The Apron

[Monty]

Hello Neil. Thanks. Sounds like a hunch?

Cheers.
LC

No, sound like logic to me.

Monty

[Monty]

Shoot me....shoot me now!

Monty

[lynn cates]

hunch

Hello Neil. Thanks. Sounds like a hunch?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

If the reasonable bounds of probability are that Long had the shutters on his lamp OPEN when he previously visited the spot where the apron was found and saw, and noted, that he saw nothing in the doorway, and that he himself said in his sworn statement the following which is seen in "the Ulimate" on page 238..

" I passed the spot where the apron was found about 2.20, the apron was not there when I passed then"

Halse states that at the same time, 2.20 am, he was at the SAME spot and saw no apron either.

Now given that Long was using his lamp to search the dark recesses.. and there were many of the same variety in the street, on the same side of the road in fact.. Long would have had the shutters OPEN as he searched all these dark recesses. The amount of time that would take would, in all logical opinion, show that a person with a lamp shining would almost certainly be seen in the street by someone else.. ESPECIALLY given that Halse says he was at the apron spot at around the same time as Long..2.20 am.

As I said before.. they CANNOT have been walking towards each other from opposite directions during this time of search, it would be impossible to miss each other. Therefore it is logical to assume, because of Halse's timing of 2.20, he entered the street via Wentworth Street one or two minutes before.
So one policeman MUST have been behind the other, travelling in the same direction.

We assume that Long patrolled the ENTIRE length of the street. It is a fairly long street. Let us also assume that there are perhaps 2 minutes interlude between the two men being at the spot where the apron piece was found.
Now if Long was busy searching the dark recesses, in and out of the doorways, and from the position of Halse at 2.20 being at the apron spot, how in heavens name did he NOT see Long and his lamp in front of him? If long was behind him, the street was dead quiet.. sound would have been heard and the flash of the lamp in the street would have shone along the street every time the lamp was carried out of any recess.

There is no way, in my opinion, that these two policemen didnt see each other, nor hear each other. Given the timing, the length of street from Wentworth Street to the place of the apron dumping, and the statements of BOTH men being at that spot at about the same time, it is almost impossible to my mind.

Next... this is Halse's run of things...

ABOUT 2 minutes to 2 her was in the company iof Marriott and Outram in Houndsditch by Aldgate Church. If Aldgate church had a clock face on it, then the time would have been known to be exact. About 2 minutes to 2 sounds pretty precise to me..not about 5 mins to, but two minutes to two. Again, if Halse said that he was at a spot at 2.20 and had NO clock to refer to, one assumes he must have had a pocket watch. Hence, "ABOUT 2 minutes to 2".

All three went to Mitre Square, perhaps 30 secs away? say a minute. So by 2 o'clock, with certainty, all three were in Mitre Square.

Now James Harvey stated..

"At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church passage as far as Mitre Squsre. I saw no one.I heard no cry or noise. When I got to Aldgate returning to Duke StreetI heard a whistle blownand SAW witness Morris with a LAMP.I went to him and asked what was the matter. He said, 'A woman has been ripped up in Mitre Square.'
I saw a constable on the other side of the street. I said, 'Come with me.' (This must have been Constable Holland)

We went to Mitre Square and saw Watkins there and the Deceased. Constable Holland who followed me went for Dr.Sequiera. Private individuals were sent for other Constables, arriving almost immediately. I waited there with Watkins (see the official report by McWilliam, below) and information was at once sent for the Inspector. I passed the office clock between 1 and 2 minutes to the half hour(1.28/1.29am).
I go as far as to the end of Church passage. I was at the end of Church Passage at about 18 or 19 minutes to 2. (1.41/1.42 am). I can only speak with certainty as to the time with regard to the post office clock.

So.. Harvey turns up in Mitre Square with Holland after he heard the whistle and chats with Morris. Morris, for his part states that..
"At a quarter to 2 Watkins... knocked on my door.." He then got hold of his lamp, walked the 20 odd yards over to the body, and shone his lamp on the body. He then states..

