Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

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

  • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post




    I am citing the record of the inquest as reported in The Daily Telegraph.

    Alfred Long was definite that he passed the building at about 2:20 and that the piece of apron was not there at that time.

    He also said that the apron was white, which may be significant, as it may have been easier to notice than a dark-coloured apron.

    If he was so negligent as some here have suggested as either not to have gone down Goulston Street or to have gone down it but not noticed the apron, why was he nevertheless able to find it before anyone else did?

    From Daniel Halse's testimony:

    At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.


    [Coroner] Did the writing have the appearance of having been recently done? - Yes. It was written with white chalk on a black facia.
    Mr. Crawford: Why do you say that it seemed to have been recently written? - It looked fresh, and if it had been done long before it would have been rubbed out by the people passing...



    There have been so many posts here suggesting that someone other than the murderer may have written the message, and curiously Daniel Halse's testimony seems to have been forgotten.

    He passed by the building at about 2:20 and did not notice either a white apron or white chalk writing on a black background, even though it was visible from the street.

    Alfred Long testified that he didn't notice them either.

    Alfred Long then noticed both at about 2.55 and when Halse saw the writing, it looked fresh to him.

    That is, in my opinion, a very strong case for arguing that the writing and apron were not there at 2.20 and were left there some time between 2.20 and 2.55 - by the same person.
    Halse did not look into the Goulston opening where the apron/graffito was found,he was looking for people to stop and question,he said it diplomatically in the inquest.
    Long did not know if the graffito was there at 2:20 am,only that the apron was not there.
    Last edited by Varqm; 11-28-2022, 04:17 AM.
    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
    M. Pacana

    Comment


    • I can’t recall but I assume that when Long passed at 2.20 he was unaware of the murder in Mitre Square? So he wasn’t particularly looking for anything.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        and the evidence some of them gave at the inquests is about as reliable as a chocolate teapot

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Hi Trevor,

        Would you mind expanding on this please, for my benefit, as in who do you have in mind and exactly what and why the evidence is not so reliable.

        I have a hard time truly understanding the issues of the apron, GSG and whose testimony to trust at the inquest.

        Thanks,

        Martyn

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mpriestnall View Post

          Hi Trevor,

          Would you mind expanding on this please, for my benefit, as in who do you have in mind and exactly what and why the evidence is not so reliable.

          I have a hard time truly understanding the issues of the apron, GSG and whose testimony to trust at the inquest.

          Thanks,

          Martyn
          Hi Martyn
          My post was a general reply appertaining to in particular the beat officers who gave evidence in this series of murders and the questions that are asked

          "Were they where they said they were"?
          "Did they do what they said they did"?
          "Did they see what they said they saw"?
          "Did they give false evidence to support a police theory"?
          "Did they intentionally omit evidence to save their skin"?

          There is a lot of conflicting inquest testimony given by officers, especially in the Eddowes murder

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Hi Martyn
            My post was a general reply appertaining to in particular the beat officers who gave evidence in this series of murders and the questions that are asked

            "Were they where they said they were"?
            "Did they do what they said they did"?
            "Did they see what they said they saw"?
            "Did they give false evidence to support a police theory"?
            "Did they intentionally omit evidence to save their skin"?

            There is a lot of conflicting inquest testimony given by officers, especially in the Eddowes murder

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Cheers Trevor.

            Comment


            • As a beat officer Long checked the opening for vagrants for ex.,but obviously not the wall.He already heard about the murders on the second pass at 2:55 am.. but not on the 1st.
              Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
              M. Pacana

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                Halse did not look into the Goulston opening where the apron/graffito was found,he was looking for people to stop and question,he said it diplomatically in the inquest.
                Long did not know if the graffito was there at 2:20 am,only that the apron was not there.

                If by the opening you mean the area between the arch and the staircase, then that was not where the writing was situated.

                It was on the archway and visible to anyone passing by, including Long and Halse at 2.20, IF it was there.
                Last edited by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1; 11-28-2022, 03:44 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                  As a beat officer Long checked the opening for vagrants for ex.,but obviously not the wall.He already heard about the murders on the second pass at 2:55 am.. but not on the 1st.
                  He said that the apron was not there at 2.20.

                  That implies that he checked inside the archway just as he did at 2.55.

                  Comment



                  • I’ve always wondered about the actual location of the writing. It’s been discussed many times of course but I thought I’d refresh my memory as to what was said about it.


                    In his 6th November report Charles 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.”


                    Swanson however, in a report also on the 6th, said:

                    “…he found in the bottom of a common stairs leading to No. 108 to 119. Goldston Street Buildings a piece of a bloodstained apron, and above it written in chalk the words, “The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.”

                    So no mention of it being on the jamb of the open archway from Swanson. He’s saying that it was at the bottom of the stairs.


                    Warren is also contradicted by PC Long who, when asked about the apron at the inquest, said:

                    “….lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. Above it on the wall was written in chalk – The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.”

                    So according to him the writing was above the apron and therefore on the wall inside the passageway.


                    Then we have Detective Halse saying:

                    “The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall.”

                    and:

                    “The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.”


