you'd think the killer would have dumped the wholly incriminating apron as soon as possible after leaving Mitre Square, but we know he didn't because he had it on his person all the way to Goulston."

                    That sounds quite reasonable, but how do we know HE had it? Someone clearly did, but that, in itself, does not entail the killer having it.

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      "Conversely, if, as I believe, half of Eddowes's pinny would have been a substantial bit of kit, and the entrance kept reasonably tidy by the new building's proud occupants, I can certainly understand how Long could state quite plainly that it wasn't there at 2.20."

                      Jerry Lee Lewis, whole lot of assumin going on.

                      All the way to Goulston Street Caz, you make it sound like it was a hike. Come now, we've walked together, timed it together infact, it took a few minutes which, seeing as its logical to think he wanted to get away from the SOC ASAP, makes pretty good CS with ATC.

                      Long states he was informed of a murder whilst at Goulston Street at 2.55am. For info.

                      Longs testimony has to be taken into account.

                      Monty
                      Hi Monty,

                      Well I'm allowing for the apron half being anything from postage stamp to horse blanket size, and the entrance anything from filthy and cluttered with similar bits of filthy rag to sparkling clean and rubbish free when the killer (or accomplice, victim, dog, bent copper, whoever, whatever) arrived there to deposit the former. So I'm not the woman to be blamed for assumin' nothin' mate.

                      A 'few minutes' is one heck of a long time for the killer to be fannying around on the streets with a 100% incriminating piece of his victim's pinny. He could gut a corpse in that time. What could possibly have taken him a few minutes? Was he teaching himself napkin folding for jolly?

                      Long was informed of 'a' murder at 2.55 while he was in Goulston, but if this was after he had discovered the apron and writing, it doesn't explain why he would suddenly have decided to do his job properly, half an hour after not doing it properly.

                      Too right Long's testimony should be taken into account. And I'm not saying that he couldn't have been trying to cover his arse or that the apron couldn't have been there by 2.20. I'm saying that any theory that relies on either may be hanging by a very flimsy thread.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • Hi Monty and Caz

                        I believe we have to assume that the cut piece of apron was a substantial piece of cloth and not a small piece if as we know from the photograph of the women in Dorset Street such aprons went clear from the woman's waist almost down to her feet. As you do, Monty, I also assume that the piece of apron was not in the doorway earlier when PC Long passed. However, I suppose it is not inconceivable that it was there when Long first passed but he thought nothing of it, then when he passed again he looked closer and noticed it had blood on it. Of course in those circumstances he might not have admitted that he saw it earlier because he could be accused of ignoring a crucial piece of evidence. But there had been no all points bulletin sent out out to look out for a cut piece of apron taken from the victim in Mitre Square, so if he did tell that fib he should not have received any censure. But Long could not be certain that he might not get into trouble if he admitted he had seen it earlier but thought nothing of it, could he?

                        All the best

                        Chris
                        Christopher T. George
                        Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conference
                        just held in Baltimore, April 7-8, 2018.
                        For information about RipperCon, go to http://rippercon.com/
                        RipperCon 2018 talks can now be heard at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/

                        Comment


                        • I Think So

                          Originally posted by caz View Post
                          Hi Bridewell,

                          Is there a really, really sound reason not to believe Long, when he said this blooded piece of cloth was not there when he looked earlier?

                          As I said earlier, it was part of his job, as a patrolling constable, to check all such stairwells on his rounds. Had he admitted failing to do so, he would probably have lost his job. I think that a really, really sound reason.


                          What could have happened between 2.20 and 2.55 to make Long pull his socks up and look where he hadn't looked before? When he found the apron he was unaware that a murder had taken place in Mitre Square, but the blood on it led him to suspect a violent crime may have taken place in or near the dwellings.

                          What could have happened? He could have found out about the Mitre Square murder and realised the implications.


                          "When I found the piece of 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, found no traces of blood or recent footmarks. having searched I at once proceeded to the station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder being committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square".

                          Did he carry out these extremely diligent searches because he found a piece of apron with blood and faecal matter on it, or because he heard that there'd been a murder committed in Mitre Square? "Having searched I at once proceeded to the station. Before proceeding there (How long before, I wonder - he doesn't say) I had heard of a murder being committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square". If he heard of the murder after the search, but before going to the police station, he didn't go "at once" as I see it.

                          Why does a piece of rag with blood and faeces on it lead him to suspect a violent crime may have taken place in or near the dwellings?


                          Yes, you'd think the killer would have dumped the wholly incriminating apron as soon as possible after leaving Mitre Square, but we know he didn't because he had it on his person all the way to Goulston. he could have killed two birds with one stone by popping out again to dump the apron in that particular entrance (whether or not he wrote the message) to get the coppers buzzing round there and away from where he would be spending the rest of the night.


                          Actually, I don't think he'd dump the whole incriminating apron as soon as possible after leaving Mitre Square. I think he'd dump it as soon as it had served its purpose - probably to wipe his hands & knife - otherwise why take it in the first place?

                          "Pop out again to dump the apron"? Not for me. If he took it to keep it, he'd keep it. If he took it to use for a particular purpose, he'd dispose of it after so using it. Why would he need to go back out to get the coppers buzzing round the stairwell after he'd got safely to his destination? That's not reducing the risk, of capture, but adding to it, surely?
                          Yours aye, Bridewell
                          Last edited by Bridewell; 03-11-2012, 02:38 AM. Reason: Spelling error
                          "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ChrisGeorge View Post
                            Hi Monty and Caz

                            I believe we have to assume that the cut piece of apron was a substantial piece of cloth and not a small piece if as we know from the photograph of the women in Dorset Street such aprons went clear from the woman's waist almost down to her feet.
                            Quite so Chris, estimated at the time to have been "about half" an apron.
                            A sizeable piece of cloth, more than you would need to wipe your hands, or the blade.

                            Regards, Jon S.
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • However, I suppose it is not inconceivable that it was there when Long first passed but he thought nothing of it, then when he passed again he looked closer and noticed it had blood on it. Of course in those circumstances he might not have admitted that he saw it earlier because he could be accused of ignoring a crucial piece of evidence.
                              As you say...and I too see it as something at least a couple of feet square...personally I feel the presence of the piece of apron and the GSG (who could possibly write that small on brick with chalk, that quickly), is a huge coincidence...

                              Comment


                              • Hi Chris,

                                Why must we assume it was a sizeable piece? I do understand your reasons and wholely agree however assumin bring nowt but trouble.

                                Therefore we do not know what was visible. Halse gives us a tantalising hint when he states that had the apron been in the location Long found it he wouldn't have necessarily seen it. Now this could mean it wasn't in a position to view it, it was too small to see or he (and this is my own personal opinion) he wasn't looking for an apron piece.

                                Also, for confirmation, my views on Longs 2.20am sweep is that its plausible he just didn't note it. As Bridewell states, his duty was to the Queens highways, byways and buildings. He could only enter private property if he felt a crime had or was about to take place, or if invited by a landlord or a person on the premises.

                                That said, an inspection of the stairwell is possible and most likely happened. However due to the fact that Long would have had to cross over a recess every time would soon become understandably tiresome. So to miss out such a task every other round is reasonable, especially if time needed to be made up.

                                Monty
                                Monty

                                https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

                                Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                                http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X