Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[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.

[Fisherman]

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

[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

[Wickerman]

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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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 itīs 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!

[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]

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]

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]

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...

[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]

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, itīs 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!

[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".