"I immediately blew my whistle and ran up Mitre Street into Aldgate. I saw no suspicious person. ABOUT then 2 Constables came up and asked me what was the matter. ... I then followed the Constables down to Mitre Square and took charge of my premises again..." (These must have been Harvey and Holland)

So if the time taken by Morris from seeing the body (ca. 1.46am), blowing his whistle, running up Mitre Street into Aldgate, where Holland and Harvey were is estimated at 2 minutes (1.48am) and all three were back in Mitre Square at ca.1.50 am, then Halse, by his own testimony, only turned up at 1.59/2.00am in company of Marriott and Outram and "gave instructions to have the neighbourhood searched and every man examined" etc.

Holland had been sent to get Sequiera, according to Harvey, so he wasn't there at 2.00am when Halse arrived. The only other known constables in Mitre Square at 2am were Watkins, and Harvey.Watkins didnt leave the body, so it must have been Outram, Marriott and Harvey who had been given instructions by Halse. But again, see the OFFICIAL report, below)

Sequiera says that he was called at "5 minutes to 2 and was the first medical man to arrive. As Holland was sent by Harvey to get him, it could not have taken Holland more than 4 minutes to reach Sequira. He would therefore have been back in Mitre Square with Holland shortly after, if not about 2.am.

Now compare that with the words of Inspector James McWilliam dated 27th October in his official report of the Eddowes murder (A49301C/8b)...

"The Constable who found the body immediately sent for a Surgeon and ALSO (my emphasis) to the Police Station at Bishopsgate and Inspector Collard was on the spot in a few minutes.

Detective Constables Halse, Marriott and Outram who had been searching the IMMEDIATE neighbourhood of the spot where the murder was committed (& where the doors are left open all night) on HEARING OF THE MURDER AT 1.55am (my emphasis again) at once started off in various directions to look for suspected persons. The Officer Halse went in the direction of Whitechapel and passed through Goulston Street where part of the deceased's apron was subsequently found at 2.20 AM (my emphasis AGAIN); on returning to the Square he HEARD that part of the apron stained with blood had BEEN FOUND in Goulston Street.

Right.. anyone see the differences here? This is an OFFICIAL report written by Inspector McWilliam. First he states that the Constable that FOUND the body (which would have been Watkins)..sent for both a Surgeon and for someone to go to Bishopsgate police Station. According to page 245 of the Ultimate, The Times reports the Inquest as followsd..

""Witness (Watkins) remained by the side of the body till the arrival of Police Constable Holland.No one was there with witness until Holland arrived, and he was FOLLOWED by Dr. Sequiera. Inspector Collard arrived at about 2."

Err hang on a bit. How did Holland first arrive than disappear then first arrive again with the Doctor WITHOUT being in the Square first with Harvey, who isnt even mentioned in the official report!!?

If Collard arrived at about two, and he was an Inspector, how come HALSE gave the instructions at the same time for constables to search around the area and stop all people?

According to the official report, Halse and Co heard of the murder at 1.55am, this time is specific.

According to the official report, the deceased's apron piece was found at 2.20am, NOT 2.55am.

According to the official report, when Halse RETURNED from Goulston Street, he HEARD that an apron piece had been found. So if it took ten minutes for Halse to get back to Mitre Square, the apron piece was found within 10 minutes of him being there.. and according to the OFFICIAL report, that piece of Apron was found at 2.20am-- which according to Halse himself at the inquest, is the time when he passed the spot where the apron was found!

These quotes are all from the Ultimate Sourcebook..in black and white.
Perhaps someone will now tell me that the possibility of Halse having dumped the rag is absurd? Officially, it was found at 2.20am. At the inquest, Halse said he was at that exact spot at 2.20am. Yet remember, it was LONG who found the rag piece. So who in heavens name could tell Halse "when he arrived back at Mitre Square" that an apron piece had been found" if not Long himself and Halse came back with the info?? The very policeman I keep being told could not have been in the street at the same time as Halse!!! Unless Long went off to the police station and someone from the police station intercepted Halse on his way back from Mitre Square and told him... which is almost a physical impossibility as the police station Long went off to is in the opposite direction to the way Halse going back to Mitre Square..


kindly

Phil

PS IN THE OFFICIAL REPORT, ABOVE, THERE IS NO MENTION OF HALSE HAVING STOPPED AND SEARCHED ANYONE AT ALL ON HIS WAY TO GOULSTON STREET.

