Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Jon Guy]

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.

Lol !!

3 days after the murder,

.. and a day before the inquest, so obvious questions like this would be in Matthew`s mind.

Now for anyone to have done this and within the time frame required, it would have to be before a doctor arrived.( because said doctor would be examining the body)

Apart from the nightwatchman, the only persons there at that time were policemen.

and the murderer..

So..Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed.

Is he ?
Would Matthews know of the finer details of how the body was found at this point ?

Now the only policeman who could have done this is Halse..who

.. was never alone with the body.

Henry Matthews obviously saw this possibility and called it a "hoax". He suspected foul play.

Or he wanted to rule out the possibility of it being a "hoax".

120 odd years later..a person suggesting such a thing is a "conspirationalist".

Yes

[PaulB]

PaulB,
The personal letter is mentioned in John Wilding book,Jack the Ripper Revealed. It ends with the words,
I considered it desireable to obliterate the writing at once,having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate." (pages 53/54)
Who the letter was addressed to is not given.So Warren himself took a copy?

Harry,
Thank you. I thought that s what you were talking about, but I was confused because you had asked if anyone had seen it. The “letter” is in fact a report to the Home Office dated 6 November 1888 - HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 173—81.

Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I enclose a report of the circumstances of the Mitre Square Murder so far as they have come under the notice of the Metropolitan Police, and I now give an account regarding the erasing the writing on the wall in Goulston Street which I have already partially explained to Mr. Matthews verbally. —On the 30th September on hearing of the Berners [sic] Street murder after visiting Commercial Street Station I arrived at Leman Street Station shortly before 5 a.m. and ascertained from Superintendent Arnold all that was known there relative to the two murders.

The most pressing question at that moment was some writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, [marginal note — “2 Reports enclosed”] and which Mr. Arnold with a view to prevent serious disorder proposed to obliterate, and had sent down an Inspector with a sponge for that purpose telling him to await his arrival. —I considered it desirable that I should decide this matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility whether any action was taken or not. I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder: it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London. —There were several Police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. —The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once. —A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed, but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.

After having been to the scene of the murder, I went on to the City Police Office and informed the Chief Superintendent of the reason why the writing had been obliterated.

I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word “Juewes” on account of a newspaper asserting that this was a Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added, “in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your [‘kindness’ —deleted] humane and vigilant actions during this critical time.”

It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised 13 days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact.

I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost, and I was much gratified with the promptitude with which Superintendent Arnold was prepared to act in the matter if I had not been there.

I have no doubt myself whatever that one of the principal objects of the Reward offered by Mr. Montagu was to shew to the world that the Jews were desirous of having the Hanbury Street murder cleared up, and thus to direct from them the very strong feeling which was then growing up.
I am,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,

[Phil Carter]

Or could it have been someone who came on the scene before the police???

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

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I cannot give the source you requested.There it is,short answer as you asked'.
Does it matter?

Yes, it matters a whole lot. We need to treat whatever sources we have with accuracy and respect, and making the claim that Walter Dew ever said that the apron piece in Goulston Street was so dirty as to appear black is doing the exact opposite.
If you are asking whether the non-existance of the source changes the colour of the apron piece in retrospect, I would have to say no. Neither does any other source or lacking source. But our picture of things will always depend on a weighing of the sources, and to that end, it is imperative that it is fairly and correctly done.

Depending on the amount of blood and fecal matter,and other stains and useage,when and how Dew came to see or know about it,conditions of light and so forth,it may well have appeared black at some stage,to someone.Blood appears to dry out to black. Cannot blame or fault the A toZ.

So that is how you want to do it? The apron piece may well have looked black to some person or persons under some lighting conditions, and therefore it is okay for the A-Z to make a claim that lacks historical provenance? They may well have gotten it right, in spite of getting the sources wrong? Is that it?
I will never touch such a suggestion with a pair of pliers, since it involves accepting a sourceless supposition as fact. Neither should you, but I can only advice you to avoid it. If you accept that kind of methodology, it is your own choice. You may however want to consider what it will carry with itself in terms of other loftily construed "truths" that do not sit equally well with your intentions and preferences...

What does seem apparent,and I have checked the books and articles I possess,no one has seriously described the piece Long claims he found ,as appearing white.

Why would anybody say that a white apron "appears to be white", Harry? There are numerous sources that describe it as white. Why would they change that definition for one that claimed that it was an appearance only?

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
No problem at my end.The passage began after the doorway and continued to the stairs.The passage was inside the building.The passage and doorway were separate.Warren appears to make that distinction.He states doorway.Who says the cloth was found at the entrance of the passage?Not Long.He just states passage. Who is talking about a tunnel like passage?.Not me.We can see from Eagles description of Duttfield yard as a passage,that the word passage could be interpreted in more than one way,but a doorwy was a doorway.

