The Apron

[Monty]

Hi Curious,

Its mentioned in my post.

On his way out of Mitre Square, at the junction of Middlesex St and Wentworth St, Halse stopped two people and searched them.

Happy with their story he let them on their way and he proceded to Goulston St. Due to his movements, one assumes he entered Goulston St from the north.

If Halse had taken the apron piece why waste time stop/searching? Why not move straight to the dwellings?

Its a case of questioning for questionings sake. It brings nothing but unfounded conjecture and spreads myth.

This from a man who states we have a responsibility to present the truth.

Monty

[lynn cates]

the cure

Hello Mac.

"But, then why wait til between 2.20 and 2.55?"

This is the whole nub. But the direction is also telling. Suffice it to say that the apron conundrum cured me of an acute case of Druittism a long time ago.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor.

"A very astute observation Lynn"

Why, thank you indeed.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hi Curious,

Its mentioned in my post.

On his way out of Mitre Square, at the junction of Middlesex St and Wentworth St, Halse stopped two people and searched them.

Happy with their story he let them on their way and he proceded to Goulston St. Due to his movements, one assumes he entered Goulston St from the north.

If Halse had taken the apron piece why waste time stop/searching? Why not move straight to the dwellings?

Its a case of questioning for questionings sake. It brings nothing but unfounded conjecture and spreads myth.

This from a man who states we have a responsibility to present the truth.

Monty

Thanks, Monty,

I thought that was all it was about, but just in case there was more, I had to ask.

I'm re-reading Sugden even as I type -- well almost.

It appears they, Halse and Hunt, stopped everyone going into the Wentworth buildings, but don't mention anyone coming out: "When Hunt returned an enquiry was made at every tenement of the building but we could gain no tidings of anyone going in likely to be the murderer," quoting Halse apparently.

The commas missing in the quote is exactly as the book -- no commas in the usual places.

curious

[curious]

Hello Mac.

"But, then why wait til between 2.20 and 2.55?"

This is the whole nub. But the direction is also telling. Suffice it to say that the apron conundrum cured me of an acute case of Druittism a long time ago.

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,

You raise two very interesting points that I'd appreciate your take on, Lynn.

Indeed why the wait from the time of the murder until after 2:20 a.m.? Where was the apron piece during that time? May as well throw in: what does the direction tell you?

And why did this puzzle cure you of Druittism? (I'm surprised to learn you were ever a Druittist -- not that I know you well enough to really know.)

So, any thoughts you are willing to share?

curious

[curious]

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone other than the killer cut the apron piece
Chris

Hi, Chris,

I realize I am out of my league here, but considering the close timing here on Eddowes, isn't it almost outside the realm of possibility?

curious

[Fleetwood Mac]

If we're going with Tom's logic:

1) Long was confident it wasn't there at 2.20, so it wasn't there.

2) The writing doesn't mention the murder, so the writing isn't connected.

So:

3) If Jack dropped the apron, then where he is:

a) The police search begins at 2.05, so he could have been long gone. Obviously, he wasn't as he dropped the apron. Unless we're arguing he went West or out the way of the search, so why not drop the apron West or out the way?

b) This suggests he was still in the area.

c) But the search doesn't begin until 2.05 so what's preventing him from leaving the area? Does he see Harvey or Halse, and decides he needs to take cover? Why doesn't he just wait until they've passed and move on? There aren't many police about at that point bar the beat polis.

d) Does he have a little hide out somewhere near? If so, wouldn't he wait there beyond 2.55?

I really shouldn't say this in public but I'm a massive fan of the murder of Catherine Eddowes.

All roads bring me back to someone else putting the apron there.

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I have just been made aware of Monty's comments upon my recent postings. In an effort to try to answer this poster's comments, which he apparently writes with the "utmost respect".. a totally new concept afforded me that I find hard to believe given his somewhat childish and non respectful comments in posts 232 and 234, I will respond, for the only (and last) time since I deliberately put the poster on ignore a few months ago. After having commented fully in this posting, I will not comment again on his postings or its meanings. This posting is therefore mostly Ripper related and thread related. If Monty wishes to opine again that my posting is "absurd" that is his opinion.

I apparently, according to Monty, "know little of what I am passing comment upon". How respectful...Really? Let's see shall we?