                    As we can see from this photograph the wall inside matches Halse’s description. White over black. There is no white area on the jamb.

                    https://www.google.com/search?q=goul...ZetqfqFhSw7k-M




                    So why do we have Swanson, Long and Halse saying that the writing was on the wall inside the passage on the one hand and Warren saying that it was on the jamb on the other?

                    Question - Did Sir Charles Warren, when getting criticised for having the graffito erased, go into ‘defensive mode’ and exaggerate how visible the graffito was to passers by?
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-28-2022, 04:39 PM.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Click image for larger version

Name:	Goulstone Street G.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	40.5 KB
ID:	800771 Reckon this is close.
                      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        I’ve always wondered about the actual location of the writing. It’s been discussed many times of course but I thought I’d refresh my memory as to what was said about it.


                        In his 6th November report Charles 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.”


                        So no mention of it being on the jamb of the open archway from Swanson. He’s saying that it was at the bottom of the stairs.



                        Then we have Detective Halse saying:

                        “The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall.”

                        and:

                        “The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.”


                        As we can see from this photograph the wall inside matches Halse’s description. White over black. There is no white area on the jamb.

                        https://www.google.com/search?q=goul...ZetqfqFhSw7k-M




                        So why do we have Swanson, Long and Halse saying that the writing was on the wall inside the passage on the one hand and Warren saying that it was on the jamb on the other?

                        Question - Did Sir Charles Warren, when getting criticised for having the graffito erased, go into ‘defensive mode’ and exaggerate how visible the graffito was to passers by?


                        Swanson did not see the writing.

                        Long may not have expressed himself well on that point.

                        Halse's mention of black, Warren's mention of a jamb and an archway, and the layout of the writing as recorded by Long, all point to the writing having been on the black jamb of the archway, which means it was visible to passing policemen, which is what the murderer would have wanted.

                        Had the writer merely wanted to upset the residents, he could have written the message on the wall just inside of and to the right of the archway, which would have been easier and safer to do.

                        Comment


                        • So we ignore Halse?

                          The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall​“

                          And Long?

                          “….lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. Above it on the wall was written in chalk​.”

                          No problem.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

                          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                            So we ignore Halse?

                            The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall​“


                            No problem.


                            That is not what The Daily Telegraph reported.

                            Here is the totality of Halse's remarks about the location of the writing, as reported by it:

                            I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall.

                            It was written with white chalk on a black facia.

                            The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.


                            The Daily Telegraph report quotes Halse.


                            The words The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall

                            appeared in the report in The Times, but were part of a summary of Halse's evidence and not quoted directly from it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              I’ve always wondered about the actual location of the writing. It’s been discussed many times of course but I thought I’d refresh my memory as to what was said about it.


                              In his 6th November report Charles 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.”


                              Swanson however, in a report also on the 6th, said:

                              “…he found in the bottom of a common stairs leading to No. 108 to 119. Goldston Street Buildings a piece of a bloodstained apron, and above it written in chalk the words, “The Juwes are the men who will not be blamed for nothing.”

                              So no mention of it being on the jamb of the open archway from Swanson. He’s saying that it was at the bottom of the stairs.


                              Warren is also contradicted by PC Long who, when asked about the apron at the inquest, said:

                              “….lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House. Above it on the wall was written in chalk – The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.”

                              So according to him the writing was above the apron and therefore on the wall inside the passageway.


                              Then we have Detective Halse saying:

                              “The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall.”

                              and:

                              “The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.”


                              As we can see from this photograph the wall inside matches Halse’s description. White over black. There is no white area on the jamb.

                              https://www.google.com/search?q=goul...ZetqfqFhSw7k-M




                              So why do we have Swanson, Long and Halse saying that the writing was on the wall inside the passage on the one hand and Warren saying that it was on the jamb on the other?

                              Question - Did Sir Charles Warren, when getting criticised for having the graffito erased, go into ‘defensive mode’ and exaggerate how visible the graffito was to passers by?
                              A good question. Must reread my copy of "They All Love Jack" on this to see what B.R. says about all this ha ha.

                              If JTR stopped to clean his hands with the apron, I would have thought he preferred to do it out of sight, down a passage rather on the street.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1 View Post



                                That is not what The Daily Telegraph reported.

                                Here is the totality of Halse's remarks about the location of the writing, as reported by it:

                                I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall.

                                It was written with white chalk on a black facia.

                                The writing was on the black bricks, which formed a kind of dado, the bricks above being white.


                                The Daily Telegraph report quotes Halse.


                                The words The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall

                                appeared in the report in The Times, but were part of a summary of Halse's evidence and not quoted directly from it.
                                If the writing was actually on the jamb and the apron was below it as suggested then why would Halse also have said:

                                “At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.”

                                If the writing was on the jamb and the apron was below it then the apron would have been in the doorway. How could he “not necessarily have seen it if that was the car? He wouldn’t have been able to have missed it.

                                Then we have Long, also in The Telegraph (if you prefer that to The Times)

                                “[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.
                                [Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.”

                                So here we have Long being asked specifically how he came to see the writing (because he’d seen the apron first) He then explains that he saw it whilst looking for marks of blood. Why would he have said that if the writing was on the jamb directly in front of his face and above the apron.? According Long, the writing wasn’t immediately obvious. So according to the man that found the writing it was inside the doorway and not on the jamb.
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 11-28-2022, 08:27 PM.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X