Talk:Walter Dew

Untitled
I have reverted Dreamguy's edit as I believe that the article's later section covers Dew's acknowledged lapses of memory in his autobiography pretty fully. As an experienced detective constable in H Division from early 1887 it is surely wrong to dismiss Dew's claim that he was involved in a minor way in the hunt for the Ripper. At this time the Met. were drafting police officers into Whitechapel from Divisions all over London. Is Dreamguy stating that Dew was overlooked at this time, that he was absent, or what? How could he not have been involved in the inquiry? He was an experienced police officer on the scene and a member of the Division actively hunting the Ripper.

In his memoirs Dew related the case of 'Squibby', which case I am sure Dreamguy is familar with. Is this story a fabrication? If not, it places him in Whitechapel looking for the killer; if it is then why is it included in all articles and other sources realting to Dew including the book 'Walter Dew: the Man who caught Crippen'. I have used the words 'claimed' and 'Dew said' throughout the disputed section. Please do not just delete substantiated and sourced material in this way. Jack1956 (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dew was definately a Detective Constable in H Division at the time of the Ripper case and definately involved in looking for the Whitechapel Murderer. See Nicholas Connell's much praised book: 'Walter Dew: The Man Who Caught Crippen' for the true facts. (See also Stewart Evans' review of this book: 'The ever reliable Nicholas Connell's important study of the great Scotland Yard detective who hunted both Jack the Ripper and Dr Crippen'.) Colin4C (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nick's a good guy, but if he bought into Dew's claims uncritically, that doesn't mean it's a fact, it means that he personally believes in aspects of an autobiography we know to be filled with a huge number of errors. Wikipedia does not take sides and state opinions as fact. It violates NPOV policy to present claims as facts. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Query
Are 68.47.175.159 and 194.66.226.95 and Dreamguy the same person? Colin4C (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. He has admitted it, claims to have forgotten to log on for a couple of weeks. Jack1956 (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no rule that says anyone has to log on. Insisting otherwise is just ongoing harassment by some people who want to win edit wars through wikilawyering instead of follow Wikipedia policies. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kelly's Eyes
Dew's claim that Kelly's eyes were photographed for the image of the killer on the retina are corroborated in an official statement at the time of the killing and in a contemporary German journal. See page 91 of the revised edition of Rumbelow's 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' (2004) for details. Colin4C (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. Police doctors had already states in earlier inquest testimony that such an action would be completely pointless, and no reliable source claims otherwise. 76.114.86.121 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reference for my statement. See Donald Rumbelow (2004) 'The Complete Jack the Ripper': page 91. Where is yours? Colin4C (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dew's claims that Mary Kelly's eyes were photographed shows a lack of knowledge of how optograms were obtained, which was not simply to take a photograph of the victim's eye, but to dissect the eye and stain the retina with a reactive agent. In short, there was--and never has been--a police procedure such as Dew describes Revmagpie (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Druce-Portland case
Dew investigated several of those involved in the Druce Portland Case (for which see William Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 5th Duke of Portland ‎ "and elsewhere on the web") Jackiespeel (talk) 17:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

His writing is less legible to modern eyes than some of his policing contemporaries (having looked at the files in The National Archives) - observation rather than original research. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)