The Apron

[lynn cates]

reply

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear,

Larry, Curly and Mo, The 3 conspirateers are having a ball tonight.

Sign off dates Larry, I mean Simon.

And Mo, I told you, Halse wasn't searching doorways. He was clear when he said of his pass down Goulston Street that had the apron been there he wouldn't have seen it, indicating he was not searching doorways.

I explained to you why Halse travelled that far. You sure you were a Detective? You didn't just dream it or got confused with a Doorman job?

Its a good job no one takes you 3 seriously.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear,

Larry, Curly and Mo, The 3 conspirateers are having a ball tonight.

Sign off dates Larry, I mean Simon.

And Mo, I told you, Halse wasn't searching doorways. He was clear when he said of his pass down Goulston Street that had the apron been there he wouldn't have seen it, indicating he was not searching doorways.

I explained to you why Halse travelled that far. You sure you were a Detective? You didn't just dream it or got confused with a Doorman job?

Its a good job no one takes you 3 seriously.

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 hmmmmmm.

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

[Hunter]

McWilliams was writing a summary report for the Home Office that included some of the police action on the night of the murder plus relevant material on events in the days after - including the Lusk Letter. That Halse stopped two men that night would have been of little use in a Home Office report.

When McWilliams wrote this, "The officer Halse went in the direction of Whitechapel and passed through Goulston Street - where part of the decease's apron was subsequently found at 2.20 a.m.; on returning to the Square he heard that part of an apron stained with blood had been found in Goulstone Street, he then went with DC Lawley & DC Hunt to Leman St. Station and from there to Goulstone Street where, the spot at which the apron was found was pointed out to him..." he did not mean that the apron was found at 2.20, otherwise, the rest of the sentence wouldn't make sense. He meant Halse passed through Goulston St. at 2.20 where the apron was subsequently found.

McWilliams left out some of Halse's movements for brevity and because this portion of his report was trying to focus on actions directly involved with the events at the Model Dwellings themselves, which was of concern to the Home Office because of Warren's controversial decision.

The Home Office would have had the inquest reports as published in the press. They were attempting to find some explanation from McWilliams beyond that pertaining to the police actions at Goulston St., their subsequent investigation, witnesses and the Lusk Letter.

From their own internal communications, it is apparent that the Home Office was not satisfied with McWilliam's report. Charles Murdoch, of the Home office wrote. "The printed report of the Inquest contains much more information than this."

It should be noted that the Home Office waited just a few days shy of a month to ask for the report and the City Police were under no obligation to submit one as they did not fall under Home Office jurisdiction as the Met was.

[Phil Carter]

"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

Hello Lynn,

Respect? A human thing? Shown to all? You jest surely sir.. we few merry musketeers get respect?--no chance!.. after all, any percieved inbalance of what we are supposed to believe being wrong, especially any police actions..it upsets the status quo. The wheels come off the Ripperology wagon that way. Then no-one is holding the strings to pull in the direction we are all supposed to go. Like sheep. Baaaaaa!

Confusing, criticizing, belittling,mickey taking, ignoring, bewitching, bothering and cajoling us doesn't work.

Lynn, perhaps as a Doctor you can prescribe some logical methodology reading for any wannabe puppeteers?

Perhaps a thesis on the logic of "pulling the apron strings" would be appropriate, given the thread? haha!

kindly

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;195811]Ha ha, that made me laugh Trevor.

You saying you Policemen aint the brightest?

Monty
[/QUOTE

Wel I am sure you are testment to that

And I thought you might like to see a pic taken at out last case conference.

I also found a pic of you when you were in the fraud squad 9- 5 job no weekends and never had to out alone in the dark

[Steven Russell]

Thank you, Trevor for a reminder of far-off days. Bingo from The Banana Splits was probably my first ever hero. Still, time marches on and the cares of adulthood inevitably mean that our admiration shifts to worthier recipients. These days I prefer Drooper.

Steve.

[lynn cates]

cooperation

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

Or am I dreaming?

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.