The Apron

[Phil Carter]

Hello Simon,

Of course a police apologist would think of that jiving as coincidence..not ducking and diving..eh?

Remember remember the 6th of November.. nicely in time for a certain person's departure from office on the 8th.

Wonder if Warren ever realised what merry dance was being tapped out below him? Jitterbug perhaps?

All on the 6th eh? Now collusion wouldn't be thought of by these honourable men would it..all getting together on the same day to sign some papers.. heaven forbid! Ye gads!

kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

A police apologist would argue that the cops forgot, misremembered, conflated or were completely overwhelmed by such shocking events.

And the apologists might have a case with Eddowes, seeing that Commissioner Warren, Superintendent Arnold, Chief Inspector Swanson and PC Long were so concerned about bringing the killer to justice that they didn't write their "Night of the Bloody Apron" reports until 6th November, five-and-a-half-weeks after the event and, coincidentally, just in time to avoid possibly embarrassing questions in the just-reconvened session of the House of Commons.

Funny how some things in life just seem to jive.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi All,

Tickets for the Policeman's Ball?

Is it a dance or a raffle?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
More like a lottery and during the interval they will play a game of "truth or dare to lie"

[Phil Carter]

Hi All,

Tickets for the Policeman's Ball?

Is it a dance or a raffle?

Regards,

Simon

Hello Chris, Simon,

Ssshhhh..its the SECRET policeman's other ball ;-)

kindly

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Tickets for the Policeman's Ball?

Is it a dance or a raffle?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi FM

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?

Yes it does because in a murder investigation everything should be recorded. Halse said he stopped and searched two persons and let them go. Whether he recorded their details we do not know and why he stopped them again we do not know.

But he thought them worthy of checking. Notice no mention by Halse of stopping and checking anyone else en route or on his way back.

How was Halse to know that later that mroning or in two days time they might become relavant to the investigation. So it would have been importamt to record their details.

And are we to belive that these two persons were the only two persons he came across on his journey there and back. Another thing that concerns me regarding Hlase is that if he went charging off in search of the killer and was searching doorways etc. He couldnt have done a very thorough job as it seems he made his way directly to Middlesex St and Wentworth St and why did he go that far ?



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".

[ChrisGeorge]

. . . 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

Hello Simon,

"heavily armed with a sponge"... brilliant.

That would be Sponge Chuck Warren.

"terminally stupid or wilfully misleading"... not exactly a police apologists view eh? hahaha.

They probably can't depend on Simon to buy tickets for the upcoming Policeman's Ball.

Chris

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Simon,

"heavily armed with a sponge"... brilliant.

"terminally stupid or wilfully misleading"... not exactly a police apologists view eh? hahaha.


kindly

Phil

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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