Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[PaulB]

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".

I don't and never have questioned that those were his words, and I have said that the A to Z authors were wrong to have said that Dew was corroborated by or corroborated a newspaper description of the apron being so dirty it appeared to be black. I have simply tried to make it clear why the A to Z cited Dew as it did. And I was saying this for Harry's benefit.

Personally, if there wasn't a newspaper article claiming the apron was so dirty it appeared to be black, I would agree that Dew extraordinarilly misremembered a white apron as being black. However, the newspaper report provides a plausible reason for Dew to have misremembered the apron as being black instead of black through filth. However, I don't have that newspaper report.

None of which alters the fact that Dew wrote that the apron was black and that he was wrong.

[Fisherman]

I don't and never have questioned that those were his words, and I have said that the A to Z authors were wrong to have said that Dew was corroborated by or corroborated a newspaper description of the apron being so dirty it appeared to be black. I have simply tried to make it clear why the A to Z cited Dew as it did. And I was saying this for Harry's benefit.

Personally, if there wasn't a newspaper article claiming the apron was so dirty it appeared to be black, I would agree that Dew extraordinarilly misremembered a white apron as being black. However, the newspaper report provides a plausible reason for Dew to have misremembered the apron as being black instead of black through filth. However, I don't have that newspaper report.

None of which alters the fact that Dew wrote that the apron was black and that he was wrong.

Thanks for that clarification, Paul.

Of course, taking the alledged newspaper article into account, there can still never be any justification for presenting Dews wording as a parallel to the account. Nor can it be correct to say that Dew misremembered the apron as being black instead of black through filth; it would predispose a confirmation that Dew actually saw the apron, and as far as I can tell there is no such confirmation available.

What we are left with is the fact that Dew claimed that it was a black apron, and an option to use that as corroboration of the suggestion that the apron was so dirty as to appear black. I would suggest that this option is best left unused.

[Wickerman]

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.

I think the problem is at your end Harry. Misunderstanding what is being read is a huge component of Ripper theories in general.
The entrance to the Goulston St. dwellings was via the passage. The passage began at the entrance where the jamb was.
Long is not talking about a tunnel like Millers Court passage, there was no tunnel. The passage began at the entrance, the rag was found at the entrance of the passage.

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Simon,

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.

3 days after the murder, the Home Secretary is asking of the possibility of a bystander removing a piece of the apron from the scene and dumping it in Goulston Street as a "hoax".

Now for anyone to have done this and within the time frame required, it would have to be before a doctor arrived.( because said doctor would be examining the body)

Apart from the nightwatchman, the only persons there at that time were policemen. So..Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed.

Now the only policeman who could have done this is Halse..who nipped off to Goulston St arriving at around 2.20am. According to both his and Long's testimony..they failed to see each other at this hour although they were both there around the same time. Therefore Halse was alone.
Henry Matthews obviously saw this possibility and called it a "hoax". He suspected foul play.

120 odd years later..a person suggesting such a thing is a "conspirationalist".
Matthews wasnt though.


Phil

[GUT]

Hello Simon,

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.

3 days after the murder, the Home Secretary is asking of the possibility of a bystander removing a piece of the apron from the scene and dumping it in Goulston Street as a "hoax".

Now for anyone to have done this and within the time frame required, it would have to be before a doctor arrived.( because said doctor would be examining the body)

Apart from the nightwatchman, the only persons there at that time were policemen. So..Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed.

Now the only policeman who could have done this is Halse..who nipped off to Goulston St arriving at around 2.20am. According to both his and Long's testimony..they failed to see each other at this hour although they were both there around the same time. Therefore Halse was alone.
Henry Matthews obviously saw this possibility and called it a "hoax". He suspected foul play.

120 odd years later..a person suggesting such a thing is a "conspirationalist".
Matthews wasnt though.


Phil

Or could it have been someone who came on the scene before the police???

[harry]

Fisherman,
I cannot give the source you requested.There it is,short answer as you asked'.
Does it matter?
Depending on the amount of blood and fecal matter,and other stains and useage,when and how Dew came to see or know about it,conditions of light and so forth,it may well have appeared black at some stage,to someone.Blood appears to dry out to black. Cannot blame or fault the A toZ. What does seem apparent,and I have checked the books and articles I possess,no one has seriously described the piece Long claims he found ,as appearing white.

PaulB,
The personal letter is mentioned in John Wilding book,Jack the Ripper Revealed. It ends with the words,
I considered it desireable to obliterate the writing at once,having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate." (pages 53/54)
Who the letter was addressed to is not given.So Warren himself took a copy?


Wickerman,
No problem at my end.The passage began after the doorway and continued to the stairs.The passage was inside the building.The passage and doorway were separate.Warren appears to make that distinction.He states doorway.Who says the cloth was found at the entrance of the passage?Not Long.He just states passage. Who is talking about a tunnel like passage?.Not me.We can see from Eagles description of Duttfield yard as a passage,that the word passage could be interpreted in more than one way,but a doorwy was a doorway.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
No problem at my end.The passage began after the doorway and continued to the stairs.The passage was inside the building.The passage and doorway were separate.Warren appears to make that distinction.He states doorway.Who says the cloth was found at the entrance of the passage?Not Long.He just states passage. Who is talking about a tunnel like passage?.Not me.We can see from Eagles description of Duttfield yard as a passage,that the word passage could be interpreted in more than one way,but a doorwy was a doorway.

