The Goulston Street Apron

[moonbegger]

Hello Wickerman ,

Seeing as there is no actual 'passage' involved, we must determine whether Long meant the archway as you enter, or the vestibule inside.

Why do we need to infer that Long and Halse meant anything other than what they actually said ? Does that not amount to rewriting history ?

??? Passage = (1) channel or opening providing a way through (2) hall or corridor . Sounds perfectly applicable to me .

P.C. Long said he found the piece of apron "lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House" and Detective Halse of the City Police also said the writing was inside the passage, explaining that if the apron had been there at 2.20 a.m. "he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building"

Are we to therefore assume that two of London's finest had no idea what the word passage meant or how to describe one ?

I'm suggesting we take all the accounts together and not single one out as sufficient to determine the location.

Totally agreed ! Lets do just that .

in a location that could be easily seen by anyone passing on the street.

Again these are Warrens words , in contrast with Detective Halse who said the writing was inside the passage, explaining that if the apron had been there at 2.20 a.m. "he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was IN the building" Not on the bricks leading into the building !

Also The only contemporary illustration is from 'The Illustrated Police News' which implies the writing was indeed inside the building on a large wall .

Who is in a better position to judge, them or us?

Once again , totally agree .

Do you think a consensus is necessary among a group who were not there at the time, when we have the definitive statements given by those who were actually present?

I think we need a consensus on the word definitive

Cheers

moonbegger.

[Monty]

No,

Halse states he wouldn't have seen it, he gave no reason and didn't declared because the apron was in the building.

The most likely one is he wasn't looking for it.

The dwellings actually had recesses at the front, with what could be described as a short footbridge leading to the stairwell.


Monty

[Michael W Richards]

Since it was the opinion of Warren that the writing posed a "riot threat" because he felt it it could be seen as people came and went if left unwashed...it seems clear that the location of both the writing and the apron were not back in some dark recess.

So when the PC states that "It was not there", referring to the apron section at 2:20 when he passed, I think that means he could see that specific place.

Best regards

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Monty

The Ultimate Sourcebook, presumably quoting the Inquest testimony, states that "At about 20 minutes after 2 he passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building"

All the best

Dave

[Monty]

Please accept my apoloigies Dave,

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Not a problem Neil and no apology needed

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

DC Halse never saw the Apron in-situ, only PC Long did.

.

[Wickerman]

Since it was the opinion of Warren that the writing posed a "riot threat" because he felt it it could be seen as people came and went if left unwashed...it seems clear that the location of both the writing and the apron were not back in some dark recess.

So when the PC states that "It was not there", referring to the apron section at 2:20 when he passed, I think that means he could see that specific place.

Best regards

Yes, he was quite sure.

PC Long:
"He had previously passed the spot where he found the apron at 20 minutes after 2, but it was not there then."
Times.

PC Long:
[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
Daily Telegraph.

PC Long.
"Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - The apron was not there at the time."
Daily News.

When questioned by the Coroner, if PC Long was unsure about the answer he was not reluctant to admit when he was not sure.
E.g.
- I believe the words were as I have stated.
- It may have been.
- It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
- I could not form an opinion.

So when he states clearly that the apron was not there, then we have little reason to question his certainty, he is quite certain.

.

[Cogidubnus]

DC Halse never saw the Apron in-situ, only PC Long did.

Hi Jon

But Halse knew where the apron piece had been found - directly under the graffito.

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

But Halse knew where the apron piece had been found - directly under the graffito.

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave.

He got the wording wrong too, didn't he? And he actually did see that.

.

[Cogidubnus]

So when he states clearly that the apron was not there, then we have little reason to question his certainty, he is quite certain.

Notice he only admits uncertainty when it isn't his own head on the block...I am reminded again of the Mandy Rice-Burroughs quotation

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

He got the wording wrong too, didn't he? And he actually did see that.

Did he? That too is moot...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Frankly I simply don't trust Warren's evidence at all re the apron piece, the GSG or his reason for removing it - there is too much self-interest at stake - and his evidence does seem different to everyone elses - if you take his away, what remains is pretty consistent, precise wording apart...

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Long's version was also witnessed by the Inspector, so apart from a spelling correction, we also have confirmation.

.

[Cogidubnus]

Not a small spelling correction is it? But that aside, as a reason to distrust Halse's testimony regarding where the GSG (and hence the apron piece) was, it'd be pretty pathetic...all sources except Warren seem to suggest the GSG was inside the lobby to the building...simple logistics would seem to suggest the same...even Warren's own version of the wording/layout seems (with hindsight) to suggest the same...It's only Warren's own self interest that tells a different tale.

All the best

Dave