1. Long's Bulls-eye lamp situation.

Monty has NO idea whether the shutter was open nor closed, and is confusing the situation by suggesting it may have been closed. He has no evidence to show that it was. However, we do have evidence to show that it was most likely open..because one could safely assume he had the lamp open at "about" 2.55 in order to see the rag in the doorway. One can safely presume that Long would have had his lamp shutters open when doing the same route earlier. There is no logical reason nor evidence for him to have the shutters open and closed on a whim. It is logical, given that Long found the apron piece at about 2.55 to presume he needed the light in order to see it, so therefore it is also logical he would have used the lamp to see things about 35 minutes earlier.

2. Sound and vision.
This point has been ignored. We have no evidence of any other person being in the street at the allotted time.. "about" 2.20am. If both policemen were in the street at "about" 2.20am, we have no reason to assume that their combined times were at fault. Therefore, with no other person in the street, at the position Halse says he was at EXACTLY 2.20 (passing the spot where the apron piece was later found) then he is well into the length of the street. If so, any sound from either end of the street would have been heard. There is no testimony as to any other moving sound in the street, so we can only presume all else was quiet. Yet neither policeman states having heard a sound. The direction of Long's beat must have been the same direction as Halse's walk, or they would have met each other in the street at some point. Therefore the sound of the familiar stride and click of the policeman's boot would have been heard ahead of Halse. Long says nothing of seeing Halse, and Halse says nothing of seeing Long, yet at 2.20 Halse is EXACTLY at the point in the street where the apron is found. There is no reason to question Long's statement of "about" 2.20. and we have no reason to assume that he was not in the street at the same time as Halse. Halse first says EXACTLY "At twenty minutes past two I passed over the spot" then tells us "I came through Goulston Street at about twenty minutes past two"..and Monty re-itterates the word "about". Well now..either Halse was "savvy" with his time keeping or he wasn't. Monty claims he was, having seen the man's fine record. Therefore I will take Monty's claim as true, and that Halse knew what the time was. His later statement is therefore conflicting with this view, because the distance from the end of the street is known, and he would know how long it took him to walk the distance to the spot where the apron is found later. He stated EXACTLY at 2.20 he passed the spot where the apron was later found, but only gives an approximated time for when he entered the street. He could have said, "one or to minutes before" but instead he says "about". That is how savvy he is with his time keeping.

Could Long have entered the street BEHIND Halse? Again, if he was in the street at "about" 2.20, when Halse was at the spot where the apron was found, the measured walk of a policeman would have ensured that Halse would have been in the street..somewhere in the street, when Long was there. If so, Long would have seen Halse in front of him at a distance. How long is the street? How long at two and a half miles per hour would it have taken a policeman to patrol the length of the street?
"About" indicates to me a minute ot two either way. If a minute or two BEFORE 2.20, then Long is in front of Halse, because Halse at 2.20 exactly, is at the apron spot. Halse would therefore have seen Long ahead of him. IF a minute or two AFTER 2.20, he would still see Halse ahead of him in the quiet street, or would have met Halse if entering from the other end, walking towards him. There is no way around this. If they did not meet, which surely would have been declared at the inquest, then one must have logically been behind the other.
Long states he saw no apron piece there before 2.55. That means he looked at the spot on his previous beat at about 2.20am. He knew the spot where the apron was found, yet says he saw nothing there previous to 2.55. Logic says therefore that he remembered seeing nothing at that spot on his previous beat, indicating he looked there on his previous beat. Again, having used his lamp to see the piece of apron at about 2.55, there is no reason to suggest he did NOT use his lamp on his previous beat at "about" 2.20. Therefore it is logical for one to see a lamp being used in front of one, a minute or two ahead. And the street being quiet, it would have attracted Halse's attention.

3. Halse's stop and search.

We do not know the length of time Halse used in asking these two people his questions. We also have no names noted by Halse, and see no names in his report. As he has just "stopped and searched" these two men, one would assume that as these two men were relatively near the scene of the crime then they could easily have been prime suspects and or witnesses. Not only are their names not taken in Halse's report, but neither's explanation of why they were there when they were has been noted either, only that their answer was satisfactory. It would be logical for any policeman finding any person within such a short vicinity of the murder to have taken these person's names and checked into their story at a later date, home address, place of work, etc, to confirm their particulars given the atrocity of the murder, the fact that another murder had also taken place that evening and that all hell was breaking loose in that part of London given the police's inability to catch the murderer. Any policeman worth his salt would want to make sure that his stop and search of any person was followed up, ESPECIALLY as these two people are mentioned in his police report. After all, although he may well have been satisfied with their explanations there and then, it doesn't neccessarily follow that they were not guilty of the crime. These two men were the ONLY ones stopped and searched after the murder in the vicinity..yet no follow up. The press were having a field day the next day yet the only two persons seen near, stopped and questioned after the murder are not even named, yet alone checked up on afterwards.