There was no door Harry, it's not a doorway.
The apron could have been merely a foot inside and the graffiti is still "above" the apron.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I cannot give the source you requested.There it is,short answer as you asked'.
Does it matter?

Yes, it matters a whole lot. We need to treat whatever sources we have with accuracy and respect, and making the claim that Walter Dew ever said that the apron piece in Goulston Street was so dirty as to appear black is doing the exact opposite.
If you are asking whether the non-existance of the source changes the colour of the apron piece in retrospect, I would have to say no. Neither does any other source or lacking source. But our picture of things will always depend on a weighing of the sources, and to that end, it is imperative that it is fairly and correctly done.

Depending on the amount of blood and fecal matter,and other stains and useage,when and how Dew came to see or know about it,conditions of light and so forth,it may well have appeared black at some stage,to someone.Blood appears to dry out to black. Cannot blame or fault the A toZ.

So that is how you want to do it? The apron piece may well have looked black to some person or persons under some lighting conditions, and therefore it is okay for the A-Z to make a claim that lacks historical provenance? They may well have gotten it right, in spite of getting the sources wrong? Is that it?
I will never touch such a suggestion with a pair of pliers, since it involves accepting a sourceless supposition as fact. Neither should you, but I can only advice you to avoid it. If you accept that kind of methodology, it is your own choice. You may however want to consider what it will carry with itself in terms of other loftily construed "truths" that do not sit equally well with your intentions and preferences...

What does seem apparent,and I have checked the books and articles I possess,no one has seriously described the piece Long claims he found ,as appearing white.

Why would anybody say that a white apron "appears to be white", Harry? There are numerous sources that describe it as white. Why would they change that definition for one that claimed that it was an appearance only?

[Phil Carter]

Or could it have been someone who came on the scene before the police???

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

[PaulB]

PaulB,
The personal letter is mentioned in John Wilding book,Jack the Ripper Revealed. It ends with the words,
I considered it desireable to obliterate the writing at once,having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate." (pages 53/54)
Who the letter was addressed to is not given.So Warren himself took a copy?

Harry,
Thank you. I thought that s what you were talking about, but I was confused because you had asked if anyone had seen it. The “letter” is in fact a report to the Home Office dated 6 November 1888 - HO 144/221/A49301C, ff. 173—81.

Sir,
In reply to your letter of the 5th instant, I enclose a report of the circumstances of the Mitre Square Murder so far as they have come under the notice of the Metropolitan Police, and I now give an account regarding the erasing the writing on the wall in Goulston Street which I have already partially explained to Mr. Matthews verbally. —On the 30th September on hearing of the Berners [sic] Street murder after visiting Commercial Street Station I arrived at Leman Street Station shortly before 5 a.m. and ascertained from Superintendent Arnold all that was known there relative to the two murders.

The most pressing question at that moment was some writing on the wall in Goulston Street evidently written with the intention of inflaming the public mind against the Jews, [marginal note — “2 Reports enclosed”] and which Mr. Arnold with a view to prevent serious disorder proposed to obliterate, and had sent down an Inspector with a sponge for that purpose telling him to await his arrival. —I considered it desirable that I should decide this matter myself, as it was one involving so great a responsibility whether any action was taken or not. I accordingly went down to Goulston Street at once before going to the scene of the murder: it was just getting light, the public would be in the streets in a few minutes, in a neighbourhood very much crowded on Sunday mornings by Jewish vendors and Christian purchasers from all parts of London. —There were several Police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. —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. —A discussion took place whether the writing could be left covered up or otherwise or whether any portion of it could be left for an hour until it could be photographed, but after taking into consideration the excited state of the population in London generally at the time the strong feeling which had been excited against the Jews, and the fact that in a short time there would be a large concourse of the people in the streets and having before me the Report that if it was left there the house was likely to be wrecked (in which from my own observation I entirely concurred) I considered it desirable to obliterate the writing at once, having taken a copy of which I enclose a duplicate.

After having been to the scene of the murder, I went on to the City Police Office and informed the Chief Superintendent of the reason why the writing had been obliterated.

I may mention that so great was the feeling with regard to the Jews that on the 13th ulto. the Acting Chief Rabbi wrote to me on the subject of the spelling of the word “Juewes” on account of a newspaper asserting that this was a Jewish spelling in the Yiddish dialect. He added, “in the present state of excitement it is dangerous to the safety of the poor Jews in the East to allow such an assertion to remain uncontradicted. My community keenly appreciates your [‘kindness’ —deleted] humane and vigilant actions during this critical time.”

It may be realised therefore if the safety of the Jews in Whitechapel could be considered to be jeopardised 13 days after the murder by the question of the spelling of the word Jews, what might have happened to the Jews in that quarter had that writing been left intact.

