The Halse version

[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

[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

[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

[Monty]

Comparing oneself to Gallileo Phil?

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

Monty

[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.

[caz]

I think it bears repeating that none of this even remotely supports a conclusion either way regarding when the apron piece and writing arrived.

The fact that both could have been missed at 2.20 by both policemen in no way implies that they were actually there at that time. They could have been, but equally they may not. All we can be reasonable sure of is that Long and Halse noticed neither until 2.55.

I'm not quite sure what anyone is seeking to show here, or the relevance to the murder itself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Phil Carter]

Comparing oneself to Gallileo Phil?

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

Monty

Hello Monty,

I compared the principle of looking at things in a new way- which I made very clear.
Originally, in fact, he questioned the old guard by stating that they must be wrong- and only when he published his famous book, did he put the facts side by side for comparison. The powers that be(the church) still thought this unacceptable.

Historical accuracy of events is an odd thing.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

People are allowed to talk about written articles are they not? I have no idea if the person I chatted with is a subscriber either by the way! i listened to an opinion that I happened to partially agree with (especially the principle of expanding upon conjecture) -This must show it (in full- which I didnt hear or see) was a reputable article. And something you yourself here have told me more about than what I heard via a short chat! Thank you!

Kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Given the Metropolitan Police chain of command, on the morning of the so-called double-event who would have passed the parcel and given the order to rouse Commissioner Sir Charles Warren from his bed?

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

All discussion of timings and what various people involved thought immediately following discovery of the writing hinges on when Bond fitted the apron piece to the portion on Eddowes and found they actually corresponded.

Simon - your middle name is Daryl??

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

Yes, it is.

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

Then your nickname must be Whitechapel?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

How does that work?

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Have you found out who gave Warren his 4.30 ish alarm call yet? My money is on Long. Haha!

Kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

No, not yet.

Superintendent Arnold made Warren's appearance at Leman Street sound like the unexpected arrival of the pantomime genie, so I guess it wasn't him.

Which leaves us an interesting selection to choose from.

Regards,

Simon