"Sorry chief, I didn't take their names so I can't check up on them. Didn't take their addresses either, so I don't know where they live.. but they seemed to have a satisfactory answer when I questioned them"---err.. how many times has a person or persons been stopped in the course of the murder series and TAKEN TO THE LOCAL STATION FOR QUESTIONING BEFORE BEING RELEASED? Many many people.. but Halse just let's them go on their merry way home. Do we have a description from Halse if they were carrying anything? No. Do we have a detailed description of what these men looked like or what they were wearing? No. Yet the manhunt for the despicable mutilator of Eddowes was on, the killer of Stride was being persued still red hot and these men were near the scene of the Eddowes crime. Do we hear of the explanation they gave Halse? No. If any of these questions makes any poster uneasy, or makes you wonder, then it isn't just an "absurd" notion that a second person could have been involved in the dumping of the rag/apron piece. If Halse was the brilliant detective we are given indication of, then he woukld have noted and given details of far more than he apparently did. As far as the little I know of Halse's record, he was good at finding counterfeit/forgers in the money laundering side of crime. I believe he was involved in quite a few of this type of crime. Bit like a Fraud Squad detective.

Are we going to hear the old chestnut that there are so many papers missing again? Even no details given at the inquest of these two "stopped and searched" men. If they were important enough to be stopped and searched in that vicinity, so soon after the crime, then they would surely have had their names and addresses take for future reference given the police had absolutely sod all else to go on.

So in the effort to paint Halse whiter than white, the fact that he could indeed have carried the rag piece is balanced by his apparent inability to give any details of his questioning of two men seen in the vicinity, no names, no follow up and infact, no corrobberation that he actually stopped anybody, a first exact then approximate time statement, the fact that he was at all places involved in the murder crime scene and appended places of use, that he, amazingly found the piece of apron missing in a pile of clothes and articles at the mortuary, when no one else noticed anything missing, and that he just happened to head off in the direction of Goulston Street of all places when he could have chosen the opposite direction.

Monty. With GENUINE respect, and calmly written. You may have been or maybe perhaps still are, attached to the Fraud Squad..I do not know. You may also be a collector of Victoriana. You may well own a lamp. You may well have your amateur expertise in an area involving the police and their antecedants.. but it doesn't mean that you can claim to be right and belittle other's interpretations just because it doesn't fit your idea of what any individual policeman is or was. I am not the only person to see holes in the Ripper investigation.. and you are extremely quick to say that you know their faults, but never expand upon then with your own views, just seemingly concentrate on belittling other people's comments. We never hear of your own views nor theories, because you don't put yout head above the trench wall to do it, yet shoot down all and sundry when they do.

Incase you want to hear this, those questions I raised in my previous posts, and in this one, come after long conversations with three different murder squad detectives who are personal friends of mine, and who have kindly answered my questions based on how they percieve a policeman in 1888 would be thinking, logically, in the course of his duty under the circumstances he found himself in. Certain actions of a trained policeman never change, they state. I doubt however that means anything to you as you claim that I "know little of what I am commenting upon".

I have stated clearly that OF COURSE it isn't sensible to believe that Halse was involved in any way. He was a policeman. But that doesn't make the man immune. And as we dont know anything about who JTR was, or IF there was a reason behind any one or more than one, of the murders, no plausibility should be ignored until it has been thoroughly researched and considered. Just because you call something to be "absurd" doesn't mean that your word is the be all and end all, no matter how much competance you have had within the Fraud Squad, amateur interest in Victoriana or amateur interest in the Whitechapel murder series. You have a knowledge of things in this series that HAS to be respected, and I have REPEATEDLY shown and written of my own personal respect. The reason that you are on my ignore list is that from a very early time you show little or no respect to not only me, but others in your written replies. In the end I decided that enough was enough. I will not be replying to any more of your posts in the future, so playing little childish games of trying to get my attention through other people's postings is a waste of time. It has been done before this thread, and has been done again here. Respectfully, I kindly ask you to desist.

No doubt you will feel the need to have the last word because that has also been a trait used having the "right" to reply..again. I will not be reading it.

I do not claim to be right at all.. I do not claim to have an answer. I do not have any sense of self importance...but I do have a right to see things in a different light than you or anyone else. And I call it absurd that some people wish to belittle others on a flimsy basis of personal attacks. I do not belittle you here, I respect you and your knowledge.

