The Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

That's very true. In fact there are enough contradictions and questions relating to the official reports as it is. Making sense of it all can be challenging and somebody somewhere is possibly wrong - but people stepping forward and saying that nobody could be trusted just adds even more unfounded confusion.

John

As I said before its not a case of nobody being trusted its a case of asking serious questions about all of the issues you highlighted including police officers who were involved in this either in a minor role or those right at the top.

As far as policemen are concerned I have been around them for 30 years or more i think I ought to know a bit a about them so when I say policemen can be less than liberal with the truth you should listen and take note. In many case over the years it has been proved that police officers have in fact lied and have resorted to sharp practices in order to obtain a conviction.

[John Bennett]

I think there's also such a thing as realism.

We have Long, Halse, Smith, McWilliam etc, add in the ingredient of newspaper reporting of the inquest, and it would be miraculous if something did not tie up somewhere. The very nature of human beings, not 100% efficient, means there will be an error somewhere.

That's very true. In fact there are enough contradictions and questions relating to the official reports as it is. Making sense of it all can be challenging and somebody somewhere is possibly wrong - but people stepping forward and saying that nobody could be trusted just adds even more unfounded confusion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

-Police reports are faulty and inaccurate because the police can't be relied on to be squeaky-clean.
-Senior police officers lie in their memoirs and private notes or are too befuddled by old age to be taken seriously.
-Doctor's examinations don't tell us the whole story.
-Press reports can be unreliable.

Well, if we get rid of all these sources (the contemporary material available to us from which we formulate a picture of the case in 1888), we are left with the very real possibility that the only way forward is to make it all up.

Now that's a real pity.

I think there's also such a thing as realism.

We have Long, Halse, Smith, McWilliam etc, add in the ingredient of newspaper reporting of the inquest, and it would be miraculous if something did not tie up somewhere. The very nature of human beings, not 100% efficient, means there will be an error somewhere.

From my reading of this, the times are not out of sync at all. It's clear that Halse is there around 2.20 and then makes his way to the scene via mortuary/mitre square/police station. Long is there around 2.20 and 2.55. I personally think the 'around' was said for a reason, as 'around' usually is, they didn't give an exact time because they couldn't give an exact time.

The only contradiction is Smith claims Halse found a policeman looking at the apron versus Halse was pointed to the spot. I personally think far more than that is needed to suggest a cover up of some description or Halse's involvement.

I am quite surprised that people are expecting the official report to tally all ends up, and I'm aware of the getting their heads/reports together. In my profession, we do likewise, reports are submitted from which a senior report is created. Due to time constraints, human error etc, quite often something is transposed incorrectly.

I think though it's been an interesting discussion and surely there's nothing wrong with suggesting this and that, only to conclude it's unlikely. The conclusion I'd draw from this thread is the apron remains a mystery and there is simply not enough to support the 'foul play' argument, which I suppose leaves us with one of two ideas: as Tom said, he went inside and came back onto the streets, or he was never off the streets.

[Trevor Marriott]

So let me get this right:

-Police reports are faulty and inaccurate because the police can't be relied on to be squeaky-clean.
-Senior police officers lie in their memoirs and private notes or are too befuddled by old age to be taken seriously.
-Doctor's examinations don't tell us the whole story.
-Press reports can be unreliable.

Well, if we get rid of all these sources (the contemporary material available to us from which we formulate a picture of the case in 1888), we are left with the very real possibility that the only way forward is to make it all up.

Now that's a real pity.

John
Its not a question of making it up its a question of the original facts not standing up to close scrutiny for some of the reasons you stated above. It therefore opens up the door for new views and theories to be introduced for consideration. But sadly some dont want that to happen.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear Monty you are really in a pickle arent you another cartel member floundering in the water.

Trevor,

Oh I'm in the kitchen, roasting me a Marriott hog.

Its obvious you have no idea re the case basics, as shown above re Halse. To question you must have a full understanding of both the statements and the policing of the time.

What you do is apply the modern to the old. You do not consider why things were done and for what reason.

Sure, shake up this 120 odd year old case. You have done so far, and proven?.....well, nothing really. Just ill thought out theories and half baked suggestions. And its gotten you a few buddies on the way.

However, when you really look beneath the bluff and bluster, there's nothing substantial. Heck, even Stewart and Paul have given up on you, only plebs like me will engage you now.

A pleb well I couldnt have decsribed you better

Come back to me when you've familiarised yourself with the facts.

Then we do business.

If I ever needed to do that you would be the last person I would come back to.

You clearly do not understand policing full stop.


Monty

[John Bennett]

So let me get this right:

-Police reports are faulty and inaccurate because the police can't be relied on to be squeaky-clean.
-Senior police officers lie in their memoirs and private notes or are too befuddled by old age to be taken seriously.
-Doctor's examinations don't tell us the whole story.
-Press reports can be unreliable.