[Wickerman]

There is a myth that the two forces did not co-operate or were not permitted on each others patch.

Absolutely, there's at least three reports mentioning the fact that the City Police were assigned the task of interviewing the tennents of Wentworth Dwellings (108-119) in Met. territory.

Regards, Jon S.

[Monty]

Hello Neil.

"Halse was well within his right to enter Met territory on that night."

Of course he was. No qualms about that. But perhaps Trevor's point involves asking "Why did he choose EXACTLY that location?" Was it a hunch? A tip? A wild guess? Mere coincidence?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

He seems to have been heading in the direction of where the other murders occured and where, according to the general concensus of the time, it was felt the killer lived.

The City Police were fully aware of what was happening across the boarder.

Monty

[lynn cates]

por que alli?

Hello Neil.

"Halse was well within his right to enter Met territory on that night."

Of course he was. No qualms about that. But perhaps Trevor's point involves asking "Why did he choose EXACTLY that location?" Was it a hunch? A tip? A wild guess? Mere coincidence?

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

"Two police officers in the same street almost at the same time and they dont see each other or hear each other and both are looking listening and searching. Both almost fall into the archway at almost the same time and neither suposedly see ther apron piece."

No real evidence to support this, as the two did not state they saw each other.

"And why did Halse decide to go dwn Gouldton Street that was out of City territory in fact why did he go into Wentorth St that was also out of his territory"

Because Halse was in pursuit of a killer. What do you think happens? Halse stopped in Houndsditch a went "Whoop, not my territory, cant enter here"?

There is a myth that the two forces did not co-operate or were not permitted on each others patch. Whilst this is true to some extent, they did assist each other with arrests etc. Marriott (City DC) for example, aided a Met PC and escorted the criminal (after being 'hob knocked') to Commercial Street Police Station (a Met station).

Halse was well within his right to entre Met territory on that night.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

You make a very valid point here Phil, one I concede.

However I will throw in to the equation a few points.

1) We have only Longs statement he did look into the dwelling entrance at 2.20am. His duty is to the Queens Highways and Byways. Meaning he is not permitted to enter private dwellings unless invited or if he feels a crime had taken place or was about to.

2) Long stated he know about a murder at 2.55am. Meaning he was unaware at 2.20am. Therefore as he was unaware of a crime he had no reason to check the entrances. So no need to check at that time.

However, in his statement, he does indeed state he checked inside the entrance at 2.20am. I agree that to do this effectively, his shutter had to be open. So logic would state it was open as he checked the dwellings.

3) This doesn't mean he kept it open all along Goulston St.

4) Halse, if he took the quickest route back to Mitre Sq, would only had been in Goulston st for seconds.

So, to sum up, if Long is to be believed, you are quite correct in stating his lamp would be open. However, there's nothing to state it was indeed open or open for the rest of his beat.

Again, your point is valid and duly noted.

Monty

Two police officers in the same street almost at the same time and they dont see each other or hear each other and both are looking listening and searching. Both almost fall into the archway at almost the same time and neither suposedly see ther apron piece.

And why did Halse decide to go dwn Gouldton Street that was out of City territory in fact why did he go into Wentorth St that was also out of his territory

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor, he was referring to the deed. The whole act. If he was stating a specific part of the act he would have said so.

He doesn't.

There was enough light at the Chapman scene, was her womb removed in Hanbury st?

You know, as well as I, that a Doctors duty at the scene of crime was to decide if life was exstinct. Its at the post mortem where. A full examination is conducted.

I have as much medical knowledge of organ extraction as you seem to have on Policing and procedure. Yours 'Experts (one being a Gyneacologist)' opinion flies in the face of those who were at scene and were equally expert.

I honestly commend you for reviewing the evidence, however you have jumped to a conclusion which holds no logic, no reason.