There was no door Harry, it's not a doorway.
The apron could have been merely a foot inside and the graffiti is still "above" the apron.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I cannot give the source you requested.There it is,short answer as you asked'.
Does it matter?
Depending on the amount of blood and fecal matter,and other stains and useage,when and how Dew came to see or know about it,conditions of light and so forth,it may well have appeared black at some stage,to someone.Blood appears to dry out to black. Cannot blame or fault the A toZ. What does seem apparent,and I have checked the books and articles I possess,no one has seriously described the piece Long claims he found ,as appearing white.

PaulB,
The personal letter is mentioned in John Wilding book,Jack the Ripper Revealed. It ends with the words,
I considered it desireable to obliterate the writing at once,having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate." (pages 53/54)
Who the letter was addressed to is not given.So Warren himself took a copy?


Wickerman,
No problem at my end.The passage began after the doorway and continued to the stairs.The passage was inside the building.The passage and doorway were separate.Warren appears to make that distinction.He states doorway.Who says the cloth was found at the entrance of the passage?Not Long.He just states passage. Who is talking about a tunnel like passage?.Not me.We can see from Eagles description of Duttfield yard as a passage,that the word passage could be interpreted in more than one way,but a doorwy was a doorway.

[GUT]

Hello Simon,

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.

3 days after the murder, the Home Secretary is asking of the possibility of a bystander removing a piece of the apron from the scene and dumping it in Goulston Street as a "hoax".

Now for anyone to have done this and within the time frame required, it would have to be before a doctor arrived.( because said doctor would be examining the body)

Apart from the nightwatchman, the only persons there at that time were policemen. So..Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed.

Now the only policeman who could have done this is Halse..who nipped off to Goulston St arriving at around 2.20am. According to both his and Long's testimony..they failed to see each other at this hour although they were both there around the same time. Therefore Halse was alone.
Henry Matthews obviously saw this possibility and called it a "hoax". He suspected foul play.

120 odd years later..a person suggesting such a thing is a "conspirationalist".
Matthews wasnt though.


Phil

Or could it have been someone who came on the scene before the police???

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

MEPO 48/1. Private Letter Book, Metropolitan Police.

Wednesday 3rd October 1888—

Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser—

“I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer. In order to do this, it is necessary [to discover] if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib* was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.

"I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point."

* The bib is the part above the waist of the front of an apron.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

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.

3 days after the murder, the Home Secretary is asking of the possibility of a bystander removing a piece of the apron from the scene and dumping it in Goulston Street as a "hoax".

Now for anyone to have done this and within the time frame required, it would have to be before a doctor arrived.( because said doctor would be examining the body)

Apart from the nightwatchman, the only persons there at that time were policemen. So..Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed.

Now the only policeman who could have done this is Halse..who nipped off to Goulston St arriving at around 2.20am. According to both his and Long's testimony..they failed to see each other at this hour although they were both there around the same time. Therefore Halse was alone.
Henry Matthews obviously saw this possibility and called it a "hoax". He suspected foul play.

120 odd years later..a person suggesting such a thing is a "conspirationalist".
Matthews wasnt though.


Phil

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
Proximity is the issue to those who over the years have claimed the apron piece was placed beneath the writing to show a connection.If the apron was in the passage,as Long claimed,and the writing was in the archway or doorway,as W arren claims,there seems a problem in the connection.

I think the problem is at your end Harry. Misunderstanding what is being read is a huge component of Ripper theories in general.
The entrance to the Goulston St. dwellings was via the passage. The passage began at the entrance where the jamb was.
Long is not talking about a tunnel like Millers Court passage, there was no tunnel. The passage began at the entrance, the rag was found at the entrance of the passage.

[Fisherman]

I don't and never have questioned that those were his words, and I have said that the A to Z authors were wrong to have said that Dew was corroborated by or corroborated a newspaper description of the apron being so dirty it appeared to be black. I have simply tried to make it clear why the A to Z cited Dew as it did. And I was saying this for Harry's benefit.

Personally, if there wasn't a newspaper article claiming the apron was so dirty it appeared to be black, I would agree that Dew extraordinarilly misremembered a white apron as being black. However, the newspaper report provides a plausible reason for Dew to have misremembered the apron as being black instead of black through filth. However, I don't have that newspaper report.

None of which alters the fact that Dew wrote that the apron was black and that he was wrong.

Thanks for that clarification, Paul.

Of course, taking the alledged newspaper article into account, there can still never be any justification for presenting Dews wording as a parallel to the account. Nor can it be correct to say that Dew misremembered the apron as being black instead of black through filth; it would predispose a confirmation that Dew actually saw the apron, and as far as I can tell there is no such confirmation available.

What we are left with is the fact that Dew claimed that it was a black apron, and an option to use that as corroboration of the suggestion that the apron was so dirty as to appear black. I would suggest that this option is best left unused.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Then the A-Z authors must have been wrong. Dew wrote, "She [Eddowes] had been wearing a black apron."

Given the words their natural meaning, and on any sensible construction of the sentence, there is no way Dew could have meant a white apron that was dirty, not unless he was only semi-literate. No, he meant she was "wearing a black apron".