And that last line sums up my attitude towards you above all others. No doubt you will not believe it.. because I have "little knowledge on what I am commenting upon".

I am not on these boards to play games. Perhaps you find it a wheeze to successfully wind people up. I do not. I, like others, only offer alternatives that may be unpalatable to your way of thinking. I repeat. I have no problem respecting your knowledge. I have no reputation to be shot down in this genre, because I have no regard of myself except that I may, occasionally, come up with plausibles. You have a reputation based of your excellent previously published work. Which indeed is worthy of respect.

With that, I have replied in full. I suggest that if you, Monty, wish to reply to me then do it through an email. Because I will not be reading any reply you make on here. My apologies. Your new-found claim of showing "respect" towards me does not match up with yesterdays "la la la I cant hear you" comment about my having you on ignore. That is the way it will remain until you choose to show genuine respect, through an email, privately. Until then, I respectfully suggest it is best that it is left as it is.

Apologies to all if any feel that the contents of this posting drifted into off topic. I have now shown in full my reasons behind Halse's possibility in transferring the apron piece.


kindly


Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched.

Any thoughts on who might be that confident? And I don’t think we’re “assuming” anything here. That is, after all, the testimony of PC Long.

If we're going with Tom's logic:

1) Long was confident it wasn't there at 2.20, so it wasn't there.

2) The writing doesn't mention the murder, so the writing isn't connected.

That’s not my logic, and you know it. And you’re forgetting that Goulston Street wasn’t ‘crawling’ with cops until AFTER the discovery of the apron and graffiti. It was dead quiet before that, except for two men stopped by PC Long who were able to account for themselves. My logic is that the Ripper intentionally took the apron half, and not one of the many available and more handy rags, for a practical purpose. He then went somewhere out of site for some time, and re-emerged with the apron piece, heading through Goulston Street where he left his message and the apron, which were discovered by Long around 2:55am. This is the only scenario that accounts for the taking of the apron, the missing half-hour, and the sudden appearance of the apron and writing, without resorting to dismissing evidence.

Just as a quick aside, Berner Street club member, Israel Sunshine, lived in the Wentworth building.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

quick answers

Hello Velma. The direction was opposite to where Druitt discharged his legal duties. If he had deposited the apron, he was moving AWAY from his purported base.

The delay makes no sense for a "criminal" who had just made a kill--2, if some theorists are to be believed. Simon Wood said it best earlier in this thread.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

That’s not my logic, and you know it.

PC Long says it was there, so it was there.

The writing doesn't mention the murder, but we'll connect the two on the grounds of proximity to the apron.

There's a disconnect in the logic somewhere, Tom.

And you’re forgetting that Goulston Street wasn’t ‘crawling’ with cops until AFTER the discovery of the apron and graffiti. It was dead quiet before that

Halse sent men to search and Collard sent men in all directions.

So, it's not dead quiet.

I wonder how many men they sent?

Apparently several men were stopped and searched.

I don't think it matters so much whether or not there were loads of police knocking around between 2.05 and 2.55. Reason being that Jack could have been long gone by 2.05, so if he's struggling to get away from the area then he can only be trapped somewhere around Mitre Square, i.e. it's what happens between 1.45 and 1.50 that prevents him from leaving - that's if he's loitering.

My logic is that the Ripper intentionally took the apron half, and not one of the many available and more handy rags, for a practical purpose. He then went somewhere out of site for some time, and re-emerged with the apron piece, heading through Goulston Street where he left his message and the apron, which were discovered by Long around 2:55am. This is the only scenario that accounts for the taking of the apron, the missing half-hour, and the sudden appearance of the apron and writing, without resorting to dismissing evidence.

Fair enough, Tom.

I think your proposition rests on the writing and the apron being connected.

Take away the writing and there's no reason for Jack to drop the apron post 2.20, which means it could have been too risky to raise his head above the parapet or someone else drops it there.

Just as a quick aside, Berner Street club member, Israel Sunshine, lived in the Wentworth building.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Sounds like a jazz player!

What a name Israel Sunshine! Wish I was called that.

Here's a wild stab in the dark, Tom, which incidentally is intended as no disrespect to the victims, the police placed it there because they thought they had their man within the dwellings and needed a reason to search the premises. Unfortunately, Long wasn't in on the act and while his colleague stood outside, before the real police arrived, Jack ate his spoils of victory and it/they was very nise. 'Anyone put me in touch with a publisher?

