Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Jon Guy]

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.

There were some street cleaners nearby who attended the scene.

[Jon Guy]

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).

Cheers Paul, that`s the one.
Wrong person and wrong year but I did get the undoubtedly bit right :-)

[John G]

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

Hello Phil,

But if I've understood you correctly, and I apologize if I haven't, your argument is that Matthews was, by necessary implication, pointing the finger at a serving police officer on active duty.

However, as I've noted, this would require a highly esoteric interpretation of Matthews' report. Thus, I cannot believe that any intended recipient would consider that the reference to "bystander" was meant to refer to a police officer on duty that night. In any event, it is far more likely that they would have assumed that he was confused about events and simply got his facts mixed up, and Matthews must surely have realized this and therefore wouldn't have resorted to such subtlety.

[PaulB]

I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street or even that he was particularly aware of who was present at the murder scene and who wasn't, hence he wasn't specific but used a general term, 'bystander'. But even if he did suspecte that a policeman took the piece of apron to Goulston Street, surely the point of primary interest is that the Home Secretary asked if (a) Eddowes was wearing an apron with a piece missing from it, and (b) if there was any way the apron piece could have reached Goulston Street other than by being taken there by the murderer. As far as we can tell there was no uncertainty. Everyone who was asked if Eddowes was wearing an apron, said she was, and it seems to have been universally accepted that the apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer.

[PaulB]

Cheers Paul, that`s the one.
Wrong person and wrong year but I did get the undoubtedly bit right :-)

That's the important bit correctly remembered!

[Phil Carter]

I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street or even that he was particularly aware of who was present at the murder scene and who wasn't, hence he wasn't specific but used a general term, 'bystander'. But even if he did suspecte that a policeman took the piece of apron to Goulston Street, surely the point of primary interest is that the Home Secretary asked if (a) Eddowes was wearing an apron with a piece missing from it, and (b) if there was any way the apron piece could have reached Goulston Street other than by being taken there by the murderer. As far as we can tell there was no uncertainty. Everyone who was asked if Eddowes was wearing an apron, said she was, and it seems to have been universally accepted that the apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer.

Hello Paul,

We can discuss this into the next millenium..but one cannot rule out the possibility that Matthews may be including a policeman. It cannot be proven either way. It simply csnnot be ruled out because WE don't think so.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

There were some street cleaners nearby who attended the scene.

Hello Jon,

Can you please give me the exact time and source of the above ?
Thank you ☺


Phil

[Jon Guy]

Can you please give me the exact time and source of the above ?

Hi Phil

It was from memory as I read it in a newspaper ages ago.
When I get a minute I`ll try and find it again.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil

It was from memory as I read it in a newspaper ages ago.
When I get a minute I`ll try and find it again.

Thank you Jon. My memory isnt as good as it was but I cannot recall this off the top of my head.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

I agree.

The point is that Matthews saw the possibility of possible interference.


Phil

Which calls into question the old accepted theory that the killer cut or tore it and deposited it in GS makes more appeal if she had been in possession of two old pieces of apron !!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

We can discuss this into the next millenium..but one cannot rule out the possibility that Matthews may be including a policeman. It cannot be proven either way. It simply csnnot be ruled out because WE don't think so.

Phil

Of course it can't be ruled out, Phil. I said, "But even if he did suspecte that a policeman took the piece of apron to Goulston Street..." But whether he did or he didn't, the point is that his questions show that the police were made aware of those two possibilities, even if they hadn't asked the questions themselves, and it makes it even more probable that they reached the conclusion that Eddowes was wearing an apron, that it had a piece missing, and that it was probably taken to Goulston Street by the murderer.

[Debra A]

Which calls into question the old accepted theory that the killer cut or tore it and deposited it in GS makes more appeal if she had been in possession of two old pieces of apron !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Notice the bib mention, Trevor?

[Fisherman]

Notice the bib mention, Trevor?

Ceterum censeo...

[Debra A]

Ceterum censeo...

[David Orsam]

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

You may think it Phil but where is the evidence to back it up?

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Home Secretary insisted on being kept "fully" up to date with all the details of the murder in the immediate aftermath, especially as he was out of London at the time. It wasn't his job to solve the crime! He was obviously briefed by Warren on 3 October but there is no evidence that he knew anything more than he had read in the newspapers before that date.