Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

Now just that little lot casts grave doubts on Warren's claim that the writing could be seen from the street.

No, it doesn`t.
It seems quite straight forward to me.

Only PC Long saw the rag in situ and he reported: "I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage of the doorway leading to nos. 108-119 Model Dwellings in Goulston Street"

Warren is probably our best reference for the exact location of the writing.
The writing was the reason he was there and he had to make a big decision.
"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street."

It`s pretty clear that these two statements match, even though Long is describing the whereabouts of the rag, and Warren, the writing.

All that before the discrepancy about the spelling/wording.

DC Halse himself admits that the discrepancies in spelling may have been due to the difficulty in seeing the writing when copying it up into their note books.
Apart from the gloom, think about how many people would have been standing in the doorway between 5-5.30am. Warren and Arnold would have had primary positions and coppers like Halse and Long would have been edging round them trying to get a look at the writing. It may have been a case of someone shining a torch on the wall and Halse and Long having a quick look and then writing it up in their notebooks.

[Fisherman]

"She [Eddowes] had been wearing a black apron. Part of this was missing. The torn portion was found by a police-constable on the steps of a block of buildings in Goulston Street, nearby. It was covered in blood, and had obviously been used by the woman's assailant to wipe his bloodstained hands as he ran away. (Dew, 1938.) See: http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.walterdew.html

Yes. A BLACK apron. Eddowes had been wearing a BLACK apron according to Dew, not a white apron that was so dirty as to appear black.

I have quoted the exact same thing numerous times on the thread, John, but to no avail when it comes to Harry´s understanding of the matter and it´s implications.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman.
I never said the cloth was in the street.Another of your misrepresentations.

Oh, so now the doorway was not in Goulston Street? And the apron was not found in Goulston Street? It was found in a doorway there, but not in the street?
Do not be a complete moron, Harry. Not if you can avoid it.

But can you?

Ivé never said Walter Dew made the claim.I said the A to Z said he did.

No, you did not. You started out with this:

"The apron was so dirty,that at first glance it seemed black.
Who said that? Walter Dew is reported as saying it."

As you may or may not be able to see, there is no mentioning t all about the A-Z. It only later transpired that this was your source. I then told you that the A-z apparently got it wrong, and I said that before the idea that Dew said anything at all about the apron being dirty can be accepted, a source must be presented.

Have you done that? No. therefore, the idea that Dew said that the apron was so dirty aas to appear black must be rejected until further notice.

But you do not accept that. You rant on about it, as if it was true. You base your whole presentation of the case on it. And then you go on to say that I misrepresent YOU!!! What a farce!

Now get your lazy behind out of the TV couch and present to me the original quotation in which it is conformed that Walter Dew ever said that the apron was so dirty as to appear black, or stop contaminating the debate with your unsubstantiated nonsense.

The rest of your last post is so childish,it needs no reply.

So you have no answer, but you are unwilling to admit it? Okay.

[Phil Carter]

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

[John G]

"She [Eddowes] had been wearing a black apron. Part of this was missing. The torn portion was found by a police-constable on the steps of a block of buildings in Goulston Street, nearby. It was covered in blood, and had obviously been used by the woman's assailant to wipe his bloodstained hands as he ran away. (Dew, 1938.) See: http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.walterdew.html

[harry]

Fisherman.
I never said the cloth was in the street.Another of your misrepresentations.

Ivé never said Walter Dew made the claim.I said the A to Z said he did.

The rest of your last post is so childish,it needs no reply.

[John G]

No, he does not. He knows full well that the carman came forward and gave a name, but when he wrote his book, he could not remember his name, and so he left a dotted line only where the name should have been written.

The person Dew claimed was never properly identified was Robert Paul. That owed to how Paul never came forward, in spite of having been intensely sought for, according to Dew. He was of course wrong on this point, since Paul WAS found and testified at the inquest, albeit at a later date than Lechmere.

Thanks Fish!

[harry]

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.

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.

[Phil Carter]

Chief Inspector Swanson compiled a summary report based on the reports of others, as per the February 9th instructions.

He was not at the scene.

Therefore he is relying on the description of another person when using the word 'blurred'.

Monty
🙂

I know.
But he did use the word blurred.

From whence it came we do not know. But..and it is an important but..it HAS to be considered as truth because he is relaying a report to the Home Office.

So the conundrum is this. If Swanson's comment is true..it certainly puts the spotlight upon both Halse's statement (made without a lamp with "difficulty" as it was "dark"...And Long's (who inspected it with a lamp).
All three cannot be correct.


Phil

[Fisherman]

harry: 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.

My point is the exact same as it always was: You claimed that Walter Dew had said that the apron was so dirty as to appear black.

But Walter Dew never made this claim. He never said one single thing about any dirt at all. He said that Catherine Eddowes had been wearing a black apron on the night of her death.
We know this to be factually incorrect. Catherine Eddowes was NOT wearing a black apron on the night of her death. Catherine Eddowes was wearing a WHITE apron on the night of her death. Walter Dew was therefore mistaken in his belief that the apron was a black one.

You state that since the apron was so dirty as to appear black, it would/could/may have been hard to spot in the dark street. But you base your idea on a faulty suggestion, since Walter Dew never said that the apron was so dirty as to appear black.

Walter Dew was clearly wrong. He did not know what the apron looked like or what kind of the cloth it was sewn from when he wrote his memoirs. If he had once known it, he had forgotten about it. Walter Dew is therefore not a source we may base any theorising on when it comes to the colour of the apron.

Capisce?

Nor can we base any theorising on what was written about Walter Dew and the apron in the A-Z, since they are misquoting Walter Dew.

Capisce?

If they are NOT misquoting Walter Dew, then there is a document somewhere, where it is stated that Walter Dew DID say that the apron was so dirty as to appear black. In which case you suddenly aquire the right to argue that Walter Dew said tht the apron was so dirty as to appear black. Until this document can be presented, you can not do so, however.

Capisce?

[Monty]

Chief Inspector Swanson compiled a summary report based on the reports of others, as per the February 9th instructions.

He was not at the scene.

Therefore he is relying on the description of another person when using the word 'blurred'.

Monty
🙂

[Phil Carter]

Swanson does not describe the writing as blurred.

Monty
��

Page 188, " A-Z "
"Chief Inspector Swanson, in a report to the Home Office, stated the chalk was 'blurred' ".

If the writing that Swanson was referring to was in chalk..that writing is therefore "blurred" as he talks of no other chalk use.


Phil

[Fisherman]

Didn't he also write that Lechmere was never identified?

No, he does not. He knows full well that the carman came forward and gave a name, but when he wrote his book, he could not remember his name, and so he left a dotted line only where the name should have been written.

The person Dew claimed was never properly identified was Robert Paul. That owed to how Paul never came forward, in spite of having been intensely sought for, according to Dew. He was of course wrong on this point, since Paul WAS found and testified at the inquest, albeit at a later date than Lechmere.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer,

Good to hear from you. Hope all is well with you and yours?

Yes. Paul's response to the Dew comment.



Phil

We´re all fine over here, Phil, many thanks for asking!

What I want to have acknowledged about the apron is how Dew says it was a black apron. The lines in the A-Z have seemingly resulted in the misapprehension that the apron SEEMED black, but Dew never says this is his book.
It seems to me that Walter Dew got it wrong, quite simply, and if he did, I do not think that we can take it as gospel that the apron was so dirty as to appear to be black.

[Monty]

Swanson does not describe the writing as blurred.

Monty
��