The Halse version

[Supe]

I have seen my name mentioned several times in this thread, so I thought I should weigh in on a couple of points.

First of all, I do thank Phil Carter for the nice things he said about my article, "The (PC) Long and short of it," New Independent Review No. 2., (though, since he is not a subscriber, I do wonder how he was able to read it). I felt it was fairly balanced, examining as many possibilities about the discarded apron piece as possible, and I would urge those who have not yet read it to read it in full.

That said, I am not sure I suggested that both Long and Halse lied. I believe that I accepted Halse's comment that he may have missed the apron part if it was there at 2:20 because he was in a hurry, looking for a murder suspect and if he looked into doorways it would have been at head-height. He was, at the moment, "a fisher of men," not discarded clothing or graffiti.

I did, however, suggest that he may have puffed himself up a bit after the fact. That is, it is a bit tough to take that a mere constable, surrounded by various high heidyins of both forces, would loudly complain against erasing the graffito. A whisper to himself -- maybe.

Long is a somewhat different animal and it is important to bear in mind, which I have not seen mentioned this time around, that he was drafted into H division (with all that might imply) and this was his first night on the beat. Even were he an exemplary constable (and there is reason to believe he was not) he would have had difficulties getting his rhythm and knowing just what needed checking --always -- and what could be given a low priority.

Thus it is not beyond a reasonable possibility that by the time Long passed Goulston Street doorway at "about 2:20" he was eager to make up time and breezed on by. Later, around 2:55, he may have been more assiduous and noticed the apron part and graffito. His immediate thought was a murder, or at least serious attack, within the premises and he acted accordingly. (It also will be noted that at no time did Long or subsequent experienced police officers think the apron part had been an emergency sanitary napkin.)

I agree with Neil that Long's likely informant about Mitre Square and Dutfield's Yard was PC 190H, Bill Bettles. He, Bettles, may well have met up with a City policeman on his rounds and heard, "officially," of the Mitre Square murder, whereas word of Stride's murder may have been imparted by a civilian, making it "unofficial."

In any case, Long still had no reason to suspect his find was related to either murder. Rather, it could well be linked to another serious crime and what better way to start in a new division than by finding such evidence. Thus, he was determined to carry it to the station and receive credit. And, since he and those to whom he first presented his evidence still had no reason to believe it was connected to a murder at 1:40, he blithely said it wasn't there at his 2:20 pass but was at 2:55. And once locked into that statement he had no recourse but to swear to it.

That's my take, but do read the whole article.

Don.

[Monty]

Comparing oneself to Gallileo Phil?

Even he applied sound baic facts to his theorising, not interpretation.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Phil, if I have misread you, then you'll agree with this I guess :

Hello David,

I do not know, as I said before, what Long, Halse and Co did 'right' or wrong with certainty. Long did what he did. I intepret those actions with an eye on logical reasoning based on what I see as such. It may be wrong. It may be right. What it isnt, is impossible.
Now I must get myself to town. Please excuse me if I do not reply further for a while.

Kinldy

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

You have explained your views, and I accept them. We see things differently. Fair enough.
Based on how you see the facts.

However, calling a person predjudiced is different.. An accusation of me being predjudiced is not only unfounded (against what or whom exactly?), but very wrong because I am not looking to gain anything from my thoughts on any point. Your further accusation
of what you deem as my fantasy is an opinion you air to anybody and often, not just me, who see alternative reasons for things based on interpretation of those oh so holy 'facts'. I am susprised that Don Souden hasnt been tarred because he suggested either man may have lied. After all, same on the beat hard working policemen,,,

What may be fantasy to you isnt to others. And because we say it, doesnt mean that we are necessarily wrong- or right. And you cant prove all you say is right either!
When Gallileo suggested that the planets rotated around the sun and not that the Earth was at the centre with all revolving around it, the die hard scholars rejected it out of sight, it took many years with a new generation of scholars to prove his ideas, through considering things differently. All new ideas begin with a minority- sometimes only a handful of people.
Of course I DO NOT compare possibility thinking done by some within this genre to be on that same, knowledge shattering scale, nor any individual with the likes of Gallileo either! ( so you wont need to find a derogatary comment there either) but the principle is the same.

What would actually happen to Ripperology if, for example, proof was found that X murdered ONE of the C5? Stride or Kelly for example. Would the genre fold up and die? Because the one man all killing 'Jack' wasnt what many thought? Would the books stop? Would the tours stop? Of course they wouldnt. The genre would DEVELOP, change, diversify. So some would have been wrong. So what. We are all wrong in life. Often. Would I gloat? NO. Because it isnt easv to stand against derision. And if you Monty, turn out to be wrong about this in time to come...I wouldnt rub it in. I dont care for being right- because my small contribution isnt for MY benefit. That isnt my agenda- that I can certainly assure you. My agenda is family based. Period.

