Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[John G]

Not sure why you answer me - we seemingly agree on this. It is Harry who has failed to draw the proper conclusions from it all.

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."

[Fisherman]

But Dew is quite clear when he writes "She [Eddowes] had been wearing a black apron." This clearly implies that Dew wasn't overstating the matter but thought the apron was black in its original condition; no other interpretation makes any grammatical sense. The A-Z clearly relies on Dew so is also in error.

And, as I've noted before, it wouldn't be the first time he had made a mistake in his recollections: he believed that Robert Paul had never been identified which, of course, was completely wrong. In fact, considering he actually gave evidence at Nichols' inquest it has to be regarded as a pretty serious error.

Not sure why you answer me - we seemingly agree on this. It is Harry who has failed to draw the proper conclusions from it all.

[John G]

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.

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

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.

But Dew is quite clear when he writes "She [Eddowes] had been wearing a black apron." This clearly implies that Dew wasn't overstating the matter but thought the apron was black in its original condition; no other interpretation makes any grammatical sense. The A-Z clearly relies on Dew so is also in error.

And, as I've noted before, it wouldn't be the first time he had made a mistake in his recollections: he believed that Robert Paul had never been identified which, of course, was completely wrong. In fact, considering he actually gave evidence at Nichols' inquest it has to be regarded as a pretty serious error.

[Fisherman]

harry: 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.

What makes you think it is not clear to me that you are referring to the A-Z, Harry? I have acknowledged this a dozen times by now.
What I ALSO acknowledge is that there seems to be no source for their take on what Dew said. We can check ourselves by reading Dews book, where he says that Eddowes was wearing a black apron on the day of her murder. Not a white apron. A black apron.

Now, you think that I am a moron for pointing this out, and I can see how it must be frustrating to post something that is unsourced and untrue, and on top of that to be found out and pointed out on the boards. But you know, much as it can make me an unpleasant aquaintance for you, it does not make me a moron. I am the one presenting the full truth, remember, whislt you are the one who selected an unsourced error and put it up as if it was true. I distinctly remember not calling you a moron for it, but instead advicing you NOT to be a moron, so I am a bit less careless than you are. And much more correct.

However it is also clear that I was referring to the piece in the building.It was not in it's original condition.

It was not in it´s original condition? Well, since it was just one half of the apron, I think that goes without saying. The problem is that you want it to have been so dirty as to appear black, and that is not something that you seem to be able to source, other than by using the A-Z, who apparently got that part wrong.

That Dew may have overstated,I also accept,but black was the word he used,the word the A to Z used.

Dew said that it was a black apron. There are black aprons in this world, just as there are green aprons, red aprons, white aprons, etcetera. These aprons may get dirty. They will then be dirty black aprons, dirty green aprons, dirty red aprons, dirty white aprons etcetera. But they are nevertheless black, green, red and white aprons. So Dew did not overstate anything. Nor did he mention as much as one diminutive stain on the apron. He said nothing at all about any dirt. He described the apron as a black one, and black aprons were quite common in the East End of the 1880:s.

That doesn't detract one bit from my conclusion that it would have been easily missed by long passing by.

If it WAS a black apron, it detracts not a iot from the supposition that it could have been hard to see in the darkness. That is not what I am protetsting about. I am protesting about how you are using the words of the A-Z to mislead about what Walter Dew said.

I will ask you one thing and one thing only. I want a VERY short answere to it, and no insults added. This is it:

Can you provide the source the A-Z used to determine that Dew said that the apron was so dirty as to appear black, or can you not?

Nothing else, Harry. Just that one question, please!

[harry]

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.

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

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.

[David Orsam]

Given that... the placement of "older" writing would be away from the rain. Otherwise it would wash off quickly. At the very least be affected by said rain.. and therefore unlikely to be readable as "schoolboy hand".

Enter Swanson. The only known person who described the writing as blurred. Blurred. Can "blurred" be caused by rain?
If so. Where does that leave the testimony of Halse?

You can develop whatever theory you want about rain washing off the chalk on a wall inside a doorway to make it blurred but it's no more than a theory and one which manages to contradict the fundamental premise of your post!

PC Long, who you seem to believe had the best view of it, was unable to say that the writing was not recent nor did he say it was blurred nor did he conclude that it had been made blurred by the rain.

