Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[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
🙂

[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?

[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

[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.

[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]

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]

"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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,
You mentioned the comparison of evidence said, presented or written at the time and that of evidence 30 years after the actual event.
Fair comment.
It strikes me that evidence presented on or around 30th Sept 1888 is far more likely to be more accurate than that 6 weeks later on 6th November 1888.

Apart from agreeing with what I said, is there a point?

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 haven't said or suggested that Dew's comments are weak and worthless because they were written several decades after the events they describe, nor am I aware of anyone saying such a thing. Walter Dew's account in its entirety is not being questioned. He is only being questioned in this instance over the accuracy of his recollection that the apron piece was black. The fact that wrote several decades after the events he described is relevant only because another source who was writing within weeks of the apron piece being found, said it was white. This source was also the person who found the apron, whereas Dew may not have even seen it. I do not see that this specific point has any bearing whatsoever on how sources written long after the event are treated. Perhaps you don't realise that all sources should be - and hopefully are - fully and properly assessed on their own merits and a number of factors are considered when making those assessments.

[PaulB]

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.

I'm not sure how you manage to make Swanson incorrect for saying that Kosminski was taken with his hands tied behind his back when the because the records don't mention it. We don't know whether Swanson was correct or not. What is missed is that the authorities would have used handcuffs and it is likely that Swanson would have so described the restraint used, or he might simply have stated that Kosminski was taken under restraint. It's not simply the language used which raises a question, but the fact that the authorities simply wouldn't have tied the hands behind his back (pending evidence to the contrary), from which it could be deduced that Kosminski was restrained by his family, not the police. This in turn raises the question of whether restraint would have been formally recorded by someone brought in by members of the public (i.e., family)

Mile End was part of Stepney when Swanson wrote. Not a major point, but possibly a contributing factor in how the error was made.

Way off topic, but these errors of detail, where they are demonstrable errors of detail, don't mean that the core of what Swanson wrote was wrong. There isn't a core to Dew's narrative, so a direct comparison between the sources in that respect isn't possible, but a few errors scattered through Dew's account wouldn't make the whole account worthless. In fact, even errors can be interesting and sometimes valuable. Kosminski did not die soon after being admitted to Colney Hatch, but that is what Swanson believed. It raises the question about how much direct communication was there between hospitals and asylums and the police.

[PaulB]

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?

What letter supporting Warren are you talking about? I've obviously missed some reference to Warren and this letter. Please explain.

[PaulB]

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

Phil, there is no argument about how the sources describe the location of the apron and writing. What one tries to do is weight up all the evidence to see which is the more probable to be true. In general terms both P.C. Long and Detective Halse could be correct, but Sir Charles Warren is very specific. And he stated that the writing could be read by anyone passing in the street and any covering could have been torn away. Those were the reasons he gave for taking it upon himself to issue the monuentally serious order for this evidence to be erased. Remember, too, that he was acting on anxieties expressed by Superintendent Arnold, who presumably had his finger on the pulse of Whitechapel, and was very well aware of how serious an act Arnold's decision to erase the writing was, hence taking the responsibility himself. So you must ask yourself why Arnold and Warren saw the writing as an incitement to anti-Jewish violence, if it was inside the building, not clearly visible from the street, and that a covering couldn't be easily removed? Furthermore, the City Police protested against Warren's decision to erase the writing before it could be photographed and Warren's actions were criticised at the time in the press. If the writing was inside the passage, difficult to read, and easily obscured, why didn't anyone say so? And finally, why, what possible reason, would Warren have had for lying about the location of the writing? The point is, it isn't simply a matter of having sources vaguely locating the apron inside the passage and Warren placing it on the jamb, it's all the other factors that have to be weighed in.