Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Phil Carter]

It doesn't matter whether the Home Secretary read any newspapers or not Phil. He was asking for information not giving information.

So we don't need to worry about the "source" of any information.

Whatever.

The point still stands

[David Orsam]

As for the source of the information. Nobody knows from whom it came. You have no idea what newspaper, if any, he read.

It doesn't matter whether the Home Secretary read any newspapers or not Phil. He was asking for information not giving information.

So we don't need to worry about the "source" of any information.

[Phil Carter]

David,
The point stands.

Matthews may have been entertaining the idea of police involvement. You don't know. I don't know.

The possibility remains.

As for the source of the information. Nobody knows from whom it came. You have no idea what newspaper, if any, he read.

[David Orsam]

Prove that his information came from a newspaper.

I don't need to prove anything. He didn't even need to read any of the newspaper reports (although that's a bit unlikely don't you think?). So he didn't need to have any information.

He was simply asking Warren if any lookers on could have taken the apron.

If there were no lookers on in the square that morning then no doubt that would have been Fraser's response to Warren and that information would have been passed on to the Home Secretary and his question about whether the apron could have been removed from the square by a looker on and deposited in Goulston Street as a hoax would have been answered.

[David Orsam]

from various news reports there seem to have been quite a few "lookers on" in Mitre Square, many of them newspaper reporters.

This is more for Phil Carter's benefit but newspaper reports suggested that members of the public were drawn to Mitre Square immediately upon hearing Watkins blow his whistle.

Thus:

"The sound of a policeman's whistle attracted attention to the square, and the first spectators who arrived were despatched for medical and other aid." (Lloyds Weekly News, 30 September 1888)

and

"He at once blew his whistle, and several persons being attracted to the spot, he despatched messengers for medical and police aid." (Morning Advertiser - and Daily News - 1 October 1888)

Simon might have some other examples in mind.

It doesn't matter whether these reports were true or not, only that they would have created (for the Home Secretary if he read those reports) the impression of people being in the square who could conceivably have picked up the apron from the crime scene and taken it to Goulston Street.

[Phil Carter]

And that is exactly what he did!

He asked Warren to investigate and Warren asked Fraser.

Prove that his information came from a newspaper.

[Phil Carter]

But it wasn't a response to the part of Simon's post that I quoted.

As to that, there is clearly only going to be deafening silence.

Have you finished now David?
Or is there yet more compulsion to again have a personally directed dig?

[Phil Carter]

Hi David,
Thanks. I am just kicking myself for not double checking what Warren actually wrote. I'm afraid that it is noticeable that Phil often misquotes what people say and gets hold of what seems to be the wrong end of the stick. I intend no criticism of him, but it serves to obfuscate and divert, which, despite appearances, hopefully isn't the intention.

Hello Paul,

Like you..I am not perfect.

However, the point stands. Matthews may have entertained the possibility..as you yourself agreed with.


Phil

[David Orsam]

That was the response.

But it wasn't a response to the part of Simon's post that I quoted.

As to that, there is clearly only going to be deafening silence.

[David Orsam]

The Home Secretary has a supposed double murder in the Capital that the world and his wife is screaming about and you propose that he is reticent?

What does "reticent" mean? It's not his job to solve the murders.

Parliament wasn't sitting. He was out of London. He clearly spoke to the Commissioner on 3 October and received a briefing. As a result of that briefing he requested some further information. That's all that happened. He wasn't accusing any police officers of anything.

[David Orsam]

If he was made aware of it via a newspaper..he will...as with any information, want confirmation from an official.

And that is exactly what he did!

He asked Warren to investigate and Warren asked Fraser.

[Phil Carter]

I don't know what you are talking about Phil.

Simon's statement that I was referring to was this:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene".

Are you going to respond to it or will there only be deafening silence from you about it?

That was the response.

[Phil Carter]

You may think it Phil but where is the evidence to back it up?

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Home Secretary insisted on being kept "fully" up to date with all the details of the murder in the immediate aftermath, especially as he was out of London at the time. It wasn't his job to solve the crime! He was obviously briefed by Warren on 3 October but there is no evidence that he knew anything more than he had read in the newspapers before that date.

If he was made aware of it via a newspaper..he will...as with any information, want confirmation from an official.

As to the rest of this post...

The Home Secretary has a supposed double murder in the Capital that the world and his wife is screaming about and you propose that he is reticent?


Phil

[PaulB]

Here's how the problem started.

Phil Carter in #1254 said:

"Matthews did not imply it was the killer or he would have stated as such, likewise an accomplice. His description was "bystander"."

That then misled everyone else who assumed he was quoting correctly.

It makes me wonder if Phil Carter understands how to use quotation marks. He did exactly the same thing to me earlier in this thread, accusing me of using the expression "crowded streets" (which he attributed to me inside quotation marks) when I had not done so.

Phil - quotation marks for quotations only, not what you think someone has said!

Hi David,
Thanks. I am just kicking myself for not double checking what Warren actually wrote. I'm afraid that it is noticeable that Phil often misquotes what people say and gets hold of what seems to be the wrong end of the stick. I intend no criticism of him, but it serves to obfuscate and divert, which, despite appearances, hopefully isn't the intention.

[David Orsam]

Unlike you David. .I am not out to win personal argument points in discussion..so my reaction is this.

Why, if true, is there no mention in police statements about this..only in newspspers?

And if so....they got there very very quickly.
BEFORE the first of the medical men.

I don't know what you are talking about Phil.

Simon's statement that I was referring to was this:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene".

Are you going to respond to it or will there only be deafening silence from you about it?