The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

So let me get this straight. Inspector McWilliam makes out the Official report on Catherine eddowes demise, which is passed onward and upwards, through the police ranks and on to the Home Office, and having got so many things either wrong or leaves things, important things, out, you are basically saying that in comparison with Inquest testimony, it is worthless?

That's one heck of a call in my book.

Hi Phil,

Clearly it's not worthless, but where there's a contradiction I'll go with the horse's mouth. Say Monty compiled a report on the views of members of this board, and one of his statements contradicts one of your quotes on this board - of course I'd go with your quote as being a reflection of your views - straight from the horse's mouth.

I'm not terribly interested in where it is recorded: report, inquest testimony or otherwise. What matters is who said it.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but McWilliams' Official Report must be taken into consideration, because if is not impossible for witnesses at an inquest to lie.

It goes without saying that in the event you can show Halse was lying, a whole new complexion takes root.

Basically, from what I can see, the ONLY place Halse's infamous stop and search is mentioned... is by Halse himself.

And then it would have to be considered whether or not Halse's stop and search is pertinent to the crux of the report. Some details have to be left out, otherwise you will have a report as long as your arm. By leaving out the stop and search, does this in any way colour or cloud the objective of the official report?

It contradicts the official report, as dies his testimony of the time the apron piece was found vis a vis the time he says he was at the spot where it was found contradicts the official report. Harvey isn't even mentioned in the IOfficial report. Halse getting wind of the murder is different from his testimony too.

But, then Smith's comments would support Hasle's time of finding the apron.

The one inconsistency seems to be: "saw the PC looking at the apron" v "was pointed to where the apron was found".

[lynn cates]

Sing it, Aretha

Hello Neil.

"I think Halse was bright enough to realise that a killer rarely stays at the scene of crime. Especially as that scene was exploding with Police activity."

Agreed, provided he had time to make off. But, as you recall, he was timed just between the beats of 2 coppers.

"However, I didn't have that fancy schooling you seem so fond of pointing out"

I did that merely because of a certain snide remark about logic. No offense, but I teach logic (amongst other things) for my daily bread. I would never criticise Stewart or Trevor or any other ex-policeman about crime investigation skills, nor yet Maria for her musicology knowledge. Perhaps I could do with just a modicum of R-E-S-P-E-C-T--at least in my doctoral area?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Not at all.

Your call on what you believe.

For me, the primary source will always take precedence, and the words of Halse and Long = primary source in this case. And authoratitive: there's no one better placed than Long and Halse to inform on what Long and Halse did/saw.

Hello FM,

So let me get this straight. Inspector McWilliam makes out the Official report on Catherine Eddowes demise, which is passed onward and upwards, through the police ranks and on to the Home Office, and having got so many things either wrong or leaves things, important things, out, you are basically saying that in comparison with Inquest testimony, it is therfore worthless?

That's one heck of a call in my book. I must remember this when I look at Swansons OFFICIAL reports, or Abberline's or anyone's.. not even mentioning official reports to Anderson by Phillips and Co. The Mary Kelly inquest, for example, says absolutly nothing at all.

I am sorry to disagree with you, but McWilliams' Official Report must be taken into consideration, because it is not impossible for witnesses at an inquest to lie.

Basically, from what I can see, the ONLY place Halse's infamous stop and search is mentioned... is by Halse himself. It contradicts the official report, as does his testimony of the time the apron piece was found vis a vis the time he says he was at the spot where it was found contradicts the official report. Harvey isn't even mentioned in the Official report. The time of Halse and Co getting wind of the murder is different from his testimony too.

Now I'd say that for an official report to be SO badly out... well.. I'd find that frankly astounding. Especially as it would be passed onward and upward. McWilliam would want to get it bang on..this was a VERY high profile case. He wouldn't want to be seen to show he got all the details wrong.

THAT, is surely logical to anyone.


kindly


Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

Surely the man is repeating what he knew THAT NIGHT, not afterwards, because that is what he is being asked about.. the actions and deeds of that very evening. That is the purpose of such questions at an inquest.

Hi Phil,

We disagree here then.

"I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square".

He doesn't say: "I had heard that a/the murder had taken place in Mitre Square".

I think there is a subtle difference between these two statements.

[Monty]

Wanna quote the full testimony Phil or just the selected parts?

Lynn,

I think Halse was bright enough to realise that a killer rarely stays at the scene of crime. Especially as that scene was exploding with Police activity.

However, I didn't have that fancy schooling you seem so fond of pointing out so what do I know huh?

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

I have to say that your comment that Inquest testimony takes precedence over the Official report to be rather like moving the goalposts.

Are we or are we not to believe the official report?

Hi Phil,

Not at all.

Your call on what you believe.