[Monty]

Phil,

I shall respond here, as you have placed your response. No doubt your little elves will update you.

As for childish, you putting me on ignore, refering me as 'this poster' and stating you are not willing to debate hardly smacks of a mature approach, however....

I apparently, according to Monty, "know little of what I am passing comment upon". How respectful...Really? Let's see shall we?

1. Long's Bulls-eye lamp situation.

Monty has NO idea whether the shutter was open nor closed, and is confusing the situation by suggesting it may have been closed. He has no evidence to show that it was. However, we do have evidence to show that it was most likely open..because one could safely assume he had the lamp open at "about" 2.55 in order to see the rag in the doorway. One can safely presume that Long would have had his lamp shutters open when doing the same route earlier. There is no logical reason nor evidence for him to have the shutters open and closed on a whim. It is logical, given that Long found the apron piece at about 2.55 to presume he needed the light in order to see it, so therefore it is also logical he would have used the lamp to see things about 35 minutes earlier.

No, I do not know if Long had his shutter open or not, neither do you yet you mislead by suggesting it was.

If you bothered to research you will find procedure dictates that the shutter be closed when the lamp was not in use. This because, as Ive stated numerous times, for stealth reasons. It was why the shutter was invented. To stop the advance notice that a PC was approaching to any criminal.

As he was proceding down a street with lamps, there would have no reason to have his shutter open. It is this mixture of logic and procedure which suggests to me Long would NOT have had his lamp beam showing.

The only time his lamp would be on would be when he was conducting a search in an extremely dark spot (Wentworth dwellings or, as in the case with Watkins, the dark corner of Mitre Square) or signalling.

If you can come up with counter evidence I will be interested to see it. However, you provide nothing.

2. Sound and vision.
This point has been ignored. We have no evidence of any other person being in the street at the allotted time.. "about" 2.20am. If both policemen were in the street at "about" 2.20am, we have no reason to assume that their combined times were at fault. Therefore, with no other person in the street, at the position Halse says he was at EXACTLY 2.20 (passing the spot where the apron piece was later found) then he is well into the length of the street. If so, any sound from either end of the street would have been heard. There is no testimony as to any other moving sound in the street, so we can only presume all else was quiet. Yet neither policeman states having heard a sound. The direction of Long's beat must have been the same direction as Halse's walk, or they would have met each other in the street at some point. Therefore the sound of the familiar stride and click of the policeman's boot would have been heard ahead of Halse. Long says nothing of seeing Halse, and Halse says nothing of seeing Long, yet at 2.20 Halse is EXACTLY at the point in the street where the apron is found. There is no reason to question Long's statement of "about" 2.20. and we have no reason to assume that he was not in the street at the same time as Halse. Halse first says EXACTLY "At twenty minutes past two I passed over the spot" then tells us "I came through Goulston Street at about twenty minutes past two"..and Monty re-itterates the word "about". Well now..either Halse was "savvy" with his time keeping or he wasn't. Monty claims he was, having seen the man's fine record. Therefore I will take Monty's claim as true, and that Halse knew what the time was. His later statement is therefore conflicting with this view, because the distance from the end of the street is known, and he would know how long it took him to walk the distance to the spot where the apron is found later. He stated EXACTLY at 2.20 he passed the spot where the apron was later found, but only gives an approximated time for when he entered the street. He could have said, "one or to minutes before" but instead he says "about". That is how savvy he is with his time keeping.

Could Long have entered the street BEHIND Halse? Again, if he was in the street at "about" 2.20, when Halse was at the spot where the apron was found, the measured walk of a policeman would have ensured that Halse would have been in the street..somewhere in the street, when Long was there. If so, Long would have seen Halse in front of him at a distance. How long is the street? How long at two and a half miles per hour would it have taken a policeman to patrol the length of the street?
"About" indicates to me a minute ot two either way. If a minute or two BEFORE 2.20, then Long is in front of Halse, because Halse at 2.20 exactly, is at the apron spot. Halse would therefore have seen Long ahead of him. IF a minute or two AFTER 2.20, he would still see Halse ahead of him in the quiet street, or would have met Halse if entering from the other end, walking towards him. There is no way around this. If they did not meet, which surely would have been declared at the inquest, then one must have logically been behind the other.
Long states he saw no apron piece there before 2.55. That means he looked at the spot on his previous beat at about 2.20am. He knew the spot where the apron was found, yet says he saw nothing there previous to 2.55. Logic says therefore that he remembered seeing nothing at that spot on his previous beat, indicating he looked there on his previous beat. Again, having used his lamp to see the piece of apron at about 2.55, there is no reason to suggest he did NOT use his lamp on his previous beat at "about" 2.20. Therefore it is logical for one to see a lamp being used in front of one, a minute or two ahead. And the street being quiet, it would have attracted Halse's attention.