I don't and never have questioned that those were his words, and I have said that the A to Z authors were wrong to have said that Dew was corroborated by or corroborated a newspaper description of the apron being so dirty it appeared to be black. I have simply tried to make it clear why the A to Z cited Dew as it did. And I was saying this for Harry's benefit.

Personally, if there wasn't a newspaper article claiming the apron was so dirty it appeared to be black, I would agree that Dew extraordinarilly misremembered a white apron as being black. However, the newspaper report provides a plausible reason for Dew to have misremembered the apron as being black instead of black through filth. However, I don't have that newspaper report.

None of which alters the fact that Dew wrote that the apron was black and that he was wrong.

[John G]

Can I just point out again that the A to Z had a report that Eddowes apron was so dirty that it appeared to be black. Walter Dew was cited as echoing this. The A to Z authors did not imagine that Dew meant the apron was made from black material.



I'm sorry, Harry, but I'm still not clear what "personal letter" you are talking about. Please make the content of this letter clear, or maybe help me out and quote it. I would point out, however, that I have been stating all along that Warren said the writing was on the jamb and not only visible to anyone from the street but also that anyone in the street could have torn down any covering.



But if I may point out, as Jon will, it was P.C. Long who said that the writing was directly above the apron, therefore, if the writing was on the jamb, the apron was below it.

Hello Paul,

Then the A-Z authors must have been wrong. Dew wrote, "She [Eddowes] had been wearing a black apron."

Given the words their natural meaning, and on any sensible construction of the sentence, there is no way Dew could have meant a white apron that was dirty, not unless he was only semi-literate. No, he meant she was "wearing a black apron".

[Fisherman]

PaulB: Can I just point out again that the A to Z had a report that Eddowes apron was so dirty that it appeared to be black. Walter Dew was cited as echoing this. The A to Z authors did not imagine that Dew meant the apron was made from black material.

Of course you can, Paul. And I think that I have seen it said that the apron WAS very dirty, it´s just that I cannot find the passage again. I would be obliged if you can help out on that point.

However, I would never say that Dew echoed that view in his book. He says absolutely nothing about any dirt. He instead very clearly states that Eddowes had been wearing a black apron, simple as that:

"This victim was just as shabbily dressed as her fellow in Berners Street.

She had been wearing a black apron. Part of this was missing. The torn portion was found later by a police-constable on the steps of a block of buildings in Goulston Street, nearby. It was covered with blood, and had obviously been used by the woman's assailant to wipe his bloodstained hands as he ran away."

You will note that it is the apron AS A WHOLE that is described as black, not just the portion found in Goulston Street. A part of the black apron was missing, according to Dew. You will also not that Dew speaks about the apron as being black BEFORE Eddowes met her killer: She HAD BEEN WEARING a black apron.

It is quite understandable if a mistake was made, and if the text was pereceived as confirming other reports stating that the apron was very dirty. But the fact of the matter is that it does no such thing - unless you help it along. I hope you agree with that. Black aprons were common enough in the East End at the time. And we cannot be sure that Dew ever saw the apron - which can of course point to how he could have been aware of somebody describing the apron as black with dirt, and then he got it wrong and thought that the apron was a black one. But that has to remain guesswork only!

[PaulB]

Fisherman,
It is perfectly clear,it seems,to most all but you,that I was referring to the words in the A to Z.You are the moron not me.I have indicated my belief that in it's original state,the apron was white,and the piece left on Eddowes was white
However it is also clear that I was referring to the piece in the building.It was not in it's original condition.That Dew may have overstated,I also accept,but black was the word he used,the word the A to Z used. That doesn't detract one bit from my conclusion that it would have been easily missed by long passing by.Your's is the childish rant that is becoming tiresome.

Can I just point out again that the A to Z had a report that Eddowes apron was so dirty that it appeared to be black. Walter Dew was cited as echoing this. The A to Z authors did not imagine that Dew meant the apron was made from black material.

PaulB,
Á relevant personal letter from Sir Charles Warren proves of great interest'
That is the letter I was referring to.It goes on to state very much what Phil has written.That Warren states the writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway,and visible to anyone on the street

I'm sorry, Harry, but I'm still not clear what "personal letter" you are talking about. Please make the content of this letter clear, or maybe help me out and quote it. I would point out, however, that I have been stating all along that Warren said the writing was on the jamb and not only visible to anyone from the street but also that anyone in the street could have torn down any covering.

Wickerman,
Proximity is the issue to those who over the years have claimed the apron piece was placed beneath the writing to show a connection.If the apron was in the passage,as Long claimed,and the writing was in the archway or doorway,as Warren claims,there seems a problem in the connection.

But if I may point out, as Jon will, it was P.C. Long who said that the writing was directly above the apron, therefore, if the writing was on the jamb, the apron was below it.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

It was Harry's post I replied to, i.e. post 1237. Maybe I should work out how to highlight elements of a post, rather than the whole thing! However, you will note that the header states in bold, "originally posted by Harry."

So it does! And who am I to criticize how people do the technical part of their posting...?
Thanks for clarifying, John. Though you were not supposed to - "everybody else" but me are on Harrys side, apparently...