Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[John G]

I think that's a very fair point, Phil.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil!

Are you referring to what Dew said about the colour of the apron in his memoirs?

Hello Christer,

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

Yes. Paul's response to the Dew comment.



Phil

[John G]

Hi Phil!

Are you referring to what Dew said about the colour of the apron in his memoirs?

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

[Phil Carter]

Hello John G,

Thank you. Kind of you to say.


Phil

[David Orsam]

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 don't understand this point. If we know "with certainty" that Swanson's comments "are factually incorrect" then it doesn't matter if he made them in 1888, 1910 or 1920 does it?

The point about Dew's comments (published 50 not 30 years after the fact) is that they conflict with the contemporary evidence. Consequently, the point is that we should prefer the contemporary evidence. I'm sure the same is true of Swanson's comments but you have to establish that they do conflict with the contemporary evidence first don't you?

[Phil Carter]

I don't understand this point. If we know "with certainty" that Swanson's comments "are factually incorrect" then it doesn't matter if he made them in 1888, 1910 or 1920 does it?

The point about Dew's comments (published 50 not 30 years after the fact) is that they conflict with the contemporary evidence. Consequently, the point is that we should prefer the contemporary evidence. I'm sure the same is true of Swanson's comments but you have to establish that they do conflict with the contemporary evidence first don't you?

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.

[David Orsam]

Oh dear.

This is off topic but if I am made yo correct you. Then do 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 apologies for correcting you, but you haven't corrected me at all Phil.

Read my post properly and you will see that what I say is true.

As for the three supposed factual inaccuracies that you have noted, I don't think anyone challenges the first two errors, although the third is not something you have established as conflicting with the contemporary evidence, only that there is no evidence to support it, which is very different.

If that's all you are trying to say then I'm sure it's not controversial at all. I thought you might be trying to say that Swanson was wrong in identifying Kosminski as the suspect, something which seems to be rather more important than the minor details.

[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.

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?

[Wickerman]

PC Long and Warren are saying the same thing, it isn't a case of believing one or the other - they are both right.

The bricks that formed the wall on the inside also form the jamb portion of the wall. The jamb IS the wall, the jamb isn't a pillar, the construction does not change from the inside of the passage to the outside along the street.
Warren was simply being more precise than Long, Warren specified the writing was on the jamb portion of the wall.
The whole inside area was a passage, you step inside off the street into a passage to ascend the stairs.

There is not contradiction between PC Long and Warren. And, from a common sense point of view, how could there be.

[Phil Carter]

I think it best at this juncture to remind all that it had been raining that night.
Now. We have contradictory evidence in relation to this.

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".

On the other hand we have a policeman without a lamp who has stated he inspected the writing "with difficulty" because it "was dark".

Now. More problems arise.
It is accepted through trials by Howard Brown (see his dissertation ) that if the brickwork was wet from rain, the type of chalk used in 1888 would not stick to the brickwork.
So we ask..where exactly would the writing be to have remained "dry" if written before the allotted time? It may indicate the writing to have been new, given that it was at all visible. But this depends on the exact location.
Conversely, it must surely be more likely that the policeman inspecting the writing with a lamp at hand sees the writing far more clearly than one without a lamp looking in the dark.

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?

Food for thought.


Phil

[Abby Normal]

I think it best at this juncture to remind all that it had been raining that night.
Now. We have contradictory evidence in relation to this.

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".

On the other hand we have a policeman without a lamp who has stated he inspected the writing "with difficulty" because it "was dark".

Now. More problems arise.
It is accepted through trials by Howard Brown (see his dissertation ) that if the brickwork was wet from rain, the type of chalk used in 1888 would not stick to the brickwork.
So we ask..where exactly would the writing be to have remained "dry" if written before the allotted time? It may indicate the writing to have been new, given that it was at all visible. But this depends on the exact location.
Conversely, it must surely be more likely that the policeman inspecting the writing with a lamp at hand sees the writing far more clearly than one without a lamp looking in the dark.

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?

Food for thought.


Phil

food for vomit more likely.

[Monty]

Swanson does not describe the writing as blurred.

Monty
��

[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.

[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.

[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