The Apron

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor.

"A very astute observation Lynn"

Why, thank you indeed.

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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

[curious]

Also, Phil has not mentioned the stop search. Completely ignoring a major point, one that throws his scenario into doubt.

Monty

Hi, Monty,
Please tell me about the stop search.

Thanks,

curious

[Monty]

"But I still raise the point that cannot be denied. We have to take the timed evidence given at the inquest as true from both Halse and Long. They were both in the same street at the same time. Halse entered from Wentworth Street. So it is a must that if they were both there, either Halse was walking towards Long who carried a lamp, and facing him, he MUST have seen him and his light...or, Halse was behind Long walking the same way, which means he must have seen him in the distance waving his lamp, and as we have been told of no other person in the street, no horse and cart, the street must have been quiet. We have not been told that Long was wearing rubber soled boots, so the familiar measured click of a policeman's walk would also have been heard in the dead of night. That is logical. The time of both being in the same street at the same time is revealing."

Inquest testimony of Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: - passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

Note the use of the word 'about'.

Inquest testimony of Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square.

Here Halse is exact. He noted the time. Later he stated: 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.

As he had the wherewithall to note the specific time earlier one can assume he was savvy with his time keeping. As someone who has seen Halses record I must say this is in keeping with that very good record.

However, Halse stated that : I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves. I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two....

There we have this word 'about' again.

All the above indicates approximation. Something Phil is either desperate to ignore or not accept.

Also, Phil has not mentioned the stop search. Completely ignoring a major point, one that throws his scenario into doubt.

Finally I'd like to point out the use of Bullseye Lamps. Lamps had a shutter which shut out light. This so PCs could move about with stealth and not draw attention to themselves. Long almost certainly would not have moved down Goulston St with the lamp shutter open. As an owner of such a lamp, and who has conducted experiments with them (some at the 07 and 09 confs would have seen) I can say the light given would not have been noted if the lamp is closed.

I put it to Phil, with utmost respect and calm, that he knows little of what he is passing comment upon.

Monty

[curious]

I am merely looking at alternative scenarios to that which has been readily accepted for over 123 years. Because no matter how you look at it that as i have said before does not come up to close scrutiny.

So I wil ask again why would Edowwes have 12 pieces of rag and where did she get them from to have been able to cut them up in the first place, and of course they were apron coloured white

Hi, Trevor,
Like you, I enjoy exploring alternative scenarios to most everything with these confusing murders. I think brainstorming and throwing out all sorts of ideas is the only way anything new will ever come to light -- baring discovery of long-hidden records.

So, exploration is a very good thing.

On the other hand, some of the possibilities I have explored and rummaged around in my head, I have discarded because they simply don't work. Before I arrive at that conclusion, as I am contemplating ideas, I do enjoy hearing other people's reasoning.

That being said, while you continue to like your apron/rag idea, I believe it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Eddowes appears to have been as much of a pack rat as someone in her position could be.

We have no way of knowing how long Eddowes had had those 12 pieces of white cloth in her possession or how many different larger items they came from. She likely washed and reused her menstrual rags and could have had them for a long time.

The night she was killed, her apron was functional and she was wearing it. Too much evidence says that.

Period.

She did not cut it up into all those pieces, then wear part of the apron.

That makes no sense.

She had even patched her apron and the patch pieces fit. That indicates to me that the material was very worn and therefore easy for a sharp knife to rip through. I am envisioning the killer sticking his knife in the apron just belong the waistband, then yanking downward to the hem (which should have been harder to cut). EDITED -- Oops, now I have a half memory that the found piece also had a string, as though he ripped through waist band and all -- meaning it would have been impossible for her to have worn the apron.

Besides, once the apron piece was found and the police began the examination of it and the meaning of the apron beneath the graffito, someone would have noted that the 12 pieces fit together like a jigsaw puzzle (if puzzles had been invented by then). They knew that the found piece and the piece on the body were an exact fit (meaning that 12 other pieces had NOT been cut from it).

Other than the color there is not a single mention of any similarity of the 12 pieces of white material and the apron. White cloth is considered better against the skin because of the ingredients in dyed material, which is why Eddowes kept them for her periods.

Eddowes had accumulated her possessions, including her 12 pieces of white rags, over a period of time.

So, as much as I admire people who look at new angles and seek new information, it is my opinion that when the idea does not work, it should be turned loose and you turn your mind to other scenarios that might bear fruit.

This idea seems a complete non-starter to me.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Yes, I totally agree..which is why I for one, and some others, look to possibilities that are not the "sensible, easier" answers. Because for me, the sensible and easy solutions always end up getting us boxed in.