Just a few points on this

This whole passage supports the view Halse and Long were not in Goulston Street at the same time, that is all. Halse could have arrived before Long, Long states he saw nothing in the passage, therefore Halse could not have dumped the apron. Its all moot.

If Halse headed off back to Mitre Square via the quickest route then he would have turned right onto New Goulston St, meaning he would only have been in Goulston st for yards, completely missing the bottom of Goulston st itself and by a fair distance.

As for sounds, Goulston Street is fairly sizable meaning I doubt you could have heard footsteps from one end to the other.

3. Halse's stop and search.

We do not know the length of time Halse used in asking these two people his questions. We also have no names noted by Halse, and see no names in his report. As he has just "stopped and searched" these two men, one would assume that as these two men were relatively near the scene of the crime then they could easily have been prime suspects and or witnesses. Not only are their names not taken in Halse's report, but neither's explanation of why they were there when they were has been noted either, only that their answer was satisfactory. It would be logical for any policeman finding any person within such a short vicinity of the murder to have taken these person's names and checked into their story at a later date, home address, place of work, etc, to confirm their particulars given the atrocity of the murder, the fact that another murder had also taken place that evening and that all hell was breaking loose in that part of London given the police's inability to catch the murderer. Any policeman worth his salt would want to make sure that his stop and search of any person was followed up, ESPECIALLY as these two people are mentioned in his police report. After all, although he may well have been satisfied with their explanations there and then, it doesn't neccessarily follow that they were not guilty of the crime. These two men were the ONLY ones stopped and searched after the murder in the vicinity..yet no follow up. The press were having a field day the next day yet the only two persons seen near, stopped and questioned after the murder are not even named, yet alone checked up on afterwards.

"Sorry chief, I didn't take their names so I can't check up on them. Didn't take their addresses either, so I don't know where they live.. but they seemed to have a satisfactory answer when I questioned them"---err.. how many times has a person or persons been stopped in the course of the murder series and TAKEN TO THE LOCAL STATION FOR QUESTIONING BEFORE BEING RELEASED? Many many people.. but Halse just let's them go on their merry way home. Do we have a description from Halse if they were carrying anything? No. Do we have a detailed description of what these men looked like or what they were wearing? No. Yet the manhunt for the despicable mutilator of Eddowes was on, the killer of Stride was being persued still red hot and these men were near the scene of the Eddowes crime. Do we hear of the explanation they gave Halse? No. If any of these questions makes any poster uneasy, or makes you wonder, then it isn't just an "absurd" notion that a second person could have been involved in the dumping of the rag/apron piece. If Halse was the brilliant detective we are given indication of, then he woukld have noted and given details of far more than he apparently did. As far as the little I know of Halse's record, he was good at finding counterfeit/forgers in the money laundering side of crime. I believe he was involved in quite a few of this type of crime. Bit like a Fraud Squad detective.

Are we going to hear the old chestnut that there are so many papers missing again? Even no details given at the inquest of these two "stopped and searched" men. If they were important enough to be stopped and searched in that vicinity, so soon after the crime, then they would surely have had their names and addresses take for future reference given the police had absolutely sod all else to go on.

So in the effort to paint Halse whiter than white, the fact that he could indeed have carried the rag piece is balanced by his apparent inability to give any details of his questioning of two men seen in the vicinity, no names, no follow up and infact, no corrobberation that he actually stopped anybody, a first exact then approximate time statement, the fact that he was at all places involved in the murder crime scene and appended places of use, that he, amazingly found the piece of apron missing in a pile of clothes and articles at the mortuary, when no one else noticed anything missing, and that he just happened to head off in the direction of Goulston Street of all places when he could have chosen the opposite direction.

I am actually going to agree with you partly here Phil. These persons are extremely important in the context of Halses movements. However Halse was an extremely good DC of good experience and, in the heat of a pursuit, Ive little doubt his mind was on capture rather that witness gathering.

It may be an old chestnut but its a valid one. The simple fact is that papers are missing from the file. I really dont understand why you see it as a convinient excuse when it is fact. There are some part we do not know about.

