Koz - No First Name in Marginalia

[PaulB]

In fairness, it can never be proved they were destroyed. Cabals, cartels, sects, and Fenians have methods of hiding things where they will never be found.

Mike

You did promise you wouldn't say that.

[PaulB]

Keep up the good work you wil soon be officially asked to join the cartel I understand there are one or two vacancies ly

He might even be asked to join the cabal.

It's noticeable that you don't even attempt to answer Colin's point.

[The Good Michael]

Mind you, if it turns out that they were destroyed in WWII you are going to look very silly. And ignorant. Again.

In fairness, it can never be proved they were destroyed. Cabals, cartels, sects, and Fenians have methods of hiding things where they will never be found.

Mike

[Monty]

"Mr Begg comes back and again with the old chestnut now he says all the City files were lost or destroyed or stolen. I dont subscribe to that for one moment, the city kept their own files my understanding is that they have not so long ago been transferring them and are still doing so. So if they were stolen could it have been a police officer then?

Has Don Rumbellow given any indication that when he had access to them he found any evidence to suggest files had been lost stolen or destroyed.?"

Where did you get that info from Trevor? That they have and still are transferring files from the CoLP? And what files are they?

And before you answer, please bare in mind that I have been in close contact with the CoLP stand in curator and Record Officer for the past few years.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Your Own Book

Mr Begg comes back and again with the old chestnut now he says all the City files were lost or destroyed or stolen. I dont subscribe to that for one moment, the city kept their own files my understanding is that they have not so long ago been transferring them and are still doing so. So if they were stolen could it have been a police officer then?

Has Don Rumbellow given any indication that when he had access to them he found any evidence to suggest files had been lost stolen or destroyed.?

Trevor,

"As to the extent of the papers that have been lost or destroyed, we cannot tell. Supposedly, most of the City of London Police files were lost in the Blitz during the Second World War".
(page 304, 'Jack the Ripper: The 21st century Investigation').

You subscribed to this 'old chestnut' yourself in your own book! It's a bit unfair to criticise Paul for doing something you've done yourself and then to claim that you 'don't subscribe to that for one moment'.

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

You could argue that looking at by way of the police practices today why do officers seize a variety of things when a crime has been commmited because they might be of evidential value but if those things are soon eliminated then they become irrelevant.

Because of all what was going on at Goulston Street and the fact that the uniform officer had pointed it out it was probably right and proper to do so, seeing as the two of them couldnt even write it down correctly. But was it looked on as evidence thereafter did anyone come out and say the killer wrote it.

Mr Begg comes back and again with the old chestnut now he says all the City files were lost or destroyed or stolen. I dont subscribe to that for one moment, the city kept their own files my understanding is that they have not so long ago been transferring them and are still doing so. So if they were stolen could it have been a police officer then?

Has Don Rumbellow given any indication that when he had access to them he found any evidence to suggest files had been lost stolen or destroyed.?

Wow! You mean the City police files weren't destroyed during WWII like everyone, Don included, has believed! Gosh! That's about the single most exciting revelation of the decade. The City police files are extant. I can barely contain myself...

Mind you, if it turns out that they were destroyed in WWII you are going to look very silly. And ignorant. Again.




Not an old chestnut, Trevor. And it has been explained why. You have never, not once, countered the argument. But what's new. But this just gets funnier by the hour. You are a world acknowledged expert on the case, Trevor, or so you say on your website, so you know whether all-important City files exist or not You therefore have all the facts at your fingertips, don't you?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Paul,

As another poster has pointed out, the missing section of apron had not been torn off, but cut. Kate had "1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 Metal Tea Spoon" in her possession. So either Kate was in the habit of using one knife for both eating and tampon manufacture - or someone else cut the apron.

Regards, Bridewell.

Keep up the good work you wil soon be officially asked to join the cartel I understand there are one or two vacancies ly

[PaulB]

Hi Paul,

As another poster has pointed out, the missing section of apron had not been torn off, but cut. Kate had "1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 Metal Tea Spoon" in her possession. So either Kate was in the habit of using one knife for both eating and tampon manufacture - or someone else cut the apron.

Regards, Bridewell.

Yes, you have a good point, unlike Catherine's table knife, but do you think it's too complex an argument for some to grasp?

[Phil Carter]

What was his reason for wanting something photographed that he didn't consider to be evidence?

Hello Colin,

Any slight comment about this will cause eruptions..but I'll merely suggest something. Can't prove it, can't disprove it. Don't put great personal weight on it either.

It isn't unusual for people of all walks of life to be prejudiced against another race. Policemen in the Met have had their fair share of accusation and bias against certain communities for many many years here and there.

I asked an English friend who by sheer co-incidence lives in the same small town as I in Norway about exactly this. He is an ex-policeman, serving in various Met Police Divisions. He said..
"Right up until the late 50's and early 60's there was a small but underlying racism problem involving the East End involving the Jewish population. It started to change with the influx of first West Indian communities, then predominantly Asian communities in the general area from the 60's onwards."

Now I am NOT putting too much weight on this, but give it as an example that in the 1880's and I am sure onwards, there were anti-semetic policemen (as indeed there were in all walks of life) in the area. Sir Robert Anderson didn't exactl;y paint a pretty picture of the community himself, I note.

