|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Yet Another Plod Down Goulston Street
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous:
Yet Another Plod Down Goulston Street
Author: Robin
Tuesday, 15 October 2002 - 04:53 pm |        | Hello to Everybody,
Despite a trawl through the archives I have been unable to find any postings dealing with a question that has been pinging away at the back of mind for some days now.
The Eddowes Inquest.
Alfred Long: 'I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2:20, the apron was not there when I passed then.'
Daniel Halse: 'About 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. I did not notice anything.'
Is it not odd that in Long's and Halse's sworn statements there is no mention of one having seen or heard the other?
Following this line, I wish to ask the following additional questions:
1] Was Long in uniform and Halse in plain clothes that dreadful night?
2] Was it usual, or at least in order for an on-duty City police officer to venture into Metropolitan Police territory?
3] Can anybody confirm Halse's rank - i.e. was he a detective constable or, as some references I have seen would have it, a detective sergeant?
4] If Halse did hold the rank of detective constable, could the instructions he received that night (quote: 'On Saturday the 29th September from instructions I received I directed a number of Police Officers to patrol the City all night.' unquote) in effect have given him the temporary rank of acting sergeant, and thus allowed him to give orders to his fellow officers, both uniformed and detective?
END.
Should it transpire that these questions have already been answered on these Message Boards, then apologies and all that - and would some kindly soul please take pity on me and direct to the postings concerned.
Many thanks to you all,
Robin |
Author: Jesse Flowers
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 01:32 pm | | Robin-
I think the fact that Long and Halse never saw each other can be pretty easily explained by the fact that they are both imprecise about the time when they passed the doorway to the Model Dwellings; both estimate it as "about 2:20". If, for example, Long passes the spot at 2:18 and continues on his beat, and Halse enters the street at 2:23, there is no reason for either to have seen the other.
My take on the rest of your questions...
1) As Long was carrying his bullseye lantern, I would assume he was in uniform. Similarly, since the officers Halse was deploying in the City were in plain clothes, it seems a fairly safe bet that he wore plain clothes as well.
2) Perhaps not usual, but in hot pursuit of the Ripper certainly in order.
3) I'm pretty sure Halse's rank was Detective Constable. According to the A-Z (down, Ivor) he retired in '91 holding that rank.
4)Apparently Halse had some kind of authority, temporary or otherwise, as after the discovery of Eddowes' body he testifies to having issued orders that the neighborhood be searched and passersby examined.
Hope this helps...I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong about anything.
AAA88 |
Author: Christopher T George
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 03:38 pm | | Hi, Robin:
Dave Yost who has studied the witness statements and how time was kept in 1888 has made the point that many of the witnesses did not have watches. The times they give therefore are often the time by the local church clock which may or may not be accurate.
The fact that Halse and Long say that they were there around the same time but never apparently saw each other can thus be explained by this inaccuracy in timekeeping at that date. Yes, they were there most probably about the same time, but not at precisely the same moment, if you see what I mean. Jesse gives a good example of the way it might have happened and for both their statements to be true. Robin, I hope this explanation helps.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Robin
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 07:43 pm | | Hello Jesse & Chris George
Thank you very much both of you for responding to my posting.
To me the sequences of events that supposedly followed Catherine’s horrific murder and reportedly followed the discovery of her body in Mitre Square simply do not gel. But I know only too well how it is courting disaster to theorise before one has before one all the known facts; and it is oh so easy to overlook some small detail that makes the difference between being right and being wrong. Hence the questions I posed above.
Thanks again both of you for the valuable inputs.
Regards,
Robin |
Author: Robin
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 08:16 pm | | Hi everyone, I'm back again!
Warming to my theme, I see from a posting by John Berger, Thursday, 19 November 1998 - 12:45 am*, that according to Paul Harrison, author of ‘Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved’ (not a publication I am acquainted with), the word ‘Juwes’ – but usually spelled (confusingly?) ‘Jewes’ – was a nickname given by members of the Metropolitan Police to their City of London counterparts (I presume the nickname derived from the City detective headquarters at ‘Old Jewry’).
Can anybody out there tell me if this ‘nickname’ story is true? Or am I picking up yet another false scent?
Regards
Robin
*Ripper Media: Specific Titles: Non-fiction: Jack the Ripper: Mystery Solved (Harrison) |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 16 October 2002 - 09:51 pm | | Sorry Robin.
I am not aware of the suggestion, or how it originated.
I remember making the same connection (Juwes=Jewes=Jewry) in a purly tongue-in-cheek fashion some years ago. But I was not serious.
Sorry I could not help.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Monty
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 12:08 pm | | Robin,
Going back to your earlier question about Halse and Long being at the same spot at the same time.
Halse did stop to question two men in Wentworth street on his way from Mitre sq North/north eastwards. Long makes no mention of these men which would point to him not seeing them.
Perhaps the intervention of these chaps stopped Halse and Long meeting each other.
No help I fear.
Monty
 |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 17 October 2002 - 12:36 pm | | Hi, Robin:
You have brought up the fact that a poster several years ago noted that Paul Harrison, author of Jack the Ripper: The Mystery Solved (1991) stated that the word ‘Juwes’ – but usually spelled (confusingly?) ‘Jewes’ – was a nickname given by members of the Metropolitan Police to their City of London counterparts (the poster presumed the nickname derived from the City detective headquarters at ‘Old Jewry’).
I have not read this book by Paul Harrison, a policeman from Northamptonshire, but it sounds to me as if this is his own theory, perhaps baseless, because I am not sure that Donald Rumbelow, who is a former City of London policeman, believes this, and nor, as far as I know, do other authors on the case. Possibly Stewart Evans or Paul Begg or one of the other authors who frequent this site could comment on this theory.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Robin
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 12:55 pm | | Hi one and all,
I’m afraid I’m running at a bit of a low ebb, so this is just a brief note to say thank you everybody for the feedback.
I’ll be back in a few days with a fuller response (now, there’s something to look forward to!).
Regards, and thank you all again,
Robin |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 18 October 2002 - 02:33 pm | | Hi, Robin:
Will look forward to seeing you back here then.
Have a good weekend.
Chris |
|
|
|
|