Well, if we get rid of all these sources (the contemporary material available to us from which we formulate a picture of the case in 1888), we are left with the very real possibility that the only way forward is to make it all up.

Now that's a real pity.

[Monty]

Trevor,

Oh I'm in the kitchen, roasting me a Marriott hog.

Its obvious you have no idea re the case basics, as shown above re Halse. To question you must have a full understanding of both the statements and the policing of the time.

What you do is apply the modern to the old. You do not consider why things were done and for what reason.

Sure, shake up this 120 odd year old case. You have done so far, and proven?.....well, nothing really. Just ill thought out theories and half baked suggestions. And its gotten you a few buddies on the way.

However, when you really look beneath the bluff and bluster, there's nothing substantial. Heck, even Stewart and Paul have given up on you, only plebs like me will engage you now.

Come back to me when you've familiarised yourself with the facts.

Then we do business.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

A police officer is in pursuit of a murderer and stops two men in the street for questioning and now that's seen as diabolical?... And some of you have the nerve to wonder why hair brained ideas are considered as hair brained ideas? ...making supposition without any basis in reality at all.

And you look for credibility from your peers?

How about acting like you deserve it.

I look for nothing from those that cannot see themselves

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh my,

It seems you are suffering from a bout of Carterism, where you only quote selected passages in order to support a half assed theory.

Halse actually said, in full....

At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

Thus indicating he wasnt looking in doorways.

Maybe you should spend a little more time on the computer looking up the basics of this case. Instead of trawling through images off kiddie programmes, though that seems to be the level you operate at.

Monty

Excuse me but it was you who introduced the kiddie programmes if you cant take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

The basics to which you and many others have relied upon in this case for 123 years are flawed and do not stand up to close scrutiny. All the contentious issues have been argued many times on here. I am sure that there are many on here who may have subscribed to the some of the original theories but now have grave concerns about them being correct.

There are others like yoursef who are quite happy in the beleif that everything happened just as it has been written and portrayed. I dont have a problem with that providing they have given a fair assessemnet and evaluation of all new issues which have been raised.

What I do find strange are those that are not even perpared to consider other facts and new material. Amongst them are those who continually subscribe to the view that because it is the police they are automatically right and everything they have said or done should not be questioned.

You for one should know that the actions of the police and what they write should be questioned it is the case still today and was then 123 years ago.

[Monty]

Hello Neil.

"What do you mean providing he had time?"

I mean Kate's assailant. Did he not "disappear" just ahead of the coppers?

"Apologies Lynn"

No need to apologise. I was thinking in terms of a moratorium.

"However, I was not initially making a snide comment. Apologies if that's how you viewed it."

I was reacting to the suggestion about logic. I intuit that you meant reasoning. Accepted.

"And maybe if you cut the smart ass comments"

Delighted so to do. Of course, you'll need to give me an example of such.

"draw in the academic snobbery"

Sorry, don't know what that means. Are you suggesting that I murder the Queen's English? I could, but what would Caz say?

"that respect you crave from me will flow forth"

Crave? Oh, no. It just seems to me that respect is a human thing. I see no reason why it should not be shown, even to those with whom we disagree.

Cheers.
LC

Caz would love you, as she does me.

It is a human thing, love, respect.....its all beautiful man.

Monty

[Monty]

Halse was searching doorways because quote "About 2.20am I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything" Therefore if anything had have been there he would have found it so therefore that shows he was looking in doorways etc.

And as to your explanation well you tell me I am dreaming get a life please.

Halse was searching doorways because quote "About 2.20am I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything" Therefore if anything had have been there he would have found it so therefore that shows he was looking in doorways etc.

And as to your explanation well you tell me I am dreaming hmmmmmm.

You really need to get out more you are spending to much time in front of your computer

Oh my,

It seems you are suffering from a bout of Carterism, where you only quote selected passages in order to support a half assed theory.

Halse actually said, in full....

At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

Thus indicating he wasnt looking in doorways.

Maybe you should spend a little more time on the computer looking up the basics of this case. Instead of trawling through images off kiddie programmes, though that seems to be the level you operate at.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

A police officer is in pursuit of a murderer and stops two men in the street for questioning and now that's seen as diabolical?... And some of you have the nerve to wonder why hair brained ideas are considered as hair brained ideas? ...making supposition without any basis in reality at all.

And you look for credibility from your peers?

How about acting like you deserve it.

Hello Hunter,

To be fair, this is a little out of context, because it was being referred to in a totally different way..i.e. police officers being tight with the truth. It also has a connection with the fact that there is no reference anywhere apart from Halse's inquest testimony that this happened.. and such an important event, so near to the murder scene and only 30 mins or so after the murder would have been of PRIME importance to the hunt for the murderer(s).

I also stated something that has been quietly side stepped in connection with this.. namely that there are COUNTLESS examples of people being stopped and searched and being taken to the station for their particulars to be taken, checked out and cleared.