What we do know about is Halse as a Policeman, he left with a 'Very Good' certificate signed by the Commissioner. By all accounts his case work is very good and I can find no misdeeds. So to cast aspersions on his character is NO different from doing the same with the victims.

You have no evidence Halse was anything other than white than white. And therefore no reason to label him as crooked.

Monty. With GENUINE respect, and calmly written. You may have been or maybe perhaps still are, attached to the Fraud Squad..I do not know. You may also be a collector of Victoriana. You may well own a lamp. You may well have your amateur expertise in an area involving the police and their antecedants.. but it doesn't mean that you can claim to be right and belittle other's interpretations just because it doesn't fit your idea of what any individual policeman is or was. I am not the only person to see holes in the Ripper investigation.. and you are extremely quick to say that you know their faults, but never expand upon then with your own views, just seemingly concentrate on belittling other people's comments. We never hear of your own views nor theories, because you don't put yout head above the trench wall to do it, yet shoot down all and sundry when they do.

When you put forward ill founded suggestions that Halse, or anyone else for that matter, placed evidence (or whatever misdemeanour) with NO evidence what so ever then I will put forward a valid counter.

I care not about my background, care not about theories and so forth. I care about false accusations. You see holes, great, thats because there are holes. However in those hole you also see conspiracy. You thrive off such theories and suck the truth out of the reality like a parasite. You provide no real evidence other than YOUR opinion. Well hey, I have opinion too. However mine is born out of research and I will never have the disrespect you hold for those who were involved, who walked the streets and had to endure the horrors of what they saw.

Incase you want to hear this, those questions I raised in my previous posts, and in this one, come after long conversations with three different murder squad detectives who are personal friends of mine, and who have kindly answered my questions based on how they percieve a policeman in 1888 would be thinking, logically, in the course of his duty under the circumstances he found himself in. Certain actions of a trained policeman never change, they state. I doubt however that means anything to you as you claim that I "know little of what I am commenting upon".

I advise you not to hold much sway with Trevors words. Murder Squad or not, it seems to me (and others whose word you should really take heed) that he has little idea of what happened in 1888 and the Police investigating of that time.

As for the other two, obviously I do not know who they are so will not comment. However, I bet you that if they are worth their salt they would have advised you that circumstances of a trained policeman never changes, equipment and procedure do. And it is that we are discussing here. If those Gentlemen wish to contact and educate me then please do. I would welcome their input.

I have stated clearly that OF COURSE it isn't sensible to believe that Halse was involved in any way. He was a policeman. But that doesn't make the man immune. And as we dont know anything about who JTR was, or IF there was a reason behind any one or more than one, of the murders, no plausibility should be ignored until it has been thoroughly researched and considered. Just because you call something to be "absurd" doesn't mean that your word is the be all and end all, no matter how much competance you have had within the Fraud Squad, amateur interest in Victoriana or amateur interest in the Whitechapel murder series. You have a knowledge of things in this series that HAS to be respected, and I have REPEATEDLY shown and written of my own personal respect. The reason that you are on my ignore list is that from a very early time you show little or no respect to not only me, but others in your written replies. In the end I decided that enough was enough. I will not be replying to any more of your posts in the future, so playing little childish games of trying to get my attention through other people's postings is a waste of time. It has been done before this thread, and has been done again here. Respectfully, I kindly ask you to desist.

I thank you for your kind words Phil, and I am being genuine here. What reason you have for putting me on ignore is quite meaningless to me (and no, I did not instigate others to draw your attention. They did that themselves off their own bat. I merely put counters forward). The only difference between myself and others is that Im transparent. I will not say something on here then whisper something quite different to another in a private mail.

I am childish, I have freely admitted that to one and all. However, it must be said, you have dealt in bouts of childishness (not just with me but also with Paul and others) and acted quite obnoxious at times too. Dont come the purer than thou act.

I find you unctous and false. Traits I honestly cannot abide. I also find you contradictory. You state you strive for the truth yet dismiss fact. You state you fight for the victims memories, yet you cr@p all over the poor saps who worked tirelessly to bring the killer to justice.

I have never, nor will ever, put someone on ignore. Thats my choice, as is yours to activate it. What I say and think is what I say and think, and I will say it here....see, I have.

No doubt you will feel the need to have the last word because that has also been a trait used having the "right" to reply..again. I will not be reading it.

Yep.