It's bizarre that, in what you think is a conflict of evidence between Long and Halse, both of whom saw the writing, you tell us we should reject Halse and accept Long but when it comes to Long versus Swanson, the latter of whom never even saw the writing, you tell us we should accept Swanson!!!

Do you not even see how inconsistent your approach is to this issue?

[David Orsam]

On the one hand we have a policeman at the scene with a lamp. He inspected the writing and declared he saw no reason to call the writing "recent".

Come on Phil, PC Long made no such declaration.

He said he did not know if the writing was recent or not.

You could just as equally say that PC Long declared that he saw no reason to say that the writing had been there for any length of time.

It looks like I need to repeat that there is no evidential difference between Long and Halse. They both saw the same thing but Halse had a theory that because the writing wasn't "rubbed out" it must have been recent. His thinking was that if it had been there for any length of time it would have been rubbed out.

Did Long say the writing was "rubbed out"? No, he didn't. So his evidence was perfectly consistent with that of Halse.

[Wickerman]

Thanks Simon, though I think Harry was referring to Warren commenting on the graffiti, not the apron?

[Simon Wood]

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

[Fisherman]

The apron was not in place when Warren arrived, Harry, so he would reasonably not describe it´s position, although he will clearly have been informed about it.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
Here is the same question for you.Can you prove a letter bearing Warren's information exists,or existed.It is the only alledged source,as far as I am aware,of Warren's comment on the writing.

I saw you ask this same question earlier. The only comment I know of from Warren is what Phil posted earlier (see below), in a report to the Home Office penned by Warren on Nov. 6th

Warren said 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"
- HO 144/221/A49301C (ffl 173-175).
Phil.

You can find this on pg. 183 of the original hardback edition of Stewart's "Ultimate".

No,Long and Warren are not giving the same testimony.Warren didn't observe the cloth lying in the passageway.He is not a witness to it's proximity to the writing.

Proximity is not the issue, Long said the writing was "on the wall", and "above" the apron. Whereas Warren says the writing was "on the jamb".
There is no contradiction between the two - the jamb was a portion of the wall, the portion where you step through from the street.

It's like saying "the accused had a bloodstain on his coat", or that "the accused had a bloodstain on his sleeve".

One observation is more specific than the other, but there is no contradiction.

[PaulB]

Warren said 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"
- HO 144/221/A49301C (ffl 173-175).

Swanson reported the comment of Long stating that he found the apron piece "in the bottom of the stairs". .but Long himself stated the apron piece was "in the passage of the doorway". ( with the writing above it on the wall).
Long had a lamp to see this remember.
Furthermore, at the inquest he said that the apron was "lying in a passage leading to the staircases".
Halse said the writing was "in the passage of the building itself, on the black dido of the wall".

Now just that little lot casts grave doubts on Warren's claim that the writing could be seen from the street.
All that before the discrepancy about the spelling/wording.

If the rag was in a recess..then it would explain being missed at 2 20am (if it was there then).

But if it was in a recess, then rain that night would play no part in it's condition.That reflects back upon Swanson's "blurred"..which would not be caused by said rain.
No known statement by any policeman there during the night confirms Swanson's comment.
Make note he changed Long's comment.
Therefore, Swanson's comments are unreliable. As are Warrens. As is Halse's (no lamp, with difficulty, it was dark)
As is Long's. (With lamp).


Phil

Phil, there is no argument about how the sources describe the location of the apron and writing. What one tries to do is weight up all the evidence to see which is the more probable to be true. In general terms both P.C. Long and Detective Halse could be correct, but Sir Charles Warren is very specific. And he stated that the writing could be read by anyone passing in the street and any covering could have been torn away. Those were the reasons he gave for taking it upon himself to issue the monuentally serious order for this evidence to be erased. Remember, too, that he was acting on anxieties expressed by Superintendent Arnold, who presumably had his finger on the pulse of Whitechapel, and was very well aware of how serious an act Arnold's decision to erase the writing was, hence taking the responsibility himself. So you must ask yourself why Arnold and Warren saw the writing as an incitement to anti-Jewish violence, if it was inside the building, not clearly visible from the street, and that a covering couldn't be easily removed? Furthermore, the City Police protested against Warren's decision to erase the writing before it could be photographed and Warren's actions were criticised at the time in the press. If the writing was inside the passage, difficult to read, and easily obscured, why didn't anyone say so? And finally, why, what possible reason, would Warren have had for lying about the location of the writing? The point is, it isn't simply a matter of having sources vaguely locating the apron inside the passage and Warren placing it on the jamb, it's all the other factors that have to be weighed in.

