The Apron

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Mac. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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.

[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,

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.

[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

[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

[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".

[Monty]

Harvey isn't mentioned in the OFFICIAL report, therefore doesn't exist.

Halse is not ONLY a LIAR but also planted EVIDENCE....though no reason is given as to why.

Halse acted ODD is pursuing a killer instead of looking into EMPTY houses.

Smith, who was not part of ANY event regarding the APRON, states and therefore his word is now taken priority over THOSE who were THERE.

Wow, all we need now is a Grassy knoll and Parisian tunnel.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Halse is not ONLY a LIAR but also planted EVIDENCE....though no reason is given as to why.

Hi Monty,

I'm not endorsing the below, but I can think of one half decent reason:

The City police simply don't want the hassle, including vigilante committees and the like making a nuisance of themselves, and the spectre of resignations that will become a problem for the Met. At a push, it could be argued that by planting the evidence it is merely misleading the press and the public but not actually hampering the murder investigation as they knew what was what (mind you, I suppose it could mislead the Met).

Perhaps in the minds of the City Police they're thinking no harm done, all we're suggesting is that JTR lives in Met territory and therefore it's not our fault that he hasn't been apprehended.

Of course, the above needs supporting evidence, and at this point I haven't seen such evidence.

Edited to add:

This is a high profile case. The Met are coming in for criticism. The City Police are thinking "glad this isn't on our doorstep". Then it is on their doorstep. Would someone make the decision to suggest Jack has simply ventured a little out of his patch but he is definitely the Met's responsibility?

[Monty]

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

Lynn,

What do you mean providing he had time?

Apologies Lynn, I was unaware of your 'field' and my Crystal Ball is on the blink. However, I was not initially making a snide comment. Apologies if that's how you viewed it.

And maybe if you cut the smart ass comments and draw in the academic snobbery that respect you crave from me will flow forth.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

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.



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



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?




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".

Hello FM,

I am not saying that Halse lied, but when the official report is so totally different from the Inquest testimony, something must be wrong somewhere.

How can you explain that the official report, only 3 weeks after the inquest, in probably the highest profile case the police have ever seen or encountered, is so at odds? Forgetfulness is one thing, even a mistake can be accepted...but so much?

The part of Halse's testimony, I have been told by Monty, is very important. Namely him stopping and searching two people in Wentworth Street. I agree with Monty. It is important. So important that it would not be overlooked in an official report, especially when nobody had the slightest clue who the killer was and that Halse apparently stopped and searched two men near the scene within 30 minutes of the murder!

Yet not a mention of it in McWilliams' official report.

I dont care whether Halse was complicit or not in the dumping of the rag. All I know is that the Official report has contradictions with the known inquest testimony of individuals in it, and there are conflicting statements regarding the time of when the rag was found. Those are FACTS---facts that scream out something to me. Something, somewhere is wrong.

So either McWilliam's report is wrong..or the testimony at the inquest is. They can't both be right.


kindly


Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

I am not saying that Halse lied, but when the official report is so totally different from the Inquest testimony, something must be wrong somewhere.

Hi Phil,

Something clearly doesn't add up.

That which is underpinning the inconsistencies is down to personal interpretation: lies? mistakes? other?

How can you explain that the official report, only 3 weeks after the inquest, in probably the highest profile case the police have ever seen or encountered, is so at odds? Forgetfulness is one thing, even a mistake can be accepted...but so much?

The 3 weeks point lends weight to the inquest taking precedence.

The official report? The explanation would be there are mistakes within the report. The report could contain third hand info, let alone second hand info. We all know from our respective professions that time and pressure means that you simply can't speak to all of the primary sources.

The part of Halse's testimony, I have been told by Monty, is very important. Namely him stopping and searching two people in Wentworth Street. I agree with Monty. It is important. So important that it would not be overlooked in an official report, especially when nobody had the slightest clue who the killer was and that Halse apparently stopped and searched two men near the scene within 30 minutes of the murder!

Perhaps it was important to the point being made by Monty, but not important to the objective of the report?

I dont care whether Halse was complicit or not in the dumping of the rag. All I know is that the Official report has contradictions with the known inquest testimony of individuals in it, and there are conflicting statements regarding the time of when the rag was found. Those are FACTS---facts fhat screams out something to me. Something, somewhere is wrong.

Yet Smith's comments support Halse's inquest testimony in terms of timing. Would this lend weight to the official report having some of the facts outs?

So either McWilliam's report is wrong..or the testimony at the inquest is.

Agreed.

Although Long, Halse and Smith all seem to be on the same page with regards to apron timing.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

We can argue amongst ourselves 'til we're blue in the face, but, let's fess up, the conflicting police reports and inquest evidence ain't worth a dime in trying to construct a lucid narrative of events.

Throw in the fact that half a dozen grown policemen in Goulston Street—one of them heavily-armed with a sponge—couldn't agree on the details of the GSG and you have to conclude that the cops were either terminally stupid or wilfully misleading.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Something clearly doesn't add up.

That which is underpinning the inconsistencies is down to personal interpretation: lies? mistakes? other?



The 3 weeks point lends weight to the inquest taking precedence.

The official report? The explanation would be there are mistakes within the report. The report could contain third hand info, let alone second hand info. We all know from our respective professions that time and pressure means that you simply can't speak to all of the primary sources.



Perhaps it was important to the point being made by Monty, but not important to the objective of the report?



Yet Smith's comments support Halse's inquest testimony in terms of timing. Would this lend weight to the official report having some of the facts outs?



Agreed.

Although Long, Halse and Smith all seem to be on the same page with regards to apron timing.

Hello FM,

All the official reports of the murders are done when all the information has been collected and put together, and all the inquests are almost always immediate. Precedence doesn't enter into the equation.. it's just how it is done.

Simply not speaking to the primary sources?.. Halse would have a WRITTEN report of his actions that night. All police officers file a written report..normally starts with "I beg to report..." this is a known requirement.
So McWilliam only would have to look at the collected reports by the officers to know what they did and when. Watkins, Harvey, Holland, Long, Halse, Outram, Marriott, Humpty Dumpty and all.. and if anything they saw, did or anyone they spoke to in the course of their job.. it would all have been written down by the individuals and handed in. All information gathered would have been in front of McWilliam to enable him to write the report in the first place.

The point is important to the murder enquiry, not just Monty and myself. It is a murder enquiry with a policeman stopping two men within 30 mins of the murder near the scene. All policemen will tell you that is important police testimony. It wasn't just any murder enquiry either.. just about the biggest ever in police history.


Something is wrong somewhere. Either the Official report is, or the Inquest testimony.

Now, if you were a policeman, say Swanson of the Met... would you believe the report of your fellow policeman who's official report flies on to your desk?
He does the same job with Met police reports remember. I am sure that McWilliam's report was regarded by the POLICE themselves as correct.

As far as the comment about Smith is concerned, it wasn't his report to interfere in..so any possibility there is surely conjecture.


kindly


Phil