We have NO details of any such stop ans search of these two very important men. No descriptions, no age, no place of residence, nothing. I cannot underline strongly enmough that the situation was at fever pitch and that Halse would HAVE to present all these details to his boss in a written report, ESPECIALLY as no one had a clue as to the ID of the killer(s). We know of nobody else was seen near the crime seen that night, and even when we listen to the testimony regarding these people at the inquest, the information is so scant that I cannot believe the details were not followed up either by the police nor at the inquest..no questions asked.

Because Halse's report would be the written variety with the usual "I beg to report...etc"..McWilliam would have his, and all other police reports in front of him when compiling the official police report.

You have pointed out in a previous post that this was not the intention of the report, but one section of the report does indeed refer to what the police have done and were doing. I think you will find it on page 201 of the Ultimate, starting with the paragraph "On Thursday the 4th Inst..." 2nd paragraph on the page-and the third.. "The Enquiry is still actively being followed up..."

Given the high profile of this case, I find it very strange that this very important clue was not apparently followed up in full, so one can question whether, given all the other factors involved in the descrepancies of the Inquest testimony vis a vis the Official report of wrong times, which are of the UTMOST importance in the case of the finding of the apron, one can question the truthfulness of Halse's statement at the inquest..because McWilliam clearly states the apron piece was found at 2.20, NOT 2.55. It brings doubt into play.

That doesnt mean Halse WAS lying, but like I said earlier.. either the Inquest testimony is wrong, or the Official report is. They cannot both be right. This example is only one of many that conflict with the Inquest testimony.

We can argue as Simon has said, until we are blue in the face..but take these examples and see what you make of it all..

1. Official report is very different to Inquest statements, especially re. times, which conflict, causing doubt over the veracity of either one.
2. The testimony of the lodging house keeper is flawed beyond belief because of the impossible time given for when he got the message Eddowes had been locked up.
3. Simon Wood has shown that John Kelly's testimony about the release of Eddowes from her situation the day before is flawed, and release times are not at all normal from that type of institution until a particular time, which contradicts Kelly's statement.
4. Kelly also states an old woman told him of Eddowes locking up. Well now. For her to have done this, she MUST have known who Eddowes was to recognise her. She MUST have known who Kelly was to deliver the message, she MUST have known they were a couple and she MUST have known WHERE they were staying. They both must have known her. Yet we have no name given, and the police did not follow up this vital witness in any way shape or form to corroberate Kelly and the Lodging Houser Keeper's story. Even if we say she was 1 hour out with her time... then she still wouldnt have time to skate across to the lodging house to tell Kelly.
5. I have also previously shown that it was easily possible, given the Lodging House keepers (Wilkinson) testimony, for Kelly to have been in and out of said lodging house WITHOUT being seen by Wilkinson himself. This was not realised by the police, nor anyone else for that matter.
6. Halse is in THE prime position and has the opportunity to drop the rag IF he is complicit in all this. As explained before.
7. As Simon pointed out, a bunch of professional officers couldn't even agree on the type of writing, size of writing, the syntax, the spelling etc.
8. James McWilliam HIMSELF says he ordered the writing to be photographed in the official report. He did this apparently when in Mitre Square having arrived at the Detective Office at 3.45, and from there travelled to Bishopsgate Station then on to Mitre Square.
9. McWilliam states Lawley and Hunt accompanied Halse to Leman street, not mentioned by Halse, and then the three went back to Goulston Street.


There are many, many other things wrong about Eddowes murder, follow up and inquiry. Singularly they mean little and can be just coincidence. Together? It just looks very very wrong. Something you yourself have agreed with. That is why I look at this in a different way..because the known story just does not add up at all the way we have been presented it down the years.


kindly


Phil

[Hunter]

And you know as well as i do that policemen are at times less then liberal with the truth. He may well have been seen by these two persons so to justify his actions he stops and speaks to them thus avoiding them at some time in the future coming fo(r)ward and saying they saw a man in Middlesx (Middlesex)St.

A police officer is in pursuit of a murderer and stops two men in the street for questioning and now that's seen as diabolical?... And some of you have the nerve to wonder why hair brained ideas are considered as hair brained ideas? ...making supposition without any basis in reality at all.

And you look for credibility from your peers?

How about acting like you deserve it.

[Supe]

Trev,

About 2.20am I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found I did not notice anything" Therefore if anything had have been there he would have found it so therefore that shows he was looking in doorways etc.

Your grasp of logic is inadequate -- at best. What Halse said does not in anyway suggest he was looking in doorways (in point of fact he was looking for men) and if you know that and still say it you are a fabulist. And if you can't understand that your "therefores" are in error you are simply well situated on the back side of the bell curve.

Don.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil. Well, I've always wondered how this case would proceed with cooperation. Maybe some day?

Or am I dreaming?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

We can all hope. We can all dream. Maybe some day.

kindly

Phil