Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Three questions about Detective Halse

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

  • Three questions about Detective Halse

    Hello,

    Iíve got three questions about Detective Halse that I canít find clear answers on and Iím wondering if anyone could help. Theyíre minor details but these are the kind of things that stick with me. Not trying to make any case for anything here, just trying to fill in some gaps.

    1) How was Halse (and Outram and Marriott) informed about Eddowes? Sources either have them at the corner of Houndsditch/Aldgate/St Botolphís just before 2 am or searching the houses/passages. Given the proximity to Mitre Sq I wondered if they heard whistles, noticed commotion or where informed some other way. The timing was given as 1:58 but I canít find details on who or how.

    2) Why was Halseís wording of the graffito not used? The accounts of his movements after being informed about Mitre Square suggest he was pretty quick to respond to events by searching the area for suspects and organising on the ground. Also, I would imagine as a detective he would be more experienced at taking down evidence accurately than say PC Long (not saying Longís version was incorrect, but why was this the preferred version?).

    3) is there any particular reason that Detective Sergeant Outram was not called to testify at the inquest rather than Detective Constable Halse?

  • #2
    Hello Hakeswill.

    I can't recall reading specifically how Halse learned of the murder, so I'll pass on question 1.
    As for question 3, from the wording in Halse's testimony at the inquest it would appear he was in charge of Outram & Marriott, so unless they had some important encounter that night it would be left to Halse to answer any questions the coroner may have. Also, the coroner may have wanted it on record that a City detective suggested photographing the graffiti, which was over ruled by the Met.

    So, to address question 2, it should be remembered that as PC Long was the one who found the graffiti, and made a written copy, he would be the principal witness on that subject. Also, and perhaps more important in the coroner's eyes was the fact Long's version was witnessed by his inspector, whereas Halse had no witness to his version. So, two witnesses for the Met. version against one witness for the City version.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Hakeswill,

      Don't sacrifice too many brain cells on this.

      Halse and Long. Two police witnesses in Goulston Street at approximately the same moment. Yet neither reported seeing the other, the piece of apron, or the chalked message. Yet, within the hour, one of them would discover the piece of apron and, a little later, the other would be the first to notice it was missing.

      The City of London and Metropolitan Police officers who recorded the chalked GSG message offered a combination of seven variations as to its spelling, grammar, capitalization and linage.

      One version was as good as any other.

      Regards,

      Simon
      Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank you for this (and Wickermanís reply too). Read a comment from Bridewell in another post suggesting the Detective designation was not viewed in the same way as we might interpret it in smitten sense, so that may also be in the mix. I appreciate too that itís not s major issue, just another nagging detail (for me) around Mitre Square. It seems out of all the events to be most concentrated in terms of personnel, time and locations, and in my head the shows the City police response to be altogether more on the ball than the Met Police, do I always wondered why it appeared so

        Comment

        Working...
        X