It may seem the "wrong way" of looking at this, but I honestly feel that a different approach may give better plausibilities, given the ones that we have been presented with for so long actually get us nowhere.

Of course it isn't "sensible" that Halse, for example, was complicit in the disposal of the rag/apron/apron piece etc. Of course it isn't. Unless there is a specific reason, no policeman would do it. But I still raise the point that cannot be denied. We have to take the timed evidence given at the inquest as true from both Halse and Long. They were both in the same street at the same time. Halse entered from Wentworth Street. So it is a must that if they were both there, either Halse was walking towards Long who carried a lamp, and facing him, he MUST have seen him and his light...or, Halse was behind Long walking the same way, which means he must have seen him in the distance waving his lamp, and as we have been told of no other person in the street, no horse and cart, the street must have been quiet. We have not been told that Long was wearing rubber soled boots, so the familiar measured click of a policeman's walk would also have been heard in the dead of night. That is logical. The time of both being in the same street at the same time is revealing. Long didn't see the rag when he walked the street on his beat including the 2.20 reference, yet did see it at 2.55. Now either he missed it the first time, or it wasn't there. The ONLY person known to have been in the street after 2.20 was Halse, who came directly from Mitre Square, and the murder, via Wentworth Street and him stopping unknown persons and questioning them there.

All I know is that Halse is the only person to have been at Goulston Street, Mitre Square, the mortuary, at the key times and he who knew the beats of the policemen, and it was he who "discovered" the apron piece missing at the mortuary from an amazing pile of clothes and belongings. He just happened to be 30 secs from the murder site standing on a corner chatting to Marriott and Outram when the alarm was raised, and it was he who sent these two in the directions they went.

Now it doesn't make Halse complicit. But it does raise eyebrows when all put together..because the "sensible" answers just do not fit.. we have tried them, again and again and again. I raise this possibility. Means and opportunity is there- Motive is another story.. but it is there that I look at the time testimony that is strange, and also the befuddled manner of John Kelly and the lodging house deputy's statements that were bungled up. Why didn't the police try to confirm Kelly's statement of being told that Eddowes was locked up? Why is the statement wrong in terms of time? Even an hour out would be strange, and how in heavens name did an old lady know that Eddowes was Kelly's woman? And how did the old lady know where to go to give Kelly the message? In order to do this she must have been known to Kelly, must have been known to Eddowes (to recognise her) and must have known of Kelly's exact whereabouts to convey the message. Yet YE OLDE police did not follow up this vital witness who is the essence of Kelly's statement?

No, a lot doesn't make sense. It cannot surely all be down to incompetance. As Simon Wood has shown, the pre murder story given by Kelly does not stand up to scrutiny, the Kelly and the Lodging House keepr's stories do not either, yet the police see nothing wrong at all in it.

That's why I have stopped looking at the simple, sensible answers to the Mitre Square murder, pre-murder and after the facts scenario a long long time ago.


kindly


Phil


kindly


Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Also, why in heavens name would the killer dispose of the rag and still have more distance to go to his ultimate destination? Why just discard the rag? It doesn't really make an awful lot of sense to me.

A lot about these murders don't make a lot of sense, Phil, when you really think about it.

Chris

[Phil Carter]

My pic is complete as far as the sceneario that the killer did not remove the
organs. and therefore could not have taken them away in the apron piece.
Nor did he cut it for any other purpose. The graffiti is absolutly nothing to do with the apron piece or the murder.

For those that still subscribe to the old scenario so be it everyone is entitled tio their opinions but sadly they cannot substantiate their opinions and cant see the wood for the trees.

Hello Trevor,

Your scenario leaves a few pointers against the killer having taken the organs with him, I'd agree.
Carrying the organs away provides an after the fact logistical problem, namely IF the killer supposedly did so, wrapped in a piece of apron..he then dumps this piece of apron..so how did he then carry the organs on his person? They would still have been bloodied, I'd imagine. So this killer is supposedly taking yet another risk by walking around with human organs on his person, unwrapped in the aftermath of two murders, and now in Met Police territoty, with policemen swarming all over the area going in and out of lodging houses.

Also, why in heavens name would the killer only dispose of the rag and still have more distance to go to his ultimate destination? Why just discard the rag? It doesn't really make an awful lot of sense to me. This killer is supposed to be so blasted clever he has outfoxed all and sundry.. yet suddenly is supposed to lose this guile after he has brilliantly butchered a woman in double quick time by slotting in his debauchery carefully in between a policeman's beat time. Perhaps he just lost his rag---hahaha!

kindly

Phil

[mariab]

I've said it once and I'll say it again, Phil Sugden is a genius. His ability to walk away from bullshit is admirable.

Yep, good instincts here at work.