I do not claim to be right at all.. I do not claim to have an answer. I do not have any sense of self importance...but I do have a right to see things in a different light than you or anyone else. And I call it absurd that some people wish to belittle others on a flimsy basis of personal attacks. I do not belittle you here, I respect you and your knowledge.

No, you certainly do not have the answer, neither do I. Yes, you have every right to see things differently. Of course you belittled me here, in this very post. You state Im childish.

And that last line sums up my attitude towards you above all others. No doubt you will not believe it.. because I have "little knowledge on what I am commenting upon".

I am not on these boards to play games. Perhaps you find it a wheeze to successfully wind people up. I do not. I, like others, only offer alternatives that may be unpalatable to your way of thinking. I repeat. I have no problem respecting your knowledge. I have no reputation to be shot down in this genre, because I have no regard of myself except that I may, occasionally, come up with plausibles. You have a reputation based of your excellent previously published work. Which indeed is worthy of respect.

Of course you wind others up. Do you honestly think Im (or others) are not aware of your Emails and PMs? Your posts on the Definitive stories threads, the MM threads, dont paint yourself as an all respecting poster.

Despite my words above, I do thank you for your kind words above, if, indeed, they are genuine.

With that, I have replied in full. I suggest that if you, Monty, wish to reply to me then do it through an email. Because I will not be reading any reply you make on here. My apologies. Your new-found claim of showing "respect" towards me does not match up with yesterdays "la la la I cant hear you" comment about my having you on ignore. That is the way it will remain until you choose to show genuine respect, through an email, privately. Until then, I respectfully suggest it is best that it is left as it is.

My belief always has been to keep whats said on the boards, to whats said on the boards. E mails will not be read.

So yes, best that it is left as it is.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

The writing doesn't mention the murder, but we'll connect the two on the grounds of proximity to the apron.

There's a disconnect in the logic somewhere, Tom.

And then…

Here's a wild stab in the dark, Tom, which incidentally is intended as no disrespect to the victims, the police placed it there because they thought they had their man within the dwellings and needed a reason to search the premises. Unfortunately, Long wasn't in on the act and while his colleague stood outside, before the real police arrived, Jack ate his spoils of victory and it/they was very nise. 'Anyone put me in touch with a publisher?

This won’t due. You can’t say my theory doesn’t work because the graffiti is completely unrelated to the Ripper, and then use the graffiti as evidence in a police scam to force entry into a building based on the idea that the writing relates to the Ripper. It either is related or isn’t.

I think your proposition rests on the writing and the apron being connected.

Take away the writing and there's no reason for Jack to drop the apron post 2.20, which means it could have been too risky to raise his head above the parapet or someone else drops it there.

Take away the corpse of Eddowes from Mitre Square and we have no reason for discussing any of this. I’m sure you think you’ve made a valid point, but what you’ve done is to point out the obvious fact that if one of two related pieces of evidence didn’t exist, then there’d be no significance to the other, overlooking the fact that the other would cease to exist as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

And then…

And then the two aren't connected.

This won’t due. You can’t say my theory doesn’t work because the graffiti is completely unrelated to the Ripper, and then use the graffiti as evidence in a police scam to force entry into a building based on the idea that the writing relates to the Ripper. It either is related or isn’t.

Tom, it was tongue in cheek.

And, I didn't say the graffiti; I said the apron.

Take away the corpse of Eddowes from Mitre Square and we have no reason for discussing any of this. I’m sure you think you’ve made a valid point, but what you’ve done is to point out the obvious fact that if one of two related pieces of evidence didn’t exist, then there’d be no significance to the other, overlooking the fact that the other would cease to exist as well.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No Tom, the two 'items' were clearly there at 2.55. Neither will cease to exist, either in my proposition or yours. Your connection exists solely because of proximity. I'm saying the fact that the two were found in close proximity, does not mean the writing was written by the murderer, or even likely to have been.

It basically boils down to me saying the writing doesn't mention any murder, so therefore it's likely it's not related to a murder, and you saying that the apron validates the writing. I think he would have been clear and concise re connecting the writing to the murder, as opposed to writing a message that 120 years later we can only guess at its meaning. I suppose the equivalent would be Amanda Knox (let's ignore her innocence for the time being) finishing her cartwheel and scribbling on the wall: "bar owners are the people......" without actually mentioning her manager or the murder. And everyone going "what?"

[Supe]

Fleetwood,

What a name Israel Sunshine! Wish I was called that.

We like to accommodate fellow posters, so: Hello Mr. Sunshine, how are you Israel?

Don.