Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Phil Carter]

For some considerable time I considered the possibility that a dog may have moved it.

But it seems dog laws were pretty strict and straying dogs rare.

Hello Gut,

Agreed. Dog..highly unlikely.


Phil

[Jon Guy]

HPhil

I would think Matthews insisted on being kept fully up to date from the word go.

Indeed. But we must remember that there were also two murders so details about the rag would come into consideration after the details of the murders themselves.

There is also the matter of the two Jack the Ripper letters
When would Matthews find out about them ? Monday ?
Perhaps, the letters were what made him think of a hoax.
Although, he would be correct in needing to know if the GSG (and that would have been his concern, the blaming of Jews) was connected to the rag.

The murderer is not a bystander..

We can`t rule that out, Phil.
It would explain the why the rag wasn`t there at 2.20

A bystander is a bystander. 4 policemen for example don't stand and stare at that mess. ..

Watkins was the only copper left alone with the body.
Perhaps he was the murderer, and when he finally left Mitre Square he went to Goulston Street. Although, wouldn`t he continue his with his beat?

Matthews just does not insinuate that a policeman was behind a hoax.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Jon,

I would think Matthews insisted on being kept fully up to date from the word go.

The murderer is not a bystander.

Who was with the body at what time 01.45-02.00 does not enter into it per se. A bystander is a bystander. 4 policemen for example don't stand and stare at that mess.

To rule out a "hoax" he would as he said..rule out ALL "bystanders".


Phil

Hi Phil
Halse and the other two officers were on the scene very quickly I would suggest long before any other members of the public would have been aware and be able to go to the crime scene. It was an easy place to cordon off from the public.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

HPhil



Indeed. But we must remember that there were also two murders so details about the rag would come into consideration after the details of the murders themselves.

There is also the matter of the two Jack the Ripper letters
When would Matthews find out about them ? Monday ?
Perhaps, the letters were what made him think of a hoax.
Although, he would be correct in needing to know if the GSG (and that would have been his concern, the blaming of Jews) was connected to the rag.


We can`t rule that out, Phil.
It would explain the why the rag wasn`t there at 2.20



Watkins was the only copper left alone with the body.
Perhaps he was the murderer, and when he finally left Mitre Square he went to Goulston Street. Although, wouldn`t he continue his with his beat?

Matthews just does not insinuate that a policeman was behind a hoax.

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 ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

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 ?

Matthews is simply asking Warren if it were possible for someone else, other than the murderer, to have deposited the rag in Goulston Street.

[John G]

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

Hello Phil,

But if I've understood you correctly, how could a police officer, especially a police officer who's on duty in the vicinity of the crime, be described as a bystander? As you say, "a bystander is a bystander."

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Jon Guy;396728]

Although, he would be correct in needing to know if the GSG (and that would have been his concern, the blaming of Jews) was connected to the rag.

Hi Jon,

Is there any historical reason to hypothesize that a writing about "Jews" was connected to the piece of apron?

I.e. is there any source at all indicating that the piece of apron had anything to do with "Jews"?

If there is - what, why and how?

Regards, Pierre

[Jon Guy]

Hi Pierre,

Is there any historical reason to hypothesize that a writing about "Jews" was connected to the piece of apron?

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.e. is there any source at all indicating that the piece of apron had anything to do with "Jews"?

If there is - what, why and how?

Everybody at the time assumed that the word juews, or it`s many variations, was a mis-spelling of Jews, and I don`t think there is anything, other than location and time, that connects the rag to the GSG.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil,

But if I've understood you correctly, how could a police officer, especially a police officer who's on duty in the vicinity of the crime, be described as a bystander? As you say, "a bystander is a bystander."

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

[Debra A]

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

Notice the bib mention, Trevor?

[Phil Carter]

Matthews is simply asking Warren if it were possible for someone else, other than the murderer, to have deposited the rag in Goulston Street.

Hello Jon,

And who exactly can "anyone else other than the murderer" be?
It must include all who came into the square 01.45-02.00.
He did not use the word "accomplice" please note.


Phil

[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

[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]

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

[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).