The Goulston Street Apron

[Monty]

Ah, 30-15 Simon,

Well played.

Ok, fair do's.

Vincent (Met CID) wrote to Fraser (City CO) , so that's cross rank communication however there may have been a prior arrangement to do that in these cases.

You said it was addressed to Fraser of CID. Fraser wasn't head of City CID, MacWilliam was. So was it Fraser or CID?

Seeing as Warren visited Acting Commissioner Smith for the debrief the following day, he would have known Smith was acting up for the foreseeable (operational needs) and held the superior rank in this case. Obviously such correspondence to Fraser would have gone directly to Smith anyway in the formers absence. However the murder only occurred days before, he spoke to Smith days before, I therefore find it odd he should forget all that and address Fraser.

I shall trust you judgement on this one Simon, however I must say this letter as it stands today just doesn't sit right with me. I hope that will be rectified.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Observer,

Sorry. The part of your question I picked up on was that the situation "had not been considered by any of the police officers involved in the case."

I don't understand how you can suggest that the "senior officers both City and Met considered the writing to have been left by the murderer" without having first investigated every other possible circumstance.

After all, PC Long found the graffiti and piece of apron before anyone knew the latter was missing from the Eddowes crime scene.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Monty,

It's known in the trade as a ricket.

Sir James Fraser KCB, Commissioner of the City of London Police.

I'm sorry the letter doesn't sit right with you, but here is the transcription of the original.



Sorry it's a bit blurry.

Regards,

Simon

[Jenni Shelden]

Dear Simon,
why on earth have you started a thread about a letter that you wont say the source of?

How can we take it seriously when you wont do even the basics.

I checked and it isnt first April but still..why the air of mystery, where is this letter?
Jenni

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jenni,

How can you take it seriously?

The letter is right in front of you, plain as day.

There is no air of mystery, unless of course you're suggesting I might have forged it.

The source, found by accident, is currently being examined for other possible gems.

That's all there is to it.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

I see. No harm, these things happen.

Thanks for the transcript, can you divulge where the original is situated?

Monty


PS Just seen your post above, its a photo of the original yes? Apologies. And there's no suggestion of a forgery in my opinion. Thanks for posting it, its appreciated.

[Wickerman]

Hi Neil.

Obviously such correspondence to Fraser would have gone directly to Smith anyway in the formers absence. However the murder only occurred days before, he spoke to Smith days before, I therefore find it odd he should forget all that and address Fraser.

Merely an instance of formal etiquette, regardless where the Commissioner is, you still write to his office. It is the responsibility of the receiving end to 'deal appropriately' with it.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Don't they just?

The source of the original is not a deep, dark mystery.

We're not talking the Da Vinci Code or some other such crap.

Tomorrow, or the day after, research should be complete, after which I will gladly provide chapter and verse.

Impatience is not a virtue.

Regards,

Simon

[RivkahChaya]

Many options here...I'll throw out one. I believe the killer agreed with the graffiti and that the police thought it would be construed as some sort of Jewish solidarity and when connected to the apron (valid or not), such a thing would have caused major attacks against the Jewish community, and that's why it was erased. What it really meant is a 50/50 proposition. If the killer was a Jew, he agreed with the pro-Jew message he saw. If a gentile, with the anti-Jew message. An anti-Jew message would not have warranted quick erasure. It would have been a somewhat normal thing and not worth getting rid of evidence.

Mike

What? Is that cake you're eating? Here, have some, too.

[Monty]

Hi Neil.


Merely an instance of formal etiquette, regardless where the Commissioner is, you still write to his office. It is the responsibility of the receiving end to 'deal appropriately' with it.

Hey Wicks

The 'letter' is far from formal.

In my experience of cross Force communication that's not always the case, however the majority is as you state.

I can wait Simon. As I said, I trust you. And its only right I raise my concerns, you would have done the same, and I appreciate you're understanding on that.

Monty

[RivkahChaya]

"The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

All right, assuming that this quote pretty much has it right, what exactly does "not be blamed for nothing" mean?

Does it mean "not be blamed for anything," or "will be blamed, with good reason"?

Both readings are justified, the first, I think, by the dialect spoken by native English speakers in the East End, who used a double negative as a simple negative, and the second by the "Yinglish" "not for nothing."

Then, it could also mean (as I think I've seen suggested on the boards) "not accept blame," with the implication that they should, they just won't.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

I promise to honour your trust.

Just be relieved I didn't unearth an iffy old load of donkey's droppings purporting to be the diary of "you know who."

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Hi Roy,

Are you seriously suggesting that, on this night of nights, the cops from two forces didn't discuss alternative scenarios for the piece of apron getting from B?

Not at all. Just saying that Warren thinks to himself, well I did all that running around hither and yon that night, (as you said) but in reference to this specific inquiry from the higher-ups I best get something in writing from the City of London Police. Because the essential question being asked here is - was the City of London crime scene adequately secured? Why not let City state that in writing. To me. To forward on.

At work, I may know the answer to a question, but I will be required to back it up with documentation. Which nowadays is a piece of cake. Execute an electronic search and forward the relevant document or e-mail string.

And yes, thanks for sharing it, Simon. You always come up with some goodies.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

You may well be right.

From all I've read, on due consideration I reckon that, as the top cop, Sir Charles Warren was dimmer than a TocH lamp.

Regards,

Simon

[Observer]

Hi Observer,

Sorry. The part of your question I picked up on was that the situation "had not been considered by any of the police officers involved in the case."

I don't understand how you can suggest that the "senior officers both City and Met considered the writing to have been left by the murderer" without having first investigated every other possible circumstance.

After all, PC Long found the graffiti and piece of apron before anyone knew the latter was missing from the Eddowes crime scene.

Hi Simon

Nothing has emerged until now regarding the apron section being placed in Goulston Street by a hoaxer. Looking again at your letter particulary the section in which Warren asks Fraser.

"and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman."

There's something not right here. Surely Warren knew by the 3rd of October that there was no doubt that the section of apron found in Goulston Street was taken from Eddowes. In fact Warren would have known this to be true by the 1st of October. There was no need to ask Fraser whether this was true or not, he could have assured Mathews directly at the meeting on the 3rd Oct that the section of apron matched perectly with the the apron worn by Eddowes.

Regards

Observer

[m_w_r]

It looks very much like TNA:PRO MEPO 1/48 to me.