Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, although I haven´t seen this source and since you seem to quote it or at least refer to it with the words in it, your interpretation seems more reasonable than the interpretation of Phil.

The source is in Simon Wood's post, #1233, in this thread Pierre.

[Pierre]

I have to ask again if you are serious Phil. Or are you joking with us? All Simon did was reproduce a letter which many of us were already probably familiar with – I certainly was – and he did so without any comment or attempt at interpretation. What was there to respond to? Nothing! So there was nothing "deafening" about the silence at all.

Now you have offered a very strange and novel interpretation whereby you say "Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed."

But he was doing no such thing. Warren's letter specifically states that the Home Secretary was wondering if "some of the lookers on" could have moved it as a hoax. Nothing to do with the police and nothing to do with Halse. The idea that the Home Secretary was asking Warren if a police officer could have moved the piece of apron is an absurd one which exists in your imagination only.

It is clear that as at 3 October the Home Secretary had no idea whether the crime scene had been secured by the City of London Police prior to the discovery of the apron. That is basically what he was asking Warren to investigate.

The reason Warren was writing to Fraser on behalf of the Home Secretary was clearly to establish (a) whether the piece of apron was at the crime scene when the body was discovered by a city police officer at 1:44am and/or (b) if the crime scene had been made secure by the city police so that "lookers on" could not have removed any items.

Yes, David, although I haven´t seen this source and since you seem to quote it or at least refer to it with the words in it, your interpretation seems more reasonable than the interpretation of Phil.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron is centimeters.

That's right Pierre, a close connection.

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron is a commissioner´s idea.

I was asking if there is an historical connection. History describe chains of events based on sources.

No Pierre, you did not ask if there was "an historical connection". Your question was "is there any source at all indicating that the piece of apron had anything to do with "Jews"?" In answering that question I gave you a source: the report of the Chief Commissioner to the Home Office dated 6 November 1888. That my friend is a source and thus answers your question. I appreciate that you don't like the answer but that's tough luck.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396776]

Yes, Pierre, because the apron was found below the writing on the wall which was hypothesized by the police Commissioner to be about "Jews".

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron was centimeters.

Yes, Pierre, a report by the police Commissioner linking the apron to the writing which was hypothesized by him to do with "Jews".

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron was a commissioner´s idea.

I was asking if there is an historical connection. History describe chains of events based on sources.

Centimeters or a commissioners idea are not chains of events based on sources.

[David Orsam]

"Looker on" and "onlooker" are synonyms for bystander.

That's right Simon and none of them will ever refer to police officers on duty at a crime scene.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Warren used the term "lookers on."

"Looker on" and "onlooker" are synonyms for bystander.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

Hello Gut,

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

Now if Watkins turns up at 01.45... the window of opportunity for a "bystander" to walk into the square, after the murder, before the arrival of Watkins, is almost down to seconds.

Far more likely a reference to the time period after 01.45. That means a policeman. The nightwatchman could not have done it.


Phil

Hi Phil,

What source with Matthews are you referring to please?

Regards, Pierre

[PaulB]

Don't know why anyone has been arguing over the definition of "bystanders" which was not a word used by Warren.

Late nights, early mornings, distracted by other things, old age, being brain dead... Those are my excuses. I could probably think of more, but my head is hung in shame.

[David Orsam]

I waited deliberately for someone to respond to this. The silence is deafening. Why? Because it is s little awkward for some to take in methinks.

I have to ask again if you are serious Phil. Or are you joking with us? All Simon did was reproduce a letter which many of us were already probably familiar with – I certainly was – and he did so without any comment or attempt at interpretation. What was there to respond to? Nothing! So there was nothing "deafening" about the silence at all.

Now you have offered a very strange and novel interpretation whereby you say "Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed."

But he was doing no such thing. Warren's letter specifically states that the Home Secretary was wondering if "some of the lookers on" could have moved it as a hoax. Nothing to do with the police and nothing to do with Halse. The idea that the Home Secretary was asking Warren if a police officer could have moved the piece of apron is an absurd one which exists in your imagination only.

It is clear that as at 3 October the Home Secretary had no idea whether the crime scene had been secured by the City of London Police prior to the discovery of the apron. That is basically what he was asking Warren to investigate.

The reason Warren was writing to Fraser on behalf of the Home Secretary was clearly to establish (a) whether the piece of apron was at the crime scene when the body was discovered by a city police officer at 1:44am and/or (b) if the crime scene had been made secure by the city police so that "lookers on" could not have removed any items.

[David Orsam]

Is there any historical reason to hypothesize that a writing about "Jews" was connected to the piece of apron?

Yes, Pierre, because the apron was found below the writing on the wall which was hypothesized by the police Commissioner to be about "Jews".

I.e. is there any source at all indicating that the piece of apron had anything to do with "Jews"?

Yes, Pierre, a report by the police Commissioner linking the apron to the writing which was hypothesized by him to do with "Jews".

[David Orsam]

Don't know why anyone has been arguing over the definition of "bystanders" which was not a word used by Warren.

[David Orsam]

I would think Matthews insisted on being kept fully up to date from the word go.

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.

[Debra A]

Ceterum censeo...

[Fisherman]

Notice the bib mention, Trevor?

Ceterum censeo...

[Debra A]

Which calls into question the old accepted theory that the killer cut or tore it and deposited it in GS makes more appeal if she had been in possession of two old pieces of apron !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Notice the bib mention, Trevor?