Whether this applies to Halse for example, I have no idea..and I do NOT make the assumption nor accuisation. But it would explain your comment. It may not be evidence, per se, but it would discredit the Jews. Remember the Pizer incident? The feeling that an "Englishman wouldn'tdo such a thing" re the manner of the muredrs was pretty strong. That isnt anti-semetc in itself, by by default?

In these politically correct times it is hard to imagine such open comment and feeling such as Anderson's towards any community. It would not be unusual for a person to "want" to "find blame", would it?

I repeat, I put no real weight on it personally. But I wont dismiss the possibility out of hand either. And I do realise the mention of the erasure of the word Juwes as well.

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

No, we don't know anything about the graffito now that they didn't know then, but some people choose to forget what is known. The graffito was erased in the face of strong opposition from the City of London police who wished to preserve it. Dc Daniel Halse urged that a photograph should be taken for the Acting Commissioner of the City Police to have sight of. When he realised that he was fighting a losing battle he asked that the word 'Juwes' be erased, but the remainder preserved until it could be photographed. Tell us why an experienced detective wanted this course of action with regard to the GSG if he "didn't regard it as evidence"? What was his reason for wanting something photographed that he didn't consider to be evidence?

Regards, Bridewell.

You could argue that looking at by way of the police practices today why do officers seize a variety of things when a crime has been commmited because they might be of evidential value but if those things are soon eliminated then they become irrelevant.

Because of all what was going on at Goulston Street and the fact that the uniform officer had pointed it out it was probably right and proper to do so, seeing as the two of them couldnt even write it down correctly. But was it looked on as evidence thereafter did anyone come out and say the killer wrote it.

Mr Begg comes back and again with the old chestnut now he says all the City files were lost or destroyed or stolen. I dont subscribe to that for one moment, the city kept their own files my understanding is that they have not so long ago been transferring them and are still doing so. So if they were stolen could it have been a police officer then?

Has Don Rumbellow given any indication that when he had access to them he found any evidence to suggest files had been lost stolen or destroyed.?

[Bridewell]

Cutting

Originally posted by PaulB: Unfortunately, your idea that Eddowes used the apron for sanitary purposes is ridiculous. She was destitute and broke, she wore the clothes she owned, she’d pawned John Kelly’s boots to buy some basic necessities like tea and sugar. Do you seriously think she would have ruined her only apron, an important garment in those days, by tearing it and using it for sanitary purposes?

Hi Paul,

As another poster has pointed out, the missing section of apron had not been torn off, but cut. Kate had "1 White Handle Table Knife & 1 Metal Tea Spoon" in her possession. So either Kate was in the habit of using one knife for both eating and tampon manufacture - or someone else cut the apron.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Nope

Why should we be discussing it as evidence when the police in 1888 didnt regard it as evidence. Do we know something now that they didnt know then ?

Hi Trevor,

No, we don't know anything about the graffito now that they didn't know then, but some people choose to forget what is known. The graffito was erased in the face of strong opposition from the City of London police who wished to preserve it. Dc Daniel Halse urged that a photograph should be taken for the Acting Commissioner of the City Police to have sight of. When he realised that he was fighting a losing battle he asked that the word 'Juwes' be erased, but the remainder preserved until it could be photographed. Tell us why an experienced detective wanted this course of action with regard to the GSG if he "didn't regard it as evidence"? What was his reason for wanting something photographed that he didn't consider to be evidence?

Regards, Bridewell.

[PaulB]

Well arent facts there to be disputed in this way take suspects if you can t prove who the killer was you can prove who he wasnt

What the hell does that mean? Punctuation would do a lot to make you comprehensible, Trevor.

Anyway, still no answers, just the usual claptrap. But who knows, maybe you will have the last laugh. Let's hope so. It doesn't seem likely. Have a nice time in France.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't want a discussion, Trevor. What I want is for you to justify and substantiate a conclusion you have reached.

I hesitate to say this, Trevor, but all the case papers of the City police have been destroyed, so actually you don't have the remotest idea whether the police regarded it as evidence in 1888 or not.

I also hesitate to point out that Anderson was critical of the erasure, maintaining that the graffiti could have provided a valuable clue, and he wasn't altogether alone in that view, so the police in 1888 did regard it as evidence.

Ah Hans Christian again the man hadnt done a proper days police work in his life he is life you woulndt know what eveidence was if if jumped up and punched him on the nose.

What valuable clue do you think he was referring to ?

And whether they regarded it as evidence or not is irrelevant to your certain assurance that the murderer didn't write it. All I am asking you is to explain the evidence on which you base that conclusion.

You really are something I have more than once already give the reasons I am not keep going to repeat myslef like you keep doing.

And just so you know, whilst I am unable to say whether the murderer wrote the graffiti or not, I quietly incline to the view that he didn't, largely, I confess, because I can't see the murderer squatting down to write a message. So, I don't have the least vested interest in arguing against you on this. The difference between us, though, is that I freely and openly admit that I don't know who wrote the graffiti. You, on the other hand, claim that you do at least know who didn't write it. Evidence please.

Well arent facts there to be disputed in this way take suspects if you can t prove who the killer was you can prove who he wasnt

[Monty]

I know I'm correct Trevor,

Yeah, bring the book. It seems you require it.

Do you actually believe the rest of your post? Because I can lay many examples of your own words contradicting that.

A few going down with you? You posse worried too?

Remember, you reap what you sow.

Monty