The Apron Again

[John Bennett]

So the rope was considered necessary also inside?
Thank you for correcting me, I'll check it out on the DVD when I find a minute.

I don't think I've ever heard of this sleeping arrangement outside and I'm not sure where you got that from. These so called 'tupenny hangs' were available for those who couldn't afford the full price of a bed. Some would have it that they are also an urban myth, but there you go...

Anyway, off-topic, sorry.

[mariab]

I don't think the characters in 'From Hell' were sleeping on ropes outside, Maria. They were most surely in a doss-house.

So the rope was considered necessary also inside?
Thank you for correcting me, I'll check it out on the DVD when I find a minute.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have described what I feel is the likeliest scenario. That is my opinion and I consider it, at least, an informed opinion.

I have studied the Ripper case and the Victorian police for decades (starting in 1961) and I was a 'sharp end' police officer from 1969 until 1997. What I state, however, I am quick to point out is merely my opinion. You are not obliged to (and obviouly don't) accept my opinion and that is fine by me. I do not presume to tell anyone to accept anything. But, like you, I am within my rights to give my opinion and what I think of other opinions.

Also I did not say 'he simply skipped it once but not twice'. Let's please have a bit of reality here. I am sure that he missed checking many doorways etc. from time to time during his night patrols, as most police officers would have done. It was only when something untoward occurred that they were likely to be caught out.

That's fair enough, Stewart.

I'm sure your opinion carries weight in many areas due to your knowledge of the subject.

In my view, this particular opinion we're discussing is not taking support from your knowledge; not looking in that particular doorway at 2.20 but looking at 2.55 is a hunch, possibly flowing from another hunch that he couldn't have dropped it after 2.20. There was no reason for him to be extra vigilant at those buildings at 2.55 (when he did find something relating to the murder he didn't even connect it to the murder - that's how much he was looking out for something to do with Eddowes).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello All. In looking over today's posts on this thread I am struck by:

1. The fact that those posters who often remove the police from criticism, criticise them now.

2. The fact that those posters who often subject the police to criticism, remove them from criticism now.

Not making any points here, it's just that I feel like Alice.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

My view is that the police generally do a good job in difficult circumstances.

But, the police aren't beyond corruption, deceipt, error etc.

In any profession there are unethical and/or unprofessional members.

I mean, we know this because we have Whitechapel policemen being sacked for being drunk on duty.

They're not above reproach, but I do agree that accusations need supporting with evidence, which is why I haven't seen a good enough argument to convince me that Long was mistaken.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Inquest testimony of PC Alfred Long

Coroner - Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.

Coroner - Which did you hear of?
Long- I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.

Now this is in relation to Long having just searched the dwellings after finding the apron piece and about to leave to report his find.

So at 2.55am he is aware of a murder. Not at 2.20am. Therefore, having heard of a murder, he was more vigilant at 2.50am. He saw no reason at 2.20am.

Monty

Hello Monty,

A hurdle remains in that he didn't connect the apron to Eddowes, and it follows thus he was not expecting to find anything there in relation to 'the murder in the city'. In other words, there was no reason for him to be more vigilant in Goulston Street.

Also, did his beat include checking every doorway? That's a fair old beat. If not, then why check that doorway?

[John Bennett]

Apologies for the colloquial style. What I meant is, I was wondering if the (accurate) historical information about people in Victorian Whitechapel sleeping outside hanging on ropes and washing up in public sinks as depicted in this movie came from you – or from Mr. Skinner?

I don't think the characters in 'From Hell' were sleeping on ropes outside, Maria.

They were most surely in a doss-house.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello FM,

Thanks fos the reply.
According to the Official written inquest statements records, kept in writing at The Corporation of London Records Office, Sequira said-

"I was CALLED ON the 30th September at 5 to 2 and was the firt medical man to arrive"
"Life had not been extinct more than a quarter of an hour"

My emphasis

the testimony given verbally at the inquest is given by the Times. Here, Sequira says-
...as above with the addition
" .first to arrive , being on the scene of the murder at 5 mins to 2, "

Now when Brown was "called upon" in his written testimony, it was " shortly after 2 o'clock. I reached about 18mins past two" ' same verbally.

Watkins states that Holland arrived, followed by Sequiera, and that Inspector Collard arrived "about 2" ( verbal and written)

Collard states he arrived "two or three mins PAST 2"
(written and verbally.


CALLED ON means when he was alerted. Sequiera lived locally at 34 Jewry St Aldgate. Unless he sprouted wings and got there in seconds, he simply cannot have been both "called on" and "arrive" at the same time. I estimate it took him 4 or 5 mins to arrive. collard "followed hìm" at "2 or 3mins after 2"
That tells me that Sequira arrived 1.59 or 2.00. That still puts Watkins and Morris' time out and taking 15mins off, time of death at 1,44 or 1,45,

best wishes

Phìl

Hello Phil,

Wasn't aware of the other report stating 'called on' at 1.55. Thanks for educating me.

Well, I suppose then, we have a slight disagreement in that Brown felt it could have been committed at 1.40.

The better news is that both agree that she hadn't been dead long, i.e. they enchance the possibility of Lawende's man being Jack.

[mariab]

Monty,
shoot, I meant of course Goulston, not Mitre Square. Many apologies. (I'm working non stop since 5.00 am, trying to reach my boss who's MIA about an urgent matter and simultaneously taking care of some other urgent crap in Paris where someone –not me– has messed up big time.)
Thank you so much for corroborating that 2.15am would have probably been too early for PC Long to have been informed about the murder, even if the telegram was sent at 1.55am.