Now. You have had it spelled out to you, quietly, respectfully and clearly. I have no beef with you or people who think as you do. It would be nice to see a simple thank you for the explanation instead of strange accusatioons of 'predjudice'. I wonder if not, what you are in this for? The kick of must put down at all costs? Well- I dont believe that- because Ive seen the dedication you CAN give this genre. And that I respect immensely.

We do things differently. We interpret facts in different ways. And ANYONE with an opinion has that right. They dont need to dip towards the 'Days of the Diary' insults.

I suggest the infighting stuff is given a rest. It really does no service to anybody.

Thoughtfully

Phil

[DVV]

Phil, if I have misread you, then you'll agree with this I guess :

He did his job. He found a suspicious item and did a sweep of the building.
Monty

[Monty]

Hello Phil,


The City had the same procedure. Collard states he telegraphed Jewry Street HQ. They, in turn, would have telegraphed All Stations within the City and Met. Who, in turn, would have telegraphed their stations, concentrating on those bordering the City (Leman Street and Commercial Street).

Then, as outlined in my prevuious post, word would have gotten out. By 2.55am Long had heard of a City murder, this roughly an hour after Collard sent out his initial telegraph to HQ. Plenty of time for word within that area to spread.

Halse doesnt mention anyone when he passed through Goulston Street at 2.20am. Long doesnt mention anyone at his 2.20am sweep either. Long states that he had "passed (along Goulston Street) about twenty minutes past two o'clock".

About. Therefore his time is not specific. Therefore he may not have been in Goulston Street at the same time as Halse. Therefore the chances of the exchanging words (which would have been recorded had it happened) are slim to non existant.

its that logical- using your own reasoning. But of course- believe what you will by all means- after all- a wet rag spotted with blood in a dark, filthy area must always mean a policeman thinks of a murder and starts looking for a body...not a person iNJURED, for example,, - according to you. Blimey, policemen must have been in and out of the police stations with all sorts of rubbish picked from the allyways and gutters that autumn. Its a wonder they ever completed a beat!

What is your point here?

Long finds a blood soaked rag and assumes the worst, a logical reaction. Are you stating it was an over reaction?

He did his job. He found a suspicious item and did a sweep of the building. He would have been aware of why he was drafted in to Whitechapel, he would have been aware of the murders and its highly probable that Tabram was on his mind when he done the search of the stairs.

All this is not worthy of your ridicule. The man was doing his duty yet you question the reason why he conducted his search.

Yeah, I'll believe what will. The means is the evidence given and common sense.

If you wish to delve into fantasy that is your choice, however provide some solid support for your ideas rather than personal conjecture blinded by obvious prejudice.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

No need to put words in your mouth, Phil, here it is.

Hello David,

Nice try- but those words have nothing to with YOUR suggestion David,
sorry old chap, wrong interpretation followed by wrong assumption,

I wrote.. i dont know what to believe was a lie and what wasnt- or why- IF they lied, as was suggested by another- the reason was.

By all means do keep assuming David. But this time you have it written twice, in clear sentences, that you have guessed wrong, with my own words to prove it.

So Halse MAY have lied not mentioning meeting Long? And vice versa? So? As Mr Souden has suggested- perhaps they did lie. Maybe about the above too. Its not going to break the case open! I have no idea why- if they did! And I am not going to guess either!

Policemen dont go looking for a BODY if they find a piece of 'spotted, blood and faecal mattered rag' David. A BODY suggests death. And as he saw no trail of blood- leading to NO BODY- then why run off to the station? The rag does not qualify being linked with the writing, unless, of course, the origin of the rag is known- which it wasnt until later.
All quite logical David, I believe.

Kindly

Phil

[DVV]

its that logical- using your own reasoning. But of course- believe what you will by all means- after all- a wet rag spotted with blood in a dark, filthy area must always mean a policeman thinks of a murder and starts looking for a body...not a person iNJURED, for example,, - according to you. Blimey, policemen must have been in and out of the police stations with all sorts of rubbish picked from the allyways and gutters that autumn. Its a wonder they ever completed a beat!

Phil

No need to put words in your mouth, Phil, here it is.

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

I havent said anything about that! If you believe it- fine. I dont know what to believe. Don Souden suggested one or both (Long and Halse) had lied, for personal reasons. I dont know what they told was a lie and what wasnt. I only put THEIR words up for others to judge. All can make what they will of their words.

Please don't put words in my mouth David. Im quite capable of saying my meaning. On this occasion, all I have said is that Halse is the person most likely to have told Long about the Mitre Square murder. A fair opinion, I believe.

