The Halse version

[Monty]

MacWilliam had no jurisdiction in Goulston Street so his 'orders' held no sway.

As Jon states, Swanson wasn't at the scene and provided collated reports, as he had done so in previous cases. Therefore the information provided is not his direct.

Now Phil states Simon and himself have provided evidence. This isn't entirely true. They have pointed out discrepencies (in their opinion) raised their eyebrows and stated their interpretation. This is suggestion, which is fine, but its not solid evidence/proof something sinister was afoot.

Now, speaking of shenanigans, some of you owls out there may note my question of conspiracy earlier. So far those that hint towards such a thing have failed to provided the what and why? What is the conspiracy and for what gain?

The silence on those questions really is deafening.

Monty

[DVV]

Hello David,
One of the problems for anybody like Simon or myself is that when WE present factual evidence, such has been done- the facts cannot be argued with. Swanson, Warren, McWilliam, Halse all wrote down what they did.
it's inarguable. McWijiam ordered the writing photograhed way before Warren even got to Goulston Street. Swanson wrote 'blurred'. Warren didnt see that the writing could not be covered up and guarded by a couple of policemen (simple, quiet solution to the problem, even by 1888 standards of securing a site) and Halse really did claim to know that the chalk writing was recent when it is impossible to tell such a thing in 1888...without knowing it was recent.
And if you put that lot together, you have one heck of a problem- because they cant all be right, inept, mistaken or telling porkies.
I dont pretend to know the truth about this- but it does raise good questions all round. And if there was something untoward going on, then the worst thing we can do is ignore the possibility.
Phil

Well and good, Phil, but where's the beef ? The City Police felt it should be photographed, but Goulston St was within the Met boundaries. Swanson, from the Met, said it was blurred as to minimize their mistake, or let's say, their questionable decision. As for Warren, law and order was his violon d'Ingres.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Just to set the record straight, Phil does not speak for me. Whatever he says is his own business.

The silence on your questions will continue to be deafening until the full answer is to hand.

One thing I will say, though. The story of the Whitechapel murders is shaping up nicely and proving to be far more interesting than the comedy of errors which currently passes for historical fact.

Clear night, light cloud, promise of scattered showers throughout the day.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

I never stated that Phil speaks for you, which must be upsetting for him. I said that he states both yourself and him have provided evidence.

So you have no conclusion as to why the police/authorities would conspire, just suggestion that they have?

It seems you have a preference for hysteria and myth over comedic errors and fact.

We have your rain.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

I'm pleading the fifth until the time is right.

Sorry about the rain. The UK always seems to get the worst of America.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

That's your right Simon, so I will try my best to respect that and goad no more.

Yes, MacDonalds, David Hasselhoff and Patricia Cornwell.

Still, we passed over Englebert Humperdink and Piers Morgan so its not all one way.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Could you send over some stiff upper lip?

There's nothing the Yanks love more than a good cry or a panic.

In return we'll send you decent restaurants with proper service.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

That's your right Simon, so I will try my best to respect that and goad no more.

Yes, MacDonalds, David Hasselhoff and Patricia Cornwell.

Still, we passed over Englebert Humperdink and Piers Morgan so its not all one way.

Monty

And I hear "Da Pilk" (An Idiot Abroad), is now set to add The New World to his exploits!

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

No, I dont speak for you or anyone else. But the likes of you and I that wander a different road temds to put us in a group besides the "norm". My apologies if it was taken any other way.
Its not cold here by the way- springtime and blue skies. Snow has melted.

hello Jon,

Yes, my point exactly, chalk writing cannot, under those circs, be deemed "recent" at all. So for Halse to utter the comment under oath is either ridiculous or an indication of knowledge. If timewise unkown. This brings his testimonx into question. Is Halse basing his assertations on what exactly? Because the apron piece was found under it? Thats connecting two things without evidence on the assumption the bearer of the apron piece wrote it because of the location of both the apron piece and the writing.

Swanson had all the reports at his fingertips. Therefore must have taken the word "blurred" from one. We have no mention of it from any known police statement. But Swanson is hardly likely to have made it up. We must presume his memory is sound. So we must accept that the writing MAY have been blurred, and for reasons unknown to us was not mentioned at the inquest or anywhere else that we know of.

Like I said, I dont know the answer to all of this. But I agree with Simon- we have not been served up the truth of the matter, and closing ones eyes and saying that it isnt possible that there is more to this than we know is in my humble opinion foolhardy. So what if it turns out that it was all part of something else? Whoppee. Some people may have got it wrong. So what? The answer is far more important than anyones opinion, past or present. If I am wrong, it doesnt matter. Id rather find out what really happened, if we can ever get that far.

Kindly

Phil

[DVV]

Hi Phil

Swanson had all the reports at his fingertips. Therefore must have taken the word "blurred" from one.

No, he got it from the horse's mouth, I think. Too bad this horse was Arnold, in all probability.

We have no mention of it from any known police statement.

Because it wasn't blurred. Had it been, the Met would have publicized it. Or do you think they did not care ?

So we must accept that the writing MAY have been blurred

I don't, Phil. I'm surprised you trust the Met in that instance - for once.

[Phil Carter]

Hello David,

no, I dont especially "trust" Swansons words, but I have to ask, given so many discrepancies- 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- or the Chief Inspector of the Met writing his official report to the Home Office? I queston BOTH comments, thereby questioning whether some knew more than they said. Just WHO do we actually believe David?

Kindly

Phil

[DVV]

Halse, no question.
The Met having been so bitterly criticized for the erasure, trust me, had it been blurred, we would have known. Because they would have publicized it. Public critics, public response.
And while I'm here, why do you think Arnold lastly expressed the opinion that Eddowes wasn't a ripper victim ? - and so doing, he made a wonderful freudian slip.

[Rob Clack]

Hello David,

no, I dont especially "trust" Swansons words, but I have to ask, given so many discrepancies- 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- or the Chief Inspector of the Met writing his official report to the Home Office? I queston BOTH comments, thereby questioning whether some knew more than they said. Just WHO do we actually believe David?

Kindly

Phil

I'd believe a police officer with 25 years of experience rather than an armchair detective with an agenda.

Shame you've got me on ignore, you could learn a lot from me.

Rob

[Monty]

Halse stated it looked recent, in response to questioning.

He didn't state it was recent.

And for those who are interested, the files were stored seperate from the letters, as the files were case related.

The assumption all was lost in the blitz isn't entirely true.

Monty

[Monty]

I'd believe a police officer with 25 years of experience rather than an armchair detective with an agenda.

Shame you've got me on ignore, you could learn a lot from me.

Rob

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

Monty