[Monty]

Monty, could you say at what time PC Long would approximately have started his round which brought him to Mitre Square at 2.15 am? I doubt that it would take less than half an hour from the moment Eddowes' body was found (at 1.45 am) until a telegram was sent to the police stations?

Maria,

I dont quite understand what you are asking.

Long never went anywhere near Mitre Square. His beat would have started around 9.45pm and ended 6am.

Collard stated this at inquest - At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. Information was at once telegraphed to headquarters.

So the first telegraph went to HQ in Jewry St. They inturn would have issued telegraphs to AS. Once these stations had been noted then, as Ive mentioned, the news would have been spread to all Beat Bobbies in the area. This either by spare PCs, runners or Beat Sergeants.

Collard states he had heard of Eddowes murder at 1.55am and immediately issued the telegraph. Long states he had heard of the murder by 2.55am. I think the question you are asking is how soon would Long have been notified?

Im not sure he would have heard by 2.20am, that to me, what with the practicalities, is too early.

Monty

[mariab]

I'm just trying to work out what this is supposed to mean.

Apologies for the colloquial style. What I meant is, I was wondering if the (accurate) historical information about people in Victorian Whitechapel sleeping outside hanging on ropes and washing up in public sinks as depicted in this movie came from you – or from Mr. Skinner?

[Stewart P Evans]

Mean

...
Like Don said, plus even in From Hell (the Hollywood version) there's a scene where the 4 prossies (all together, as in posse!) wash up in a public sink after having spent a night sleeping outside “on the ropes“. And we all know WHO was a consultant for such (historically accurate) scenes in the movie.

I'm just trying to work out what this is supposed to mean.

[Stewart P Evans]

Likeliest

Seems your argument is as follows:
1) He simply skipped it at 2.20 but didn't at 2.55.
2) He must have done because the murderer wouldn't have dropped it after 2.20.
3) 1 and 2 should be elevated beyond the alternative because you're an ex policeman and you say so.
Well:
1) I'd quite like to know what made him not skip it at 2.55, and why Long was adamant it wasn't there.
2) He must not have done; there are a few variables. Not least: did he have to return to that area? The police were probably in the immediate vicinity when he left the square - how did he get past them? Did he lie low for a while?
3) I'm a mere accountant, Stewart, with a degree in history, but on the plus side it means I'm a massive fan of valuing and assessing options beyond mere: "he simply skipped it once but not twice". For an historian or an accountant, that simply isn't enough when arriving at a conclusion.

I have described what I feel is the likeliest scenario. That is my opinion and I consider it, at least, an informed opinion.

I have studied the Ripper case and the Victorian police for decades (starting in 1961) and I was a 'sharp end' police officer from 1969 until 1997. What I state, however, I am quick to point out is merely my opinion. You are not obliged to (and obviouly don't) accept my opinion and that is fine by me. I do not presume to tell anyone to accept anything. But, like you, I am within my rights to give my opinion and what I think of other opinions.

Also I did not say 'he simply skipped it once but not twice'. Let's please have a bit of reality here. I am sure that he missed checking many doorways etc. from time to time during his night patrols, as most police officers would have done. It was only when something untoward occurred that they were likely to be caught out.

[mariab]

I’m sorry, but I missed the part where he said WHEN he heard about the murder and the ‘rumour’ of the other murder. Might have been 2:15am as well as 2:50am. Knowing what you do about the police of the time, do you think it would have taken an hour for word of the murder to have made it to Goulston Street? I think not. So, your observation rather works in reverse as he may have been more vigilant prior to 2:20am.

The procedure when a murder had occurred was to issue a telegram to all the stations within the area, including those on the Mets patch and visa versa. I assume, after that, that the runners and Beat Sergeants went out and notified those on the beat, with notifications and instructions to be more vigilant.

Monty, could you say at what time PC Long would approximately have started his round which brought him to Mitre Square at 2.15 am? I doubt that it would take less than half an hour from the moment Eddowes' body was found (at 1.45 am) until a telegram was sent to the police stations?

[Stewart P Evans]

Do Not See

...
Dismissing evidence without call is certainly ‘thinking outside the box’, in my opinion. I don’t doubt that Stewart saw such behavior during his time on the force, and he may in fact be right about Long, but since there’s not one iota of suspicion here, I don’t see how this logic has been accepted and unchallenged wisdom.
...
Whoa now. So those of us who aren’t/weren’t cops should just shut up? That would leave just you and Trevor. You sure you want that?
...
Tom Wescott

I do not see how there is any 'unchallenged wisdom', everyone has their own views and most are not shy in giving those views. I certainly do not go unchallenged.

I believe that I was walking the beat before you were born therefore I think that I may speak with more authority than you on police related matters, pehaps you think that I am wrong? I have also seen the Victorian Metropolitan Police disciplinary books and these are quite an education.

Do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that 'those of us [you] who aren't/weren't cops should just shut up', I never have said that therefore I resent you saying that.

There is much useful and valuable input from many who have no police associations and I would be stupid not to recognise that.

[Monty]

"I’m sorry, but I missed the part where he said WHEN he heard about the murder and the ‘rumour’ of the other murder. Might have been 2:15am as well as 2:50am. Knowing what you do about the police of the time, do you think it would have taken an hour for word of the murder to have made it to Goulston Street? I think not. So, your observation rather works in reverse as he may have been more vigilant prior to 2:20am. Frankly, I’m more curious about who was telling him these rumors on his beat."

The procedure when a murder had occurred was to issue a telegram to all the stations within the area, including those on the Mets patch and visa versa. I assume, after that, that the runners and Beat Sergeants went out and notified those on the beat, with notifications and instructions to be more vigilant. I certianly know that this was later procedure.

Monty