Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

Don't know why anyone has been arguing over the definition of "bystanders" which was not a word used by Warren.

[David Orsam]

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

Yes, Pierre, because the apron was found below the writing on the wall which was hypothesized by the police Commissioner to be about "Jews".

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

Yes, Pierre, a report by the police Commissioner linking the apron to the writing which was hypothesized by him to do with "Jews".

[David Orsam]

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.

I have to ask again if you are serious Phil. Or are you joking with us? All Simon did was reproduce a letter which many of us were already probably familiar with – I certainly was – and he did so without any comment or attempt at interpretation. What was there to respond to? Nothing! So there was nothing "deafening" about the silence at all.

Now you have offered a very strange and novel interpretation whereby you say "Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed."

But he was doing no such thing. Warren's letter specifically states that the Home Secretary was wondering if "some of the lookers on" could have moved it as a hoax. Nothing to do with the police and nothing to do with Halse. The idea that the Home Secretary was asking Warren if a police officer could have moved the piece of apron is an absurd one which exists in your imagination only.

It is clear that as at 3 October the Home Secretary had no idea whether the crime scene had been secured by the City of London Police prior to the discovery of the apron. That is basically what he was asking Warren to investigate.

The reason Warren was writing to Fraser on behalf of the Home Secretary was clearly to establish (a) whether the piece of apron was at the crime scene when the body was discovered by a city police officer at 1:44am and/or (b) if the crime scene had been made secure by the city police so that "lookers on" could not have removed any items.

[PaulB]

Don't know why anyone has been arguing over the definition of "bystanders" which was not a word used by Warren.

Late nights, early mornings, distracted by other things, old age, being brain dead... Those are my excuses. I could probably think of more, but my head is hung in shame.

[Pierre]

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

Hi Phil,

What source with Matthews are you referring to please?

Regards, Pierre

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Warren used the term "lookers on."

"Looker on" and "onlooker" are synonyms for bystander.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

"Looker on" and "onlooker" are synonyms for bystander.

That's right Simon and none of them will ever refer to police officers on duty at a crime scene.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396776]

Yes, Pierre, because the apron was found below the writing on the wall which was hypothesized by the police Commissioner to be about "Jews".

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron was centimeters.

Yes, Pierre, a report by the police Commissioner linking the apron to the writing which was hypothesized by him to do with "Jews".

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron was a commissionerīs idea.

I was asking if there is an historical connection. History describe chains of events based on sources.

Centimeters or a commissioners idea are not chains of events based on sources.

[David Orsam]

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron is centimeters.

That's right Pierre, a close connection.

No, David. According to you here, the connection between "Jews" and the apron is a commissionerīs idea.

I was asking if there is an historical connection. History describe chains of events based on sources.

No Pierre, you did not ask if there was "an historical connection". Your question was "is there any source at all indicating that the piece of apron had anything to do with "Jews"?" In answering that question I gave you a source: the report of the Chief Commissioner to the Home Office dated 6 November 1888. That my friend is a source and thus answers your question. I appreciate that you don't like the answer but that's tough luck.

[Pierre]

I have to ask again if you are serious Phil. Or are you joking with us? All Simon did was reproduce a letter which many of us were already probably familiar with – I certainly was – and he did so without any comment or attempt at interpretation. What was there to respond to? Nothing! So there was nothing "deafening" about the silence at all.

Now you have offered a very strange and novel interpretation whereby you say "Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed."

But he was doing no such thing. Warren's letter specifically states that the Home Secretary was wondering if "some of the lookers on" could have moved it as a hoax. Nothing to do with the police and nothing to do with Halse. The idea that the Home Secretary was asking Warren if a police officer could have moved the piece of apron is an absurd one which exists in your imagination only.

It is clear that as at 3 October the Home Secretary had no idea whether the crime scene had been secured by the City of London Police prior to the discovery of the apron. That is basically what he was asking Warren to investigate.

The reason Warren was writing to Fraser on behalf of the Home Secretary was clearly to establish (a) whether the piece of apron was at the crime scene when the body was discovered by a city police officer at 1:44am and/or (b) if the crime scene had been made secure by the city police so that "lookers on" could not have removed any items.

Yes, David, although I havenīt seen this source and since you seem to quote it or at least refer to it with the words in it, your interpretation seems more reasonable than the interpretation of Phil.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, although I havenīt seen this source and since you seem to quote it or at least refer to it with the words in it, your interpretation seems more reasonable than the interpretation of Phil.

The source is in Simon Wood's post, #1233, in this thread Pierre.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396786]

That's right Pierre, a close connection.

That is one of the most stupid things I have read on this forum, actually.

It means, by itīs principle, that if X is close to Y, there is a connection. The consequence of that thinking is what people like Fisherman is occupying himself with. Lechmere was close to Nichols, therefore he was the Whitechapel murderer!

No Pierre, you did not ask if there was "an historical connection". Your question was "is there any source at all indicating that the piece of apron had anything to do with "Jews"?" In answering that question I gave you a source: the report of the Chief Commissioner to the Home Office dated 6 November 1888. That my friend is a source and thus answers your question. I appreciate that you don't like the answer but that's tough luck.

No, I asked if there is an historical reason to think so, and that is correct. The historical reason is what we are discussing here. When we are postulating a historical reason, say Z, as the reason for T, we have made a purely historical connection.

But centimeters are not such connections, neither are a commissionerīs idea.

To understand if there is a historical reason to think there was a connection between to items, we must use sources. Do you know of any sources from which we can hypothesize such a connection and make it another connection than the old tiresome idea about Jews, which has been like a bug in the system for 128 years?

[Pierre]

The source is in Simon Wood's post, #1233, in this thread Pierre.

Thanks David, I appreciate it.

[Pierre]

The source is in Simon Wood's post, #1233, in this thread Pierre.

I have read it now and I think your interpretation is the right one.

Pierre

[David Orsam]

That is one of the most stupid things I have read on this forum, actually.

It means, by itīs principle, that if X is close to Y, there is a connection. The consequence of that thinking is what people like Fisherman is occupying himself with. Lechmere was close to Nichols, therefore he was the Whitechapel murderer!

You can only think it is "one of the most stupid things" you have read on this forum if you don't understand it Pierre.

The apron is CLEARLY connected to the writing on the wall by virtue of it being found beneath that writing at 2.55am in the morning of 30 September 1888, neither the apron nor the writing have been seen by any human being in that location prior to that time (with the apron having previously been connected to the body of Catherine Eddowes within the past hour or so). That doesn't mean the same person who wrote the GSG is the same person who dropped the apron, but there is a connection.

Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. This does not mean that he was the Whitechapel murderer so your logic has gone rather badly astray.

No, I asked if there is an historical reason to think so,

No you didn't Pierre. I quoted your exact question and I'll repeat it:

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

I gave you a source - an historical source - and that's that. Everything else you have written is irrelevant waffle.

If you meant to ask a different question then so be it but I cannot read your mind so I answered the one you asked.