Those at Golden Lane Mortuary would have understood the magnitude of this murder, do you honestly believe they would tamper with the body? Do you reckon this would have been allowed?

Monty

I disagee and one pic is worth a thousands words if you have seen all of the pics from the experts then you wil clearly see the degree of difficulty involved you will clearly see that the abdomen would be filled with blood. You you will have read how slippery these organs can be thats why surgeons etc now wear gloves.

You cannot be ceratin that Chapman death was at thet ime which has been suggested therefore

And when were ate talking experts we are talking about top experts a consultant gynecologist, a senior pathologist and enviscerator all who ate removing these type of organs on a daily basis.

But it is fact that every day first thing there would be a number of medical personell seeking to obtain organs. The bodies would not need much tampering with the abdomens were alreaday opened up. Thats where the evidence of medical precison came in by someone removing them at the mortuary who was in the medical profession.

Why should they at Golden Lane Mortuary understood the magnitude it was the first one the city had, They couldnt have been that concerned it took them nearly 10 hours or so before they carried out the post mortem. A lot could have happened in that time.

[Monty]

Hello Trevor,

Hasle gave an EXACT time of "passing the spot where the apron was later placed" as 2.20, and as there wasn't as far as I am aware, a clock near him in Goulston Street, therefore had he a pocket watch on his person? Otherwise how could the man give an exact time? Later in his statement he says he was in Goulston Street at about 2.20, which would indicate because of his earlier comment with exact timing, he entered the street a minute or two before in order to be at the exact spot in the street at 2.20? Seems logical to me.

Also, I would like your comment on the possibility that the lamp used by Long. By my reckoning, if Long, as stated, says that when he previously passed the spot on his beat, he didnt see the apron piece, would it not be logical that in order to see anything there in that recess or not, he would need the lamp on? As he made the statement that nothing was actually seen there on his first visit, it indicates he actually looked and noted and remembered NOT seeing anything. In order to come to this conclusion, as a certainty, he would have to have "seen" nothing was there. In order to see in this dark recess to find nothing or anything, would he have needed to use his lamp? For if he used the lamp at 2.55am, and DID see something, can we assume he used the lamp at 2.20 not certainly ascertain "nothing" was there previously? Seems logical to me?

For it has been suggested that Long would have closed the shutters on his lamp, and used his lamp for stealth reasons. Personally I find it more logical in a dark street in the dead of night for a person to use it to illuminate dark recesses?

kindly

Phil

You make a very valid point here Phil, one I concede.

However I will throw in to the equation a few points.

1) We have only Longs statement he did look into the dwelling entrance at 2.20am. His duty is to the Queens Highways and Byways. Meaning he is not permitted to enter private dwellings unless invited or if he feels a crime had taken place or was about to.

2) Long stated he know about a murder at 2.55am. Meaning he was unaware at 2.20am. Therefore as he was unaware of a crime he had no reason to check the entrances. So no need to check at that time.

However, in his statement, he does indeed state he checked inside the entrance at 2.20am. I agree that to do this effectively, his shutter had to be open. So logic would state it was open as he checked the dwellings.

3) This doesn't mean he kept it open all along Goulston St.

4) Halse, if he took the quickest route back to Mitre Sq, would only had been in Goulston st for seconds.

So, to sum up, if Long is to be believed, you are quite correct in stating his lamp would be open. However, there's nothing to state it was indeed open or open for the rest of his beat.

Again, your point is valid and duly noted.

Monty

[Monty]

Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.
Where he states sufficient light to perptrate the deed he was referring to the acutual murder and mutilation and not any organ removal. As I stated previous Bagster Phillips beleived the removal of the organs showed some sign of medical precision. My experts also say the same you dont have to be at the crime scene. Besides none of the doctors at the crime examimed the bodies to see if any organs had been removed.

In the light of the removal of Chapmans murder they made a mistake by not doing so. Experts know how to remove organs and the degrees of difficulty involved. What medical expertise do you have to challenge that.

Or are you one of these who cant bear the thought of a major part of this mystery going down the pan.

No Trevor, he was referring to the deed. The whole act. If he was stating a specific part of the act he would have said so.