[PaulB]

Fisherman,
The source to me was the A to Z.You have stated that the word Black was used.I believed the source was factual.I have said it would have appeared black on a black background to anyone passing, when lying there in that passage.I stand by that.I cannot be any clearer or more factual than that.What are you trying to prove? What's your point.

PaulB,
If posters are frustrated and irritated by what and how I post then do not read what I post.Simple.The majority are not complaining.That some posters are irritated and frustrated,might be because they cannot fault me.

I favour Long because his testimony can be found in the inquest reporting.His is the only testimony that,on the face of it, places the apron piece and the writing both in near proximity,in the building.Does that prove anything? I do not know.Have I said it prove s something?No I haven't.
The letter supporting Warren. Only two persons would know initially of it's existence,Warren and the person whom it was written to.How would I know that? I don't know,it's a guess,but supposing it's correct,where is the trail of evidence from the receiver to anyone who today relies on it.W ho can prove it existed. Without it there is nothing to contradict Long. That's why I favour Long.Any reason why I shouldn't?

What letter supporting Warren are you talking about? I've obviously missed some reference to Warren and this letter. Please explain.

[PaulB]

Oh dear.

This is off topic but if I am made to correct you. Then so be it.

The claim that Kosminski was dead in the marginalia when he is proven to be alive. Therefore: factually incorrect.
The claim that the identification of the workhouse was in Stepney, when Kosminski was in fact taken to Mile End Workhouse. Therefore: factually incorrect.
The claim that he was taken to said workhouse infirmary with his hands tied behind his back, when this is actually unrecorded in the records. Therefore: factually incorrect.

With certainty.

I'm not sure how you manage to make Swanson incorrect for saying that Kosminski was taken with his hands tied behind his back when the because the records don't mention it. We don't know whether Swanson was correct or not. What is missed is that the authorities would have used handcuffs and it is likely that Swanson would have so described the restraint used, or he might simply have stated that Kosminski was taken under restraint. It's not simply the language used which raises a question, but the fact that the authorities simply wouldn't have tied the hands behind his back (pending evidence to the contrary), from which it could be deduced that Kosminski was restrained by his family, not the police. This in turn raises the question of whether restraint would have been formally recorded by someone brought in by members of the public (i.e., family)

Mile End was part of Stepney when Swanson wrote. Not a major point, but possibly a contributing factor in how the error was made.

Way off topic, but these errors of detail, where they are demonstrable errors of detail, don't mean that the core of what Swanson wrote was wrong. There isn't a core to Dew's narrative, so a direct comparison between the sources in that respect isn't possible, but a few errors scattered through Dew's account wouldn't make the whole account worthless. In fact, even errors can be interesting and sometimes valuable. Kosminski did not die soon after being admitted to Colney Hatch, but that is what Swanson believed. It raises the question about how much direct communication was there between hospitals and asylums and the police.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,
You mentioned the comparison of evidence said, presented or written at the time and that of evidence 30 years after the actual event.
Fair comment.
It strikes me that evidence presented on or around 30th Sept 1888 is far more likely to be more accurate than that 6 weeks later on 6th November 1888.

Apart from agreeing with what I said, is there a point?

By the same comparison, I can also say with great weight that if Dew's comments 30 years after the fact are to be considered weak or even worthless, then the exact same parallel can be made with the comments of Swanson writing the marginalia/end piece notations after 1910, at least 22 years after the event. And in the latter case, perhaps even more so as we know with certainty that his comments are factually incorrect.

I haven't said or suggested that Dew's comments are weak and worthless because they were written several decades after the events they describe, nor am I aware of anyone saying such a thing. Walter Dew's account in its entirety is not being questioned. He is only being questioned in this instance over the accuracy of his recollection that the apron piece was black. The fact that wrote several decades after the events he described is relevant only because another source who was writing within weeks of the apron piece being found, said it was white. This source was also the person who found the apron, whereas Dew may not have even seen it. I do not see that this specific point has any bearing whatsoever on how sources written long after the event are treated. Perhaps you don't realise that all sources should be - and hopefully are - fully and properly assessed on their own merits and a number of factors are considered when making those assessments.