Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

We can discuss this into the next millenium..but one cannot rule out the possibility that Matthews may be including a policeman. It cannot be proven either way. It simply csnnot be ruled out because WE don't think so.

Phil

Of course it can't be ruled out, Phil. I said, "But even if he did suspecte that a policeman took the piece of apron to Goulston Street..." But whether he did or he didn't, the point is that his questions show that the police were made aware of those two possibilities, even if they hadn't asked the questions themselves, and it makes it even more probable that they reached the conclusion that Eddowes was wearing an apron, that it had a piece missing, and that it was probably taken to Goulston Street by the murderer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

I agree.

The point is that Matthews saw the possibility of possible interference.


Phil

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

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

It was from memory as I read it in a newspaper ages ago.
When I get a minute I`ll try and find it again.

Thank you Jon. My memory isnt as good as it was but I cannot recall this off the top of my head.


Phil

[Jon Guy]

Can you please give me the exact time and source of the above ?

Hi Phil

It was from memory as I read it in a newspaper ages ago.
When I get a minute I`ll try and find it again.

[Phil Carter]

There were some street cleaners nearby who attended the scene.

Hello Jon,

Can you please give me the exact time and source of the above ?
Thank you ☺


Phil

[Phil Carter]

I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street or even that he was particularly aware of who was present at the murder scene and who wasn't, hence he wasn't specific but used a general term, 'bystander'. But even if he did suspecte that a policeman took the piece of apron to Goulston Street, surely the point of primary interest is that the Home Secretary asked if (a) Eddowes was wearing an apron with a piece missing from it, and (b) if there was any way the apron piece could have reached Goulston Street other than by being taken there by the murderer. As far as we can tell there was no uncertainty. Everyone who was asked if Eddowes was wearing an apron, said she was, and it seems to have been universally accepted that the apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer.

Hello Paul,

We can discuss this into the next millenium..but one cannot rule out the possibility that Matthews may be including a policeman. It cannot be proven either way. It simply csnnot be ruled out because WE don't think so.

Phil

[PaulB]

Cheers Paul, that`s the one.
Wrong person and wrong year but I did get the undoubtedly bit right :-)

That's the important bit correctly remembered!

[PaulB]

I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street or even that he was particularly aware of who was present at the murder scene and who wasn't, hence he wasn't specific but used a general term, 'bystander'. But even if he did suspecte that a policeman took the piece of apron to Goulston Street, surely the point of primary interest is that the Home Secretary asked if (a) Eddowes was wearing an apron with a piece missing from it, and (b) if there was any way the apron piece could have reached Goulston Street other than by being taken there by the murderer. As far as we can tell there was no uncertainty. Everyone who was asked if Eddowes was wearing an apron, said she was, and it seems to have been universally accepted that the apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer.

[John G]

Hello John,

In normal circumstances I would readily concede. However, exactly who..all persons included other than the murderer, can he have meant?

All I am saying is that to me it reads anyone entering the square afore 02.00. Now if that means a policeman. So be it. There really isn't any other person it could be. The night watchman went back to K&T. The public were not there.
It cannot have meant the murderer or an accomplice..he would have said so.

One cannot rule out a policeman. On duty or not.
I will remind you..with all respect, it is far from unusual for interference to occur by individual policemen at crime scenes.

I'm not saying it did happen. But I am saying that Matthews included the possibility.


Phil

Hello Phil,

But if I've understood you correctly, and I apologize if I haven't, your argument is that Matthews was, by necessary implication, pointing the finger at a serving police officer on active duty.

However, as I've noted, this would require a highly esoteric interpretation of Matthews' report. Thus, I cannot believe that any intended recipient would consider that the reference to "bystander" was meant to refer to a police officer on duty that night. In any event, it is far more likely that they would have assumed that he was confused about events and simply got his facts mixed up, and Matthews must surely have realized this and therefore wouldn't have resorted to such subtlety.

[Jon Guy]

I think the report you are referring to was written by Chief Inspector Henry Moore on 18 October 1896, MEPO 3/142, ff. 157-9: "Considering the lapse of time, it would be interesting to know how the present writer was able to use the words - “The Jewes are people that are blamed for nothing” as it will be remembered that they are practically the same words that were written in
chalk, undoubtedly by the murderer, on the wall at Goulston St., Whitechapel, on the night of 30th. Sept., 1888, after the murders of Mrs. Stride and Mrs. Eddows; and the word Jews was spelt on that occasion precisely as it is now." (The italics are mine).

Cheers Paul, that`s the one.
Wrong person and wrong year but I did get the undoubtedly bit right :-)

[Jon Guy]

There really isn't any other person it could be. The night watchman went back to K&T. The public were not there.
It cannot have meant the murderer or an accomplice..he would have said so.

There were some street cleaners nearby who attended the scene.

[PaulB]

Hi Pierre,
The police believed that the GSG was undoubtedly written by the killer.
I believe it was Insp West who wrote this in a report dated, 1895. I don`t have it to hand but this report is in The Ultimate Source book.

I think the report you are referring to was written by Chief Inspector Henry Moore on 18 October 1896, MEPO 3/142, ff. 157-9: "Considering the lapse of time, it would be interesting to know how the present writer was able to use the words - “The Jewes are people that are blamed for nothing” as it will be remembered that they are practically the same words that were written in
chalk, undoubtedly by the murderer, on the wall at Goulston St., Whitechapel, on the night of 30th. Sept., 1888, after the murders of Mrs. Stride and Mrs. Eddows; and the word Jews was spelt on that occasion precisely as it is now." (The italics are mine).

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Yes, but with respect I would have thought that any police officer on active duty that night, let alone one who was present in the vicinity of the crime, would have felt insulted to have been referred to in such terms.

In fact, is there any precedent for a police officer on active duty being referred to by a senior officer as a mere bystander?

No, I think such a conclusion, when consider in the proper context, requires a highly esoteric interpretation of the word "bystander". And what may be more to the point, is it likely that any intended recipient(s) of the report would appreciate such a euphemistic term? Personally, I seriously doubt it, in which case what was the point?

Hello John,

In normal circumstances I would readily concede. However, exactly who..all persons included other than the murderer, can he have meant?

All I am saying is that to me it reads anyone entering the square afore 02.00. Now if that means a policeman. So be it. There really isn't any other person it could be. The night watchman went back to K&T. The public were not there.
It cannot have meant the murderer or an accomplice..he would have said so.

One cannot rule out a policeman. On duty or not.
I will remind you..with all respect, it is far from unusual for interference to occur by individual policemen at crime scenes.

I'm not saying it did happen. But I am saying that Matthews included the possibility.


Phil

[John G]

Hello John,

Fair point..except...there are various definitions of the meaning of the word "bystander".

One of them is "witness". As in witness to an event.

That includes all.



Phil

Hi Phil,

Yes, but with respect I would have thought that any police officer on active duty that night, let alone one who was present in the vicinity of the crime, would have felt insulted to have been referred to in such terms.

In fact, is there any precedent for a police officer on active duty being referred to by a senior officer as a mere bystander?

No, I think such a conclusion, when consider in the proper context, requires a highly esoteric interpretation of the information and, indeed, even the word "bystander" itself. And what may be more to the point, is it likely that any intended recipient(s) of the report would appreciate such a euphemistic term? Personally, I seriously doubt it, in which case what was the point?

[Phil Carter]

But by his question he does infer that it could have been taken to GS by some other person other than the killer, and that doesnt leave to many options does it ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

I agree.

The point is that Matthews saw the possibility of possible interference.


Phil