He doesn't.

There was enough light at the Chapman scene, was her womb removed in Hanbury st?

You know, as well as I, that a Doctors duty at the scene of crime was to decide if life was exstinct. Its at the post mortem where. A full examination is conducted.

I have as much medical knowledge of organ extraction as you seem to have on Policing and procedure. Yours 'Experts (one being a Gyneacologist)' opinion flies in the face of those who were at scene and were equally expert.

I honestly commend you for reviewing the evidence, however you have jumped to a conclusion which holds no logic, no reason.

Those at Golden Lane Mortuary would have understood the magnitude of this murder, do you honestly believe they would tamper with the body? Do you reckon this would have been allowed?

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Hasle gave an EXACT time of "passing the spot where the apron was later placed" as 2.20, and as there wasn't as far as I am aware, a clock near him in Goulston Street, therefore had he a pocket watch on his person? Otherwise how could the man give an exact time? Later in his statement he says he was in Goulston Street at about 2.20, which would indicate because of his earlier comment with exact timing, he entered the street a minute or two before in order to be at the exact spot in the street at 2.20? Seems logical to me.

Also, I would like your comment on the possibility that the lamp used by Long. By my reckoning, if Long, as stated, says that when he previously passed the spot on his beat, he didnt see the apron piece, would it not be logical that in order to see anything there in that recess or not, he would need the lamp on? As he made the statement that nothing was actually seen there on his first visit, it indicates he actually looked and noted and remembered NOT seeing anything. In order to come to this conclusion, as a certainty, he would have to have "seen" nothing was there. In order to see in this dark recess to find nothing or anything, would he have needed to use his lamp? For if he used the lamp at 2.55am, and DID see something, can we assume he used the lamp at 2.20 not certainly ascertain "nothing" was there previously? Seems logical to me?

For it has been suggested that Long would have closed the shutters on his lamp, and used his lamp for stealth reasons. Personally I find it more logical in a dark street in the dead of night for a person to use it to illuminate dark recesses?

kindly

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Sequeria is a contemporary witness, at the scene. Now unless you have invented a time machine (and a man of your genius surely must have by now) I find it fanciful that your 'experts' have experience of working on that spot at that time with that light.

I have considered your new material and, like many others, came to the same conclusion. Only I say it.

As for belittling, I am merey following your lead. You constant sniping at experienced researchers, historian and Ripperologists is rife throughout this site.

Unlike others, I won't tolerate such behaviour and will respond in kind. If you can't play by the standards you set then take a seat on the bench. Or, alternately, change your aggressive and abusive tact and see how I react.

Monty

Quote from Sequeira

Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.
Where he states sufficient light to perptrate the deed he was referring to the acutual murder and mutilation and not any organ removal. As I stated previous Bagster Phillips beleived the removal of the organs showed some sign of medical precision. My experts also say the same you dont have to be at the crime scene. Besides none of the doctors at the crime examimed the bodies to see if any organs had been removed.

In the light of the removal of Chapmans murder they made a mistake by not doing so. Experts know how to remove organs and the degrees of difficulty involved. What medical expertise do you have to challenge that.

Or are you one of these who cant bear the thought of a major part of this mystery going down the pan.

[Monty]

The evidence does and my team of medical experts confirm that both in the case of Chapman and Eddowes.

The others didnt agree with Dr Sequiera.

The only bollocks being posted is by you in posts where you constanty refuse to accept or even consider new material and go out of your way to insult and belittle anyone who does.

Sequeria is a contemporary witness, at the scene. Now unless you have invented a time machine (and a man of your genius surely must have by now) I find it fanciful that your 'experts' have experience of working on that spot at that time with that light.

I have considered your new material and, like many others, came to the same conclusion. Only I say it.

As for belittling, I am merey following your lead. You constant sniping at experienced researchers, historian and Ripperologists is rife throughout this site.

Unlike others, I won't tolerate such behaviour and will respond in kind. If you can't play by the standards you set then take a seat on the bench. Or, alternately, change your aggressive and abusive tact and see how I react.

Monty