Kindly

Phil

[DVV]

Please, Phil, go ahead. Long was "ordered" to find the piece of apron, that is it ?

[Phil Carter]

hello Monty,

You are talking about Bettles mentioning to Long about Stride. After an official tell all through H division. Fair enough.
If done as you say, Long would NOT have called it a 'rumour' of which he was 'unsure'.

As regards the knowledge of the Mitre Sq victim, Halse is
The more likely source of THAT info. (and considering your reasoning that the City police would only find out AFTER the Met police- would also be good reason for Long to only have heard unconfirmed rumour via a City policeman- about Stride.)

its that logical- using your own reasoning. But of course- believe what you will by all means- after all- a wet rag spotted with blood in a dark, filthy area must always mean a policeman thinks of a murder and starts looking for a body...not a person iNJURED, for example,, - according to you. Blimey, policemen must have been in and out of the police stations with all sorts of rubbish picked from the allyways and gutters that autumn. Its a wonder they ever completed a beat!

Phil

[DVV]

Hi Phil

Mr Crawford: Having examined the staircase, what did you next do?
Long: I proceeded to the station.
Mr Crawford: Before going, did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long: Yes.
Mr Crawford: It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of?
Long: I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.


A torn piece of (bespotted, corner wet with blood) apron in dirty filthy Whitechapel found in a dark place between the jamb and the stairwell...stained with fecal matter... That means a "body" is about the immediate area does it?
Phil

No problem here. Long has heard of a murder in the City, quite close to his beat. And of another one. He then founds a bloody piece of apron. What could he do, except what he did ?

[Monty]

The most likely man would have been PC William Bettles 190 H.

Upon the discovery of Strides body, in H divisions territory, the news filtered back to Leman St. They inturn issued telegraphs to all stations within the division.

This was procedure. Once the stations received the news either/and/or the beat Sergeants/spare Bobbies/runners were dispatched to spread the word best they could.

The City would have been made aware of the situation by the Met however its most likely the remainder of H division knew about Stride before the City. Therefore any Bobby in H would most likely have know something about a murder before any City or J division PC.

I'm not saying Halse wouldnt have been aware of Strides demise, just that Bettles would have certainly known before him.

As for Longs search, its pretty clear. He found a bloody apron piece and felt a murder may have taken place. He did his job, simple as that.

I guess its just too simple for some to comprehend.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon, all,

In conjunction with the above postings, there is a further report of the inquest testimony of Long, as reported in The Daily Telegraph, Friday 12th October 1888. It reads as follows:-

Mr Crawford: Having examined the staircase, what did you next do?
Long: I proceeded to the station.
Mr Crawford: Before going, did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long: Yes.
Mr Crawford: It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of?
Long: I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.

All very well- until later under questioning from a juror about his actions following his examination of the apron and the writing, - Long says the following (from the same article):-

Long: I thought the was the best thing to do was to proceed to the station and report to the inspector on duty.
Juror: I am sure you did what you deemed best.
Mr Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer?
Long: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.


Hang on a minute... In replying "Yes" to Crawford on the last point, Long has said something strange. Having previously said he had heard of the "City" murder and that there were only "rumours" of "another, but not certain"... What "body" would Long have been looking for? Not the one in the City, thats for certain, and hardly a "rumoured murder" in Goulston Street either!
So why would he be looking for a body like he affirmed to Crawford he was?

A torn piece of (bespotted, corner wet with blood) apron in dirty filthy Whitechapel found in a dark place between the jamb and the stairwell...stained with fecal matter... That means a "body" is about the immediate area does it?

My bet is that whomever "told" Long that the murder of Eddowes had happened, told him AFTER 2.20am (when he DIDN'T see anything at the same location). There is a likely man who would have known about that and told him. Halse, who was in the same street at the same time as Long.

Make of that what you will.
Oh, all Telegraph quotes are from The News from Whìtechapel, by Chisholm, DiGrazia and Yost, who later in the book opine that it is unlikely that an inquest reporter would insert made up comments into an inquest report. Therefore do we take them as accurate?

Kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

I may be missing something here, but I believe Long was referring to Eddowes murder, not Strides?

" having searched I at once proceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square."

(written Coroners inquest testimony report, No,135, Corporation of London Records Office)

" . ..Before proceeding to the station he (Long) hadheard that a murder had been committed in Mitre Square."

(The Times, 13th Oct 1888, from The Ultimate Sourcebook, page 262)

Long makes no mention of the above in his own written report dated 6th November 1888, HO 144/201/A/C 49301C/8c ff195-196.

So Long heard only of the Mitre Square murder, and it is not said from whom. There is no mention of him being aware of the Berner Street murder.

Kindly

Phil