For me, the primary source will always take precedence, and the words of Halse and Long = primary source in this case. And authoratitive: there's no one better placed than Long and Halse to inform on what Long and Halse did/saw.

[Phil Carter]

Hello FM,

Surely the man is repeating what he knew THAT NIGHT, not afterwards, because that is what he is being asked about.. the actions and deeds of that very evening. That is the purpose of such questions at an inquest.

I politely have to ask again.

Are we or are we not to believe the Official Report on the murder of Catherine Eddowes or not?

kindly

Phil

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Mac. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

some points

Hello Neil.

"However, logically, are you stating a killer would hide inside an empty house, yards away from a body, knowing full well that property is most likely to be searched rather than get the hell away?"

Not at all. I am saying that this would be a sound idea for Halse to pursue. He could not have known whether the killer had made away or not

"Maybe you do need a refresher on logic."

Possibly. Perhaps you will volunteer and do me the honour? I have always had many questions about Lewis' modal system S9 and the various access relations amongst possible worlds. Help me out?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

Actually, Long says..

"Having searched (the buildings etc), I at once preceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there, I had heard of a murder having been committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square. I left the man 190 in charge of the beat JH division..... I next returned to the Building at about 5am."


kindly


Phil

Hi Phil,

At the time of the inquest he knew the murder had taken place in Mitre Square.

His comment leaves room for opinion: had he heard the murder had taken place in Mitre Square at 3 in the morning? or had he heard simply it was 'in the city' (and found out later it was Mitre Square)?

It's not clear from his testimony.

[Phil Carter]

But, Long knows only that a murder has been committed 'in the city', not that it's nearby in Mitre Square. So, why is the apron of importance to him? Would it be so unsual to see a piece of clothlying around with blood stains on it? Would it warrant proceeding to the police station, particularly as he finds no blood splashes nearby?

Hello FM,

Actually, Long says..

"Having searched (the buildings etc), I at once preceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there, I had heard of a murder having been committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square. I left the man 190 in charge of the beat H division..... I next returned to the Building at about 5am."


kindly


Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

I and Detective Hunt went to Goulston Street and the spot was pointed ouit where the apron was found... I remained there and sent with a view to having the writing photographed. Directions were given to having the writing photographed and during the time some of the Metropolitan Police said as it was Sunday morning it might cause a riot or an outbreak against the Jewsand decided to have it rubbed out and it wasd rubbed out. When Hunt returned an enquiry was madeat every tenement..."

All according to Halse.

kindly


Phil

'The spot was pointed out where the apron was found'. Is the argument that the apron is no longer there, and as such this contradicts Smith's report?

[Phil Carter]

Hello FM,

I have to say that your comment that Inquest testimony takes precedence over the Official report to be rather like moving the goalposts.

Are we or are we not to believe the official report?

Or are we going to start saying that not only does McWilliam get loads of things completely wrong, he leaves out THE most important piece of testimony of Halse's, that he stopped and questioned two perople very close to the murder spot whilst on his way to Goulston Street?

Add that piece of info, which according to some, has "gone missing" from the official report that it isn't even mentioned DESPITE being testified at the Inquest by Halse? McWilliam MUST have known of the Inquest testimony when he wrote his report on October 27th. He must also have known of Halse's testimony about stopping 2 people as well..or are we now to believe he wasn't told about this?

kindly


Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

OK. And those critical issues are? (Just to keep all the ideas straight.)

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

The idea that the two of them must have been in the street at the same time simply can be countered quite easily, as per this thread.

I'm curious about Long.

Is he checking every doorway on his beat? That would be a long, old beat. Would he be overly concerned with what was lying around in Goulston Street, considering that he didn't know where the murder took place (at the testimony he claims he was expecting to find the body near the apron). I suppose this suggests the apron was visible from the street. Bizarrely, he knows the murder has taken place in the city, why is he expecting to find the body at Goulston Street? Does he think the apron is related to a murder other than that committed at Mitre Square?

But, Long knows only that a murder has been committed 'in the city', not that it's nearby in Mitre Square. So, why is the apron of importance to him? Would it be so unsual to see a piece of clothlying around with blood stains on it? Would it warrant proceeding to the police station, particularly as he finds no blood splashes nearby?

[Monty]

Hello Neil. Umm, I have a map of the area. One may trace the various routes that night--I have.

Given that Halse was a City chap and knew Mitre sq pretty well, why not go and check the empty buildings before another moment passes?

Cheers.
LC

Ok,

Watkins duty was to establish such building were secure, he would have done this during his beat. Also, Collard stated they were searched and found to be secure.

However, logically, are you stating a killer would hide inside an empty house, yards away from a body, knowing full well that property is most likely to be searched rather than get the hell away?

Maybe you do need a refresher on logic

Smiths memoires or inquest testimony?

Monty