Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The apron was dropped...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    It's not thee answer, it's your answer.
    In reality, there was no approval.
    So the PC Long transcript which was part of the report submitted by Sir Charles Warren to the Home Office was not in effect his final approved Met Police version?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by erobitha View Post

    The answer is Charles Warren.
    It's not thee answer, it's your answer.
    In reality, there was no approval.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    I didn't say it was approved by anyone, only that it seems to be the version most often repeated.
    The answer is Charles Warren.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
    The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell.

    Edward Watkin, No. 881 of the City Police, said :
    I next came into Mitre-square at 1.44, when I discovered the body lying on the right as I entered the square. The woman was on her back, with her feet towards the square. Her clothes were thrown up. I saw her throat was cut and the stomach ripped open. She was lying in a pool of blood. I did not touch the body.


    Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
    [Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

    At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.
    Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." [Coroner] Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."
    [Coroner] Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.
    [Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Juives.jpg
Views:	152
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	739880
    Last edited by DJA; 08-17-2020, 07:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • erobitha
    replied
    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
    If the GSG was intended for Warren, how did Jack know that Warren would be there in person? At the right time? He could have gone to Berner St first, then his office, say. Lucky thing he turned up on the sole occasion a message is directed at him. Also, if Warren hadn't been present that morning, which was a real possibility, would the GSG still be interpreted as a message for him?

    As for Warren destroying the message, he didn't really, he had it noted down first. As is pointed out, it made its way into the papers. It was unfortunate that the scene wasn't photographed, but his actions do seem to be that of a worried official looking to avoid another riot on his watch.
    By placing the message in Met territory he knew Warren at some point would get to see it. He had no idea old Charlie would come down and see for himself. Bonus!
    What riot would have ensued? If most of the Jews couldn’t read English and the message was not clearly anti-Semitic why would they riot? As you said it made the paper - were there riots then?
    Warren did not want this to be photographed but he did sign off Long’s transcription and yet we still have a different transcription from City of London Police. What was it he didn’t want us to see or know?
    These strange actions by the highest ranking officer of the Met were about controlling the narrative and about NOT getting that picture taken.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X