I do not hesitate myself to say that if that writing had been left there would have been an onslaught upon the Jews, property would have been wrecked, and lives would probably have been lost, and I was much gratified with the promptitude with which Superintendent Arnold was prepared to act in the matter if I had not been there.

I have no doubt myself whatever that one of the principal objects of the Reward offered by Mr. Montagu was to shew to the world that the Jews were desirous of having the Hanbury Street murder cleared up, and thus to direct from them the very strong feeling which was then growing up.
I am,
Sir,
Your most obedient Servant,

[Jon Guy]

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.

Lol !!

3 days after the murder,

.. and a day before the inquest, so obvious questions like this would be in Matthew`s mind.

Now for anyone to have done this and within the time frame required, it would have to be before a doctor arrived.( because said doctor would be examining the body)

Apart from the nightwatchman, the only persons there at that time were policemen.

and the murderer..

So..Matthews, the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed.

Is he ?
Would Matthews know of the finer details of how the body was found at this point ?

Now the only policeman who could have done this is Halse..who

.. was never alone with the body.

Henry Matthews obviously saw this possibility and called it a "hoax". He suspected foul play.

Or he wanted to rule out the possibility of it being a "hoax".

120 odd years later..a person suggesting such a thing is a "conspirationalist".

Yes

[GUT]

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

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.

[PaulB]

Thanks for that clarification, Paul.

Of course, taking the alledged newspaper article into account, there can still never be any justification for presenting Dews wording as a parallel to the account. Nor can it be correct to say that Dew misremembered the apron as being black instead of black through filth; it would predispose a confirmation that Dew actually saw the apron, and as far as I can tell there is no such confirmation available.

What we are left with is the fact that Dew claimed that it was a black apron, and an option to use that as corroboration of the suggestion that the apron was so dirty as to appear black. I would suggest that this option is best left unused.

I think you are making far more out of this than is necessary. If the apron piece was black then the argument goes that it would have been difficult to see in the interior of the passage. But the apron wasn't inside the passage, it was at the entrance, almost on the street, and one supposes quite visible. Dew's recollection that the apron was black is therefore irrelevant. However, as far as Dew's mis-recollection itself is concerned, either Dew was flat out wrong or the apron being black with filth suggests an explanation for his mistake. That is what the A to Z was trying (and failing) to make clear. I think it is important to make these details clear to avoid the sort of conclusion we've seen some people trying to push that Dew can be dismissed as a source because he gets things wrong, such as saying an apron was black when it was white.

[Fisherman]

PaulB: I think you are making far more out of this than is necessary.

If you donīt think it is necessary to point out when somebody is being quoted as having said something he cannot be proven to have said, then that will have to stand for you. I vehemently disagree, and it is not the standards I usually ascribe to you, Paul, let me say that much. In my experience, you are normally much more discerning that that.
Basically, that is all I am making of it: I dislike factual misrepresentations.

If the apron piece was black then the argument goes that it would have been difficult to see in the interior of the passage. But the apron wasn't inside the passage, it was at the entrance, almost on the street, and one supposes quite visible. Dew's recollection that the apron was black is therefore irrelevant.

But that has nothing at all to do with the point I am making! I am not discussing the visibility of the apron piece or where it was discarded, I am discussing what rights we could possibly have to use misrepresentations of what people said as facts when trying to establish what happened back in 1888. Surely you can see that they are very different matters!

However, as far as Dew's mis-recollection itself is concerned, either Dew was flat out wrong or the apron being black with filth suggests an explanation for his mistake.

Yes, it IS tempting to make the call that the apron being black with filth was what caused Dew to say that it was black. And that is the PRECISE reason why the A-Z authors should never have written what was written!
Basically, I agree that we have a case of "either or", but I donīt see that as a pleasant choice of opportunities. I see it as a warning sign, and it makes me decide that it would be useless to quote the A-Z on this matter in support of ANY theory.

That is what the A to Z was trying (and failing) to make clear.

What the A-Z does, is to state as a fact that Walter Dew claimed that the apron was so filthy as to appear black. And it does so on no grounds at all. Even if there are other sources speaking about the filth, we may see that Dew did NOT do so. The question that arises is very obvious: If there was somebody saying that the apron was so dirty as to appear black, then why not use THAT quotation instead of falsely and misleadingly ascribing it to Dew? It is quite a mystery to me.

I think it is important to make these details clear to avoid the sort of conclusion we've seen some people trying to push that Dew can be dismissed as a source because he gets things wrong, such as saying an apron was black when it was white.

Of course Dew remains an important source, having served on the ground at the time. But if it is really important to make these details clear, Paul, then how can I be "making far more out of it than necessary"? Do you want it skipped over or do you want it highlighted? Is it okay to quote the A-Z in support of your take on things in this errand or is it not? Because thatīs what it boils down to.

[Phil Carter]

Lol !!



.. and a day before the inquest, so obvious questions like this would be in Matthew`s mind.



and the murderer..



Is he ?
Would Matthews know of the finer details of how the body was found at this point ?



.. was never alone with the body.



Or he wanted to rule out the possibility of it being a "hoax".



Yes

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